| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Bug number 1Bug number 1Posted Jan 12, 2009 19:58 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)In reply to: A Software Populist Who Doesn't Do Windows (New York Times) by lambda Parent article: A Software Populist Who Doesn't Do Windows (New York Times) Mark is the one who made "MSFT has a majority market share" his bug number 1 instead of something like "1 billion people have computers and 5 billion don't."
(Log in to post comments)
Bug number 1 Posted Jan 12, 2009 21:48 UTC (Mon) by grantingram (guest, #18390) [Link] 1 billion people have computers and 5 billion don't. I'm not sure what your point is: having that as Bug Number 1 suggests that your operating system development will eliminate world poverty. Which seems a stretch for any piece of software but having your aim as displacing the market share leader seems a little more down to earth.
Bug number 1 Posted Jan 12, 2009 22:14 UTC (Mon) by dowdle (subscriber, #659) [Link]
Unless you believe that all of the computerless 4 billion people are in poverty (maybe they are, I don't know) and that they and their descendents will remain in poverty for the life of your project/company... then I guess there isn't any reason to go after them.
The 1 billion people that already have a computer are probably going to buy another one in a decade or less... maybe even a couple.
Bug number 1 Posted Jan 13, 2009 1:12 UTC (Tue) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]
On the other hand, getting Ubuntu into the hands of those billions of currently computer-less people would be a great way to "fix" bug #1, so it is not like those two goals are mutually exclusive.
Bug number 1 Posted Jan 14, 2009 10:02 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Poverty is relative. I can afford a computer for $2000 every few years (that was the usual price, now it's in decline). People in third world countries can afford a computer for maybe $100 to $200, and it has to last for years under tougher conditions (heat and humidity). It's going to be a small computer, they don't have the space for a 24" screen and a tower PC (I've seen an 8-beds-in-a-room student hostel room in Asia, I know what kind of space these people have - to do their homework, they flip a small table over the bed). These people can afford to eat (but maybe not to get fat - this is actually an advantage ;-). The netbooks were a good start. But as usual, the manufacturers decided to go for larger and more expensive netbooks targeting rich countries (as third or fourth computer), instead of going for cheaper netbooks and targeting a new audience. I can understand why: Profit is low if you target poor people. IMHO the OLPC project was right about how the system should look like and be priced, but wrong about the target audience. They forgot the young adults, which in most developing countries is a big part of the population, and one that actually can afford those computers themselves (at least at the target price).
|
|
||||||||||||