Learneroo Book

by Ariel Krakowski
A book on Education, Startups and Other Topics
The Education Dialog
A panel discussion on Education in the USA between 3 opinionated experts
Do you think there is a problem in Education today?
Mark Carlos
It is of utmost importance for a child to get a good education. But unfortunately there are many obstacles and impediments that
prevent children from reaching their potential. Television, the internet and video games cause kids to waste tons of time, and
many children lack motivation to study well.
But probably one of the worst impediments to a good education wasn't mentioned. The School System. The overall system
doesn't teach students effectively, doesn't teach them the topics they should know or want to know, and is ridiculously
inefficient and expensive too. So yes, there is a problem in education today.
Prof. John Ficht
I don't think there is any large problem in education today. There are small improvements that can be made, but overall the
system works. Students are taught a structured curriculum, and they go through different levels of school until they have the
education that makes them a well-rounded individual and the credentials they need to get good job.
Sr. Coates
I think the current education system has many flaws, but I wouldn't say it's the "worst impediment to education". Some of its
problems are caused by the lack of competition, which can reduce quality and raise costs. But overall it does an OK job.
Some have criticized the standard lecture-style of education today. What do you think
the role of the lecture is, and should it be changed?
Ficht
I think the lecture model has stood for so long because it is effective. Lectures are effective at transmitting information to
students so they have the knowledge they need to be educated and pass tests. Lectures are more dynamic than reading a book,
and the professor or teacher can adjust the lecture to fit the students. There is a connection between the teacher and students in
a lecture which is essential to education.
Carlos
The lecture is an out-dated system that has very little place in education. It just consists of a teacher repeating the same material
as always and writing on a board while students copy it. Why does the professor need to re-say what has been said before?
Why do students need to re-write the notes, can't they just be given them? Note-taking is some kind of artificial attempt to get
the students involved, but couldn't they been involved on a higher-level than just redundant re-writing? The whole system is
one of regurgitation. They regurgitate notes during class, then they regurgitate facts during tests!
Coates
I see Mr. Carlos's point about a lecture with just the teacher talking, but I think there's an important role for discussion in many
areas of education. So, if done properly, lectures with discussion are an important way for students to learn.
Can you elaborate more in the role of discussion in education?
Coates
Discussion can be important in many subjects that involve critical thinking that don't have simple binary answers. The teacher
needs to be really good at leading the discussion, and the students should be a small group who are on a similar level with
each other. It's important for students to be involved in the learning and not just sit passively listening. Carlos, wouldn't you
agree to that too?
Carlos
Maybe in theory, but in practice, discussions don't work out. For example, throughout school, much of the discussion time is
just students reading a text out loud. All students are doing is regurgitating a text from written to oral form, but there's no
thinking happening. Maybe that's the goal of the education system - getting students to regurgitate words between different
formats.
Meanwhile, while one student is reading, other students are expected to keep their place with the reader, even if they can read
much faster on their own. What is the point in restricting and boring students in such a manner?
Coates
Well that's not really discussion then. In practice, it may be difficult to get classes that are small enough to have good
discussions together. An alternative would be to split students up into smaller groups to discuss topics on their own. The
teacher wouldn't control the whole discussion, but students can learn a lot on their own and from each other.
In general, do you think there should be more tracking of students in education?
Ficht
You cannot put people into boxes by assigning them to specific tracks. Everyone should be given equal opportunity to achieve
their goals or the the general educational goals. It's better to give everyone the same encouragement and opportunity then to
divide them up.
Carlos
People are different from each other, and they should all be allowed to reach their full potential. If some students are struggling
in one area, they should be able to get extra help, and not be prevented from it by being at the bottom of a class. If other
students can learn more than what's taught in the class, they shouldn't be held back by the average level and pace of the class.
Why should the best students be prevented from achieving what they can?
Schools like lumping everyone together just based on age, but in reality people are different. Schools often want to restrict
everyone to one level in various subjects, but people have different capabilities. The more tracking the better, and if not in this
education system, then the next!
Coates
I don't think we should worry as much as Prof. Ficht about putting everyone on the same level. As Carlos mentioned, it helps
everyone to be in different tracks. In addition, there are many different topics and skills students should learn, so one student
may excel in one area while another student is stronger in another area. And there are skills that can be taught besides pure
academic ones.
Holding back the top students is a problem in schools. When people are not challenged, they don't learn as much. You cannot
challenge each person at his or her level in one class with students at different levels! People get better at skills through
"deliberate practice" that pushes the boundaries of their abilities, but schools do not provide opportunities for students to be
challenged in this manner. So I definitely think there should be more tracking in schools.
We mentioned tests before, so what do you think their role in education is? How should
students be evaluated, if at all?
Ficht
People like criticizing tests, but at the end of the day, you need something to get students to learn, which they won't do without
tests. They know they need the knowledge to be educated people or for their careers, but in the short-term, they need tests to
motivate them. And while some tests are focused more on facts, you need a broad knowledge of facts to be able to think.
Carlos
Students are forced to study for tests, not to learn what interests them or what is practical. The test are often on arbitrary facts
that the student has little need for, and anyways could find it later without needing to memorize it. In fact, students usually
forget the facts they memorized shorty after they regurgitate them on the test, so it doesn't help their "broad knowledge" either.
Meanwhile, while students are forced to take tests on arbitrary facts, many teachers refuse to be evaluated for their actual
performance!
Coates
Well tests do serve the purpose that Prof. Ficht mentioned of getting students to learn. People need that accountability.
However, they suffer from many of the problems that Carlos mentioned, and they only add accountability at the time of the
test. A better approach may be for students to do more projects on their own or in a group to put the knowledge they are
learning into practice. This can be ongoing and more meaningful than the memorization that tests require.
What do you think schools should have as requirements and curriculum?
Ficht
I think the current education system does a pretty good job. Through grade school, students get the basics of a well-rounded
education in different topics. In college, they continue that general education and also specialize in the specific area they're
interested in. The general requirements are needed so for students to get a general education, and major requirements are
needed so they actually learn the subject that they're pursuing.
Carlos
There is a system which expects everyone follow along with blind faith, and not to question why things are that way. The
system will not adjust to the times, and holds on stubbornly to out-dated beliefs. This is the education system today.
The educational system focuses on arbitrary topics that are neither desired by the student nor practical, and forces students to
study them. It is a form of intellectual imprisonment to make students learn what they don't want to. All this while proclaiming
intellectual freedom and inquiry! This is why a new system of education is needed!
Coates
Its true that there could be more choice in education. Students in earlier grades are rarely able to choose their classes. An even
in colleges, some requirements seem rather arbitrary. I think we need to experiment with more alternatives to the current one
dominant system.
What motivates students to learn? What could be done to improve their motivation?
Ficht
The most important aspect to motivate students are the teachers. They can inspire a class and help each individual out. By
making sure we have good teachers, we can keep students motivated. Other forms of motivation are also important, which is
why we need tests, as I mentioned.
Carlos
Its hard to be motivated when you're forced to learn a topic and you don't know why. Intellectual coercion does not inspire
people! Students will be motivated if they can choose what they learn and pursue their passions.
Sr. Coates, you mentioned there should be more choice in schools. Can you elaborate on
that?
Coates
Yes, the current system holds a strong monopoly on education, which isn't seen in most other areas of the economy. It would
be fine if only one company made cars or telephones, since specific goods aren't ultimately that important. But education is
more important that any good produced, since we're talking about decades of a human life! The competition among car-makers
and phone-manufacturers helps drive innovation and lower costs, but the same cannot be said for education, where one system
dominates.
I think we need to encourage many different approaches and people will be able to choose the best approach for them. The
educational providers that fail to offer good services at low costs will be replaced, just like what happens in other areas.
Ficht
You cannot take away money from the public schools. The public schools educate everyone, and they need more funds now,
not less. This system has been in place for over 150 years, and this system is what works.
We've heard about the different issues on education, so now for the final question. What
should we do practically to improve education?
Carlos
Complaining about it isn't enough. This has been going on for too long, and the education system has remained dominant.
Talking is easy, but something drastic really needs to be done. The intellectual oppression of the schools needs to end.
Students of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but the shackles on your mind, and a world to win! The time is ripe for
revolution against the current system. In fact, revolution is inevitable considering the exploitation of the child by the current
education system!
Ficht
And some people thought academia was the last bastion of Marxism...
I think the system is overall good, but to improve, we need more funding. As Sr. Coates mentioned, people spend so much on
cars and phones, so they should really spend more on the education of our children.
Coates
I don't know if revolution is the best idea, since utopias don't always work out as initially advertised. So we need to try to both
improve the system from within, which may be slow, and also offer other alternatives in education. If we create alternatives
that work, people will starts accepting them, and then the education incumbents will either adapt or slowly be supplanted.
One possibility to explore is to form small groups of top students to study on their own, with each other, and with a mentor.
They may be able to learn more than students in regular schools. If alternatives succeed in helping students learn, companies
will be willing to hire such students. After all, companies just care about their own profits.
Education Ideas
Some posts from 2011 with updates for Learneroo
Four Questions about Math Education
Mathematics is probably one of the most important subjects taught in school, and schools spend a large amount of time on it.
But do they teach it in the best manner? This post will ask some basic questions - Why, Who, What & How.
Why teach math?
Its useful in the real world. Its wisdom to appreciate. But how well do are these reasons applied in practice?
Who to teach math to?
Many people barely use or appreciate any of the math they learned after division, so they dont get much from it. Perhaps such
students shouldn't be forced to go through such a educational curriculum for so many years. Of course, an improved system
might interest many of them
What they teach now
I never understood why so much math is taught and learned by hand, when computers have been around for a while. People
give many reasons to defend the practice, but they seem to just be justifications to keep things as they are. For example, some
people used to say What will you do if you dont have a computer/calculator? Im not sure that rare occasion would fully
justify spending so many years on hand-based math. Anyways, that reason no longer applies now that smartphones are
widespread.
A slightly stronger claim is that true understanding only comes when you do the math on your own without a computer.
However, theres no fundamental difference. People rarely actually understand what theyre doing, they just plug things into
formulas theyve memorized. This means they are just like a mindless computer generating an answer. I bet many people dont
even know why the most basic formulas work, such as multiplication of 2-digit numbers.
In addition, much of the hand-math doesnt even involve any true understanding, its just techniques to solve things before
computers were invented. For example, most of Calculus II is learning unnecessary techniques to solve integrals. There is no
reason for so many people to be made to learn such things when they can have silicon formulas do the work for them a
billion times faster without errors.
