Negroponte vs Intel

Yogi_Stewart_4 writes "More OLPC/Intel love — apparently Intel used 'underhanded' tactics to try to block sales' contracts of the OLPC, trying to reach the customer directly after an agreement had been reached. "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." Mr Negroponte cited an example in Peru where Intel sales staff tried to persuade the country's vice-minister of education, Oscar Becerra Tresierra, to buy the Intel Classmate PC."

Is there a hidden 3rd party?

[JeepFanatic (993244)]

What I want to know is ... is there a hidden 3rd party pushing Intel *cough*Microsoft*cough*? Intel's device is available with Windows XP. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that our "friends" in Redmond are responsible for this in order to get their software into the emerging world instead of Linux.

Re:Is there a hidden 3rd party?

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

What I want to know is ... is there a hidden 3rd party pushing Intel *cough*Microsoft*cough*? Intel's device is available with Windows XP. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that our "friends" in Redmond are responsible for this in order to get their software into the emerging world instead of Linux.

I think it's more along the lines that the entire portable industry has ignored the "subnotebook" market that the OLPC project has shown to be extremely viable, and are now trying en mass to jockey for position.

They supported Negroponte just far enough to basically test the waters, making sure there really WAS a market, then once the "useful idiot" outlived his usefulness, well, out come the daggers.

That's what innovation means nowadays in the computer industry: Wait for someone else to do something interesting, then steal the idea and market it faster than he/she can. I hope Negroponte's project survives this nonsense.

Re:I'm sticking with AMD

[presearch (214913)]

These days, AMD is running as a non-profit corporation, so you should like them twice as much.

Re:Is there a hidden 3rd party?

[erroneus (253617)]

Because Microsoft *IS* the evil boogeyman lurking in the shadows, etc, etc...

The connections in this and other cases are pretty obvious for even the lay person to see. Further, it has been demonstrated that Microsoft knows no shame nor boundaries in their efforts to buy, push or influence governments and other businesses to do their bidding.

If you've got a dog that has been historically pooping on your carpet and you come home today and find poop on your carpet, you're going to look for the dog!

Re:Is there a hidden 3rd party?

[fwarren (579763)]

Refusing low-priced laptops because they run Windows is as misguided

The difference is that the OLPC is:

1. Is designed to last. One OLPC that lasts 5 years is cheaper than 3 Classmates that only last 18 months each.
2. Is designed to "mesh" to get internet out to the child farthest from the village. Let me know when Windows XP has a "mesh" update for their wireless stack.
3. Is packaged with educational software. Microsoft and Intel have not developed any educational software that will go for "free" on these machines. And purchasing more software for the classmate only drives the price up.

Total Lack of Ethics

[tbannist (230135)]

It doesn't matter how badly Intel wanted to sell their more expensive, less functional copy of the OLPC laptop. It is simply unethical to use insider information to quash a deal and sign a separate one yourself with a client.

This is a big black mark against Intel and should serve as a warning to future partners that they can't be trusted at all. I mean you can't get much worse publicity than "deliberately sabotaged a charitable organization". Maybe the CEO of Intel would like follow it up by kicking puppies and eating babies?

Re:Total Lack of Ethics

[Quarters (18322)]

If he ate babies there wouldn't be a market for his Classmate PC.

Intel and MS

[HangingChad (677530)]

I don't think MSFT is the driver, more of a means to an end for Intel. Their interests are aligned at some level but mainly Intel wants to sell chips. I'm guessing they don't care which OS runs as long as they can keep a finger in the emerging market pie.

MS and Intel have common goals, but that could change.

What's more interesting is the callous, self-serving manner Intel is undermining a project trying to help people. It's pathetic. Lacking in even basic decency. You can claim corporations exist only for profit but it hasn't always been that way. It's a fairly recent development that we have have, at least corporately, started to turn into the Ferengi. And there are limits. When you start undermining humanitarian projects in order to protect your market position, you're over that line.

