Intel chairman harshes on MIT's OLPC
posted December 9th 2005 2:00PM
Running the world's largest chip company we wouldn't think Craig Barrett (any relation to Syd?), chairman of Intel, would have the time or wherewithal, let alone the temerity, to publicly trash on the Negroponte / MIT Media Lab's philanthropic OLPC (One Laptop Per Child) program, but apparently the competition to Intel's low-cost PC agenda got the best of him and he threw down today with: "Mr. Negroponte has called it a $100 laptop — I think a more realistic title should be 'the $100 gadget'," and that "It turns out what people are looking for is something that has the full functionality of a PC. [Something] reprogrammable to run all the applications of a grown up PC… not dependent for hand cranks for power." We're not going to dwell on Barrett's argument that a device's speed and power source (and not its form-factor) determines what type of device it actually is, nor are we going to bother correcting his obvious misunderstanding of what the OLPC is actually capable of. But we think the real crux of Barrett's argument — that the world's poor want a full-featured PC — is ridiculously flawed. Why? Because the OLPC is intended for populaces so impoverished that the majority have probably never even used a full-featured PC before. But hey, we certainly do get a kick out of a multi-millionaire businessmen yammering on about what the world's poor really want from a computer while the competition is, um, hanging out with Kofi Annan and garnering UN support.
While I remain skeptical as per my previous comments, I hope this project does help people in the third world. Before these laptops even get to those kids though, these OLPC people need to deal with the aforementioned governments and corrupt-ocracies. This may involve brokering handouts from the likes of the UN - and that money not only comes from our governments, or rather - you and me - but will be subject to the same laundering that has gone on for decades when "aid" has been pouring into Africa. $2.3 trillion in the last 50 years, to be more precise. Read this:
http://instapundit.com/archives/024122.php
I would think that $100 worth of food, water and medication is a better expenditure than laptops. Does Somlia need starving kids making myspace profiles?
This is being discussed over at Slashdot. Some good points are being made.
Boris
Also read the FAQ from the $100 Laptop site to help answer a lot of questions or criticisms that keep getting reposted here:
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/faq.html
Boris
Anthony,
making myspace profiles is what people in the West do because they've forgotten what is possible.
Giving others technology will allow them to contribute to its development, making more possible.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Boris
Look at what we are doing on here people - we are discussing an issue from across the globe, most of us connected to electricity mains and the internet.
Even though I am not a millionaire myself, the internet connected and PC savvy world is the elite of the digital divide.
I am reading a lot in the comments about the computers being pathetically underpowered, that money would be better spent on food, that we should be spending our money on regime change rather than Third World education. All that is a distraction to the point of the OPLC though.
Imagine yourself living on less than a dollar or two a day, which is the 'accepted' idea of poverty. Imagine you aren't in a hot warzone such as Sudan, or a drought situation such as Niger. You generally have enough to eat, but you aren't rich, you have spotty connections with the phone, the electricity, you may go to a communal hall to watch TV. Just imagine.
Then imagine that you have been given a hand crank powered portable computer, the $100 cost either covered by your government or some philanthropic organisation. You can't put new programmes on it, but it connects you with the internet and other people outside your village or city.
I don't know about the rest of the people reading this messageboard, but I do remember how excited I was seeing Donkey Kong for the first time, or the Atari 2600, or heck, even a Commodore 64 :)
Then, when you are connected to the internet and other people, you go into chatrooms or messageboards and start debating whether the government was better buying laptops or food, and maybe see a conversation from 'First World' people where they agree with a person trashing the idea of cheap computers for the world's poor. Or more to the point, cheaper computers perhaps.
I remember seeing reports saying that education, especially female education, is the best way to bring people out of poverty. Surely $100 worth of freeware laptop is better than $100 of weapons or landmines.
Just my two cents worth.
Look at what we are doing on here people - we are discussing an issue from across the globe, most of us connected to electricity mains and the internet.
Even though I am not a millionaire myself, the internet connected and PC savvy world is the elite of the digital divide.
I am reading a lot in the comments about the computers being pathetically underpowered, that money would be better spent on food, that we should be spending our money on regime change rather than Third World education. All that is a distraction to the point of the OPLC though.
Imagine yourself living on less than a dollar or two a day, which is the 'accepted' idea of poverty. Imagine you aren't in a hot warzone such as Sudan, or a drought situation such as Niger. You generally have enough to eat, but you aren't rich, you have spotty connections with the phone, the electricity, you may go to a communal hall to watch TV. Just imagine.
