Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times)
The New York Times is running a front page
article on the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.
"When computer industry executives heard about a plan to build a $100 laptop for the developing world’s children, they generally ridiculed the idea. How could you build such a computer, they asked, when screens alone cost about $100?
Mary Lou Jepsen, the chief technologist for the project, likes to refer to the insight that transformed the machine from utopian dream to working prototype as “a really wacky idea.”
Ms. Jepsen, a former Intel chip designer, found a way to modify conventional laptop displays, cutting the screen’s manufacturing cost to $40 while reducing its power consumption by more than 80 percent. As a bonus, the display is clearly visible in sunlight."
(Thanks to Jonathan B. Horen.)
(Log in to post comments)
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Nov 30, 2006 20:36 UTC (Thu) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link] I've never understood why the scope of the project is so narrow. Economy of scale dictates that the more units manufactured, the lower the cost, so why limit the market to children?
Literally billions of people could make use of a laptop like this. I wouldn't hesitate a second to spend $150 for a low power use laptop, with a wireless chip that can maintain a grid with the cpu suspended and a mechanical device to recharge the batteries when there isn't an outlet available.
Get them to the children first, sure, but why stop there?
Big companies Posted Nov 30, 2006 21:08 UTC (Thu) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] Another market would be companies that need something simple for international non-office workers who need more screen and keyboard power than a cell phone -- maybe not delivery drivers, but loan officers, insurance adjusters, repair technicians, sales people.
Big companies Posted Dec 1, 2006 5:16 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Can you sell million laptops to this market with 2-3 sales persons ? No ? Then what are you asking about ? Economy of scale indeed. In this case it works against commercial version in a big way. OLPC just don't have sales force big enough to sell quantum less then one million (or may be half-million). Commercial users want hundreds, rarely thousands... End of story... Later, when hardware will be produces by 50 millions units per year someone (not OLPC) will probably organize a way to sell this thing by retail. But OLPC does not have such resources - end never will...
Big companies Posted Dec 1, 2006 16:45 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] No, OLPC itself can't and shouldn't take the design to this market, but a company like http://www.amltd.com/ might choose to license the design for what could be a big market niche: mobile transaction workers whose IT needs are more complex than a delivery driver's but don't need a hard-to-administer full-featured laptop.
Big companies Posted Dec 1, 2006 17:52 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I think the point is that the cost of that additional marketing and distribution makes it more than $150. In fact, I suspect it brings it close enough to the $500 Dell with more capabilities that it wouldn't compete.
Big companies Posted Dec 2, 2006 12:37 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Rough estimate is 2 x price(OLPC). If OLPC price is $150 then commercial version will be $300. If price of OLPC will go down to $100 (as promised) commercial version can go down to $200 - and it's much better and surely competive at this price point with PDA's and laptops (for some workloads, of course).
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Nov 30, 2006 21:50 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well I think it's important to have realistic scope or at least firmly defined goals.
Since they are doing it for essentially non-profit there is little purpose beyond providing laptops for their current goals. They said later on that maybe there will be commercial aims, but not right now.
Remember their goal is mainly to replace the need with books and libraries and such with a simple laptop. That is why, despite the critizisms, this project is worth pursuing.
It's obvious that education is a requirement for moving sociaty up out of poverty. Part of education is having access to books and course material. With the laptop information can be dissiminated much more cheaply then would ever be possible through printed books. People have a hard enough time making sure their gradeschool math books and ciriculum is up to date in small midwestern towns in the U.S., now can you imagine the difficulties and costs associated with providing similar material to the poor of Africa or other places?
So the laptop is specificly designed for that goal. If was to be designed for office workers or a toy for wealther people or whatever then it would have to had a compromise in design and increased expense to make it more flexible.
Now it's not like what they are doing won't benifit people in other places.. For instance having the Linux system optimized for low-resource computers is possibly going to help a lot of people because old PCs are so numerious in some places that you'd have a hard time giving them away, but they may not be very capable of running modern software. Well because the optimization work being done for the OLPC project then they probably can use modern software.
Anyways for us to play around with there will be much cooler gadgets pretty soon, hopefully.
For instance I'd thought I'd like to have a OLPC laptop.. until I saw this:
OpenMoko is a effort to design as fully open smart phone as possible.
I like their little slide presentation, too..
GSM phone, 2.8 inch VGA touch screen. MicroSD slot (1gig flash currently aviable). USB, Bluetooth 2.0, 128 megs of onboard flash, 128 megs worth of ram, stereo sound, 266mhz cpu.