What they should teach
Im not even sure if it's really necessary to teach the understanding of every formula. Mathematicians may want to know such
ideas, and it may be important in certain areas for other people. So people should have the option of learning it. But the main
thing people should be learning is how to convert real-life situations into math so the computer can solve it. Computers cannot
analyze life on their own, and wont be able to for quite some time. Students need to learn how to take questions in life and
mathify them. People can focus on the higher-level interesting and useful questions, and let computers do their calculating
thing.
For more on this topic, see Conrad Wolfram's talk, which discusses similar issues.
On Learneroo
On Learneroo, we will teach math in a different manner. We will explain clearly and visually how the math works, so people
who want to will be able to truly understand it. The point of the challenges on Learneroo will be to formulate the correct
formula for a question, not to solve things by hand. In fact, users will usually be able to submit the formula itself as an answer
instead of the numerical result. Programmers do not just program in machine language, they use higher-level languages and
libraries. People doing math in the real-world use such tools also, and the education system should not try to restrict it.
The Future of Education
Intro
The development of the internet and related technologies has revolutionized many areas of the modern world, from research to
shopping. Until recently the educational system remained basically the same, but things are starting to change. New
technologies and developments in online education will help make learning less expensive and more effective and enjoyable.
Why Lecture?
Currently, most educational institutions follow a lecture-based learning model. In general, the teacher or professor recites the
same lecture each time for every class he or she has on a specific subject. This raises a simple question: why cant students
just watch a video of the lecture?
The purpose of live lectures is to make the class more interactive so students can ask and answer questions while the material
is being taught. While that's nice in theory, it is often ineffective in practice. Different students understand different things, and
one students question might just be an interruption for many other people. Therefore, a student might not ask the question,
but then wont be able to follow what comes afterwards. Perhaps certain subjects could get a discussion-model to work for
small, selected groups, but then the per-student cost for the class would be very high.
Videos
What actually happens in many cases is that students sit passively in class for most of a lecture, with little interaction and
varied levels of attentiveness. Such a class does not really provide any advantage over a video of the same lecture, which
students could watch instead. In fact, once the lecture becomes a video, it can be given once by the best presenter on the topic,
and then shown to all future students throughout the world. This model has been particularly successful with Khan Academy,
a website with thousands of free videos on various topics. By having the lecture on video, a student can watch at his own
pace, and pause, fast-forward or rewind it when necessary. Many students preferred learning from these videos over any other
approach.
1
Khan Academy does not even show any lecturers in its videos, the focus is on the material itself. This might be a little too
extreme, since a blackboard can get a bit boring at a certain point. However, educational videos can move beyond such simple
graphics and display sophisticated diagrams and visualizations that can make the material clearer and more interesting. For
example, the focus of a biology video can be on the actual organ or cell being studied, rather than on a lecturer or blackboard.
Beyond Video
Videos themselves can be useful but they are not the ideal total system to learn new material. They offer little interactivity, and
play at a constant rate, ignoring the student entirely
2
. Newer technologies allow the student to go through the material in a
more active and engaged manner.
At a simple level, the student can always be required to be answer questions and complete challenges in order to move
forward to the next topic. This way, he will always be involved in doing things, not just watching them. The system can quiz
him and keeps track of what he knows, so he can be tested on it later. There can also be various gaming elements as students
compete for high scores in their topic. Khan Academy has recently begun adding such features to their website, and has
reported much success. One could go further than just asking on material that was taught and instead ask challenges that help
the student learn new material.
Besides questions, the educational content itself will be much more interactive than a simple lecture, text or video. The student
will not just passively watch content, but will be able to manipulate and explore virtual representations and objects. Some
topics can be learned through simulations and games where the student will be able to directly partake in the subject material
itself. For example, when learning physics, students can play around with a physics simulator to explore how different laws
work. They could then be required to complete a virtual activity that requires the correct physical knowledge, such as building
a bridge or firing a rocket. This would make the subject more interesting and understandable than current methods.
Issues with Computer-Education
Although computer-based education provides many benefits, there are also some apparent disadvantages that need to be dealt
with. When learning a subject it helps to have someone to whom one can ask questions. Googling questions do not always
turn up good results, and sometimes one needs specific help with a particular issue. A good online educational system would
need to provide ways to get specific help. Some of the content and questions can expandable sections and links that provide
more explanation when needed. General questions can be asked in online forums, where other students or experts can answer
them. This model has worked well on sites like StackOverflow.com where strangers often give excellent answers to answer to
other peoples questions for free. It can definitely work for a group learning a subject online, and there can be experts who
review some of the answers or answer the most difficult ones.
If a student needs help with a specific issue, it may sometimes help to have an actual person he can ask the questions to.
However, there is no need to have a teacher give a whole lecture just so he can answer students questions. The student can
learn the subject online, and then if he runs into an issue that another student cannot answer, he can ask a designated expert on
the topic.
3
When needed, these experts can also give specific feedback on a students work. Overall, this model of answering
questions can be both cheaper and more effective than the traditional one.
One seemingly minor issue that arises when with computer-based education is the opportunity for distraction. Before
computers, people only had their pens to distract them while studying. (In fact, for some students, scribbling is one of the
main skills learned in school.) Yet now, thousands of distractions lay just a click away at any moment. While this may help
alleviate the boredom of a student stuck in class, it raises a fundamental issue: How will people learn how to scribble? Also, it
raises another important issue: How can one focus in the age of Gmail, Facebook, YouTube and non-stop news? In one way,
moving education from the dry lecture to a more interactive model may help it compete better with modern distractions, but
they will still remain a major problem.
Any technology that puts people at a computer to learn will need to take these issues into account. On the superficial level,
time-management programs, such as RescueTime and LeechBlock, can be placed on computers to help prevent students from
wasting time. To help encourage people to actually do work, there can be general tasks they must complete, so they cant just
do everything right before the tests. This will help encourage deeper learning of material than the current test-focused models.
On the more fundamental level, people need to develop proper focus and work habits, but this is something which becomes
easier when the material is more interesting.
Learn More for Less
Currently, education is extremely expensive. Over the last few decades, costs in education have risen far higher than the pace
of inflation, but without improving their results. The average tuition for a private (non-profit) four-year college has gone from
$10,000 in 1972 to $29,000 in 2012 (both in 2012 dollars)
4
. Obviously, if people switch to a completely online education
system, they will be able to save a significant amount on tuition. But there can also be significant savings if schools switch to a
blended model where students learn most of the material on a computer but still meet in person for some study groups and
classes. University costs will be able to be dramatically cut, while the education may become more effective and enjoyable.
The move to online education is already happening, and it is already working. A 2009 meta-study by the US department of
education found that on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving
face-to-face instruction.
5
Online education is not only far less expensive than traditional methods, it also has better results.
These results will only improve as more sophisticated interactive content and methods are developed.
On Learneroo
Learneroo goes beyond videos to help people new material. People can 'discover' knowledge by solving challenges instead of
by passively consuming content. We break down difficult concepts into multiple challenges so students can learn the material
on their own.
Notes
[1] See Wireds article on Khan Academy, at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_khan/all/1
[2] It is true he can pause the video, but one doesnt have the same control of processing the content when its a video, and it
is hard to refer back to a previous part.
[3] One expert will be able to serve a large number of students for each subject.
[4] http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fee-and-room-and-board-charges-over-time-1972-
73-through-2012-13-selected-years
[5] http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
A New Curriculum
Summary:
The educational syllabus within many subjects should be changed to reflect the changing nature of knowledge.
Schools should teach the subjects that are relevant to the information age, and drop some old requirements.
People are Not Hard Drives
The development of computers and the internet has changed the way people can access information and therefore changes the
nature of the material people will need to learn. When knowledge was stored in books, perhaps it made sense to require people
to memorize large amounts of information. However, since knowledge is now available at the touch of a smartphone (or
through speech and glasses), people can easily access the information they need without spending years memorizing
information. This information can obviously be much vaster and more up-to-date than anything they could have memorized.
This does not mean that people will not need to learn anything and can just become an instant expert in any field by Googling
any issue they have. (Try fixing your cars transmission based on an eHow guide.) An expert will need a solid understanding
of the principles of his field and practice in applying them so that he can correctly draw on database of information to solve a
specific issue. This is what students will need to learn instead of memorizing thousands of little details. Perhaps a student
training to become a doctor no longer needs to memorize every inch of anatomy. The curriculum of many fields still remains
focused on the same material as it did a few decades ago, but it may be time to revise it in light of modern technologies.
People are not Computers
Computers can do much more than just provide access to relevant information. Any problem that can be solved with clearly-
defined steps can be programmed so that a computer can solve it. This fact also needs to be taken into account when designing
a syllabus of study. Many areas of education involve students learning to mechanically implement set procedures and formulas
to solve problems. This is especially true in areas like math, the sciences and math-related areas of business and economics.
These mechanical processes can all by definition be solved by a computer, so why pretend that these technologies do not
exist? Human computers were once necessary, but they have since been supplanted.
Instead of focusing on being the computer, students should learn how to do the things computers cannot. They should learn
how to use the computer tools and learn how to take real-life problems and convert them into a form that computers can solve.
Computers are still quite poor at solving general real-life problems unaided by humans, and this is an important skill people
will need. Even as computer programs improve, there is always an area where computers cannot solve problems, and people
will be needed to work on them. Instead of teaching methods that are no longer needed, the focus of education should be on
the areas that are beyond the reach of computers.
This does not mean students should not learn any principles of a subject that a computer can solve. Students who are training
to be an expert in a field should learn the basic principles of it so they can fully understand the material and be able to apply it
in cases where a specific program does not exist. But it is not necessary for students to memorize a large number of
mechanical methods for solving specific problems (without understanding them) when they will anyways just use computers
to solve such problems. Plugging something into a formula or into a computer involve about the same amount of
understanding, just one way is a million times faster. So perhaps it is not necessary to for high-school students to learn all
those formulas and methods. Students should either understand a subject, know how to apply it, or learn what computers
cannot solve, but there is no reason to treat them like mechanical computers themselves.
A New Curriculum
New technologies should cause more changes than just modifying the focus of specific subjects. The curriculum of subjects
itself should be changed to meet the needs of the times. Besides learning subject-specific computer skills (like using a physics
simulation program) students need to learn general computer skills that will allow them to be effective in many different areas.
There are many computer skills that many people do not know well
from the most basic (typing)
to the advanced (programming).
Since these skills are often extremely useful, they should take precedence in an educational curriculum over less important
subjects.
A Simple Example
Typing is obviously one of the most common and useful skills of modern times. People almost never write things by hand
anymore, but instead type almost everything. Yet many elementary schools still focus on teaching cursive in 4th or 5th grade!
