Negroponte: "Intel should be ashamed of itself" for dumping its low cost PC

Go figure, but the "purely humanitarian" battle to provide the world's estimated 1 billion poor children with a computer is as hostile as a chance-meetup of Rockers and Mods. Apparently, it all started when Intel's Chairman, Craig Barrett (pictured right), called the OLPC "a $100 gadget." Whatever the reason, last night's 60 Minutes had Nicholas Negroponte claiming that for-profit Intel is dumping its Classmate PC -- offering it below cost -- on the same governments he's offering his not-for-profit OLPC. "Intel should be ashamed of itself," Nick Neg says, "It's just -- it's just shameless." Negroponte offers an Intel marketing document which outlined the shortcomings of the OLPC approach (compared to the Classmate PC) as "proof" of Intel's wrong-doings. True, says Barett taking credit for the document, "that's the way our business works." All this because the OLPC features an AMD processor? Maybe, but it sure sounds like sour-grapes to us. Assuming you buy into Negroponte's premise of supplying the world's poor with computers, then who really cares if the children use a computer spawned of monetary self-interest or (supposedly) altruistic motivations -- just as long as the kids can play Doom on something?

[elmer @ May 21st 2007 5:49AM]

Because we can pretty much guarantee that if Intel are offering something unsustainable, then they won't sustain it, and they'll have managed to kill off the sustainable project through unfair business practices again.

[Rzamora @ May 21st 2007 10:26PM]

It is kinda sickening what Intel is doing. I also agree that once OLPC is destroyed they will drop the clasmate. Plus OPLCE won't be able to get the price to drop as fast if they don't sell as much units as they projected. I guess Intel isnt ethical enough understand that they are not competing with AMD here, but a truly humanitarian effort to Bridge the digital Divide that exists among the poorer countries. To Intel it just seems to be the bottom line is that AMD is goin to sell more chips.

Intel had years to help out the poorer nations, but they chose just to sit by, rake in their profits and to a blind eye to the gaps. Now that someone is truly making an effort to they are getting scared that somehow affect their bottom line. The whole thing disgusts me.

[Doug @ Jun 5th 2007 5:59PM]

Everyone is missing the point, Intel enables the country themselves to manufacture the Classmate PC. thus creating an economic multiplyer effect in creating new jobs, and keeping the government spending within their own country which will generate new taxes, and new services.
The money for the OLPC is shipped to Taiwan for Quanta and the country gets nothing except the OLPC, what is the support model for this? Who do they call when it breaks.
The Classmate PC is built on a well known and reliable platform that could create a whole new support industry in that country.
And where is AMD? You don't think they are making any money on those chips going into the OLPC, please!!!!! You bet they are making money.

[Gulic @ May 21st 2007 5:56AM]

Actually, I can see Negroponte's point. If Intel is indeed dumping its classmate PC at below cost and it succeeds in doing away with the OLPC, I could see this being bad for third world recipients in the long-term. Once the OLPC is out of the way, Intel would be free to raise prices, lower output, and extract the most rent from consumers.

In essence, this would defeat the entire point of the OLPC program, which is to reach consumers who wouldn't normally be serviced under "efficient profit maximizing markets".

In the past I didn't think this was that big a deal, because it seemed dubious to me that the world's poor (i.e. those living under a dollar a day) could benefit much from access to a computer. Then I learned that teacher absenteeism is an enormous problem in developing countries. In this context computers make a good substitute for teachers, because, at the very least, they'll always be around. In fact there have been several studies that suggest they are somewhat effective; at least at teaching rudimentary level material.

Which leads me to the last part of the argument. PCs for the poor create a positive externality (through their improvement of education) that will not be captured by any profit-maximizing firm. So even if other competitors end up challenging intel once it has crushed OLPC, it's doubtful that this will lead to an optimal outcome from the perspective of developing countries.

