
The Tablet and the Calculator - Amorymeltzer
http://www.wired.com/2015/09/amazon-tablet-casio-calculator/
======
koralatov
Perhaps even stranger: the HP-12c, a calculator that's effectively unchanged
since the early 1980s, continues to sell well at a price higher than the new
Amazon tablets. It's not new, doesn't trade on exclusivity, and is easily
available second-hand on eBay --- but still sells well brand-new. My old
employer bought my first for me, at a cost of about £70 in 2011. It was a
great purchase, and repaid itself many times over.

The internals have changed, now running some kind of ARM emulator inside, but
I have one from the '80s and another from 2012, and they operate identically.
There are some superficial differences, but you could give a modern one to a
user in 1985 and they'd be right at home.

The _Wall Street Journal_ wrote a nice retrospective of the HP12c for its 30th
anniversary in 2011:
[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487038419045762574...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703841904576257440326458056)

~~~
bsder
In fact, calculator design seems to have gone _backward_.

The HP48 was an _amazing_ calculator for engineers. It often sells on Ebay for
_more_ than HP's current highest-end calculators do _brand new_.

The problem is that HP's calculator division originally knew that calculators
were about _accuracy_ \--both numerically, the algorithms were specified and
stable, and physically, the keys simply never made an error and had a positive
physical feel when they engaged.

I could enter long semiconductor device physics calculations into my HP48SX
and _not even look at the display_. I would _know_ that everything was entered
correctly simply by feel.

I can't even hope to do that on anything "modern".

~~~
falcrist
In the 80s and early 90s there were scientific calculators that were
programmable and had substantially more functionality built in than the
current batch of scientific calculators. If you want illustrations of this,
compare the HP 42s to the TI 36X Pro. Granted, the HP was more expensive than
the TI, but the 36 series is the top of the line for TI at this point.

The TI can do integration, complex arithmetic, vectors, and matrices. However,
most of it's functions don't work in the complex domain, and the matrices are
limited to 3×3. It has a solver, but that's limited. It can't store equations
or programs.

The HP can also do integration, complex arithmetic, vectors, and matrices.
Almost all of its functions work in the complex domain (complex matrices are
particularly useful). It has a versatile solver, works with matrices of over
10 elements, and can even store user programs (with GUI elements!).

My theory on what happened is that normal desktop computers became powerful
enough to run mathematical software packages, and graphing calculators became
popular. Those two things dis-incentivized calculator manufacturers from
creating powerful scientific calculators that could ACTUALLY fit in a pocket.

The calculator now exists just for highschool students, which is a shame,
because it would be really nice to have a powerful scientific with nice
buttons.

Maybe someone will build a calculator that also serves as an interface with a
mathematics package… maybe even with "cloud" computing capabilities (where it
runs the software package on your computer to do non-trivial things.

~~~
jarfil
It seems to me like the main thing about a physical calculator would be the
physical keys. Would it make sense then to have a Bluetooth "calculator"
keyboard linked to a smartphone?

~~~
falcrist
I'd rather see a wifi enabled calculator that can interact with various
software packages (either acting as a mobile interface, or using a
desktop/server to offload heavy calculations).

------
rrss1122
The price of the calculator is understandable, given the audience it is
targeting. What is mind-boggling for me is that Texas Instruments can still
get away with selling a TI-84 for $100 new, no doubt with The College Board's
help. They are artificially keeping prices high for students by authorizing
only a short list of calculators for exams. They don't even allow non-graphing
scientific calculators to be used on the AP Calculus BC exam, you must use an
expensive graphing calculator.

[https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-calculus-
bc/c...](https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-calculus-
bc/calculator-policy)

~~~
hajile
I find that list interesting because much harder exams like the FE and PE
exams (engineering exams for those who aren't familiar) don't allow anything
beyond a basic, non-graphing calculator (ti-30/36, casio fx-115, and HP-33/35
at present according to their website).

[http://ncees.org/exams/calculator-policy/](http://ncees.org/exams/calculator-
policy/)

~~~
lfowles
I'd bet the differentiation isn't graphing ability, but being able to store
user data.

~~~
falcrist
Both of the HP calculators can store programs, equations, and even text.

------
bane
What really kind of blows my mind is that TI hasn't yet produced a $59.99 pro-
level TI-Calc app for tablets and smart phones. There's enough people who grew
up through school on TI calculators and would love to have a pro-level app to
do their real work on. Toss in a $39.99 physical USB calculator keyboard (as
an alternative to the on-screen) and TI could also reap the benefits of the
accessory market.

There has to be (or where) literally millions of buyers for this kind of
thing. The k-12 training pipeline is the perfect way to lock people into the
"TI-way" of calculating.

(and yes I know you can install Octave and Matlab on Android devices these
days, but people turn to those because there isn't a TI licensed pro-level
app. And yes, I have several TI-calc emulators on my phone I use frequently).

~~~
jacobolus
TI calculators are basically a racket. They are entirely unnecessary (I’d
argue distracting and counterproductive) for student learning in the
classroom, but via partnerships with the standardized test and textbook
publishers, they’ve convinced American parents, students, and school
administrators that they’re essential tools, and can thereby charge $100 for
laughably antiquated hardware.

It’s even sillier when you consider most students have a dramatically more
capable smartphone in their pockets already. We might as well be teaching
students to use Palm Pilots or 15-year-old point-and-shoot digital cameras.

Calling them “pro level” is a joke.. real pros use (e.g.) Matlab, R,
Mathematica, or Python.

~~~
lfowles
I think GP might have been getting at TI89 level calculators, which have CAS.
That's a significant feature in my book.

~~~
bane
I'm talking even better, but designed with the TI-like way of doing math.
Something Matlab/Mathematica-level, but with a more reasonable input interface
than something like Python for Android. I had a TI-92+ I used for years
instead of fighting with Matlab since I had using it down to muscle memory. It
worked well enough (until I needed more pro-level tools).

For example, adding better support for matrix math than the TI-89/92 series,
and some built in image processing tools...the platform already even has image
acquisition hardware.

Or a line of USB connectable voltmeters or other data acquisition hardware.

For field use, lots of people still use these middle-school calculators
because they have a decent combination of power and an interface they've been
using for 6-7 years. Heck, I use emulators for TI-83/85/89 on my phone for
quick calculations in the field or when I don't want to have to fire up an
overpowered tool. The CAS on the 89 is almost magic in lots of cases.

------
fizixer
The argument in this article belongs squarely in the WTF category. I wasted 5
minutes trying to find out why a shitty Casio calculator costing $220 is worth
its price compared to a $50 android tablet.

~~~
bitwize
For the same reason William Gibson wrote _Neuromancer_ not on a computer, but
on a Hermes typewriter. More low tech = more authentic.

