Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Resigns from One Laptop Per Child Project

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the taking-their-toys-and-going-home dept.

The Almighty Buck 338

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


FPFPFPFP (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908288)

Thats what happens when you leave the wonders of "capitalism" do their job. Everybody wants a piece of the $$$$$ and after they see that there is market for something they will try to milk the cow!!

Re:FPFPFPFP (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908356)

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.

Re:FPFPFPFP (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908576)

the losers are OLPC and the winners are a generation of children.
There, fixed that for you. Poor countries do not need their governments wasting money on laptops for children who need essential skills provided by more traditional means. The quadrivium, the trivium, and historical content - these things require paper, pencil, books, and a good teacher. And, no, a book is not harder to maintain than a laptop.

Mind you, neither should rich countries' schoolchildren be considering laptops until the sore deficiency in basic skills is fixed, but at least a purchase from their rich parents not going to take money away from food and shelter.

Re:FPFPFPFP (3, Insightful)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909052)

Look at their curriculum first off. Who is going to teach these young people what they want / need to know rather than what their government is willing to sponsor. Just to give you a point of reference this paper [waxmann.com] shows how most students have no curriculum to begin with and are out of school most of the year. There are too many teachers getting infected with AIDS and other diseases even if there is funding. In sub Saharan Africa 30% [commondreams.org] of teachers get AIDS, exposing children to the virus and of course leaving the children without a teacher to tell them anything.

If they had a way of looking up things that interested them whether it be educational or not it is a light year past what they are getting now. Even if we were to take the $150 per laptop and give them the cash you can note the first paper and look for World Bank restructure, there it tells you even when the countries have money they are instructed by the World Bank what they are allowed to spend on this is quoted "conditions set by the World Bank and IMF within the context of structural adjustment".

The best bet to help these kids is to give them SOMETHING. There are even hits on Google that show the UK is hiring up most of the teachers from 3rd world countries that are any good. These kids have nothing, at least this will give them a chance to augment their lives with some social knowledge and maybe a static copy of Wikipedia. That might give them somewhere to start, something solid, something.

Re:FPFPFPFP (0, Troll)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909322)

The best bet to help these kids is to give them SOMETHING.
ANYTHING! Doesn't matter if it works or not as long as you feel better about yourself.



Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909508)

It's nice that you submitted a suggestion, your contribution is great! So do you feel better about yourself now?

Abso-fuckin-lutely (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908744)

And all those parts that laptops are made of are grown on trees that spontaneously sprout around OLPC HQs.
And then, they just fall on the ground when they are ripe, and are rolled around by winds and rain until they form complete laptops.
During that time, software for the laptop grows from the spores in the ground.

And then, once complete, laptops grow wings and fly directly to the child in need using the same guidance technology that Santa has been using for countless eons.

And that is why there is no money involved in the production of the OLPC.

Re:Abso-fuckin-lutely (5, Insightful)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909098)

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.

Re:FPFPFPFP (5, Interesting)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908424)

What confuses me is that the OLPC association is ADAMANT about not offering their product commercially. This makes no sense. Given:

1) Minimum production runs are required to meet the desired price point
2) Meeting minimum production quantities had been difficult
3) There is demand in the private/consumer market for the product

It seems to only make sense to offer the units to the consumer market, which would solve the minimum production run issue AND help subsidize the cost of the units shipped to their intended market. Especially since, by definition, their intended market is the demographic that can't afford them in the first place.

Extending and promote the "get one give one" program, is one way to do this. Another way is to sell them for a slight profit ($300 each instead of $200?) to schools in industrialized countries for the same purpose. Being a non-profit company does not preclude actually making money.


salimma (115327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908514)

Negroponte being a visionary does not mean he has business acumen, unfortunately. He's currently exploring G1G1 programs for other countries, but is refusing to continue it in the States (why that is, who knows)

Commercial sale risks alliance falling apart (5, Insightful)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908552)

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.

Re:Commercial sale risks alliance falling apart (1)

GuyfromTrinidad (1074909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908808)

Can't they come up with a business model that achieve both ends. I like the idea of selling them at a slightly higher price to industralized nations (my son asked for one when the buy one give one promotion started and it is only because I am outside of the US that I did not access it). Many non-profits bring down their costs by offering commercial services. I know of one non-profit that maintains a parking lot and makes a tidy sum from it as well as offer medical services to companies to be able to provide it to persons who can't afford it. With all the reports we have heard about OLPC in Africa,good and bad, it would be sad if this project crumbles.

