October 06, 2011
April 09, 2011
The Anna Hazare Revolution Is a Triumph of Democracy
Indian Express editor in chief Shekhar Gupta, Centre for Policy Research president Pratap Bhanu Mehta and others calling the people-led success of Anna Hazare, a subversion of democratic institutions need to shed their narrow definition of democracy.
Today is a landmark in the Indian history. For the first time since our independence, the people of our nation have been able to force the government to its knees through unpreceedented and spontaneous mobilisation of millions of people within a remarkably short span to replace a weak anti-corruption bill with one potentially so strong, it could alter the face of governance forever in this country.
Yet, some people are questioning the movement and the process that led to this change. Their primary grouse is that it subverted democratic institutions like the elected members of parliament who represent the common public. Here's a sample:
Indian Express editorial dated 7-Apr: "[Jan Lokpal Bill] is a mishmash of unworkable and dangerous ideas which no government could seriously consider. [...] a belief that [Civil Society] alone can speak for “the people” and elected representatives cannot, is dangerous."
Indian Express editorial dated 8-Apr: "The danger is that such passive-aggressive tactics as a fast to cast a demand as that of civil society’s subverts the constitutional framework."
Indian Express editorial dated 9-Apr: "What, after all, is civil society, and what privileges one group over another to speak for the nation? The only irrefutable proof that you represent the people is that they have voted you in, through a free election."
Pratap Bhanu Mehta in IE dated 7-Apr: "the movement behind the Jan Lokpal Bill is crossing the lines of reasonableness [sic]. It is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy."
Institutions Have Not Been Subverted
First of all, let's be clear: no government institutions have been subverted, be it the constitution or the parliament. The civil society activists have obtained an *equal* role in the drafting committee, not a majority role. How could this be called a subversion when the elected government gets to keep half the strength and co-chairmainship of the committee?
The gvernment notification ensures that it's not an unofficial committee with no constitutional validity. In fact there's even a precedent to it, as reported by a government source in a news report today -- the committee to disability act was also made up of civil society institutions alongwith government representatives.
It would have been subversion had Anna Hazare said, here's the Jan Lokpal Bill, you better make it an official act or I'll fast to death. But the architects of the movement didn't say that. They argued for a joint constitutional committee whose drafted bill wil be submitted to the cabinet and then after their approval will be tabled in the parliament. Where is the subversion in this?
What is Democracy?
Yes, legislature is the primary prerogative of democratically elected government but to say that the joint drafting committee route is undemocratic would be to remain stuck on a narrow definition of democracy.
Does democracy only mean a government elected by the people? Once elected can they do anything they wish regardless of public support for their decisions? Does the fact they they were voted to a majority give them a license to exploit the country to the best of their advantage?
Unfortunately, in India we have become so accustomed to this meaning of democracy that even our academics and newspaper editors who should know better consider anything else outside of this narrow definition undemocratic.
Wikipedia offers a far more meaningful definition: "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law."
Equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law is precisely what is being sought by Anna Hazare and his supporters in this case. As long as Anna Hazare has the support of the common public how is this process undemocratic?
Anna Hazare Represents The Entire Nation
If there's one thing that stands out crystal clear in this entire episode is that Anna Hazare only provided spark to a fuel of deep anguish against corruption which was already spread all over the nation.
How else does one explain mass mobilisation of thousands of people thronging to the Jantar Mandar and growing in number every passing day, hundreds of solidatory demonstrations, rallies and candle light vigils across the nation, millions of messages on social netowrking sites Twitter and Facebook and strong support across a vast multitude of people from celebreties to the housewives, corporates and school children all over the country.
Yes, the media helped without doubt but media cannot create a movement out of thin air. The fact of the matter is, we are a people sick and tired of experiencing corruption in all walks of life every single day. We've had enough and Anna Hazara, for the very first time, offered us a solution.
So who are these newspaper editors and policy experts saying that the process is unrepresentational as Anna Hazare does not represent the common man just because he doesn't happen to be a elected politician?
After witnessing the scenes on TV does anyone really need proof that the campaign is representational? If one does, an HT-C Fore survey published in HT today shows that the movement has complete backing of people with 84% saying they support Anna Hazare's crusade against corruption. Why then do these democracy purists believe that being elected through a vote is the only criteria for representation?
What Do People Do If Democratic Institutions Fail?
Those arguing that all policy must originate strictly within democratic institutions should suggest what to do if those institutions fail the public as they indeed have in the case of corruption in India. We can surely vote out of the office the leaders we don't like but what if there were no clean choices available while voting?
The only recourse left is to force the policy makers to change if they are not willing to bring in the change the public so desperately wants. As Pratik Kanjilal argues in today's op-ed in Hindustan Times: "In desperate times, when all other options have been exhausted, moral coercion becomes a valid political act." Practically speaking, there was no other way, the government would have brought in a strong Lokpal bill.
By overturning the government on the issue of joint drafting committe, Anna Hazare has achieved a triumph of democracy with no parallel in recent history. It needs to be celebrated rather than questioned. Of course, it's only a beginning of a much longer process but what a beginning! I leave you with this song: "Aarambh Hai Prachand" from the film Gulaal (2009).
Today is a landmark in the Indian history. For the first time since our independence, the people of our nation have been able to force the government to its knees through unpreceedented and spontaneous mobilisation of millions of people within a remarkably short span to replace a weak anti-corruption bill with one potentially so strong, it could alter the face of governance forever in this country.
Yet, some people are questioning the movement and the process that led to this change. Their primary grouse is that it subverted democratic institutions like the elected members of parliament who represent the common public. Here's a sample:
Indian Express editorial dated 7-Apr: "[Jan Lokpal Bill] is a mishmash of unworkable and dangerous ideas which no government could seriously consider. [...] a belief that [Civil Society] alone can speak for “the people” and elected representatives cannot, is dangerous."
Indian Express editorial dated 8-Apr: "The danger is that such passive-aggressive tactics as a fast to cast a demand as that of civil society’s subverts the constitutional framework."
Indian Express editorial dated 9-Apr: "What, after all, is civil society, and what privileges one group over another to speak for the nation? The only irrefutable proof that you represent the people is that they have voted you in, through a free election."
Pratap Bhanu Mehta in IE dated 7-Apr: "the movement behind the Jan Lokpal Bill is crossing the lines of reasonableness [sic]. It is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy."
