Slashdot Log In
Why Intel and OLPC Parted Ways
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jan 06, 2008 08:13 AM
from the so-the-drama dept.
from the so-the-drama dept.
runamock writes "The New York Times has an article that sheds some light on why Intel left the OLPC board: 'A frail partnership between Intel and the One Laptop Per Child educational computing group was undone last month in part by an Intel saleswoman: She tried to persuade a Peruvian official to drop the country's commitment to buy a quarter-million of the organization's laptops in favor of Intel PCs. Intel and the group had a rocky relationship from the start in their short-lived effort to get inexpensive laptops into the hands of the world's poorest children. But the saleswoman's tactic was the final straw for Nicholas Negroponte.'"
Related Stories
[+]
News: Intel Resigns from One Laptop Per Child Project 338 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Intel just sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Shame.
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that just some Godwin variant? [wikipedia.org]
AMD, Apple, IBM, Intel... these are just companies trying to outsmart the competition. You don't seriously think the Intel board sat down and said, "hey let's maliciously fuck-over the OLPC project"? That would take a special brand of evil, the kind that is only occurs naturally in Redmond.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that not all people, and not all companies, are willing to do anything (and everything), regardless of law and morality, in order crush their competition. What you are suggesting, really, is "why single out individuals who act badly". What this means is that acting badly should be the status que. No.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never been in a business meeting where an ethical issue has come up, have you?
If it makes money, a strategy enjoys a strong presumption of innocence. The question is not, "is this wrong?", or even "is this probably not wrong?", but "can this be argued in any way to be not wrong." One of the clinching arguments is "everybody does it." You can't not do it if your competitors are doing it, unless you can come up with a better strategy for making money.
Corporations are not people. They do not have a moral conscience. They do have an instinct for self preservation, and that means siezing advantage where they can get it. The only barrier to utterly amoral behavior is the consicences of the individuals within the corporation, but those people have conflicting responsiblities. They feel a duty of loyalty to their company which supports them and their coworkers. As such individuals are very weak moral firewalls against corporate transgressions.
Corporate partnerships are not like you starting a business with a childhood friend. You'd feel really bad if you exploited that relationship to send your friend into bankruptcy. But this is not even seen as wrong in business, provided that the partner can't take more out of your hide for breaking the contract than you can make breaking it. Do you really think that corporations take acting in bad faith differently where they can't be make financially responsible just as seriously as when they can? There are three kinds of corporate partnerships that have any significance at all: partnerships where the members are merging; partnerships where there is a strong vendor/user relationship; partnerships where the parties are pursuing a particular sale. I've seen many "strategic partnerships" over the years, and the instant it is advantageous the companies have knives stuck into their partners' backs.
Corporations, if they were actually people, would be evil. But they're not remotely like actual people, and they are neither evil, nor good. They have no conscience, nor do they need one. They are machines for generating profit, and respond only weakly to moral consideration that have not been monetized, and only through the consciences of individuals who are ethically conflicted.
It is naive to expect corporations to respond to human concepts like decency, honor, or integrity, except to the degree those concepts have been translated into costs.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel didn't sit down and say "let's screw over OLPC", they said "hey, we could lose money here". Companies will abuse monopolies, but Intel doesn't have a monopoly-that's the point; they did what a monopoly WOULD do. What M$ does isn't a special brand of evil, it's merely a particulary voracious approach toward getting and maintaining market share. See the similarities here? Before AMD became a force, Intel did exhibit some very M$ like behavior.
Intel missed an opportunity. If they got their chips into the OLPC, they could have turned it into a huge PR campaign and gained name recognition in vast areas of the world that have no idea who they are. Besides, OLPC is a nonprofit deliberately trying to bring low cost computing to areas of the world that have little or no access to the current market. Why didn't they have a Classmate program BEFORE OLPC existed?
Shame.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment might have been intended as humor, but it's currently marked "insightful" so I'm responding to it on that basis (if not for your sake than for the sake of anyone who does think it's insightful).
Aside from the specific choice of language, you really think it's far fetched? If so, then let me spell it out for you: YES, Intel could well have had meetings where they explicitly planned to do things in breach of either the word or spirit of their arrangements with OLPC, aka "maliciously fucking over" their partner. Intel is a for-profit American corporation. Not even outright breaches of contract are off-limits for corporations; they'll do it every time they think it will make them more money than holding to a contract would.
