Update 2: OLPC now claims it didn’t confirm laptops on sale to general public, rendering my arguments moot.
OLPC will be on sale for the general public
The BBC confirms that the OLPC will be on sale for the general public, the catch being that you must buy two, one for you, and one for a developing country. OLPC, or One Laptop Per Child, is “a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world’s children”.
Why this is wrong
What makes the OLPC people high and mighty enough to determine who is deemed worthy of paying extra, and who is deemed worthy of getting one for free? Being impoverished is global. My neighbor is mentally impaired, and is not able to function independently. Is my neighbor somehow better off than those in other countries? They don’t have health care, neither does my neighbor. The only reason my neighbor is my neighbor is because the property renter allows them to stay there out of the kindness of his heart.
You deserve free… But you… you deserve to pay double
How about in the more impoverished southern united states where people can’t afford school, computers, electricity etc. Why are they not given the same opportunity afforded to others? A child there may never be given any opportunity to move on to anything other than a gas station attendant, if they are lucky.
But Steve, that’s not true! In America they have opportunities!
Sorry, but if a community is devoid of industries and education, and this person chooses to stay there, these opportunities don’t exist. Atleast they don’t exist there any more than if someone from a “developing country” can move to a better country.
The Synposis – Help ALL Children
People will try and comment and dispute this, but until you have seen the parts of America I am talking about I suggest you broaden your scope. The point is we, as a world, need to help ALL those in need, not just the popular causes (“developing countries”). In fact, excluding affordable computers to those select groups, and not to all, is inherently against the goals set by Ubuntu. “Our work on Ubuntu is driven by a philosophy on software freedom that we hope will spread and bring the benefits of software technology to all parts of the globe.” — Emphasis on ALL
Update: I have already received in the first 10 minutes of posting this a huge base of support, so I submitted it to digg to increase awareness. (My blog has no ads etc, absolutely no financial goals here) Digg this story
Related posts:
#1 by mats on January 10, 2007 - 5:20 pm
word!
#2 by Jeff Waugh on January 10, 2007 - 5:30 pm
Um. Dude. “Free”? The nations that have signed up to OLPC are *paying* for the laptops. Cheaper than buying books for their students, and vastly more useful and effective.
Perhaps you should ask *your* government to pony up the dollars for a few million. Might be a better use of money than, you know, blowing shit up.
#3 by Ciaran on January 10, 2007 - 5:33 pm
Actually according to Wikipedia American school children are getting the laptops as part of the OLPC program, but in Massachusetts and Maine.
I believe the program will sell the laptops at their “$100″ price tag, to any government or country that is willing to buy 1,000,000 and distribute them into the ownership of children.
The idea of selling them to the general public at twice the price is to give the public what we want, and prevent a “grey market” of OLPC laptops appearing on Ebay. The fact that its going to be double for people wanting to buy outside the program is brilliant and will help raise money that will improve the laptop and bring down its cost to developing nations where it is sorely needed.
I have the money to afford one. I don’t want to tax the OLPC organisation by demanding that I pay what others can only afford to pay, I can help them by giving more. And when they come on sale, I will.
Ciaran
#4 by mindwarp on January 10, 2007 - 5:33 pm
Jeff, not sure what is unclear about this: “But customers will have to buy two laptops at once – with the second going to the developing world.”
#5 by Matthew Garrett on January 10, 2007 - 5:37 pm
OLPC hardware is pretty much crippled without being clustered – the entire UI is based around collaboration and mesh networking. Giving individual machines out as acts of charity is much less useful than providing subsidised machines to countries that have already committed to buying a large number, and are going to have the support infrastructure to cope.
So yes, given a limited number of “free” machines, I think they should go to where they’ll be most useful. And, right now, that’s not to the US. It’s not even to developing countries that aren’t buying into the OLPC project. The most benefit will come from providing them to countries that will already have a sizable number.
#6 by Jeff Waugh on January 10, 2007 - 5:41 pm
Sure. General public. Retail. Your personal statement of support for the project. Buy one, help another. Send it to someone who can use it where it matters: Among other OLPC users.
#7 by mindwarp on January 10, 2007 - 5:49 pm
So in the not so well off subgroups of our society, that have little if any pull with the government, and lack of people to organize a campaign, they should be excluded. That sounds like a great plan.
#8 by Matthew East on January 10, 2007 - 5:53 pm
Sure, there are disadvantaged people in the US, and other developed countries. However, the *average* person in the developing world needs these laptops more, that’s the whole basis for the project. If OLPC could help everyone who needs it, I’m sure they would, but you mustn’t condemn them for helping the countries that are most in need first; and no, the US is not among those countries.
