Submitted by Chip-maker Intel “should be ashamed of itself” for efforts to undermine the USD 100 laptop initiative, according to its founder Nicholas Negroponte. He accused Intel of selling its own cut-price laptop – the Classmate – below cost to drive him out of markets. Professor Negroponte, who aims to distribute millions of laptops to kids in developing countries, said Intel had hurt his mission “enormously”.
If everything is for a good cause, why scream? One way or another, children from poor countries will get a computer. Be it from OLPC or Intel. As a child I wouldn’t have my metabolism affected by this.
Maybe it is the cynic in me, but I feel that Intel is out to make money rather than help developing countries. I met some of the OLPC people at this year’s FUDCon Boston, and they seem to be generally concerned with helping others than helping their shareholders.
I’m sure Intel is after the money,but in the end what matters is the fact that they are selling a cheap laptop.Which,mind you,runs Windows and Linux. I don’t know which is better (never touched one of these) but I suspect they are pretty much the same. morally, Negroponte & Co should have first option. Unfortunately , money is always made in these companies. And people look first at this : money.
Well, from what I can tell it looks like the Classmate PC is a stripped-down conventional laptop rather than a totally new design like the OLPC (for better or worse). There’s no interesting display, a tiny touchpad, a much more power-hungry processor (which, still, will go over fine in second-world countries), and they don’t mention any of the wireless mesh. I believe the projected cost of the Classmate PC is still $250, which is a somewhat significant increase over the $175 XO.
Other than that, they are pretty similar. I don’t know about Negroponte yelling at them for this; it seems like the OLPC still has its own considerable appeal for more rural markets, provided they get the human-power charger working.
As for software, both of them seem to be relying on local educators and the community in that country to provide targeted and appropriate content for the children.
This is my main worry for both of them: The OLPC in particular is still finalizing and working the kinks out of its hardware, and they’ve hit the magical trip-point where they’re going to start producing these things… Where is the content? If these are educational devices you need time to write the educational software and activities.
I haven’t seen much said about any advance copies being sent out to governments interested in purchasing these laptops so their educational professionals can create software for them. No, they’re already planning on shipping en masse.
Edited 2007-05-21 15:39
Negroponte is fussing because Intel has come in with their slick marketing and gone to governments and said:
“Hey even though ours costs $250, we will underwrite a chunk of the costs so our machine costs only $150 We will even get MS in here to market to you and then we will have Windows installed and ready for you. Oh you want vista later, got to pay for that, but you don’t need that anyway.”
And then people go to OLPC and say can you match it? And OLPC has to say no cause it has no money!
Negroponte did this out of his own idea to help people. Intel is doing this just like MS wants in on it to keep market share. That is all!
MS and Intel wants other kids to grow up like Americans knowing only Intel and MS and only buying that.
Nothing wrong with that if OLPC was a for profit business. But it’s not.
Edited 2007-05-21 16:46
Unfortunately , money is always made in these companies
Thing is, if someone with limited resources brings up money and resources to create something which will help people, and babysit this idea all the way from idea to reality, that is something to be proud of and support. When a company recognizes that this idea has profit potentials and recreates the idea with pretty much no effort relatively, then undercuts the pricing to steal the “market” then that’s not something to be proud of. If they would’ve taken the road to support the original project, then that would’ve been a wholly different story.
If it helps and they make money, there’s a clear market for the technology: that means that there is incentive to supply for the market. That would be a shame, I guess, for Mr. Ego-ponte.
If that was the case then why didn’t Intel do this years ago?
Because Mr Ego-ponte came up with the idea, made the plan, put it into effect and is about to make it happen.
When he came up with the idea Intel and MS were laughing.
Now the reality of 200 Million or more new Linux and AMD users scares the CRAP out of Craptel and Microcrap.
So? At the best, he took a risk so they didn’t have to. That’s all sunk (as in cost) now and doesn’t have anything to do with supposed taking advantage of the potential market.
OLPC is a non profit, why would they be thinking of “Market” They are thinking of helping people. But helping people is not free.
Intel is ONLY thinking in terms of market share (Since they will loose money at first to keep OLPC from growing)
That is the problem here. If OLPC was a for profit business and this was straight compitition then that is fine.
But OLPC is non profit and Intel is just doing this for market share. And we know this because as shown on the show last night Intel’s marketing documentation compares their product to the OLPC to show their product it better.
If Intel was doing it for the same reason that OLPC was then why put down OLPC?
Edited 2007-05-21 17:40
OLPC is a non profit, why would they be thinking of “Market” They are thinking of helping people. But helping people is not free.
Intel is ONLY thinking in terms of market share (Since they will loose money at first to keep OLPC from growing)
OLPC is non-profit, but I doubt AMD is also non-profit. AMD will probably get *some* revenue — just like everyone else involved in OLPC (no chip maker will do charity acts that involve hundreds of millions of chips without some profit).