Institutions Have Not Been Subverted
First of all, let's be clear: no government institutions have been subverted, be it the constitution or the parliament. The civil society activists have obtained an *equal* role in the drafting committee, not a majority role. How could this be called a subversion when the elected government gets to keep half the strength and co-chairmainship of the committee?
The gvernment notification ensures that it's not an unofficial committee with no constitutional validity. In fact there's even a precedent to it, as reported by a government source in a news report today -- the committee to disability act was also made up of civil society institutions alongwith government representatives.
It would have been subversion had Anna Hazare said, here's the Jan Lokpal Bill, you better make it an official act or I'll fast to death. But the architects of the movement didn't say that. They argued for a joint constitutional committee whose drafted bill wil be submitted to the cabinet and then after their approval will be tabled in the parliament. Where is the subversion in this?
What is Democracy?
Yes, legislature is the primary prerogative of democratically elected government but to say that the joint drafting committee route is undemocratic would be to remain stuck on a narrow definition of democracy.
Does democracy only mean a government elected by the people? Once elected can they do anything they wish regardless of public support for their decisions? Does the fact they they were voted to a majority give them a license to exploit the country to the best of their advantage?
Unfortunately, in India we have become so accustomed to this meaning of democracy that even our academics and newspaper editors who should know better consider anything else outside of this narrow definition undemocratic.
Wikipedia offers a far more meaningful definition: "Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law."
Equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law is precisely what is being sought by Anna Hazare and his supporters in this case. As long as Anna Hazare has the support of the common public how is this process undemocratic?
Anna Hazare Represents The Entire Nation
If there's one thing that stands out crystal clear in this entire episode is that Anna Hazare only provided spark to a fuel of deep anguish against corruption which was already spread all over the nation.
How else does one explain mass mobilisation of thousands of people thronging to the Jantar Mandar and growing in number every passing day, hundreds of solidatory demonstrations, rallies and candle light vigils across the nation, millions of messages on social netowrking sites Twitter and Facebook and strong support across a vast multitude of people from celebreties to the housewives, corporates and school children all over the country.
Yes, the media helped without doubt but media cannot create a movement out of thin air. The fact of the matter is, we are a people sick and tired of experiencing corruption in all walks of life every single day. We've had enough and Anna Hazara, for the very first time, offered us a solution.
So who are these newspaper editors and policy experts saying that the process is unrepresentational as Anna Hazare does not represent the common man just because he doesn't happen to be a elected politician?
After witnessing the scenes on TV does anyone really need proof that the campaign is representational? If one does, an HT-C Fore survey published in HT today shows that the movement has complete backing of people with 84% saying they support Anna Hazare's crusade against corruption. Why then do these democracy purists believe that being elected through a vote is the only criteria for representation?
What Do People Do If Democratic Institutions Fail?
Those arguing that all policy must originate strictly within democratic institutions should suggest what to do if those institutions fail the public as they indeed have in the case of corruption in India. We can surely vote out of the office the leaders we don't like but what if there were no clean choices available while voting?
The only recourse left is to force the policy makers to change if they are not willing to bring in the change the public so desperately wants. As Pratik Kanjilal argues in today's op-ed in Hindustan Times: "In desperate times, when all other options have been exhausted, moral coercion becomes a valid political act." Practically speaking, there was no other way, the government would have brought in a strong Lokpal bill.
By overturning the government on the issue of joint drafting committe, Anna Hazare has achieved a triumph of democracy with no parallel in recent history. It needs to be celebrated rather than questioned. Of course, it's only a beginning of a much longer process but what a beginning! I leave you with this song: "Aarambh Hai Prachand" from the film Gulaal (2009).
April 28, 2010
The Suckers At Delhi Government
An outdoor air purifying system made by Italian company Systemlife and installed at Connaught Place by NDMC is symbolic of cluelessness that prevails in the higher echelons of the government.
I returned home this morning, after an interview with a German researcher on Delhi government's climate initiatives, to find a newspaper report which made a perfect specimen for the central argument I tried to put across in the meeting -- the Delhi govt, just like its counterpart in the centre, has no clue what they are talking about, no clue about the scale of the climate crisis, what needs to be done and how ineffective will be their so-called plan.
The newspaper report I'm referring to touted "CP’s air cleaner than before" because of an outdoor air purifier installed there for the last month. You read that right, an outdoor air purifier.
I cannot believe this scam has survived over one month. When I first saw news reports last month, I was aghast at the collective ignorance of the government and the media. Certain at the same time that I'd see a report in the next few days citing an expert clarifying that this had no chance of making any discernable impact on air quality of the region. Surely, I thought someone would point out that you don't install air purifiers in open areas!
The emperor-has-no-clothes moment I was expecting has not only not arrived, but the emperor is on to another round of parade. The news today is covered by several newspapers. It apparently originated with this release from the PTI: "Air purifier station at Delhi a big success." The source cited is not an air monitoring agency but the company that did the installation.
The machine is claimed to have captured 2 kg of particulate matter but out of how much? All this claim proves is that the device does filter out the air it sucks but is it actually effective in reducing pollution of that region? What is the reduction in particulate matter (in ppm) measured by nearby monitors? If it impacts a limited localised region, how much precisely is that area?
Systemlife, the Italian company behind this technology publishes no specifications of their products on their website. The site contains no technical details and there is no mention of peer-reviewed scientific papers or independent studies that corroborate that its products meant for the outdoors improves air quality of a localised region.
Interestingly, the company's product page for Model Città, that was installed at CP, does not even make such a claim. All it says is that it cleans the air it sucks -- without specifying the quantity or the effect on the localised area. News reports from last month do provide an indication of capacity -- 10,000 cubic meter per hour.
10,000 m^3 capacity effectively means an area less than 23 meter long, 23 meter wide and 20 meter high (air we breathe)! That certainly wouldn't cover much of CP.
But this is assuming that air stands still over a given area, which of course it doesn't. The rate of air flow over a 100m distance at just 1 m/s wind speed at the height of 20 m is 72 Lakh cubic meter per hour (7,200,000 m^3/hr), according to Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, founder of UrbanEmissions.Info, a research unit meant to share information on air pollution and its management. This is taken from his blog post -- the only online reference I could find online where this scam has been exposed.
