Intel Resigns from One Laptop Per Child Project 338
theodp writes "Reportedly angered by the One Laptop Per Child project's demand that it curtail work on its Classmate PC and other cheap laptops, Intel has resigned from the project's board and canceled plans for an Intel-based OLPC laptop. Intel's withdrawal from the project comes less than six months after the chip-making giant earned kudos for agreeing to contribute funding and join the board of OLPC. It's the latest blow to the OLPC, whose CTO quit earlier this week to launch a for-profit company to commercialize her OLPC inventions."
For profit corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
(burn karma, burn)
Really a blow? (Score:4, Interesting)
OLPC not a success (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/technology/04laptop.html?ref=business [nytimes.com]
I don't see a problem with Intel moving on, they were trying to push their technology but weren't ready (too much power consumption with their proposal). I do see a problem with the OLPC process apparently not working out and little being done to expose this. If more people knew about it perhaps some would step up and buy the machines.
Maybe not a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
markets, ideas and idealism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FPFPFPFP (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Minimum production runs are required to meet the desired price point
2) Meeting minimum production quantities had been difficult
3) There is demand in the private/consumer market for the product
It seems to only make sense to offer the units to the consumer market, which would solve the minimum production run issue AND help subsidize the cost of the units shipped to their intended market. Especially since, by definition, their intended market is the demographic that can't afford them in the first place.
Extending and promote the "get one give one" program, is one way to do this. Another way is to sell them for a slight profit ($300 each instead of $200?) to schools in industrialized countries for the same purpose. Being a non-profit company does not preclude actually making money.
=Smidge=
yes, Wintel (Score:3, Interesting)
Screw Intel. They need to be ARM Based. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most arm chips are made with Cell phones in mind as well, some support MMX and Jazelle Java extensions.
Many have Micron CMOS camera chip interfaces and built in LCD drivers, and a mess of GPIO and MMC etc.
Linux and Uboot are a sweet combination on them also.
Look at PXA270 and PXA300 from Marvell & Blackfin (uC Linux)
Also ARM is licensing there chip design for 8 Cents a copy, so you can easily make a ASIC based on arm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture [wikipedia.org]
Also another option is that there is already $5 computers in China and India. There not laptops and you need to connect them into a TV but still they have Keyboard, Mice, Game joysticks and 100's of pirated games on them. Even ones that can web surf. these are from a Chinese company called Gold Leopard King, but they are impossible to track down and contact, but the markets there are flooded with them.
http://ultimateconsoledatabase.com/famiclones/gold_leopard_king.htm [ultimateco...tabase.com]
The whole computer is just passive switches, and there is only one Chip in the entire PC, it's in the cartridge. Amazing thing, Perfect copies of Mario Brothers, Pac-man, Donkey Kong, Defender, Galaga, Dig Dug. I always get one for the kids when were in India, and just give it away when we leave, it's PAL video out, so we can't use it back in the USA.
MOD PARENT UP, informative (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's all about learning (Score:2, Interesting)
Poverty isn't caused by a lack of computers, and I doubt cheap computers are going to solve the problem. There are far greater political factors perpetuating poverty that need to be addressed first. Until then, the tangible value of this kind of charity is dubious.
Re:What's the OLPC afraid of? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) OLPC board discusses sales prospects in new countries.
2) Intel rep to OLPC calls home.
3) Intel parachutes into the prospects, hijacking the groundwork done bu the OLPC team to sell the Classmate instead.
4) Profit.
Farfetched? I don't think so.
Re:It's a blow? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not that Intel was open with their intentions, and so kudos to Intel. OLPC didn't trust Intel. OLPC told Intel that they could join up IF AND ONLY IF Intel dropped their competing product, thus removing Intel's temptation to screw OLPC over. If Intel's intentions were truly evil, they had just been exposed. Intel refused to give up their own effort, thus signaling to OLPC that it would have gotten intentionally or unintentionally poor support. OLPC did the smart thing here, not Intel.
--Rob
Re:OLPC will stand or fall on the XO laptop itself (Score:2, Interesting)
Based on this, I'd say the interface is pretty good. They're still getting used to the transactions for pulling up the stories they've written, but other than that it's been very smooth.
