Laptop Makers Skeptical of $100 Laptop Schedule

coolgadget wrote to mention an article at DigitalTimes reporting that the production schedule MIT has laid out for the $100 laptop may be unrealistic. From the article: "Quanta Computer, Compal Electronics, and Inventec, which are reportedly bidding to manufacture the world's cheapest notebook distributed to schools directly through large government initiatives, consider that meeting the volume shipment schedule for the US$100 notebook would be 'unlikely' given the current technical hurdles that need to be overcome ... The OLPC project will need huge support from governments to solve a variety of software and hardware problems including handwriting recognition, translation, and panel issues, all under a low-cost production budget, Taiwan notebook makers stated. Related components for the low-cost notebooks are still in the design stage, indicated the makers, noting that a 7.5-inch display sample for the US$100 model could be released by January of next year at the soonest." We've previously discussed this story.

Comments

Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[Black-Man]

Maybe the folks at MIT Media Lab with all the funding they get from the US government should be concerned with providing laptops to underprivilged children in Appalachia instead?? Of course that won't garner headlines that they so crave.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[massivefoot]

Well firstly they aren't providing laptops to third world countries. They are merely designing and outsourcing the production of a laptop such that it is cheap enough to be bought in bulk at $100 a time by third world governments. I assume that, should the US government consider it necessary to provide a large number of its citizens with laptops, they would also be able to purchase them at $100 a time, if they filed a sufficiently large order.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[Spirckle]

Posts like this worry me (wory me about the poster); it signals a deep lack of appreciation for how important information is to changing lives and conditions. Have you never had a physical symptom which you looked up on the internet to figure out how worried you should be. Maybe even information like, hmmm diahrea and general wasting away. Might be cholera, BOIL THE WATER you drink. How about when you needed help or information? Ever found it through a well placed email? There is nothing to say that medical services AND laptops cannot be provided to the same people. In fact it is MORE likely that appropriate medical services will find its way there if the people who need it have access to communication devices more advanced than bongo drums.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[david.given]

Also, and I don't mean to be a sourpuss, but wouldn't it be more useful to provide certain other things to third world countries, such as medical care ?

Because if you pay for medical care you get medical care. But if you pay for information, you get everything.

People in third-world countries aren't idiots, you know. In fact, there's a good chance that they're smarter than you are; they're certainly going to be better at exploiting opportunities, because they have to in order to survive. And if you ask them what they want, then you'll find that the vast majority of the time is that once they've reached basic subsistence, then what they really want is education and communication. They don't want people to do things for them. They want to learn how to do things for themselves.

I don't entire agree that laptops are the best way of doing it, but setting up a basic IT infrastructure is an entirely logical step in the right direction. Take a look at the way mass access to the 'net has changed the western world. Now imagine what that could do for a people who were actually focused on achievement and getting things done, rather than the mental masturbation that we're so keen on.

Would these $100 laptops help? Well, perhaps. A standardised platform with automatic mesh networking that can do store-and-forward email and low-power applications could be extremely useful, but first you'd have to build enough of them to get the infrastructure in place and enough of them in use to build momentum and acceptance. They're the kind of thing that would only be useful if everyone had one --- this is what killed the Cybiko, for example.

(Incidentally, I would buy one --- a simple, portable, useful computer that I don't have to worry too much about breaking would be fantastically useful for me. Particularly if it was an open platform!)

Are there any actual locals here who want to comment?

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[cperciva]

wouldn't it be more useful to provide certain other things to third world countries, such as medical care ?

These laptops might pay for themselves by reducing the costs of medical care. When people have more information, they are likely to notice and seek treatment for a serious condition sooner than otherwise; to take your example of tuberculosis, providing a laptop and internet connection to a remote village could easily make the difference between the entire village being infected and only one person suffering (and being quarantined until medical help can arrive).

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[2.7182]

Because if you pay for medical care you get medical care. But if you pay for information, you get everything.

That makes no sense. Is information from the web going to cure my cousins stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer ?

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[BewireNomali]

This isn't insightful.

I can refer to cliches: teach a man to fish, etc.

providing medical care places third worlders in a subordinate position, forever dependant on first world benevolence, or worse, disguised self-interest. Also, providing meds is bullshit because they have to workaround patent laws. Brazil announced that they would violate american patent law to produce AIDS meds and the US threatened sanctions, but allowed pharm cos. to offer the drugs at costs still too high for the Brazilian government to subsidize by and large. What the fuck!!?!?! Don't give them drugs - give them temporary patent reprieve and let them make their own.

Giving them information allows them to develop their own stuff... way of life... cultural systems.

so it isn't more useful to give them some pills. It's way more useful to give them the means to make their own.