Re:Commercial sale risks alliance falling apart (1, Troll)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908894)

If they would quit with the free love charity work and just agree to sell them to the market that wants them, those people (or others with similar abilities) could be EMPLOYED by the project.

The entire OLPC model is causing problems at this point, EeePC just completely stole the market from them with a better device, quicker.


Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908886)

While many of the people who ordered themselves an XO seem to be happy with it, I think the first-world adult population at large doesn't want the XO, even if they think they do. Many people receive their XO expecting it to be like a small version of their current computer, but they are disappointed by the fact that it's slower, harder to type on, exposes a non-hierarchical file system, doesn't play YouTube videos smoothly, doesn't play many audio/video formats out-of-the-box, and has many features still being implemented -- in short, because their expectations are unreasonably high. (Kids, on the other hand, love it...)

What these people really want, I think, is a device in approximately the same form factor as the XO and with many of the same features, but slightly larger with slightly higher system specs, a more traditional operating system interface, and commercial support. Something that combines the strengths of the XO with the strengths of the Asus Eee.

What bothers me is that people are treating the departure of Mary Lou Jepsen as a bad thing, when a commercial venture like hers (which is licensing the technology from OLPC and thus feeding money back into it) is precisely the kind of organization that could produce such a device.

Capitalism (2, Insightful)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908964)

What confuses me is that the OLPC association is ADAMANT about not offering their product commercially. This makes no sense.

The great thing about capitalism is that it allows us to run commercial for-profit businesses that provide capital that can in turn be used for non-profit purposes. By selling OLPC commercially and for profit, money could be raised to send them to communities that need them. However, I think the test for "need" should include that food, housing, health, and infrastructure needs are met (again, with money from other capitalist sources).

Re:FPFPFPFP (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908640)

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).


Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909002)

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).
I call Intel bastards on this one

Except that a commercial low-end laptop offering by Intel wouldn't compete with the OLPC
...and I call bullshit on this

A low-end laptop with Windows would compete with the OLPC - many see learning the current popular tool as more important than a real education. The classmate wouldn't work in as many places as the OLPC, but the OLPC isn't limited to the dirt floor hut schools, so the low-end that the classmate would pick up could impact OLPC.

Why is a non-compete among partners difficult to understand? It is a clear conflict of interests. Maybe Intel wouldn't directly try to sabotage OLPC, but a little foot dragging can go a long way. There is also the question of inside information.

I don't think anyone would argue (please prove me wrong - I'd love to see the argument) that Intel would not have created the classmate if the OLPC didn't exist - this was their competitive answer to the OLPC.

In creating the classmate, Intel is putting SHORT TERM profits before educating the world's poor (which would open up new markets). This is what I have come to expect from corporations, and as an anti-corporate person myself, I believe this is acting bastardly. Not letting go of the classmate is a continuation of the bastardness.


flapdoddle (898501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908756)

Actually, the problem with OLPC is that the project is not capitalist enough.

OLPC is making exactly the same elitist mistakes that torpedoed the NeXT computer - which you could only buy on campus, and only from colleges that would hire a support group to fix the oh-so cool magnesium cased turkey when it broke.

If they really wanted to make OLPC cheap and ubiquitous, it needs to be sold to whoever wants to buy it. Instead, for all practical purposes the only "customers", the ones who shell out the bucks for this, are socialist third world bureaucracies. By just selling it to whoever wants it, the economies of scale will make the $100/unit goal.

Of course, part of the deal of the consortium to precisely avoid selling to everyone so as to not compete with more expensive commercial offerings...

Sorry, I've run out of clever bylines. Maybe next week...

That name is awesome (5, Funny)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908298)

Bender agreed, noting that the OLPC hasn't locked itself into any one partner's technology. "We're looking as broadly as possible, these solutions don't exist just within one company or one architecture," he said.
He then concluded the interview by downing a beer, lighting a cigar, and exclaiming, "Bite my shiny metal ass!"

For profit corporation (4, Interesting)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908310)

So now the CTO will be selling his inventions to people who decide to buy them with their own money, instead of selling them to captive taxpayers in poor countries. I call this a moral improvement.

