domingo, 24 de marzo de 2013

Imprisoned by Innovation


  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
PRISONS — those bastions of routine and tradition — are finally ripe for disruption. Such is the rosy conclusion of “Beyond the Bars,” a provocative report from management consultants at Deloitte published earlier this month.
Evgeny Morozov

Readers’ Comments

“Imagine a virtual incarceration system,” the report’s authors write, “that uses advanced risk modeling, geospatial analytics, smartphone technology and principles from the study of human behavior to achieve superior outcomes.”
Such gizmos are meant to reduce overcrowding and help manage the spiraling costs of incarceration by allowing offenders to serve their sentences at home. Thanks to the almighty smartphone, offenders can be under the constant gaze of case managers, who will monitor their activities in real time. Welcome to the Panopticon for couch potatoes.
Deloitte’s proposal also taps a favorite Silicon Valley trick — a tactic known as “gamification” — to award the participating offenders with points for not being late for their appointments or never leaving their assigned zone. “A sufficient number of points,” the authors say, “would earn the offender tangible benefits such as additional freedom or extended curfews.”
That smartphones allow us to imprison twice the number of people at half the cost is the kind of cutting-edge innovation that only management consultants and tech entrepreneurs would be excited about. Such breakthroughs would be worth celebrating if they didn’t distract us from the more radical (and simpler) solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons: incarcerating fewer people.
Smart technologies are not just disruptive; they can also preserve the status quo. Revolutionary in theory, they are often reactionary in practice.
Take the recent obsession with self-tracking. From what we eat to how much energy we consume: everything is trackable, not least because our gadgets come equipped with clever sensors. Right now, most of such self-tracking efforts come from the grass-roots enthusiasts. But it won’t take long for governments to start exploring self-tracking as a solution to problems that could, and probably should, be tackled differently.
Are you not eating enough vegetables? Well, your smartphone will tell you so — never mind that there are none for sale in your neighborhood, and you can’t afford to buy them anyway.
By offloading the responsibility for problem solving from governments to citizens, self-tracking can get us to optimize our behavior within the constraints of an existing system. What we need is a chance to reform the system itself — perhaps by dismantling those constraints. Ambitious reforms like regulating the food industry and building the infrastructure needed to get good food to hungry people shouldn’t lose their relevance in the era of universal self-tracking.
That we now have the means to make the most miserable experiences more tolerable should not be an excuse not to reduce the misery of those experiences.
Take Chromaroma, a game that uses London’s smart public transportation card to make commutes more fun by awarding points for “checking in” at stations. According to The Guardian, the game is “the makeover London commuting has been waiting for.” But is it, really? As the writer Steven Poole put it, “Actually, the makeover London commuting has been waiting for is a more reliable service, with Tube lines that don’t close every weekend and trains that can hold more than 17 people.”
Many trendy technologies can not only hinder needed reforms but actually also entrench social iniquities. Consider the current enthusiasm for Big Data, with its ability to yield powerful insights based on correlations alone. According to one recent tome on the subject, once we fully embrace Big Data, “society will need to shed some of its obsession for causality in exchange for simple correlations: not knowing why but only what.”
But a problem tackled through correlations alone lends itself to a very different set of solutions than a problem mapped out in all its causal complexity.
It may help to know that most crimes in a given neighborhood are committed by people who share certain “likes” on Facebook. But to stop there and become suspicious of everyone else who shares the same “likes” would be irresponsible, especially when those “likes” are themselves just proxies for class, race or gender. If criminal behavior does stem from economic inequality or racial discrimination, we need to fix those root causes, not just prevent the damage likely to be caused by people who fit a profile.
Smart technology, thanks to its ubiquity and affordability, offers us the cheapest — and trendiest — fix. But the gleaming aura of disruption-talk that often accompanies such fixes masks their underlying conservatism. Technological innovation does not guarantee political innovation; at times, it might even impede it. The task ahead is to prevent our imagination from being incarcerated by smart technologies. Or should we settle for gamifying ourselves to death?
Evgeny Morozov, author of “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism,” is a guest columnist.