Anyone else selling cheap laptops means less revenue for anyone behind OLPC and a good chance of dumping the whole deal.
Even if the purpose is noble and all, there’s still a hefty marketing behind it. No company, let alone AMD or Intel or Microsoft, does any acts of charity without a good profit.
Well yes I am sure they will make some profit, but at the low price point I doubt much.
But Intel could of been in on that just as easy.
They could have made Intel and AMD versions, whatever. But to crap on OLPC like that and pretend they are not sucks.
“””
That is the problem here. If OLPC was a for profit business and this was straight compitition then that is fine.
“””
I just want to emphasize that the issue is dumping and not nonprofit vs for-profit.
Sure, I like OLPC better because they are non-profit. Not to mention the fact that they were the ones with the vision to do all this in the first place.
But the problem here is that Intel plans to use its deep pockets to dump product at well below cost with the intent of eliminating competition, in order to benefit big time in the absence of that competition by raising prices later. (Even a non-profit needs revenue or they go under.) These pilot markets that OLPC so desperately needs are just the tip of the iceberg.
Intel wants to sell the tip at below cost so that they can sell the rest of it at retail, even if the kids have to share the one-laptop-per-three-children product they plan to sell in the future, once OLPC is out of the way.
I’m replying to myself, but a related issue occurs to me. I was just doing research on what new MB and processor I would like to buy, and was focusing upon Intel processors and chipsets due to how well they are supporting OSS and Linux these days, when I flipped over here and read about what Intel is up to WRT poor children and 3rd world governments.
It’s hard enough to decide who I want to send my money to in a world where profit is everything. But it is downright impossible in a world of large corps with multiple personality disorder so profound that it would astonish even “Sybil”. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_%28film%29 )
Right. That is what I said in my other posts. They are going to countries and selling the $250 laptop at $150 which is lower then OLPC and subsidizing other things like dishes for internet connections etc.
All to keep AMD’s Market share down. No matter that OLPC is doing this for a noble reason.
You obviously don’t understand what market means.
Perhaps the ends justify the means? What if Intel just wants to make money? What if the OLPC can’t compete? What if kids in developing countries get tools that could help them learn? What if Nicholas Negroponte is jumping at shadows?
Mr Negroponte is upset because he got a lot of countries on board to buy OLPC’s.
Now when they goes back to these countries to actually get them to follow through with their offers, they all say that Intel has visited and we are ether now not sure what we want to do OR we have changed our minds.
He is not jumping at shadows, this is what he sees.
I don’t think you’re being cynical at all. You are absolutely correct. It’s Intel’s job to make money/profit, not run charities. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken.
Intel has no incentive to be charitable unless governments develop an incentive for them, such as tax breaks for donating equipment, etc….
Intel could simply have chosen to ignore the $100 USD Laptop, but instead they have chosen to take the low-road and work against it. Just one more reason for me to buy AMD products……
Why didn’t Intel help OLPC and come out with a processor that was as good, if not better then AMD’s and then offer to put it into OLPC and help OLPC with funding etc.
To come out with a product aimed right at the OLPC is low, really low.
I think the complain is that if it’s sold below cost, then it won’t last forever — just until the OLPC is dead “because it’s more expensive than the alternative”. Once that happens the prices go up and there’s no competition. Don’t know if this is true or not.
Indeed, look at the XBox1, sold below cost in order for Microsoft to get into the market, only now after the 360 has been out for ages are Microsoft just about to start turning profit.
Then compare that to every Nintendo console which has been profitable right off the bat.
Intel want in on the market. They can easily cut a loss if it guarantees them 25+ years of vendor lock in later on.
Intel is looking to keep market share cause the OLPC uses AMD.
The Intel machine costs twice as much as the inflated price of the OLPC.
And with Windows it costs more.
I started my non profit to give away Linux machines and have already run up against people that now want to do the same thing but give Windows machines.
Well my Linux is 100% free for life with upgrades and low cost support. The Windows guys can’t say that. But yet I get shot down on a regular because of slick marketing.
Intel SUCKS!
If everything is for a good cause, why scream? ”
Price dumping is a crime in most countries and for good reasons.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I am not. Personally, I think developing countries can better spend their money to increase the quality of education without having to buy laptops.
While I understand the arguments of the sort, “these children need clean water, not green laptops,” I truly question how these children can hope to become competitive in the global workforce if they do not have access to the Internet. They live in communities where education is either grossly inadequate or subject to considerable corruption and propaganda issues. We must give these children the tools to discover the outside world and to pick themselves up out of an unfortunate situation.
Funding public education programs is not going to work. It hardly works in the U.S.! Their governments have failed them, and our aid programs cannot address the needs of so many people. Our best hope is to reach a few self-motivated kids that want to learn and want to help their neighbors.