All of this assume of course that the OLPC is well enough run to actually create a product that reaches more people and does more good than the for-profit alternative. I have no idea whether this is in fact the case. At the very least, the fact that it is a non-profit is a signal that it will try to maximize the welfare of consumers rather than shareholder dividends.

[evo @ May 21st 2007 6:06AM]

First, let me say that I strongly support the ideas behind the OLPC project. I think it's a critical step to bringing the developing world forward into the global workforce.

Having said that, what else could Intel do here? Their sole purpose for existence is to gain market and sustain themselves, so their attempts to counter the XO installed base is neither a surprise nor necessarily bad.

Note that the OLPC project has spurned commercially dominant technologies in favor of arguably inferior technologies that they've built or cobbled together themselves. For example, have you seen the screenshots of the XO UI? It's complete rubbish designed by rank amateurs in user interface design. Classic academic approach--not only is it ugly, but it will "educate" millions of children poorly in terms of graphic and human-computer interaction design. Windows 3.1 looked better, and was more consistent and usable. Let me put it a different way: You don't go on to design OS X if your primary interaction with computers has been the UNIX command line or Windows 3.1. Why isn't human-computer interaction just as important for children in the developing world to learn as any other (if not more important if you're trying to grow software developers)?

There is virtually no chance that any OS will supplant Windows in the next 25 years, and not even OS X, as polished as it is, has a real chance to do that. Nick Neg has decided that it's more important to create another DOA option by cobbling together his own OS, with his own (crappy) UI, to push what appears to be his own agenda of trying to undermine commercial offerings, just because.

I'd ask, which is better for children in the developing world: to play with an experimental OS with an experimental UI and significant lack of quality software, or for them to learn the skills they need to be productive in the workforce by educating them about computers with state-of-the-art operating systems and hardware?

You may or may not agree with my points, and that's fine because I also see many counter arguments, but let's not pretend that Nick Neg is being intellectually honest about the OLPC. He is instead pushing his own agenda under the guise of humanitarianism. Apple, Microsoft, and Intel have all offered significant concessions to meet the OLPC project's requirements around open source, quality, performance, etc., all of which Nick has refused, with no intellectually honest reasons given. Thus, he's thrown down the gauntlet to industry with his choices, and arguably made it more difficult for millions of children to get the skills they really need to become a productive part of the first-world workforce. I don't think it's any surprise that Intel (and Apple and Microsoft) are targeting the XO as competition as a result--you reap what you sow.

[Jerry @ May 21st 2007 9:13AM]

Barrett's comment that that's the way the market works, was the most revealing. To him, OLPC is disrupting his market, and his answer is to dump and kill off what he thinks is competition. The OLPC people, including NN, don't see this as a "market" at all. They see it as an educational project with the laptop the pen and the content the book. The XO is simply a means to the end, which is helping children learn how to learn throughout their lives. Not how to be office workers using Office and PowerPoint. It is also, as much repeated, "child-centric" in a way that no Intel machine has ever been. Designed for rough use by very young children in dusty, hot, humid, dirty environments, it can stand treatment no Intel machine dumped below cost will ever be able to do. Intel is behaving as the classic monopolist, and doing its's best to to kill a non-profit desperately needed and self-sustainable educational model, by using a techically inferior, loss making and thereby not sustainable monopolist model.

[johnzilla @ May 21st 2007 1:09PM]

As I understand the project, the goal of the OLPC is not to "educate" the world's children in how everyone ELSE does things.

The goal is to find the best common denominator computing platform that allows the world's children an opportunity to learn. Period. Learn anything as long as it is something. Innovate, not indoctrinate.

Regardless of Intel's motivations, their goals most certainly are not "give children an opportunity to learn". Their goal is "increase shareholder value any way possible, even if it is quasi-legal".

I don't think the answer is government regulation...that isn't going to do anything. It hasn't worked with the billions (trillions?) of dollars loaned out by the World Bank, it isn't going to work with millions of computers. You can bet Intel is going to find lots of political and bureaucratic pockets to fill in their quest to encourage adoption of their product.

