Electronics & Computers Deals here!
OLPC fires back at Intel, children learn nothing
Nick Negroponte, founder and chairman of the One Laptop Per Child project, came out swinging at Intel on Friday, one day after the chipmaker decided to leave the group.
The OLPC's goal of bringing low-cost technology to children in developing countries apparently conflicts with Intel's goal of running a business. Even though the two agreed to put aside their differences in July, it's pretty clear that they never actually became friends.
"We at OLPC have been disappointed that Intel did not deliver on any of the promises they made when they joined OLPC; while we were hopeful for a positive, collaborative relationship, it never materialized," Negroponte said in a statement distributed by the OLPC on Friday.
Intel cited "fundamental differences" in describing its exit from the group Thursday; this appears to be the classic "creative musical differences" breakup.
Nicholas Negroponte, founder and chairman of the OLPC
(Credit: OLPC)Quite simply, Negroponte wanted Intel to stop selling its Classmate laptop in regions where he was trying to sell the XO laptop. "Intel continued to disparage the XO laptop in developing nations that had already decided to partner with OLPC (Uruguay and Peru), with countries that were in the midst of choosing a laptop solution (Brazil and Nigeria), and even small and remote places (Mongolia)," Negroponte said.
Intel has never been shy about its desire to sell the Classmate PC as one of many possible products for the developing world, and that seems to have offended Negroponte. "As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market."
But Negroponte also said Intel's version of the XO laptop just wasn't that good. "The best Intel could offer in regards to an "Intel inside" XO laptop was one that would be more expensive and consume more power--exactly the opposite direction of OLPC's stated mandate and vision," Negroponte said.
An Intel representative declined to comment on the cost or power consumption of any chips slated for the XO laptop, which currently uses a Geode processor made by Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices.
And so it goes. It's always heartening to see two organizations disparage each other over who has the more appropriate vision for saving the world through technology--which assumes, of course, that notion is even possible.
Few would argue that it's a bad idea to connect students in impoverished lands to the outside world, but should they use custom laptops designed specifically for their needs, running open-source software and free from the Microsoft monopoly? Should they have access to the same technology that's available at Best Buy, but at a more reasonable price? Would all this time and effort be better spent on technology infrastructure in some of these nations?
Negroponte seems to think that because he's running a nonprofit with a "mission," he's entitled to a lock on the developing world and that the XO laptop is the only thing that can bridge the digital divide. That, of course, is preposterous; competition between firms is what improves products and brings down costs over time, and to expect Intel and other companies to just pass on burgeoning demand for computers in developing countries is pretty naive.
But I agree with Charlie Demerjian over at The Inquirer: the tone of this squabble is beneath Intel. Negroponte's project is well-intentioned, and the XO isn't a terrible product. Sure, he doesn't seem to really understand how to run a business venture, and he seems to have a bit of a messianic complex, but he really is trying to improve the lives of poor children.
The developing world needs more than one laptop. The folks at the OLPC do not have a divine right to sell laptops to poor cities and towns, and Intel isn't winning a lot of PR points by slamming a nonprofit.
And maybe, just maybe, some enterprising engineer in one of those developing countries might actually come up with their own idea for a laptop best suited for the needs of their people.
What are Intel and the OLPC going to do then, belittle the first homegrown laptop designer in Mongolia? Perhaps the best way to help developing countries get in on the technology revolution is to teach them how to design--not merely assemble--their own products, rather than coming to them from lofty perches in Cambridge and Santa Clara saying, "Don't worry, we know best."
Tom Krazit, a staff writer for CNET News, focuses on all things Apple. He has covered traditional PC companies such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard, chip companies such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, and mobile computers ranging from Research In Motion's to Palm's. E-mail Tom.
- Tags:
-
Intel,
-
OLPC,
-
Nicholas Negroponte,
-
XO,
-
Classmate PC
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
This is all about what serves children best, not what profits the mega-corporation the most. The cheapest, least power consuming, most portable, and most free of monopoly influence laptop benefits the children best, end of story. Like bloated pigs, the mega-corps are afraid that if they don't stick their nose deep in everywhere, they might miss out on some food.