Maybe Negroponte should just pull off the gloves and make a deal with Wal-Mart and Costco to carry OLPC's. Use the profits to donate machines to developing nations. Or use the profits to cut schools in this country a big discount. If Intel and MS want a war, give them a war.

Go Apple!

[PHPfanboy (841183)]

Disgusting behaviour like this by Intel is why I'll never use Wintel and only buy Apple

Let Intel know what you think

[verin (74429)]

From Intel's website:
        Corporate Mailing Address
        2200 Mission College Blvd.
        Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
        USA
        [phone]

A phone call or a snail mail letter will go a long way toward letting Intel know it crossed the line.

Intel's Business Code of Conduct

[by Anonymous Coward]

Most large companies have a set of explicitly stated business rules that employees are expected to follow or face disciplinary action. Typically, employees are expected to periodically read and review these rules, and certify that they have done so and will follow them. Sometimes, these rules include explicit prohibitions against trying to sell when the potential customer has already placed a legally-enforceable order with a competitor. The rationale is simple, the order is a contract. You shouldn't encourage anybody to break a contract, because you would be encouraging them to break the law. Apparently, Intel's senior management apparently hasn't seen the need to set the bar that high for their employees. That's too bad and a black mark against Intel for sure. Just another reason to keep buying AMD.

Negroponte has a right to be upset. Intel shouldn't have been doing this against ANY competitor, must less one that they were cooperating with.

The classmate hardware SUCKS, at least...

[nweaver (113078)]

IF targeting the 3rd world, the classmate sucks:

a) There are cooling holes on it! Hello dirt and debris.

b) The keyboard is non ruggedized, at least compared to the XO.

c) It uses a conventional montior arrangement rather than the OLPC "behind the monitor" arrangement. This means that it has a complex, wire heavy connector through the hinge rather than just a USB and power connection.

I don't see how the classmate could last 6 months in a third world environment.

I question some of the OLPC's intent, but their hardware design blows away that Intel POS its not even funny.

Got my OLPC a few days ago

[pez (54)]

I wanted to like the OLPC -- no I wanted to *love* the OLPC. I wanted to love it so much that I wanted to tell the world how awesome it was, and how everyone should participate in the give one get one program.

Then mine arrived in the mail.

Initial reactions were off the charts. The packaging was even excellent! The machine is sturdy, well-built, solid, cleverly designed, rugged, and absolutely perfect for it's purpose. I can't say enough about how many of the design decisions were fantastic. The keyboard was perhaps smaller than I had anticipated, but with the intended use case scenarios even that didn't detract from the brilliance of the hardware.

And then I turned it on.

Anyone who says that the interface is revolutionary or different is trying to put a nice spin on it. Yes, some of the organization and terminology is novel, and one could even praise some of the attempts at getting you to re-think how computers work. But the entire thing feels astonishingly like X Windows from the late 1980s. The interfaces are clunky and inconsistent, and worst of all it suffers from a pervasive design philosophy of "because we could" not "because we should." I could easily forgive a lack of graphical polish, but it's much more difficult to forgive the nearly-20-year giant leap backwards in interface design.

I know what the slashdot crowd is thinking... "it's open source! Write a new UI yourself!" but that's not the point. My point is that I wish the OLPC project had spent half the effort on the software that they did on the hardware -- if they had, then maybe we really would have a device that would change the world. Who knows... maybe a version 2 will have a new UI that actually will.

Poor Documentation

[ISoldat53 (977164)]

I agree. The support wiki is full of holes but it seems to be getting filled out. The great advantage I see in the buy-one-give-one program was to get it in the hands of people in the FOSS community that can find such weaknesses and fix them. We can support OLPC by developing applications and providing input to the project.

If I did something like that, I would be fired

[sirwired (27582)]

At the company I work for, the Code of Conduct we are required to review every year has an explicit prohibition against this sort of thing. The section is actually entitled "Selling Against a Signed Order". The code isn't that long, so the fact that there is a special section for this one situation shows how important it is.

If I were to try and sell against a signed order, I would be fired. Immediately. With no chance of appeal.

