Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Intel Laptop Competes With One Laptop Per Child

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon May 21, 2007 03:34 PM
from the highest-form-of-flattery-still-doesn't-pay-the-bills dept.
Tracy Reed writes "According to the BBC, Intel has designed and begun marketing it's own low-cost laptop targeted at education in developing countries. 'Professor Negroponte, who aims to distribute millions of laptops to kids in developing countries, said Intel had hurt his mission "enormously". Speaking to US broadcaster CBS, Intel's chairman denied the claims. "We're not trying to drive him out of business," said Craig Barrett. "We're trying to bring capability to young people." Mr Barrett has previously dismissed the $100 laptop as a "gadget".'"
This discussion has been archived.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.

Intel Laptop Competes With One Laptop Per Child 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • Can I buy either one of these? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by microbob (29155) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:37PM (#19212149)
    Can I buy either one of these? I'd like to get my hands on them to see what they are all about.
    • Re:Can I buy either one of these? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:40PM (#19212195)
      No, you can't at the moment, although there are various conflicting rumours that the OLPC machine will be on sale to the general public. It was my understanding that it would be only be possible to buy two at a time, with one going to a child in the developing world, but I'm not sure wether or not that turned out to be true.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:It is absolutely amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by goombah99 (560566) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:53PM (#19213115)
        Some of the reasons the costs are lower than an mp3 player are because only governments can by this in bulk

        1) pass on all distribution, shipping, marketing costs to the government.
        2) likewise no warrantee or after sales service.
        3) only volume pre-orders. so their is no risk to the manfacturer on scale of production. All ecnomoies of scale are achieved on the first order.
        4) Other than the software there's no expensive cutting edge components.
        5) no retail stores, no middlemen, no warehouses.
        6) no sales floor packaging.

        Presumably those costs account for the majority of costs in the sales price of your MP3, which if it lacked any of those you would not buy it.

        [ Parent ]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2007, @03:41PM (#19212207)
    Two Laptops Per Child
  • OLPC review (Score:5, Informative)

    by EricBoyd (532608) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dyobcirerm'> on Monday May 21 2007, @03:45PM (#19212275) Homepage
    I got to play with an XO laptop yesterday at the Maker Faire [makerfaire.com]. It is not a gadget - it is a computer built for a child (small keyboard) with little prior experience with IT (simple GUI, etc). I wrote up a review [digitalcrusader.ca] (with pictures) on my blog.
  • <tinfoil> (Score:5, Informative)

    by garbletext (669861) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:50PM (#19212335)
    Perhaps the [MP|RI]AA have a stake in intel's competing design: it includes a TPM chip!
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classmate_PC [wikipedia.org]:

    The Classmate PC, in contrast to the XO (which does not require anything extra) includes a Trusted Platform Module (TPM)[2] to provide any local Windows XP Embedded installation with access to hardware-based DRM.
  • Classmate has low resolution screen. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by milgr (726027) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:53PM (#19212385)
    According to Intel [classmatepc.com], the screen resolution is 800x400. This pales compared to the OLPC's 1200x900 [laptop.org] resolution. 800x400 seems barely usable. Additionally, Intel shows students straining [classmatepc.com] to read the screen.

    Which would you rather use?

    • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Odiumjunkie (926074) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:44PM (#19212233)
      Competition is one thing in a regular market, but the accusation is that Intel is using their marketplace power and financial reserves to undercut a not-for-profit to force them out of the market as part of their corporate rivalry with AMD, who supplied the CPUs for the OLPC machines. That's something different from healthy competition.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday May 21 2007, @03:50PM (#19212339)
        What the Hell did Negroponte expect? Did he think Intel was just going to roll over the let their biggest competitor sell tens-of-millions of chips without offering their own alternative?
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CheeseTroll (696413) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:55PM (#19212435)
        Exactly. And the danger in that is that once OLPC is forced out, then Intel will also discontinue their efforts.
        [ Parent ]
          • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by flitty (981864) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:43PM (#19213001)
            You forgot one
            Intel joins the fray, OLPC can no longer get enough countries to sign on for the project (due to worries about the new intel machine), making the mass production price of $100 unattainable, OLPC drops out when they run out of money.

            Intel, in using Windows and their massive R&D team finally concludes that $100 is too cheap, and decides it's not worth it to their "stockholders" to continue the project, and they drop out also. Everyone loses.
            [ Parent ]
    • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday May 21 2007, @03:52PM (#19212373) Homepage

      No. Intel and Microsoft are interested in replacing the OLPC (small, light, huge battery life, open, safe) with little shrunken down normal laptops. With the OLPC you get the great battery life, all the programs (and programming languages) designed to encourage learning. With the Classmate you get... Windows. And Windows software.

      As I see it, the OLPC is about learning about computers and getting kids interested in learning. There is a ton to like about it. The Classmate is about getting kids used to Wintel computers, and locked into the status quo. Sure, they are both "computers", but they are targeted very differently.