Yes, they need water, food, and healthcare. They need lots of things. But if the developed world can give a few of these kids the means to connect to wealth of information available on the Internet, we could hopefully empower a generation of future leaders that can help lift their communities up out of poverty.
Internet connection is useless to children that do not read.
Most of these children know how to read. Stop thinking that people in the third world live in caves or something…
No, that’s New Orleans. Richest country in the world and it’s still a mess down there.
Heh. “Most.”
All right then, the vast majority of these children know how to read.
Better?
I live here, I know the problems very closely…
The fact is that even some teachers do not have enought qualification to give education. So, what we do expect from that children? That they become touchpad experts? Or brilliant scientists? Just by operating a brand new personal computer?
Please, do not misundertood me. We, brazilian people, do not need computers for children. We need to give them REAL education. Knowledge, not gadgets.
Like what? What would give a broader range of education than a $170 laptop and an internet connection?
Teachers? Hah. that’s more like $170 a week. If you assume that they’ll be willing to work for that little. Teachers are very important, but if you can’t afford teaching materials
Textbooks? at the very low discount price of $20 each, you can buy… 9 textbooks. How do 9 textbooks compare to all the resources on the internet? Quite poorly, I’d say.
Certainly, the above are very useful in education, but IMO, a $170 laptop (I think that’s the current price) is a pretty damn good deal.
These kids get laptops either way, and with competitian they could potentially get a better deal. Why should it be because they don’t have vast budgets they shouldnt have a choice?
The difference is that selling laptops below cost isn’t a sustainable initiative. What happens when Intel decides it actually wants to make money off that project? One of the major ideas behind the OLPC Is that the project can be self-sustaining, without depending on the continued generosity of donors.
Very well summarized. Shame that you were already at +5.
Gadgets (nor computers) do not change education. People CAN change education.
What we see is a new way of commerce disguised on a good intention.
Governments, invest in people, not machines. I live in Brasil and see that those who will train the children are not prepared itself.
If Negroponte is right, Intel will do a dumping, which is a crime in most countries.
I am brazilian too, and its sad to see childrens here that doenst have chairs to seat on a class, imagine how such children will use a laptop.
Anyway, I think its better to see our government spendeing 100 milion dollars in laptops instead os spending the same money on a public poll to decide if guns must be prohibited or not, and thats not a joke, unfortunatelly…
I would imagine that a country investing money into Intel would be a safer bet. Nothing against OLPC, but do they really have to support and funding to keep up. What if they just fold and close their doors one day, then what, are they going to refund the advance money to all these countries? I doubt it. I also think it is very dangerous to sell PC’s to kids that don’t even have a standard interface. They will have no idea how to use anything else in the real world. At least the Classmate will come with either Windows or Linux, which are both using the standard ‘Desktop metaphor’ and not some TeletubbyOS interface.
“
The OLPC /does/ run Windows and Linux (though granted the defualt OS is a custom build of Red Hat)
I understand that OLPC /does/ run Windows and Linux, my toaster can run BSD
Still doesn’t change the fact that OLPC doesn’t come with a standard Linux GUI. Granted the box is a little light on the performance side, but they could have at least run Xfce or something else small and powerful that at least resembles a computer interface. To me, its like giving all of the kids bicycles and then when they hopefully one day go into the workforce, expect that they should be able to drive a forklift. I’m sorry if I sound cynical about OLPC, but it just seems like a fly-by-night operation that if everything falls apart, oh well, pack up and move on to the next project to save the world. If it does work, then yeah! Nobel Peace Prize. Would you pay Dell $100 for a notebook, then a year later have them say, ‘well, turns out it’s gonna cost $170. No seriously, I promise the laptops are almost done’. I honestly do hope that it works out, I’m just saying that I personally trust a company who’s motives are monetary more than some good-will project.
Oh, please, you’re not training monkeys to push colored buttons, so that if you change the colors all the monkeys go crazy. Just because those children live in the third world, it doesn’t mean that they’re stupid!
When I was 10 I started using a PC with DOS, no GUI or similar, and all the same I managed to cope with technological innovation and to learn how to use Windows 95, then 98, XP and now a couple of FOSS GUI and bash. I’m sure that they’re adaptable too.
Moreover, the OLPC project’s aim is not to teach children how to use a PC, is to give children access to information through a PC. The PC is the means, not the end.
Edited 2007-05-21 15:13
I never said they kids were stupid. In fact some of them will go on to surpass many of us I’m sure. But don’t you think that growing up learning something harder like DOS was probably better for you in the long run than to give kids a computer with an extremely limited GUI? Kids, are smart and adaptable, give them the full power of Linux and let them learn and they will go on to do amazing things. Don’t shelter them with some Preschool interface.