It is far more plausible that Intel planned this all the way up the ladder than that this one salesperson just decided to be a maverick and try to subvert things without any approval from management.
I'd hate to think you're more comfortable hiding behind the posture that technically, nobody at any Intel meetings used the specific words "maliciously fuck-over".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Mr. Negropnte himself had a better analogy, "They played another dirty trick in Peru," he said. "It's a little bit like McDonald's competing with the World Food Program."
I think that is a better analogy because the OLPC project designed an ideal system for these children with lots of cool, new features not available on regular computers. Intel didn't steal the plans, they just made a regular, really low end PC running windows. It doesn't have the cool software, doesn't auto-discover other machines and create a mesh network and allow kids to network applications together. It is really unsuited to the task, just as the food provided by McDonald's is largely unsuited to meeting the basic nutritional needs of children when compared to the offerings from the World Food Program.
Intel could have met their obligations and tried to pitch their new mobile, low power chipset for the next version of the OLPC. Instead they tried to be unethical and tried to poison deals with their competitor through deception, ignoring what is best for underprivileged children. This actually makes me more likely to buy an AMD processor for my next upgrade to my home server, but since this will not get any real press it will still probably make Intel money in the long run and they'll probably do it again next time they get a chance.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
So even after a few instructions to Intel Classmate PC sales executives telling them to tone down the competition with the XO, a high ranking salesperson does just that? What kind of money is Microsoft putting behind this in commission fees to push someone to go so far out of her way to try and lose one contract in hopes of killing off an XO contract already made?
Oh, you probably don't know that Microsoft is behind the Classmate PC and yes, Bill Gates has stated many times to the public and press that he thinks the XO is a terrible idea and device. Microsoft and Intel quickly through the Classmate PC out there and claimed it was a comparable product. So I would not doubt that there is probably 100's of thousands of dollars in commission behind a Classmate PC win over an XO client.
I also hope the press and public roasts Intel for being such assholes with a non-profit organization. Business or no business, attacking non-profits can cause major brand recognition issues. When "Intel Inside" becomes a black/blue eye on a childs face, they'll think twice about this Classmate PC thing. And I hope someone gets fired for this because for one, she screwed over Intel's shareholders by losing the deal she was supposed to be bidding on.
LoB
Parent
So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, just like, say, Sun during Scott McNealy's CEO days, going "we love Linux and OSS" in the morning and "Linux is teh suck! Die! Die! Die!" in the evening of the same day? Or like IBM showing up at Athlon launches and proclaiming its undying love for AMD, then spending 100 million on developping an Intel-only chipset that nearly negated the advantage of AMD's IMC and hypertransport? Or li
Re:So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
He made them an offer, and now Intel piggybacks on his effort and tries to weasel a deal to have more expensive machine, meaning that fewer children will get access to an educational machine (but hey, Intel gets to make more millions in profit, which is what really matters, huh?).
And all you can do is rehash free market dogma to support the people who are undermining a non profit charity effort in order to divert the money involved to their own greedy pockets.
Parent
Re:So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those kids are not a market, this non-profit enterprise is not a business rival. If they want to sell their power-hungry laptop with their fancy CPUs, they can sell them to the kids when they grow up with computer skills and outgrow their XO, but paying a fee to get on the board of a charity (a tax-exempting fee, I'm sure) and then telling governments that being on the board has let them glean information that make them think the whole thing is going to implode (possibly with the ring of truth that knowingly sabotaging them brings) is indefensible, you monster.
Parent
Re:So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Negroponte can forbid Intel sell their boxes? No! Can Negroponte ask for them to actually deliver what they promised? Yes! Intel promised to streamline OLPC and Classmate PC, create OLPC XO-2 with Intel tech, not try to block OLPC sales for now, and lot of other things which they actually NOT delivered. Instead of that, sales person from Intel slammed OLPC behind the back of OLPC to OLPC customer, while being on board of OLPC!
I just wander who "capitalist dreamer" mod you up. Because you actually have NO clue what you are talking about. Check facts please before be so very elitist about corporations.
Parent
Re:So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is so sad that you posted this anonymously. But you actually understood that you posting rubbish, didn't you?
