If my memory serves right (it's kind of fading these days; it's been a long time....) it was the result of patent claims from some state-funded institution in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n
But for M$FT, it is a perfectly rational approach to play down the concerns about malware, phishing, etc. Usual discourses about these issues usually end up at their door. As a corporate strategy, it makes more sense to get people to discuss ad nauseam about human virtues, strippers, drug dealers or for that matter about anything else, so long as the issue at hand stays muddled.
I am really trying to understand the correlation between a "commercial" (as in motivated by profit) operation and the spread of computing and thus I am not particularly interested about the "licensing" part here.
Any free distribution (initial) with the aim of recouping profits in a future time is also not of interest. (In this scenario, it clearlys show that there is a role of FOSS, (i.e. free as in free beer).
I would like to explore if MSFT's activities were "commercial" or "non-commercial". I wonder if there is any way of finding out how much licensing income MSFT generated. Just thinking aloud.
"If you look at the computer revolution, it only entered everyday home and work life once software became a commercialized commodity."
Hmmm... Is there really a correlation here? If I remember correctly Microsoft created a clone of the IBM's PC-DOS and distributed it for free. It may have been this non-commercial move on the part of MSFT which you may be referring to here.
I should start out by apologizing for not emphasizing OLPC approach which was not bound by "free-market" solutions. I don't think the idea was one of manufacturing and selling cheap laptops. They created a market by shifting the buying/selling function away from market place and making this a "public good" which various national government would buy and the children are only the benefactors and not actual buyers. Make no mistake, even today neither XO laptop nor classmate could be sold at these prices without incurring huge losses, if it were a commercial activity which corporations or economically "sane" individuals would undertake.OLPC is possible by virtue of being funded through grants. Hence my argument that this cannot be called an economic activity; therefore alluding economic motives is pointless.
No, prior to this point in time the market simply could not produce a computer cheaply enough. If it were not for the dot-com explosion of the late 90's, the market would still not be able to produce a computer cheaply enough. You may want to look a few years back and notice that we were promised a $100 laptop and the current rhetoric shouts "just wait until we can scale up." That's another way of saying the market still cannot produce a computer that cheap. It's all a matter of timing. We are on the cusp of when catering to this market is economically viable.
We may be on the cusp (I don't think we are there yet), but it was OLPC which had the foresight to grab the idea and go with it.
??? Um, learn a little something before trotting out crap like that. Designing these things takes a long time. If Intel had waited until OLPC orders were coming in, they would have nothing right now.
A few other posters on this thread allude to the quality(or lack thereof) of the Classmate PC. So.... indeed they have nothing right now
A few points: 1) There is no "Wintel" conspiracy going on here; Sure, I am willing to accept this provided MSFT is willing to give me let's say a 1000 licenses for XP at $3 each which I would like to distribute freely to poor kids in developing countries. "No?" "Why not? In a free market everyone should be able to access goods and services on an equal footing, no?" "What?" "This is a special initiative?" "Oh I see...."
2) Not sure where you're getting free market protestations (sounds like a strawman) but the only difference between XO and Classmate is who is getting the profits. OLPC is not a hardware manufacturer. Please refer to my comments to point 1) above.
You're not paying attention then. Despite all the OLPC fanboyism, there are numerous manufacturers trying to make cheap laptops for this market. Asus, Via, Intel and AMD are all players in this market.
I am very glad they all have finally come around to see the idea of not running after ever bigger and greater. Even Walmart (horror of horrors) is touting gPC (which I heard was a sell-out). However, in the case o OLPC, unlike cheap laptops, economies of scale was very very important to the whole equation. What Intel has achieved through Classmate is to spread confusion and uncertainty. (Read elsewhere how Nigeria and some others changed mind and did not come through on their commitments.) Once this initial momentum is lost; people would forget all about these millions of children and cheap laptops, as is the case with most public causes. We have to concede that MSFT's and Intel's PR machines have so far had some initial success; but ultimately, it all depends who blinks first.:-) As for OLPC fanboyism, I'm waiting for laptop to arrive over the next few weeks;-)
"And anyone who has more than a few months of experience in economics knows that the third world is fairly inelastic in their demand for computers so this argument is complete nonsense because these people simply cannot buy a $500 computer. The difference between what they will pay and what they can pay is very narrow. The $150-250 range is the sweet spot between what can be produced and what can be afforded.