Seems like a great thing to play around with and except for the display and wifi it's as nice or nicer then that 100 dollar laptop.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Nov 30, 2006 23:40 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Some people in the developed countries may want to buy an OLPC because they want to test their software on it. Some could buy it for their children. It could also be a great gift for someone else's child. Not everybody is looking for the coolest gadgets. Some people actually need an educational computer.But if OLPCs are not sold freely, some customers won't be able to buy them. This would keep the production low and the cost high. In this case, the project will be harming its own cause. The project would have hard time raising money for helping children in poor countries if the project leaders don't strive to use the money wisely and refuse to sell the device to the potential donors' compatriots.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 1:20 UTC (Fri) by loening (subscriber, #174) [Link] And from a more practical standpoint, if they don't make these things available commercially, the children are just going to sell their laptops on ebay. Having these laptops available commercially will reduce the incentive to create a blackmarket of these things.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 5:20 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's chaper to produce additional 10'000-20'000 thousands of laptops needed to replace stolen ones then to sell them in retail. Since any OLPC offer on eBay can be sent straight to the police (OLPC toys are not to be sold: versions for developer are loaned and thus "not for sale" and pupil's versions are not for sale as well) it'll natually limit amount of such trade...
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 10:45 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Since any OLPC offer on eBay can be sent straight to the police (OLPC toys are not to be sold: versions for developer are loaned and thus "not for sale" and pupil's versions are not for sale as well) it'll natually limit amount of such trade...I think you're really optimistic. Remember that food aids sent to the third world tended to end up being sold somewhere else and the dictators just bought weapons with that money - I don't think it will be any different with the laptops.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 15:49 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is huge problem, but I don't think commercial version can solve this problem. Food aids are usually sent to countries with totally failed government, OLPC is sent to countries with government who at least have money to pay $150 per laptop - this means at least minimally functional government :)
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 18:31 UTC (Fri) by anonymous1 (guest, #41963) [Link] "food aids sent to the third world tended to end up being sold somewhere else"
The difficulty with food aid is the oppurtunity for theft and the difficulty of targeting people who need food.
That is why Amartya Sen recommends a "Work for Money" scheme, which is self selecting. And selling the food in the market, the people who need food can buy it.
Buy the book "Hunger and Public Action" and learn more.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 10:30 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] People have a hard enough time making sure their gradeschool math books and ciriculum is up to date in small midwestern towns in the U.S.That's surprising. I don't remember anything in my primary school/high school math books that wasn't created at least 100 years ago. Or in the physics book for that matter, so I'd guess these things are pretty stable.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 15:51 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Unfortunatelly not. There are small yet significant change in these books all the time. And it's VERY important to have single book for the whole class - even if the sciense is the same, order, approach, exact numbers will differ - and it'll make any other book useless...
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 17:42 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I know one way that math books have changed significantly in the past 100 years: calculators. Teaching logarithms from a book that has logarithm tables in the back is just irresponsible today. I haven't seen a primary school math text since the arrival of the ubiquitous calculator, but I hope it has more emphasis on hitting the right buttons on the calculator than on doing long division. The only other thing I know that justifies writing new books is that publishing technology has been advancing so that the newer books are pedagogically better.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Nov 30, 2006 22:40 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Economy of scale dictates that the more units manufactured, the lower the cost, so why limit the market to children?Yes, and they could raise the price on the consumer version to help subsidise the project. Maybe change the green plastic to red or blue to identify it as a computer that hasn't (hopefully) been stolen from a kid.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Nov 30, 2006 23:41 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] > Economy of scale dictates that the more units manufactured, the lower> the cost, so why limit the market to children?
Exactly, it is Captain Obvious level stuff. IF we have all of the facts. The only way their resistence to allowing a commercial version makes sense is if the true cost is NOT $150 as we are being lead to believe. If it really only cost the OLPC project $150 to get product off of Quanta's loading dock there would be zero reason for them to object to allowing Quanta to also sell a few containers to anyone else willing to drop the cash, especially if they paid a small premium/royalty to OLPC, on the theory that more quantity means lower per unit cost. Yes they would probably insist on first dibs on units in the event of a supply chain glitch but those details would be easy to work out. Add in some markup and a $250 delivered (via webstore) price would be very profitable for a medium size outfit.
I'd guess there is some smoke and mirrors regarding the pricing and opening up talks about a commercial version would blow the lid off.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 0:26 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Reportedly the cost right now is closer to $200. Not too cheap, considering the price of some desktop computers right now (something like $90 in volume).
