The New York Times ran a fasÂciÂnatÂing artiÂcle today about the feud between Intel and the One Latop Per Child proÂgram run by MIT’s Nicholas NegroÂponte. If you haven’t heard about it, the iniÂtiaÂtive is intendÂed to develÂop a reaÂsonÂably priced ($200) lapÂtop for priÂmaÂry school chilÂdren in the third world. The modÂel they’re sellÂing now comes with a lot of cool feaÂtures: mesh techÂnolÂoÂgy so a group of stuÂdents can share one wifi conÂnecÂtion; low powÂer conÂsumpÂtion and the abilÂiÂty to recharge batÂterÂies with solar cells or even a hand crank; a linÂux operÂatÂing sysÂtem and open source softÂware.
I susÂpect that last feaÂture is causÂing the biggest probÂlem for Intel. AccordÂing to the Times, comÂpaÂny sales reps actuÂalÂly tried to perÂsuade sevÂerÂal counÂtries to ditch the OLPC in favor of a more expenÂsive machine runÂning Microsoft WinÂdows. I don’t know about you but I have a hard time imagÂinÂing disÂadÂvanÂtaged PeruÂvian first-graders keepÂing up with their secuÂriÂty updates, trouÂbleshootÂing the less-than-stelÂlar WinÂdows wifi utilÂiÂty or shelling out for that upgrade to Vista.
Maybe those kids need othÂer things more than they need lapÂtops, but it can’t hurt. In any case it’s hard to believe how badÂly Intel manÂaged this saga in terms of pubÂlic relaÂtions. Think of the chilÂdren, guys!
“Think of the chilÂdren, guys!” What? When there are dolÂlars to be made?! :-s
It’s more likeÂly that they don’t like the fact that it uses arch-rival AMD’s CPUs. Intel does quite a bit for open source and linÂux.
I apolÂoÂgize that this comÂment is off topÂic… NevÂerÂtheÂless, I’ll take the plunge:
“…priÂmaÂry school chilÂdren in the third world.”
It used to be that the “first world” was the WestÂern, capÂiÂtalÂist counÂtries, the “secÂond world” was the ComÂmuÂnist, planned econÂoÂmy counÂtries and the “third world” was the “develÂopÂing” counÂtries (everyÂone else). This was not a very useÂful conÂcept fifty years ago but, now that there is no longer a “secÂond world,” how can a “third world” conÂtinÂue to exist?
PerÂhaps there is be a betÂter, more up-to-date, way to refer to most of the world’s peoÂple as a group. PerÂhaps this new term could be based on someÂthing more gerÂmane to the 21st cenÂtuÂry than ecoÂnomÂics… say, for examÂple, ecoÂlogÂiÂcal issues. SugÂgesÂtions?
I would have thought the same thing–that Intel was annoyed about AMD procesÂsors in these OLPC lapÂtops. But it tranÂspires in the Times artiÂcle that the group was workÂing on a new proÂtoÂtype feaÂturÂing Intel chips. So I may be wrong about the open source thing, but I don’t think the answer is as simÂple as AMD either.
Also, Hoagy: you raise an excelÂlent point. WhenÂevÂer I use the term I find myself despairÂing, just a litÂtle. After all, so many peoÂple in the “third world” are just as badÂly off now as they were fifty years ago. I’d be curiÂous to know what you think will be “more gerÂmane to the 21st cenÂtuÂry than ecoÂnomÂics,” howÂevÂer. Most of the subÂstiÂtutes I can think of (i.e. “develÂopÂing world”) have someÂthing to do with ecoÂnomÂics, and the imbalÂance of wealth is still the prime disÂtinÂguishÂing feaÂture between the post-indusÂtriÂal nations and the rest.
1. I’m kind of torn on the OLPC project myself. Its goals are absoluteÂly imporÂtant, but I’m not sure that the actuÂal device is necÂesÂsary. Sure, the othÂer proÂgrams utiÂlizÂing conÂvenÂtionÂal lapÂtops are more expenÂsive, but if conÂvenÂtionÂal is what it takes to get govÂernÂment buy-in, then that may be more imporÂtant.
On the othÂer hand, I have the feelÂing that the OLPC has some limÂiÂtaÂtions that will keep in the hands of chilÂdren and out of the hands of corÂrupt offiÂcials, where a norÂmal lapÂtop would make an excelÂlent gift to a supÂportÂer.
2. Hoagy -
Ok, I’ll bite. From now on, the ex-First World is the PolÂluÂtion-Free World and the ex-Third World is the SmogÂgy world.
Oh, that doesÂn’t work? The whole world is sufÂferÂing fairÂly uniÂformÂly from the effects of polÂluÂtion, includÂing globÂal cliÂmate? My misÂtake.
EcoÂnomÂics is still the best way to divide up the world. In this case, First and Third World are still meanÂingÂful (if not acaÂdÂeÂmÂiÂcalÂly ideÂal), espeÂcialÂly in the conÂtext of a newsÂpaÂper artiÂcle where sciÂenÂtifÂiÂcalÂly preÂcise terÂmiÂnolÂoÂgy is less imporÂtant than basic comÂmuÂniÂcaÂtion.