You don't need to be a scientist or a mathematician to know that air mixes rapidly in open areas. The question is, is our government incapable of both simple math and common sense? What about newspaper editors?
Proponents of the machine could argue that whatever little the machine is doing is still commendable. But that would be an argument made without any sense of scale. The scale in this case is like a 2.5 crore (which is what this machine cost) water purification system installed on the banks of Yamuna with a cleaning capacity of a home water purifier!
Sure, it may be cleaning 10 litres of polluted Yamuna water per hour, at the rate of 0.003 litre per second, but does it matter in a river with a flow of 8.5 million litres per second? That is the scale of con that is being perpetrated here.
The health chief of NDMC while launching the machine said that money does not matter when it comes to health of Delhi citizens. Systemlife intends to installl 100 such machines in Delhi. Ritika Modi, head of Uniglobe Travel South Asia, the Indian partner company of Systemlife, said every Indian city needs these machines.
At 250 crore for hundred machines that promise to be as effective as the proverbial drop in the ocean, I hope that better sense will previal with the government. Thankfully, the current installation is only a pilot one and the government says it will monitor air quality for three months before taking a decision. If the process is honestly followed there is no chance of it getting through.
The point is, the pilot was not needed had anyone done even the most rudimentary thinking. But I suspect the lure of a magical vaccum cleaner that sucks out all the city's pollution was too much to resist for any thought process.
Notes
The post was copied to:
I returned home this morning, after an interview with a German researcher on Delhi government's climate initiatives, to find a newspaper report which made a perfect specimen for the central argument I tried to put across in the meeting -- the Delhi govt, just like its counterpart in the centre, has no clue what they are talking about, no clue about the scale of the climate crisis, what needs to be done and how ineffective will be their so-called plan.
The newspaper report I'm referring to touted "CP’s air cleaner than before" because of an outdoor air purifier installed there for the last month. You read that right, an outdoor air purifier. I cannot believe this scam has survived over one month. When I first saw news reports last month, I was aghast at the collective ignorance of the government and the media. Certain at the same time that I'd see a report in the next few days citing an expert clarifying that this had no chance of making any discernable impact on air quality of the region. Surely, I thought someone would point out that you don't install air purifiers in open areas!
The emperor-has-no-clothes moment I was expecting has not only not arrived, but the emperor is on to another round of parade. The news today is covered by several newspapers. It apparently originated with this release from the PTI: "Air purifier station at Delhi a big success." The source cited is not an air monitoring agency but the company that did the installation.
The machine is claimed to have captured 2 kg of particulate matter but out of how much? All this claim proves is that the device does filter out the air it sucks but is it actually effective in reducing pollution of that region? What is the reduction in particulate matter (in ppm) measured by nearby monitors? If it impacts a limited localised region, how much precisely is that area?
Systemlife, the Italian company behind this technology publishes no specifications of their products on their website. The site contains no technical details and there is no mention of peer-reviewed scientific papers or independent studies that corroborate that its products meant for the outdoors improves air quality of a localised region.
Interestingly, the company's product page for Model Città, that was installed at CP, does not even make such a claim. All it says is that it cleans the air it sucks -- without specifying the quantity or the effect on the localised area. News reports from last month do provide an indication of capacity -- 10,000 cubic meter per hour.
10,000 m^3 capacity effectively means an area less than 23 meter long, 23 meter wide and 20 meter high (air we breathe)! That certainly wouldn't cover much of CP.
But this is assuming that air stands still over a given area, which of course it doesn't. The rate of air flow over a 100m distance at just 1 m/s wind speed at the height of 20 m is 72 Lakh cubic meter per hour (7,200,000 m^3/hr), according to Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, founder of UrbanEmissions.Info, a research unit meant to share information on air pollution and its management. This is taken from his blog post -- the only online reference I could find online where this scam has been exposed.
You don't need to be a scientist or a mathematician to know that air mixes rapidly in open areas. The question is, is our government incapable of both simple math and common sense? What about newspaper editors?
Proponents of the machine could argue that whatever little the machine is doing is still commendable. But that would be an argument made without any sense of scale. The scale in this case is like a 2.5 crore (which is what this machine cost) water purification system installed on the banks of Yamuna with a cleaning capacity of a home water purifier!
Sure, it may be cleaning 10 litres of polluted Yamuna water per hour, at the rate of 0.003 litre per second, but does it matter in a river with a flow of 8.5 million litres per second? That is the scale of con that is being perpetrated here.
The health chief of NDMC while launching the machine said that money does not matter when it comes to health of Delhi citizens. Systemlife intends to installl 100 such machines in Delhi. Ritika Modi, head of Uniglobe Travel South Asia, the Indian partner company of Systemlife, said every Indian city needs these machines.
At 250 crore for hundred machines that promise to be as effective as the proverbial drop in the ocean, I hope that better sense will previal with the government. Thankfully, the current installation is only a pilot one and the government says it will monitor air quality for three months before taking a decision. If the process is honestly followed there is no chance of it getting through.
The point is, the pilot was not needed had anyone done even the most rudimentary thinking. But I suspect the lure of a magical vaccum cleaner that sucks out all the city's pollution was too much to resist for any thought process.
Notes
The post was copied to:
- The German researcher
- Systemlife, the Italian company
- Ritika Modi, head Uni Globe Travel South Asia, Indian partner of Systemlife
- Delhi government (several individuals)
- Green-India
- Indian Youth and Climate Network
- Delhi Greens
- Dr. Sarath Guttikunda, Affiliate Assistant Research Professor at Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Desert Research Institute (Nevada, US) and founder UrbanEmissions.info. He's credited for the featured cartoon.
January 28, 2010
Top Five Reasons Why Apple's iPad is Revolutionary
People lamenting iPad's lack of "features" are discounting its user experience as well as the big picture change it represents.
[UPDATE 28-APR 2010: After finally spending hours with the device, reviewers at Engadget reluctantly admitted earlier this month that "it's a little bit revolutionary" indeed. Wall Street Journal's veteran tech reviewer Walt Mossberg went further in his March 31st review: "I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the potential to change portable computing profoundly, and to challenge the primacy of the laptop."
Meanwhile, Apple is so inundated with iPad orders within the U.S. that it has decided to postpone its international launch. Clearly, iPad is turning out to be as much of a success as this blog had predicted at its January unveiling when the tech community was almost unanimously focussed on its lack of "features" disregarding the user experience and the implications for personal computing.]