This will be infrastructure intensive: computers and connections and education. Education and information self-empowers people.

also... from another standpoint.... projects like this can actually help the US economy (if the books can be sold to governments for a profit or for controlling interest in natural resources going forward, etc.) whereas giving meds is terminator thinking. Give meds and then what?

However flawed this project might be - it's smart people taking risks and thinking progressively. I'll always applaud that.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[Anonym1ty]

I've read that TB could be eradicated if the US just put the dollars into it.

Don't believe everything you read. Could it help? probably. Contrary to popular beleif, the United States is not the answer to all of the world's problems, nor is it the cause. It is real easy to write something and then add, If the United States only... It is as easy as spending someone else's money. These people asking the US to do this and that... or even demanding are the very same people who hate the US for being envolved in the rest of the world. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Something written down like that with "if the US just put the dollars into it." sounds like political propaganda more than a useful soultion to anything. And where do you think the money would really go? where? Maybe it will go to Kofi Annan's son.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[david.given]

That makes no sense. Is information from the web going to cure my cousins stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer ?

Probably nothing will.

But information from the web will teach about hygiene and disease prevention and first aid, and will allow distance learning that will train nurses and doctors, and will allow those nurses and doctors to do a lot of work at a distance, which will allow them to do more work and at the same time train more medical workers, and instead of saving one life you end up helping to bootstrap improved health for the entire country.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[zulux]

I give to third-world causes for several reasons:

  1) More bang for the buck - $100 goes further in Sudan than it does in Appalachia.
  2) Need. People in Sudan face war, Aids, typhoid, and rape. Appalachians are born into the easiet country in the world to live, so I tend to take a dim view of people that don't seize the oppertunity. 80% of world would switch places with the Appalachians and count themselves blessed.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

You make a fatallly flawed assumption.

You're assuming these laptops can be magically connected to the Internet.

How? The infrastructure isn't in place, and even if it oculd somehow be put in place, who is to say the local corrupt gov't would allow unfettered access to it? Think China.

The how idea of giving laptops to the poor in 3rd world countries is so blisteringly stupid, as to defy imagination.

A shiny new laptop is the *last* thing these people *need*, let's start with what they *do* need:

(1) Food
(2) Healthcare
(3) Shelter.
and here comes a big one:

(4) a non-corrupt gov't that isn't hell-bent on wiping out its own people. (aka most of the current gov'ts in Africa)

The laptop will solve *none* of those things. None. And to think otherwise is arrogant, egocentric, or just plain dumb.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[david.given]

You're assuming these laptops can be magically connected to the Internet.

No, I'm not --- I explicitly mentioned store-and-forward and mesh networking. A village (which may only have one of these) stores its outgoing messages on a single device. Somebody goes to the market to do the normal trading, in a nearby town. The device will send-and-receive as it passes near any other devices. Done.

(This also allows a very cost-effective way of improving the service: send a guy on a motorbike with one of these things on rounds of the various villages. He arrives in one village; picks up and drops messages; moves on to the next village...)

You're thinking far too big. These are not Pentium class laptops with gigabytes of RAM and broadband.

let's start with what they *do* need: (1) Food (2) Healthcare (3) Shelter [...] (4) a non-corrupt gov't

Please, read what I said. After achieving subsistence, I said, and food, very basic healthcare and shelter all count as subsistence.

As for (4)... do you know what the best way of countering corruption is? An educated populace.

Re:Why the Obsession with Third World Countries?

[pkphilip]

Do you really think that the 3rd world is some sort of a black hole where information has somehow stopped flowing because cheap computers are not available? and do you really think that it is the lack of information that is keeping these parts from improving?

I live in a 3rd world country and I can tell you this - there is enough information floating around this place - internet cafe's which offer 1 hour of internet usage at something like 20 cents / hour or even less. There are also a lot of second-hand book stores which sell books for very very little (a dollar or less fetch you one or two good science books). Many of these books are foriegn publications which has passed through the hands of many, many people before it was finally dumped somewhere. There are also stalls which buy old paper, books etc which are then sent to recycling plants etc. You can pick up magazines here for 10 cents of less. So it seems to me that it is not the lack of information which is causing the poor to stay that way.

In my experience, one of the greatest barriers to progress in these places is the mindset of those in power - who will do nothing to help the very poor, because if the poor get any wealthier, the rich won't have cheap domestic / industrial labour. The poor are easier to exploit in other ways as well. This is not going to change with a $100 laptop. $100 is, by the way, more than what many of the poor will get as salary in a month. Heck, if you had $100 to spend on a computer in these parts, they will classify you with the middle-class!

I hate subjects...

[GmAz]

Well, they are trying to integrate WiFi, Bluetooth and all this other stuff. Why? For $100 bucks, I wouldn't expect all the bells and whistles. A keyboard, trackpad (if not a trackball like the oldschool macs), screen, CDROM (not one of those new fandangled DVD-ROMS), and a USB port for thumbdrive access. And besides, $100 is a good price, but even $300 would be lower then most if not all other laptops.