The rules of monopoly simply don't apply in the third world for non-essential goods. At the end of the day, you don't really need a computer.
So all this conspiracy theory nonsense is just... well, nonsense. Intel and MS are not colluding to push out XO. The classmate PC can come with Linux pre-installed."
From whatever economic theory I have learned, this OLPC project and the distribution mechanism (or WINTEL's efforts at making the waters murky) is not something that fits "market" concepts as seen by classical economics. On the other hand, it was an attempt to correct market's failure-- this used to be a segment which market was uninterested in serving (perhaps still is). OLPC helped convert this market segment into a public good (like free public health or education) and they demonstrated that a market actually exists. And the fact that, just like the sellers, the number of buyers are also limited numbers (don't confuse it with the number of laptops to be sold) only proves that the free market theories don't apply here.
WINTEL monopoly is based on the computing platform and various formats used and clearly OLPC's success is a threat to this arrangement. This is why they waited until the orders started coming in for OLPC. My point is that WINTEL's coy protestations about ideals of free market is clearly a smoke-screen. So please don't drag economic theory into this morass.
I am however pleased that in round one (creating a market) OLPC is a clear winner. My only worry is whether the movement would stay alive for the next round.
I agree with your cost perception. I would also like to point out that there is also a social cost involved. Pirated softwares, like MS Windows, being so rampantly distributed is, in my opinion, costing a lot to society as a whole in terms of spam e-mail industry, virus attacks, distributed denial of service, malware, etc. Unpatched computers running defective and pirated MS Windows versions are causing so much headache and at the same time MSFT is not willing do anything about it. Effectively MSFT is using piracy as a tool towards their claim of omnipresent OS of choice, and by throwing the IP considerations into this mix, escapes from having to support and patch these spam-spewing, malware infested, boxes.
Not being able to MS Windows dependent services like BBC's video service is a small cost, compared to the cost I would have caused, if I continue using MS Windows, not knowing how to patch it properly. Even when I am not all that tech-savvy, I think I should make responsible choice of not using something I can't be certain of knowing how to use without harming myself and others.
IMHO, it is hight time cost analysis on./ included social cost consierations.
I think we are talking about two different things. Years ago, I lost a whole lot of messages when Hotmail changed its policy and started deleting messages in sent. Notification about change to their policy and their implementation was simultaneous. Yeah, sure it's a free service, they probably can do whatever they want, but I haven't had similar experience with Yahoo! or Gmail.
I have to confess I am "still doing the same thing" even when Gmail offers convenient and free POP3 access, whereas with Yahoo! it is available only for premium service. And as for Hotmail, I don't care any more...
One of the things I like about OLPC is that it's not aimed teaching kids Office productivity suite, which is what is being done in many of the developing countries at the moment. As I understand, it's designed in such a way that kids are encouraged to explore. In 60 Minutes interview, Negreponte mentions how kids are expected to do most of the repair themselves. IMHO, games would be a good way to get kids engaged beyond mechanical learning...
