Intel pulls out of the OLPC project | The Coffeehouse

Ray6

... according to the Wall Street Journal.

It seems that Negroponte wanted Intel to stop working on its own ClassMate PC project and throw its full support behind the One Laptop Per Child.

Intel refused, and walked off into the sunset.

It would be great if they could patch things up, but I don't hold out much hope.

esoteric
λ

Negroponte gave a pretty damning statement about Intel's motives and behavior with respect to their late involvement in the OLPC XO project.

Nicolas Negroponte wrote:
Intel was unwilling to work cooperatively with OLPC on software development. Over the entire six months it was a member of the association, Intel contributed nothing of value to OLPC: Intel never contributed in any way to our engineering efforts and failed to provide even a single line of code to the XO software efforts - even though Intel marketed its products as being able to run the XO software. The best Intel could offer in regards to an “Intel inside” XO laptop was one that would be more expensive and consume more power - exactly the opposite direction of OLPC’s stated mandate and vision.
Despite OLPC’s best efforts to work things out with Intel and several warnings that their behavior was untenable, it is clear that Intel’s heart has never been in working collaboratively as a part of OLPC. This is well illustrated by the way in which our separation was announced single-handedly by Intel; Intel issued a statement to the press behind our backs while simultaneously asking us to work on a joint statement with them. Actions do speak louder than words in this case. As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

On the other hand, the constant "THINK ABOUT THE POOR CHILDREN!" cry from Negroponte is starting to sound more and more hypocritical every day...

If he's so interested about the poor children, why doesn't he just make the damn machines and give them away? It's not like he has to make a profit on them, so why didn't he asked to the big charity people?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

Nicolas Negroponte wrote:The best Intel could offer in regards to an “Intel inside” XO laptop was one that would be more expensive and consume more power - exactly the opposite direction of OLPC’s stated mandate and vision.

oh dear. I think Mr Negroponte underestimates the cost of developing a new processor model, and also underestimates the value that Intel get from their manufacturers because the processor is so widely used (big business drives costs down).

I think the OLPC is a nice idea and all, but I think it is fundamentally the wrong direction for Africa at this time. I think that for the OLPC to make economic sense in Africa, it needs to be teaching work skills; I don't want to seem the scrooge, but giving kids really expensive toys in class isn't the way Africa should be progressing, given its current situation at the moment.

esoteric
λ

evildictaitor wrote:
oh dear. I think Mr Negroponte underestimates the cost of developing a new processor model, and also underestimates the value that Intel get from their manufacturers because the processor is so widely used (big business drives costs down).

So how is it that AMD can deliver what Intel apparently cannot? Is AMD loosing money on this, you think?

evildictaitor wrote:
I think the OLPC is a nice idea and all, but I think it is fundamentally the wrong direction for Africa at this time. I think that for the OLPC to make economic sense in Africa, it needs to be teaching work skills; I don't want to seem the scrooge, but giving kids really expensive toys in class isn't the way Africa should be progressing, given its current situation at the moment.

Saying a networked computer with learning software is an "expensive toy" is somewhat of an extreme mischaracterization. I don't know what's best for Africa, but it offers more value than a simple toy.

esoteric
λ

PaoloM wrote:
Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

On the other hand, the constant "THINK ABOUT THE POOR CHILDREN!" cry from Negroponte is starting to sound more and more hypocritical every day...

If he's so interested about the poor children, why doesn't he just make the damn machines and give them away? It's not like he has to make a profit on them, so why didn't he asked to the big charity people?

I'm sorry Paolo, this sounds incredibly narrow-minded and cynical. First of all, the idea must be to create something with minimal profits for the benefit of developing nations - yes a truly altruistic endeavour - how suspicious.

Second of all, if Intel's interests is profit, and profit alone, what do you think Negroponte's interest is, and what does that say about the moral weight here?

Third of all, if Intel's motivation was to maximize profit, why did they even join this effort? The very idea here is to help developing countries. That implies minimizing profit [at least in the mid-term, - and it doesn't imply giving the stuff away]. The OLPC is not for everyone and it shouldn't be seen as a permanent initiative.

I completely fail to see the hipocracy of Negroponte here.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

esoteric wrote:

evildictaitor wrote:oh dear. I think Mr Negroponte underestimates the cost of developing a new processor model, and also underestimates the value that Intel get from their manufacturers because the processor is so widely used (big business drives costs down).

So how is it that AMD can deliver what Intel apparently cannot? Is AMD loosing money on this, you think?

I suspect AMD is not making a profit on the OLPC project. No, my point was to say that Intel's decision to not make a new processor was probably because making a new, low powered one would have been even more expensive than just bundling their current processor.

AMD has a different structure to Intel, and so they might have components that fit more easilly together or something which makes developing lightweight processors easier (I don't know).