Parent
Re:So they're a normal corporation, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I suspect Negroponte believes that business partners shouldn't screw each other. If Intel is pitching their own designed/developed notebook, particularly trying to get countries to renege on commitments to OLPC, that would constitute "screwing".
This is not to say that there couldn't be OLPC competitors that use Intel chips, just not ones that an OLPC partner designs, markets, and sells. If Red Hat decided to make an OLPC-killer, he'd probably be pissed at them, too.
Only to the extent such choices/competition are coming direct from OLPC partners. I haven't seen where he's laid into Asus for their Eee PC, even though it would have to be at least considered as a possible OLPC replacement (greater power in exchange for being less rugged, shorter battery life, probably more expensive, etc.).
And you have determined this...how, exactly? Just because he's not interested in partners who cheat on him?
Parent
Poor management by CEO Paul Otellini (Score:5, Informative)
Intel employees I've met have gone further than that. They are saying that the management of Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini [wikipedia.org] is reprehensible. They say he is socially unskilled. They are saying he creates dissension and reduces morale among Intel employees by creating adversarial situations.
Certainly Otellini's handling of the One Laptop Per Child initiative could not have been worse. It was as though he said to himself, "How can I get billions of dollars worth of free publicity for Intel, all negative?" Intel's actions have created the impression that Intel wants to kill acceptance of the OLPC so that it can kill the OLPC project and then raise prices on its own products.
Anyone thinking of buying an Intel consumer product should know that Intel had a consumer products division in 2001 and decided to close it: Intel axes its consumer electronics unit [zdnet.co.uk]. Why? In my opinion, the Intel Consumer Products Division was extremely poorly managed.
Also, Intel's marketing has been incredibly poorly managed. At one point, Intel was trying to sell processors by giving away dolls. Typical reaction: "Could this be the end of the bunny ads? We sure as hell hope so..." [theregister.co.uk]
There is no evidence that I can see that Intel is managed better today. Here is an April 2006 example I found quickly: Intel's consumer fumbling [zdnet.co.uk], in which Intel is trying to sell products using an unpronounceable trademark.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks - Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, there are tons of people in the business world like Mr. Negroponte. We don't hear about them for two reasons. First, they tend to be small business owners. Second, they tend not to do heinous things. The news goes for interesting stories, which excludes the small fry doing something nice for someone else.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks - Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, there are tons of people in the business world like Mr. Negroponte. We don't hear about them for two reasons. First, they tend to be small business owners. Second, they tend not to do heinous things. The news goes for interesting stories, which excludes the small fry doing something nice for someone else.
Business is not based on good or evil but profit and loss. One should never expect business to do anything but maximize its profits. To control byuiness, one needs laws that make it profitable to do good and unprofitable to do evil. That means costs for business should include the externalities, such as production of greenhouse gases, now subsidized by government.
Parent
Re:Intel just sucks - Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lot of companies, which actually kinda see huge connection between doing good and getting profit. If it wasn't so, there won't be PR, there won't be ads, there won't be customer psyhology courses, Bs for different marketing types, etc. It is all connected and it comes back.
Problem is different. It is not ethical versus material. It is long term versus short term. It pays back to be good in long term, for sure. But in short term, sometimes it doesn't.
And it all boils down to "stupid" human survival instinct - it wants all now, it wants very strong guarantee now. Not tomorrow, not even after one hour. If human just acts, not thinks, it will choose short term survival as it's primary goal.
p.s. "stupid" in brackets means - I don't know how to solve it, it's natural and if people live like that, who am I to judge.
Parent
The NYT headline is a bit inflammatory... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now regardless of who's making the machines and what OS, CPU blah blah they have in them, it's good that this device class actually exists and it's great that more people around the world get a chance to use devices that we take forgranted. OLPC and the Classmate are both doing a good job, and I'd love to see other devices like the EEE PC tailored towards developing nations in the near future.
Re:The NYT headline is a bit inflammatory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel wants to sell PC's. They don't care who gets them. For Intel all the feelgood stuff is just a means to an end.
OLPC doesn't care about selling PC's. ALL they care about is who gets them. For OLPC all the business stuff is just a means to an end.