Apple's introduction of iPad has been received with mixed response. While many reviewers are excited about the device, most have expressed serious disappointment with the perceived lack of "basic features". Let's take reviews by Engadet that are representative of what tech bloggers are generally saying about this device.
Out of three of their editors who got to check the device hands on, Josh called it underwhelming and unimaginative, Ross said he couldn't justify buying this device while Chris Grant from Joystiq said iPad doesn't represent sea change in quality like the iPhone. Others were less forgiving. Darren calls it one of Apple's biggest misses. All bemoaned the lack of features they were expecting.
Many people perhaps expected a full-fledged computing device so I can understand some of the disappointment. But Apple never said what they were going to release and all the hype in the media and blogosphere in the weeks and months leading up to the event was creation of these very people who are now criticising the device for not living up to their expectations. When Jobs got on stage, he made it clear from that start that iPad lies somewhere between the laptop and smartphone.
With that said, in my view, characterising iPad as simply "an over-sized iPod touch" is what is really unimaginative. Failing to see beyond their "power" needs most reviewers have shown lack of thinking. They also demonstrate that they have learned nothing from the success of iPhone and iPod.
I think iPad goes far beyond in terms of what it offers today to users, what it represents for the future of portable computing, what it means for Apple as a company and what it can do for the publishing industry. To call the device revolutionary is not an exaggeration by any measure. Here's why:
#1 The User Experience
Success of a device of this kind is about the overall user experience and not about a few features here and there. It's not what it "can't do" but how it does the things it can.
Let's rewind by three years. Apple releases a smartphone that doesn't have any new "feature" and yet it explodes in sales. What happened? Can you name any single new feature that iPhone introduced when it debuted that no other phone had? Did you say, web browsing? Well, people had been using the web on their cell phones for ages. Email? That's what blackberry did. Touchscreen? Again, lots of phones had touchscreens even then. Camera? Music player? All of these were already standard features.
If you said multi-touch, that would be spot on but why have we forgotten about multi-touch now? How many mainstream computing device can you name -- be it a laptop, PC, Netbook or ebook -- that allows you to browse the web, access files on your computer, scroll lists and read a book using a specialised interface designed for multi-touch? Sure there are touchscreen tablets but neither are they mainstream nor do they carry multi-touch capability anything resembling the iPad.
Let's get back to iPhone, what was unique about it was its user experience. The way the interface flew when it touched your fingers. While most people drooled over the demo when Jobs first revealed the iPhone in his January 2007 keynote but by the time they got home they began to wonder what kind of cool aid were they drinking. Several tech bloggers wrote in the following days that there was nothing revolutionary about this Phone. All the iPhones features could be found on other Smartphones as well. After all, they pointed out, the iPhone even lacked many things they took for granted -- it couldn't forward a text message, couldn't record video, couldn't send an MMS, didn't have expandable memory and didn't come with a swappable battery.
Forty-two million iPhone sales later, it's clear that none of that mattered.
Nine years ago, iPod debut saw a similar response from parts of the tech community. "No wireless. Less space than [competition]. Lame," said the post on Slashdot. And again, 250 million iPods later, nobody's calling the device lame. Obviously, tech bloggers don't get that the user experience is king in software just as content is in media.
Why do we discount the user experience? For one, because it's an intangible. Image transitions, ease of scrolling, surfing the web, pinching and expanding photographs, accessing information with ease, accuracy of search results and the user interface in general aren't counted as "features" and "functionality" of a device in spec sheets unlike tangibles such as webcam, USB ports. And yet it's these intangibles that make the user experience and define how the tangible "features" of the device behave.
A mp3 player with a brand new interface to scroll down long lists or a smartphone with no new "feature" might look boring when you compare spec sheets - get them in your hand and it's an entirely different experience. Steve Jobs emphasised twice in his Keynote on Wednesday that it's one thing to hear about iPad and quite another to take it in your hands.
The reason many people aren't enamored by the device today is that they are used to multi-touch on their iPhone and its novelty value has long worn off. On phones, that is. Wait till they actually get to do the same things on a computing device. Although the iPad isn't a full fledged computer, if the videos are any indication, it does some of the key tasks exceedingly well.
Apart from the user experience of reading/ viewing/ browsing/ accessing content, the entertainment experience especially gaming is going to to be completely unmatched by devices of this kind. SGN Holdings is planning to bring "Xbox 360-quality 3D multiplayer game" to iPad. They are also said to be planning games that will let users "handle their iPhones like a Wii-like game controller for an iPad."
That is the kind of experience you can look forward on an iPad and this is why the iPad is revolutionary.
#2 The End of Laptop Form Factor
If the iPad does succeed in capturing a large market, and I have no doubt that it will, it'd be hard for Apple to limit the tablet form factor of the iPad to the current device. I see no reason why there can't be full fledged portable computing devices of 15" to 17" size in the tablet form factor ready to be used either as a touchscreen iPad or as desktop with standup monitor and split keyboard configuration or even as traditional laptop with removable wireless keyboard plus touchpad inside a tablet jacket.
While Apple hasn't made any explicit statements to this effect but its lead designer Jonathan Ive did offer hint of such future development when he said referring to the iPad: "this defines our vision, our sense of what's next."
After seeing how iPad works, it's really difficult to imagine that this will not happen. Weight of the device might be an issue for large screens but most people will still use it on some kind of a platform such as tabletop, kitchen counter or simply on their knees rather than holding it with one hand. The possibility of ending portable computing's most famous form factor of the last two decades, the laptop, is what makes the iPad revolutionary.
#3 Breaking The $500 Price Barrier (also called The Netbook Effect)
Figures released last month show that in 2009 while Laptops lost revenue by 7%, Netbooks grew 72% in sales and over 103% in units sold. The data clearly indicates that people are not just buying them as secondary machines but their primary computers -- a fact that "power users" (especially those who dominate tech blogs and media outlets and who were the first to crticise iPad as lacking "important features") might find hard to digest.
The point is, success of Netbooks amply demonstrates that if you give them a really low price consumers will happily ignore lack of few features.
Introduced in late 2007, a Netbook is a small form factor, low performance portable computer sans an optical disk which became a phenomenal and unexpected overnight success. Steve Jobs himself deningrated the Netbook in his Keynote when he said they are not better at anything. He's generally right if he's referring to the user experience. With low resolution screens, slower processors and cramped keyboards, netbooks leave a lot to be desired.