Suggesting that Intel was doing this maliciously is a bit unnessisary.

[/quote]

esoteric wrote:

evildictaitor wrote:I think the OLPC is a nice idea and all, but I think it is fundamentally the wrong direction for Africa at this time. I think that for the OLPC to make economic sense in Africa, it needs to be teaching work skills; I don't want to seem the scrooge, but giving kids really expensive toys in class isn't the way Africa should be progressing, given its current situation at the moment.

Saying a networked computer with learning software is an "expensive toy" is somewhat of an extreme mischaracterization. I don't know what's best for Africa, but it offers more value than a simple toy.

Well it seems that it can serve one of three purposes:

1) To teach young people skills which will be seriously beneficial to their local economy, such as word processing skills, design skills or heaven forbid, even programming.

2) To teach young people skills which they could be better and more cheaply taught via teachers and books, e.g. Math, English, Communication, Literature etc.

3) To not teach young people at all, and basically be a massive waste of time.

Now, maybe I'm cynical, but I don't see the first of those buckets being strongly fulfilled, and it is only the first of these that would warrant the cost being placed on the African nations in question, since the alternative is just paying for education in other, more effective ways.

AndyC

Of course the fact that Mr Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market has nothing to do with him disliking Intel's refusal to abandon other projects, I'm sure.

TimWoodland

PaoloM wrote:
Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

I'm going to have to say I totally disagree. Businesses do NOT have an obligation to maximize their profits; they have an obligation to make optimum profits, thus balancing their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and corporate social responsibility. Intel has acknowledged this with their many C.S.R. programs.

I’m not disputing the reason Intel left, really it's his word against theirs, but I do think what you are saying is wrong. Maybe this is the same mentality that gets Microsoft into anti-trust lawsuits as often as they are.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

TimWoodland wrote:

Businesses do NOT have an obligation to maximize their profits; they have an obligation to make optimum profits.

How would you differentiate between optimal profits and maximal profits? If you'd say that optimal profits are profits with the highest return, then with a given invesmental capital maximal profits are the profits invested with the highest return (i.e. optimal profits).

Am I missing something?

TimWoodland

evildictaitor wrote:

TimWoodland wrote:

Businesses do NOT have an obligation to maximize their profits; they have an obligation to make optimum profits.

How would you differentiate between optimal profits and maximal profits? If you'd say that optimal profits are profits with the highest return, then with a given invesmental capital maximal profits are the profits invested with the highest return (i.e. optimal profits).

Am I missing something?

Maximizing profits are doing whatever it takes to make as much money as absolutely possible.

Optimal profits make the most money possible while balancing the needs of society.

Trying to think of a good example. Maximum profits would be dumping materials into a river (even if legal) that may be harmful so as to not pay disposal costs.

Optimum profit would be realizing the social responsibility to maintain clean rivers, and to dispose of the materials properly, even if it costs (thus "eating" into your profits).

esoteric
λ

AndyC wrote:
Of course the fact that Mr Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market has nothing to do with him disliking Intel's refusal to abandon other projects, I'm sure.

Please show, will you, how Nicolas Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market for altruistic laptops for the third world.

Next, can you provide any article where it is stated that OLPC have demanded Intel abandon their other projects?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

TimWoodland wrote:

Trying to think of a good example. Maximum profits would be dumping materials into a river (even if legal) that may be harmful so as to not pay disposal costs.

Optimum profit would be realizing the social responsibility to maintain clean rivers, and to dispose of the materials properly, even if it costs (thus "eating" into your profits).

It depends what the purpose of this defering is. If it's because you don't like the backlash from society, or you are doing it for PR, it falls under the "PR" camp, which fits in with the business model of most large companies by putting a "value" on public perception of their company (brand value).

If they are doing it because they want a sustainable solution to a problem so that they can continue to use it at a later stage, this is just putting a value on future resources. It's difficult to put a value on future value, but 5% per annum per annum is usually quoted.

In both of the above, you obtain an optimal (=maximal) "profit" by forcing a value on brand image (PR) and long term resource availability.

If on the other hand, we are talking about genuine principle, then perhaps Intel is not a good example of this. (No offense)

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

PaoloM wrote:
Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

On the other hand, the constant "THINK ABOUT THE POOR CHILDREN!" cry from Negroponte is starting to sound more and more hypocritical every day...

If he's so interested about the poor children, why doesn't he just make the damn machines and give them away? It's not like he has to make a profit on them, so why didn't he asked to the big charity people?

I have to agree, were going on a company with 1000 consultants that have analysis tools vs. 1 guy with "a good intention"...if they're not seeing something happening that could be possibly close to a positive response for market investment then how can Negroponte possibly have any positive influence on anything?

