Actually, no this post isn’t, but there is a post at Gartner that makes the claim: the iPad is better than OLPC.

Having never even seen an iPad, I can’t say that the premise – that it is easier to use than the XO (which is pretty easy to use) will help bridge the digital divide with the elderly.

The ‘digital divide’ is the general term for the gap between those writing blog posts about the digital divide and those who won’t or can’t as easily adopt every new technology. Common reasons include price, education level, applicability of services, and lack of support infrastructure. Andrea DiMaio, the post’s author, makes an excellent point that the digital divide has an element of usability, not just availability.

What is intriguing about the iPad is not only the friendly user interface and the great Internet surfing experience, but also the likely usage patterns and the unlikely users. Many commented that this device will be carried around in the home (also depending on what accessories will be available to ruggedize it). But I would argue, it could be used by people who would never use a computer.

Which governments is DiMaio talking about? Wealthier governments that need help getting their older (or less computer literate) employees up to speed? That is a worthy goal. Even employees that are computer literate will likely have their efficiency increase once they are able to bridge the technology gap with their coworkers. But is that better than the XO?

He suggests that governments could give the iPad to students instead of a laptop. The XO is less than half the cost of the iPad. Students that are dependent on the XO don’t generally get their own of anything, not even ridiculously cheap laptops. Here, the limiting factor isnot only the cost, but supply lines that aren’t totally dependent on foreign aid workers; reliable energy sources; security; protection from bugs, animals, dust, etc which can damage even very sturdy equipment and the availability of maintenance; this list could continue for paragraphs. OLPC has been working to address these problems for years (they now make ‘green’ laptops which are able to use solar power), Apple’s primary clients mostly live and work in very different conditions.

None of this is to say that the iPad won’t be useful for development purposes (at the very least, the ridiculous name has generated donations of sanitary pads for girls in developing countries). But to say that the iPad, or any other form of technology (even the XO), will be a panacea, is to completely misunderstand the nature of technology. Technology is a tool. Not only is it neutral, but it is very rarely revolutionary, at least not the way we expect. Governments may in fact decide to make use of the iPad, possibly even in the ways DiMaio predicts, but it won’t be because a package from Apple shows up. Governments act based on incentives. People and institutions determine incentives. Let’s keep our focus there.