OLPC says Intel's efforts were "half-hearted," uninvites to birthday party

Nothing like an amicable parting of the ways between two mature organizations to warm the heart. But, naturally, the OLPC folks are having none of that. OLPC President Walter Bender had quite a few parting shots to make at the non-profit's former board member, Intel. After explaining that Intel's departure will have no impact on his organization, Bender accused Intel of making a "seemingly half-hearted effort" to build an XO to OLPC's spec. "The only thing they were interested in was ... helping them make marketing statements about how Intel's approach to learning was different from OLPC's approach to learning," said Bender. "They weren't interested in how we can learn together and make something better for kids." Bender also complained of Intel's unwillingness to help out on software and failure to perform in general: "They developed something that, as far as I know, is more expensive and more power-hungry than our current offering, so I'm not quite sure what the point is." According to Bender, Intel's primary interest in the whole affair was the positive PR -- and, of course, kicking the crutches out from under sick children as they walk past.

[abadtooth @ Jan 4th 2008 10:52AM]

I'm glad I went with AMD, intel is reminding me of microsoft and any other extremely lazy and corrupt corporation!

intel you suck!!!

[strider_mt2k @ Jan 4th 2008 10:54AM]

Intel later embarrassed itself further by refusing an orphan's request for more gruel.

[nd @ Jan 4th 2008 10:55AM]

wow. 2 words come to mind when i see that picture and read about what intel has done with this project:

tool
pwned

i have always liked amd, mostly because they have been the underdog and made killer products. now i like them even more, even if their latest and greatest offerings are not quite up to par with intel. come on amd, you can do it!

[scientist369 @ Jan 4th 2008 10:57AM]

Ok intel. Time to crash and burn like an uncooled processor.

Thats gunna be soooo bad for business.

[Warhorse @ Jan 4th 2008 11:00AM]

Intel is too cool for School.

[bonedog73 @ Jan 4th 2008 5:07PM]

LOSERS!!

[jus10 @ Jan 4th 2008 11:12AM]

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10472304

That's a pretty good article on the XO and its state. My favorite paragraph:

"This leads to the final problem that has done the most to disappoint OLPC’s fans: the hubris, arrogance and occasional self-righteousness of OLPC workers. They treated all criticism as enemy fire to be deflected and quashed rather than considered and possibly taken on board. Overcoming this will be essential if the project is to succeed past its first release. Technology products improve based on user feedback. The OLPC staff will need to learn to listen to the candid criticism of outsiders for teh second-generation of the laptop—or they do not deserve to build one."

[Cedric @ Jan 4th 2008 3:37PM]

Thanks for the article. There's actually a silver lining to the OLPC, the spawning of a number of competitors to the cheap laptop. Other quotes from the article:

"Since the project launched in 2005, commercial rivals have emerged: Intel’s “Classmate” at around $250; Acer’s laptop at $350; Everex PCs with Zonbu software at around $280; Asustek Computer’s Asus Eee at under $400; and an Indian competitor, Novatium Solutions, which created a basic "NetPC" for around $80. There are many more. .... "

"Likewise, an inexpensive laptop seemed impossible until Mr Negroponte and the OLPC group placed a stake in the ground to build a $100 laptop—which in turn spurred the industry’s biggest players to create low-cost PCs. Mr Negroponte’s vision for a $100 laptop was not the right computer, only the right price. Like many pioneers, he laid a path for others to follow."

That's the problem with pioneers. They're the ones with arrows in their backs. Kudos to Negroponte for his contribution to the laptop. Though hardly in a way he at all desired.

[GTMoogle @ Jan 4th 2008 9:06PM]

Sorry, I just can't give that credence. Go read the comments from any slashdot story on the OLPC. That's the kind of inane 'advice' that outsiders have for the OLPC project - uninformed wankery. Almost all of it is stupid shit, from "If you're going to even THINK about doing something good, you're a horrible monster if you're not feeding the starving children in war-torn country X first" to "Clearly they'll fail because they're refusing to design it to require my product that doesn't match their goals"

Just because it's a somewhat charitable project apparently gives everyone the idea that they're obligated to give 'advice' to the people who went out and did research in the field. Now THAT's the hubris, arrogance, and self-righteousness. I'd hazard to guess that they were open and welcoming to good honest advice, just not the self-important blather of those that are now offended that they weren't listened to.

[mike @ Jan 4th 2008 11:21AM]

Why AMD isn't doing anything for OLPC then?
Intel is a bad ass corporation that is full of greed. But its not like AMD is an angle. The only reason I prefer AMD is because they revolutionized the CPU industry, their competition and creativity is what drove lazy ass intel to be more productive and creative.