Re:Just Appalling (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FPFPFPFP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Commercial sale risks alliance falling apart (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't mind getting some of the tech in the OLPC project into other products. Something like a pull string on a cell phone that could get you another 10 or 20 minutes of talk time because you know you never realize your battery is about to die until you receive that important call. Maybe something else like the low power display adapted to a visor or eye glass unit and a cell phone or pager sized device that is a computer that hooks to your belt and runs on minimal power requirements. There really is an unlimited amount of stuff that can be had with this stuff without directly competing with the project.
But even on the project's perspective, if the goal is to get cheap or free computing power to third world countries, then why would it be bad if a large company started giving it away too? I mean if Intel developed their own OLPC product and started using their massive corporate profits to give them away or sell them for $200, wouldn't it still achieve the goal? Or is there some ulterior motive behind the project? I understand Intel pulling out, however I don't see it as a major blow. And I see the CTO leaving as a positive more then anything for the project.
a blow to OLPC? (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, the only blow to OLPC is that they'll start with the FUD again since I don't think OLPC really needs Intel's chips.
And the CTO leaving to start her own commercial business around the OLPC LCD tech is not a blow either. She helped them get to where they are today and that is in production baby. The OLPC project is not going to follow the Microsoft Windows business model of replacement every 2 or so years and probably has a good 5 years life in the current design. Why do they need her position/experience any more when keeping startup costs low is the goal now. Especially since Intel and Microsoft have both helped delay orders and therefore income. OLPC needs to be lean and mean IMO.
Anybody reading this as bad news is just helping spread FUD about the project. IMO.
LoB
Re:It's all about learning (Score:3, Interesting)
My son goes to a school where they custom design his curriculum. They have four people on staff who make the monthly work for every student(2-3 inch thick binder every month). There are no textbooks - it's all based upon the student and their capacity to learn.
I've seen this sort of thing in practice and it works - as well as saves enormous amount of money. Just OLPC makes it electronic for places where they obviously don't have copiers. The new semester starts? Load in new books and curriculum and go.
As for the OLPC project itself, they can make various forms of UNIX run on PDAs currently(The Zaurus was a good recent example), so they'll find a way to get around Intel and AMD I'm sure. You don't need dual cores and the ability to play Halflife 2 on these things.
Re:It's all about learning (Score:2, Interesting)
No, poverty has 2 major causes.
1) Not industrious (lazy)
2) Immorality
Eliminate these from a people and they can't help but have prosperity.
Understand that immorality especially includes their form of government. When anyone steals money from a productive individual who earns it, you're going to hurt your economy. When legal plunder (or regular plunder for that matter) run rampant, it's more difficult to prosper in the degree you are plundered.
And that is why the 3rd world remains the 3rd world. The best thing the "1st world" can do for them is be a good example. No "foreign aid" (too many strings attached) or other such trinkets. Presently, the 1st world is a terrible example.
OLPC is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. It does not contribute to the cause (unless done under the banner of "foreign aid") nor the solution. It can, however, be a tool to help those who are industrious and live in a region sufficiently free from plunder. IMHO, catering to governments is a mistake. You want to cater to parents, who are the real overseers of the education of children. Let them make the investment instead of just tossing the boxes over the wall in hopes of doing something good.
Link to Intel 2005 "emerging markets" plan (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.nten.org/sites/nten/files/Sustainable%20Computing_0.pdf [nten.org]
Seminar about it:
http://www.nten.org/events/webinar/2006/04/21/sustainable-computing-for-developing-countries [nten.org]
Summary: Intel's "Emerging Market Platform Group" details several computers they've developed that are targeted at the poor in various ways: small laptops, cybercafe machines, school machines, etc.
The document dates to 2005. Intel did not discover this market because of the OLPC project, they have been pursuing it for years. Education is just one of the markets they are pursuing in the developing world. OLPC is obviously in the way of the education area marketing strategy, and so they tried undercutting them, then joining them, and now they're back to undercutting again.
The ethical concern here is not competition per se - its that private companies can "market" in ways that a non-profit project cannot: ways that involve special forms of "persuasion" for the purchasing bureaucrats of developing nation's educational institutions. It's not about the poor buying either product directly, it's about their public servants picking one product over another based on, ah, marketing techniques, rather than measurable cost/benefit ratios.
$239/$188 = 27% higher. If the Classmate lasts 27% longer than the OLPC in field conditions, or delivers 27% more educational value in some way, well and good. But I haven't seen that independent study. I suspect, neither have the department heads that have picked it. Indeed, I kind of suspect they've seen a highly-biased, very slick presentation, while lunching on chicken cordon bleu.