The answer is for the OLPC project to soldier on and not give up. People are not stupid, even the ones that are poor. They're going to pick the best solution in the end. If Intel stops supporting their product after awhile, and the thing starts crapping out when it has to spend a few months in the desert or jungle, people will start using the computer that doesn't do either.

If you were ten yrs old and lived in poverty, which computer would you choose? The one that has the spiffy UI designed by "experts" that works just the way rich Americans and Euros think it should work but dies after a couple hard knocks in the desert, or the one with the clunky UI that works all the time and is easy to fix or replace if it ever doesn't?

[ART @ May 22nd 2007 10:12AM]

OS does not matter any more...it's just a means to get to the internet!

[anon @ May 21st 2007 6:33AM]

Come on, Thomas, that's pretty base comment. Surely you can see the difference between the two projects? Possibly your comment is just tongue-in-cheek flippancy, but...

Just like the previous poster mentioned, Intel's aim is just to flood the market. They don't care about long term sustainability, they just want to make sure that they don't lose out on that market to AMD.

OLPC is both a hardware AND software project. I don't know the specifications of the Classmate PC, but somehow I don't think it was designed as thoroughly as OLPC, in terms of durability, toughness with regard to harsher environments, maintenance and useability (especially by children). The OLPC OS was also specifically designed.

Whereas Intel seemed to just downsize a normal laptop to something that resembles the OLPC. What about power requirements? (somehow I doubt that it's going to run at 2W) screen useability? software(yeah, just run that $3 Windows+MS Office, get them hooked while they are young...)? Network capability?

If Intel really wanted to help with bringing computing to the 3rd world, they could have contributed positively to the project, by helping with designing low power components. Sure, they lost out on the CPU, but there's many other components in the computer which can benefit from them.

If Intel manages to force the OLPC project out of the market, do you think they'd bother selling them at below cost? or even maintain interest in sustaining the project, when their responsibility to their share holders is to make money, not philanthropy?

Sure, you can be cynical about the whole thing, and call Negroponte a "sour grape". But from things that I have read about the project, Negroponte's motives have largely been altruistic, somehow I don't think he plans to make boatloads of money out of the project if it succeeds.

[anon @ May 21st 2007 6:33AM]

in reply to evo:

the OLPC was not designed for kids to learn about "computing", it's designed for kids to learn everything! it's an educational tool.

You think the current interface is intuitive to someone who's never seen a computer before? All current major OS GUIs are designed for use with a keyboard and _mouse_, the OLPC interface was designed specifically for a touchscreen. That is the main difference here. For a child who's never used a mouse before, it is much more intuitive to navigate by pressing the images and icons on the screen.

You say Negroponte is pushing his own non-altruistic agenda, would you care to elaborate? He refused Windows initially for very basic reasons, cost. Adding Windows will increase the BOM substantially (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39736). MS/Gates was not interested in the project initially, and he claimed that a mobile phone (running Windows Mobile of course) would be a better alternative. MS did not offer the $3 Windows+Office combo until very recently, when they finally realised the potential of the OLPC project.

[Rus @ May 21st 2007 7:43AM]

I can almost assure you that ONE day we will find out that Negroponte shaved 50 cents or $1 off every laptop or at the very least some part of the supply chain did.

These laptops are a JOKE! They may cost the governments $100-$250 - but the REQUIRED IT and infrastructure that goes with them adds an additional $700-$800 to EACH one.

[Scooter @ May 21st 2007 8:03AM]

Negroponte seems to overlook the fact that Intel's response is part of his own creation: proving that there is a market to be had in supplying barebones, low-cost PCs to the needy.
His shame is failing to develop the OLPC in the developing world and thus helping foment the burgeoning IT infrastructure industry in developing countries.

[Karl Viklund @ May 21st 2007 8:11AM]

Intel is the enemy, AMD is your friend. I'm sticking with AMD.