But even Jobs knows that netbooks are still good at one or two things. Portability and price. At around 10 inches in size and $300 in price, on average, Netbooks are 70% the size and 50% the price of traditional 15" Windows laptops. This -- the price in large part, and portability closely following -- explains their unprecedented rise to prominence.
It's easy to see that Apple has recognised these factors behind the phenomenal success of Netbooks because the iPad seems to be designed to compete in the same market with the same key characteristics. Starting at $499, the iPad is priced at a price-point which is precisely half-way through Apple's entry level laptop, the Macbook priced at $999. Not coincidentally, the iPad is also 10 inches in size.
By crossing the $500 price barrier and ensuring portability, Apple's iPad appears destined to experience the same explosion in sales that Netbooks are experiencing. This is why the iPad is revolutionary.
#4 The App Store
Here's another question for the skeptics: name another computer manufacturer that makes money from sale of third-party software written for their device, completely controls this software ecosystem and successfully thrwarts all competition. With over 140,000 apps, three billion downloads and Apple's infamous approval process with the golden clause that rejects any application with "duplicate functionality", the app store for iPhone is a money minting machine for Apple Inc.
About one third of all revenue generated from the app store goes into Apple's pockets. No other hardware maker has anything that comes close. And once again, we've gotten so used to it that we forget the genius of an invention it is for Apple.
Free from the limitations of a mobile device, the iPad will guarantee one thing for Apple, many many more new apps and zillions of downloads. If Apple discontinues the Macbook and Macbook Pro line and converts them into iPad's tablet form factor over the coming years, as I predict above, there will be serious temptation to continue with the app store's closed ecosystem model simply because it's just so profitable.
With the first closed ecosystem of applications for a major computing device in the iPad, Apple has just redefined the rules of engagement with its competitors like Dell and Microsoft. Neither of them are poised to respond likewise because unlike Apple, neither of them makes both software and hardware. This is what makes Apple's iPad revolutionary.
#5 Old Media Saviour
Finally, with the iPad, Apple is set to forever change how newspapers, periodicals and textbooks are read. While Jobs' keynote did not venture much beyond books, it's been widely reported that he's working closely with several bigtime publishers.
Old media has long been grappaling with new media and how best to employ it to their advantage. Yet, they have failed to make it work for them. Meanwhile, as news aggregators and free online news sites gain readership, real world newspapers' and magazines' subscriptions are falling, advertising rates decreasing and publishers are closing shops.
For the first time, they are provided with an opportunity. All of a sudden, print publishers get to be on a platform that can push them inside homes of people who have their credit card ready and who are accustomed to paying for consumption of media content and software. The number of payment transactions of songs, movies, TV shows and applications through the iTunes store and app store run in billions. Apple could possibly do to publishing what it did to the music industry. So a seriously troubled, if not dying entity now gets a good chance of revival. That's revolutionary.
Update: Digg this
About the date mark: While I started drafting this post on 28th Jan, it was first published on 1.30am [IST] 1st Feb 2010.
Past Apple posts on this blog
Design of an Apple Badge
iPhone: Apple's Most Profitable Product Ever?
Steve Jobs' iPhone: What's the Big Deal?
Steve Jobs, an artist of the highest order
Lessons from Steve Jobs' life
On Jef Raskin
Unveiling of iPod Nano
The Great Apple Turnaround
User Experience as competitive advantage
[UPDATE 28-APR 2010: After finally spending hours with the device, reviewers at Engadget reluctantly admitted earlier this month that "it's a little bit revolutionary" indeed. Wall Street Journal's veteran tech reviewer Walt Mossberg went further in his March 31st review: "I believe this beautiful new touch-screen device from Apple has the potential to change portable computing profoundly, and to challenge the primacy of the laptop." Meanwhile, Apple is so inundated with iPad orders within the U.S. that it has decided to postpone its international launch. Clearly, iPad is turning out to be as much of a success as this blog had predicted at its January unveiling when the tech community was almost unanimously focussed on its lack of "features" disregarding the user experience and the implications for personal computing.]
Apple's introduction of iPad has been received with mixed response. While many reviewers are excited about the device, most have expressed serious disappointment with the perceived lack of "basic features". Let's take reviews by Engadet that are representative of what tech bloggers are generally saying about this device.
Out of three of their editors who got to check the device hands on, Josh called it underwhelming and unimaginative, Ross said he couldn't justify buying this device while Chris Grant from Joystiq said iPad doesn't represent sea change in quality like the iPhone. Others were less forgiving. Darren calls it one of Apple's biggest misses. All bemoaned the lack of features they were expecting.
Many people perhaps expected a full-fledged computing device so I can understand some of the disappointment. But Apple never said what they were going to release and all the hype in the media and blogosphere in the weeks and months leading up to the event was creation of these very people who are now criticising the device for not living up to their expectations. When Jobs got on stage, he made it clear from that start that iPad lies somewhere between the laptop and smartphone.
With that said, in my view, characterising iPad as simply "an over-sized iPod touch" is what is really unimaginative. Failing to see beyond their "power" needs most reviewers have shown lack of thinking. They also demonstrate that they have learned nothing from the success of iPhone and iPod.
I think iPad goes far beyond in terms of what it offers today to users, what it represents for the future of portable computing, what it means for Apple as a company and what it can do for the publishing industry. To call the device revolutionary is not an exaggeration by any measure. Here's why:
#1 The User Experience
Success of a device of this kind is about the overall user experience and not about a few features here and there. It's not what it "can't do" but how it does the things it can.
Let's rewind by three years. Apple releases a smartphone that doesn't have any new "feature" and yet it explodes in sales. What happened? Can you name any single new feature that iPhone introduced when it debuted that no other phone had? Did you say, web browsing? Well, people had been using the web on their cell phones for ages. Email? That's what blackberry did. Touchscreen? Again, lots of phones had touchscreens even then. Camera? Music player? All of these were already standard features.
If you said multi-touch, that would be spot on but why have we forgotten about multi-touch now? How many mainstream computing device can you name -- be it a laptop, PC, Netbook or ebook -- that allows you to browse the web, access files on your computer, scroll lists and read a book using a specialised interface designed for multi-touch? Sure there are touchscreen tablets but neither are they mainstream nor do they carry multi-touch capability anything resembling the iPad.
