Slashdot Mirror
Negroponte vs Intel
Yogi_Stewart_4 writes "More OLPC/Intel love — apparently Intel used 'underhanded' tactics to try to block sales' contracts of the OLPC, trying to reach the customer directly after an agreement had been reached.
"They would go in even after we had signed contracts and try to persuade government officials to scrap their contract and sign a contract with them instead. That's not a partnership."
Mr Negroponte cited an example in Peru where Intel sales staff tried to persuade the country's vice-minister of education, Oscar Becerra Tresierra, to buy the Intel Classmate PC."
>If Negroponte really just carted about the kids, and not his own ego, ...
...
If Intel cared about the kids and not their profits
What I want to know is ... is there a hidden 3rd party pushing Intel *cough*Microsoft*cough*? Intel's device is available with Windows XP. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that our "friends" in Redmond are responsible for this in order to get their software into the emerging world instead of Linux.
The flaw lies in that Intel promised to NOT poach like they seem to have been doing and did it anyway.
It's not that Negroponte has an ego (but everyone is seizing on the fact the man DOES have a big ego...)
but that Intel didn't live up to it's promises. If the stunt in Peru is provable, then Intel DOES have
a big bit of explaining to do- and what Negroponte has been saying isn't QUITE the "hogwash" they're
claiming it is.
It's not that he doesn't want laptops in the hands of kids. He wants education TOOLS in the hands of
kids. Unfortunately, all the Classmate devices seem to be is indoctrination tools for Microsoft products
as opposed to engines to be re-worked, etc. to teach thinking in addition to knowledge. OLPC's goal is
that. All the Classmate seems to be is discounted Windows stuff for kids and calling it "education".
I've a problem with that.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It doesn't matter how badly Intel wanted to sell their more expensive, less functional copy of the OLPC laptop. It is simply unethical to use insider information to quash a deal and sign a separate one yourself with a client.
This is a big black mark against Intel and should serve as a warning to future partners that they can't be trusted at all. I mean you can't get much worse publicity than "deliberately sabotaged a charitable organization". Maybe the CEO of Intel would like follow it up by kicking puppies and eating babies?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That's an interesting issue but your answer is naive.
Non-profits and for-profits are more alike than people think. If a non-profit doesn't pay the electricity bills, the lights go off. If a non-profit program doesn't reach sufficient volume, its unit costs go through the roof because of the fixed costs are amortized over fewer units. Just like a for-profit.
The difference between non-profits and for-profits is why they do what they do, not how.
If there are 270,000 children who need laptops in Peru, a non-profit would try to equip as many of them as humanly possible. A for-profit will try to equip the number of children which would maximize its profits. For example, suppose Intel's profits are maximized by equipping 135,000 children in Peru. The government would buy more if the price were lower, but Intel's profit margin would be lower. Intel could increase its unit margin so that it made more on each PC, but Peru would buy sufficiently fewer that the net profits would decrease.
The difference between a non-profit and a for-profit is that a for-profit never considers costs that are external to itself, such as the cost of 135,000 children who grow up without access to information and the world economy. A non-profit internalizes as much of that cost as possible.
When two for-profits compete, they try to poach the plum contracts from each other, and it doesn't matter. They both act in exactly the same way, so the differences between the two are small. When either looks at a population of 270,000 customers, 135,000 of which don't have enough money to play, they see a market of 135,000, give or take a few, plus 135,000 non-entities who they have no intention of serving. When they compete with each other, the more efficient of the two might equip 140,000, and the less efficient might equip 120,000, and so market efficiencies maximize the public benefit, if the only choice is between two entities that weigh the public benefit in exactly the same manner.
When a for-profit cherry picks the plum contracts from a non-profit, it's a different matter altogether. The efficient for profit equips 140,000 where the non-profit would equip 270,000. What's more the non-profit can't pick up the slack, because (a) there's no money and (b) they are amortizing their costs over fewer units so they can no longer provide product at lower prices than the for-profit.
Right or wrong? You decide. But it's certainly about more than personal ego. It's about educating students whom it is not profitable to equip; and if it is not profitable, it will never happen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Disgusting behaviour like this by Intel is why I'll never use Wintel and only buy Apple
29 mpg. YMMV.
IF targeting the 3rd world, the classmate sucks:
a) There are cooling holes on it! Hello dirt and debris.
b) The keyboard is non ruggedized, at least compared to the XO.
c) It uses a conventional montior arrangement rather than the OLPC "behind the monitor" arrangement. This means that it has a complex, wire heavy connector through the hinge rather than just a USB and power connection.
I don't see how the classmate could last 6 months in a third world environment.
I question some of the OLPC's intent, but their hardware design blows away that Intel POS its not even funny.
Test your net with Netalyzr
At the company I work for, the Code of Conduct we are required to review every year has an explicit prohibition against this sort of thing. The section is actually entitled "Selling Against a Signed Order". The code isn't that long, so the fact that there is a special section for this one situation shows how important it is.
If I were to try and sell against a signed order, I would be fired. Immediately. With no chance of appeal.
Encouraging a customer to break a signed contract could get both the customer and my company sued by the competitor for contract interference, and rightly so.
SirWired
"Classmate specs are better than XO. There is a bit of goods in XO hardware, but not all that much"
Depends on your definition of 'better'. I don't think the OLPC hardware should be underestimated. The Classmate may have a faster processor and more storage, but it also has a shorter battery life, no 'e-book' mode, no mesh network, isn't nearly as rugged or user serviceable, and costs more. Given that a 366MHz processor and 128MB RAM is a perfectly respectable combo as long as the software is tuned for it, flexibility and longevity ought to be a more significant factor than raw [on-paper] grunt.
There's a nice recent take-apart here:
http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=218
Obviously a great deal of thought and design has gone into these beasties. If only my own (much-battered) machines were built like that...
I agree. The support wiki is full of holes but it seems to be getting filled out. The great advantage I see in the buy-one-give-one program was to get it in the hands of people in the FOSS community that can find such weaknesses and fix them. We can support OLPC by developing applications and providing input to the project.