Nick Neg says Intel "undermined" the OLPC, likens company to alcoholic

As if OLPC's Walter Bender hadn't already dragged this breakup far enough through the mud, Nicholas Negroponte himself has weighed in on Intel's departure, accusing the company of using underhand sales tactics to block OLPC sales and to win over OLPC customers to the Classmate PC. Nick says of Intel: "They were selling laptop with their brand on it directly to exactly the same people we were talking to. They would go in even after we had signed contracts and try to persuade government officials to scrap their contract and sign a contract with them instead. That's not a partnership." Apparently OLPC had six million dollars on the way from Intel before they scrapped the partnership, but Nick Neg had had enough. "Each time it happened they said they would correct their ways. It's a little like cheating on your spouse, or alcoholism, or something you just can't eventually fix and we had to finally part ways." Intel sees it differently, of course. "I don't want to get into specifics but we met every obligation that we were committed to," said Intel's Paul Otellini, who called Negroponte's version of events "hogwash." Intel's version of the story states that OLPC wanted Intel to drop its non-XO projects, namely Classmate PC. This was obviously always an awkward union, given the respective organizations' competing products, but you'd really hope for a bit more maturity in the breakup given the fact that this is all, you know, for the kids.

[NXTwoThou @ Jan 9th 2008 8:25AM]

You've got your publicity department that's all gung-ho to work with OLPC for marketing purposes while you've got your sales force that has a product sitting around gung-ho about selling it. Which department do you slap on the wrist?

[Dan @ Jan 9th 2008 9:41AM]

Answer: The one that does bad, sneaky things. The one that does things counter to the agreement. That would be INTEL. Everlasting shame on INTEL. Wealthy beeps.

[josh @ Jan 9th 2008 11:15AM]

@Dan

I think the original post was refering to two different arms within intel, rather than a comparison of Intel and the OLPC project. Personally I have no sympathy for the OLPC project; they have admirable goals but absolutely no realistic idea how to achieve them. The OLPC project knows they can only succeed if they have a complete monopoly on their market, because they have absolutely no business plan to address competition short of publically trying to shame them. Monopolies are not good for the market. Competition drives down prices and competition promotes continued innovation. If the OLPC project succeeded in driving away competition what they would have done was ensure that worthy competitors that might actually be able to deliver a $100 laptop one day, something that the XO failed to do, no longer tried, and that is WORSE for the target customers.

The XO is an innovative piece of kit with some ingenious design. Its a shame that is where the innovation stops in the OLPC project, otherwise it might actually achieve its goals. What ultimately matters is the fullfillment of the goals that OLPC has, and if a competitor regardless of motive is able to achieve that then bravo. Results are what matters and the OLPC project really isn't showing they have what it takes to deliver. If the OLPC project can pull in business handlers that can take it too success I think that will be excellent, but right now all they are doing is hurting the cause they wished to address.

[mike @ Jan 9th 2008 2:23PM]

@Dan,
OLPC is a non-profit organization. Intel did, in fact, screw up, they ruined their image quiet nicely in the eyes of the public. They acted like sneaky traitors more than a respectful big corporation... Instead of pretending to be a partner and stab OLPC in the back, whey did not they just compete in the first place.

[John @ Jan 9th 2008 8:34PM]

You say "non-profit" as if Bender and Negropronte AREN'T laughing their way to the bank right now!

An Economics Lesson:

Bottom Line = Revenue - Costs

And what's included in the costs? Among other things, the top management's multi-million dollar salaries, of course!

Non-profits still have to end up in the black to stay afloat, but just because they make little, if any, profit doesn't mean that its workers are doing it for free.

[m @ Jan 10th 2008 2:07AM]

this isn't really about competition, or winning over the market--it's about creating a market where none presently exists. intel can only be afraid of a future world in which nobody wants their products.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 9th 2008 8:26AM]

Well like all big FOR PROFIT corporations Intel is in it for the money. They're not in the business of trying to help people out; so of course they're going to use shady tactics.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 9th 2008 8:26AM]

Well like all big FOR PROFIT corporations Intel is in it for the money. They're not in the business of trying to help people out; so of course they're going to use shady tactics.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 9th 2008 8:27AM]

duplicate post. sorry.

[strider_mt2k @ Jan 9th 2008 8:55AM]

What?

