There is a feedback aspect that this article does not seem to get.<p>> After all, the <i>material</i> hasn't changed (much), so if the calculators were good enough for us 10 or 15 years ago, they are still good enough to solve the math problems.<p>Technology <i>changes</i> the material: it changes what you think you need or want. You could almost say dialup internet was fine for viewing text web-pages -- why does it need to be faster? Broadband enabled web video -- which in turn spurred the need for broadband.<p>The calculator example looks a bit like a phone. If you took a phone from 2000 and one from 2007, they would look pretty similar. It is still a phone, is it not? We do not <i>need</i> something more, do we? And then the iPhone appeared.<p>> Here's the thing. Some technologies don't change all that quickly because we don't need them to. . . . Look at cars or power plants<p>Crikey! If you wanted to hit on two of the things we <i>do</i> most need to change, and have for decades, it might well be just those.<p>The whole article disturbs me a bit, actually, because it seems dangerously full of the anti/un-creative mindset. You will never invent anything if you just look at what you have and think of justifications for why everything is pretty much fine. You create by <i>finding</i> faults and imagining what you do <i>not</i> have. Look at those two calculator pics, and think of them as representing some part of the web now and in 2021. Scary? Well that is what it <i>will</i> be unless you get irritated and make some weird unexpected new stuff!
I loved the HP48 series in high school and college, and m48+ brings it to my iPhone. For the rare times I feel the need for something more powerful than the calculator built into Spotlight, and something less powerful than Clojure, I reach for it.<p>Never go into the HP50 series, though it does look nice. Probably would have started using it if I were still in school.
Want to see a non-incremental innovation for multi-touch calculators?<p>A friend of a friend wrote this: <a href="http://mathtouchapp.com/" rel="nofollow">http://mathtouchapp.com/</a> (He doesn't know I'm linking it here).<p>The app throws away the calculator metaphor and starts from scratch. Instead, the author uses the back-of-a-napkin as the metaphor.<p>You start with a blank page and add systems of equations. You can visually link variables together. You can insert values along with its unit of measurement and numeric precision. You can feed results to graphs.<p>At $10, this is cheaper than getting the Nspire if you already have an iOS device. But of course, you can't use it when taking the SAT. And it would be cool if you can export it to Wolfram's computational data format and trade formula libraries.<p>You need to actually understand the math instead of just punching the buttons. Then again, isn't that what Sal Khan's videos are for?
I don't think there's much competition, either. HP appears to have bowed out of the graphing calculator market years ago. (though a Google turns them up?)<p>Also, for high-end math wizardry, it's very easy to simply not use a calculator: Maxima [1] obseleted my calculator for tasks that weren't tests<p>I suspect as smartphones get cheaper and finish their takeover, the calculator firmware will get loaded into an in-app emulator and there they will live.<p><a href="http://maxima.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">http://maxima.sourceforge.net/</a>
I'll repost the comment I left on the article:<p>I used a TI-66 as an undergrad (Purdue - Computer Technology), but I graduated from college(the first time) in 1988. Was great that I could program in frequently used equations. Later as an MBA student I picked up an HP 19Bii Business Consultant Calculator for all the financial functionality.<p>They let you use a calculator on the SAT now? That is my "You kids get off my lawn" moment of the story.<p>Oh, and <a href="https://www.xkcd.com/768/" rel="nofollow">https://www.xkcd.com/768/</a>
I haven't changed the batteries in 8 months. I can do math on my TI-89 Titanium without even looking at it, that's not possible with any tablet. Real buttons are worth the extra money. Depending on the complexity of the problem, there's many I'd rather use a calculator than even Maple or Mathematica, both of which would be an absolute nightmare to do on my iPhone. Also, <i>you can still program it</i>, which isn't available on anything iOS related unless you used javascript somehow (Fucking up the semi-empirical mass formula in Nuclear Physics was practically a pastime on my homework before I wrote a small basic program). Furthermore, no teacher/professor in their right mind is going to let anyone use a device capable of wireless communications on a test.
Meanwhile, over in Europe: <a href="http://www.geogebra.org/cms/" rel="nofollow">http://www.geogebra.org/cms/</a><p>Geogebra is open source and funded with EU grants. They're about to launch version 4, I think, but I don't care because v5 has been in stable beta for the last 6 months.
That's nothing. The HP12C is thirty years old and still lists for $70.<p>In other words, it was cutting edge in 1981 along with the original IBM PC.<p>[<a href="http://www.amazon.com/HP-12c-Financial-Calculator-12C/dp/B00000JBLH/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1314214865&sr=8-4" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/HP-12c-Financial-Calculator-12C/dp/B00...</a>]<p>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-10C_series#HP-12C" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-10C_series#HP-12C</a>]
Repost of my comment on the atlantic article:<p>The fault lies with the college board. A useful standardized test would either:
* not require a calculator at all, testing understanding instead of computation or
* allow access to real world tools-- including free ones like <a href="http://wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">http://wolframalpha.com</a> and <a href="http://desmos.com/calculator" rel="nofollow">http://desmos.com/calculator</a> (full disclosure-- I helped build the latter)<p>How much time is wasted teaching the unnecessary skills of how to use an antiquated, expensive device merely because tests require it? We should be teaching our students which resources are available, which to use in which situations, and how to plug in the gaps between them
People find it amazing that an analog oscilloscope from 1985 sells for $200 on the used market. Or that a milling machine from 1965 sells for $1,200. Tools, certainly solid tools, derive their value from their ability to meet the need, and once silicon density intersected with the needs of high school math they reached 'equilibrium.' From that point on, a solid calculator has an intrinsic value. What is more its pretty clear that the value is higher than the cost of manufacturing it, so building solid calculators is nearly always going to have some 'profit' associated with it.<p>Personally the TI-92+ was the pinnacle, it was basically a Sun-2 workstation with Macsyma installed in a handheld unit. I've still got mine :-)
I still have my TI-83+ from my highschool days. Honestly, I couldn't survive without it. When I have to do hard core matrix algebra or graphing, and I need to be in front of my book, I can't use the PC or tablet -- it just doesn't fit in the zone. The physical nature of the calculator, the portability, and tactile feedback are all necessary.<p>Also, the TI-83+ takes a beating. ;)
Come back to teenagedom in 1985. You listened to the FM radio, because CD's hadn't been invented yet. You made calls on a landline, and yes, it was called "the phone". You didn't have a beeper. You didn't have "the internet" (it had been invented, but you had not heard of it yet). Instead, you had local dial up BBS's on a 1200 bps modem (if you were very lucky) or on a 300 bps modem (typical). You most likely had an Atari 2600 as your "game system" (that is, if you had a "game system" at all). And your calculator of choice was the HP-15C.<p>Well, maybe most didn't have a HP-15C, but that was the calculator I had. Still have it actually, and it still works as well today as it did then.
While I am geeky, I always felt that the graphing calculators did not contribute much to my math classes. And neither were they a significant gateway into technology - few people went beyond the simplest functionality.
Other people must be thinking this as well, but it seems likely/obvious that the graphing calculator will go extinct, replaced by an app on a touchscreen device (not an emulated ti-82, but a <i>better</i> more intuitive graphing calc). Sounds like a pretty promising start-up. That the TI-82 is still $70 is unbelievable.
Have a 14 year old TI-89, that I still use to this day. It's small, simple, quick, and have all the functions and symbols I use under the custom menu. Amazing their haven't been any screen and function improvements (built in programs).