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 0:33 UTC (Fri) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link] You forget to include the price of a keyboard, battery and a monitor.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 17:49 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Also mass storage, wireless network adapter, and power generator.
DIY OLPC Posted Dec 1, 2006 21:57 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Plus a tiny webcam.500 MB of Compact Flash is 16 € here (which roughly translates into $16 substracting the VAT and changing into dollars). Wifi for the MCJr seems to be another $50. I've seen an ad today for a 7" TFT portable TV, a screen as big as OLPC's and there you have your battery; all for 79 €. Let's add a $5 keyboard. The plastic lens camera is included in most phones so let's say $5. All in all: 90 + 16 + 50 + 79 + 5 + 5 = $245. And you get a TV in the bargain. Minus packaging, economies of huge scale (for 5 million units minimum) and commercial benefit.
It's the Icing Posted Dec 7, 2006 11:26 UTC (Thu) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link] You mean $208, that price includes internet connection, servers and training for each school. So it'sabit harder to evaluate than one might think. Esepcially since there is nothing there saying how long they will supply those extras.
The pricec seems abit optimistic, to build an entire infrastructure like that is a big job.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 0:58 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Actually there are large costs in selling to the public. Packaging has to be different (one PC per box), you have to allow for warranty returns (rather than simple credits for failed equipment), shipping to consumers is a totally different process to shipping containers via a customs agent, you need to consider and meet consumer protection laws. But the problem with the OLPC project isn't the hardware. Firstly, it's the cost -- $100 per new student is still the entire non-wage component of most education departments. The figure needs to be more like $5. Basically it's the OLPC versus all the school excursions, concerts, sports days that would been to be forgone to buy the OLPC computer. And at the current cost that's all those activities. Secondly it's the risk. There is no education-focussed software from the project, that's meant to somehow happen later after the equipment has been purchased. There is no protype hardware+software working that meets the project's specifications, so the risks of commiting now are great. The principals invovled have a history of over-claiming the benefits of the technologies that are developing, so there's a risk that the benefits will not eventuate. As one example, the project claims that the OLPC will be able to relace textbooks but has yet to get the major textbook manufacturers to supply material. Thirdly, there's a lack of pedagogical competitivness, especially since the OLPC will swallow the budget for any other teaching aids. Is is better to learn about the world from looking at it through a screen or going on an excursion? Does a computer lead to more effective learning than supplying needy children with breakfast? Is a computer under a tree more effective than a desk under a roof? The view of one of the people who can answer this best, India's Education Secretary Sudeep Banerjee, is "no".
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 8:03 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] ""Firstly, it's the cost -- $100 per new student is still the entire non-wage component of most education departments. The figure needs to be more like $5. Basically it's the OLPC versus all the school excursions, concerts, sports days that would been to be forgone to buy the OLPC computer. And at the current cost that's all those activities.""
Well you also have to realise that the laptop will replace the costs producing and shipping books.. also it has the advantage of having the latest edition of a paticular work immediately aviable to everybody. Also it would help deal with circulum and help take a lot of the workload off of teachers and staff. It lowers the costs of producing homework and other such stuff.
With good resources aviable on the internet it also counters the cost of a library. Essentially you get a world-class access to all sorts of material. Much better then any small or medium sized town in the USA is able to provide their students just 10 years ago.
So it does help to offset a lot of the traditonal costs of running a school. Which is the only reason it even remotely makes sense.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 4, 2006 0:33 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Well you also have to realise that the laptop will replace the costs producing and shipping books. That's a claimed benefit by the OLPC project. To date they have signed no textbook manufacturer. Also developing countries are trying to move away from textbooks. The typical primary school 20 years ago had a teacher reading the textbook word-for-word to a class of children. Using textbooks for primary education as a justification for the OLPC is to encourage a return to that inefficient teaching style. It's typical of the technology-oriented discussion of the OLPC that these basic learning issues are not viewed seriously. It lowers the costs of producing homework and other such stuff. In this aspact the OLPC would only benefiting the private schools for the wealthy, since they are the only primary schools that actually set homework in most developing countries. You've nicely demonstrated the disengagement of the OLPC promoters from the real world. Pulling a 1985 UNESCO countries report from my shelf it falls open at India (sorry it's old but I'm not going to walk to the uni library for a recent copy): 89% of primary schools lack toilets, 60% have no drinking water, 60% lack solid walls. Unlike most poor countries, nearly all of India's teachers have some training -- this was 20 year effort and is being repaid by the first world recruiting those teachers to fill their own underinvestment in teaching. Things have improved somewhat since 1985 due to an investment programme which set the minimum equipment for a school at two rooms, two teachers, books, ball, blackboard, maps, and some basic science and math aids. Even this modest change in teaching style (from reading aloud from textbooks to the more engaging use of the blackboard) was not supported by sufficent teacher re-training, in many regions the aids where put into the cupboard unopened. The point is that India struggled hard to get this very basic minimum into their schools and to get teachers trained to use them. The implication of the OLPC project is that this minimum will not be raised but will be spent on computers instead. Furthermore, the cost of eacher re-training required massively outstips the purchase of the OLPC hardware itself, but there is no budget left for that at the current OLPC pricing. These are the basic reason India knocked back the OLPC project. With good resources aviable on the internet it also counters the cost of a library. Essentially you get a world-class access to all sorts of material. What "good resources" to replace a primary school library? Let's take a basic resource, readers for five year olds. You need at least 200 at various levels. "Show me the URL!"