Let's get back to iPhone, what was unique about it was its user experience. The way the interface flew when it touched your fingers. While most people drooled over the demo when Jobs first revealed the iPhone in his January 2007 keynote but by the time they got home they began to wonder what kind of cool aid were they drinking. Several tech bloggers wrote in the following days that there was nothing revolutionary about this Phone. All the iPhones features could be found on other Smartphones as well. After all, they pointed out, the iPhone even lacked many things they took for granted -- it couldn't forward a text message, couldn't record video, couldn't send an MMS, didn't have expandable memory and didn't come with a swappable battery.
Forty-two million iPhone sales later, it's clear that none of that mattered.
Nine years ago, iPod debut saw a similar response from parts of the tech community. "No wireless. Less space than [competition]. Lame," said the post on Slashdot. And again, 250 million iPods later, nobody's calling the device lame. Obviously, tech bloggers don't get that the user experience is king in software just as content is in media.
Why do we discount the user experience? For one, because it's an intangible. Image transitions, ease of scrolling, surfing the web, pinching and expanding photographs, accessing information with ease, accuracy of search results and the user interface in general aren't counted as "features" and "functionality" of a device in spec sheets unlike tangibles such as webcam, USB ports. And yet it's these intangibles that make the user experience and define how the tangible "features" of the device behave.
A mp3 player with a brand new interface to scroll down long lists or a smartphone with no new "feature" might look boring when you compare spec sheets - get them in your hand and it's an entirely different experience. Steve Jobs emphasised twice in his Keynote on Wednesday that it's one thing to hear about iPad and quite another to take it in your hands.
The reason many people aren't enamored by the device today is that they are used to multi-touch on their iPhone and its novelty value has long worn off. On phones, that is. Wait till they actually get to do the same things on a computing device. Although the iPad isn't a full fledged computer, if the videos are any indication, it does some of the key tasks exceedingly well.
Apart from the user experience of reading/ viewing/ browsing/ accessing content, the entertainment experience especially gaming is going to to be completely unmatched by devices of this kind. SGN Holdings is planning to bring "Xbox 360-quality 3D multiplayer game" to iPad. They are also said to be planning games that will let users "handle their iPhones like a Wii-like game controller for an iPad."
That is the kind of experience you can look forward on an iPad and this is why the iPad is revolutionary.
#2 The End of Laptop Form Factor
If the iPad does succeed in capturing a large market, and I have no doubt that it will, it'd be hard for Apple to limit the tablet form factor of the iPad to the current device. I see no reason why there can't be full fledged portable computing devices of 15" to 17" size in the tablet form factor ready to be used either as a touchscreen iPad or as desktop with standup monitor and split keyboard configuration or even as traditional laptop with removable wireless keyboard plus touchpad inside a tablet jacket.
While Apple hasn't made any explicit statements to this effect but its lead designer Jonathan Ive did offer hint of such future development when he said referring to the iPad: "this defines our vision, our sense of what's next."
After seeing how iPad works, it's really difficult to imagine that this will not happen. Weight of the device might be an issue for large screens but most people will still use it on some kind of a platform such as tabletop, kitchen counter or simply on their knees rather than holding it with one hand. The possibility of ending portable computing's most famous form factor of the last two decades, the laptop, is what makes the iPad revolutionary.
#3 Breaking The $500 Price Barrier (also called The Netbook Effect)
Figures released last month show that in 2009 while Laptops lost revenue by 7%, Netbooks grew 72% in sales and over 103% in units sold. The data clearly indicates that people are not just buying them as secondary machines but their primary computers -- a fact that "power users" (especially those who dominate tech blogs and media outlets and who were the first to crticise iPad as lacking "important features") might find hard to digest.
The point is, success of Netbooks amply demonstrates that if you give them a really low price consumers will happily ignore lack of few features.
Introduced in late 2007, a Netbook is a small form factor, low performance portable computer sans an optical disk which became a phenomenal and unexpected overnight success. Steve Jobs himself deningrated the Netbook in his Keynote when he said they are not better at anything. He's generally right if he's referring to the user experience. With low resolution screens, slower processors and cramped keyboards, netbooks leave a lot to be desired.
But even Jobs knows that netbooks are still good at one or two things. Portability and price. At around 10 inches in size and $300 in price, on average, Netbooks are 70% the size and 50% the price of traditional 15" Windows laptops. This -- the price in large part, and portability closely following -- explains their unprecedented rise to prominence.
It's easy to see that Apple has recognised these factors behind the phenomenal success of Netbooks because the iPad seems to be designed to compete in the same market with the same key characteristics. Starting at $499, the iPad is priced at a price-point which is precisely half-way through Apple's entry level laptop, the Macbook priced at $999. Not coincidentally, the iPad is also 10 inches in size.
By crossing the $500 price barrier and ensuring portability, Apple's iPad appears destined to experience the same explosion in sales that Netbooks are experiencing. This is why the iPad is revolutionary.
#4 The App Store
Here's another question for the skeptics: name another computer manufacturer that makes money from sale of third-party software written for their device, completely controls this software ecosystem and successfully thrwarts all competition. With over 140,000 apps, three billion downloads and Apple's infamous approval process with the golden clause that rejects any application with "duplicate functionality", the app store for iPhone is a money minting machine for Apple Inc.
About one third of all revenue generated from the app store goes into Apple's pockets. No other hardware maker has anything that comes close. And once again, we've gotten so used to it that we forget the genius of an invention it is for Apple.
Free from the limitations of a mobile device, the iPad will guarantee one thing for Apple, many many more new apps and zillions of downloads. If Apple discontinues the Macbook and Macbook Pro line and converts them into iPad's tablet form factor over the coming years, as I predict above, there will be serious temptation to continue with the app store's closed ecosystem model simply because it's just so profitable.
With the first closed ecosystem of applications for a major computing device in the iPad, Apple has just redefined the rules of engagement with its competitors like Dell and Microsoft. Neither of them are poised to respond likewise because unlike Apple, neither of them makes both software and hardware. This is what makes Apple's iPad revolutionary.
#5 Old Media Saviour
Finally, with the iPad, Apple is set to forever change how newspapers, periodicals and textbooks are read. While Jobs' keynote did not venture much beyond books, it's been widely reported that he's working closely with several bigtime publishers.