(burn karma, burn)

her inventions (3, Informative)

dominux (731134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908400)

yes, she will. She helped develop new innovations and bring the project from drawing board to production. Her job is done. Now someone else will manage the continuing development of the product as it moves from technology transfer to mass production.

Re:For profit corporation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909024)

Trusting the article summary? Oh, for shame.

  1. The CTO is a she.
  2. Her commercial enterprise is licensing her technology back from the OLPC.

So when you buy her fancy new device using this display technology, the patent licensing fees are helping education programs elsewhere. I don't know if you'd consider this a moral improvement or not, but it sounds like a good deal for the OLPC.

Re:For profit corporation (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909044)

Your argument only holds weight in dictatorships where taxpayers are "captive."

I'm curious about the legal arrangement that allows her to resign from the OLPC project with ownership if these technologies? Was it a volunteer position or something? Using a nonprofit as an unwitting venture capitalist to do R&D on for-profit technologies is uncool, and I have to wonder if it's even legal. (What's to stop all corporations from spawning nonprofit subsidiaries to do their R&D?)

In other news (0, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908320)

In other news the one child who was due to receive his laptop has mysteriously vanished leaving the project in even more deep trouble.

Sources say the one child was expected to be waiting outside the gates of his school at the end of the day but did not turn up.
Speculation around the town says it was because he got into trouble and was given detention.

Marketing data in place ... (4, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908330)

... 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' [deeshaa.org], already written July 2006. 'Formula for Milking the Digital Divide' [deeshaa.org] might also be interesting.



Re:Marketing data in place ... (3, Insightful)

DuncanE (35734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908728)

Those numbers from India are really eye opening.

For the kind of dollars India has to spend to see a reasonable percentage of the OLPC they could do many different things. Assuming the OLPC really does cost the equivalent of 30% per capita income in India that means if they just buy 3 million of them thats the same as 1 million teachers salaries.

These numbers blow my mind.

Not to mention that India is now probably the largest growing IT country in the world.

The OLPC was meant to be "teach a man to fish and he will feed for a lifetime" , but instead it seems to be more "give a man a cheap JetSki and he will eventually learn to fish".

Re:Marketing data in place ... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909166)

Yeah, I mean, what are the chances a backwards nation like India could ever be sophisticated enough to use computers? What are they going to do, compete with programmers in Silicon Valley over the Internet? Ha! They'll never recoup [infoworld.com] a $100 investment that way!

Re:Marketing data in place ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908790)

I am getting a kick out of these comments as I play with my G1G1 Laptop at work!!!

Really a blow? (4, Interesting)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908332)

Although it does represent a loss of funds and perhaps some technological support, it also weakens the Wintel aspect of the machine and stresses the philosophical and philanthropic goals of OLPC. And I assume that Negroponte can function perfectly well with AMD, who will now presumably have a lock on this market and the goodwill it generates.

Re:Really a blow? (4, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908416)

Win tel?

OLPC has always been a Linux offering I thought. There is no Windows about it it, and that's what MS has been whining about.

yes, Wintel (2, Interesting)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908448)

without intel, ms has less of a chance of sneaking onto the machine [google.com]. and that's why i said weaken(ed), not removed.

Re:yes, Wintel (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908482)

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.

Re:yes, Wintel (2, Insightful)

Potor (658520) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908616)

It could sneak on just as easy with an x86 based AMD.
OLPC has an x86 based spec, so sure it could, but that's not my point.

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.
But this is closer to my point. If both MS and Intel were on board, you can bet that soon someone would be deciding what OS some developing-world government is putting on its OLPCs. And if this is a charity project, perhaps we do have a job in making sure, or at least in being concerned, that government procurement offices don't fall for MS's rhetoric [zdnet.com].

Re:yes, Wintel (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908678)

It's not my job (or yours, or anyones) to dictate what OS can be used on someones computer.
I'm a Bootcamp codemonkey you insensitive clod! >:(

Re:yes, Wintel (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908804)

Bootcamp lets you boot other OSes than MacOS on a Mac, without actually forcing you to use them, right?

That's fits pretty nicely what I was saying - nobody should be force to use an OS they don't want to use (and provding options reduces the chances of the person being forced.)

Re:yes, Wintel (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908906)

Yep it makes the process easier, though I'm sure there exist Apple engineers' whose purpose is to stop Mac OS working on non Apple hardware, which is another way of 'forcing' people to use a certain OS (in this case any x86 OS other than Mac OS).

