Can you cite an example of how this superiority that you think iOS has, actually be important? I have no idea if what you are claiming is true or false, because it is so vague.

Apple has certainly spent a lot of time on (and I will agree succeeded) in locking down their environment in such a way that Apple has almost total control over what can be deployed on their devices.

Google doesn't match this, but not because they were incapable of doing it. Google made a conscious choice to create a more open mobile computing platform. They give you the tools to lock it down. But ultimately it's the user's choice in configuring their software. You can use the default Google provides, or you can substitute it with your own. That's why amazon can have it's own android appstore.

You can run your own custom version of android if you want. There are many out there.

The choice of school/parents in being able to decide and change their minds for what goes on their own tablets I would think would be a good thing. Ceding this responsibility to Apple, is one approach that I feel is pretty irresponsible, even if it seems easier.

It's one thing to buy a $700 device and regret it because apple pulled your favorite app from it's store. It's another to have a whole school district be potentially held hostage by the whims of Apple.

Androids aren't "cheaper". Devices that run the Android operating system tend not to be as expensive on average compared with Apple products. Some are just as expensive.

And no, I probably wouldn't think the average android device would be a good option either. Lot's of those devices are locked down by their manufacturers just like Apple. But you don't have to get a crappy android device. You can get an unlocked (by the manufacturer) device that does not preclude any OS that does not preclude itself from running on the device. And you can even choose to lock it down in whatever way is deemed appropriate by the educators and parents.

By spending a relatively little bit of money (maybe a few million), you could probably have a custom OS (android or whatever) made that is specifically tailored around education (e.g. comes with the right apps and has the appropriate security policies, etc). By relatively little money I mean, as compared to paying the Apple brand premium of hundreds of dollars per locked down device.

It's not a chicken and the egg problem. It's a definition problem. If you define iOS as essential to education, then by defintion any device not running iOS will be inadequate.

I could define open source software as essential to education, but I would be required to justify such a claim.

If you haven't already, you should check out this small startup company called Google. They have actually invested quite a bit of money into tablet software, if that's what's important to you.

You can develop software for any platform whether it's iOS, android, windows, macOS, linux, etc. In fact people have developed software that makes it possible to develop software for all these platforms simultaneously.

I think Apple should do the honorable thing and give them the refund. Then we should execute all the school administrators involved for killing America's future.

Is any of it based on science? Would you even know how to tell?

Yeah and no one uses encryption anymore.... /s

WTF? What exactly can an ipad do that an android tablet can not?

Or he/she has an early pentium chip in his/her computer....... BOOOM!!! Intel slam!

Chromebooks are like the pic-n-save shoes of computing. "Yo momma is so poor that she enrolled you in a STEM school with mobile computers that have plastic cases instead of brushed aluminum cases with design patents", they'll say.

Does apple sell responsible parents? How much are they? Maybe we should try the 1/2 price android parents.

The problem is that they never really showed exactly how the ipads in Starfleet Academy were used either. I guess it was assumed that by the time the deal went through, the next upcoming Star Trek movie would have elaborated on how the exactly technology works.

Everyone knows that apple waits until the next ithing comes out to make you feel like a shithead for owning the old one.

It's all relative. Private schools are bad at decision making because people in general are bad at decision making. The only thing worse than a human making a decision, is when the human making the decision is not bound by the costs and benefits of his/her decision. Humans that only suffer the costs of a decision will fail to make good decisions that have reasonable costs. Humans that only receive the benefits of their decisions will not filter decisions with unreasonable costs.

Yes it's true that when people's own profit is on the line, they sometimes cheap out and end up worse off.

What is far more prevalent is people spending other people's money and not giving 2 shits about whether the money is being well spent, because it doesn't effect them.

They *did* test the iPad / content combo to establish usability / feasibility / usefulness prior to dropping *all* this cash. They tested it by dropping 18% of the cash and got the reality check that it was a dumb and a FBI investigation to provide further analysis for free (i.e. it used tax money that is not part of the school budget).

Who's running the test? My guess is that it won't be scientists. It will probably be the same people who are ultimately responsible for the fuckups that necessitated the test to begin with. And now with a new testing requirement there are more job openings to fill with some of their friends, and probably a pay raise to go with the increased responsibility.

As a general rule, LAUSD will do which ever option is worse. If you are unsure of which option is better, the safe bet is to just pick the opposite of what LAUSD decided to do.

Not only am I *not* saying that it's Microsoft's fault, the point I am trying to make is that this situation should not even be looked at from the point of view of fault.

The point of view "We figure out who's at fault, and that party should then compensate all parties that were damaged, and there will be an incentive to be responsible." breaks down as a viable strategy for this situation because Darkside can't cover the losses. Microsoft could try to demand that they be reimbursed for the $2M they invested. With their lawyers they could probably win (and spend $10M in the process).

Rather than assigning fault, I think a better strategy in this sort of asymmetric relationship is for the larger company to take on more responsibility in making sure the goals are feasible and on track to being completed. Not because they are obligated to in some moral sense, but simply because it is in their best interest to receive the product they are purchasing.

If it's a big company vs. big company, it starts to make *more* sense to solve disputes with fierce litigation and being cutthroat. Even if you can't recoup losses this way, harming your competitors can be beneficial. This is still bad for society, and we should probably set up the rules to incentivize the good kind of competition (the kind where effort is put into defeating your competitors through making superior products).

And what I am saying is that Microsoft being a big and experienced company might have been able to realize that it wasn't going to work out well.

What did microsoft gain by getting Darkside to agree to a new product and price that they couldn't deliver? I'm sure they were hoping to gain a wider profit margin, but instead it's just a big loss.

You keep saying that Darkside would have just wasted the whole $8M, but that's just speculation on your part. It seems like everything would have been fine if microsoft didn't change what they wanted (i.e. the original goal was within the capability of Darkside at the agreed budget).

And yes, darkside was excited and promised more than they could deliver to microsoft, but that didn't help microsoft, it just lead to no product being produced.

It's like a parent tricking a child into promising to clean the dog poop every day. It doesn't actually benefit the parent if the child is not responsible enough to actually do it. The parent just ends up doing it anyway.

If you really think Darkside was never going to make a finished game even at $8M, then you have a lower opinion of Microsoft than I do (i.e. how incredibly stupid they were to lose $2M with a 0% chance of return).