Slashdot Mirror
Intel Resigns from One Laptop Per Child Project
theodp writes "Reportedly angered by the One Laptop Per Child project's demand that it curtail work on its Classmate PC and other cheap laptops, Intel has resigned from the project's board and canceled plans for an Intel-based OLPC laptop. Intel's withdrawal from the project comes less than six months after the chip-making giant earned kudos for agreeing to contribute funding and join the board of OLPC. It's the latest blow to the OLPC, whose CTO quit earlier this week to launch a for-profit company to commercialize her OLPC inventions."
... now that everyone has his data stored away the project is obsolete anyway.
For an insightful view of the project from India I may refer to 'OLPC -- Rest in Peace', already written July 2006. 'Formula for Milking the Digital Divide' might also be interesting.
Disclaimer.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
OLPC is not a laptop project, it is an educational project, the software and the content and more important than the hardware. Intel seemingly could not get over its short term desire to sell its own processors and kill AMD. Silly because if the OLPC takes off then there will be a bigger market for everyone's processors,
My little Linux and tech blog
there is no money in this market. they are "competing" with a nonprofit, and will pull out once OLPC is dead. this is a business strategy, and the losers are OLPC and a generation of children.
Well, the article is Intel's version of the break. I think that if Negroponte really required Intel to drop the Classmate, it would have been too naive from him. It's almost as if he wanted to pick a fight with Intel and then tell the world that it's Intel's fault and that Intel doesn't want to play ball.
I think OLPC is a great idea, a great project and great technology, but this one didn't look that good for them (at least from the article, which is Intel's point of view, maybe the whole story is a little different, we'll know).
OLPC should try and use the best possible technology to produce the best laptop for the least possible cost. Considering that Intel has been doing lots of advances in cheap mobile power-saving chips, excluding Intel is not a good idea for the OLPC project. With the size of Intel, they are not losing that much by losing the OLPC project comparing to how much OLPC will be losing without Intel's support.
I agree that Intel was not being that clean with OLPC by having their competition project the Classmate, but even then, Negroponte should have been more diplomatic on this issue (again, the article is Intel's version, maybe it didn't happen just like that).
Why is Intel's departure a blow? Why is a non-competition agreement such an unreasonable thing to expect of a partner? I daresay OLPC's take (which has not yet been stated in the media) is that Intel was helping themselves to inside information and offering little in return.
It would have been nice if Intel and OLPC could have come up with an arrangement to differentiate themselves in the developing world market, but it didn't work out. So they go it alone. The computers are quite different, the OLPC being designed from the ground up for its purpose, the Classmate and friends being crippled conventional laptops.
And whether or not Intel and friends manage to kill OLPC, they wouldn't have had a dog in the race at all if not for OLPC.
Competition is good. The more different players in this market, the better. Because more innovation will deliver lower costs, and products closest to what people want. If the people at the OLPC care most about getting computing power to the people in developing countries, they'd welcome that,not try and stop it.
The OLPC people just don't get the real world. They closed their "buy one give one" despite that giving free laptops to the sort of people that they claim to be serving.
It could sneak on just as easy with an x86 based AMD.
it'd have to move completely off the x86 platform to really reduce the possibility of Windows use (and even then, I think CE works on some non-x86 setups).
Anyway, who cares, if someone wants to pay extra and put windows on it, it's their business. It's not my job (or yours, or anyones) to dictate what OS can be used on someones computer.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
What confuses me is that the OLPC association is ADAMANT about not offering their product commercially.
Several of the world's most important tech companies, and lots of talented people, work for free at cost on the OLPC. They do this because OLPC is not competing with their own business operations.
If the OLPC becomes a commercial operation, then they risk cannabalising these firm's own operations, therefore OLPC have to tread very carefully.
My little Linux and tech blog
I don't see how any of this makes much difference.
I have an XO laptop, and it seems pretty clear at this point that the existing XO can do, technologically, what it's supposed to do. The hardware tradeoffs were very clever, very well thought out, and they seem to be manufacturing it successfully in quantity. I'm assuming that some teething pains and glitches, which are no worse that typical commercial products at first release, can be dealt with.