Share/Bookmark

sábado, 23 de marzo de 2013

Digitally Aided Education, Using the Students’ Own Electronic Gear


Todd Anderson for The New York Times
Middle-school students using their own electronic devices during a science class at New Smyrna Beach Middle School in New Smyrna Beach, Fla.
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Educators and policy makers continue to debate whether computers are a good teaching tool. But a growing number of schools are adopting a new, even more controversial approach: asking students to bring their own smartphones, tablets, laptops and even their video game players to class.
Bits

More Tech Coverage

News from the technology industry, including start-ups, the Internet, enterprise and gadgets.
On Twitter: @nytimesbits.
Todd Anderson for The New York Times
Meagan Strickland, 13, uses her iPhone 4S and a school-owned iPad 2 in a history class at New Smyrna Beach Middle School.
Todd Anderson for The New York Times
Students at New Smyrna Beach Middle School in Florida are sometimes told to “B.Y.O.T.,” or “bring your own technology.”
Officials at the schools say the students’ own devices are the simplest way to use a new generation of learning apps that can, for example, teach them math, test them with quizzes and enable them to share and comment on each other’s essays.
Advocates of this new trend, called B.Y.O.T. for bring your own technology, say there is another advantage: it saves money for schools short of cash.
Some large school districts in Central Florida and near Houston and Atlanta have already signed on, and they are fielding calls and providing tours to administrators from hundreds of other districts that are considering whether to follow their lead.
But B.Y.O.T. has many skeptics, even among people who otherwise see benefits of using more technology in classrooms.
“The schools are hoping, hoping there’s going to be a for-free solution because they don’t have any money,” said Elliot Soloway, a computer science professor at the University of Michigan who consults with many school districts about the use of computers to promote learning.
“If you look at initiatives in public education, this has the momentum.”
But Mr. Soloway also said he was “frightened” by the notion of schools using B.Y.O.T. as a quick budget fix because there was no evidence that a classroom full of students using different personal devices would enhance learning. Roy Pea, a professor of learning sciences at Stanford University, also has doubts. He is the co-author of a White House-backed National Educational Technology Plan published in 2011 that advocates for technology-centric classrooms.
But he said the B.Y.O.T. approach could be counterproductive if teachers were forced to build lessons around different devices — in effect, subverting curriculum to technology.
“Why are they so happy to have these devices when just a few years ago they didn’t want them in the classroom?” Dr. Pea asked about school administrators.
The Volusia County School District in Central Florida, bordering Daytona Beach, is one of the places that used to have signs around its schools that admonished students: no cellphones allowed. But the signs have been replaced over the last two years with new ones that read: B.Y.O.T.
Volusia school officials say that they realized they should take advantage of, rather than fight, students’ deep connections with their devices. At the same time, the district found that the cost of providing and maintaining computers for students was becoming prohibitive.
Since the change, Volusia officials say, they have not encountered many tech support problems or complaints from teachers. Rather, students are more engaged, they say, and the only problem that regularly crops up is that students forget to charge the batteries in their devices.
“It’s almost like bringing your homework,” said Jessica Levene, manager of learning technologies for the Volusia district, where 21 of 70 schools are using B.Y.O.T. “Make sure you have your device and that it’s charged.”
She conceded that students could text each other more easily now but said the school was keeping them busy on their devices. And while district administrators worried initially that poorer students would not own devices, they discovered something of “an inverse relationship” between family income and the sophistication of their devices, particularly smartphones, said Don Boulware, the district’s director of technology services.
At Woodward Avenue Elementary School in the Volusia district, fifth-grade teacher Dana Zacharko said her students tended to bring in smartphones or iPod Touches. She said she had found apps that allowed her to teach all kinds of subjects.
For instance, a recent assignment entailed learning about fractions by using an app called “Factor Samurai.” A number appears on the screen, and the student is supposed to cut it with a finger — as if slicing with a Samurai sword — so that it gets cut into smaller values. But students lose points if they try to slice through prime numbers.
Ms. Zacharko will also start class discussion on a reading assignment by asking students to use their devices to write comments in an online forum. “Their typing is amazing on these devices,” she said.
The fact that students in the same classroom can use many different devices is not a handicap because they are all using the same lessons on the Internet, said Lenny Schad, former chief information officer in the Katy Independent School District near Houston, which started a program with a different moniker: B.Y.O.D., for Bring Your Own Device.
“The Internet is the great equalizer,” Mr. Schad said.
He added that students’ devices were not meant to be a substitute for teachers, but could be used as tools for assignments. He noted that the concept was catching on; he said he had given dozens of presentations to other districts and educators about his district’s initiative.
“My message: It shouldn’t be ‘if’ we do it, it should be ‘when’ we do it,’ ” said Mr. Schad, who this year moved to the nearby Houston Independent School District, where he plans to employ a similar strategy. “I don’t know how districts can’t look at this model.”
He said that policy makers who opposed B.Y.O.T. were holding on to an unrealistic notion that districts should equip students with computers themselves.
“On a smartphone, there are no limitations,” Mr. Schad said. “This is the world they live in and we’re bringing it into the classroom.”
Another district that has adopted B.Y.O.T. is Forsyth County in Cumming, Ga., near Atlanta. Because its B.Y.O.T. program started in 2008, more than 300 people have visited in the last year from other districts around the country to learn from the district’s experience. The Forsyth district has a tour planned this spring with 160 spots for visiting educators from around the country that is fully booked.
In Forsyth, the most common devices are iPhones, iPod Touches, Android phones and tablets. They are effective for students answering multiple-choice questions on math Web sites or taking a quiz, said Anne Kohler, a special-education teacher at South Forsyth High School. She says that policy makers and others who oppose the idea of using devices in classrooms are behind the curve.
“They don’t understand how kids acquire knowledge,” she said. “They’re not the people actually doing it.”