Encouraging a customer to break a signed contract could get both the customer and my company sued by the competitor for contract interference, and rightly so.

SirWired

Re:Negroponte

[by Anonymous Coward]

>If Negroponte really just carted about the kids, and not his own ego, ...

If Intel cared about the kids and not their profits ...

Re:Negroponte

[1u3hr (530656)]

Intel is just like any other company that has a responsibility to its shareholders.

It signed agreements with OLPC, so it has a responsibility to live up to that. "Maximising profits for shareholders" does not make it okay to break contracts, lie, cheat or steal, despite what many MBAs seem to think.

Re:Negroponte

[smilindog2000 (907665)]

I wish I had a catchy name... "Bill's Law" just wont catch on. Anyway, here's why companies like Intel can both support OLPC with heartfelt charity, while at the same-time underhandedly stealing their market:

A corporation's actions are dictated by the weakest morals of it's leaders.

Corollary: The simplest way to make a corporation good is to have a strong ethical leader. I guarantee that the leaders involved in working with OLPC are honest people. I also guarantee the leaders involved in knee-capping OLPC are dishonest. A strong leader would find one personality for the company, and enforce it on the troops. Weak leaders allow multiple personalities to come forward when convenient.

Re:Negroponte

[mrchaotica (681592)]

He wants kids having HIS laptops and HIS educational materials.

No, he wants kids to have good laptops and good educational materials. The Intel Classmate PC does not qualify on either count!

Re:Negroponte

[sogoodsofarsowhat (662830)]

This is a troll above. Truth is even in regular for profit business if a partner company did this to my group of companies i would kick them to the curb in a split second. It is not about profits this is about being outright dishonest. You do not do business with dishonest companies.....plain and simple. Unless you enjoy getting screwed over. Why waste your time and efforts working with a dishonest partner? I know i do not and have survived as a US maker of Audio products (OEM level) for more than 40 years. Never underestimate the power of being honest and keeping your word....it will allow you to survive long after all the other bigger players have either went bankrupt or sold to off shore companies because they are no longer viable to operate here. I have seen and purchased many of those whom thought they were so smart and keen (and dishonest) yet my company is still in the USA and still making jobs and growing....and making a nice profit....why....becuase when a customer partners with me....they know they will not be screwed over. 40+years and counting....:) I wish Negroponte the best , he should have known that the likes of MS and intel cannot be trusted they are NOT honorable companies. Yes they have made huge profits....but i sleep very well at night and customers i have had for 30+ years call me more than supplier, many consider me close personal friend. Those who say business is only about profits....need to take an ethics course or 10 and also need to realize it is not just about profits. Many times ive made the choice that was less profitable or not profitable but was the RIGHT thing to do. What will you do when pressed by such a situation? Will you choose profit or what is right? The answer will determine if you really are an enlightened individual or just a blood sucker. Thats the difference.

Re:Negroponte

[hey! (33014)]

That's an interesting issue but your answer is naive.

Non-profits and for-profits are more alike than people think. If a non-profit doesn't pay the electricity bills, the lights go off. If a non-profit program doesn't reach sufficient volume, its unit costs go through the roof because of the fixed costs are amortized over fewer units. Just like a for-profit.

The difference between non-profits and for-profits is why they do what they do, not how.

If there are 270,000 children who need laptops in Peru, a non-profit would try to equip as many of them as humanly possible. A for-profit will try to equip the number of children which would maximize its profits. For example, suppose Intel's profits are maximized by equipping 135,000 children in Peru. The government would buy more if the price were lower, but Intel's profit margin would be lower. Intel could increase its unit margin so that it made more on each PC, but Peru would buy sufficiently fewer that the net profits would decrease.

The difference between a non-profit and a for-profit is that a for-profit never considers costs that are external to itself, such as the cost of 135,000 children who grow up without access to information and the world economy. A non-profit internalizes as much of that cost as possible.

