[pbreit]

I don't understand this point of view. I question the assumption that iPads are primarily devices of the wealthy. We're talking about $500 for a lifetime of learning, not thousands of dollars. And the portability and durability of iPads makes them easily rentable and transferable.

[kamaal]

We must leave the obsession with the iPad aside for a moment. The whole idea is to deliver educational content through a hand held device. The thing here is there are many parameters attached to it. First is the device, then the content delivery itself has a cost(Internet subscription et al) then the maintenance of devices etc. So the cost of the device is not the only thing. There are many incremental costs.

Most of this is definitely out of the reach of the people who actually need it. $500 is a lot of money for people in my country. Most may be earning only 1/5th of that in the whole month. Average salary of a teacher in India a around $150 a month. Which is around $5 a day average.

How do you expect mass technology adaption with these sort of expenses?

[pbreit]

So what do you suggest? The person I responded to was specifically concerned about the iPad, I presume vs other devices that might also be able to deliver the Khan Academy content. Are we now to criticize anything not affordable to $150/month wage earners?

[petercooper]

First is the device, then the content delivery itself has a cost(Internet subscription et al)

Yeah, the connectivity is the biggy. Especially with video. Even in "first world" countries there are many places with poor/expensive connectivity that's frequently not suited for regular video use. In Africa, it's basically the norm. Imagine - a teacher costing less than the bandwidth to download some videos.. ;-)