Share/Bookmark

lunes, 18 de marzo de 2013

Bringing a Virtual Brain to Life - NYTimes.com

Bringing a Virtual Brain to Life - NYTimes.com:

For months, Henry Markram and his team had been feeding data into a supercomputer, four vending-machine-size black boxes whirring quietly in the basement of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne.

'via Blog this'
Share/Bookmark

miércoles, 6 de marzo de 2013

The Professor's Big Stage


  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
I just spent the last two days at a great conference convened by M.I.T. and Harvard on “Online Learning and the Future of Residential Education” — a k a “How can colleges charge $50,000 a year if my kid can learn it all free from massive open online courses?”
Josh Haner/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

You may think this MOOCs revolution is hyped, but my driver in Boston disagrees. You see, I was picked up at Logan Airport by my old friend Michael Sandel, who teaches the famous Socratic, 1,000-student “Justice” course at Harvard, which is launching March 12 as the first humanities offering on the M.I.T.-Harvard edX online learning platform. When he met me at the airport I saw he was wearing some very colorful sneakers.
“Where did you get those?” I asked. Well, Sandel explained, he had recently been in South Korea, where his Justice course has been translated into Korean and shown on national television. It has made him such a popular figure there that the Koreans asked him to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at a professional baseball game — and gave him the colored shoes to boot! Yes, a Harvard philosopher was asked to throw out the first pitch in Korea because so many fans enjoy the way he helps them think through big moral dilemmas.
Sandel had just lectured in Seoul in an outdoor amphitheater to 14,000 people, with audience participation. His online Justice lectures, with Chinese subtitles, have already had more than 20 million views on Chinese Web sites, which prompted The China Daily to note that “Sandel has the kind of popularity in China usually reserved for Hollywood movie stars and N.B.A. players.”
O.K., not every professor will develop a global following, but the MOOCs revolution, which will go through many growing pains, is here and is real. These were my key take-aways from the conference:
¶Institutions of higher learning must move, as the historian Walter Russell Mead puts it, from a model of “time served” to a model of “stuff learned.” Because increasingly the world does not care what you know. Everything is on Google. The world only cares, and will only pay for, what you can do with what you know. And therefore it will not pay for a C+ in chemistry, just because your state college considers that a passing grade and was willing to give you a diploma that says so. We’re moving to a more competency-based world where there will be less interest in how you acquired the competency — in an online course, at a four-year-college or in a company-administered class — and more demand to prove that you mastered the competency.
¶Therefore, we have to get beyond the current system of information and delivery — the professorial “sage on the stage” and students taking notes, followed by a superficial assessment, to one in which students are asked and empowered to master more basic material online at their own pace, and the classroom becomes a place where the application of that knowledge can be honed through lab experiments and discussions with the professor. There seemed to be a strong consensus that this “blended model” combining online lectures with a teacher-led classroom experience was the ideal. Last fall, San Jose State used the online lectures and interactive exercises of M.I.T.’s introductory online Circuits and Electronics course. Students would watch the M.I.T. lectures and do the exercises at home, and then come to class, where the first 15 minutes were reserved for questions and answers with the San Jose State professor, and the last 45 were devoted to problem solving and discussion. Preliminary numbers indicate that those passing the class went from nearly 60 percent to about 90 percent. And since this course was the first step to a degree in science and technology, it meant that many more students potentially moved on toward a degree and career in that field.
¶We demand that plumbers and kindergarten teachers be certified to do what they do, but there is no requirement that college professors know how to teach. No more. The world of MOOCs is creating a competition that will force every professor to improve his or her pedagogy or face an online competitor.
¶Bottom line: There is still huge value in the residential college experience and the teacher-student and student-student interactions it facilitates. But to thrive, universities will have to nurture even more of those unique experiences while blending in technology to improve education outcomes in measurable ways at lower costs. We still need more research on what works, but standing still is not an option.
Clayton Christensen, the Harvard Business School professor and expert on disruptive innovation, gave a compelling talk about how much today’s traditional university has in common with General Motors of the 1960s, just before Toyota used a technology breakthrough to come from nowhere and topple G.M. Christensen noted that Harvard Business School doesn’t teach entry-level accounting anymore, because there is a professor out at Brigham Young University whose online accounting course “is just so good” that Harvard students use that instead. When outstanding becomes so easily available, average is over.