Of course it is a question of morality. Freedom (yours and mine) is a moral question, creativity, too. This goes beyond all the aspects of money, FUD, whatnot. That is the only way the world can really understand all these FOSS/Linux developers contributing their code. It is not that they have an "itch to scratch", but these developers believe in their freedom. The vitriol that is poured on MS can make sense only if one has the empathy to understand the intensity with which the FOSS/Linux they embrace this. I am only an end-user of computer. Now that I have been using Linux for the past couple of years, I can see a change in the way I use the computer. It's very exciting to be able to explore and learn. So from the bottom of the totem pole, I can assure you: "Yes, there is this aspect of morality"
Slashdot Mirror
On their website, Nokia says "end of October": http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdetail_10500_10101_-1_10000367
If my memory serves right (it's kind of fading these days; it's been a long time....) it was the result of patent claims from some state-funded institution in Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n
Unlike OGG, Theora had some kinks to iron out, e.g HD rendering. I am glad to see that being taken care of.
But for M$FT, it is a perfectly rational approach to play down the concerns about malware, phishing, etc. Usual discourses about these issues usually end up at their door. As a corporate strategy, it makes more sense to get people to discuss ad nauseam about human virtues, strippers, drug dealers or for that matter about anything else, so long as the issue at hand stays muddled.
I am really trying to understand the correlation between a "commercial" (as in motivated by profit) operation and the spread of computing and thus I am not particularly interested about the "licensing" part here. Any free distribution (initial) with the aim of recouping profits in a future time is also not of interest. (In this scenario, it clearlys show that there is a role of FOSS, (i.e. free as in free beer). I would like to explore if MSFT's activities were "commercial" or "non-commercial". I wonder if there is any way of finding out how much licensing income MSFT generated. Just thinking aloud.
"If you look at the computer revolution, it only entered everyday home and work life once software became a commercialized commodity." Hmmm... Is there really a correlation here? If I remember correctly Microsoft created a clone of the IBM's PC-DOS and distributed it for free. It may have been this non-commercial move on the part of MSFT which you may be referring to here.
No, prior to this point in time the market simply could not produce a computer cheaply enough. If it were not for the dot-com explosion of the late 90's, the market would still not be able to produce a computer cheaply enough. You may want to look a few years back and notice that we were promised a $100 laptop and the current rhetoric shouts "just wait until we can scale up." That's another way of saying the market still cannot produce a computer that cheap. It's all a matter of timing. We are on the cusp of when catering to this market is economically viable.
We may be on the cusp (I don't think we are there yet), but it was OLPC which had the foresight to grab the idea and go with it.
??? Um, learn a little something before trotting out crap like that. Designing these things takes a long time. If Intel had waited until OLPC orders were coming in, they would have nothing right now.
A few other posters on this thread allude to the quality(or lack thereof) of the Classmate PC. So.... indeed they have nothing right now
A few points: 1) There is no "Wintel" conspiracy going on here; Sure, I am willing to accept this provided MSFT is willing to give me let's say a 1000 licenses for XP at $3 each which I would like to distribute freely to poor kids in developing countries. "No?" "Why not? In a free market everyone should be able to access goods and services on an equal footing, no?" "What?" "This is a special initiative?" "Oh I see...."
2) Not sure where you're getting free market protestations (sounds like a strawman) but the only difference between XO and Classmate is who is getting the profits. OLPC is not a hardware manufacturer. Please refer to my comments to point 1) above.
You're not paying attention then. Despite all the OLPC fanboyism, there are numerous manufacturers trying to make cheap laptops for this market. Asus, Via, Intel and AMD are all players in this market.