[Todd @ Jan 9th 2008 8:30AM]

"Evil Inside" - I cannot imagine the complete lack of ethics required to try to exploit a bunch of poor kids for money. Does the sales staff at Intel all have really long beards and uncombed hair? They obviously cannot have mirrors in their homes since that would force them to look at themselves.

[Erwos @ Jan 9th 2008 8:45AM]

You're only getting OLPC's side of it, so it's no wonder Intel sounds like the complete bad actor. Get all the facts, and THEN judge.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 9th 2008 8:30AM]

Well this is a FREE MARKET Capitalism. I can't blame Intel fr doing what they did because when it comes down to it, Intel, Apple, MS, and any other corporation is out there to maximize their profits by any means neccessary.

This is one of the reasons I believe we need bigger government. There is no human decency in corporation - every decision comes down to sales figures. We need government involved in corporation to ensure that things like this don't happen. I also like Ron Paul's idea of Government offering huge grants/rewards to corporations in the auto industry that can produce a "100 mpg" environmentaly friendly car.

Companies can't be trusted to do these things themselves under their own merit... think about it...the Empire State Building was built in just 14 months. Why am I still staring at the hole at the WTC site almost 7 years later after 9/11.

Its GREED.

[totalundone @ Jan 9th 2008 8:49AM]

that's why we need bigger government? it appears that olpc was able to kick out intel without the aid of the government. a bigger government would have meant that it would have been harder for olpc to kick out intel because the government would have been "lobbied" enough to allow it to happen.

and i'm not too into politics and don't want this to turn political, but isn't ron paul against a larger government?

[ScareyJ @ Jan 9th 2008 11:57AM]

Did someone redirect engadget.com to political-moron-rants.com?

Maybe I typed it wrong, hit the anykey too many times, or something?

[Flashpoint @ Jan 9th 2008 8:59AM]

Republicans in general are suppossed to be against larger government but they never actually rule that way. Bush for example has increased the country's government with the Department of Homeland Security and I.C.E for example. The Republican's strategy is to convince their voters that bigger government (higher taxes) equals "more welfare" for poor/illegals. That's why most people out west are against it...God forbid their money goes to help illegal immigrants.

The key is, we really do need bigger government. We also need to be taxed higher.
What we don't need is fiscal irresponsibility - something America hasn't seen in decades. We also need a reduction in lobbyism.


If we had special government to watch over businesses like Intel it would mean less corporate profits - they would actually not be able to get away with manuevering around tax codes.

[strider_mt2k @ Jan 9th 2008 8:59AM]

So they crossed the river with Intel on their back and halfway across Intel stung them.

[strider_mt2k @ Jan 9th 2008 8:59AM]

So they crossed the river with Intel on their back and halfway across Intel stung them.

[John @ Jan 9th 2008 9:34AM]

Seriously the people in the OLPC need to build a god damn bridge and get the heck over it. I've never known anyone to bleet so much over something so small.

It seems to me that because Intel left they are bringing everything out of the wood to attack them. Is there no maturity in the world any more?

[Dan @ Jan 9th 2008 9:47AM]

Let me get this straight. You want OLPC to 'get over' the terrible child-damaging greed of Intel. We might ask where you put your heart and mind. Don't have kids, do you? I thought not. Go away and learn about life, love and responsibility...then maybe you'll say something worth reading.

[John @ Jan 9th 2008 10:01AM]

Dan, How exactly is this damaging to anyone? It is a little thing called business just because it doesn't meet the ethics of 50% of the population doesn't make it any less business. And your trying to tell me that the corporations which are part of the OLPC aren't trying to make money? Please get brain cells because I assure you that they are doing it for money.

I am not saying it is wrong what I am saying is that it's not right to go attacking a corporation when it leaves if you really wanted to say they were doing this or doing that do it honestly and do it when they are still apart of the team not just when you get pissed because they dumped you.

And I assure you also that I know more about life than you could learn in a dozen life times.

[John @ Jan 9th 2008 10:05AM]

"I am not saying it is wrong what I am saying "

Cripes, Sorry I meant I'm not saying that it is RIGHT.

[Mixto @ Jan 9th 2008 9:42AM]

Thanks Intel, for showing us how little you care for the underdevelopment countries and its children’s, that, I think, above all, they need better education. It’s not only the children you rip-off with your classmate, you are ripping off the governments in development countries.
Thanks for sharing with us you “business ethics”.