I never said they kids were stupid. In fact some of them will go on to surpass many of us I’m sure. But don’t you think that growing up learning something harder like DOS was probably better for you in the long run than to give kids a computer with an extremely limited GUI? Kids, are smart and adaptable, give them the full power of Linux and let them learn and they will go on to do amazing things. Don’t shelter them with some Preschool interface.
That’s exactly what sugar is: a simple interface which every child can manage quickly without prior experience AND the full sources available by simply pressing a key, so that the children can modify them, create new activities by watching the source of the default ones and share them with the others.
Edited 2007-05-21 15:24
The key here is not the interface, but access to Learning. On top of that it’s Linux. It’s not hard coded to some interface that you can’t change etc.
The cool thing about it having Linux is that you CAN hack it and change it etc.
As the times change and these kids grow up almost everything will be on the web, no one will care what interface you have and use as long as you can do your work and that work will be web based.
Having seen the specs on the Classmate PC in its Windows configuration (requires 2 GB hard drive space versus 1 GB for the Linux offerings, and the Classmate PC starts out with a 900 MHz processor instead of 500 MHz) I doubt the OLPC would be powerful enough to do it.
As far as support goes, it seemed that the OLPC project was still working on that in February (when I spoke to the at FUDCon Boston). I suggested that if they train people within the Peace Corps, this would greatly help with support. These volunteers are selected with a previous knowledge of the subject. So the “OLPC IT” people would already have a good understanding (degree or work experience) of computers. Also, volunteers stay in country for 24 months; so, you have somebody “on call” for an extended period of time. Best of all, the OLPC project won’t have to worry about funding this support staff. This, however, is the reason presented to me as to why using the Peace Corps is a bad idea. Lybia, for example, is interested in the project, but hates the US. If the OLPC is closely tied to a US funded program, they might have second thoughts. The OLPC project wants to help kids regardless of political sentiment between two countries. Oh well… I thought it was a pretty good idea.
“””
I also think it is very dangerous to sell PC’s to kids that don’t even have a standard interface. They will have no idea how to use anything else in the real world.
“””
Seems to me that what millions and millions and millions of kids learn will *become* the standard tomorrow. Or something like it will.
It’s you and I that are in danger of being left behind. Not the kids.
We oldsters are at their mercy, not the other way around.
Just like I have no clue how to use current desktop computers because I grew up using MS-Dos, which doesn’t use the standard ‘Desktop metaphor’?
This all was aimed to offering an opportunity to those who most need it. But, living in Argentina, I wonder how much use will our kids get from a laptop if they’re starving, or don’t even have a roof to cover their heads. Yeah, we are in the technology era, but no one ever died for not knowing how to operate a computer. Water, food and a bed to sleep are way more important IMHO.
And, as many already pointed out, tools are useless unless used by a competent educator, and that’s also a weak point here.
why do i keep seeing that repeat.
this isnt a product aimed at the groups of people that do not have an ability to maintain a daily food supply, but for those that for some reason or other cant afford up to date education.
its the digital divide that the OLPC is aimed at removing or atleast make smaller.
as they keep saying; “give a man a fish and he does not go hungry for a day, teach him to fish and he may never have to hungry again”.
thing is this, that as the western world is moving from a industry based economy to a information based economy (copyright, patents etc) the industry is shiftet to the third world. what we are left with is an exploitation of the third world where they have the means to produce stuff but cant as the plans are owned by the first world, and the development of new stuff happens there also.
just look at the noise being made about aids drugs or patents on gene crops. or having to pay a us company (microsoft etc) for software. with linux (and similar) they can develop their own variants.
as long as the first world keep dumping their outdated stuff on the third world, the third world will never catch up…
I’m not denying what you say. And you keep seeing that because it is a problem, way more important than fading the digital divide between the first and the third world. I’m not criticizing the idea behind the Classmate and the OLPC, I’m criticizing the stupidity of some politicians who think that we’ll make it to the first world just by buying some laptops. We have a track of this kind of stupidity, with politicians announcing that they were delivering X amount of computers to schools, just to realize that you can’t use a PC without electricity (OTOH, the OLPC won’t suffer from this).
But I’m going way too off-topic, and I do apologize, but you must understand that sometimes it’s just too hard too see you money go to a random place in the USA while our own kids die from starvation. Again, I’m sorry, I won’t comment on this thread anymore
as they keep saying; “give a man a fish and he does not go hungry for a day, teach him to fish and he may never have to hungry again”.
The more common phrasing is:
“Give a man a fish, and he will have food for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he will have food for a lifetime.”
The original is:
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime” — Author unknown
Water, food and a bed to sleep are way more important IMHO.
There is a famous saying I am sure you know:
Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Teach a man to build a fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Although, I must say I do like this version as well:
Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life.
That is beside the point though, welfare is not a long term solution to the problem, sometimes it only creates welfare dependency.
You can only bring them food and supplies for so long, at some point they are going to need jobs.