#9 by mindwarp on January 10, 2007 - 6:01 pm
Matthew, I am sure that is of little comfort to those that are not *average*.
#10 by Matthew Garrett on January 10, 2007 - 6:06 pm
No, this is pretty straightforward. Produce a proposal based around getting OLPC hardware to people who need it, along with the necessary support infrastructure. Raise enough money to fund it (you’re probably looking at about $1,000,000 for the initial hardware cost for 10,000 people, plus one off expenditure for infrastructure, plus training, plus the continuing cost of any support staff you want), and then you’ll be in much the same position as the countries who are likely to get free hardware. At that point, if you don’t get any free machines, I’ll happily support your complaints.
You’re right, the people in the US who would be most likely to benefit from the machines are not in a wonderful position to lobby. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the same is true of the other countries involved. Nigerian schoolchildren didn’t raise the money – their government did.
I’m sorry that your neighbour isn’t likely to get a free OLPC, but it’s an unfortunate fact that it would be pretty much useless on its own. I’m also sorry that the US government doesn’t feel that purchasing OLPCs for less fortunate members of society would be helpful. But if you want the situation to change, then there are two simple ways of doing it – either lobby the government, or do it yourself. That’s the reality of the situation. Nobody is being treated specially here. Countries that are already buying OLPCs will get some free ones. It’s as simple as that.
#11 by Jeff Waugh on January 10, 2007 - 6:08 pm
There appears to be more of an issue with your government than with the manifestations of the stated goals and aims of the OLPC project.
#12 by Jani Monoses on January 10, 2007 - 6:47 pm
For start s/Why this is wrong/Why I think this is wrong/
It’d help making it read less sensational.
And since the OLPC works with governments not individuals or NGO-s it makes sense to target more users at once than spreading too thinly just to be globally balanced and ‘correct’. The US southern states could use a lot of help from within the US whereas many of the developing countries are mostly helpless w/o external aid after centuries of being more or less exploited by the now developed nations and all that.
Your point is a fair one, but it is only up to the OLPC to decide where they want to help. And I think people should only propose other’s articles for digging to avoid too much bias/noise/vanity.
#13 by Richard Korman on January 10, 2007 - 6:55 pm
Just a note to clarify, Maine’s current OLPC(known as the MLTI or Maine Learning Technology Initiative) is funded by the state government, and they’re using apple iBooks, as per a contract with apple computers.
As such, its not related to OLPC directly, but rather a predecessor to it, and, if i remember correctly, the first such initiative to get off the ground, since its already in place and being improved on.
Lobbying the state governments for such intiatives isnt nessasarily a bad idea, since you can point to Maine, Georgia and Massachusetts as precedents, and Maine in particular as a sucsesfully running initiative.
And for anyone thats interested, there’s more information available at: http://www.mcmel.org/MLLS/mlti/index.html
#14 by Bo Knerr on January 10, 2007 - 6:56 pm
Has anyone checked the financial situation of Mr. Negroponte? He has to get money before he will begin building these things, and the minimum order is a million. So he will get a check from some slum in Africa for $150M. A prudent fellow will make sure the check clears. Then, Negroponte hits the road and never has to deal with Boston traffic again. What a plan.
#15 by Matthew East on January 10, 2007 - 7:12 pm
Mindwarp: You are twisting my use of the word “average” there. I’m not going to pursue this further, Matthew G has pointed out what this is a no brainer of an issue.
#16 by Matthew East on January 10, 2007 - 7:13 pm
s/what/why … ooops
#17 by Matt Good on January 10, 2007 - 7:24 pm
I’m calling “Reductio ad Bushum” on this. “Bush is a bad leader therefore everything in the US is bad” is an obvious fallacy. The OLPC is developed by MIT which is in the US, so praising the project while somehow condemning the entire US is a contradiction and fails to address the issue that’s been raised.
There *are* poor people in the US and other 1st world countries. Some of these people are immigrants from the same countries that *will* be receiving these laptops. Why should these people be expected to pay twice the price for a laptop so that one can be shipped back to the town they just left?
However, I don’t think that the OLPC project is equipped to handle verifying requests from disadvantaged individuals for reduced-price laptops. Governments are better equipped to handle that kind of distribution, so I think that the OLPC project will be more effective by dealing with them.