Then imagine that you have been given a hand crank powered portable computer, the $100 cost either covered by your government or some philanthropic organisation. You can't put new programmes on it, but it connects you with the internet and other people outside your village or city.
I don't know about the rest of the people reading this messageboard, but I do remember how excited I was seeing Donkey Kong for the first time, or the Atari 2600, or heck, even a Commodore 64 :)
Then, when you are connected to the internet and other people, you go into chatrooms or messageboards and start debating whether the government was better buying laptops or food, and maybe see a conversation from 'First World' people where they agree with a person trashing the idea of cheap computers for the world's poor. Or more to the point, cheaper computers perhaps.
I remember seeing reports saying that education, especially female education, is the best way to bring people out of poverty. Surely $100 worth of freeware laptop is better than $100 of weapons or landmines.
Just my two cents worth.
He is just mad because they want to use an AMD processor and an "Intel crap inside".
I agree with the sentiment that many Thirld World Countries need a stable political and economical community. I don't know if cheap computers will help this.
I'm one of the people behind a major business website. Practically all logins to our site from Nigeria and C?d'Ivoire are 419 scammers. It is sad that the brightest minds of that region are criminals who don't try to advance their community.
I'm a firm believer that knowledge is power so I'm all for every 3rd world kid getting their own $100 laptop. There's the potential in there to educate the masses on how to empower themselves to change things for the better. Unfortunately, the "education" they receive will probably end up being politically and religiously motivated so kids will end up "studying" the local tyrant's "sacred text" more than they will, say, science and true history.
I think that if Negroponte actually pulls this off, we might be worrying less about third world tyrants and more about third world evil geniuses =)
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
Boris, I was not slamming on you. I was referring to 'serving' the customer.
Now, going back to the $100 laptop I will rest my case on letting my opinion known as this: The true market for this PC is a Normal PC... Not a 'I would like to become a PC when I grow up'. And yes, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, the Balcans, Eastern Europe, Portugal - there is a market for the $200 PC be it a laptop from year 2000. I do not agree with IP costs... ? What are those?
It is important for everyone to know that the true potential, the wealth at the bottom of the economic pyramid, lies in giving access to something that usually was reserved for a certain group of people, but creatively, was able to go severely mainstream, in this case poor people. If your PC dies, bring it to school. If you have a concern, contact any of your teachers or visit your nearest TV repair shop.
Now, you can have that MIT $100 PC go there, but then, the customer will see you are patronizing his pooredom. Worst, they don't care about computing. The MIT segmentation is plainly wrong. Telling this other customer: 'you know we did have to come up with something different for you because we could not master it ourselves to bring you this item that you have seen others in higher income households.
I created a Credit System that allows you to pay for a PC -an HP and Dell, desktop or laptop- for less than the cost of a Pre-Paid Cell Phone Card. I had made in excess of 4 million in our first month, and we do it here in a Third World Country. I have told these customer, look I can give you a clone Xtratech PC or this Fortress PC from China. 99% of the time i get the same answer: Give me a PC with a known brand. Give me power.
Have you heard of empowerment. Have you not thougth that you will empower this children if you are able to go there and give them what they have in their minds a PC really is.
I do not discredit this MIT guys. But I am telling you, that image of that gizmo is insulting the segment.
Roberto
I can not see a negative to what MIT is doing. Beyond opening a free portal to information that has the potential to better a persons life or even save it in some instances - they are introducing a communication platform as well. Should this laptop save one life simply through a vector of communication the effort is justified. What are grinning CEO is missing is that this device could potentially increase the demand for his products. Intel should put a fistfull of cash toward this and then work on a product for those who advance beyond it.
Honestly, I like the idea, and I don't know why some of you seem to think it's going to kill us all to try it. Don't pretend we haven't been throwing food at them for years already.
When I was a $6/hr temp, I happily used an XT, then my mother's old 386 when 100MHz 486s were the thing. I could go out and pay cash now for something a lot better than the 1.6GHz Dell I got on eBay, but it does what I need. Yes, I do have a TabletPC, but it's not top of the line.
Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't donate, but step back and let people who want to make a difference try something that hasn't been tried before. If it fails, we've learned something. If it succeeds, you and the rich Intel guy have.