Share/Bookmark

domingo, 30 de diciembre de 2012

An Idea Promised the Sky, but India Is Still Waiting




Christinne Muschi for The New York Times
A prototype tablet is assembled at a DataWind site in Montreal. The company’s plan to invigorate India’s electronics manufacturing by producing low-cost tablets for students has gone awry.


  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

NEW DELHI — The idea was, and still is, captivating: in 2011, the Indian government and two Indian-born tech entrepreneursunveiled a $50 tablet computer, to be built in India with Google’s free Android software. The government would buy the computers by the millions and give them to its schoolchildren.
Christinne Muschi for The New York Times
DataWind planned to make Aakash-2 tablets not at its own site, but in India.
Christinne Muschi for The New York Times
A prototype tablet is assembled at a DataWind site in Montreal.
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times
The idea was praised by the Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, left, with India’s United Nations representative, Hardeep Singh Puri, center, and DataWind’s chief, Suneet Singh Tuli. But most of the tablets have been made in China.
Enthusiasts saw the plan as a way to bring modern touch-screen computing to some of the world’s poorest people while seeding a technology manufacturing industry in India. Legions of customers placed advance orders for a commercial version of the tablet, thrilled at the prospect of owning tangible proof that India was a leader in “frugal innovation.”
Even the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, lavished praise on the audacious project, called Aakash, the Hindi word for sky. “India is a superpower on the information superhighway,” Mr. Ki-moon said at a ceremony in November at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
Stoking expectations was Suneet Singh Tuli, the charismatic C.E.O. of the small London-based company that won the bid. “I am creating a product at a lower price than anyone else in the world with the hope that it impacts people’s lives and I make money out of it,” he said in a recent interview.
But over the last few months, it has become increasingly evident that Mr. Tuli, 44, and his older brother, Raja Singh Tuli, 46, are unable to deliver on most of their ambitious promises.
The Tulis acknowledge that their company, DataWind, will not even come close to shipping the 100,000 tablets it has promised to India’s colleges and universities before its year-end deadline. Most of the 10,000 or so tablets delivered through early December were made in China, despite the company’s early pledge to manufacture in India. Financial statements filed with British regulators show that the company is deeply in the red.
And the project’s entire premise — that India can make a cheap tablet computer that will somehow make up for failures of the country’s crippled education system — is fundamentally flawed, according to some experts in education and manufacturing.
Leigh L. Linden, an assistant professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin who has studied the use of technology in schools in India and other developing countries, said that, at best, computers merely match the performance gains from far less costly projects that involve hiring additional teachers or teaching assistants. And in some cases, Professor Linden said, the introduction of computers can actually lower students’ test results.
“Based on the available research,” he said, “this would not be the most effective strategy for education in developing countries.”
The notion that India’s weak manufacturing sector can catch up to China in advanced computer hardware also strikes some experts as far-fetched. “China became the manufacturing center of the world, and India missed that boat,” said Surjit S. Bhalla, an economist and managing director of Oxus Investments.
So far, the Indian government is standing firmly behind the project.
“All pathbreaking ideas do look too ambitious when conceived,” the Ministry of Human Resource Development, which oversees the Aakash project, said in an e-mailed statement. Aakash is “an all-encompassing project,” not just the creation of a tablet computer, the ministry said. With it, the government plans to create “an entire manufacturing ecosystem” in India.