Re:yes, Wintel (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909012)

That strikes me more of a method of forcing people to buy Mac hardware if they want MacOS, and causing hardware-lock.

Makes sense, from the perspective of them being a hardware company.

Bootcamp makes me chuckle when I hear of it though, I actually know a place that bought a bunch of Mac Minis for a computer lab, because for some arcane reason, they needed vista, and the minis were the cheapest way to get it running decently without getting completely unstable hardware, or hardware that would fail in a year.

Re:yes, Wintel (1)

DSW-128 (959567) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909512)

It's not my job (or yours, or anyones) to dictate what OS can be used on someones computer.

I'm Bill Gates, and it is my job to do just that!

Re:Really a blow? (1)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908436)

I agree that they're not completely done for, but I think the real "blow" is the bad press and the loss of a very well known and important investor. Not only does this highlight yet another failure on OLPC's part, but a lot of the work that Intel has put in to the project will go away with Intel. It's more than just a loss of funds. The backlash for recovering all that work is going to come at cost as well.

And I assume that Negroponte can function perfectly well with AMD
I dunno, he didn't seem to handle Intel too diplomatically. What if AMD tries to enter the low-cost laptop market as well? Is he going to start making demands again?

Re:Really a blow? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908478)

I think saying that Intel has put some work into project would be overestemate, because they joined only last autumn. OLPC has been in development much much longer and I highly doubt that it will somehow impact technical stuff. It can impact financial side, but I hope some more honest player can roll in.

It's all about learning (4, Insightful)

Marcion (876801) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908348)

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,

Re:It's all about learning (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908506)

Intel's job is to sell their processor. If the software and content are truly more important and compelling than the hardware, the OLPC people shouldn't have a problem with Intel working on other similar projects at the same time. Intel is still selling to Apple and HP, and making their own boxes (albeit often rebranded). It sounds more like the OLPC folks believe their way is the only right way, and if you're not solely for them you must be against them.

Re:It's all about learning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908618)

Which is what makes the whole exercise funny. All the American companies are viewing the whole thing from a capitalist POV, and are thus completely missing the mark. It's not about selling a product and making money. That's purely a means to an end. It's about putting technology in people's hands to let them learn from it.

Re:It's all about learning (1, Interesting)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909050)

I still can't shake the feeling that this entire OLPC project is an enormous waste of money, intended more to assuage misplaced Western guilt than to bring about any fundamental change in impoverished areas.

Poverty isn't caused by a lack of computers, and I doubt cheap computers are going to solve the problem. There are far greater political factors perpetuating poverty that need to be addressed first. Until then, the tangible value of this kind of charity is dubious.

Re:It's all about learning (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909292)

OLPC is not a laptop project, it is an educational project

If Nicholas Negroponte and the rest of the OLPC team didn't want people to think of their project as a laptop project, perhaps naming it "One LAPTOP Per Child" was a poor choice.

the software and the content [are] more important than the hardware

I think it's too early to say which is more important. Sugar looks to me to be the most innovative and intuitive UI to be introduced in a long long time, but I can't tell whether it will ever find popularity outside of computer neophytes. It could be next Xerox PARC User Interface, or it could be the next Microsoft Bob.

The hardware innovations, on the other hand, have much greater immediate potential. The XO-1's approach to power management ought to be standard on all portable computers, and I think within 5 years it will be. And while the dual-mode screen may be little more than a novelty now at 6x4", if the production can be scaled up to 12x8", it could be revolutionary.

Ultimately, we'll have to wait and see to find out which is more important.

Question: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908358)

How many hundred of millions did Microsoft offer Intel to quit the project ?

Novel only cost about 400million - but they are cheap one....

Re:Question: (1)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908520)

what does this have anything to do with microsoft?

something bad occurs => blame microsoft?

bleh why am i feeding the troll :(

OLPC not a success (4, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908360)

In November, after the promised high-volume sales to governments failed to materialize, the organization began a $399 "Give 1, Get 1" promotion, in which people could buy XO machines and subsidize gifts to educational programs. O.L.P.C. said it distributed about 50,000 computers in the United States during the promotion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/technology/04laptop.html?ref=business [nytimes.com]

I don't see a problem with Intel moving on, they were trying to push their technology but weren't ready (too much power consumption with their proposal). I do see a problem with the OLPC process apparently not working out and little being done to expose this. If more people knew about it perhaps some would step up and buy the machines.