The "Think about the poor children" thing is getting kinda old...I'd like to see some ROI on a investment....so where are some African (or South American) kids that are using it to the optimal ability?

As far as the charity statement....I understand, to make one unit you have to have the money for said unit...the less charity you get the more self sufficient you are which keeps things like desktop icons, browser redirects, etc out of it....BUT, true, you have to either give it everything or give it nothing in this instance and if Intel didn't give any code...oh boo hoo, you can't ask them to reduce marketshare in a profitable manner to benefit your own cause when you're a non-profit.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

esoteric wrote:

PaoloM wrote: Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

On the other hand, the constant "THINK ABOUT THE POOR CHILDREN!" cry from Negroponte is starting to sound more and more hypocritical every day...

If he's so interested about the poor children, why doesn't he just make the damn machines and give them away? It's not like he has to make a profit on them, so why didn't he asked to the big charity people?

I'm sorry Paolo, this sounds incredibly narrow-minded and cynical. First of all, the idea must be to create something with minimal profits for the benefit of developing nations - yes a truly altruistic endeavour - how suspicious.

So mr. Negroponte would be all behind having more than one machine being donated, and let the market decide which one is the most suitable for any circumstance. That's why he didn't want Intel to work on a low cost laptop?

esoteric wrote:
Second of all, if Intel's interests is profit, and profit alone, what do you think Negroponte's interest is, and what does that say about the moral weight here?

Personal publicity and MIT's publicity for future grants.

esoteric wrote:
Third of all, if Intel's motivation was to maximize profit, why did they even join this effort?

To maximize profits?

esoteric wrote:
The very idea here is to help developing countries.

Negative. The idea is to produce a low cost device that can be SOLD (not given, mind you) to developing countries. What happens after that is secondary to the financial aspect of the project.

esoteric wrote:
That implies minimizing profit [at least in the mid-term, - and it doesn't imply giving the stuff away]. The OLPC is not for everyone and it shouldn't be seen as a permanent initiative.

Er... why not for everyone? Are there chidrens more deserving than others? What about the millions under the poverty level that do not live in "blessed" (by Negorponte) countries?

Ray6

esoteric wrote:

AndyC wrote:Of course the fact that Mr Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market has nothing to do with him disliking Intel's refusal to abandon other projects, I'm sure.

Please show, will you, how Nicolas Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market for altruistic laptops for the third world.

Next, can you provide any article where it is stated that OLPC have demanded Intel abandon their other projects?

Mmmm .... well I guess it is all in the interpretation. This was a comment made by an Intel spokesman according to the BBC.

BBC wrote:

"OLPC had asked Intel to end our support for non-OLPC platforms, including the Classmate PC, and to focus on the OLPC platform exclusively," said Mr Mulloy . "At the end of the day, we decided we couldn't accommodate that request."

So it all depends on your interpretation of 'end support''; it does sound a lot like 'abandon' to me.

Further more, if what Mulloy says is true, then Negroponte is asking Intel to favour OLPC over its other partners, which could be construed as trying to create barriers to market entry.

AndyC

esoteric wrote:

Please show, will you, how Nicolas Negroponte personally benefits if there is no competition in the market for altruistic laptops for the third world.

He works for OLPC. If there is no competition in that market, OLPC is pretty much guaranteed to succeed and he gets his paycheck. Don't confuse a non-profit organisation with one that is only staffed by voluntary workers.

He already had a spat with them for offering cheaper laptops than the OLPC below cost, hardly the actions of a man who is only thinking of the poor children, is it?

esoteric wrote:

Next, can you provide any article where it is stated that OLPC have demanded Intel abandon their other projects?

Here, here, here, need I go on?

esoteric
λ

A Negroponte OLPC interview

ScanIAm
On a scale of 1 to 10, people are stupid.

PaoloM wrote:
Sadly in this case, I have to trust Intel more than mr. Negroponte. At least I know that Intel is a business and its interest (and obligation to their shareholders) is to make as much money as possible. If the situation is not conductive to this, they MUST walk away.

On the other hand, the constant "THINK ABOUT THE POOR CHILDREN!" cry from Negroponte is starting to sound more and more hypocritical every day...

If he's so interested about the poor children, why doesn't he just make the damn machines and give them away? It's not like he has to make a profit on them, so why didn't he asked to the big charity people?

Mostly, because you'll never convince people to donate money to the third world so that they can buy a computer. You might get that same end result if you ask for donations to help a school or a village, but if you come right out and say "Hey, give me $100 and we'll put a computer in tiny tim's sweaty little palm", they laugh and tell you to fsck off.

So, while I do agree with you and the other posters that that see some ulterior motives in Mr. Negroponte's actions, he's kind of stuck in that position.