 Loading… |
| « Previous post | Next post » |
Posted by Phil Butler on May 21st, 2007
One of my favorite Web 2.0 initiatives has been the "One Laptop per Child" project. News today that Intel has developed its own version of an inexpensive laptop galvanized my opinion that big business would kill "Flipper" for a tuna sandwich.
Professor Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the OLPC initiative accused Intel of selling its own version in an attempt to drive the XO laptop out of markets. Intel's Chairman Craig Barrett responded to the allegation by claiming that Intel is only trying to bring more capability to young people. Barrett and others were highly critical of the not-for-profit XO program from the beginning.
The OLPC program, founded by Negroponte, is dedicated to providing Internet access to children in developing nations via a unique and inexpensive laptop PC called the XO. The XO is heart of this world wide education initiative, and was originally dubbed the $100 laptop. The current cost of the XO units is around $176 but is expected to drop once production numbers are increased. Intel's version the "Classmate" is currently priced at over $200 and according to this news via the BBC; several thousands of units have already been ordered. One has to wonder if the price difference is profit or Intel's overwhelming concern for providing value to kids who need education in poor nations?
XO's and MF's
In typical fashion Intel and others have scoffed and ridiculed the well intentioned innovation of a visionary, but once the field testing and advanced orders began to filter in decided to capitalize on the potential to squeeze money out of any pocket available. Intel claims that their "for profit" venture targets neither the market or the fact that the XO is powered by their hated competitor AMD.
According to Professor Negroponte, Intel has distributed literature to various governments with titles like: "The shortcomings of the One Laptop per Child approach." This literature supposedly outlines the stronger points of the Classmate in comparison to the XO version, which leads me to think of only one major problem in that Intel cannot make money on the millions of laptops to be distributed to underprivileged children worldwide if they don't make one. There should be no ambiguity in separating the good guys from the bad guys on this one folks. There are "for profit" and "not-for-profit" organizations out there. Intel considers these millions of kids and their stumbling blocks a "market", and their Classmate site professes this in the very first sentence in bold type. The One Laptop site consists of basically ways wed can help, children and progress reports.
Black and White
Barnett reportedly tagged the XO laptop as nothing more than a gadget at some point, but it is abundantly obvious now that Intel intends to get into the "gadget" business. Both of the laptops are rugged, innovative and inexpensive devices designed for children in developing countries, but only one entity is producing them without profit in mind. Negroponte feels that Intel's invasion into this needful niche has damaged OLPC's effort a great deal. Personally, I hope anyone making the decision over a processor in the next few months will evaluate the kind of people they are buying from. I am buying a new PC in a few weeks and I intend to scale up to AMD and send Intel an email saying: "You don't need underprivileged children's money or mine either!"
Intel's classification of the underprivileged as "an emerging market."
One Laptop per Child Illustration of intent and need, with no mention of "a market."
|
|
| « Previous post | Next post » |
Trackbacks |
(Trackback URL) |
| Intel’s Emerging Market Poor Children | Pilka | May 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 am |
|
[…] Visit Source […] | |
| The Rugged Notebooks Blog | August 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pm |
|
[…] For a view of the controversy and prior hard feelings between OLPC and Intel, before the recent agreed to partnership, read the article at profy.com by Phil Butler. […] | |
Comments |
 |
| Ian Kemmish | May 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am |
|
Well, if you see two products on a shelf in a shop and one is twice the price of the other, then even the proverbial bright schoolchild immediately tell that they don’t target the same market segment. You don’t need to be the marketing director of an evil empire to see that. Of course if you can’t actually hit your target price because you’re a bunch of overpaid consultants and academics, then that will of course muddy the waters a bit, but that’s your problem, not your competitor’s. It certainly doesn’t indicate moral turpitude on your competitor’s part. It’s common enough to feel sour grapes when your competitor beats you on the same ground (even though that appears not to be what’s happening here). But we adults get over it. | |
| Phil Butler | May 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm |
|
Thanks Ian! My new point is that there should be no competition. Business for profit should never venture into the non-profit arena unless they can offer the same value for less. The term “market” should never be employed to characterize a segment of people that should never be utilized. The semantics reminds me of the time my Dad told me the world was going to hell in a hand basket when “Personnel Managers” suddenly became “Human Resource Directors” back in the 70’s. These subtleties, however seemingly benign, are once again “intentioned” symbolic and real labels devised to shift our views and ideas of things. We have given up so much ground to business here in the U.S> and now in the world. These seemingly harmless bits of news are the fabric of what people have to deal with 30 years from now. Just me on the soap box I know, but I prefer to stand up here in the precise knowledge that I am neither obtuse, stupid or woefully clinical over black and white subjects. For any of my readers who have their own pulpits to cry from, would you like to be considered a “market” or a “human resource” if your belly were empty and hope was a mirage in the distant heat of poverty? I think not. Always, | |
| Already have an account on Profy? |
| Lost your password ? |
Profy partners