Re:OLPC not a success (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908458)

There was some Slashdot article which informed that "G1G1" was colosal success. They finished it just because they don't have infrastructure and resources for this, but nevertheless, in aprox. 2 months they sold enormous count of boxes.

Could be this continued? Definitely. They just need resources to manage that.

OLPC final version was just released and I bet lot of countries look at first adopters to decide later. So calling OLPC not a success is too soon, I think.

For me, they already succeeded to prove that such program has a market. How it will end, depends not only on OLPC team, but more or less insight in governments around the world.

Re:OLPC not a success (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908828)

2 months they sold enormous count of boxes.

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...

Could be this continued? Definitely. They just need resources to manage that. [emphasis mine -mi]

Right. A famous excuse for every failing idea.

How it will end, depends not only on OLPC team, but more or less insight in governments around the world.

Excellent. Tax the citizens, milk the donors — a Socialist's dream.

OLPC can't be a success (1, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909302)

I do see a problem with the OLPC process apparently not working out

It could not be working out for the same reasons, these guys [slashdot.org] failed [wired.com] — they are/were trying to work against a fundamental law of nature.

Steorn tried to violate the laws of Thermodynamics. OLPC is trying to compete for talent with the vibrant economy, that offers enormous rewards to hardworking smart people...

Yes, a project can capture such people's time and attention by appealing to their charitable side. And they will work for non-monetary rewards such as fame and/or pleasure derived from doing a (seemingly, at least) good deed.

But such interest can not be sustained for very long. The novelty wears off, and the internal conflicts cool people's enthusiasm and make them ask questions like: "Do I need this shit?"

The group of wild-eyed and bushy-tailed enthusiasts begins loosing members — including (possibly — beginning with) the brightest ones... And "cadres decide everything" — even more so today, than when the quote was uttered [wikiquote.org].

Nor is the stated goal of OLPC entirely convincing. Surely, the connectivity and the instant access to the vast amount of information are very appealing and should be very helpful. But wanting to learn, and knowing how to learn are even more important for a child (and an adult) than the actual knowledge of anything in particular. Plenty of kids, who already have computers, use them to exchange pictures/music, and chat with friends — not to learn anything...

At the same time plenty of people, who grew up without a computer (much less Internet), are happy and active users of them now.

If you wish to help the poor, take care of yourself first — and gain the life experience to understand, what kind of help helps, and what kind spoils. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and Muhammad Yunus can be your examples... [wikipedia.org]

Maybe not a bad thing (5, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908362)

Hey I use Intel processors but their behavior has been largely disappointing. Joining OLPC no looks like an attempt to avoid bad press. Now that they're leaving one has to wonder if they just weren't getting their way. The whole mess with the Classmate just makes them look like...well...Microsoft.

It's a blow? (2, Insightful)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908364)

Honestly, it is much better for OLPC that Intel is open about their intends than just allowing them to party and doing nothing, while acting against OLPC.

Just my two cents,

Re:It's a blow? (2, Interesting)

autophile (640621) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909272)

It's not that Intel was open with their intentions, and so kudos to Intel. OLPC didn't trust Intel. OLPC told Intel that they could join up IF AND ONLY IF Intel dropped their competing product, thus removing Intel's temptation to screw OLPC over. If Intel's intentions were truly evil, they had just been exposed. Intel refused to give up their own effort, thus signaling to OLPC that it would have gotten intentionally or unintentionally poor support. OLPC did the smart thing here, not Intel.


No profit in poor people? (2, Insightful)

boristdog (133725) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908382)

I was sure there was tons of money to be made from the poorest of the poor!

Are you telling me this isn't true?

Re:No profit in poor people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21909118)

Not outside of church...

Re:No profit in poor people? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909198)

Many international marketers are focusing on third world countries. I would think logically that this would be a bad idea profit wise but many third world countries have a middle class or an upper class that would be similiar to our lower middle class. Coke and McDonalds have made quite a bit of money in these countries though the top third is the only part that can afford them now.