I'm not the intended audience for the software. I don't particularly like the Sugar UI, and can't judge how much is just because I just don't "get it" and how much is because I've been brainwashed by two decades of the Mac and Windows. It seems to me that the software has rather a lot of rough edges. But it doesn't matter. It's perfectly clear that the thing works, and is more than capable of being used in classrooms. The browser works, the Alto/Star/1984-Mac write and paint programs work, the PDF viewer works, the wireless access works.
The collaboration and social-networking stuff seems to sorta-kinda work. I have some reservations, but it's there, and there's nothing comparable built into Windows or standard Linux today.
It doesn't matter whether Intel throws a hissy-fit and stomps out or not. Nor does it matter that their hardware designer left: she completed her work and it was good work.
If their education premises are correct, this device is good enough to fulfill them.
And the XOs not comparable to anything anyone can do in the way of building a cheap Windows laptop. The XO has carved out a very distinct, very new, very innovative niche in product space. Nobody is going to be able to make the equivalent of an XO just by taking a standard Wintel laptop and paring down the OS and replacing the disk drive with 1, no, 2, no, 4, no 8 GB of flash, and adding a Windows version of TamTamJam.
If an Intel and/or a Microsoft truly signs on to the OLPC's education premises and puts in an equivalent amount of work producing something as good, as cheap, and as good a fit to the same product space, they might be able to trample OLPC but OLPC's goals could still be achieved. However, the likelihood of Intel and Microsoft doing this is about the same as the likelihood of GM producing a two-wheeled, pedal-powered Hummer that costs $139 and is suitable for a ten-year-old kid.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Everybody wants a piece of the $$$$$ and after they see that there is market for something they will try to milk the cow!!
I would normally agree with you... Except that a commercial low-end laptop offering by Intel wouldn't compete with the OLPC. Quite the opposite, in fact! OLPC had Intel pouring money and technology into a project that would effectively give away what Intel hoped to sell.
I consider myself pretty hardcore anti-corporate, and I find it pretty hard to call Intel the bastards on this one. They wanted to sell to a market that OLPC didn't want to touch (and apparently didn't want to let anyone else touch, either).
According to GP-posting, they sold only 50000 boxes. Even if the profit-margin was a whopping $100 on each, that's only $5mln — or barely enough to pay decent salaries/bonuses to top 10 executives for one year. The more likely margin was, of course, in single-digits (10 times less), and the people involved were in it for much more longer than one year...
Right. A famous excuse for every failing idea.
Excellent. Tax the citizens, milk the donors — a Socialist's dream.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Exactly. It should also be noted that not-for-profit refers only to the entity; it's goal isn't to make wealth that is distributed to its shareholders. Salaries are still paid to NFPs' employees including the principals who founded the institutions. Sometimes these salaries are very high.
However, this isn't a failure of capitalism. Capitalism allowed the OLPC to be created at all levels, and it was OLPC wanting Intel to cease it's production of more cheap laptops that caused Intel (who had previously done a great deal of good for the project) to step out. OLPC wanted to be the only game in town. Having more cheap laptops for children in the world is a good thing, regardless of who makes them. If the XO is a better laptop, then people will get those. If OLPC can't meet the demand because their product is too good, better to have a Classmate than nothing. So if you want to demonize someone for keeping cheap laptops out of childrens' hands, then demonize OLPC for biting the hand that feeds it.
Wait, how exactly are these teachers exposing their students to HIV?
I may be in the minority, and of course I grew up in the US, but I didn't have unprotected sex (or any sex), shoot up with needles or have ritualistic blood letting ceremonies with my teachers in school.
Somehow I doubt things are THAT different in Africa.
I think your conflating personal feeling with actualities and are getting confused in the process. But that is something that is expected when you look at things through emotions.
You do understand the difference in doing good things and taxing people or somehow demanding a payment from them and then doing what you think is a good thing right?
There is a problem with counties spending the citizens money for what you perceive as a good thing verses you spending your own money on what you perceive as a good thing. The Linus quote was addressing how he cares little about the names being thrown out. Not that he endorses socialism. I'm not aware of any time Linus took tax payer money as a condition of giving Linux away.
Please don't confuse the subject or act like you don't know the difference. You doing something with your own money is noble. You forcing a nation to do the same thing by collecting taxes under the presumption of pain of imprisonment is somewhat a bad thing. Not always but outside of Fire, Safe drinking water and effective security, you know, basic governmental infrastructure, it is generally not good.