1 in 3 choose iPad over TV

1 in 3 choose iPad over TV, said the headline at the CNN website recently. I know headlines have to be short and grab people's attention, but should this be at the expense of being misleading? It implies that 1 in 3 of the general population chooses the iPad over TV, but it was actually a survey of tablet users and not the general public. What's more, it wasn't even a survey of iPad owners and it was a survey of tablet users. Given the huge market share of Apple's iPad compared to Android devices, the vast majority of tablet owners in the survey probably were iPad owners, but not all of them.

So the headline isn't quite right and something like "1 in 3 tablet owners prefer it to TV" would be more accurate.

It's interesting to look at tablet usage though and the original source is a Google Mobile Ads blog. There is a PDF containing lots of slides that is worth viewing. When looking at the tablet usage chart it says that 52% of people spend more time on their tablet each day than listening to the radio. Well I spend more time sitting on the toilet than listening to radio. I just don't listen to it, so what does that prove?

I wonder what the results would be if you surveyed console owners - Xbox and Playstation. I don't know, but I suspect that the results might be similar. Do gamers spend more time on their console than reading a paper book or listening to the radio? It wouldn't be surprising. What if the survey was of Amazon Kindle owners? Would it still say 59% prefer it to reading a paper book or that 52% prefer it to the radio, and so on?

Whenever something new comes along no matter how much time we spend using it, there is less time for something else. As tablet ownership grows we'll spend less time doing other things and that's because there are only 24 hours in the day. We have to cut down on something else to focus our attention on the tablet.

Read More

School gives every child an iPad

There is a school in the US that is giving every child an iPad according to a news report at CNN. It is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Apple gadget and opinions on the wisdom of this is divided. Is it a good idea for a schools to spend this amount of money on a gadget like the iPad, or should it be spent on books and other traditional educational materials? Of course, there are some great educational apps on the iPad, but you have to bear in mind that the money spent on iPads is not available for other things, such as books. Increasing the spend on technology means decreasing the spend on other things the school might need.

The iPad is costing $475 per child and this would buy quite a few good educational books. It is hard to get children to look after books, never mind an iPad, so you can expect several breakages each year. There will also be a small number of hardware failures because, like all electrical goods, they occasionally fail. They also have a limited lifetime and will need replacing in a few years too. This is a never-ending drain on a school's budget and replacements and repairs need to be factored in to the equation.

Of course, books can be damaged and eventually need replacing, but they are quite likely to outlast an iPad. Maintenance and replacement will be lower with books.

In a perfect world where money doesn't exist or is unlimited then buying every child an iPad would be a great idea, but schools are struggling with limited budgets. The cost of each iPad is not $475 because this is $475 that is not available for other things. I don't know how much money is allocated for the educational needs of each child, but even so, would you want the school to take $475 out of it for your child to buy them an iPad?

Schools have to spend wisely and get the most educational value out of their limited funds and you have to wonder whether this is a good idea.

Read More

Secure ways to chat in public

Security is always an important topic with the web and you should constantly be on the lookout for ways in which to keep yourself and your personal information private. One of the ways in which you can improve security on the web is by using an encrypted communication protocol like https instead of plain old http. You'll see it if you ever buy anything on a website or access a bank.

Now you can use https://www.facebook.com and https://www.twitter.com to ensure you have a secure and private communication between your PC and the site. I can see the point when accessing a bank or online store, but why encrypt a conversation that will be made public anyway? Everyone can see what you post on Facebook and Twitter, so why would you want to encrypt its transmission between your PC and the server, only then for it to be made public? Am I missing something here?

When you log in then maybe the password you enter is sent as plain text, but someone would have to be sniffing the network and capture the data for the nano-second it takes for the password to be sent. That would represent a slight security risk, so is this what it's for? It's certainly not needed after login.

Anyway, if you want a secure connection then use the http URLs above. You can also make this a permanent default setting to be used all the time. In Twitter click your name in the top right corner and select Settings. Down at the bottom of the Account tab is Always use https. Tick the box. In Facebook click Account, Account Security. On the Settings tab expand the Account Security section and tick Secure Browsing (https).

Read More