Intel probably stole Negroponte’s thunder more than they hurt his mission.
Hurt his mission?! Is he crazy? Price is king. The EFIKA is $99 now too and the Open Client is sure to find a lower price. Whatever is best for the country is the right thing. /rasmus
What Intel is trying is not competition, it is dumping.
The XO is much more than a cheap laptop: it is a project for improving education in poor countries with just a few overworked teachers that teach several different levels at the same time in schools with no libraries, no laboratories, nothing.
The XO is designed to withstand the difficult environments where it has to operate: high humidity, high temperature, no power, dust, outside lighting.
It is designed to withstand all that, and still be inexpensive because designers and manufacturers have opted to work for little or no benefits, due to this being a mostly non-commercial humanitary enterprise.
Intel’s design, while more powerful, does not show the same careful engineering: it can handle nothing like that mistreatment, consumes a lot more power, has no mesh networking or camera, is a lot more expensive, and has no education project behind. But it comes with a bit of Intel’s healthy bank account, that can help selling at below and trample on the XO.
Intel had never shown any interest in cheap laptops until the XO started making waves. It looks like they feared something big might come by and leave them behind, so they started a “me too” project designed to throw Intel’s weight over XO and choke it before birth.
The children the XO is targetted to will have nighing to rejoice about when XO is dead, and Intel’s inferior design is all that is left.
So what you’re really saying is that the people in the markets that will be shelling out even the subsidized price of Intel’s effort are too ignorant to choose the ‘obviously better’ choice, right? And in the process they’ll put the poor, NPO out of business?
What I’m saying is that Intel has started spewing crap out of their orifices, and thrown a spanner into the XO’s machinery.
I do hope that the interested parties can see through that fog but, still, what Intel have done is harmful, and intended to be so; the OLPC project needs large firm orders to get the project rolling and to keep the price low, and Intel’s pressure will delay, maybe nullify some of these, helping make the project unfeasible.
What they have done is selfish, and mean, and very unethical in the way that large multinational corporations can afford to be when left untethered. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if they also made kind donations to politicians at the right levels to help them achieve the right mindframe to best invest their tax money.
I don’t think they needed help to decrease its feasibility. And if OLPC is so far above its intended market, as other posters (who perhaps are ignorant at the issues at hand) contend, then Intel’s market poisoning in this way doesn’t kick in until just now. And _that_ means that the design work is done and unharmed. Whatever bodies signed on to distribute them are going to do so anyway, and if there’s enough interest in the future they can do some more.
I feel the same way…good point!
“Intel had never shown any interest in cheap laptops until the XO started making waves. It looks like they feared something big might come by and leave them behind, so they started a “me too” project designed to throw Intel’s weight over XO and choke it before birth.”
From 60 Minutes –
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1049354722405908055&hl=en
Before I say anything, let me qualify, I live in New Mexico.
It ranks as one of or among the poorest states in the United States even below Louisiana which looks like an economic superpower to us. Our population, except for in places like Santa Fe, Los Alamos, Albuquerque, and several larger towns, is grindingly poor.
We’ve found that technology does not `teach` but only re-enforces or augments the learning process. Yes, there are self-learners and exceptions to the rule but more-often-than-not this is a rule. It is also a good research tool if you trust your sources online.
Now this Intel v. Professor Nicholas Negroponte is another Goliath v. David battle. A well-aimed stone might get the point across but I doubt it’ll make a damaging impact unless the rest of the open source army into the battle.
Maybe my points are we must pay people to teach. The teaching process must include technology but not replace the learning process or replace thinking.
This is why I’m so eager to see content for this machine. It’s supposed to replace textbooks? Well, let’s see some textbooks. It’s supposed to have learning activities? Show me.
Thus far we’ve got some very clever and innovative hardware, and a bunch of specially-designed software including plenty of programming interfaces.
I hope to see a concerted effort on the part of the sponsoring governments to load up these machines with learning materials, before they reach students. Thus far the closest thing to educational materials I’ve heard is the special off-line version of the most relevant and well-written Wikipedia articles.
If Intel’s sole purpose in this venture is to crush the OLPC foundation, then yes, this is a bad thing. If they’re simply trying to offer more options, then it’s a good thing.
One thing people should keep in mind when they discuss the OLPC program is that, despite the its technological aspects, it is an “education” project, and not a “laptop” project. If one follows the discussions on the mailing lists or actually talk to the developers, the main target is to build an environment and tools that enables children to learn by themselves and to communicate effectivelly. The laptop is an enabler, a tool.
The exception that NP takes on Intel’s classmate is just another pc laptop, which is made to make money and to compete with AMD (because OLPC uses the AMD Geode). It has the same software, it has the same problems, and education as far as the classmate goes is mostly teaching children how to use existing software.