While this was never very useful, nowadays it is completely pointless since no one writes in cursive. Many people never learn
how to touch-type correctly and instead use the hunt-and-peck method to type throughout their life (Im currently using a
modified pecking method myself to type this myself). This is probably one of the most basic things that kids should learn
when they are younger. There are also simple related topics people should learn, such as keyboard shortcuts, editing basics,
and even the purpose of certain keys! (E.g. many people do not know how to move the cursor to the beginning of a line.)
These skills are very basic, but learning them can save people thousands of hours.
Other Computer Skills
Typing is a simple example of the most basic skills people need, but there are many other areas people need to learn, for
example:
Greater proficiency in using operating systems and common computer programs. For example, many people do not
know how to perform common tasks in a document editor (such as managing styles or creating graphs), despite their
common practical use. There are also basic tools to help with version control that become important when
collaborating on documents.
Search and reference techniques. While there is a huge amount of information easily available on the internet, it is not
always easy to quickly find the information a person needs. There are skills and techniques people can learn to
improve their ability to construct and filter searches, and to organize and index information they encounter. Google
and other services cannot automatically find the best result for the exact thing a person is looking for, so people need
to learn the skill of good searching and organizing.
Programming
Currently, high-schools force students to learn many difficult subjects in the math-logic realm, such as trigonometry and
geometry, which they may never use. Yet there is a basic logic-based skill that would be of more interest and relevance to all:
programming. Instead of learning so many details of math, students could learn programming, which can be used to do math
and much more. While many people will not have any interest in programming full-time, most people will get some benefit
form learning the basics of programming. This will enable them to do many tasks in the modern age, such as creating simple
apps or websites, using macros in Excel, performing simple manipulations of text, or writing simple scripts for various
scientific or business applications. Programming can be considered one of the basic skills that most people should know in
modern times.
Some may fear that adding these computer subjects to the curriculum may cause other subjects to be de-emphasized. In some
cases, it may be possible to use more effective educational methods so students can learn both the old and the new subjects.
However, people may need to choose which subjects have priority. Perhaps subjects should be empirically evaluated for what
actual benefits they provide for the students. Studies have shown that most students do not actually improve their critical
thinking skills over the course of the time in college. In a struggling economic climate and with extremely high prices for
tuition, perhaps it may be time for the curriculum to focus on practical skills that students will actually use throughout their
life.
On Learneroo
Learneroo focuses on both on the subjects and the topics within each subject that are important today (and tomorrow).
Learneroo.com can easily be skimmed, searched and referenced, so people can choose what to learn and find the information
they need later. After all, the purpose of learning is not to cram information in short-term storage to last until a test, but to
understand the fundamentals of a topic, and be able to find specific details later.
Writing with Less Writing
Ideas discussed:
People think all writing needs to be paragraphs, but that's not always the best way to express something.
What's the Appeal of Twitter? + Idea for new platform
At least include an outline in your article!
Bonus: What writing can learn from programming
My chart on learning programming did quite well and got upvoted on Hacker News and Reddit. I realized that one chart was
able to encapsulate the important information from 3 previous blog posts
. This makes me think there might be too much of a bias to write content in a specific form and style with paragraphs and
connecting sentences, when sometimes another form would work better. A chart or diagram can display certain information in
a faster and clearer manner than long paragraphs, making the paragraphs unnecessary. Different diagrams and styles can be
used for different types of information.
Ways of presenting content
Content
Format
Good for this type of
content
Learneroo
Example
Benefits for reader Extra stuff that get stuck in
Paragraphs
of Text
Long connected
arguments
Perhaps previous
post
Easy linear read Connecting sentences, stylistic phrases
Table
Repeated categories of
information
Resources to Learn
Programming
Fast to reference
Certain cells just to match others in row.
(Maybe use NoSQL-style instead ~)
Flowchart Simple decision guide
Picking a
Programming
Language
Can quickly reach
relevant decisions
Random Jokes
Outline-
Style
Hierarchical content
of separate points
Attempt below
Can easily skip
subsections
Hopefully nothing
Even if content doesn't fit into a chart, it does not mean that standard paragraphs are necessary. Sometimes an Outline-style
could do the trick.
Outline vs. Paragraphs
I often start with ideas in note-form before writing a post
Before publishing notes, need to refine and clarify ideas.
Also includes "textification" into paragraphs, which consist of things like:
Keeping to a writing-style (varying words, paragraph format)
Putting in filler words to build and connect sentences
This turns writing into nice essay, but it can obscure points for both the writer and reader
It becomes harder for the writer to revise essay when each change affects the continuity of the sentences and
paragraphs. (Maybe writers should also aim for looser coupling!)
Certain articles (e.g. academic ones) may be so complicated, readers may feel need to create their own outline
or diagram to follow it
Notes need to be refined before being published, but they can still be kept in an outline style, with several benefits:
Often quicker to write than figuring out how to "textify" content.
Easier for reader to follow overall flow of argument
Lets reader skip certain sections or examples and still follow argument (In fact, maybe the reader should be
able to understand the argument heading without even reading the implementation!)
Outline-style can be better for reader and writer, though not sure about this example
Obviously, people know that concise writing or charts are often helpful. However, I think people still feel constrained by
standard style expectations. That's why they need things like Twitter and even Powerpoint to permit them to write in shorter
form.
I guess Twitter gives people an excuse to write things in short. o/wise they would feel the need to write multip P's. 140
seems a bit xtrem
Ariel Krakowski (@arikrak) November 28, 2011
While Twitter's limits may be overkill in cases where you actually want to say something, the fact that its so successful shows
the power of letting people get to the point. Maybe someone should create a blogging platform that enforces a posts that are
concise and include a diagram, outline or chart. This could help popularize a new style of writing.
I'm not arguing for eliminating essay-style text, I just think it might be worth putting more outlines and charts within writing.
Even if most of an article needs to be written as paragraphs, perhaps some of it would be clearer or more effective as a chart.
And more articles should come with short outlines (or diagrams) that says what their main points are. This would let people
decide if they want to read it or review what it said afterwards. Why should some one need to construct their own outline or
argument diagram to analyze an argument?
Charts and outlines are really just a minor step. For more challenging material, one can go beyond such static content and
create more interactive content. But that's for another post...
Learneroo
Learneroo lets people:
have more choice over what (and how) they read.
quickly view and reference the information.
Learn with interactive content.
Choice and Innovation in Education
In a famous parable, a group of animals get together to establish a school for their young:
[The animals] adopted an activity curriculum consisting of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make it easy
to administer, all animals took all the subjects. The duck was excellent in swimming, better in fact than his
instructor, and made excellent grades in flying, but he was very poor in running. Since he was low in running he
had to stay after school and also drop swimming to practice running. This was kept up until his webbed feet were
badly worn and he was only average in swimming. But average was acceptable in school, so nobody worried about
that except the duck.
1
Other animals fared no better than the duck. Each animal had its own strength and weakness, but the one-size-fits-all approach
of the school wouldnt let the animals focus on their strengths. Real schools suffer from a similar problem. Every child is
unique, with his or her own interests, capabilities and style of learning. However, the schools lump everyone together into one
system, with one curriculum, one pace, and one style of teaching. This prevents students from studying the subjects they enjoy
in the way they learn best. The American school system needs to diversify its approach to education. Schools should offer
more subjects outside the standard curriculum, teach in new ways besides the traditional lecture, and make greater use of
technology in learning. This will ensure that all students will be able to learn the subjects important to them in the way that
works best for them.
Curriculum Choices Most schools in America require all students to learn the same syllabus of subjects. While there are
certain core topics that every student should learn, the American system of education defines the required curriculum too
broadly and prevents real specialization. Students end up held back in subjects they have little interest in and will not use in the
future, while they are prevented from excelling at subjects they enjoy and could benefit from. For example, students in high
school must learn trigonometry when many of them may know that they will not choose a career that will require such
knowledge. Some students may be very interested in learning programming, but few schools provide any classes that teach it.
2
Despite the fact that programming knowledge is in high-demand in the job market, students have few options to learn it while
in high school! There are many other subjects, from medicine to carpentry, that students are interested in and have practical
relevance, yet are offered in few schools. This is something that should change.
The American school system can take certain basic steps to introduce greater innovation and choice into education. States
should reduce the number of specific subject requirements, and let schools increase the number of electives that are provided.
Students should be able to choose a specific focus while in high school, which will let them achieve much greater success in
the area they are best at. Instead of establishing rigid requirements, schools should offer much more choice, and students will
be able to learn the subjects they enjoy and benefit from. Since students will be able to pick areas that interest them, they will
be more motivated to learn the material. Some may worry that without specific requirements, students will end up choosing
easy subjects instead of ones that teach the skills they need. To solve this issue, schools can require students to fulfill a set
number of credits, and weight courses based on how much their skills are needed in the job market. For example, a course in
programming or medicine would be assigned more weight than a course in art-history or anthropology. Students will still be
able to have much greater choice in what they learn, but would be encouraged to learn enough practical subjects.
Schools should offer many more subjects and electives, especially in practical areas, such as programming, design,
accounting, and health. There are a few ways they can offer more choices in an effective and affordable manner. The schools
can introduce more e-learning tools into the educational process. Certain subjects can be learned partially online, which
reduces costs, as will be discussed below. They can also offer more teaching or assistant opportunities to older students in
masters programs, colleges or even seniors in high school. Certain workshops could be offered in partnership with local
companies, which will be interested in having students learn employable skills. They could also directly offer students real
work opportunities over the summer or after school. By providing more opportunities, every student will be able to find an
area to excel in.
Styles of Learning
The schools today primarily use one approach to teaching. Almost all classes follow a model where teachers go over all new
material by lecturing in front of a class of 20-25 students.
3
This fails to recognize that different students have different styles
of learning. While some students may like the traditional lecture-style, other students may prefer learning some of the material
on their own and getting help doing problems later. For certain subjects, the lecture-style is not even the best overall system
for learning. Most skills can only be learned by trying to do them, and the lecture-model does not provide enough
opportunities to do so. Many subjects may be easier to learn by doing project-based learning where the focus is on creating
things instead of memorizing content. In the current lecture-dominated system, students are unable to learn in the way that is
best-suited for themselves or the subject.
Schools need to offer new approaches to teaching and learning. For certain subjects, schools can provide more workshops
where students can practice learning certain skills. They can also encourage students to form study-groups, and provide an
older student to answer difficulties they run into. More classes should try out the flipped model of learning, where students
learn the material on their own and then work on problems in class with the teachers assistance. Students should be able to
choose how they learn the material out of the classroom. Some may prefer to learn everything on their own or with digital
tools, while others may prefer to attend small sessions led by teaching assistants. If students are given more ways to learn they
will be able to achieve more.