Interviews with DataWind executives, government officials, Chinese manufacturers, business partners and former and current employees paint a picture of a small family company that was overwhelmed by a complex project that even China’s cutthroat technology manufacturers would find challenging to execute at the price expected by the government.
Leading a tour last month of the company’s small touch-screen factory in downtown Montreal, Raja Tuli, DataWind’s co-chairman and chief technology officer, said he had initially opposed his brother’s desire to bid on the Aakash contract, and he expressed lingering regrets.
“We got stuck in it,” he said. “We’re doing our best.”
DataWind’s real goal, Mr. Tuli said, is to sell low-cost wireless Internet access for tablets in developing countries like India. He said DataWind’s proprietary data compression technology, which made its debut in Britain years ago with a device called the PocketSurfer, efficiently delivers Web pages over older, slower cellphone networks.
“Our biggest contribution is our software,” Mr. Tuli said. “The fact that we’re making the actual hardware is a sideline that we got into in the process. We never meant to do it, but here we are.”
For India’s government, the Aakash project was supposed to usher in a computer revolution.
Although India pioneered the information technology outsourcing business, and still does much of the computing work for many big companies, only a small portion of the population has access to computers or the Internet.
Others had tried to bring cheap computing to developing countries like India — most notably the One Laptop Per Child project. Founded by Nicholas Negroponte of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and backed by a host of Western technology companies, that effort aimed to bring $100 laptops to children around the world but faltered amid a host of technical, manufacturing and competitive challenges.
“This is our answer to M.I.T.’s $100 computer,” said Kapil Sibal, the minister of communications and information technology, when he announced the Aakash project in 2010.
Suneet Tuli, whose family emigrated from India to Canada when he was a boy, certainly bought into that vision. Just as the huge drop in the price of mobile calling prompted a communications revolution in India, a cheap tablet could transform India’s classrooms and eventually all of the country’s poor, he said in an interview in October 2011.
In India, “there are one billion people left out,” he said, “and the way to include them is lower the price.”
But DataWind was in over its head from the start.
The government’s specifications were challenging, and none of India’s information technology giants, like HCL or Wipro, competed for the contract. DataWind made the lowest bid, promising to supply the tablets for 2,276 rupees, including delivery — about $50 at exchange rates at the time, and about $40 now.
In a recent interview, Suneet Tuli said DataWind figured that it could cut costs by improving on standard industry designs and by making touch screens itself, in Canada, at a lower price than it could buy them in China.
In a fateful decision, Mr. Tuli also promised to build the tablet in India, even though the country’s manufacturers had no real experience in building such hardware. While not required by the government, the pledge added to the patriotic fervor surrounding the project and generated publicity for DataWind’s plan to sell more expensive commercial tablets and $2-a-month wireless Internet service to the public.
Rather than build its own plants, DataWind sought out Indian partners, starting with Quad Electronic, from Andhra Pradesh, which had made cash registers, electronic typewriters and printers but never tablets.
Within months, though, the two had parted ways.
According to Suneet Tuli, the problems started when the university overseeing the project rejected the early tablets and demanded improvements. The relationship collapsed after DataWind discovered that Quad planned to produce a rival tablet, he said.
But Raminder Singh Soin, Quad’s managing director, said DataWind’s product “was not good enough.” “Many things were missing in the Aakash tablet,” he said in a phone interview this month, noting that its microprocessor could not support the tablet’s advertised features.
Mr. Soin said DataWind never paid for the tablets Quad did produce, or for the components Quad bought to build an additional 30,000 units. He estimates that the failed partnership cost him 150 million rupees, or about $3 million. Suneet Tuli said DataWind didn’t owe Quad any money.