I would side with NP on this one. Intel could have helped the project instead. A lot. But chose to make even more money instead. Its reasonable, I guess. But I think that while the OLPC would probably be used by children, the classmate has a lot more potential to be traded for guns instead.
First, there’s no reason that there has to be a single solution/approach to the low-cost PC problem. Negroponte may not like that, but the fact of the matter is that Intel may do a better job than he can, by virtue of Intel’s scale, experience, and manufacturing capability.
Second, I think that we should be careful about our expectations for a cheap PC. It’s been my experience that PCs are great, as long as you treat them as tools, but they’re not a replacement for traditional education involving a teacher and a group of students. Cheap PCs will make it possible for students to make wider connections to the outside world — useful for research and a source of inexpensive textbooks, without a doubt — but the tools only go so far. In the long run, though, promoting econonomic stability and reducing war & hunger will do more to promote education than cheap laptops.
I wonder how many of students receiving a cheap PC will sell it in order to pay for food, shelter, and other basic essentials….
Mr Negroponte is trying to develop cult. It is nice he got a jolt. He was trying to get fame by living in ivory tower and pulling a scam on 3rd world countries to buy million laptops before they see a prototype.
Anyway see article below from newyork times about how bad situation is in modt developed country america. imagine in 3rd world country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?_r=1&ref=…
May 4, 2007
Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops
By WINNIE HU
LIVERPOOL, N.Y. — The students at Liverpool High have used their school-issued laptops to exchange answers on tests, download pornography and hack into local businesses. When the school tightened its network security, a 10th grader not only found a way around it but also posted step-by-step instructions on the Web for others to follow (which they did).
Scores of the leased laptops break down each month, and every other morning, when the entire school has study hall, the network inevitably freezes because of the sheer number of students roaming the Internet instead of getting help from teachers.
“After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none,” said Mark Lawson, the school board president here in Liverpool, one of the first districts in New York State to experiment with putting technology directly into students’ hands. “The teachers were telling us when there’s a one-to-one relationship between the student and the laptop, the box gets in the way. It’s a distraction to the educational process.”
Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
Such disappointments are the latest example of how technology is often embraced by philanthropists and political leaders as a quick fix, only to leave teachers flummoxed about how best to integrate the new gadgets into curriculums. Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
Here in Liverpool, parents have long criticized the cost of the laptop program: about $300,000 a year from the state, plus individual student leases of $25 a month, or $900 from 10th to 12th grades, for the take-home privilege.
“I feel like I was ripped off,” said Richard Ferrante, explaining that his son, Peter, used his laptop to become a master at the Super Mario Brothers video game. “And every time I write my check for school taxes, I get mad all over again.”
Students like Eddie McCarthy, 18, a Liverpool senior, said his laptop made him “a lot better at typing,” as he used it to take notes in class, but not a better student. “I think it’s better to wait and buy one for college,” he said.
But it is less clear whether one-to-one computing has improved academic performance — as measured through standardized test scores and grades — because the programs are still new, and most schools have lacked the money and resources to evaluate them rigorously.
But Mr. Warschauer, who supports laptop programs, said schools like Liverpool might be giving up too soon because it takes time to train teachers to use the new technology and integrate it into their classes. For instance, he pointed to students at a middle school in Yarmouth, Me., who used their laptops to create a Spanish book for poor children in Guatemala and debate Supreme Court cases found online.
“Where laptops and Internet use make a difference are in innovation, creativity, autonomy and independent research,” he said. “If the goal is to get kids up to basic standard levels, then maybe laptops are not the tool. But if the goal is to create the George Lucas and Steve Jobs of the future, then laptops are extremely useful.”
At first, the school set up two tracks of classes — laptop and non-laptop — that resulted in scheduling conflicts and complaints that those without laptops had been shut out of advanced classes, though school officials denied that. In 2005, the school went back to one set of classes, and bought a pool of 280 laptops for students who were not participating in the lease program.
Soon, a room that used to be for the yearbook club became an on-site repair shop for the 80 to 100 machines that broke each month, with a “Laptop Help Desk” sign taped to the door. The school also repeatedly upgraded its online security to block access to sites for pornography, games and instant messaging — which some students said they had used to cheat on tests.
Maureen A. Patterson, the assistant superintendent for instruction, said that since the laptop program was canceled, she has spoken to more than 30 parents who support the decision and received five phone calls from parents saying they were concerned that their children would not have technological advantages. She said the high school would enlarge its pool of shared laptops for in-class use, invest in other kinds of technology and also planned to extend building hours in the evening to provide computer access.
In a 10th grade English class the other day, every student except one was tapping away on a laptop to look up food facts about Wendy’s, McDonald’s, and Burger King for a journal entry on where to eat. The one student without a computer, Taylor Baxter, 16, stared at a classmate’s screen because she had forgotten to bring her own laptop that day.