      But OLPC is not for profit but Intel can dump classmate PCs cheaper than they can be made. They can call this "philanthropy". They can kill a better (in many ways, but not hardware speed wise) computer and get more people who come up on their system and used to that. But they are cheaper (or could be)! They are more powerful! They run Windows (read: it's a "real" computer).

      The OLPC is a revolution in many ways. If Intel really wanted to just help people, they would donate free CPUs or memory to the OLPC project, or at least sell them undercutting AMD. Instead of doing that and helping, they shrunk a normal laptop, made a few little changes, and have decided their way is better.

      Negroponte came off a little paranoid in the 60 minutes interview, but I agree with him. They are scared. If Intel subsidized the OLPC maybe they would be willing to put the little Intel stickers on every one.

      I'd gladly buy an OLPC today if I could. I find the little computer fascinating (both hardware, software, and principal). The other groups (MS and Intel, mostly) just seem to be trying to make a low cost laptop that is otherwise what everyone else uses, with the same problems.

      [ Parent ]
        • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by swillden (191260) * <shawn-sd@willden.org> on Monday May 21 2007, @05:07PM (#19213295) Homepage Journal

          I see no reason (aside from the hippie objections of you OSS diehards) why it can't be just as effective a laptop (or even better) for students than the OLPC version.

          How about these:

          • Usability by children who can't read yet
          • Usability in environments with no power available
          • Networking with zero infrastructure
          • Usability in full daylight
          • A mode that allows tens of hours of e-book usage on a battery charge
          • A security model that allows mobile code without compromising safety
          • A computing model that teaches kids to create and modify software, rather than just consume it
          [ Parent ]
    • Re:Isn't this a good thing? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Oldsmobile (930596) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:16PM (#19212659) Journal
      The problem is, this isn't about competing in a free market.

      Here's the 60 minutes clip: http://olpc.tv/2007/05/21/60-minutes/ [olpc.tv]
      [ Parent ]
      • Meanwhile, back in reality... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Old Man Kensey (5209) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:54PM (#19212399) Homepage

        Again, Intel is just trying to generate press, "Look at us! Look at how great we are! We are trying to help the poor!"

        And AMD wasn't when they inked a deal with OLPC?

        Intel would be more advise to give money to the OLPC project so the per-system cost could be lowered. Team work is needed here, not competition.

        That would be completely stupid of Intel. First, it would be putting money in the pockets of AMD. Second, AMD press would have an absolute field day -- "If Intel trusts us for the hard stuff, shouldn't you?" The reality is that Intel's choices were roll their own, or stay out completely.

        [ Parent ]
          • Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Old Man Kensey (5209) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:22PM (#19212735) Homepage
            I'm not saying the Geode is custom for the OLPC. I'm saying I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that AMD is providing them at a steep discount, but is banking on recovering that money in general goodwill for future consumer purchases. To impugn Intel as "only interested in making money" ignores the reality that AMD no doubt got involved in OLPC for exactly the same reason. Somewhere, some accountant at AMD had to draw up a balance sheet showing the OLPC CPUs as a net profit over time -- to do otherwise would be to risk the near-certainty of a shareholder lawsuit.
            [ Parent ]
    • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garbletext (669861) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:45PM (#19212273)
      Negroponte's upset that Intel has been sniping out the specific countries that OLPC is targeting, telling governments to hold off until Intel's offering is ready, publishing material like "the shortcomings of the One Laptop per Child approach," etc. Intel doesn't at all like the fact that a huge number of kids around the world are going to cut their teeth on AMD / Linux based systems. As a for profit company, the tactics they're using to compete with the (non-profit) OLPC group are kind of sad, since it's only the kids who will really suffer from this.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oldsmobile (930596) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:46PM (#19212283) Journal
      Well, it IS four times as expensive, it hasn't been designed by a bunch of educators and it isn't running open source.

      I guess it's sort of like taking a school history curriculum, desgined by educators to teach kids and comparing that to learning about history by watching the History channel.

      Both will work towards the same goals, but are not equal or comparable.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Jeebus (Score:5, Funny)

        by eln (21727) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:25PM (#19212775)
        learning about history by watching the History channel.

        Hey now, the History channel has taught me more about ghosts, biblical history, major disasters, and true crime than my stuffy old history professor ever did.
        [ Parent ]
    • OLPC is a grave threat to intel (Score:5, Insightful)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:32PM (#19212859)
      OLPC is like apple, it's and end-to-end specification. I forget which CPU they are using, I assume it's a VIA since the whole thing is 4 watts. But even if it were an Intel CPU it's a grave danger.