Compounding DataWind’s problems, the company started taking orders for the commercial version of its tablet, the UbiSlate, just a week after unveiling the Aakash tablet. Within six weeks, it had 300,000 orders, Suneet Tuli said in an interview in early 2012. Last month, he said, orders for the UbiSlate tablets had reached about four million.
Yet DataWind still lacks the manufacturing, marketing and customer service capacity to handle even a substantial fraction of those orders. A result has been a wave of customer fury.
Edwin Richard Toppo, 25, a human resources professional in Delhi, placed an order in August for an UbiSlate. Weeks after he received the tablet, he said in a phone interview, its two USB ports stopped working. Then the slot for a SIM card went dead, and now the touch screen is unresponsive, he said.
“It’s like a dummy,” Mr. Toppo said, adding that several dozen calls to DataWind customer support went unanswered.
In a recent interview, Suneet Tuli acknowledged that the company has struggled. “Unfortunately, the scale of everything here has been beyond our imagination,” he said.
DataWind is trying to prioritize orders, he said, delivering about 2,500 tablets a day and offering refunds to people who don’t want to wait. Customers “will get a world-class product, I think, at a fraction of the price,” he added.
To help clear the huge backlog of orders, DataWind said it had signed up four new Indian partners to help make the tablets.
Still, the company won’t meet the Dec. 31 deadline to deliver 100,000 tablets to the Indian government. It recently received an extension until March 31, and Raja Tuli said he expects DataWind to fulfill the government contract by that time.
In an attempt to meet its commitments, the company moved production to China in the fall. At least three Chinese companies have been manufacturing an improved tablet, known as Aakash-2, for DataWind, and shipped thousands to India, according to interviews with Chinese manufacturers and documents reviewed by The New York Times.
Officials at the Chinese companies, who said they make as little as $1 in profit on each tablet, expressed doubts that India would ever be able to compete in electronics manufacturing.
“DataWind’s tablets can be made in Shenzhen, but not in India, because Shenzhen has a fully developed industry chain,” said a project manager with Kalong Technology, one of the companies, who spoke on the condition that his full name not be used, because he wanted to avoid media attention. “It’s just like, if you want to open a bakery, you need to know where to get the best flour both near you and at a good price.”
A recent visit to DataWind’s three-story Indian plant in the Amritsar neighborhood known as Ghee Mandi showed just how far the company has to go.
On the ground floor, rows of brown shipping boxes were piled atop one another, some printed with “Easydy,” the name of a Shenzhen tablet manufacturing company. Ibadat Singh, DataWind’s vice president for operations, said DataWind was not buying finished tablets from China, but just recycling boxes that happened to come from there. “Why use new boxes?” he said.
Two floors up, 16 men at a rectangular table were programming tablets and adding standard applications, Mr. Singh said. One man was working on an opened tablet with a big green screwdriver. Others were soldering wires or testing units. One man diligently wrapped tablets in Bubble Wrap and packed them into white boxes.
The factory makes about 1,000 units a day, Mr. Singh said. Each tablet takes five minutes to assemble and two to program. It’s so easy, he told a reporter, “even you can do it.”
During the November interview in Montreal, however, Raja Tuli described the difficulties of manufacturing in India, citing issues like prolonged border delays and poor infrastructure.
“Listen, it’s obviously easier in China just because the whole infrastructure is set up, capital is so much cheaper,” he said. “In India, it can be done but the process is longer.”
He declined to say whether DataWind would bid on future Aakash supply contracts from the government. But he said the company would not abandon its plans to build and sell inexpensive tablets in India.
“We’re not going to give up because of these little issues,” he said. “We’re committed to it. Always in life, it’s tougher than you think it was going to be.”
Pamposh Raina reported from New Delhi and Amritsar, India, Ian Austen from Montreal and Heather Timmons from New Delhi. Mia Li contributed reporting from Beijing.


Share/Bookmark