Let Intel and Microsoft do their best to create alternatives to the XO; the bottom line is that they?ll have to sacrifice profits to truly create a competing product, or exercise their monopoly muscles. And why would they do that? Because the minute they create a product that?s cheaper in the third world, it devalues their products in the first world - the same problem drug companies have selling their products in both spheres. But they'll try anyway, because for them, it's all about the bucks; they'll only give up if it costs "too much" to improve children's lives.
This is about Intel rushing to an ?emerging market? to greedily grab whatever pie they can - when the fact of the matter is that the *children* have always been there, but Intel never cared enough to make them their customers because it wasn?t worth sacrificing their profit margin. Only now that someone else is making inroads, they?re being forced to run in and try to eat OLPC?s lunch to maintain their world dominance.
And then there's the network configuration: XO is built with Mesh network, to out-perform ANY standard wifi configuration, because the network bandwidth there is very limited. What Classmate gives you? standard 802.11 b/g. Gee, reall helpful Intel!
What about the screen? swivel XO and you can use it's B/W resolution as an eBook reader. What intel got? 7" 800x480 standard LVDS LCD panel. XO gives you 1200x900 resolution with extremly low power requirements!
There are few other different issues that you can check at laptop.org or classmatepc.com. See for yourself which solution is built for 3rd world countries and which one looks like just a custom form factor with a standard PC shoved in.
If companies want the Intel solution, IMHO they should talk to ASUS and buy their EEE PC. I'm sure they'll get a big discount + modifications they wanted at a price LOWER that what Intel gives, but if they want a fully tailored solution that has been TRIED and TESTED configuration, then they should talk to OLPC, cause this machine is the best configuration for them.
When people compare Windows PC vs Linux, Windows has an upper hand because of all the available software and hardware compatibility. So most people use Windows even though they have to pay for it.
On the other hand, low-cost computer for developing world is an untouched market, where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. Still, you are having a hard time selling your non-profit product against a for-profit product (which costs almost the same as XO)
And how can you expect someone else not to sell their products in the same market as yours? Tomorrow, Richard Stallman and Linus Trovalds will ask Microsoft to stop selling Windows and Apple to stop selling OSX anywhere in the world. Will that make any friggin sense?
If Intel is selling Classmate PCs for a profit, then it's a shame on you, because in this case, Intel has been able to have profit margins even at this price, while you are selling yours for no profit margin.
If Intel is doing this as a charity and not make money out of it, then you should stop whining. After all, your "goal" is to give children in third world countries to have a computer and not your computer!
A couple slaps at Negroponte, a wet noodle for Intel.
But never, NEVER talk about corporate greed.
Intel is the scorpion, the kids the frog.
When I learned OLPC, I recalled that sheep. In some sense, the XO laptop is even worse than the sheep: at least the sheep can be used as food.
By the way, currently in China there is no OLPC project, but there is ASUS Eee PC for sale. Guess who buys Eee PC? Not the poor guys in rural but the rich guys in the rich cities. They use Eee PC as a powerful PDA and in rich cities, you can find the Wi-Fi signal easily...
1. Competition will not improve the lives of children in developing countries in any way. The OLPC laptop HAS to be sold in large volumes, or it will not be sold at all.
2. Children do not need competition in order to get a better product. They do not need many choices. One laptop is more than enough, it will provide them all they need. Remember, right now they have nothing.
3. Poor nations should not be used by companies as their capitalistic playground. They already make enough money, they don't have to ruin the efforts of OLPC to make even more. By the way, where was Intel before OLPC was started?
I would suggest to Intel to get out of the way of OLPC and let them do their good work. They can feed the hunger of their shareholders in the markets of the developed world.