Old media has long been grappaling with new media and how best to employ it to their advantage. Yet, they have failed to make it work for them. Meanwhile, as news aggregators and free online news sites gain readership, real world newspapers' and magazines' subscriptions are falling, advertising rates decreasing and publishers are closing shops.
For the first time, they are provided with an opportunity. All of a sudden, print publishers get to be on a platform that can push them inside homes of people who have their credit card ready and who are accustomed to paying for consumption of media content and software. The number of payment transactions of songs, movies, TV shows and applications through the iTunes store and app store run in billions. Apple could possibly do to publishing what it did to the music industry. So a seriously troubled, if not dying entity now gets a good chance of revival. That's revolutionary.
Update: Digg this
About the date mark: While I started drafting this post on 28th Jan, it was first published on 1.30am [IST] 1st Feb 2010.
Past Apple posts on this blog
Design of an Apple Badge
iPhone: Apple's Most Profitable Product Ever?
Steve Jobs' iPhone: What's the Big Deal?
Steve Jobs, an artist of the highest order
Lessons from Steve Jobs' life
On Jef Raskin
Unveiling of iPod Nano
The Great Apple Turnaround
User Experience as competitive advantage
January 19, 2010
On IPCC Inaccuracies and Inadequacies
Yes, IPCC is inaccurate but not just the way the media has been projecting it in relation to melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Joe Romm has a great post on his popular Climate Progress blog in which he counters recent criticism that IPCC overestimated the date of Himalayan melting. He accurately mirrors my feelings when he says:
Those of us who have been tracking climate science closely know that if one considers all the evidence that has come to light over the last three years, much of the IPCC edifice would crumble. In fact latest scientific assessments of literature published over this period, such as, The Copenhagen Diagnosis (Nov 2009), Scientific Congress Climate Change (Mar 2009) and to some degree Climate Change Science Compendium (UNEP Sep 2009) have been critical of IPCC.
It's not just sea level rise and ice melt in the poles that have been underestimated in IPCC AR4 projections but its reports are found lacking in several other areas as well.
New research and evidence on each of these areas show IPCC projections and its approach to be either deeply conservative or largely inadequate. So yes, IPCC needs to re-analyse evidence regarding the extent of melting in Tibetean-Himalayan glaciers -- the mistake occurred as they included a paper that did not go through the peer-review process, something that is supposed to identify errors such as these.
However, this is more of an exception than the rule. Almost all of IPCC research is based on peer-reviewed research. And as Joe says, most of the time IPCC has made a mistake, it is an underestimate of impacts. The important point is that it is these mistakes, the underestimates, that are much more dangerous than any inaccuracy that turns out to be an overestimate because the former lull our policymakers into thinking they have more time when in fact the time to act is long gone.
Joe Romm has a great post on his popular Climate Progress blog in which he counters recent criticism that IPCC overestimated the date of Himalayan melting. He accurately mirrors my feelings when he says:
It isn't news that the 2007 projections by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not accurate. The real news is that the 99% of their "mistakes" are UNDERestimates of likely impacts.Since the IPCC is said to be reviewing evidence regarding this issue, Joe suggests they review all scientific literature regarding sea level rise and ice melt. That would be a good idea but limiting it to only sea level rise and ice melting does not make much sense.
Those of us who have been tracking climate science closely know that if one considers all the evidence that has come to light over the last three years, much of the IPCC edifice would crumble. In fact latest scientific assessments of literature published over this period, such as, The Copenhagen Diagnosis (Nov 2009), Scientific Congress Climate Change (Mar 2009) and to some degree Climate Change Science Compendium (UNEP Sep 2009) have been critical of IPCC.
It's not just sea level rise and ice melt in the poles that have been underestimated in IPCC AR4 projections but its reports are found lacking in several other areas as well.
- Emission growth scenarios - underestimated
- Oceans' capacity as carbon sinks - overestimated
- Methane forcing - underestimated
- Forcing of geological and geomorphological hazards - inadequate
- Tipping elements and general irreversibility of climate change - inadequate
- Emission reduction approach - inadequate
New research and evidence on each of these areas show IPCC projections and its approach to be either deeply conservative or largely inadequate. So yes, IPCC needs to re-analyse evidence regarding the extent of melting in Tibetean-Himalayan glaciers -- the mistake occurred as they included a paper that did not go through the peer-review process, something that is supposed to identify errors such as these.
However, this is more of an exception than the rule. Almost all of IPCC research is based on peer-reviewed research. And as Joe says, most of the time IPCC has made a mistake, it is an underestimate of impacts. The important point is that it is these mistakes, the underestimates, that are much more dangerous than any inaccuracy that turns out to be an overestimate because the former lull our policymakers into thinking they have more time when in fact the time to act is long gone.
August 08, 2009
July 31, 2009
TV Appearence - Climate Change: India Dithers
Earlier this month, I was fortunate to be invited to be part of a TV programme on climate change. The programme ran on 8th July during prime time on NewsX, a 24hr News channel by the INX group that owns 9X entertainment channel (this less well-known news channel is actually pretty decent).
Other panelists included: the ever astute Manish Tiwari, spokesperson of the ruling Congress party; Suresh Kumar, Prof. National Disaster Management Forum and Hannan Mollah, MP from opposition CPM party.
Manish and I had a bit of a sparring close to the end of the show, which is natural as he represented the leadership that us minions are trying so hard to influence on this issue. I can't possibly be as spontaneous and fluent as him but the feedback I received after the show was quite positive and indicated I did come out on top.
I long for the day when I get to interview a policy maker eye to eye and put him through a grilling session -- you can use rhetorics and other evasive tactics but you cannot escape an argument with sound logic and infallible reasoning.
Since YouTube has a 10-min limit, an edited version of the show (basically the part featuring me) is included below.
You can watch the complete 30-min show here on Revver.com.
Other panelists included: the ever astute Manish Tiwari, spokesperson of the ruling Congress party; Suresh Kumar, Prof. National Disaster Management Forum and Hannan Mollah, MP from opposition CPM party.
Manish and I had a bit of a sparring close to the end of the show, which is natural as he represented the leadership that us minions are trying so hard to influence on this issue. I can't possibly be as spontaneous and fluent as him but the feedback I received after the show was quite positive and indicated I did come out on top.