[Arsenic0 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:32PM]

You gotta be kidding me..

If it wasnt for Intel creating the x86 processors AMD wouldnt exist today...

[Bobs @ Jan 5th 2008 6:40AM]

Just think, without AMD, Intel would have no reason to advance their technologies as fast as they have been, so be thankful that they both exist, and hope that none of them fall out.

[Ian @ Jan 4th 2008 11:24AM]

It's never a good idea for a non profit to go out in the media knocking a huge corporation.
IMHO OLPC will die within a year as the market place fills the void with many innovative machines similarly priced and more capable. OLPC could survive, but ONLY if they get a more mature attitude. However, it may already be too late for that change.

[bob @ Jan 5th 2008 4:41AM]

i doubt it. it isnt like a run of the mill laptop , it has many innovations that the new competition isnt adopting. longer lasting and easily replacable parts , mesh networking , day light visibipity , and black and white mode for extremely long battery life. the idea isnt just to have cheap laptops but cheap laptops that are specifically targettted to meet the needs of children who live in the most deprived parts of the world.
the competition is just building cheap laptops that will fail in 1 or 2 years.

[Ian @ Jan 5th 2008 9:32AM]

Bob,

I see what you are saying. But those kind of innovations, if totally misssing from other OEM products, mean that asking Intel to withdraw chip supplies to what you say are "non competitors" doesn't make any sense for OLPC.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 4th 2008 11:24AM]

Oh boo-hoo. Like we didn't see this coming with Intel's Classmate PC. Saying Intel left because it hates kids is such a smear - Intel left because it needed to focus on its own product and compete - which, considering the fact that competition is healthy - which is BETTER for the kids.

Of course, now people are going to go "oh I'm not going to support the Classmate because Intel hates children, I'm just going to support the OLPC" which raises sales for OLPC - meaning that this statement is just part of business strategy. Of course, you can bet that Intel is gonna make a statement back...

[ekwmin @ Jan 4th 2008 12:41PM]

Both Intel and AMD are watching out for their own backs. They both want market penetration. This is huge because these are relatively new markets with no saturation whatsoever. Competition is good, but it won't be a clean fight. These governments are well aware of how badly Intel and AMD want this, so there will be plenty of bribery, kickbacks, and exclusivity deals. Let's face it, there's plenty of corrupt officials who will gladly choose to stuff their own pockets over the interest of the children. Maybe this is the true reason that Negroponte is so upset with the Classmate PC project. But of course he can't disclose that because that would only upset his customers. Would you buy from a company who's leader publicly implies that you're corrupt? Just maybe he should have tried to somehow accommodate a platform for Intel to coexists with AMD, like they often do in defense contracts nowadays. I don't know, this is quite a mess.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 4th 2008 11:26AM]

And nowadays? Looks like AMD has a lot of "innovation" going on - looks like a bunch of price cuts to remain competitive to me. Intel is the innovative one now.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 4th 2008 11:28AM]

sorry - comment system messed up this was in reply to "mike" above.

[Jeebus @ Jan 4th 2008 12:40PM]

Suure. Blame "the system".

[josh @ Jan 4th 2008 1:37PM]

> Suure. Blame "the system".

There is a bug, at least in IE (haven't cared enough to explore the steps to reproduce or tested in other browsers), where occasionally clicking reply reloads the page and set the focus to the comment submission area, but does not set the "replying to" field. If you don't catch it your "reply" is posted as a new comment.

[josh @ Jan 4th 2008 11:39AM]

"They developed something that, as far as I know, is more expensive and more power-hungry than our current offering, so I'm not quite sure what the point is."

Good to know they have a visionary with a firm grasp of the market leading the project. Personally it worries me that the project has a president who can only determine the utility of something based off of its moral qualities, as that strikes me as someone who is fundamentally incapable of directing a project in a world where moral qualities matter almost not at all. Don't get me wrong, I admire what the OLPC project is attempting to do but in order for it to succeed I think the project needs a healthy dose of realism. Moral idealism alone will not lead them to success.

[JL @ Jan 4th 2008 12:24PM]

Respectfully I disagree with the sentiment that moral/social responsibility doesn't matter. In my mind the fact that all corporations care about is profit is why things are so crappy. I personally applaud the OLPC efforts. Sounds like to me that the corporatocracy wants them to fail. I think they fully know what they're up against too. Things would be better if corporations were more socially responsible. It's like they benefit (at least in the US) from being treated like they are individuals but have no desire to do their part with regards to acting in an altruistic fashion. Not everything has to be about profit/shareholder dividends/boardroom stock options etc. Then again, I'm one of those who believe corporations have too many rights, a corporation should never be more important than an individual. I just hope OLPC hasn't doomed themselves to an active attempt by said corps (intel etc..) to destroy their effort.