E-learning tools will help schools provide more learning options at a low cost. Interactive digital content can be used to teach
material in a way that help keep students engaged, tracks their progress and provides feedback as they learn. While it is
unrealistic to expect every student to be able to learn any subjects entirely online, e-learning can be introduced on a smaller
scale to great effect. Students will be able to try a variety of approaches to learning material. For example, some students may
want to work through an educational game while other students will directly go through the content. Some may go through the
topics quickly and then explore additional content while other students may take their time unhindered to learn the topic well.
Even while the students go through digital content, there should be people they can ask questions to, both online and offline.
In fact, by moving some of the learning online, teachers will have more time to provide individualized feedback and help.
Greater use of e-learning tools will allow students to learn in the style they like at the pace that they can keep to.
Education is the most critical area for continuing the success the American people are known for. America can take certain
steps to help encourage choice and innovation in its schools that will help every student excel: Provide more choices for
selecting schools, reduce requirements and increase the number of courses students can choose from, make greater use of e-
learning so students can learn in their own style and pace. By providing more choice for every student, America can again
become the leader in education.
[1] The Animal School by Dr. R. H. Reeves. Cited by Stephen R. Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
[2] Only 10% of high schools offer the AP in computer science, and very few offer any other option. See Time Magazine
http://techland.time.com/2012/07/16/can-we-fix-computer-science-education-in-america
[3] See the New York Times blog at http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/
Startup Ideas
Here are three random ideas for a shopping website, a browser extension, and a desktop program, followed by a discussion
of intermediaries that are difficult to replace.
Site Idea - Simplifying Online shopping
Technology can make life easier, but frequently it also makes things more complicated. It is easier to buy things online than to
go to a store, but one faces a dizzying array of choices. People want quality items at the lowest possible price, but it is hard to
figure everything out. Shopping searches return too many results, and Amazon always has thousands of items for every
category.
One way to get a smaller subset of lower prices is to check out a deals site like Dealnews or Slickdeal. However, it's hard to
know whether the item is good-quality or whether the "deal" is actually such a great price. Dealnews tries to provide some
information about the normal pricing of the item, but it still doesn't answer whether the price is a good one. It may be that
those earphones are normally $20 and are now $10, but it's not really relevant if I can get better earphones for $5.
It would be pretty useful if a website was able to provide data not just on the price of the item, but on similar items also. If the
site could measure in some way the features and quality of an item, it could help users recognize what's a good deal. For
example, if the site was able to say that these type of earphones are hard to get for under $15, one would know $10 is a good
deal. The hard part for the site would obviously be getting and analyzing the data in a way that allows these comparisons. A
site could use various sources, such as Amazon reviews, but it would need to see what's really reliable and give clear
information about a product. If a website could do a good job in this area, it could really help people deal with all complexity
of online shopping.
Better Bookmarking and Search
People nowadays read a tremendous amount online, but all this data can be hard to organize and access when needed. Often, I
might want to find an site that I previously viewed, and I'm not always sure where to find it. It might be a news article that I
read, a post about programming, or a useful web app.
To solve this problem, I sometimes bookmark every article or site I come across that I could potentially want in the future.
However, the bookmarks build up very quickly and they become hard to navigate or search. One thing that can help is a full-
text search of your bookmarks, and there are some paid services that can do a full-text search of sites that you bookmark in
them. However, besides the cost, a full-text search sometimes provides too many results without any categorization. To really
find bookmarks, you need to to categorize them with folders and tags, but who has time for that?
What's needed is a service that can automatically tag all your bookmarks by various categories, and let you do a full-search of
them. Delicious.com can tag your bookmarks based on previous user tags, but I think a good service would need to take into
account more data, such the page's description, text, and links. Pocket, which started as a simple service to save pages offline,
recently announced some automatic-categorization features, so it will be interesting to see where they take it. One would also
expect that Google could provide more in this area, considering their experience with search and browsers.
Saving knowledge in an accessible format is a huge opportunity. Before books were common, people needed to memorize
information in order to have access to it later. Even after the printing press was invented, books were still expensive and
difficult to search. Computers have changed all that, and the nature of knowledge has changed too. One no longer needs to
memorize every fact, one just needs to know certain principles and know how to find the details. A service that helps people
organize the sites and information they read can become an extension of the human memory.
Desktop App Idea - Get Stuff Done despite the Internet
Summary of App Idea
With so many distractions on the web, its hard to get work done. This app will monitor the websites you visit and programs
you use and block them after a set amount of usage. It can also track your score and publish your results.
Problem
Many articles have been written about the harm caused from too much internet usage. The problem is it is too easy to waste
time at a computer when you want to get work done. One lets the short-term enjoyment of clicking on an article harm the long-
term goal of getting things done.
Solution
The solution is to make the time-wasting option much more difficult, so it takes less willpower to fight it. This idea is for a
program that runs on the computer that tracks your web (and app) usage and blocks time-wasting sites after a set amount of
time. The program will come with built-in categorization of thousands of websites, and will be very configurable. It will
automatically run in the background, and block sites at certain times or after a certain usage is reached. The user can choose
how hard it will be to disable or bypass the program. It will also be able to share users' progress socially to encourage
progress. Users can even choose to be penalized with small fines to discourage time-wasting!
Competition
There are many extensions that help block websites, but extensions are too easy to disable to be useful (and users can switch
browsers.) RescueTime does a lot, but it cannot be set to block websites when a certain usage has been reached or during
certain time blocks each day. (One can only set it's blocker by manually clicking on it.) It also lacks social sharing options, and
other user incentives. However, RescueTime could improve and become a powerful productivity too.
Revenue
The main way this program will earn money is from premium membership, which will provide extra features. It can also earn
money from ads, data, and even fines! Businesses may also want to install it to increase worker productivity. This is a better
approach than blocking employees from visiting websites entirely.
Replacing Intermediaries
Before the internet, it was necessary to have various intermediaries involved in transactions. The internet has changed that in
many areas, such as buying airline tickets, but some areas remain stubborn to change, such as buying cars or houses.
Car Dealers
Car companies could benefit greatly by removing the car-dealer middleman. They could keep all the profits for themselves and
control their supply and sales more carefully. In addition, the car-dealer experience is famously bad, and does not really fit into
the internet age of open information and super-convenience. However, car dealers have protectionist laws in place in many
states which prevent the car companies from selling directly to buyers. Tesla has circumvented these laws in some states by
opening showcases to display their cars but processing all sales online, so they're not techincally "selling" in the specific state.
This model could potentially be adopted by other car companies too.
Another possibility is repealing the car-dealer protection laws. This will be difficult, since the car-dealer lobby will fight hard
to keep them in place. The general public doesn't care enough to fight such laws, while car-dealers do. This is a common
problem in democracies, where laws often stay in place to help the few even though they harm the overall public. (Though
other forms of governement don't usually handle this better!)
Real Estate Agents
While car-dealers have laws in place to protect themselves from competition, real-estate agents may resort to legally
questionable collusion to exclude their cheaper competitors. Businessweek discussed why for-sale-by-owner and discount
agents haven't made a dent in the sales of Real Estate Agents:
[The study] found that theres a subtle collusion in real estate that separates it from industries like stock trading and air
travel. Two agents, not one, are required to sell a houseone representing the buyer, the other the seller. Needing two
agents to cooperate in a transaction allows a full-service agent to punish discount agents, Syverson says. It also allows
full-service agents to punish other full-service agents who cooperate with discount agents. As a result, an agent can steer
clients away from for-sale-by-owner properties or from homes represented by discount brokers.
However, many consumers often prefer the hand-holding that expensive real-agents provide, which is another reason it's been
difficult for low-cost competitors to dent the market. The issue is they assume the agents are really working for them, but even
the seller's agents are more focused on selling quickly than on getting the best price. This is because the difference for the
agent in percentage isn't nearly as large as the difference for the owner, so their interests aren't aligned properly, a problem
known as the Principal-Agent Problem:
They found that an owners use of a broker to sell their property reduced the eventual selling price by 5.9 percent to 7.7
percent, compared with homes sold by the owner directly.
So the buyer's agents may not show them all possible houses, and the seller's agents may not get the best price. Long-term this
market should be disrupted, but meanwhile real estate agents have been able to hold on.
Investing Startup Ideas
Some ideas about spreading the risk around in different investments.
Lottery Ticket Investing
This article will discuss some speculative ideas about speculating. While the idea itself may not be feasible, it tocuhes on some
general questions is investing, economics and psychology.
Lottery-Ticket Investing
Problem
: People buy lottery tickets despite the poor odds, i.e. their negative expected return. They do this because they're excited by
the prospect of large winnings, and may not evaluate the odds correctly. But there should be a way to let people get tickets that
offer a large prize, but still have an overall positive return.
Solution:
Create an Investment Lottery: Invest the lottery ticket money in stocks, which historically have a strong positive return. Use a
investing method with high-volatility so there is a chance of large payouts.
Q: But how would you distribute the money?
One way would be to have an actual lottery at the end of the investment period and give the money to specific winners.
However, this is too similar to a regular lottery, so the state governments wouldn't allow it. Instead, one could give the actual
returns of each ticket to the buyer. This way people who get or pick the right tickets can win big.
Q: So you're basically just selling people stocks.
Yes, these tickets would let people easily invest small sums in a high-risk but high-reward manner.
Q: That sounds pretty boring.
It's true that people are motivated to buy because of the hope of getting a huge prize, but people also buy tickets for smaller
prizes. So one would need to examine where the cut-off would be. For example, people might be willing to pay $10 for a
ticket that could potentially win $1000. If they hear about one winner who won a huge prize, they might get excited enough by
that possibility, even if it rarely happens.
Q: But how would you ever get 100x returns on investments in a short time-span?
There are a number of possibilities that one could explore. Perhaps there's some way to do it with margin-investing, or with
some variety of that. For example, the lottery stock tickets could insure other investors against losses, so the ticket-holders
take larger losses or bigger gains if the stock has a large change. This will let the ticket-holders magnify their risk and provide
insurance to safe investors.
Q: That doesn't sound like a very good idea, and people can insure against losses without any lottery involved, e.g.
by buying put options, so why do they need your system?
Well, if that doesn't work there are other risky investments that one could find, such as certain junk bonds. In addition, it will
soon be legal for ordinary people to invest in small companies. They could serve as a very-high risk investment that could
have large returns. By making it easy for people to buy "Investing Tickets", they can be encouraged to invest in a system that
has good overall returns instead of losing so much money in the lottery. While they might not make it rich this way, they'll
have better long-term odds than in the lotto.