It’s extremely unlikely the US will fund a national OLPC program since school budgetting is handled primarily at the state and local levels. US school systems do try to allocate extra funding for technology at schools in lower income communities. My sister is a teacher at an elemetary school in a primarily immigrant community and they receive extra technology funding so the students who can’t afford the technology at home will have access to it at school. As Ciaranon mentioned some US states are already in the process of allocating funds for these laptops, and I think it’s inevitable that more will follow as the project grows and they can see the successes of other schools.
#18 by Matt Good on January 10, 2007 - 7:30 pm
The CSS for the comments would benefit from adding a bit of margin between paragraphs. Longer comments are harder to read since it’s hard to tell where the paragraphs begin.
#19 by Nathan DBB on January 10, 2007 - 8:10 pm
Start thinking about costs: The laptop costs $130-208 depending on where you get your numbers ($100 is a future price point). So, most products have 100% added to the price by all the hands it has to touch (distributor, retailer and profit). Let us assume that the eBay deal with drive that from 100% to 40%.
If the laptop is $170 (average of 130 & 208) at this point, and we have to pay distributors and retailers (+40%), the price is $238. Double this to buy-one-give-one, and you are paying $476 ($238 each).
At that price and a long wait, you could look at other options. The PepperPad (version 3) is the closest thing to the OLPC (AMD Geode x86, camera, and portable). It also adds blue tooth, so you can connect to your cell phone for Internet access. Sadly, it is selling for $620.
Remember that the super-cool software and mesh networking will only work if people in your neighbourhood have one. You will also have to change from mesh to regular networking. You may also want to switch from the child-oriented Sugar enviroment to the mobile-oriented Maemo (Nokia n800) enviroment. The Nokia has no USB port.
If you want to contribute you become a user of a low-power Linux environment to start. Take a look at the development systems that people are talking about if you want to use the applications. Most of these systems don’t have all the good things: an x86 processor, the camera, portable. The PepperPad has them, but only in their version 3 of the hardware.
#20 by Matthew on January 10, 2007 - 10:06 pm
Hohum…
“and who is deemed worthy of getting one for free?”
Who’s getting it for free? The countries receiving OLPC’s are purchasing them from government budgets. This is money that could be spent on a myriad of other social development projects but instead is being used to purchase OLPC’s.
“How about in the more impoverished southern united states where people can’t afford school, computers, electricity etc.”
Well given my initial critique, i would say the responsibility to supply these things to children in the “more impoverished southern united states” IS incumbent on the state government, not the individuals themselves.
The OLPC is available to all governments and organisations, and at some point even individual consumers, in the case of a national or state education system it makes much more sense to purchase in bulk by governments.
A point explained in an article i just read, is that the OLPC will be sold to governments via the same channels from which they purchase textbooks and other educational media. Keeping volumes high reduces costs of supply, reducing costs to those impoverished children and their families.
Its not just solely about cost benefits as i suggest above, but also as far as efficacy as an educational infrastructure. If you have one child in class of 30 with an OLPC, then that child will not receive any benefit. Even if I.T. is already utilised it is likely the environment would not be compatible and applications dissimilar, especially given the Sugar GUI. Avoid a hotchpotch.
Retail sales of the OLPC are NOT targeted at the impoverished or developing nations of the world. They are targeted at individuals willing to fork out cash like they would for any other consumer electronic device with perhaps also in the knowledge that they are contributing to a greater cause. Two distinct issues, and in my opinion complementary and not at all limiting the scope of the OLPC but in fact expanding it.
The scope of the OLPC is broad, you IMO are restricting its scope with your suggestions.
The target for your dismay IMO should be the legislators and bureaucrats of state/national governments.
Regards,
Matthew
#21 by Alan on January 11, 2007 - 6:58 am
The BBC has retracted the claim that the laptops will be sold to the public. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2007/01/taken_in_good_faith.shtml
#22 by Huygens on January 11, 2007 - 2:47 pm
Disagreeing…
There is poverty in developed country, but at least government would have financial means to stop that (making school system cheap or free, and the sort), they only need the will and perhaps the support/encouragement of the voters!
Whereas in the third-World, even when they have the will they don’t have the means.
Anyway, I would agree with you that if we buy 2 in develop country, the OLPC guys have to be extremely transparent to where goes the second one.
As for your neighbour and all other persons in similar case (or poverty in general), I am sad for them, but I’m acting also by founding association and by doing the right thing when voting.
I’m from a European country where the school system is almost free as long as you do not need to move to another city and that you’re parents do not have the capacity to sustain your study. This is a long standing tradition as my mother already benefit from it some 40 years ago. OK, we have perhaps lots of tax to pay, but it is a good way, and I’m always pretty sad when people go abroad just to pay less tax (just like so many artists or CEO do).