[Ian @ Jan 4th 2008 1:11PM]

JL,

The problem I have with OLPC is that they wanted Intel to stop producing the "Classmate" and STOP offering chipsets to other manufacturers in a similar space. i.e OLPC thought that merely because they are a NFP that nobody should be provided with the hardware to UNDERCUT the OLPC machine. This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever and indeed might be an illegal strategy. I can see why Intel felt the need to part ways with the OLPC people. Sadly. Competition and innovation will drive down the prices of these machines NOT A monopoly manufacturer.
Look at this another way. Mr Softy is looking at this space and running scared re the proliferation of non MS O/S. So suddenly MS turns on a dime and is working to shortly rollout a light version of Windows XP for these types of machines. This is the result of good competition driving innovation and pushing prices down.
I have just purchased a Asus 701 eee. Now I am willing to bet that within a year the success of this machine will have driven a slew of other OEMs into this space. That and falling prices for hardware (and software) will mean that stripped down machines will likely compete with the OLPC machine in terms of price, performance and versatility. That's a good thing for sales to poorer countries. OLPC should NOT be allowed to become a monopoly in this space and they won't. Intrel knows all too well how bad being perceived to be a monopoly can be!

[josh @ Jan 4th 2008 1:22PM]

I guess I was imprecise in how I stated things. I didn't mean to suggest that morality didn't matter to people, or that what we have in this day in age is great (I echo your sentiments concerning corporations). What I poorly articulated was that a success of a project really doesn't have a great deal to do with moral superiority. OLPC will succeed if it is well managed with a realistic evaluation of the adversity it needs to overcome. It will not succeed purely because those people running it want to do good. I honestly get the vibe that that unfortunately the OLPC project believes otherwise.

Would the world be a better place if that wasn't true? Very likely. I wish we lived in that world but we don't.

[Ronald McD @ Jan 4th 2008 3:19PM]

Josh, thank you. Unfortunately, most people on Engadget are all about sticking it to "the man" and assuming all corporations are evil. Never mind reading Intel's side of the story.

OLPC is a great concept with horrible execution. Providing a service that is socially responsible is respectable, but you can't use it as an excuse for failing as a business. The guys at OLPC have always come off as being really pompous, expecting other companies to bend over backwards so that they can reach their goal.

[Magallanes @ Jan 4th 2008 11:57AM]

I think to kickass intel was too greedy for a "non-profit organization". For customers, competition is always a good thing.

[Arsenic0 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:33PM]

You watch any of the OLPC videos or read the news articles you can see the fate of OLPC a mile away..

Their main marketting guy constantly bashes everybody and does nothing but bitch and moan about other corporations taking away his business..he doesnt want one PC per child, he wants one of HIS PC's per child.

Welcome to capitalism asshole.

[Charbax @ Jan 5th 2008 12:11AM]

You can say what you want. The Intel Classmate sucks completely. Intel wants to kill cheap laptop computers, simply because the introduction of cheap laptops would destroy Intel's market domination in selling processors for expensive laptops.

Intel does not compete fairly. Go read up on Google, search for "Intel anti-trust", read articles describing how Intel sales representatives have done nothing else than lie about the Classmate.

Competition would be great, but Intel's efforts aren't about competing, they are about killing and stopping any efforts in introducing disruptive laptop prices.

[Arsenic0 @ Jan 6th 2008 9:25PM]

Well while that may be true that Intel is not innocent you really should read up on Negroponte and watch some interviews that have been done on him such as 60 minutes. You can tell from the first 5 minutes that he has the "I am always right" personality..he believes he has created the best thing that has ever graced the computing world, when he not only has the project failed as a whole(most countries are backing out of non binding verbal agreements).

He is an ass and i dont believe a word that comes out of the OLPC's group because they dont make press releases they make what are essentially whiny blog posts. I cant take any group seriously that has a CEO that takes such low jabs as making statements that Intel hates children..thats just not needed, or professional.

[GamePhase @ Jan 4th 2008 12:34PM]

Helping out just for PR is not a bad thing, but showing your face without really doing anything and try to get credit for it is what's really wrong. Not that it's surprising in the business world of today, but it's still condemnable and should be made known to everyone.

[Jdog @ Jan 4th 2008 12:53PM]

My wife will kick all yur asses.