JOBS Act and the Crowd-Sourced Startup
In April 2012, the JOBS Act was signed into law, but the SEC has been slow to implement it. The first part of the act will
finally become active tomorrow (September 23, 2013) which will allow startups to publicly announce that they're fundraising.
However, they will still only be able to raise money from accredited investors, i.e. rich people.
Phase III of the JOBS Act will allow crowdfunding - ordinary people will be able to invest small amounts of their income in
startups (see Crowdfunding passes in the Senate). This will help many small companies and startups raise money from a large
number of people. Currently, a person or company can raise money on a site like Kickstarter, but can only offer backers
rewards (like their product or t-shirts), but not equity in the startup. Imagine how many more people will be interested in
backing startups if they can hope to get rich from doing so! This will raise the risk of scams though, which is why there will
be various regulations on crowdfunding once it is (eventually) implemented.
Startups will be able to raise money from the public, and could also use their "crowd" of investors to help to do things for
their company. For example, a company could perform market research with their crowd investors, or ask them to help
promote the company's product on social media. Quirky uses its crowd to help decide what physical products to create, so tech
companies could consult with their crowd to help decide on new features for an app.
Perhaps a company's crowd could be consulted with to work on a specific task, such as creating some icons for a site or
improving its SEO. Crowd investors will want to be compensated for large tasks that they do, but it could still be easier to hire
someone already invested in the company than an external consultant. In fact, maybe this work could be an alternative form of
crowdfunding - instead of investing in a company, people could contribute work and get a share of equity. This would differ
from standard employment for equity since it the work would be distributed to a large number of people. While being so
scattered can make collaboration difficult, many open-source projects have been successful with a large number of
contributors, so startups should be able to do the same thing. However, one would need to figure out how to divide up the
equity fairly when people are not working full-time.
Paul Graham once said:
I don't think crowdfunding is good for startups. For startups, having large numbers of investors is bad, and having
inexperienced investors is bad. So having a very large number of inexperienced investors is the worst scenario
possible.
While too many ordinary investors could be a nuisance, a large group could by filtered through a crowdfunding site and can
offer more value than standard rich investors. This may be why Paul Graham accepted the crowd-sourced startup
FundersClub into Y-combinator. Startups may even start crowdfunding because of the product and marketing opportunities it
will provide.
Startup Equity Sharing
The past post discussed sharing equity with the "crowd". Another possibility is sharing equity with other startups, but first
let's see if there's any reason to do that.
Paul Graham wrote:
If you judge by the median startup, the whole concept of a startup seems like a fraud. You have to invent a bubble to
explain why founders want to start them or investors want to fund them. But it's a mistake to use the median in a domain
with so much variation. If you look at the average outcome rather than the median, you can understand why investors like
them, and why, if they aren't median people, it's a rational choice for founders to start them.
The focus on average return makes sense for investors who invest in many startups, at least for the top angel investors and
venture-capital firms. However, it's more difficult to justify founding a startup, since the expected median return is 0 and the
founders have no diversification of risk. Since the personal value money diminishes the more one gets, why should founders
rely on a small risk of getting super-rich when a large majority of them will fail? It's not like they'll get be 100 times as happy
if they get 100 times the money.
It's true that startup founders are usually not in it (just) for the money, but are passionate about solving a certain problem and
creating something that can help a large number of people. They may also want to win for its own sake, or desire recognition
or power. This may explain why they are pursuing a startup, but it still leaves the money-median issue unsolved.
One possible solution would be for startups of similar caliber to set aside some of their stock for a shared startup pool. This
way, if one startup in a groups is very successful, the founders (and early employees) of the other startups will also get some
returns. This will provide startup founders with the same benefits VCs enjoy and give them insurance against their own
startup's failure. (In fact, one of the earliest forms of insurance was for the "startups" of ancient times - dangerous maritime
commerce trips.)
As long as founders still keep a large stake in their own company, they will still be determined to make their own startup
succeed. As a simplified example, 20 startups could each set aside 20% of their company for the shared pool. This still leaves
80% of each company for the founders, early employees and investors. If 1 startup is a big success and sells for $100 million,
every other startup will receive $1 million to share between the founders and early employees.
This will also encourage the group of 20 startups to help each other out, since they will all benefit from each other's success.
Startups already can recieve help from their investors, and this will be a way for them to benefit from other startup founders
who may not be rich enough to invest directly. It may be easier for startup founders to create such a system once the
Crowdfunding Act lets non-rich people invest in startups.
Microsoft vs. Google
Some articles on the competiion between Microsoft and Google, from the Spring of 2012
The Future Of Windows
Of all the big tech companies, Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) are the most direct competitors. They compete on a
vast array of software products and services, from operating systems, browsers and office applications to online portals,
search engines and maps. While the number of competing products is quite large, each company has specific areas where it
makes most of its profits. Google makes almost all of its revenue from advertising, with about 70% of it coming from Google
websites, most of it from search results. Microsoft has a wider spread of revenue across various divisions. Their business
division (primarily Office) earns over 30% of revenue and over half of the company profits, while the Windows division
earns a quarter of the revenue and over 30% of profits. It earns significant revenue from its Server and Entertainment
divisions. This section will discuss operating systems, and whether Windows will be able to maintain its current dominance.
Microsoft is the PC-era company with dominant businesses that have a locked-in user base. People are used to using
Windows, so they are unlikely to switch to an alternative for minor reasons or small cost savings. In addition, Microsoft has
very strong partnerships, so it often has a hold on the market even if individual consumers might have otherwise not chosen it.
For example, it is normally cheaper to just buy a laptop with Windows than one with just Linux, so Microsoft has a locked-in
source of revenue for every laptop purchase.
However, Microsoft faces many challenges ahead as new devices such as smartphone and tablets become extremely popular.
Microsoft has not developed a strong foothold in the smartphone and tablet market, and while it will probably gain a larger
share (with devices like the Nokia Lumia), it seems unlikely to ever get near the dominance it held in the PC market.
The question then becomes - will the diversity in the smartphone and tablet market threaten Windows' dominance of the PC
market? It seems unlikely that people will replace their laptops entirely with smartphones or tablets. While laptops have
partially replaced desktops, they are able to perform everything that a desktop can. Smartphones and small tablets do not let
people type or create content easily; they are better for communicating or consuming content. Since most people need to type,
they will probably not get rid of large keyboard-devices anytime soon. Tablets are currently purchased by people who already
own smartphones and laptops, but if people have to just choose one device besides their smartphone, they will go with the
more functional laptop. However, if large tablets with attachable keyboards grow in popularity, the market may then be up for
grabs between Microsoft, Google and Apple.
The rise of smartphones can pose a more indirect threat to Windows' dominance: once people are used to using alternative
operating systems (OS) on their mobile devices, they may become more open to using them on their laptops. There are other
threats too. It is much easier for users to switch OS's nowadays than it used to be. Most new application are now created for
the web (or they run on any platform, like Java), so the user can run them on any computer regardless of his or her personal
OS. In addition, Windows 8 (Microsoft's upcoming OS) makes significant interface changes that many regular users have
found difficult to adjust to. If Windows isn't the OS people are used to, they will explore other options.
What alternatives are there that people will consider switching to? The various versions of Linux never have been able to gain
a strong base outside of techie users, and that doesn't seem likely to change soon. A bigger threat is Apple. However, its
computers have always been more expensive than PCs, so until it decides to lower prices, it probably will not take over the
market. However, its market share has been growing and it has the ability to build off its gigantic smartphone and tablet base.
The other potential competitor is Chrome OS. In its current version, it does not seem like much of a threat, since it is just a
browser and cannot do much when offline. People may not always have wifi access (or a good connection) on their laptop,
and many applications are not yet as powerful on the web. Even an Android device has far more offline capabilities than
Chrome OS, though one would expect a laptop to have more capabilities than a phone! This explains why Chrome OS has not
yet caught on, but Google may be changing strategy somewhat. It recently modified its OS so it has a more standard desktop
and window interface. And it is rumored to be working on full offline capabilities for its apps. As online applications become
more powerful, the Chrome OS will be in a position to chip away at Windows' market share. It will try to be a faster OS with
fewer security risks and technical difficulties, so people may begin switching over to it. Regular people may begin using it
once it can do all the common tasks they use a computer for, even if it doesn't have the same capabilities for things like 3D-
graphics editing. In a couple years, Chrome OS could become a real threat to Microsoft Windows.
The possible spread of alternative OS's will not just threaten Microsoft's sales of Windows, but also sales of Office. While
Microsoft Office is the most popular office suite on the desktop, it has no presence on Chrome OS, and is not as dominant on
the Mac. Even on Windows computers, there is stiff competition between Microsoft's and Google's online web app offerings.
Thus, the potential spread of Chrome OS poses a threat to both of Microsoft's biggest divisions, which represent over 90% of
Microsoft's profits. While Microsoft's stock has a low P/E ratio and pays a nice dividend, the risk of an alternative operating
system succeeding means that it is a risky stock to hold onto long term.
Can Docs Beat Office?
Google announced their acquisition of QuickOffice, an Office suite for Android and iOS smartphones and tablets. This
demonstrates the seriousness with which Google is pursuing the Office market. QuickOffice allows offline editing of files,
something that Google will integrate within their own Docs products. Google will add offline editing capabilities to the
desktop soon also, and Microsoft is rumored to soon be coming out with an iPad Office app. This means that Google and
Microsoft will be competing across every platform: online, the desktop and mobile.
Google will be all out against Microsoft, but will they be able to gain a significant portion of the Office market? This is
currently Microsoft's biggest profit-earner and it could potentially be a nice source of revenue for Google also. If Chrome OS
gains a market share (as suggested in part I), people will use Google Docs on it, but what about on the current operating
systems? People don't use their smartphones much for writing documents but they might start using their tablets more for it
(especially if they have attachable keyboards).
While Microsoft will be coming out with an iOS Office app, their delay has allowed other apps to gain traction. Since people
seem happy with their current Office apps, Microsoft will probably not be able to take over the market, so there will be a split
between Microsoft's Office, Apple's iWork (AAPL), Google's QuickOffice and other offerings. If Office usage on the tablet
bites into its usage on the PC, this will cause a loss for Microsoft.
However, it seems that the PC will remain the main productivity device for a while, since it is hard to do work without a
keyboard or on a small screen. Will Google be able to gain market share on the PC? At first glance this seems very difficult.
Microsoft's current dominance means people are both used to the program and will need to deal with the Microsoft file
formats. In addition, Microsoft has spent many years developing their Office software, so it will be difficult to be able to
match the number of features they provide. Will Google be able to offer capabilities that will get people to switch?