I long for the day when I get to interview a policy maker eye to eye and put him through a grilling session -- you can use rhetorics and other evasive tactics but you cannot escape an argument with sound logic and infallible reasoning.
Since YouTube has a 10-min limit, an edited version of the show (basically the part featuring me) is included below.
You can watch the complete 30-min show here on Revver.com.
July 30, 2009
Motorwind Power - now accepting investment
Motorwind Power (P) Ltd. is now ready to accept investment proposals for expansion in India. Motorwind Power is Indian subsidiary of Hong Kong based Motorwave Co. - inventor and manufacturer of revolutionary Motorwind turbine solution.
The Hong Kong company has now committed itself to the Indian market. Mr. Lucien Gambarota, CEO Motorwave Co. will visit New Delhi in the first week of August to meet investors. A brief investor profile of the technology can be downloaded here (PDF - 260 kb) that introduces the Motorwind solution and the context in which it will exist.
This is a unique opportunity for an investor in Clean Tech space. Please get in touch if this interests you.
The Hong Kong company has now committed itself to the Indian market. Mr. Lucien Gambarota, CEO Motorwave Co. will visit New Delhi in the first week of August to meet investors. A brief investor profile of the technology can be downloaded here (PDF - 260 kb) that introduces the Motorwind solution and the context in which it will exist.
This is a unique opportunity for an investor in Clean Tech space. Please get in touch if this interests you.
November 08, 2008
A touching and inspiring story about the power of one.
Down to Earth magazine, Nov 15 issue.
Down to Earth magazine, Nov 15 issue.
“Sir, did you get a cut on my dam?”
Aparna Pallavi
Maharashtra’s agriculture department is wiser after a brush with Banabai Kumre
The agriculture department official told Banabai Kumre that nothing would come of her complaint of corruption, because he had already paid hush money to the district collector and the chief minister. So the septuagenarian did what she thought was best: she went to Mumbai and asked Maharashtra’s chief minister if he had received a cut on the check dam on her land.
Banabai hails from village Kharula in Maharashtra’s Yavatmal district. The district attracted media spotlight in recent years because of a large number of farmers’ suicides. Banabai’s family of six barely managed to make ends meet. Though her extended family of more than 20 owned a farm as big as 10 hectares, only parts of it were cultivable where they grew jowar, pulses and paddy.
But their routine was upset in early June this year when a check dam flooded after a spell of heavy rains. The rushing waters destroyed the seedlings on Banabai’s land.
The dam was not very old. It was constructed barely a year ago. Banabai decided to report the matter to the agriculture department’s office at Yavatmal tehsil. After all Rs 3 lakh was spent under the prime minister’s relief package for constructing the dam.
An inspection team of the department visited the site on June 16. It confirmed Banabai’s allegations that inferior quality material was used to construct the dam. Fearing consequences, V B Mitkari, a supervisor with the agriculture department, who was involved with the construction of the dam, went to Banabai’s house and unleashed a volley of threats. He accused her of breaking the dam and told her that he had “fixed” all higher ups.
Unfazed, Banabai filed a second complaint with the district collector, mentioning Mitkari’s threats and demanded that the official be suspended. She alleged that only Rs 1 lakh had been spent on the dam, instead of the officially sanctioned Rs 3 lakh. She also alleged that instead of black soil, murum (a local variety of thick gravel) was used to construct the dam.
But there was no action. So Banabai went back to the collector’s office on July 1, and asked him directly, “ Tumhi paise khalle ka (did you take a bribe)?” The collector, Sanjay Deshmukh, was initially speechless. But within moments his team was in a hustle. An inspection team was dispatched immediately to the check dam site.
The memory of that day is precious to Banabai. “The inspection team and I had to travel by the collector’s own lal divyachi gadi’ (official vehicle with a red lamp), because there was no other vehicle at the collectorate at that time,” she says with a smile.
The team’s findings confirmed Banabai’s allegations. By this time, Banabai had become a bit of a star in the local media: pictures of the elderly woman walking with the help of a stick were splashed in several local dailies. On July 3, a pressured collector issued an verbal order that the dam on Banabai’s land be reconstructed. On the same day, Yavatmal district’s panchayat Samiti also passed a resolution supporting Banabai’s demand that Mitkari be suspended.
But no action was actually taken. So on July 7, Banabai went to Mumbai and sought a meeting with Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilas Rao Deshmukh. She had to wait for two days. The wait was not in vain.
Describing the meeting, Banabai says, “I recounted what Mitkari had told me, and asked the chief minister if indeed any money had arrived at the mantralaya (the building that houses most departments of the Maharashtra government).” The chief minister gave her a patient hearing. Banabai says, “He told me, you have come from very far. Please sit down. He ordered someone to bring water for me. ”
During the 15- minute conversation that followed, Banabai gave the chief minister an account of the corruption in works performed under the farmers’ package. The chief minister assured Banabai that he would take personal interest in the case. On August 17, Mitkari was suspended.
Banabai’s case attracted a lot of attention from the media. Her neighbours, are, however, somewhat guarded in their reaction—evidently fearing reprisal by the agriculture department.
Banabai’s life has returned to its daily rhythm. As this correspondent took leave, she told her, “One is lucky to land a government job. But those who get it become arrogant. These people have robbed poor farmers. They should be punished.”
September 10, 2008
The best explanation I could find on what the Large Hadron Collider was designed for...
UPDATE: Here's an even better explanation in a CERN rap video.
A recipe. Build two pipes, each about 6 centimetres wide and 27 kilometres long. Bend them both into a circle and cool to 1.9 kelvin, about 300 °C below room temperature. Fill with protons - about a hundred billion of them to start with - all travelling as close to the speed of light as possible. Add a magnetic field a hundred thousand times more powerful than the Earth's to steer the particles through the pipes. And make sure the protons in each pipe move in opposite directions.Wired too has an insightful take on the Best and Worst Case Scenarios for the world's costliest scientific experiment. See also the funny FAQ in the sidebar.
Now here's the exciting bit. Align the two pipes so that the particles collide. About twenty protons should smash into each other, creating showers of other particles. Take a good look at each one. If you spot a particle you don't recognise, shout.
Finally, repeat forty million times. Each second.
- New Scientist 1994 article
UPDATE: Here's an even better explanation in a CERN rap video.