

Why Intel and OLPC Parted Ways - dskhatri
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/technology/05laptop.html?ex=1357189200&en=9c2c17178c11e828&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

======
trevelyan
Has anyone else been confused and not terribly impressed with OLPC from the
getgo?

I do not understand why the organization should feel threatened by an effort
to sell machines nearly twice the cost which are manufactured for profit. By
supporting OLPC, Intel subsidized its own competition. In exchange it gained
(1) strategic leverage over the project, and (2) contacts for lobbying.

If OLPC can give countries a better machine for lower cost the problems here
sound like management issues surrounding lobbying efforts. If the opposite is
true, that would suggest OLPC is an effective lobbyist organization but
ineffective producer -- there is no shame in using the private sector to
achieve one's goals of pervasive computing.

Then again, I think it was silly to focus on laptops to begin with. Desktop
computers provide much more bang for the buck.

------
dpatru
Apparently, Negroponte objected to an Intel saleswoman giving a side-by-side
comparisons of OLPC XO and Intels Classmate PC. What's wrong with that? Is
Negroponte hoping to make sales by keeping his customers ignorant?