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 7, 2006 7:46 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] When I was in high school, one of the mathematics text books was co-written by one of my teachers. This wasn't too surprising since the text book needed to teach the curriculum for the state I live in.
Similarly, the market for the text book was limited to places where it matched the curriculum. Now if the education department decided that they were no longer going to proscribe paper text books but instead use electronic versions then there would be no market for the paper version. Furthermore, the book could be provided directly by the education department bypassing the publisher.
I doubt acquiring the text books will be a problem here.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 10, 2006 23:24 UTC (Sun) by illtyd (guest, #2124) [Link] "Also it would help deal with circulum and help take a lot of the workload off of teachers and staff."
I guess that you don't work in education. Technology provides interesting new ways to learn. It very rarely reduces the workload of teachers.
Tinfoil hat mode ON Posted Dec 1, 2006 19:34 UTC (Fri) by landley (subscriber, #6789) [Link] Actually, if you saw their presentation at OLS, they're worried abouttheft. $150 may be cheap but they're handing them out in parts of the world where that's more than a month's wages in a small, easily transported bundle.
The reason they want to make it very obviously a child's posession (bright
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 3:50 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] I've never understood why the scope of the project is so narrow. Economy of scale dictates that the more units manufactured, the lower the cost, so why limit the market to children? Do you have any idea how many school-age children exist in the Third World, the target market? We're not talking about selling 5000 units. They won't even begin production until they've sold 5 million units — if that's not enough volume to launch an innovative, unproven design, what is? 5 million is just the beginning, too. If the project proceeds as planned, I heard Jim Gettys claim a few months ago, they expect a steady state of something like (IIRC) 50 million units per year. As the laptop proves itself in the field, governments will sign on and production will have to ramp up. Plenty of time to consider commercial spinoffs after you've started selling millions of the things. There are problems with the OLPC concept, to be sure, but economies of scale is hardly one of them.
For $150, Third-World Laptop Stirs Big Debate (New York Times) Posted Dec 1, 2006 18:58 UTC (Fri) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] > They won't even begin production until they've sold 5 million units> ? if that's not enough volume to launch an innovative, unproven > design, what is? It was claimed somewhere that with 5 million laptops sold, OLPC would actually be probably the most sold laptop model in world. After reading the specs of it, I would like one (with adult sized keyboard) with me to the summer cottage or boat, as neither of them have electricity. Cheap, small and somewhat water-resistant sounds nice to be taken for canoeing too. :-) Btw. one reason why schoolbooks change, is that when the time allocated in school for given subject (history, biology, math...) changes, the books should adapt so that teacher can comfortably go through it within the number of years for which it is intended. The schoolbook is supposed to be quite familiar to the smaller children after they've gone through it at school, only in later education children are supposed to need to go through the books on their own and have enough motivation & patience for that.
Instant e-waste problem? Posted Dec 1, 2006 19:49 UTC (Fri) by krishna (subscriber, #24080) [Link] With OLPC only taking orders in units of a million at a time, isn't thisa glaring e-waste time bomb? Very recent news seems to indicate that it's starting to become a problem in Africa, which I'd ungenerously call the bottom of the barrel for technology hand-me-downs. I'd think politicians could easily use the line -- "No interest in these laptops until we can be guaranteed they can be completely and safely recycled when no longer needed, which is now a life-cycle of a few years" -- to justify objections to them. Close your eyes and imagine a million laptops in a landfill, then mentally reverse-engineer what changes to the laptop design would prevent that from happening. Personally, I think *no* such laptops should be considered until the recycling/breakdown plan is completely known and lab-tested. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L01932774.htm
|
|||||||||||