Alice McCormick, who heads the math department, said most math teachers preferred graphing calculators, which students can use on the Regents exams, to laptops, which often do not have mathematical symbols or allow students to show their work for credit. “Let’s face it, math is for the most part still a paper-and-pencil activity when you’re learning it,” she said.
“The art of thinking is being lost,” he said. “Because people can type in a word and find a source and think that’s the be all end all.”
“””
Anyway see article below from newyork times about how bad situation is in modt developed country america. imagine in 3rd world country.
“””
You are completely missing the point.
Frankly, I would not recommend issuing laptops to U.S. kids in the “Smart Phone” generation.
The purpose of the OLPC is not to enhance the learning experience for kids with upstairs and downstairs PC’s at home, a cell phone in their pocket, and books to lug around in addition to the PC.
These laptops are a window on the world, and a less expensive way to distribute textbooks, for countries where most families don’t have PC’s, textbooks are (literally) prohibitively expensive for schools, and the laptop is all the kids *have*.
Publishing companies stand to make a fortune off this, BTW, selling electronic texts to countries which would never have been able to pay even the printing costs of the books before.
Until now, “how ’bout you pay us for a pdf?” has not even been a question they could reasonably ask.
Edited 2007-05-21 21:38
You are completely missing the point… These laptops are a window on the world, and a less expensive way to distribute textbooks, for countries where most families don’t have PC’s, textbooks are (literally) prohibitively expensive for schools, and the laptop is all the kids *have*.
No, you’re missing the point. Most of the kids that would receive one of these laptops live in impoverished countries. Bets on how long it takes these kids to sell these laptops to pay for basic necessities (ie. food, shelter, etc) — or how about luxuries that they currently can’t afford? Honestly, technical folks (not lumping you into that group) from wealthy western countries can be incredibly bone-stupid at times. Negroponte and other would-be do-gooders should come down from their academic ivory towers every once and awhile to become acquainted with the notion that computers are not going to make much of a difference in these kids’ lives. It would probably be better in the long run to spend the money on malaria vaccines, AIDS drugs & prevention programs, forgiving Third World debt, etc.
No, you’re missing the point. Most of the kids that would receive one of these laptops live in impoverished countries. Bets on how long it takes these kids to sell these laptops to pay for basic necessities (ie. food, shelter, etc) — or how about luxuries that they currently can’t afford? Honestly, technical folks (not lumping you into that group) from wealthy western countries can be incredibly bone-stupid at times. Negroponte and other would-be do-gooders should come down from their academic ivory towers every once and awhile to become acquainted with the notion that computers are not going to make much of a difference in these kids’ lives. It would probably be better in the long run to spend the money on malaria vaccines, AIDS drugs & prevention programs, forgiving Third World debt, etc.
Oh, please! Look at these children: http://olpc-ceibal.blogspot.com/2007/05/villa-cardal-vive-con-entus… or these ones: http://www.j5live.com/?p=357. Do you think that those children eat grass, live in shacks and drink water from sewers?
The only “bone-stupid” people are the ones (not lumping you into that group) that don’t understand that the OLPC project is for countries where the greater part of children already has food, water, houses and schools, countries where the basic needs are fulfilled but there’s not enough money for the rest.
Edited 2007-05-21 23:51
The only “bone-stupid” people are the ones (not lumping you into that group) that don’t understand that the OLPC project is for countries where the greater part of children already has food, water, houses and schools, countries where the basic needs are fulfilled but there’s not enough money for the rest.
My advice, if you’re so confident that the program is worthwhile, is to send as much of YOUR OWN MONEY to Negroponte as possible. But my guess is that you won’t. This is all feel-good nonsense, driven by guilt-ridden people in western countries that want to make a difference, but whose myopia limits them to doing it in a way that attempts to leverage their own skills; which, sadly, are of limited use to people whose basic needs are barely being met.
“””
It would probably be better in the long run to spend the money on malaria vaccines, AIDS drugs & prevention programs, forgiving Third World debt, etc.
“””
For the sake of argument, say 90% of the laptops *were* sold for food or shelter. OK. That’s still a plus.
Where would the laptops end up? Still a plus, I guess. They’d be doing someone some good.
But those 10% that were used for the intended purpose?
Priceless! Priceless to the children. Priceless to the countries they live in.
You see, the real value is not evenly distributed with the laptops. It is concentrated in those children who truly value the opportunity they represent.
Malaria vaccines and anti-HIV drugs are well and good.
But it is education and personal enablement that we need most on planet Earth. Not just more warm bodies.
Educational initiatives are where the real hope lies.
If the success rate turns out to be lower than one might have hoped for, so be it. What is the point in increasing the population if we aren’t increasing enlightenment and the ability to succeed and contribute back?