THe governments are the main customers and I think opening up internet to the world is the same as improving infastructure which is why they can't develop.

unprecedented evile never sleeps (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908386)

many more of US, every day, are joining in the creators' wwwildly popular newclear powered planet/population rescue initiative/mandate, in order to help disempower evile's many minions. see you there?

if that option does not suit you, consider just continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn. anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

markets, ideas and idealism (5, Interesting)

xzvf (924443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908388)

While I don't think at any level that the XO project is a failure or doomed because of the recent news, it is allowing its idealism to overwhelm its idea. OLPC inadvertently created or tapped a market for small inexpensive laptops that had a lot of pent up demand in developed nations. Because their focus is on education, charity and the government of poor countries (the only people with money there), they didn't realize their product is valuable. This might be the time to step back from the visible hardware side and push the real innovation of the XO project. A lightweight, but extremely functional educational OS, and make sure that gets ported to as many platforms as possible.

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908396)

Intel hate niggers, just like everyone else

Just Appalling (5, Insightful)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908428)

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).

Re:Just Appalling (1)

coliva (311680) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908692)

I find OLPC's behavior pretty abhorrent here. They are trying to act like a monopoly and dictate terms to kill competition instead of competing to provide the best computer for helping to educate children in the third world. So much for good intentions...

What's Intel's value to OLPC? (5, Insightful)

gvc (167165) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908434)

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.

Collectors items (2, Informative)

mrjb (547783) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908446)

They are rapidly becoming collectors items. On Ebay they're already selling for over $400. For ONE unit, that is.
Great business model.

1. Buy two laptops for $200
2. Give one to charity
3. Sell the other one for $400
4. Profit!

Faulty math (2, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908526)

Sell one for $400, that's called breaking even since you paid $400 and only recieved one machine. Also I'm assuming you paid shipping for the one unit so you lost money at $400. I guess you could try buying a 100 machines and make it up in volume but that never seems to work for some strange reason.

Re:Collectors items (4, Informative)

shirai (42309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908534)

Interesting, except that it's one laptop for $200 and two laptops for $400.

You can still profit but its more like:

1. Buy two laptops for $400
2. Give one to charity
3. Sell one for $400
4. Break even on cash
5. Get a $200 charity tax receipt

Your net up is a tax receipt which has value which varies depending on how much you pay in taxes.

Re:Collectors items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908754)

Technically the profit you make on the sale needs to be declared as $200 of income too.

Re:Collectors items (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908928)

Your net up is a tax receipt which has value which varies depending on how much you pay in taxes.

Good thinking over all, but it's your marginal tax rate not how much you pay. So if you are a middle or upper class working stiff who actually produces the goods and services which drive our economy (marginal tax rates of > 25%), you actually for once stand to make out 'better' than someone with an income driven by capital gains (flat tax of 15%). Of course, an accountant with a sharp pencil might tell you to claim the profit as income.

Re:Collectors items (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908620)

Interesting idea.

Especially because you get the $200.00 tax deduction not to far off from now.

I wish I had known.

Re:Collectors items (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908660)

Remember the Apex DVD player that you could bypass macrovision and region codes with? That's exactly what I did. Managed to buy two, sold one for over 2x what I paid for it. Profit, plus I got to keep one :)

Re:Collectors items (1)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908674)

If they eBay for $400, an even better business model would be:
1) Buy a bunch of $200 OLPC laptops
2) eBay them all for ~$400
3) more profits

OLPC should simply make its laptops available to the general public for $250-300 and use the extra profit margin to subsidize its give-away/discounted laptops in the target charity markets. This would reduce the number of machines bought/received on charity and resold on eBay for profit while also reducing profit margins on that scheme.

OLPC is doing a disservice to itself and its cause by being so inflexible in how it allows people to throw money at it... it is basically G1G1 or STFU.

What's the OLPC afraid of? (4, Insightful)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908472)

It's yet another cranky decision by the people at the OLPC. Intel to not work on other competing projects? Are they kidding? No company is going to agree that and bet on a single project at this early stage in the development of such projects.

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.

Re:What's the OLPC afraid of? (3, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909256)

I think they are afraid of the following scenario:

1) OLPC board discusses sales prospects in new countries.
2) Intel rep to OLPC calls home.
3) Intel parachutes into the prospects, hijacking the groundwork done bu the OLPC team to sell the Classmate instead.
4) Profit.

Farfetched? I don't think so.