      1) Like apple they could choose to change processors at any time. Thus they could move away from X86 if they wished.
      2) they will establish a huge software market that does not use intel specific advancements.
      3) It will use graphics other then Intel graphics

      In short by creating an enourmous consumer market for generic lowest common demoninator software, it removes a tremendous amount of product differentiation the INtel sells. To see this think back about 8 years ago when you had a choice of buying an intel P4 or P3 or buying whatever AMD was selling. You were not really sure if all your code optimizers would work on AMD, not sure if certain drivers would fail on AMD. It was a gamble. The answer was in most cases there was no problems at all. But we all had seen examples of problems. Intel was the safe bet. Plus when optimizations using SSE or analogs came out they were written for intel first. And lord save you if you bought Via or god forbid, transmeta.

      With a giant market in non-intel optimizations out there this advantage will be nullified. Software will respect the generic CPU needs. That hurts intel's premium price advantage.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:OLPC is starting to sound hollow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes (861706) on Monday May 21 2007, @03:52PM (#19212369) Journal
      I think the problem is two-fold:

      1. If Intel were really interested in "trying to bring capability to young people" then why didn't they sign on with the OLPC project in the first place? By having Intel generate a separate project, resources are inherently divided. According to TFA, Intel originally laughed at the idea of OLPC. Now they are copying it. Why didn't they just agree to help OLPC?

      2. In TFA, Negroponte reportedly is accusing Intel of selling their Classmate PC below production cost. Such a tactic is used, of course, to driver others out of the market, so as to establish monopoly. If OLPC and Intel both try to sell their laptops to various countries, and the Intel one has "more bang for the buck" (because they are subsidizing it), then obviously countries will pick the Intel one. Then OLPC dies and suddenly the Intel ones start mysteriously costing more.

      The OLPC project has the aim to create extremely inexpensive educational laptops in a cost-effective way. They want a sustainable solution to education. Intel, according to Negroponte, is not working towards that goal.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:OLPC is starting to sound hollow (Score:5, Informative)

        by Locutus (9039) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:17PM (#19212661)
        Negroponte probably has some good proof that the ClassMatePC is being sold below cost since his group has been working on a lowcost design for a couple of years and included negotiations with both Microsoft and Intel. Both of which are involved in the ClassMatePC.

        Just like how Microsoft started giving out Microsoft Windows for far far below market costs to Taiwan when those HP and Dell notebooks running Linux were selling very well, they both( Intel and Microsoft ) are subsidizing their product to keep the "competition" from gaining ground.

        If I was seeing Linux on the ClassMatePC instead of MS Windows, I might be able to believe that Intel could be motivated by charity but with Microsoft involved and how BOTH companies blasted OLPC in the press, it's all about business and their sole purpose here is to get OLPC to fail. The ClassMatePC would be pulled from the market later since cheap hardware and software is NOT what Intel or Microsoft want. IMO.

        LoB
         
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:What's he worred about? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mattintosh (758112) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:12PM (#19212609)
      His main complaint is that Intel is "dumping", that is, selling them below cost (and more importantly, below the OLPC's price) just to get a foothold on what could grow into a really nice monopoly somday.

      Intel with $$$ vs. a non-profit group with no $$$... that's just poor sportsmanship. Intel needs to back off.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Locutus (9039) on Monday May 21 2007, @04:52PM (#19213109)
      If the goal is to get technology to kids in developing nations, do we care who does it?

      This is not the main goal of the Microsoft/Intel project. They will say this to the public but their intentions are to stop the competitions products from gaining a significant market share. Both Microsoft and Intel had been offered opportunities to be part of the OLPC project and most likely pricing was their main issue. Negroponte knows this and it is likey why he said what he did in the 60Minutes piece.

      If Intel can pull it off cheaper, should I feel bad for Negroponte?

      They can't but they can get Microsoft involved and split the loss so they can compete with a small group who have researched and invested a few years into making it work and have no licensing issues/expenses by using Linux and OSS. Again, Negroponte knows this because they've already tried to negotiate with Microsoft and Intel along with know what such hardware is going to cost to manufacture in quantity.

      If this is truly altruistic work, then he should embrace Intel's commitment, and try to work together.

      Microsoft and Intel have no purpose doing what they are doing but to protect their marketshare and their brand names. Both of which help them keep their prices and market pricing at fat profit levels. The OLPC does not appear to be driven by profits and what Negroponte has done in the past shows he has an altruistic foundation. Microsoft nor Intel can show this and history shows quite the opposite.

      If this is for-profit capitalism, merely disguised as charity, then may the best man win.

      One side is business profit driven( Microsoft/Intel-ClassMatePC ) while the other is charity driven( OLPC ). They are crossing paths and we already know that the billions behind the Microsoft/Intel project is hurting the OLPC project since Negroponte has already said this.
      And it just blows me away that Intel would fall for this level when there has been nothing said in the press or otherwise which would have locked Intel out of future designs. AMD is not giving their CPU's away for free. Now Microsoft, that's another story since they absolutely can not allow Linux and OSS to gain traction anywhere. Once you've stopped cleaning Windows, you don't go back and with the open nature of the OLPC, the closed box of Microsoft Windows/software would be painful and constraining.

      LoB

      [ Parent ]