[anonymous @ May 21st 2007 8:15AM]

Don't forget that "dumping" is an economic term to describe a hostile act where one company sells below cost to harm another company. NN's point is that as soon as governments realize they can get a Wintel machine for the same price as the OLPC they will withdraw interest in the latter, the not-for-profit OLPC will fold, Intel will pull from the market (or raise prices) and children around the world will go without access to computers.

[Ian Jardine @ May 21st 2007 8:39AM]

IMHO both projects are greewat and there is room for both.
For "N" to criticise Intel is wrong. He needs to ask for reassurance that Intel isn't merely trying to muscle out the OLPC and then raise prices. So long as that doesn't happen he should rejoice that Intel supports the basic educational concept. Obviously AMD either does not have the resources, or perhaps the desire to match Intel support of educational low cost devices. "N" merely chose the "wrong" partner.
Hopefully both projects will run concurrently.

[Gonçalo Veiga @ May 21st 2007 9:09AM]

Come on!!

Intel is trying to kill an humanitarian effort to reduce the gap between the (extremely) poor people of the world and the developed countries.

It's trying to break the ignorance and violence cycles, which persistently take over these parts of the world.

This system is just the first step in these children's growth. It does not mean that they won't grow into using a full-blown HW and SW system, where Intel and Windows will most certainly have their say. Actually, the OLPC is developing a whole new market for them, which would not exist otherwise!

Do try to see it in a diferent perspective.

[zorg @ May 21st 2007 9:39AM]

I've been very impressed by most of the comments on this thread. They seem really thoughtful and I think I've learned something about dumping and the harsh economic realities of trying to do something humanitarian in the world.

I think I can even understand those posters who take Intel's side and say that they have to try to wipe out anything they see as competition. These posters remind me that there is a reason for government regulation.

What I don't get is the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farms saying "why can't we all coexist peacefully with our diverse aims?" Would you expect a crocodile and a baby to coexist peacefully with their diverse aims??? No!! If what Intel is doing is not "shameful" it certainly merits regulation ... unless you want to leave it at "well, the children will get screwed, but business is tough that way."

[Caleb @ May 21st 2007 9:41AM]

Did you know that the Classmate is being sold with Mandriva Linux as its OS. So no evil profits for Microsoft.

Anyway, I think it's kinda funny that the single biggest deciding factor for a lot of peeps reading this is the fact that Intel is making a computer to sell at low costs (gasp). I mean, it's not like that's the entire point of the company.

Also, I think that the only thing that will really be a disadvantage for the little kids will be what I believe is a lack fo USB ports on the Classmate, just because everything with a USB just works. The wee ones are not going to have an IT tech to help out when it bites the dust, so groundwork should be layed to insure that everything is reliable.

Everything else I believe won't necessarily be better, just different. Touchscreens are going to become a more integral experience for everyone in the next 5 years or so (there's some video on youtube where a guy demonstrates some pretty amazing touchscreen technology), but right now we use mice and keyboards. So, I guess the question really is, do we get the wee ones to learn how to use a computer the way wo do now, or the way we will.

[Peteo @ May 21st 2007 1:03PM]

Umm not sure where you got your info from but olpc comes with 3 usb 2.0 slots:

Expansion: 3 Type-A USB-2.0 connectors; MMC/SD Card slot

Now if you would like to comment more on this topic I suggest your read the hardware specs because it makes you look really stupid right now.

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Hardware_specification

[Stephen @ May 21st 2007 11:20AM]

It's quite appearant that NN is in it for the long run. My concern is that Intel will simply back out and run away at the first significant snag. Look at the two machines. The OLPC appears to have significantly more work in it and some fabulous innovations. The Classmate is a cut down laptop.
In addition, Intel, MS, and others are quite obviously riding NN's years efforts. They look greedy, petty, and small. NN's group is not-for-profit. However, Intel has vast sums of money. Are they willing to make these devices available at cost?

