Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Intel's philosophical impasse - it's deep
Intel has decided to finally call it quits with the One Laptop Per Child non-profit project, due to (in their own words), a "philosophical impasse." It sounds deep and profound, doesn't it? Seems all along Intel was deeply committed to providing children low cost laptops in developing countries even though when OLPC was first launched it mocked the program and forecast its demise.
Since those remarks put a few dings in its public relations image, Intel came to the party (albeit late) with its own low cost laptop version, called Classmate, for children in developing countries. Of course, the Classmate laptop has Intel chips in it, not AMD chips, like the OLPC model. That's one version of a philosophical difference.
In another philosophical reversal, Intel decided to join the OLPC Board of Directors last July, and collaborate with OLPC's mission to provide technology to children in developing countries. However, their new relationship was short lived when OLPC demanded Intel stop undercutting OLPC. Apparently, in its zeal to provide technology to children, Intel's sales force asked Peruvian officials to drop their quarter million unit order of OLPC laptops, and buy Intel's Classmate instead.
And now, its come to this. A philosophical impasse from which there is no return, all in the name of, well the children, of course. ``We have long believed there is no single solution to the needs of children in emerging and underdeveloped markets,'' Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.
So, what's your take on Intel's reversal? Philanthropic or profit driven?
Comments
8
Subscribe to commentsMorganJan 7th 2008 2:31AM
I don't really care about the motivation, they're just right.
I think the real question is, how can the OLPC project claim to really want to help children by limiting competition in this critical area? Could be a number of reasons-- they want all the credit, they want all the money, they believe third-worlders are too dumb to make choices, etc. Any which way you slice it, OLPC wants less choice for those on the other side of the 'digital divide' and that's pretty sick.
The OLPC initiated this with the demand that Intel stop trying to sell the Classmate. If anyone's motives need examining, it's them, not Intel.
MorganJan 7th 2008 2:37AM
By the way, why do you imply that somehow a more expensive OLPC is more philanthropic than a cheaper Classmate? Is only the blessed Negroponte allowed to provide cheap computing to the third world somehow? Are his intentions so above reproach that they add a premium to the price, that the poorest people in the world should be charged more because Negroponte's some kind of self-styled saint?
You talk about 'undercutting' as though it's a trick. We're talking about ass-poor people here, in what world is a lower price bad for them? Besides, they don't come close to undercutting the giving-away price of the 2-for-1 OLPCs, I didn't see any criticism on that one. Insanity.
jared C.Jan 7th 2008 9:48AM
Having done international mission work and seen first hand the benefits of Starbucks in Nicaragua I know that truly great changes happen when both the consumer and the business see benefits from their work. If Intel was getting the shaft I see no reason to continue. It might have poor short term effects but it was probably the best decision for both Intel and the kids looking ahead.
IanJan 7th 2008 10:25AM
It's all down to OLPC not wanting any competition and trying to be a monopoly. Had Intel gone along with it they would have been heavilly criticized.
JamesJan 7th 2008 12:34PM
Heh, that's like Coke being on the board of a charity organization to install low-cost KFC's in third-world countries (KFC being owned by, and exclusively distributing, Pepsi). Seriously, what was going on there?
That said, I agree that competition in the computers-for-third-world-children market can only help people. I would be interested to hear what NickNeg's argument in favor of One Laptop Per Market Segment is.
MysteriusJan 7th 2008 5:04PM
Can't you see how Intel's playing you all?
It develops a rival product, then joins OLPC so that it can hype its involvement, but without abandoning its own project. Then, naturally, it proves reluctant to help design an OLPC project using Intel chips, b/c it would compete with its own in-house design.
How could OLPC expect Intel to work cooperatively as part of their team if it was at the same time trying to promote a rival product?
Of course, Intel then leaves after tying up OLPC resources designing an Intel version (though OLPC claims little development was wasted, they must have spent significant time if they apparently were going to launch an Intel version in the next few months), and portrays it as OLPC trying to stifle competition.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to hold that team members shouldn't be competing against the team at the same time they're supposed to be part of the team, don't you?
DiRTJan 8th 2008 9:32PM
Stop posting under another name, Dolores. The point here is that not only could Intel have a point, but you tried waaaaay too hard to jam your viewpoint down our throats. Report what happens. Keep your uninformed opinions out of the story, jackass.
MysteriusJan 8th 2008 10:29PM
Check my commenting history, if you wish. I am NOT "Dolores", whoever she is.
Of course Intel has a point. And so does OLPC, which previous commenters denied.
As for "jamming" my viewpoint down your throat, I'm sorry if I was too persuasive. ;)
More seriously, apologies if my comment was too assertive, but my only aim was to present what I thought OLPC's viewpoint was, in response to the blatantly pro-Intel, anti-OLPC comments above.