Re:I hate subjects...

[hanshotfirst]

Basically the wireless is there because otherwise the laptop would be useless. Each laptop will have a very small and cheap hard drive (or flash memory?), and won't store much information. Instead, students will be able to share files easily, and the teacher will be able to send information to the students, without the need for expensive hardwired infrastructure. It also makes the "classroom" very portable.

If these have minimal storage on each unit, where do these files that they pick up from other machines (which themselves have minimal storage) get stored?
The concept still doesn't add up to me. Count me among the uneducated masses (do I qualify for a $100 laptop now?)

Missing software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it shown again and again that if you provide an open platform to people, you don't really need much more: the 0.1% super-savvy will eventually write the missing drivers/software for the platform.

But Why?

[228e2]

Why? As a son to 2 parents who work in the Detroit Public Schools, I can name a million better ways to improve the education of the students other than $100 lap tops. Don't get me wrong, this is a nice gesture and ulimately this is a positive in a lot of different lights, but so wrong in other ways. How about getting regular computers, there are some middle and elementary schools that share a few computers between the hundreds of students, if any at all. And dont even get me started on how my rural area schoolchildren are yet to see a computer until their latter high school years. Again, great thought, but its too ahead of our time.

Unsurprising

[Gonoff]

So manufacturers are not 100% enthusiastic about this idea? Well what a surprise!

If the third world gets $100 laptops using open source software, this will be really bad news for harware manufacturers and the end of the road for many closed source software manufacturers.

If tens of millions of those things go there, they will end up in the developed world as well - and they won't help the bottom lines of the rich companies.

Of course there are difficulties. What do all the trainers with their suits and powerpoint keep telling us? "There are no problems - only oportunities!"

Laptop bidders say it is too difficult eh?

[WickedLogic]

Never let the person who says it is impossible, stop the person who is actually doing it.

North America

[gbdc]

Would it be marketable in North America?

I for one wouldn't mind a second laptop that's cheaper than many PDA's, even at reduced featurset.

Only real negative I see is the ~7 inch display -- I hope they'd provide external display option, though I don't think it's likely due to cost constraint.

Evidence that this will help?

[G4from128k]

I don't mean to troll, but I wonder if Negreponte and crew have any experimental evidence that these laptops will actually help. Have they done any studies in which they gave laptops (of any price) to one set of villages and didn't give laptops to some similar set of other villages? Given the contentious issue of whether computers really help in U.S. classrooms, I wonder if they will help in developing nations.

Rational (i.e. non-empirical) arguments for the plausibility of improvement are not sufficient. For example I saw very nice properly randomized study about giving textbooks to African school children. Children with textbooks did no better than children without textbooks. That is to say, textbooks were a waste of money. The failure was ascribed to the textbooks use of English, but who knows if that was really the cause.

On the other hand, I can see a higher chance of positve change by providing laptops for farmers and small businesses -- especially if the laptops provide access to market data, aid management, or foster B2B commerce. Improving the productivity of small farms, factories, and distributors would raise wages and living standards. This has clearly occurred in the developed world although it takes decades for businesses to really change their processes to get the most out of computers. Helping 3rd-world businesses may not have the same level of charitable karma as aiding school children, but it might provide a greater reduction in poverty.

It would be very sad to see this effort fail because of unfounded assumptions about the impact of laptops on school children.

Re:Evidence that this will help?

[spazimodo]

I agree. Also, there HAVE been studies showing that investment in cell infrastructure produces positive ROI (The Economist runs an article about this every month is seems like) Having access to a cell phone give someone the opportunity to run a business (rent out time to other folks without phones) for farmers to get accurate market pricing and access to remote markets without travelling so they can get the best possible price for their crops, allows for dissemination of weather and public safety information and plenty of other things.

In time it may be shown that these laptops provide similar value, but we have tech that's been shown to help, it's a shame it's not as sexy to try to develop a $20 cell phone.

Re:Not ready for prime time

[pilgrim23]

Philanthropy is always appreciated by the not so well off. It has traditionally been the means for those who "make it" to give back. The Carnegie endowments are a good example from an earlier era. The Gates Foundation; another from today. Helping the poor always garners karma points but, mandated help as a buy-off does not. Another point: the Free Market has always been the best machine to design and build a product at the most economic and durable price point. Schools do a good job of developing the skills needed for this but industry does a good job of honing those skills.
    The path from phylosophy class to the hand of a beuracrat will better serve if it passes through the intermediate filter of capitalism.

Can we lower the goals a little?

[Hosiah]

You've gotta be kidding me about the hand-writing recognition. For a machine that will be deployed all over the planet? What for? Won't it have a keyboard and the keymapping/Unicode doodads? Handwriting recognition is tough; even our best AI is still challenged by it, and that's just for *one* language.