[oliveboy @ May 21st 2007 11:07AM]

Negroponte just want to wander around the third-world and be the humanitarian Johnny Cyber-seed. My first impression from the story was that if he really just wanted to help the children he would work with Intel and whoever wants to do the same project. It's pretty obvious the OLPC is never going to proliferate on it's own. He could fund this project by selling one to every geek in the USA alone that wanted one. Buy one, donate two. Why won't he do it? That's my question.

[Sam @ May 21st 2007 7:32PM]

"My first impression from the story was that if he really just wanted to help the children he would work with Intel and whoever wants to do the same project."

Read up on your history; this is precisely what has happened in the past, and all the laptop vendors just laughed at him. So, he had to roll his own laptop. Now the vendors aren't laughing anymore, and Intel is **PISSED** at missing the opportunity. This is classic capitalism at work, right here, folks. Businesses exist to make money, AT ALL COSTS, provided you still have a bottom line at the end. They do not care about you. They do not care about me. Unless, that is, it's profitable in the short-term for themselves. Otherwise, customers can just bugger off.

[Transmetad @ May 21st 2007 10:51AM]

"Intel is the enemy, AMD is your friend. I'm sticking with AMD."

This is either a great use of sarcasm or the most incredibly lame statement ever.

[Seth @ May 21st 2007 5:03PM]

The only difference between this and any other computer market is that one of the players is a non-profit.

Negroponte is creating this market, but now the market exists, and having a few million laptops dumped on the world is definitely a long-term business problem for Intel.

Please remember that although Negroponte claims to be doing this for altruistic reasons that if successful, this program could unlock a myriad of global market for-profit programs in the future which drive existing business away from Intel.

The disheartening part is that Negroponte has obviously dedicated his life to this (he states he travels 330 days a year for OLPC!), and the potential for massive success is there - to have that marginalized by a for-profit really undermines what he will be able to accomplish personally, and thats unfortunate, and a sad precedent.

[strider_mt2k @ May 21st 2007 11:47AM]

Careful now.

You start educating folks and the next thing you know they'll start demanding all kinds of crazy crap like fair wages and clean drinking water, then before long you'll have to pull up stakes and find another third wor, er developing market to exploi, er invest in.

It ain't good for business!

[Ben Hobbs @ May 21st 2007 12:09PM]

At the end of the day it means even cheaper computers for the poor, and a better selection. I fail to see who loses?

It shouldn't hurt the 'not for profit' as they aren't looking to profit anyhow, and if it features heavily into Intels plans to go for the longtail in 3rd world countries and build brand loyalty now so when they are more developed countries they can up-purchase to profitable models, whats the problem.

Negroponte wanted cheap PC's for the poor, problem solved.

[Audrey @ May 21st 2007 12:56PM]

The thing that concerns me most about Intel attempting to get in on the OLPC market, aside from the long term effects of product dumping, is that the OLPC was designed with some very specific networking and communication features that I doubt a commercial product will duplicate. It's set up to allow mesh networking between computers, which will be of huge benefit in areas with intermittent access to outside networks. They've also done a lot of work on building a highly visual, kid-friendly communication interface.

I've played with the OLPC prototype a couple of times, and I'm really excited to see where it goes. I suspect that the impact will go beyond just what comes from having access to textbooks.

[Robert Wicks @ May 21st 2007 12:57PM]

Does anyone think Intel has pockets which are deeper than all the governments which may purchase the Classmate PC? If they get a billion orders for the thing, how could they keep up with demand, and if they cannot, then the OLPC will be needed to fill those orders. If they can, then whenever they decide to jack up the price, the OLPC or its successor can come into the market with a more affordable option. Dumping can't work unless you can print money and have a legal monopoly.

[Mike @ May 21st 2007 2:53PM]

Intel does not seem to have the dedication to the project that Negroponte has. He seems to have a genuine interest in getting laptops to kids around the world. I doubt that Intel feels the same way. Negroponte is not doing this for the money, although I'm sure he will earn himself quite a bit in doing so. Intel, however, is all about the money. They're a business with responsibilities to shareholders; they have to be about the money. The only problem with Intel getting involved in this situation is that Negroponte is dedicated to the project; Intel is not. If Intel undercuts Negroponte and forces him out of business only to find that there really isn't a lot of money to be made from Classmate/OLPCs, Intel won't hesitate to cut their losses and run, potentially leaving third world countries worse off than when they started. The entire project would be looked on as a failure and it would take a long time before anybody has the guts to try this kind of thing again.