I still remember the day that I first read about one laptop per child and went that same day to a store where they were already selling one. It had a Linux system and an AMD processor, and you had to send in for a couple of rebates plus an in store rebate. I think it was also an in store promotion, but that's beside the point. The point is that it was a couple of years ago at least and if One Laptop per Child hasn't figured out what the retail market already knows, maybe they'd better just adopt a child per pennies a day and let the kid write them a letter once a year like they offer on those TV ads?
Large corporations don't get that this type of publicity diminishes public perception. What a missed opportunity for Intel to learn about new markets, develop better technology and appear noble in the pursuit.
children...think about the children.....".
OLPC is a charity. Intel/Microsoft want to make a profit in the same places that OLPC wants to donate. That should be a no-brainer,and is for the recipients. Why is that so hard to understand? Why does a supposedly smart company like Intel think it has anything to gain by beating up on a charity?
The other thing you fail to grasp is the legions of programmers and other techies that are morally opposed to the greed exhibited by the WinTel monopoly.
That monopoly can slow the day of their demise with their campaign of FUD, but they can't expect to prevail with those tactics.
BTW, I'm an active embedded systems designer since the late 1960s. The greed at Intel killed one of my projects in the early 1970s, and I haven't used an Intel product since then -- just several millions of other microcomputers.
Greed bites!
there's a good reason why some(many?) countries don't need this lo-tech ...
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/eyeonasia/archives/2006/07/india_says_no_t.html
Don't want to look like an idiot now, do we?
Intel is far from innocent in this dispute. They have clearly violated their agreements with OLPC, and engaged in predatory and disingenuous sales tactics in opposition to an organization they pretended to back. Worse, in pursuit of sales of their competing product, they used the fact of their inside position to lend weight to false allegations of financial instability of OPLC.
Probably neither side is blameless. But Tom ignores innumerable facts that fault Intel severely while he slams OLPC exclusively. A sad excuse for journalism. For SHAME.
I have no affiliation of any kind with either entity. I wonder mightily whether Krazit could truthfully say the same.
And will the idea of a cheap laptop for kids be still relevant in 2030?
and making a cash contribution and Mr. Krazit whines about
Negroponte's "messianic complex". Huh? Never saw that in the
computer world before did ya. psst two words: Steve Jobs.
Intel want's to sell more expensive computers (to gov'ts who
don't have a whole lot of cash) that are power hungry for people
who don't have the cash for electricity. And don't forget the
promises and agreements that Intel made and ignored -
"philosophical differences" my @ss. But for Mr. Krazit and Intel
that is just OK because it is called capitalism. You both make me
sick. Idiots like you guys will ensure the loonies on the left will
fight another day.
I wonder what happened to the saleswoman. Was she promoted or fired?
Well, it ain't at all hard to comin' up with responses to "news articles" like this when you've got fellers like Tom Krazit writin' material for you.
To Prof. Negroponte: I was in high-tech sales for years. One thing I learned from my customers:
whenever Intel and Microsoft say to you "I'm here to help", you run away as fast as you can.
Cut any ties/agreements/etc. with Microsoft NOW. It's not clear who learned their predatory practices from whom (perhaps it was independent on MS's and Intel's parts), but the same old Chinese saying applies, particularly to you and the OLPC project, Prof N.: "If you lie down with dogs, you arise with fleas".
To c/net: this brand of "reporting" is totally and completely unacceptable for a supposedly fair and objective source of news (does the term "yellow journalism" ring a bell?). Kinda calls into question your price list for "fairness".
Your response should be to distance yourself as quickly as possible from Mr. Krazit.
I really (stupidly) thought that Intel was above this type of activity. The last computer I bought (for Christmas) has an Intel processor. The operative words are "last", and "Intel processor".
Here's to you and yours for a peaceful, tranquil New Year.
- The IBM (DOETSCH) ThinkPad...
-
by Commander_Spock
January 5, 2008 9:59 AM PST
- ... should be the "standard base design" for the OLPC period.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 80 Comments >>