Edited 2007-05-21 23:56
I think you’re kidding yourself if you think that these machines will ultimately end up in the hands of children. What will happen is that they will be sold to people who can already afford them — and the original recipients will claim they were “lost” or “stolen”. You seem to be okay with that (“so be it”) — which is fine by me — but, please, please, please, do it with private funding so that I don’t have to devote any taxes to more semi-worthless causes.
There’s definitely plans for disruption here, especially taking into account that the OLPC needs a minimum of 3 or 5 million orders and is sold in 250,000 unit lots.
Now, if Intel says that their laptop is better, what about:
– power consumption (yes, it’s more than known that electricity is a luxury for many)
– environmental impact (materials used, end of life)
– security (virus, spyware, blah, blah) – important for children
– Long-term pricing (will it be able to reach a mark as low as $100
– Reliability
– Attractiveness for children (please, not another white, grey, black, beige horror)
– Case robusteness (those classmate edges… they look pretty fancy, but prone to disappear on a fall at the same time)
What about that? It’s not just about price, profit, mind share, whatever. At least make something credible – and yes I agree Classmate is another opportunity for many to have a computer, but at least don’t try to spoil other’s willing to do some go, especially trying to spoil with what looks like a rushed design.
Edited 2007-05-21 21:27
Where is the evidence to support the claims of “dumping”? Why is it impossible to imagine a profit when charging $200 for a simple low-performance laptop-like machine? With their in-house R&D departments, production facilities, and existing business contacts I can’t imagine Intel ~not~ making money on their $200 laptops.
The actual release dates and product costs will be the key factor as to which “$100” laptop will become standard. Already the OLPC prices estimates have risen by 75%, and I’ve read some reports that the price of the Classmate could be as high as $400 intially. Both have been shipped in limited numbers for testing, but I suspect the Intel can achieve full-scale production and shipping sooner.
-Bob
“””
With their in-house R&D departments, production facilities, and existing business contacts I can’t imagine Intel ~not~ making money on their $200 laptops.
“””
You mean Intel and the Intel-based laptop vendors could have been selling us $200 laptops at a profit all along but sold us $800 ones instead?
Why would they do that?
Edited 2007-05-21 22:00
You mean Intel and the Intel-based laptop vendors could have been selling us $200 laptops at a profit all along but sold us $800 ones instead?
Why would they do that?
Uh, because they knew you could afford $800.
And there’s no comparison between the “100 Laptops” and your $800 product. These machines have very little marketibility in the normal consumer market. How many consumers want a laptop that can’t run a full version of Office? Or play games? Or show DVD movies? Or edit video files? Or record CDs?
I think a comparable consumer product would be the Texas Instruments graphing calculators. Those cost under $100 and TI makes $$millions$$ selling them.
-Bob
“””
I think a comparable consumer product would be the Texas Instruments graphing calculators. Those cost under $100 and TI makes $$millions$$ selling them.
“””
The Intel ClassMate:
===
* Customized mini chassis 245 x 196 x 44
* CPU: Intel(R) Celeron M mobile processor (915GMS + ICH6-M)
* CPU clock speed 900 MHz (Zero L2 cache 400 MHz FSB)
* 800 x 480 7 inch diagonal LCD, LVDS Interface, LED B/L
* 256MB of DDR2 RAM
* 2GB NAND flash memory (connected via USB)
* 10/100M ethernet
* Realtek WLAN 802.11b/g with antenna (connected via USB)
* Intel GM915 integrated graphics chip (8MB shared memory)
* Built in microphone
* Built in stereo speakers
* Stereo 2 channel audio, jacks for external stereo speakers and microphones, Line-out, and Mic-in
* Integrated keyboard with hot keys
* Cycle touch pad with left and right buttons
* Customized Note Taker with wireless pen
* TPM1.2 (Trusted Platform Module from Infineon Technologies)
* Power source:
o 6-cell Li-ion battery with adapter – approximately 4 hours usage
===
You are absolutely right. I had never realized that its specs were almost identical to TI’s graphing calculators.
TI sells theirs for under $100. Why, oh why, is Intel overcharging for their “ClassMate Graphing Calculator”?
Is it the 7 inch screen? Or perhaps the 400MHz FSB? The stereo speakers? No?
Maybe the TPM module? Yeah, that’s it.
Perhaps the wireless pen?
Ok. The 10/100 ethernet or the wireless-G?
Perhaps the 2GB flash drive?
Or maybe the 6-cell Li-Ion battery…
But I do see your point. They’re not dumping a laptop. They are making an obscene profit on a glorified graphing calculator!
Edited 2007-05-21 22:48
My professor of General Pedagogy is a great fan of Negroponte.
My professor is a TOTAL IDIOT!!! I really hate him and Negroponte too!!!
All I hope is that OLPC takes off and is successful, even as they’re getting mired in politics with Intel. Those that support the ideals promulgated by OLPC need to show solidarity with their project.