[AoMoe @ Jan 9th 2008 10:26AM]

Unfortunately, I am not the biggest fan of the OLPC. To me it seems that they are more crying sour grapes. The OLPC is well intended. It is still hard to determine why OLPC would have invited Intel to the join, however harder to determine why they left.

[iJavaJoe @ Jan 9th 2008 10:28AM]

First if a poor village/town/city/country etc, purchases an intel over the OLPC then intel offers something that OLPC does not, price, performance, features, support, better sales staff, less nagging.

Second, to the OLPC folks, isn't this about getting computers in the hands of kids? So why does it matter if it's an OLPC or an intel machine? Either-way, your goal is achieved! You may think you have a better product and that may well be true, but the kids who receive intel systems HAVE computers, so I don't get the problem?

[thassell @ Jan 9th 2008 10:33AM]

Amazing the amount of misinformation being posted here. Just the wee smallest amon t of investigation would show you that Intel actually quit this partnership and for much different reasons than crazy ass Negroponte states.

Reuters article from Jan 4th: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN0326574120080104

As for Intel Being greedy, as a stock holder myself I certainly do expect them to maximize their profits, but to say they do not care for underdeveloped countries or children is plain old ignorance. Do some fact checking, check out the incredibly large number of dollars Intel puts into both not only foreign underdeveloped countries but at home in the U.S.

Being a reactionary jackass without getting your facts straight do not make you look intelligent!

[servant74 @ Jan 9th 2008 10:35AM]

This is enough to make me do AMD next time I choose a CPU.

[ethana2 @ Jan 9th 2008 4:51PM]

AMD can't really compete on the bloated x86 ISA anymore. I want to see IBM push out a PPC based laptop. If the hardware was good, I'd consider getting it. Perhaps a celeron thrown in on a PCIe interface to run stuff in WINE...

[John @ Jan 9th 2008 10:48AM]

Good Man!

Atleast it shows that there is some people here with some knowledge.

[LikesGadgetsWillTravel @ Jan 9th 2008 10:53AM]

Ya know, I've watched this whole $100-laptop/OLPC debacle since the beginning. At first it seemed like a good idea... but the more I hear from friends who are actually going to those developing countries and helping there, what those kids need isn't technology -- it's food. First build stable water-supplies, food production, shelter, medical care, etc; THEN worry about their education. Nick Neg likes to see himself talk and philosophize, but I don't think he has a clue about humanity and true human needs.

[Alex Olson @ Jan 9th 2008 11:02AM]

I heard an interview with Nick Neg on NPR with him discussing the other companies selling to kids in other nations. He said that he was not in it for the money and that as long as children were given computers and getting connected then his idea is working. This article is quite the contridiction to his earlier statements. Guess he was in it for the money as well.

[Chriss Cazayoux @ Jan 9th 2008 11:17AM]

Lets remember that Intel was nt making PC/Mac kind of margins. This was not charity, it was a low margin venture to sell millions of low volume units. Also, they now move into the hardware market with a flourish of warm and fuzzy publicity. Oh yeah and that publicity, millions of dollars of it, was for FREE.

[subgenius @ Jan 9th 2008 11:21AM]

I am pretty tired of these one sided school yard stories from OLPC guys. Basically OLPC said to Intel, "You can only use our laptops and not sell any XOs. They cannot compete with each other." And OLPC said, "But we already made commitments to other countries, suppliers, and customers we can't just go back on all of them." Then OLPC said to the world, "Intel is evil they only want to make money and they don't care about kids!" Seriously WHAT has OLPC done for ANYONE! At least Intel has put machines in peoples hands. Goodnight people it isn't like OLPC isn't in it for the money.

[andrew @ Jan 9th 2008 11:52AM]

You really need to see both sides of the issues here....

1) Intel joined to promote their technology, so that it could be included in the product. Although I'm not sure on the specifics, I imagine that most of the hardware vendors involved aren't planning on selling their parts at a significant profit.

2) OLPC rejected Intel's design, and chose that of their chief competitor (AMD) instead. If the OLPC leaders wanted to be as diplomatic as possible, they could have specified an x86 or PPC "CPU module" for the laptop that could include any compatible processor, along with the necessary electronics to interface with the rest of the system.

3) The OLPC project is coming under considerable flak for vastly exceeding their original cost estimates, which also do not include the (considerable) cost of infrastructure and training. Widespread criticism of the project is also being made by governments and educators, primarily focusing on the unfavorable cost-benefit analysis compared to building additional libraries or schools (which can be done very inexpensively in developing areas due to inexpensive labor and locally-available materials).