Parent
Re:The NYT headline is a bit inflammatory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The NYT headline is a bit inflammatory... (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the OLPC, whether spoken directly or not, is that old "give a man a fish and he eats for the day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life." There are plenty of charities and organizations built around the notion of "feed the children." I'd like to say "those bases are covered" but perhaps not as well as people would like. (You'll find their local governments are often the ones getting in the way of the 'feed the children' successes... some for good reason, some not.)
But as long as these 3rd world nations do not grow intellectually, they will remain the starving, dependent children of world.
If OLPC was intending to make a profit, there were many decisions that could have been made along the way that would have reflected that end. They made decisions and continue to make decisions based on their mission -- a charitable one. It's okay you choose not to believe in it. It's often hard to believe in something that's not profit oriented these days.
Parent
Re:The NYT headline is a bit inflammatory... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe in favour of Intel? A more accurate headline, but one that could be construed as inflammatory would be:
Intel attempts to subvert efforts to get computers to children.
"the Intel machines it's trying to sell will still go to the same target audience as the OLPC units"
For about twice the price. Which means half the number of units.
"it's not like they suddenly hate kids!"
Well, no. They just dont like kids quite as much as they like money.
I don't particularly dislike Intel, but in this case I must say I find their behaviour offensive. This will go on their permanent record and get weighed in for future purchases.
"I'd love to see other devices like the EEE PC tailored towards developing nations in the near future."
In the long run, paving the ground for this device class is without a doubt the greatest contribution of the OLPC project.
Parent
Re:Which kids primary or secondary school (Score:4, Informative)
Sit down, and wrap your head around the idea of sales. Salespeople are typically paid by commission. The more they sell, the more they earn. They also have quotas. If they don't sell enough in a given time span, they're terminated. Salespeople think short-term; they think tactics; they think until the end of the sale. They think, "If I don't get the sale I move on, and so does the other guy. It's just business." Long term, strategic goals don't enter the picture (that's marketing). And this isn't stupid or callous, it's what the job requires of them.
In Intel's case, a saleswoman saw an opportunity to push more product. She took it, it blew up in her face, and Intel gets to scrub the fallout. The story ends there. So please, do us a favor and cut the Microsoft conspiracy a break.
Parent
Re:Which kids primary or secondary school (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, this stinks of some kind of commission for beating the XO project and not a standard commission on Classmate PC sales. After all, why would she give up bidding on a contract the Classmate PC was better suited for and instead, go after the XO deal? The devices are not the same if you look at the software and hardware spec's. She most likely was going after some big buck commission designed to end XO contracts. Hmmm, going after a competitors throat, killing the baby, cutting off their air supply? Remind you of somebody?
LoB
Parent
No surprise here (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel is a for-profit corporation beholden to its stock holders...no profit, stock holders get pissed, executives get thrown out. OLPC is a non-profit that doesn't have to worry about making money, and in fact can lose money as needed...no one is looking for a profit.
The first reply I saw here made a comment about Intel throwing away good will by not selling OLPC chips at a big discount. Here's a news flash for you people...stock holders mostly don't give squat about good will. Good will does not increase the bottom line of their stock portfolio or give them a fat dividend check.
Intel is not a charity. AMD can work with OLPC because AMD is in second place and is willing to do anything to *be* Intel. Likewise, Negroponte (I've gotta put that guy's name in my spell checker), while his goals are commendable and I really do hope OLPC succeeds, is not being realistic as far as the business side of it goes in regards to Intel.
Re:No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
As a stockholder you are never asked about whether you want your corporation to behave well.
As a stockholder you are given an annual meeting, with buffet and speeches and an opposition which seldom raises questions like: why does this bank finances this oppressive regime? why does this corporation infiltrate and boycott this humanitarian program? To make me earn more? If I want to earn more no matter the ethics, I'd be a criminal. Especially in the criminal's paradise Italy has become.
Parent
Re:No surprise here (Score:4, Insightful)
At least Intel had the decency to void their contract, instead of just continuing not to honor it.
Parent
Re:No surprise here (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick and tired of this hard-nosed extreemist capitalist view. It's bullshit, pure and simple. Take a look at what you're actually saying - competing with and screwing over a charity is really bad form. You people need to remember that capitalism is NOT PERFECT, and worshipping it's principles as if they were the most fundamental rules in the universe is really dumb.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh really? Is that why many annual reports will give good will a dollar value?
