Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times) [LWN.net]

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 16:47 UTC (Fri) by Sutoka (guest, #43890) [Link]

>Negropointe, if you believe so strongly that you have 
>the best product, let it prove itself in the marketplace rather than 
>running to 60 Minutes and trying to turn it into a PR war, and trying to
>eliminate all competition in any way you can.

Unfortunately 'let the bast man win' is generally more about your 
marketing, than about your product.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 17:03 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Also, Negroponte isn't running a business to compete with Intel in the free market, he's running a charity. If you say he needs to think of himself as in competition to build the best product, third world children are going to lose out, because that's not where the money is.

Any aid from Intel would be swamped by the effect of the competition from Intel and the Wintel lobbyists bribing third world education ministers not to use products with Linux rather than Windows in them.

That said, Intel has to do what's best for its stockholders, so maybe their interests are just not compatible.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 17:27 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

Unfortunately, government suppliers always have a sad story for why they are providing a
sub-par product at a greater cost than the free market and yet they continue to request (and
often get) their protection.

This comment is not specifically aimed at OLPC, but at the previous comment 
(which I agree with) in case someone thought it was a valid reason (are there really any?) to
seek government protection.  Whether it applies to OLPC remains to be seen by the behavior of
those who push it and its ultimate price/performance.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 17:46 UTC (Fri) by riblack (guest, #49810) [Link]

> One can hardly blame Intel for not acceding to OLPC's demands that they
> drop their own Classmate project and sign on with OLPC, a product which
> uses AMD's and not Intel's processors, in an exclusive deal.

OLPC is not necessarily married to any particular chip manufacturer, they just likely got a
better deal from AMD for this XO generation.

Below is a snippet from OLPC News 2007-12-30 http://lwn.net/Articles/263451/

> 4. Open Firmware: Mitch Bradley continued to provide G1G1 customer
> support, for example, chasing down some problems with SD cards. He
> also added the ability to delete JFFS2 files from Open Firmware and
> fixed Tickets #5717, #5585, and #5727, all improvements to the overall
> OFW performance and reliability. Preparations continue on OFW for the
> Intel prototype XO board.

Note the last sentence. ("Preparations continue on OFW for the Intel prototype XO board.")


The feeling I get from the relationship between OLPC and Intel is that Intel believes that
OLPC, running as a charity, _may_ end up affecting their bottom line and has therefore been
"stand offish" about the project from the beginning.

Intel apparently has recently decided that keeping their Classmate project is better for them
than providing hardware to OLPC.

I can't say I blame their decision.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 18:13 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]

> an exclusive deal [with AMD]

It's not exclusive; an Intel-based XO is/was planned.

> trying to eliminate all competition in any way you can.

It has been alleged that the Classmate is being sold at below cost price.  If true, that's a
classic "eliminate competition" strategy.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 18:25 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

Yes, "eliminate the competition" by pricing your product 50% *higher* than the competition you
are trying to eliminate.  After all, who would buy an OLPC at $200... when they can get a
Classmate for $300?  The "dumping" theory really doesn't work.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 18:44 UTC (Fri) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]

Only if you take an obtusely local view.

The competition isn't between something so simplistic as hardware,
it's between paradigms.  The OLPC paradigm is one which starts a
separate ecosystem -- one of decoupling from traditional power grids,
traditional (read commercial) OS/application stacks, 
and even (to some extent) traditional server grids for the internet.

The "classmate" is simply a entry-level traditional PC -- Windows capable,
high power -- a hook into a lifetime of consumption up the upgrade treadmill.

The models of education that devolve from the two paradigms thus reflect
their characteristics: one sees computers as enabling technologies -- the
other sees them as platforms for vocational training in using applications.

Guess which paradigm sends more future cash to the commercial industries?

Guess which threatens even the mindset that justifies much of the current 
status quo?

Is it any wonder that Intel would exploit its vast commercial holdings
and wealth to pour filth on the OLPC effort?  

My only surprise was the naivete which Negroponte showed in welcoming 
them onboard for the brief detente.  Apparently his brother encouraged
the settlement -- and his brother, despite having a thoroughly 
detestable record in dabbling in the politics of colonialism and murderous client regimes in
the last three decades, is hardly a naif.

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 19:02 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  endecotp said that if Intel is selling the
Classmate at below cost that it is an "eliminate the competition" strategy.  I pointed out
that the Classmate is priced 50% *higher* than the competition that they are allegedly trying
to eliminate.  You are saying that the OLPC is a superior machine for the purpose.  How does
that make Intel's higher priced machine more of an "eliminate the competition" strategy?  It
just doesn't make sense.

It's pointless to just compare price of goods

Posted Jan 5, 2008 12:05 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

If you have competition with the products - then such comparison is fair if you compare paradigms - it's not. If you want analogy from non-IT field it's like trams (streetcars in U.S.) vs cars. Even if you sell cars way below cost they are more expensive then trams. Yet if someone does this by trying to persuade someone to switch to cars - it's "elimination of completion" because trams only make sense when certain percentage of population use them. Result ? Compare U.S. and Europe (small towns like Zürich are most stricking).

Situation with OLPC vs Classmate is the same: OLPC does have less power then Classmate (that's why it's cheaper) but it's designed to be used in grid and to does not need too much power. Classmate is designed as entry-level product which uses normal bloatware. Even if it's more powerful, faster and more expensive - it'll feed inadequate... Looks similar ?

Intel Leaves Group Backing Education PCs (NY Times)

Posted Jan 4, 2008 21:28 UTC (Fri) by kh (subscriber, #19413) [Link]

The hardware is quite different between the two machines. Just because they are charging $100 more does not mean that Intel and/or Microsoft is not subsidizing the price so that they can dump it at below the cost of manufacture. And that does not even take into consideration Microsoft offering "marketing dollars" and other bribes for organizations that will agree to purchase it.

Quoting:
Mba-Uzoukwu wrote that Microsoft is still negotiating an agreement that would give TSC US$400,000 for marketing activities around the Classmate PCs when those computers are converted to Windows.