Sharing is the basis of many religions, of some economic systems and of robin hood. And even though I would not abide to all of those, I am pretty concern about this simple idea.
Huygens
#23 by Paul on January 11, 2007 - 11:39 pm
===
What makes the OLPC people high and mighty enough to determine who is deemed worthy of paying extra, and who is deemed worthy of getting one for free?
===
How about the fact that they are the ones who are creating and running the project?
===
My neighbor is mentally impaired, and is not able to function independently. Is my neighbor somehow better off than those in other countries? They don’t have health care, neither does my neighbor. The only reason my neighbor is my neighbor is because the property renter allows them to stay there out of the kindness of his heart.
===
What makes your neighbour’s landlord high and mighty enough to decide who gets to stay there free(?) and who doesn’t?
If your neighbours landlord is allowed to lose financially out of the good of his heart then why is it a bad thing if I am allowed to choose to lose financially by buying someone somewhere a OLPC?
I only see it as creating more winners, the only “losers” are those who’ve chosen willingly to lose a bit more of their cash.
As I understand it the OLPC project only makes real sense when there is critical mass of laptops present with the associated infrastructure which probably means an area of significant poverty rather than poor people in a relatively affluent society.
I think the “buy two” idea could be beneficial if it were targeted properly. I don’t know but as an Australian I imagine there are Aboriginal Australian communities that might get benefits from OLPC. If one was chosen for a trial and “they” decided that they needed 100 laptops then I would certainly consider paying for two and getting one for myself to help support the idea.
#24 by Huygens on January 12, 2007 - 4:18 pm
Mindwarp said: “So in the not so well off subgroups of our society, that have little if any pull with the government, and lack of people to organize a campaign, they should be excluded. That sounds like a great plan.”
My reply: You should not blame an organisation who is trying to make the life of people better world wide. When you say ironically “that sounds like a great plan” I hope you understand that you are criticising your government politics which lack to provide social benefits to the one most needing it. Moreover, what do you feel like when the US government gives money to under developed countries, while they could give it to stop poverty in the USA? Or that the UK cleared the debt of some of the poorest countries in the world, but not of their own citizens who are in the greedy hands of some banks…
—–
Matt Good says: “Some of these people are immigrants from the same countries that *will* be receiving these laptops. Why should these people be expected to pay twice the price for a laptop so that one can be shipped back to the town they just left?”
My reply: Well, as said many times here, the government or federal state or local administration should take care of impoverishment problems and they could subscribe to the OLPC program and offers (against certain criteria) those laptop to people in developed country who could need them, at least those administrations have huge founds to do such actions. But I think that poor people in USA, Western Europe, and other developed countries require much more urgent help than a laptop! Sorry my geeky fellows, but a universal social, medical and/or education cover (having a home, getting cured, having a chance to study) would be a much greater improvement for them than getting a laptop…
I would prefer to have a shelter, have the possibility to go to a doctor and offer studies to my children than getting a laptop, in the case I was poor and homeless.
Of course this apply to all other people in the world. But, I think that the aim of the OLPC project is somewhat different, it is a way to offer a chance to study and compete with the rest of the world in the information system domain for many people.
#25 by mindwarp on January 12, 2007 - 5:55 pm
Just to settle this for everyone anti-USA — THE OLPC HAS SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING FROM THE US GOVERNMENT. Not sure exactly where you think MIT is based out of, but it is the united states, and gets huge amounts of money to make research like this possible.
#26 by Carlos Javier Borroto on January 13, 2007 - 6:21 pm
“People will try and comment and dispute this, but until you have seen the parts of America I am talking about I suggest you broaden your scope”
Until you, the author, have seen the parts of the World this laptops will be gived, I strong suggest you broaden your scope.
regards,
Carlos Javier
#27 by Huygens on January 14, 2007 - 8:36 pm
In response to http://mindwarp.net/?p=49#comment-507
If you take an organisation like Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders, a.k.a. the French Doctors), the French State gives quite some money to this organisation which is also based in France. And as far as I know most or even all of it goes to help people abroad where the medical needs are most important. As for the poor in this country, other organisations are taking care of it, some also founded by the State, and the government can create new laws to benefits those people so they could re-insert the society.
If I want to give money to an organisation which would benefit more to people of my own country, I could simply choose another organisation than Médecins Sans Frontières, the Red Cross is one of them. Or I could go voting for more social-inclined candidates for election.
The choice is yours!
Cheers,
Huygens