[holyschmidt @ Jan 4th 2008 12:56PM]

here's a different side of the story. reading both, i'd side with intel.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20080104&id=7995203

[Charbax @ Jan 5th 2008 12:18AM]

Intel didn't quit OLPC, Intel was KICKED OUT of OLPC by the whole board consisting of Google, AMD, Red Hat, News Corp, Brightstar, Nortel, eBay, SES Astra, Quanta, MIT, Chin Lin, Riverside and Marvell. All those people kicked Intel out months ago from the board meetings.

Cause all Intel was doing was to critisize OLPC, spread FUD about it, disgustingly lie about the OLPC vs. Classmate comparisons in all countries where OLPC is trying to launch large distributions.

Read this instead: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/04/technology/kirkpatrick_negroponte.fortune/?postversion=2008010415

[Spencer @ Jan 8th 2008 4:43PM]

What happened to the part where Bender told Intel to bite his shiny metal ass?

[Cedric @ Jan 4th 2008 3:21PM]

I recently read a blog of how OLPC was *really* doing in India, and the blogger essentially said the laptops were going to government officials, who were giving them to their kids as toys. He also suggests that these laptops are more likely going to be sold off by families to the grey market. My main problem with OLPC is that I've yet to read anything that suggests OLPC researched the cultural mores of these countries, and, instead, exports Western values, much, dare I say it, like the "White Man's Burden" of imperialism and Christianity centuries ago. The problem isn't the technology. It's the lack of understanding of the audience it's supposed to help: "Then there are the social and logistical issues. The project is counting on teachers, who may or may not welcome these electronic replacements for books. Money for the laptops will come out of already tight government budgets and will mean that other, perhaps better, government programs will lose funding. Theft of computers will undoubtedly be a problem, as will repair and maintenance. And what will happen when millions of computer-literate teens graduate into low-tech societies? Nobody knows. Nobody is even trying to find out."

http://spectrum.ieee.org/apr07/4985

Another common argument is opportunity cost. OLPC *isn't* free. Governments have to pay for it. But, given that these governments are low on educational funds, money spent on OLPC must be taken from other education spending: "Tens of millions of children don’t go to school, and of the many who do, they end up in schools that lack blackboards and in some cases even chalk. Government schools — especially in rural areas — are plagued with teacher absenteeism. The schools lack even the most rudimentary of facilities such as toilets (the lack of which is a major barrier to girl children.)"

http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/07/28/olpc/

[Charbax @ Jan 5th 2008 12:24AM]

The OLPC laptop cannot be stolen, there is hardware embedded encryption security that remotely bricks stolen laptops. The grey market is impossible.

Some developping countries like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Nigeria, do have huge amounts of income from exports of some of their natural ressources such as oil. So it's only a matter of fairly distribution of wealth, which is what democratically elected representatives are for. So it wouldn't take more than a signature by one of the people who control the nations oil revenue to get one laptop to every child in Iraq or Nigeria for example.

[Kirish @ Jan 6th 2008 9:03PM]

Here are some additional points to consider. OLPC is a non-profit who has as it's mission to design and put technology in the hands of students in developing countries to aid education. The reason why the lap-top is inexpensive is that it is not designed to make a profit. The OLPC is an education program using the laptop as a tool to accomplish educational goals. Remember the project came out of MIT and has attracted some of the best minds in the field of education.

Intel's "Classmate" is a durable laptop created after Intel saw the developing world's children as a untapped market. It is clear the OLPC is an educational program and the Classmate is a laptop which could be used for education.

There is nothing wrong with competition when two companies compete. But to pretend to be helping a non-profit at the same time your sales force is trying to talk Peru into dropping it's order for the OLPC is unethical at best!

According to the New York Times, "In Peru, where One Laptop has begun shipping the first 40,000 PCs of a 270,000 system order, Isabelle Lama, an Intel saleswoman, tried to persuade Peru’s vice minister of education, Oscar Becerra Tresierra, that the Intel Classmate PC was a better choice for his primary school students."

"Unfortunately for Intel, the vice minister is a longtime acquaintance of Dr. Negroponte and Seymour Papert, a member of the One Laptop team and an M.I.T. professor who developed the Logo computer programming language. The education minister took notes on his contacts with the Intel saleswoman and sent them to One Laptop officials." "In a telephone interview Friday, Mr. Tresierra said that his government had asked Intel for a proposal for secondary-school machines, and it had responded with a proposal offering the Classmate PC for primary grades."

Add to the fact that INTEL issued a press release before it informed the OLPC Board, and you can clearly see a lack of any type of corporate Ethics. Dr. Negroponte is an educator not a business man. he had every right to explain how a knife had stabbed him in the back. Shame on INTEL