This is turning into one of those misguided-with-the-best-intentions type projects, I can see it coming.

Re:Negroponte's Hoaxtop

[NineNine]

At this point in time, I agree. It's 100% impossible. There is NO WAY that a working laptop computer can be produced for under $100. I don't understand why Slashdotters, who probably spend more time shopping for computers than most people, dont' see this. If a $100 laptop was possible, some bottom feeder like Wal-Mart would already be selling it. As is, we have people beating each other up in big box stores all across the nation to get a $400 loss leader laptop. The $100 laptop is complete and total bullshit.

All that being said, let me announce that I will be giving out $5 laptops to the millions of starving children in the world. This $5 laptop will have a 19" screen, a 120 GB SATA hard drive, wireless connectivity, a full keyboard (available in any language) and be durable enough to be able to be run over with a tank, or dropped into mud.

Assistance considered harmful.

[hummassa]

If you give a man a fish, he'll have food for a day...

The third world does not really need (*) the kind of assistance that the rich countries offer most of the time (food and medicine).
The third world does need:

1. technology (vide my first phrase above)
2. fair trade

Yeah, basically, that's it. And yes, I do live in a 3rd world country. My father comes from a really poor rural area, and both his sons to college, and me an my brother are sort of living the (South) American Dream.

(*) except in the most emergencial cases, of course.

Re:Why can't we just grant them half the cost?

[DrXym]

Or just as easily sell a "deluxe" (costing perhaps $20 extra to make) version and sell it to the slavering geeks and probably mainstream consumer who would snap it up even it were $250.

After all, Bayliss did something similar with their clockwork radios. The original idea was to sell something that worked in Africa, yet they found a market for them in developed countries too.

Re:why build new laptops?

[proboy256]

There are so many reasons:

1. With standardized hardware it is *much* easier to support users through documentation.

2. With standardized hardware it is easier build training programs for self-service.

3. Standard hardware can create a local market for replacement hardware without requiring the huge capital investment in a wide-ranging inventory.

4. Users can share relevent experiences with the hardware, with odds and ends hardware, the experience becomes less transferable.

5. This notebook is tough. I highly doubt you could ruggedize old laptops appropriately.

6. When was the last time you saw a handcrank built into a laptop? The hardware and software are custom-developed to work in a particular niche, one that is very different from the office desk for which most laptops are built.

7 ...

Well, you get the picture. This is the power of mass production and replacable parts. It's why IT departments buy lots of the same computer model from the same manufacturer. It's why we make standards for USB and XML.

Vaporware to the rescue!

[JourneyExpertApe]

How exactly is a laptop for every child going to help? I went to public schools in the US, and we didn't have much access to computers. My family had a PC, but most of my classmates' families didn't. For one semester in jr. high, we got to use some very old computers (even for the time) to learn to program in BASIC. Then, in high school, I got to take a computer programming class for one year where I learned some basic programming concepts in Pascal, again with very old computers. I never got to use a school-owned word processor or any educational software. But that didn't stop me from getting a good education. You don't need a laptop to learn math, science, history, and to speak and write your language with proper grammar. In college some of my classmates had very limited computer experience, but they managed to learn what they needed to know very quickly in order to get a degree in engineering. By the way, in case you think I'm an old-timer, I graduated high school in 1997.

Now, some guy from MIT has dreamed up an idea in his ivory tower that students in third world countries need laptops while students in the US still have to share old PCs. Laptops won't make up for the lack of well-trained teachers, they won't make up for the lack of emphasis on education by third world parents, and they won't improve the health of the children.

But all of this is moot, because these laptops will never materialize in any form close to what has been described. Not in ten years. Just look at the specs to convince yourself. Each time these $100 laptops are mentioned, the design gets more and more preposterous. It's vaporware designed to grab headlines and secure research grants.

Re:Vaporware to the rescue!

[sjwaste]

The one thing you DID have to learn were textbooks, though. That's why you didn't need computers. Printing and distributing text books would cost more than putting a $100 laptop in everyone's hands and allowing them to access content electronically. A publisher could donate electronic texts at virtually no cost to themselves, whereas if they printed and donated a textbook for each subject for each grade for each person, the costs get up there. Not to mention distribution. Once a communications infrastructure is built, it becomes low cost to distribute electronic information as well.

YOU learned w/o computers because you had books. They don't have many textbooks in the poorest countries, so what are they going to learn from?

The Free Market

[Oldsmobile]

The free market is an excellent motivator for creating ...well, anything really, that makes a profit. As we all know, the free market and capitalism has made all kinds of wonderful toys for us. I'm definetly not complaining about those.

The problem of course is the stuff that the free market does not do so well, namely the bummer stuff that does not make a profit, namely feeding and clothing the poor, protecting the environment and minor things like that.