4) These criticisms have led to much speculation about the motives of the founders of the project. Negroponte's overblown reaction to Intel's withdrawal from the project does seem to lend some credit to this theory.

Although I *do* support the notion that all children around the world should be entitled to an education, I frankly don't see the OLPC as being a viable method of providing an education to children in impoverished areas (heck -- initiatives to give laptops to children in *America* haven't been proven to be all that effective, even ignoring the monetary costs).

Intel probably saw the same thing, and decided to focus their charitable efforts elsewhere. Even though I'm not a fan of huge corporations by any stretch of the imagination, I can't say that I blame Intel one bit for choosing to withdraw from the program.

[cha @ Jan 9th 2008 1:42PM]

>2) OLPC rejected Intel's design, and chose that of their chief >competitor (AMD) instead. If the OLPC leaders wanted to be as
>diplomatic as possible, they could have specified an x86 or PPC
>"CPU module" for the laptop that could include any compatible
>processor, along with the necessary electronics to interface
>with the rest of the system.

OLPC definitely needed a reasonably powerful x86 CPU that could run without fan, for energy save and ruggediness of the laptop, it seems they do not have any in the current offer.

>3) The OLPC project is coming under considerable flak for >vastly exceeding their original cost estimates,

Not so much really if you factor in the dollar wakness (it's a world project, ultimately). Just call it the 100 Euro Laptop....

[Mr. Picklesworth @ Jan 9th 2008 11:53AM]

LikesGadgetsWillTravel: People have been sending food for many, many years. Face it: It does not work as well as the simple-minded would like to assume. In a way, that explains how a project like WorldVision has an edge here. In many cases they /do not/ send food and supplies in bulk. They send goats or chickens, for example; consistent sources of food and comfort. No, neither of those animals immediately give food, but that is because these people are not useless! They have every power to raise those chickens and milk those goats if that will improve their quality of life. Still doesn't work completely, though. I will get to that...
By making the absurd claim that just sending over food and tents will solve everything, you are missing the actual source of their problems. Kind of belittling them, really...
Clean water is an exception, definitely. I agree with you that this is very important. Worth noting, though, that both OLPC and Classmate are projects funded by the country's own government. On the other hand, charitable organizations handle that stuff via donations from afar.

What those countries need is stability. Not just in politics, but in medicine and education. AIDS is a huge problem in developing countries because of education systems that do not work, and because children who are learning about modern medicine rarely are in permanent communication with people who immediately accept or understand the education. That is where a project like OLPC comes in: A computer with an Internet connection gives them that communication. It also, done right, could drastically improve education.

I think OLPC is way ahead of Classmate in that sense, since the platform it runs on is very focussed towards the idea -- indeed, specifically built for the role. Classmate, on the other hand, is generally designed as a Windows machine. First off: Windows is horrifically prone to viruses. The Internet is going to be a vital tool here, so do we really want that same tool to be consistently resulting in dead machines?
OLPC appreciates and encourages tinkering. Classmate... not so much.
The screen and power system are both way ahead in OLPC. Classmate seems designed for a particular setting: A classroom. OLPC, on the other hand, is clearly intended to go with people outside of school. This is, again, very good for the goal since solid education (as we need to very quickly implement) is not complete when it only represents a small period of time. That learning, and the questions and experiences associated, needs to go with those people beyond just school and into everyday life.
In terms of user interface, Classmate's goal seems to be much more about teaching technology. The Sugar interface is, on the other hand, very intuitive and really quite transparent. Thus, the actual information is very prominent while the intricacies of it definitely are there (after all, it is Linux and open source), but not getting in the way.
Mesh networking... When the Internet is not available, that nice design allows for people to really easily communicate with each other in a discreat manner. I'll accept that I do not know the cultures in developing countries, but I suspect that type of discreat communication is going to be really important for children to discuss sensitive topics like AIDS. It sure works in North America, anyway.

One reason why people in developing countries have trouble implementing their own infrastructure is because they have so much trouble with disease. In some cases, education or even just handy development tools could be quite helpful in getting things done right (they sure are over here!), and both OLPC and Clasmate should be able to move tools for the job beyond just the classroom and into one's daily life.
No, it is not a direct solution, but computers have /never/ been direct.