[3rdsun @ May 21st 2007 4:07PM]

Nick Neg should have patented the project of offering low cost computers to third world children. Intel are just trying to cash in on a market they didn't think was important before Nick Neg came along. Its sad but more companies are also seeing this oppurtunity. Over 1 billion kids is a large market.

[Bryan Hinton @ May 21st 2007 7:21PM]

Being an Intel employee I wanted to drop a note in this comment thread. While I have no inside knowledge of our executive motives and while I can understand the concerns of those commented before it is hilarious to hear how people want to demonize Intel for getting involved here. We spend millions of dollars every year to educate kids all over the world, their teachers, provide technology to them. Are their multiple reasons why we do this - very likely - I am sure execs realize that by doing so we are growing a future group of computer buyers and expanding our markets, but also people at Intel want to help the world too - they aren't evil. We spend millions of dollars with no guarantee of success or return on investment.

I don't know how the Classmate PC versus the OLPC war will turn out - I guarantee you that if there turns out to be a demand for millions and millions and millions of these PCs Intel is much better positioned to meet that demand than AMD is - if the OLPC succeeds they very well could not meet demand (both mfging wise and cost wise).

[Bang! @ May 21st 2007 8:16PM]

I was the poor student back then when Intel, AMD and Cyrix were all competing for market share. In the end, I used AMD because of cost. Intel's "business" practice is being the laggard and stealing the thunder. They couldn't give a crap about the poor until it becomes necessary and this is no exception. Same thing for 64-bit processing for servers. Their idea of "help" is the same as the drug dealers and I hope governments will be smart enough to see it through.

[Rzamora @ May 21st 2007 10:26PM]

Another problem, I really fear with Intel is that working and getting contracts in third world countries is all about bribing the right government officials. I'm sorry, OLPC being a non profit company does not have the money to grease down all the corrupt government officials(nor should they) as i'm intel is doing now.

[Jordan @ May 23rd 2007 8:23AM]

You obviously haven't taken a look at the actual OLPC laptop itself. "Note that the OLPC project has spurned commercially dominant technologies in favor of arguably inferior technologies that they've built or cobbled together themselves..." --> You obviously don't understand just how amazing the OLPC laptop is to be able to do what it can with such cost limitations (and the OS wasn't "cobbled" together. That gives it the sound of something that wasn't well thought out or well made, and Sugar is a brillaint system). Only 1GB of flash memory, 256MB of ram, 443mhz (can you imagine running windows 2000 or OSX on 443 mhz AND 256mb - either one alone would make it inconvenient and cumbersome), uses only 2watts, runs one program at a time... the list goes on. These laptops are not going to be used for hardcore gaming, or for watching dvds rented from Netflix. It's for EDUCATIONAL USE.

However, even with the limitations the XO has, it's a quite capable machine: Word processing, math programs, part of Wikipedia pre-loaded, wireless networking, even a movie/audio player, games, and internet browser. Plus a lot of things I just didn't feel like mentioning.

Commercially dominant technologies are expensive and aren't needed for OLPC because the XO has no need for such powerful components. You've gotten too used to working on a machine that can do so much at a "cheap" price. Pentium 4's are much less than they used to be and dual-core machines are becoming the norm, but even if we can afford the 200+ for a decent processor, that's way too much for the XO.

I laughed at your description of the UI, because at first I thought you might be a programmer or someone who works in interface design (or both, even better) with some useful input, but all you said was it doesn't look good and was made by amateurs (because you're so very knowledgeable and experienced on the subject). The ui is based on the fact that most people using these machines won't have had any previous computer usage.