On one hand, the amount of features in the Office suite is not so important to most people. They just need Word for basic
document editing, and they don't know about or need most of the complex features. Even a basic thing like styles is pretty
complex on Word and is not used by a large number of people. Excel is feature-packed for people who need it, but most
people just use it for managing tables and lists and doing very simple calculations. In fact, the reason Excel 5 was able to
successfully beat Lotus in the early '90s was because it handled lists well, while Lotus was too focused on complex modeling
(see this post by Joel Spolsky). If much of the complexity of the Office suite is not relevant to most people, than Google Docs
may be able to gain a large share by making the simple things a little better.
However, while most people use only a small subset of features of Word or Excel, each person may have a different feature
that they use. This post on a Microsoft blog mentions the wide range of features that people use in Office. This means that if
people switch to a simpler solution, they may have to give up use of a certain "pet feature" of theirs. The only way they would
do this is if Google offered certain fundamental features that made it worthwhile for people to switch.
It seems that Google might be able to do this in a couple of ways. One way is by providing a faster and simpler interface for
people to use. People might prefer a simpler app with less features to the vast complexity of Office. It is already quicker to
begin editing a document in Google Docs than in Office Web Apps, and Google is very good at keeping things fast. Another
area is online collaboration. While Microsoft caught up in allowing simultaneous collaboration, Google Docs still remains
very simple to use and one can see simple colored cursors where collaborators are editing things.
Another area is version control. People might want to be able to go back and restore previous versions of a document, but
Microsoft does not provide a simple way for a regular user to do this. In Google Docs, one can easily compare a document
with earlier versions and restore previous ones. If Google can expand the capabilities of their "version history" while still
keeping it easy-to-use, people might find it very useful. Currently, many people just save multiple version of their Word
documents, which is obviously not the best way to do things.
A potential advantage for Google is connected to their strength in search. Google recently connected their spellchecker to their
web service, which shows some of the capabilities of a smart search engine. Google Spreadsheets has a search that lets people
easily use scripts without having to code it themselves. Google may be able to launch a feature that lets people search to do
something and then let them actually perform it in one-click without having to read through complex instructions. Microsoft's
help search in Office isn't very good at determining what a user wants to do, but Google is very strong in this area. Imagine
being able to remove duplicates from a column just by searching "remove duplicates" on the side of a spreadsheet!
These are basic features which would be useful to a very large number of people, not just a specific niche. Google seems to
have an edge in these areas, so if they improve further to make them more powerful and easy-to-use, this may help them gain a
large share of the market. Just as Office was able to beat Lotus by improving basic features that everyone used instead of
focusing on complexity, Google may be able to do the same to Office. Or at least they will be able to gain a larger share of the
market.
This threat to the dominance of Office is a serious threat to Microsoft's profits. They face some immediate risks from the
growth of the tablet market and longer-term threats from the potential growth of Google. They will likely lose a significant
portion of the consumer market to Google Docs, since many people will be satisfied with Google's free offerings, and will not
see the need to pay for Office. In addition, many consumers already use Gmail, which integrates well with Google Docs. This
familiarity of regular users with Docs may then cause businesses to also begin using the Google business suite (Google
Apps). This growth will allow Google to diversify its sources of revenue, and could cause a large loss of revenue for
Microsoft. The potential threats to Office and Windows make Microsoft a risky stock to hold onto long-term.
Google And The Future Of Search
Google creates hundreds of different products and services, but it still relies on advertising for 96% of its revenue. The biggest
source of this revenue is from the ads that appear on Google's search results, but it has expanded this advertising platform to
earn revenue elsewhere.
Google earns revenue both from Google-owned sites, such as Gmail and YouTube, and from a large network of third-party
sites that place Google ads within their own pages. The majority and foundation of Google's revenue is based on their search
engine, so an investor in Google will need to evaluate whether Google will be able to maintain its current dominance into the
future and if it will be able to expand into new areas of search.
Google currently controls two-thirds of the US search market, with Bing and Yahoo (YHOO) claiming almost all the rest. In
mobile and foreign markets, Google's share is even higher. This dominance is due to Google's superior ranking algorithms, its
comprehensive and up-to-date search, and its ability to return relevant results.
However, Google's results are not always of the highest-quality. Websites spend a huge amount of effort trying to game the
Google algorithm to boost their rank in the results. These efforts are often successful, resulting in lower-quality sites gaining
the top spot in many searches. (See more examples here.)
Google relies on algorithms to provide its rankings, which may miss out on certain quality differences that a human could
quickly notice. Certain large websites are often able to dominate many searches on Google even if they do not always have the
best content or the page most relevant for the user.
For example, Wikipedia ranks at the top of a huge number of Google searches, but its page is not always the best quality, or
the searcher may be looking for something easier or more concise. These are all areas where a better search can be created, but
the question is who will improve first?
Google's only big search competitor is Bing, since it also powers Yahoo's search. Will Bing be able to offer improvements in
these and related areas in a way that can beat Google and steal market share? It seems unlikely it will be able to beat Google
head-on in making better incremental improvements.
Partially this is due to Google's head start, the fact that it spends more and focus more on search, and that it has more search
data. Bing improved the situation somewhat by partnering with Yahoo, but there's still a big gap. In addition, Google's pace of
improvements has been faster, and it has managed to build a very comprehensive search that analyzes a huge number of
sources.
However, new search innovations will be developed that may be very different from the current form of search. There is no
real way to know what company will make these new innovations. It may be Google or Bing and it may come from
somewhere totally new. Blekko is one start-up trying out new approaches to search and there are others. IBM may decide to
apply the technology behind Watson to general search. While Google may have the advantage now, this may change in the
future, and consumers will easily be able to switch to a different search engine.
An additional issue with Google is that it just provides a standard list of links for a search query. However, people do not
need many result, they need help finding the one website, product or information that is best suited for them. While Google
provides some instant information and some additional features for certain categories, for many searches it just provides the
same type of results as a decade ago. Technology improves and more advanced tools will be developed to help people hone in
on what they want.
This issue is particularly relevant to purchase-related searches. Google earns much of its revenue from people searching for
information about a product or service, especially within certain high-revenue categories, such as searches for insurance, loans
or lawyers.
Yet many of these commercial areas are weak points for Google, since they are so heavily gamed. These are the types of
searches where people could benefit from real a web service that really helps them choose the best deal for their needs, as
opposed to just looking through a list of links. If another company is able to build a successful service to answer this need, it
could harm Google's revenue, even if people continue to use Google for general searches.
There are many services that are trying to offer improvement in this area. For example, FindTheBest.com is able to extract and
display useful data which allow consumers to compare and sort thousands of different products and services. Hunch.com is
uses social data to help recommend products. There are general shopping searches like Nextag.com and Pricegrabber.com, and
more specific searches such as Kayak.com for airline searches or SimplyHired.com for jobs. There are also services that offer
to analyze a user's needs and find the best possible service to fit that, such as Billshrink.com for cell phone bills and credit
cards.
These sites can often help users find what they want in a better way than a general Google search. Google recognizes this, so
it has also expanded beyond regular search to compete in these areas. It took a big step in moving beyond keyword to actually
understand data with its recent launch of the knowledge graph.
While it is now used to find more relevant results, in the future it may be used to compare different services. Google has also
has begun using much more social data in its results, built off their Google+ platform. Google recently updated their shopping
search to just display paid listings, putting it in direct competition with Nextag and Pricegrabber. This will bring in more
revenue for Google, and also get rid of many low-quality sites in the results.
Google purchased ITA Software, the engine behind many flight searches, and now offers its own fast flight search. All these
steps by Google show that it is not just resting on good general search results, but it is also building into new areas of search.
These will help Google meet competitive challenges and expand into new revenue areas beyond standard search ads.
Google is taking on all these challenges head-on, so there's no reason to predict any decline soon. The long-term risks
however, still remain. The biggest risk may not be from one company beating Google overall in search, but from people
finding certain searches beat Google in certain categories. It is likely that Google will not always be able to provide the best
results in every category. This may even lead to a meta-search engine that provides the top results from whatever search
engine necessary.
The above-mentioned risks exist, but Google seems to be well prepared overall. Since Google has many new potential areas
for revenue growth, it can be considered a stock to buy, albeit a risky one long term.
The Patent Code and Patent Code
On Patents, Open-source code and Capitalism
How to Fix the Patent System
Why do patents exist? A person does not inherently own the rights to his ideas. The patent is an artificial construct to
encourage innovation in areas that otherwise would be under-developed. For example, certain companies invest millions of
dollars in R&D and only get a return on their investment if they own exclusive rights to their inventions for a certain period. In
this way, the patent system can encourage innovation.
However, in many areas, the current patent laws end up causing the exact opposite. Software patents are often given as the
prime example where patents end up stifling innovation. Frequently, patents are granted for ideas that are not really that
innovative. Often the patents are granted when similar ideas had been floating around before. In other cases, many people can
come up with the idea independently, but once company manages to patent it first and exclude others from using it. In fact,
even if a person is only later able to come up with he idea on his own, why should the initial patent prevent him from using the
idea? He was able to discover it without their help, what economic good is served by preventing him from using it? It would
be difficult to prove he didn't see the original patent, but the system should be adjusted so only extremely innovative patents
are granted.
Another issue with the patent system is the inefficiencies and costs involved. It costs many thousands of dollars to apply for a
patent, and then it can take the government years to process the patent. The whole system is slow and inefficient. Patents
should have a much higher bar to be granted, but they should also be a quicker, cheaper process.
Recently, some have begun trying out to crowd-sourcing some of the patent review process. Instead of just having inefficient
government clerks reviewing the patents, some have begun opening the process to the wider public. This way many people
can review the patents to see if they involve any "prior art". This is a good step, but the very definition of the patent needs to
change. Even if a patent does not involve prior art, who says the idea is so innovative that others couldn't have thought of it on
their own?
Instead of just checking the patents for prior art, I suggest a more radical move. If an idea truly deserves to be patented, then
no one else should be able to think of the same idea on their own. To apply for a patent, a person or company would have to
submit the problem they are trying to solve, and the general area of the solution they have in mind, which would all be posted
to a public site. Their actual solution would be posted privately to the patent site. If no one can suggest the same solution, than
the patent is truly innovative and will be granted. But if people can come up with the same solution on their own, then no
patent would be granted. Why should there be a patent, when others were able to figure out the same idea?