[Togarth @ Jan 9th 2008 11:58AM]

If it's true it shows Intel in a rather bad light, but more importantly it is a shame for the whole OLPC project, but what did they expect from Intel? these big companies have only one reason to exist "their share value" nothing else matters to them, why should it? their CEO will have to explain to their investors why they hav enot hit targets and then he and others get no bonus its all very simple to see upfront Inte just thought it may be able to get some great PR aligning its self with a "Charitable deal" others should remember this in future, big business does NOT have a big heart it cant afford one.

[apw76006 @ Jan 9th 2008 12:47PM]

The whole ordeal is just tacky; much like the timing Time Warner's HD departure news flash right before CES (not that I am at all concerned with the BR vs. HD poo-fest). It's never a good idea to blatantly screw over your business partners.

The part that I find particularly sad is the fact that Intel-iburton stated that there OLPC team and the team pursuing the clients did not communicate. Do you really expect us to buy that one? Even if that was true, at some point I am sure that someone at Intel would have been able to put two and two together and come up with stink. I also have a hard time believing that the parties negotiating on Intel's behalf with the clients failed to inform Intel that negotiations/contracts had already been made with the OLPC folks.

[rp @ Jan 9th 2008 12:53PM]

What happened to the CE Oh no he didn't! thing? or are we not doing that anymore?

[cheap @ Jan 9th 2008 2:19PM]

Some please fix or give Nick Negroponte some new glasses.

[Andrew Meyer @ Jan 9th 2008 3:23PM]

Too bad this turned ugly since they are both developing an awesome product for an underserved market.

However, I really think the "developing nation" market is going to skip laptops and jump straight to mobiles.

[McLogic @ Jan 9th 2008 4:09PM]

My Mom got a couple of XO's. I think it is safe to say that they are NOT READY for use. The software is a mess, and most of the cool features DO NOT WORK.

Just take a look at the bug tracker:
http://dev.laptop.org/query

Look at some of the bugs:
- Tablet mode is broken.
- Suspend/Resume from RAM
- Sugar drag function not working
- Record doesn't turn on Camera or Microphone
- MP keyboard produces wrong accented characters
- No indication of low battery; laptop just shut down
- Unable to resume via power button nor wireless.

[McLogic @ Jan 9th 2008 4:30PM]

I should have added:

! WHY !

Why do people keep thinking that they can develop a good desktop and application suite with a few dozen people? We are not in that age any more, and the fantasy/hubris that you and your team can make the next big deal desktop/application suite has killed more then one company.

This is what killed the PepperPad -- the UMPC that was ahead of the times, but never got the software working. The hardware rocked, but the software was crap.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/24/pepper-computer-were-not-dead/

Now OLPC/RedHat are burning huge numbers of man hours to re-invent the wheel becuse they don't like function keys (F1-F12) and they don't like the Caps Lock and they want a 'View Source' button on the keyboard.

Then we have to use Python for everything, so a lot of new stuff needs to be built. Everything that is OLPC/Sugar-specific needs to be patched and maintained.

If they didn't have the HUGE EGOS, then they could have just written a driver for the screen/DCON and used a light weight window manager and existing (maintained and debugged) applications.

Writing and maintaining an application suite is a HUGE task -- it has killed more then one company.

[Gabey8 @ Jan 9th 2008 9:25PM]

How old are some of those bugs? I seem to recall that some of those reports date back to the Beta models, not from the G1G1 models or the builds of Sugar that eventually were shipped.

I haven't attempted to use accented characters. But my Tablet mode works fine, my battery indicator behaves as it should, I have no problem dragging items in Sugar, my Record function operates the camera and microphone without difficulty, and the Suspend/Resume function is slated to be released in the upcoming Update 1 (it's not in the version that shipped to Give One, Get One donors).

Personally, I think Intel's "they wanted us to stop selling the Classmate" is their PR spin for "OLPC didn't like that we were trying to get existing XO contracts voided and sell Classmates to those government purchasers".

Also, I don't think Intel was very happy when their chip offering that consumed MORE power and cost MORE money was not embraced for the next model of XOs. I guess it's easier and cheaper for Intel to sell Classmates at a loss than to spend the money researching and developing a chip that uses less power and costs less money for the OLPC project. So they seized the first opportunity they had to declare (for PR's sake) that OLPC drove them away, and just walked out.

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

Its funny that so many people here just accept what this man with hugely obvious Bi-polar ism has to say as fact without doing any research.

Is Intel perfect? No.
But this OLPC project is doomed to fail. Why?