I am very glad they all have finally come around to see the idea of not running after ever bigger and greater. Even Walmart (horror of horrors) is touting gPC (which I heard was a sell-out). However, in the case o OLPC, unlike cheap laptops, economies of scale was very very important to the whole equation. What Intel has achieved through Classmate is to spread confusion and uncertainty. (Read elsewhere how Nigeria and some others changed mind and did not come through on their commitments.) Once this initial momentum is lost; people would forget all about these millions of children and cheap laptops, as is the case with most public causes. We have to concede that MSFT's and Intel's PR machines have so far had some initial success; but ultimately, it all depends who blinks first. :-) As for OLPC fanboyism, I'm waiting for laptop to arrive over the next few weeks;-)
"And anyone who has more than a few months of experience in economics knows that the third world is fairly inelastic in their demand for computers so this argument is complete nonsense because these people simply cannot buy a $500 computer. The difference between what they will pay and what they can pay is very narrow. The $150-250 range is the sweet spot between what can be produced and what can be afforded. The rules of monopoly simply don't apply in the third world for non-essential goods. At the end of the day, you don't really need a computer. So all this conspiracy theory nonsense is just... well, nonsense. Intel and MS are not colluding to push out XO. The classmate PC can come with Linux pre-installed." From whatever economic theory I have learned, this OLPC project and the distribution mechanism (or WINTEL's efforts at making the waters murky) is not something that fits "market" concepts as seen by classical economics. On the other hand, it was an attempt to correct market's failure-- this used to be a segment which market was uninterested in serving (perhaps still is). OLPC helped convert this market segment into a public good (like free public health or education) and they demonstrated that a market actually exists. And the fact that, just like the sellers, the number of buyers are also limited numbers (don't confuse it with the number of laptops to be sold) only proves that the free market theories don't apply here. WINTEL monopoly is based on the computing platform and various formats used and clearly OLPC's success is a threat to this arrangement. This is why they waited until the orders started coming in for OLPC. My point is that WINTEL's coy protestations about ideals of free market is clearly a smoke-screen. So please don't drag economic theory into this morass. I am however pleased that in round one (creating a market) OLPC is a clear winner. My only worry is whether the movement would stay alive for the next round.
I agree with your cost perception. I would also like to point out that there is also a social cost involved. Pirated softwares, like MS Windows, being so rampantly distributed is, in my opinion, costing a lot to society as a whole in terms of spam e-mail industry, virus attacks, distributed denial of service, malware, etc. Unpatched computers running defective and pirated MS Windows versions are causing so much headache and at the same time MSFT is not willing do anything about it. Effectively MSFT is using piracy as a tool towards their claim of omnipresent OS of choice, and by throwing the IP considerations into this mix, escapes from having to support and patch these spam-spewing, malware infested, boxes. Not being able to MS Windows dependent services like BBC's video service is a small cost, compared to the cost I would have caused, if I continue using MS Windows, not knowing how to patch it properly. Even when I am not all that tech-savvy, I think I should make responsible choice of not using something I can't be certain of knowing how to use without harming myself and others. IMHO, it is hight time cost analysis on ./ included social cost consierations.
I think we are talking about two different things. Years ago, I lost a whole lot of messages when Hotmail changed its policy and started deleting messages in sent. Notification about change to their policy and their implementation was simultaneous. Yeah, sure it's a free service, they probably can do whatever they want, but I haven't had similar experience with Yahoo! or Gmail. I have to confess I am "still doing the same thing" even when Gmail offers convenient and free POP3 access, whereas with Yahoo! it is available only for premium service. And as for Hotmail, I don't care any more...
One of the things I like about OLPC is that it's not aimed teaching kids Office productivity suite, which is what is being done in many of the developing countries at the moment. As I understand, it's designed in such a way that kids are encouraged to explore. In 60 Minutes interview, Negreponte mentions how kids are expected to do most of the repair themselves. IMHO, games would be a good way to get kids engaged beyond mechanical learning...
Games and play are only for rich kids, I suppose... How dare they...
Of course it is a question of morality. Freedom (yours and mine) is a moral question, creativity, too. This goes beyond all the aspects of money, FUD, whatnot. That is the only way the world can really understand all these FOSS/Linux developers contributing their code. It is not that they have an "itch to scratch", but these developers believe in their freedom. The vitriol that is poured on MS can make sense only if one has the empathy to understand the intensity with which the FOSS/Linux they embrace this. I am only an end-user of computer. Now that I have been using Linux for the past couple of years, I can see a change in the way I use the computer. It's very exciting to be able to explore and learn. So from the bottom of the totem pole, I can assure you: "Yes, there is this aspect of morality"