OLPC == Scam (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908480)

It's just another one of those pseudo "do-gooder" organizations where 95% of the revenue is used to buy luxury cars and expensive vacations for the executives, while the remaining 5% goes to "feeding the children".

If you must give money, I suggest the Salvation Army. [salvationarmyusa.org] The Salvation Army returns 96% of its revenue to those in need. Only 4% goes to administration and overhead.

Salvation Army is no longer acceptable to me (0, Offtopic)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908646)

I gave to the Salvation Army for thirty years.

It emerged in 2001 that they discriminate against gays in their hiring practices. (Actually it had emerged well before that but I hadn't been paying attention).

The Salvation Army is no longer acceptable to me and I no longer contribute to them.

Re:OLPC == Scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908972)

Your are dishonest. The Salvation Army "discriminates" against "gays" in the same way that the Red Cross and the NHS in the UK discriminates. Salvation Army employees are often asked to be the first to give blood during disasters and emergencies. Unfortunately, because of AIDS HIV, homosexuals are disqualified from giving blood because of their "lifestyle choices".

A homosexual would be a poor fit for the needs of the Salvation Army, for very practical reasons. But then again so would a blind bus driver for your urban transit system, for practical reasons. In any case, the Salvation Army gives aid and comfort to all who are need, and it doesn't matter what color you are, or if you are "gay" or straight. If you are a "gay" person in need, by all means ask the Salvation Army for assistance. They most certainly would help you, no questions asked.

its better this way, (1)

rtgarden (1098795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908586)

Intel never ever *got it*. The idea is to reach genius...not potential consumers. They have had very thinly disguised self-aggrandizing motivations from the start. It is significant to note that OLPC moved clear of Intel and started movement on commercial production in the same week. This project may have a slower set up on the exponential curve towards saturation than predicted...however if the XO takes off as a reader and travel rig then they may still be in production long enough to actually reach a lot of kids. There is a practicality for extending the mesh network on water towers and cell phone towers so that even without electricity many children will be able to study and share and learn using this vast resource. The question is not "what can we give them" it is "what will they teach us?"

OLPC will stand or fall on the XO laptop itself (5, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908588)

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.

Re:OLPC will stand or fall on the XO laptop itself (3, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908948)

There are a lot of comparisons between the XO and the old Apple eMate from the 90's. Even some blow-by-blow comparison reviews. I'm a little skeptical that if Apple, given its existing educational relationships and market, couldn't pull it off that the XO can. And while the eMate costed $800, it was also marketed at first-world schools. Compared to annual salary, the $200 XO is vastly more expensive to a third-world buyer than an eMate was to an American.

MOD PARENT UP, informative (2, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909014)

Interesting... I've owned Macs since 1984 but haven't paid much attention to what they were doing in educational space. Except to admire the charcoal -grey Bell and Howell Apple ]['s my son used in elementary school, of course...

Re:OLPC will stand or fall on the XO laptop itself (1)

glop (181086) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909220)

The way I see it the OLPC is a huge success. Not because they have achieved all their goals but because they have already changed the world. They have set a benchmark, shown the way which resulted in:
  - Asus doing the EEE PC (299$ for the cheapest one. Sucks more juice, the screen is not as good in sunlight etc. But still, it owes its existence to the OLPC)
  - Microsoft is busy porting XP to the OLPC and trying to improve their offer for developing countries and education
  - many people have OLPCs
  - more people are convinced that simple and cheap machines, simple applications can be very useful

Personally, I got an EEE PC because it was extensible and the trade-offs seemed more adequate for me (heck, I am using the Xandros distribution that came with it, I can fire up bash, install Emacs etc.).

I am really grateful to the OLPC project, because they inspired a new wave of smaller, simpler machines that will be very useful for education. Myself, I plan to use my EEE to learn a thing or two on my daily train ride.

Re:OLPC will stand or fall on the XO laptop itself (2, Interesting)

ProfessorDoom (82503) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909498)

I participated in the give-one-get-one program and got one of these for my kids (6 and 8). I literally pulled it out of the box, put in the batteries, showed them where to plug in the power cord, and have not touched it since. Two days after getting it, my six year old had written multiple stories and was browsing the web easily enough that I'll need to think about watching where they go browsing. She'd also figured out how to use the microphone and the camera software and was using them somewhat ... creatively (you need to think like a 6-year old...).