"... it will "educate" millions of children poorly in terms of graphic and human-computer interaction design. Windows 3.1 looked better, and was more consistent and usable. Let me put it a different way: You don't go on to design OS X if your primary interaction with computers has been the UNIX command line or Windows 3.1." - Evo

Wow... that's one of the most idiotic things I've read out of all the responses to this article. What do you think developers were using before 2000/XP and OSX came out? First, OSX is built upon Unix and allows users to work in a Unix environment using the Terminal program. Also, you change arguments mid-paragraph, switching from it has bad graphics to it has no graphics - neither of which are true. You can't argue that it will harm children to have "poor graphics" (which it doesn't, all things considered), and then imply that it doesn't have any graphics by bringing up Unix command line and Windows 3.1.

Windows does not have an intuitive design, especially for someone who's not grown up seeing it used by others. Instead of having to go into the programs folder to find something you installed that isn't in the start menu or hasn't added yet another icon to your desktop, sugar uses iconic views to organize different programs, friends etc (wiki.laptop.org/go/Sugar_Instructions). Oh, and I'm quite sure that windows 3.1 is a lot more likely to crash than linux is. Let's face it, Windows is a hell of a lot more unstable and susceptible to both accidental and maliciously caused problems than Linux (how long do you think it would take before some curious kid opens the registry and tries deleting HKLM, or manages to view hidden files and deletes NTDetect or boot.ini).

About rejecting offers from MS and Apple, there are two very obvious reasons: cost and closed source. Even if the offer by apple to use OSX at no cost had been accepted, applications would still have to be bought, and the OLPC team would not be able to deal with problems caused by OSX's interface with either the hardware or additional applications. And, obviously, opting for Windows is essentially opening up the door to viruses and hosts of other problems.

Making the project open source means developers can constantly improve and extend the underlying system, as well as deal with problems as they are discovered and reported (think of how long it takes Windows to come out with a service pack for anything that doesn't fix a discovered DRM bug or hack). Also, open source means XO software development by people like me a hell of a lot easier ^_^.

[Circuitsoft.alex @ May 22nd 2007 1:21AM]

The OLPC XO isn't just a small laptop. As others have said, it can handle the dust and environment, but it's clearly more a learning tool than a laptop.

The builtin camera can have the AGC disabled so that it can be used for experiments with color and light levels.

The microphone port on the side can be used as a general-purpose analog data collection port, either biased, or not. It's not limited to audio, like most laptops.

The software has been specifically designed for classroom use, as there are facilities for finding a cool web page then forwarding it to everyone in your class, immediately.

And the UI you think you saw, that was worse than Win 3.1, was the basic UNIX TWM window manager, running just to see if the hardware works. There is a livecd you can download to try the whole system for yourself and see how it works.

[Alex Kerr @ May 22nd 2007 12:02PM]

The whole concept of a low cost PC is utter nonsense, though I recognise that the intentions are good (in Negroponte's case anyway). Mobile phones are the next generation of personal computer, and the developing world has already proved overwhelmingly that that is where the action is, and where the real benefits are to be found in improving people's lives, and lifting communities out of poverty. Anyone who argues in favour of the PC in the developing world just doesn't get it.

Alex
CEO
phonething.com

[AJ @ Jul 2nd 2007 5:02PM]

Yeah, cell phones are where its at for the developing world...now visit my site and use my products.

[nikster @ May 22nd 2007 7:52AM]

OK guys you need to get some serious perspective. I am in Thailand. I live in a semi-remote mountain village. There is DSL here because there is demand.

There's also "Internet Cafes" galore. Now you might think they are for rich Tourists - and some of them are. But the majority is for Thai kids who go there and play online RPGs all day and night. 24h a day. It's so cheap even these kids can afford it.

So replace that "somebody who has never seen a computer before" with "somebody who's a Level 36 Elf in Ragnarok Online" and an expert at CS:whatever.

Will they choose a run-of-the-mill Windoze computer over a weird but interesting contraption? Any day.