When two for-profits compete, they try to poach the plum contracts from each other, and it doesn't matter. They both act in exactly the same way, so the differences between the two are small. When either looks at a population of 270,000 customers, 135,000 of which don't have enough money to play, they see a market of 135,000, give or take a few, plus 135,000 non-entities who they have no intention of serving. When they compete with each other, the more efficient of the two might equip 140,000, and the less efficient might equip 120,000, and so market efficiencies maximize the public benefit, if the only choice is between two entities that weigh the public benefit in exactly the same manner.

When a for-profit cherry picks the plum contracts from a non-profit, it's a different matter altogether. The efficient for profit equips 140,000 where the non-profit would equip 270,000. What's more the non-profit can't pick up the slack, because (a) there's no money and (b) they are amortizing their costs over fewer units so they can no longer provide product at lower prices than the for-profit.

Right or wrong? You decide. But it's certainly about more than personal ego. It's about educating students whom it is not profitable to equip; and if it is not profitable, it will never happen.

Re:Negroponte

[Svartalf (2997)]

The flaw lies in that Intel promised to NOT poach like they seem to have been doing and did it anyway.

It's not that Negroponte has an ego (but everyone is seizing on the fact the man DOES have a big ego...)
but that Intel didn't live up to it's promises. If the stunt in Peru is provable, then Intel DOES have
a big bit of explaining to do- and what Negroponte has been saying isn't QUITE the "hogwash" they're
claiming it is.

It's not that he doesn't want laptops in the hands of kids. He wants education TOOLS in the hands of
kids. Unfortunately, all the Classmate devices seem to be is indoctrination tools for Microsoft products
as opposed to engines to be re-worked, etc. to teach thinking in addition to knowledge. OLPC's goal is
that. All the Classmate seems to be is discounted Windows stuff for kids and calling it "education".

I've a problem with that.

Re:Negroponte

[hhas (990942)]

"Classmate specs are better than XO. There is a bit of goods in XO hardware, but not all that much"

Depends on your definition of 'better'. I don't think the OLPC hardware should be underestimated. The Classmate may have a faster processor and more storage, but it also has a shorter battery life, no 'e-book' mode, no mesh network, isn't nearly as rugged or user serviceable, and costs more. Given that a 366MHz processor and 128MB RAM is a perfectly respectable combo as long as the software is tuned for it, flexibility and longevity ought to be a more significant factor than raw [on-paper] grunt.

There's a nice recent take-apart here:

http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=218 [bunniestudios.com]

Obviously a great deal of thought and design has gone into these beasties. If only my own (much-battered) machines were built like that...

Re:Negroponte

[sribe (304414)]

...but many customers are demanding Windows so the children can compete in the global job market.

Which is sheer stupidity! Learning Windows is not what children need to compete in the global job market. A good education is what they need. Something that Negroponte, the educator, and Papert, the master behind the scenes who has devoted his life to studying how children learn, understand a bit better than Intel's sales flacks.

Re:Negroponte

[nahdude812 (88157)]

The success of his project is dependent on getting enough orders to give them economy of scale savings. He is courting the wealthier countries right now, and as he gets more orders, he can reduce cost further, and reach a more and more impoverished market. If Intel uses this as a way to have OLPC do all the front work of identifying markets, getting in to talk with the people who can make the buying decisions, and then end-gaming them on the sale, they are not only hurting the success of the OLPC project and shortening its eventual reach, they are also directly stealing value from the project which did the initial effort investment. Some of these countries might not have talked to Intel directly, but had heard good things about this OLPC thing and so first entertained the idea only because of the merits brought by that project. Intel is therefore operating under the guise of friendship and help, while cannibalizing the underlying foundation of the project.

OLPC laptops are more open, more free, better designed, and less expensive. Intel ClassMate PC's are proprietary, less rugged, and require more power to operate. Worst of all they are for-profit, and those profits are sent to Intel stock holders, making wealthy business men wealthier at the expense of money which would better be used satisfying an educational need in the exact same arena as the laptop was advertised as intending to assist. They unnecessarily drain valuable resources from the very market they are pretending to aid.

Basically this is about as disgustingly slimy as I think they are able to be.