Good will is an investment, generally a long term one. No surprise that the stock market is generally focused on short term profit.
Intel did a stupid thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but lowering costs does improve the bottom line. How much of the Classmate's cost is software? Remember, Microsoft isn't a charity either. Intel has no reason to help Microsoft, they could make an Intel computer at a lower cost with 100% free software in it.
Besides the cost of software itself, no matter if it's $3 or $300, Linux runs on lower hardware specs than Microsoft products. The XO needs extra memory to run a version of MS-Windows, which means still more cost.
Parent
Re:No surprise here (Score:4, Insightful)
So? Any company or wealthy person for that matter will lose x amount of his/her income to the government in taxes if that money/product is not given to charity. This gives everyone of means and every company a HUGE incentive to act charitable. Hell, lots of companies use this to get rid off products that are market failures and that would actually cost them money to dispose of properly! There's no excuse to not acting charitable towards non-profits in America. None.
Parent
Re:No surprise here (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, State Attorneys General have forgotten this.
Parent
The poorest (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, that's the ones the OLPC project is aimed at. IIRC, part of the idea was to replace cost of educational material, so paying for the OLPC would basically be cheaper than buying books for the students (over a period of several years).
Re:The poorest (Score:4, Insightful)
I really hate it when people attack those who choose to cure the underlying disease instead of the immediate symptoms.
The goal here is to allow these groups of people to become self sufficient, so that they can eat the results of their own agricultural endeavors. Education is the _only_ way to raise a country out of poverty as handouts only prolong an existing fundamental flaw. Necroponte strikes at the root of poverty with tools and information, and it is this information that can overcome not only hunger, but greed and corruption as well. This is a long-term solution as these are the sorts of problems that may take a generation to fix, but if someone doesn't break the cycle all the aid in the world will only amount to a stopgap measure and a people totally dependent on aid for their survival. OLPC is a very noble means to a end.
Parent
Giving food hurts more than helps (Score:3, Insightful)
When you dump a lot of food into a depressed region, the farmers in that region can't sell a damn thing. They are driven out of their livelihood, further depressing the region.
Giving food keeps people in poverty. If you want to help.... give education. Give a cow. Give seeds. Give time and effort.
Dumping food on the poor doesn't help anyone.
-T
Intel is all kinds of Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect to hear all the usual "Intel is a business" bullsh*t that always comes up.
What has to be remembered is that Google is a business, Red Hat is a business, News Corp is a business too, and yet none of them actively tried to sabotage the OLPC foundation they had contracted to be a part of. Somehow they can justify their participation to the stockholders, but Intel can't? Intel was acting competitively before they joined the OLPC foundation in July of last year. After that time they continued to do so, only now they had access to a lot more information about XO potential buyers. Their behavior was despicable and only further enforces my decision long ago to buy AMD processors exclusively.
Adding insult to injury, Intel holds a press conference call announcing the decision to split, without informing the OLPC board. Read through the stories from last Thursday. The olpc foundation had no response because they were shocked.
They recovered nicely in my view with this official response. http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Intel#INTEL_RESIGNS_FROM_OLPC [laptop.org]
I hope Negroponte & company sues for breach of contract.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Intel is all kinds of Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
INTEL RESIGNS FROM OLPC
We at OLPC have been disappointed that Intel did not deliver on any of the promises they made when they joined OLPC; while we were hopeful for a positive, collaborative relationship, it never materialized.
Intel came in late to the OLPC association: they joined an already strong and thriving OLPC Board of Directors made up of premier technology partners; these partners have been crucial in helping us fulfill our mission of getting laptops into the hands of children in the developing world. We have always embraced and welcomed other low-cost laptop providers to join us in this mission. But since joining the OLPC Board of Directors in July, Intel has violated its written agreement with OLPC on numerous occasions. Intel continued to disparage the XO laptop in nations that had already decided to partner with OLPC (Uruguay and Peru), with countries that were in the midst of choosing a laptop solution (Brazil and Nigeria), and other countries contemplating a laptop program (Mongolia).
Intel was unwilling to work cooperatively with OLPC on software development. Over the entire six months it was a member of the association, Intel contributed nothing of value to OLPC: Intel never contributed in any way to our engineering efforts and failed to provide even a single line of code to the XO software efforts - even though Intel marketed its products as being able to run the XO software. The best Intel could offer in regards to an "Intel inside" XO laptop was one that would be more expensive and consume more power - exactly the opposite direction of OLPC's stated mandate and vision.
