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.
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.
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?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
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!