This would greatly reduce the number of patents that are actually granted, but it would fit with the way ideas are actually
discovered. In a recent paper, "The Myth of the Sole Inventor", Mark Lemley demonstrates that most inventions are invented
simultaneously by different groups of people working independently of each other. There is little reason why one group
should be granted exclusive rights to something that would have been invented anyways. In my proposed solution, they
would both be able to submit to one site, and instead of a patent being granted, the idea would become open to the public. The
companies would still be encouraged to submit their ideas, whether to get their patent, or to prevent their competitors from
patenting the idea.
By having the general public review the patents, people will suggest different ideas, and this will lead to even more innovation.
Of course, this will lead to large numbers of submissions, and new methods will be needed to categorize and process all the
patent data. In the current system, the patent-reviewers do not even have access to the Internet when reviewing patents. In the
new system, all patent applications will be well categorized and tagged and have clear semantic data that could be processed by
computers. This way, it will be much easier to find related patents, and perhaps even to discover what areas are ripe for new
ideas.
The entire patent process would be much quicker and cheaper. Instead of payinggovernment clerks to review the patents, the
process would be open to the public. People will compete with each other to suggest solutions to the problems or to find
related patents. They're could be some financial incentives, or there could be certain opportunities for suggested ideas to be
patented themselves. But people would likely partake in the process without even getting any money, as they do on sites like
Wikipedia and StackOverflow.com. However it is done, the whole process will be much faster and cheaper than the current
system.Many details of such a system would still need to be worked out. Perhaps it could then be tried out in a small area of
software patents. If such an idea succeeds, it could lead to greater innovation, a greater spread of ideas, reduced legal costs,
and a true stimulus for the economy.
Open-Source and Profit
The Possibilities and Motives of Free Software
Physical items cannot be produced for free, so they cannot (normally) be given away for free. The marginal cost of software
and digital content is zero, so this opens up the possibility of distributing units for free. There's still a lot of work to design the
software, so companies usually sell their software to users. However, there are a large number of very successful open-source
projects, where the software is given away for free and the code is open to everyone to view or modify.
Why would people work on code if they then give it away for free? People are motivated by many reasons besides money.
They want to help others, get recognition and learn by contributing. In addition, by working together with many other people,
they can all get greater benefit from the software than if they each re-created the same code.
Does this mean that people will all contribute "according to their ability" and profits aren't needed? Not quite. If you look at the
successful open-source projects, they often have strong connections with big profit-driven companies. In some cases
companies contribute to the software for charity and goodwill, but they usually work on the software for direct commercial
reasons. They either benefit from the software themselves or make money with it in a different way than standard closed-
source sales. These are some of the top open-source projects, which each have a different "capitalist connection":
Open-Source Projects
Operating Systems
Linux - The Linux operating system isn't popular among regular desktop users, but its used by most web servers in
the world, and Android is also based off of it. The Linux Foundation, led by Linus Torvalds, is a non-profit, but a
large number of corporations contribute to the Linux source code. The biggest contributor is Red Hat, which makes
money by providing Linux support and training, and by charging for its enterprise-version of Linux. In the early
2000's, Redhat realized it should focus on a commercial open-source version of its Linux software.
Android - Android was founded by Andy Rubin in 2003 as a open-source operating system initially for cameras and
then for smartphones. Rubin struggled to get phone manufacturers (OEMs) on board, and in 2005 Android was
purchased by Google. Google provided Android for free to the OEMs to prevent competitors (such as Apple and
Microsoft) from getting in the way between the user and Google's services. See more on Android below.
Web Platforms
Ruby on Rails - Ruby on Rails is a popular platform for developing websites, used by big startups like Scribd and
smaller ones (currently~) like Learneroo. It was created by David Hansson, of 37Signals, based on his work on
Bascecamp, a commercial project-management tool. Thousands of developers have contributed to Ruby on Rails and
created a strong open-source ecosystem around it. 37Signals did not try to directly monetize Ruby on Rails (though
other web platforms, such as Meteor, plan to offer enterprise versions of their own).
Wordpress - Wordpress is a popular platform for running blogs and content-websites. It started as a "fork" of another
blogging platform, and it now runs 19% of the sites on the internet. When demand for Wordpress grew, Matt
Mullenweg, the founding developer, realized he should create a commercial service for hosting Wordpress blogs, so
he created Wordpress.com. Wordpress.com develops their own services and continues to contribute to the open-
source Wordpress platform.
Applications
Open Office / Libre Office - StarOffice was purchased by Sun Microsystems as a "cheaper alternative" to buying
Microsoft Office for all their employees. They named it "Open Office" and open-sourced it to help get other
developers to contribute to the free office alternative. Later, Oracle bought Sun, so the OpenOffice was spit up, and
LibreOffice became the main branch. OpenOffice never managed to get near a majority of the Office software market,
since businesses preferred paying for the fully-polished commercial offering from Microsoft.
GIMP - GIMP is one of the most popular free image-editing tools. It started as a university project and later joined
the GNOME open-source project, where it continues to be developed. Few professionals use GIMP, and most use
Adobe Photoshop instead, an expensive but much more polished and feature-packed alternative.
Where Open-source Works
Platforms and operating systems that are used by a large number of people and companies often have very successful open-
source projects. This is especially true for software that is used by developers or runs on the server. Millions of developers
use Linux, which makes it easier to find thousands of developers to contribute to it's code. They don't worry as much about
visual interface and polish as as a commercial operating system like Mac or Windows. Big companies are willing to back such
open-source platforms, since they use them in their own products and services.
Specific applications, like a photo-editing program, are rarely able to out-compete the commercial versions of the same
software. There isn't enough developer demand for such software, and companies find it more cost-effective to pay companies
like Adobe than to try to develop their own alternative. A strong attempt was made with high-demand Office Software, but
even it couldn't gain a strong position in the market. For more specific professional programs, the open-source alternatives
rarely compare to the commercial versions:
Image editing - Photoshop vs. GIMP (as mentioned)
Mathematics - Mathematica vs. Sage
Movie Editing - Final Cut or Adobe Premier vs. Lightworks (new)
Open-source projects often beat commercial software in the platform / OS category and with the support of big companies.
There are also many projects for free applications, but they rarely match commercial software in quality. Anyone can create
and contribute to software, and ultimately, the free market decides the winners.
Android - Sometimes being too Open is a problem
Betanews discussed the problems with Android being customized by Amazon and others:
betanews.com/2012/04/28/google-has-lost-control-of-android
It seems there are many problems with Android being so open-source, both for Google and the consumer. The fragmentation
issue is a frequent topic on the blogosphere - how Android is being fragmented into too many versions, both from
manufacturer customizations and older versions of Android. This makes it difficult for developers to create apps that will
work well on the various versions of Android. Manufacturers or cell phone companies are able to customize the OS is many
different ways, frequently making changes that can be annoying to both the user and Google. For example, Verizon once
made a deal with Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine on some phones. And companies such as Amazon can go
further and create an entire competing ecosystem. In addition, it seems it makes it easier to sue over Android, since one can
point to specific lines of code that infringe copyright or trademarks.
All these issues raise the question - why did Google keep all of Android open-source? It's not like they're relying much on
other programmers to contribute to the code. While Android was based off Linux and started as an open-source project,
couldn't Google have kept some of the code closed or at least placed certain restrictions on it? I asked this question a while ago
on Quora, but I'm not sure if the answers completely resolve the issue. The purpose was to get more people to use Android,
and thereby get them to use more Google services, such as search. That makes sense for why they would invest in Android
and give it away for free, but why didn't they place more restrictions on modifying the source code? Verizon and the phone
manufacturers were desperate for something that could compete with the iPhone, so I doubt they would have fought an
Android that had a couple of restrictions.
Update: It seems Google has realized this, so they started moving certain features to the closed-source Google Play services.
This makes sense, since Google will then have more control to prevent Android fragmentation and encourage the use of
Google's services.
Short Pieces
Tech Quotes
If at first you don't succeed, just press ctrl-Z.
The blog is mightier than the bomb.
All red lights turn green.
Link Poetry
Although I normally favor prose, here's an experiment with a new type of poetry:
must people still know
the knowledge to understand
be able to search
To Err is Human
Problem: In the last few years, many congressmen have gotten in various affairs and scandals and been forced to resign. It
seems its too difficult for these powerful people to avoid getting into trouble. Yet people still want to vote for the platform the
representatives ran on.
Solution: Instead of having human representatives, people should be able to vote for algorithmic representatives. Computers
cant sin, so there wont be any scandals. The computers will have set principles that they will vote by, and will be able to
follow their campaign pledge better than any human. Humans are also too slow, and can never pass a law in time for it to
work (e.g the Stimulus). An algorithm will just kick in some predetermined measures at a certain time, which will be much
more effective :)
Health Information and Transparency
While most businesses have made great use of computers and the internet, the health sector has lagged behind. This not only
makes them less efficient, but makes things less transparent for the patient, who does not have easy access to relevant
information. This makes the health sector less competitive and less accountable to the patient.
For example, when a dentist takes X-rays, the patient almost never receives a copy of them. He just has has to trust the dentist
that he really needs whatever treatment the dentist suggests. If the patient received a copy of the X-rays, he could gather other
opinions about the issue from people that don't have any financial stakes in the question. Just the fact that the patient could
access such information would make the dentist be more careful when deciding about an issue.
Buying Smartphones and Textbooks
How to Get a Smartphone Without Paying for an Expensive Data
Plan
The phone carriers have figured out many ways to lock people into monthly plans that they dont really need. The most basic
example of this is the requirement on all the large carriers to pay at least $30 / month for a data plan for the right to use a
smartphone on their network. This isnt connected with their subsidy of your phone since they wont even let you buy your
own smartphone on eBay and then use it without a data plan. They justify this by saying people will need to use up large
amounts of data anyways on their phone, so it is for the customers own good that theyre forced onto a data plan. Is there any
reason to think otherwise?
There are some possible reasons why someone might want a smartphone without a data plan. For one, a smartphone is a
powerful mini-computer, and people might want to have access to one, even without a constant Internet connection. One can
take notes and set reminders, take pictures, and read books, listen to music and play games on a smartphone. Since the phone
can sync when in a WiFi area, one can see recent news articles, emails and driving directions even when outside of a wireless
area. In fact, since WiFi is so widespread, people often have little need for the data plan since the WiFi access is almost always
better. Is it really necessary to have a constant internet connection even during the short amount of time one is away from
WiFi? I think there are many people who would be willing to slightly disconnect for short moments during a day, even if it
means the phone carriers would be earning $30 less a month. But are there any ways to avoid these fees and still get a
smartphone when the carriers are in control?