It looks like that by the time the OLPC ships the problem it was intended to solve is long gone.

I also want to say that the educational situation here is basically terrible. If you're lucky the school will help get your kid off the streets and watch over them, but learning anything? Forget it. Not gonna happen. Teachers/school buildings are of the lowest standard, and parents can often not affort to send kids to school because the kids need to work on the farm/in the family shop/whatever. To give you an example, if the local school got $200, would it buy an OLPC or fix the toilets? Clear case for the latter. A computer doesn't help if you don't have a school building. Or proper teachers.

A Bill Gates-Foundation-like approach would do much more with much less money. Look at the problems that exist. Solve them.

[FutileIssue @ May 22nd 2007 9:08AM]

I see a lot of engadget readers understand why this is a hostile act. As someone has already pointed out, Intel has no intention of maintaining these computers at this below-cost price range. If they effectively push tiny OLPC out of the "market" then they have the ability to jack prices again, or just back out altogether.

Intel sees OLPC as a threat to the very way the computer market exists today. The golden days for the Silicon Valley pirates are over, it's amazing that this non-profit can send a shiver down their spine.

[ART @ May 22nd 2007 10:00AM]

TWICE i've written to OLPC asking them to sell me a basic black computer. I could use it for word processing and to get to the NET. But they're full of themsleves, perhaps, and don't have the sense to make any change to their basic plan (like Word Perfect). They could have been the de facto super cheap laptop, but instead they might have to be a footnote. I hate to see whining about the competition, but here's my 400 dollars now send me my cheap laptop!!!

[jackbot @ May 22nd 2007 11:01AM]

c'mon guys, what are you yelling about?
poor people needs food and stuff, not computers.

[qwan @ Jan 9th 2008 2:11PM]

Many "thoughful" comments and some utter cr@p :-P.
Even the ones that are "right" in pointing out Intel's hostile move are still ignorant about what is actually happening. I am not even going to comment about those who think that this is the "way of life" or that OLPC is whatever.
What many of you don't know about dumping and other things. Why Intel is so interested in this market?.
First of almost all 3rd world countries and developing countries have extremely corrupt Govt. Officials. The reason why Intel is successful because it is bribing. I live in a developing country and I have umpteen of these projects and how they work, from bicycles for the poor children to go to school and free lunch programs.
If 10000 bicycles are approved in the budget only 500 actually reach the poor. The remaining 9500 bicyles is never supplied by the company, but the Govt. officials in charge sign on documents that guarantee it. Why?... because firstly the bicycle company that got the order would be selling it for below the production cost to win the order, then he has to bribe all the officials invovled. Then the company with the officials and the media take videos of the 500 bicyles being distributed and everyone is happy.
After a year some journalist might rake up the issue but even 3rd world countries have their own local "britney spears" and "paris hiltons" to distract everybody.
It is pretty obvious that OLPC is never going to bribe or cannot offord to bribe any official. Everybody knows the price of the OLPC. Wheras in the case of Intel there is plenty of scope for corruption and these Govt officials to make money. If you read that Intel never mentioned for how much they sold the Classmate PC to Libya.
They never will and they never have to bother about service or support of the PCs. Because that is how is it in 3rd world countries you cannot hold the Govt responsible for lack of electricity water and many other issues. Do you think they are going to respond to a blue screen on your laptop which they gave you free!!!!.
I can guarantee you that Intel PC are going to be sold in the grey market for half the original price in Libya cause someone is going to get their hands of some of the PCs and sell it.
So before applying any more though and meaningless POVs consider the above factors.
One more thing OLPC has kept some of these facts in mind. Their laptop has a very rugged OS which is may not be good to look at but it will never fail. These kids may get a laptop but they will never be able to get is serviced if a problem ever occurs.
That is the harsh reality that Intel is taking advantage of.
there is not new market, Intel found that 3rd world countries(govt officials that is) are not happy about this initiative as they are not making any money. Intel is just filling its own pockets with these countries taxes and world bank loans and giving a good share to the politicians.