Despite OLPC's best efforts to work things out with Intel and several warnings that their behavior was untenable, it is clear that Intel's heart has never been in working collaboratively as a part of OLPC. This is well illustrated by the way in which our separation was announced singlehandedly by Intel; Intel issued a statement to the press behind our backs while simultaneously asking us to work on a joint statement with them. Actions do speak louder than words in this case. As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market.
The benefit to the departure of Intel from the OLPC board is a renewed clarity in purpose and the marketplace; we will continue to focus on our mission of providing every child with an opportunity for learning.
Parent
Power consumption (Score:5, Informative)
See the power consumption data [wikipedia.org] for the laptop. It runs a 2W (versus 10-45W for a normal laptop) in normal mode and down to 0.3W-0.8W when in "e-book" mode. Running that against the battery data [laptop.org] which reports 16.5-22Watt-hours gives a normal-usage of 8 to 11 hours, or e-book usage for 20-73 hours.
You can also get a pull-string charger [engadget.com] for when there is no supply.
This isn't comparable to companies supplying old hardware as a goodwill gesture: the OLPC has been thought through and planned for these situations from the beginning.
Parent
There are interesting parallels to this elsewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
In lesser-known areas, where state utilities commissions have allowed utilities providers (power and communications) to not develop a region, smaller, independent groups and coops have opted to fill in the need for their own profit and non-profit interests only to face opposition from the very utilities providers that refuse to service the areas themselves.
"The Electric Car" has been stopped and stalled many times by the opposition of big auto makers time and time again.
There are probably many other examples of established big business opposing small business in doing things that they themselves are unwilling or uninterested in doing... any come to mind? An under our "free market capitalist idealism" it's rather hard to imagine why big business would even care? It's because big business isn't interested in "free market capitalism." They want no competition of any kind and they want to charge as much money as they possibly can for their goods and services as possible.
These are really good examples of what big business is truly about. Every time you hear an argument about "free markets" being wielded by big business, I hope you consider what big business is truly all about.
(For example, the free market argument was given by Enron as the reason to remove or reduce government controls over the power industry and following that, every single state that allowed it suffered from ridiculously high power costs and even power shortages and irregularities in quality and delivery. The free market doesn't work EVERYWHERE and isn't the answer to EVERYTHING. And it certainly doesn't apply when there are human _needs_ at the consumer side of the counter. Utilities, food and medical care need heavy regulation to keep the nations of the world healthy and it's precisely the lack of strong enough regulation of the US medical industry is in the 'unaffordable' state it's in and before someone points to the US medical system as being the most advanced in the world, I hold it has nothing to do with the lack of regulation or the possibility of higher profits and everything to do with their exploitation of research done in public learning institutions... research not available to the public itself.)
Don't get mad, get even! (Score:5, Informative)
But my second, more constructive thought was "what can I do to help OLPC?" and I easily found two great answers.
1. Donate. [laptopgiving.org] For just $200, you can give an XO laptop to a child in a developing nation. It immediately makes a difference in the life of one child, and it's an opportunity for the XO to prove itself. Our donations no doubt will drive future sales for OLPC. Donations are entirely tax-deductible (Question: does anyone know they're tax-deductible for Canadians?).
2. Develop. [laptop.org] If you're a programmer, you can donate some of your time and work on an XO Activity. There's already a pretty impressive array of available software [laptop.org], but there's lots of room for work, and this is one way that OLPC can really differentiate itself. Think about it: thousands of passionate hackers contributing quality free software, all targeted at this machine. That's something that Intel and Microsoft will never be able to compete with because no one else is ever going to be passionate about Classmate & Windows.
Let's make a difference!
"fsck" Intel.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone going after Intel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you sleep well on your pile of blood money.
Parent
Re:truth be told (Score:4, Insightful)
If we were serious about helping Africans, we would be looking far past manufacturing crappy computers to sell to their governments. Of course the fact that we aren't is no great loss to Africans. We may not get it, but the Indians and Chinese do.
Parent
That Economist article is just wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)
The production lines are not sitting idle at all.
Parent