There are a few possibilities. One option would be to forgo having only one pocket device and get a dumb phone for phone
calls and a separate mini-computing device for everything else. This other device could be an iPod touch, a Galaxy player or
a used smartphone. (See this post for an older possibility). If one doesnt need the very latest technology, there many cheap
used smartphones available on eBay. However, it becomes somewhat annoying to have to always juggle two devices. Theres
fair amount of overlap between them, so it just seems very inefficient to have to carry two of them. If one is on a GSM plan
such as AT&T and T-Mobile, one can buy an unlocked smartphone separate from the carrier and try to use it on the regular
plan simply by putting in the SIM card from the dumb phone. However, this may go against the terms of the carrier. In
addition, if AT&T can detect it is being used in a smartphone, it will automatically add a data plan to the persons account.
Currently one can avoid detection by making sure the smartphone wasnt made for AT&T, but even that option might not last
forever.
The final possibility is to get a prepaid plan. If you dont need that many voice minutes, this can be much cheaper than
standard monthly plans. The big four carriers all offer some form of prepaid plans, but to get bigger savings you will need to
look elsewhere. Some of the biggest prepaid providers are TracFone, MetroPCS and Cricket Wireless. The most important
factor is that the provider has good cellular coverage in your area, so make sure to check their coverage map. The next thing to
check will be the cost of the plan, of using limited data, and whether they charge more for smartphone usage. If you are on a
GSM carrier, you will often be able to put the SIM card in any smartphone that you buy. If you are on a CMDA carrier (like
Sprint and Verizon), you will need to buy a phone that is compatible with them and activate it with them. Depending on your
needs, you may want to try some very cheap prepaid options. For example, PagePlus, which runs on the Verizon network
(and is owned by them), offers a $12 /month plan. Another super-cheap option is PlatinumTel, which runs on the Sprint
network.
To save on your paid usage, you could use free or cheap services for calls and texts when in a WiFi area. For example,
Google Voice provides free texting from within WiFi and there are many different VOIP providers you could try. By picking
a good prepaid provider, you should be able to save a significant amount every month on cell phone bills.
Some specifics
Verizon Network Page Plus Cellular
T-Mobile and Sprint do not have the best coverage where I live, so I ended up using Page Plus. Theyre the only prepaid
carrier that runs on the Verizon network and their coverage map seems to be the same as Verizons. This should mean that
they have the same voice quality as Verizons own prepaid plans, though that may not be the case in practice. The companys
website and operations leave a lot to be desired, but once you get everything setup, they seem to work fine. The big advantage
of PagePlus is that you can buy almost any Verizon phone (or even some other CMDA phones) and then activate it on
PagePlus. The other advantage is their cheap plans. If you dont use the phone service that often, you can pay as little as $12
/month for service and get 250 minutes and texts. If you need more minutes, you can get their $30 plan, which comes with
1200 Minutes, 3000 Text/Picture Messages and 100 MB Data.
Sprint Network Virgin Mobile
Many prepaid carriers run on the Sprint network, and some are also owned by Sprint. I mentioned Platinum Tel as a very
cheap option, but I do not know their smartphone policy. A Smartphone-friendly alternative is Virgin Mobile, which offers a
number of possible smartphones (including the $550 iPhone 4S). You can also buy a phone on eBay, though it has to be a
Virgin Mobile phone. Look for a bargain, but make sure to get a good phone. I made the mistake of getting a Samsung
Intercept and it ran slowly and had a poor battery life. Also, make sure to get a phone with a good ESN. A phone with a bad
ESN usually means the phone was stolen, and it wont be able to be activated with Virgin Mobile.
T-Mobile Prepaid
Of the four carriers, T-Mobile is the easiest to use a smartphone with. For one, theyre a GSM network, so you can put their
SIM card from a regular plan into a GSM smartphone and it should usually work OK. In addition, they offer some cheap
prepaid plans and let you use a smartpone with them. If you live in an area where they have good coverage, they are definitely
worth considering.
Update: T-mobile has switched to pre-paid only, and offers prepaid family plans too. This can be a great deal if you live in a
good T-mobile area.
New - FreedomPop
FreedomPop has been generating a lot of buzz recently with their free and very-cheap tiers. They run on the Sprint network,
so they're definetly worth trying out!
Ways to Save
Once you get your phone and carrier, you will want to find ways to save on usage when in a wifi area. I mentioned Google
Voice to send and receive text messages, and you can use many other choices or even your email. It is more difficult to find a
free Voip provider. There are many free services that let you speak to other people with the same app, but very few for calling
other phones. Some services (such as Groove IP Light) allow free calls via Google Voice, but they are not the best quality.
Recently Vonage announced they would be allowing free calls for a while, so theres a free option for now. It may also be
worthwhile to pay a small amount for a Voip service.
Guide to Buying and Selling Textbooks
Buying Textbooks
Textbook prices are ridiculously high. This is a case of capitalism not functioning correctly, a common issue in academia.
Normally, if a merchant charges prices which are too high, people will buy from the competition instead. On the other hand,
textbooks are chosen by a professor who gets the book for free, while the student is forced to buy whatever is assigned.
However, if you buy books intelligently, it can end up not being too expensive. There are many options for buying books
besides going straight to a bookstore (if they still exist) or even Amazon:
Another Student
If you can buy from students at your college, thats probably the best option. You get the book right away without any
shipping costs, and you can sometimes get free notes and tips too. I once had a classifieds site to help facilitate such
exchanges.
Buy it Used Online
You should almost never rent a book, since they cost almost as much as used books, and then you wont be able to resell it at
the end. Dont just go straight to Amazon.com to buy a book either. To get the best price, use a price comparison search. The
best ones are probably CampusBooks.com and DirectTextbooks.com. I also put up a book search at NYtextbooks.com. You
just enter the ISBN or title of the book you want, and the search engine finds the best price available on the internet. (Whatever
site you use receives a small commission from the bookstore for your purchase.)
International Edition Books
The book publishers charge American students a much higher price than what they charge the international students. American
companies like charging Americans more for things like drugs, textbooks and luxury goods. The rest of the world simply isnt
as willing to overpay. However, American students can buy international editions of textbooks online on sites like
TextbooksRus.com or the slightly more reliable AbeBooks.com. They are much cheaper than the regular edition, and although
not authorized for sale in the USA, there doesnt seem to be anything illegal about buying them. [i] Lately, however, the
publishers have tried to make the international editions different than the US editions. [ii] The text itself is usually pretty much
the same, but if you are assigned homework from the book, it can become an issue. In theory, you can photocopy the
questions from another students textbook, or even download a copy online, but that obviously runs into legal issues. If you
decide to go international, you will need to remember to order the textbook well in advance, since they normally ship from
places like Singapore or China. International editions are harder to re-sell, since it goes against Amazons and Half.coms
terms. However, you can sell them to another student or on TextbooksRus.com.
eBooks
These are normally not worth the cost. Companies that sell eBooks often charge more than the cost of a used textbook, but
only let you use it for 180 days. Eventually, they may add more interactive features to these eBooks so that they become a
better option than lugging around dried trees. In fact, maybe eBooks will replace schools altogether but well stick to the
present for now.
Selling Textbooks
Besides buying textbooks for next semester, you need to figure out what to do with your old ones. In most cases, you
probably wont look at the textbooks very much in the future, so you should sell them quickly before they depreciate in value.
The textbook publishers try to come out with new editions every few years to keep sales high. The new editions normally
have a couple of minor improvements [iii] and different or re-ordered questions. Once the new edition comes out, the prices
of the old ones drop dramatically so dont delay selling your books. These are the places you can sell your textbooks:
Another Student
Again, this is the simplest option if you can do it. You avoid paying fees to any site, and you dont need to bother shipping the
book anywhere. You can post an ad on college classifieds site, or put up a sign in the classroom that will have the same course
that you took. Then you meet the buyer, exchange the book for cash, and there are no fees involved.
Amazon or Half.com
If you cannot find another student, this is normally the second-most profitable option. You enter the ISBN and condition of
your book and it gets listed on the site. Amazon is the most popular site for buying books, so it is probably your best bet.
However, Half.com has slightly lower fees, so it might be worthwhile to sell popular books on it. Both sites charge 15% of
the purchase price, but they also have additional fees. [iv]
After the book sells, you need to ship it to the buyer within a couple days. Normally, the cheapest way to do this is with media
mail. Both Half and Amazon let you buy shipping labels through their site, which is the most convenient option. A single
book normally costs between $2.41 and $3.64 to ship, depending on its weight. You then print out a shipping label, stick it on
a padded envelope, and mail the book away. If you sell a book for $30 online, you should end up with about $23 from
Amazon, and $25 from Half.com, after shipping and envelope costs. [v]
Buyback Sites
Another option is to sell your book to a buyback site. This is rarely worthwhile, since they normally pay significantly less than
if you sell it directly to a purchaser, and you need to ship it somewhere. There are occasions where they pay a decent amount,
so it is always worthwhile to check. As with buying books, you can compare buyback prices with a price comparison search,
such as on DirectTextbooks.com, or NYtextbooks.com. Amazon Buyback occasionally offers a decent amount of Amazon
credit for a book, so that can be a good option if you will anyways be buying from Amazon in the future. In general, the
buyback sites will only pay off you if the book is in very good condition.
Campus Buyback
This is the most convenient option, if it is offered on your campus. Be careful not to get ripped off though. You want to make
sure you are getting at least half of the books minimum listed price Amazon. The exceptions are international edition books,
books in poor condition, or books with a low sales rank, since those may not sell at all.
At the end of the day (or semester), textbooks dont have to be so expensive. You can buy them used for cheap and then sell
them before the next semester for a little less.
The internet has connected textbook buyers and sellers and has helped lower costs for students. Perhaps in the near future, it
will help lower costs for all of education.
[i] See http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/135/ where the Supreme Court said one can import shampoo sold cheaply
internationally. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court was split about importing watches, possibly because they were
manufactured overseas:http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/12/13/supreme-court-rules-against-consumers-in-costco-vs-omega/
Consult your local lawyer for more information.
[ii] Rumor has it theyll soon be doing the same thing for drugs sold to Canada.
[iii] Many subjects do not really change in a few years, so the publishers just introduce random changes to make students get
the newer edition. However, if a professor and class agreed to just use the old book, it would save students a significant
amount of money.
[iv]These are the actual fees for each site: Both sites charge 15% of the purchase, but Amazon also charges an additional flat-
rate of $2.30 for every book sold through their site. Meanwhile Half secretly takes part of the shipping commission, so you
only get $2.64 or $3.07 as a shipping credit, depending on whether its soft or hard-cover. However, Half does lower the
overall fee slightly for books over $50.
[v] Estimate given for a 2-pound hardcover book and a $1.33 envelope.