Because its run like a boy scout fundraiser not a business. Non Profit or not they have to run it as a business if they ever intend on actually selling these things. They were expecting last year to have so many orders that they could start mass production and get it down closer to the $100 limit. Here we are in 08 and they still arent even anywhere near their target. They had to turn to selling them to the public in the buy one send one or both to a child just to even get sales.

Honestly OLPC lost all respect in the last week or two with this guys giant rants/bitch fests. People who resort to calling competitors equivilent to child haters and alcoholic's do not need to be running an organization. Feeling that way personally is fine, but releasing press releases with such jibberish is just unprofessional.

You can quote me now. OLPC will be done by the end of 08.

[Michael @ Jan 9th 2008 9:07PM]

I am appalled by how people blast Intel over this whole thing. Let's get back to the original point: Intel and OLPC both make a product for the kids, and both have valid solutions. Some governments have reviewed both alternatives and some have legitimately given their business to Intel, others to OLPC. Intel has a viable product, and is hardly undermining the entire effort to get computers into kids' hands. I have not seen any proof that Intel is ripping off any governments, and the more I investigate the more it looks like Intel actually has a fuller, more comprehensive program that includes the education of teachers and a holistic view of usage models. The fact that Intel can't work together with OLPC is regrettable and feels like a childish spat, but is hardly a sign in and of itself that Intel is an evil, greedy corporation. OLPC is doing a great thing, and it is arguable that they spurred Intel into this market too, but to argue that they should have this market to themselves is misguided. I find it amusing (and disturbing) that people who advocate for the end of the Intel monopoly are the same ones who advocate for an OLPC monopoly in providing computers for the world's poor.

[Penta @ Jan 10th 2008 10:43AM]

Unfortunately, it's not so neat.

1. Intel went in -after the OLPC contracts were signed- and tried to get governments to void contracts.

These are poor countries; 'tried to get governments to void contracts' does not mean a GAO protest.

10:1 it means they bribed people. Some corruption is, let's face it, a part of life in a lot of poor countries - the idea of service not being dependent on extra payments, favors, etc. is a very hard thing to inculcate in the civil service in a lot of countries; it took decades, -centuries- even, to change mindsets from that basic idea in the Western nations. (It's a lot harder than it sounds to make it the general expectation that you don't take money on the side!)

2. Whether or not Intel is 'ripping off' governments is immaterial. Fact is, they didn't compete in a proper tender process anyway.

Yes, that really does matter; One of the biggest problems for a lot of these countries is setting up effective procurement structures that don't get subverted by vendors, or manipulated through things like bribery or kickbacks.

Intel may well have done well by its shareholders, and their product may be good, but they may have caused worse problems than they solved by how they did their sales.

[PDXGeek @ Jan 9th 2008 10:20PM]

I dont buy this at all. The OLPC guys have been doing nothing but crying for so long its pathetic. They truly act like a bunch of children. They dont really care if kids are getting this thing, the only thing they care about is profit, and it shows in their immature, and terrible behavior as a company. Shame on the OLPC crew for being unprofessional cry babies, and yeah for Intel for not wanting to be associated with those losers.

[Rick @ Jan 11th 2008 10:28AM]

The issue here is that XO is a laptop *for children* designed with openness in mind while the Classmate PC is basically a cheap Windows laptop.

Take a look at http://olpc.ro, the One Laptop per Romanian Child project. First, in the project phase they present the XO laptop, and then they present the first experiment with a classroom of 20 children who all have Classmate PC's!

The project for One Laptop per Romanian Child was pending approval from the parliament when some politician suddenly appeared with the Classmate PC. It was touted as a much better alternative for reasons nobody in the parliament could understand and its price was a lot higher (400 euro against about 180$). Then, they basically turned the OLPC project into One Windows/Intel laptop per Child project. And fortunately it wasn't approved as it became a lot more costly and everybody was accusing each other of being paid by either OLPC or Intel/Windows.

[Linc @ Jan 15th 2008 9:23AM]

Nicholas Negroponte says this is about getting the technology into the hands of these kids, but then he wants nobody else giving out technology or entering this sector. This was supposed to be about kids, but OLPC is really about Nicholas Negroponte's ego. The fact is Nic set up his entire operation so that he could intentionally cut out companies like Inetl, HP, Microsoft, etc. He is the one that declared war on them. Read up on this folks, Negroponte is not the "good guy" in their fairytale.