Based on this, I'd say the interface is pretty good. They're still getting used to the transactions for pulling up the stories they've written, but other than that it's been very smooth.

Screw Intel. They need to be ARM Based. (5, Interesting)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908608)

Arm has made some incredible strides towards standardization and multi vendors. There as so many cheap reference boards these days.

Most arm chips are made with Cell phones in mind as well, some support MMX and Jazelle Java extensions.
Many have Micron CMOS camera chip interfaces and built in LCD drivers, and a mess of GPIO and MMC etc.

Linux and Uboot are a sweet combination on them also.

Look at PXA270 and PXA300 from Marvell & Blackfin (uC Linux)
Also ARM is licensing there chip design for 8 Cents a copy, so you can easily make a ASIC based on arm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture [wikipedia.org]

Also another option is that there is already $5 computers in China and India. There not laptops and you need to connect them into a TV but still they have Keyboard, Mice, Game joysticks and 100's of pirated games on them. Even ones that can web surf. these are from a Chinese company called Gold Leopard King, but they are impossible to track down and contact, but the markets there are flooded with them.

http://ultimateconsoledatabase.com/famiclones/gold_leopard_king.htm [ultimateco...tabase.com]
The whole computer is just passive switches, and there is only one Chip in the entire PC, it's in the cartridge. Amazing thing, Perfect copies of Mario Brothers, Pac-man, Donkey Kong, Defender, Galaga, Dig Dug. I always get one for the kids when were in India, and just give it away when we leave, it's PAL video out, so we can't use it back in the USA.

Re:Screw Intel. They need to be ARM Based. (1)

bangthegong (1190059) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909446)

Those are some serious-looking guns packaged with the NES-style Gold Leopard King consoles!

Intel did this to me (2, Insightful)

neuromancer2701 (875843) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908612)

At my old job, we develop industrial test equipment(actually a cooling solution for current equipment) for AMD and Intel. Well as a startup we got in trouble because my bosses were asses. So Intel funded us a bunch of money and encourage us to sell the company to one of their buddies in the test equipment business. We shopped the startup around to various companies but then all of a sudden Intel and this other company(both were "observers" on our board) resigned one day. The following weeks we were "forced" into spliting the company up and the other company got the half of our company that Intel had wanted.

I would bet that the CEO is going to work for Intel to develop a cheap laptop for them. The pattern just looks to familiar.

Someone please explain to me... (2)

Churla (936633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908704)

I don't see how on this site where the mantra for all things seems to be "competition is good" that Intel should be bashed for not giving in to demands that it not develop products which could be considered alternatives.

It isn't like Intel is going to throw down the humanitarian angle of OLPC anyways, and I thought one of the selling points to companies participating in the project was that advances there could be incorporated into retail devices as well?

If I'm wrong on this please correct me.

Re:Someone please explain to me... (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909502)

Competition with your partners, when investment in productiuon and similar are involved, is a bit different from competition in general...

Boo Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908864)

Intel couldn't dominate the OLPC project, so they took their ball and went home. Boo Hoo. Guess what? Intel isn't necessary. Chow.

Ultimately, I think it's better for everybody (except the would-be monopolists) if there are competing low-cost implementations. This is good news.

Think of the children!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21908966)

Or, y'know, don't...

Egos and Elitism = Fail (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21908998)

The problem I see with the OLPC initiative is that they are restricting themselves into near certain failure. The Asus Eee has shown that there is a decent market for a product like OLPC offers, mass production would just bring the costs down. Competition in the form of Classmate and other similar products would benefit the goals of OLPC as technology could have funneled down to it. The B2G1 program was a good start but even that was limited by country and time making it a near pointless effort. What could have perpetually funded the program ended up being a token at best and an eBay scam at worst.

OLPC already started on a shaky support base, many felt that other issues such as the educational systems themselves had more importance than providing laptops. It sounds to me like the people running OLPC are more concerned with their positions within the program than the actual implementation of the program itself. If their real goal is improving education and opportunity to developing nations why should it matter if there were more players involved?

Such a shame (1)

LagosPortugal.info (1212514) | more than 6 years ago | (#21909414)

Such a shame I had great hopes for all the possible open source software that might emerge from the 3rd world countrys. Personally I think this is a huge blow to the community, all the endless possibilities that could have come from young people using this hardware in the 3rd world just makes me feel sad ..... Hopefully the project will continue.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account