What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
159 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -24/+94See the following:
One Laptop Per Child - Production Delays Caused By Microsoft, Intel?
,----[ Quote ]
| I sincerely hope that no matter what the people who are running the
| OLPC project decide, that their project will continue and not get
| bogged down in a play of corporate greed and ambitions.
`----
http://www.lockergnome.com/nexus/blade/2007/04/28/one-laptop-per-child-production-delays-caused-by-microsoft-intel/
Also recent:
,----[ Quote ]
| That software effort does not have the support of Mr. Otellini, who
| is concerned about incurring Microsoft's wrath, the executive said.
| The two companies have a long history of tension over who controls
| the hardware and software direction of the "Wintel standard." Intel
| has said it is supporting both operating systems.
`----
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/technology/16chip.html?ex=1177560000&en=2ef52cee6b1fb0e3&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
Bear in mind that Intel has done much more evil stuff recently. It has used false benchmark to screw AMD, it was asccused by the Chinese because of its "monopoly abuse", it reduced prices to eliminate competition (AMD), it had kickbacks going on with Dell and Lenovo, and it destroyed E-mail (evidence).
I can include all the referencse, but I'd get told off (modded down) for length. If someone thinks I should give proof to the arguments above, just holler and I'll post it.
Greed knows no bounds. - ShouldBeStudyin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+52@linkedlist
"Intel is making its own products cheaper so that governments will buy it instead of signing up for the one laptop per child program. Isn't that a good thing?"
In the short run, this is a good thing. However, the fear is that this price decrease by Intel is only temporary in order to drive out competition. Then, once OLPC has gone under because no governments ordered their product, Intel will raise their prices. With no alternatives, governments will be forced to pay the higher price. So, in the long run, this might cost governments more money than going with OLPC. Without heavy governmental regulations (which I am not a fan of), I'm not sure what can be done about this type of practice. Maybe other people have suggestions. - peeweejd, on 10/11/2007, -3/+45Poor performance in comparison to what? a modern $1000 laptop? sure it can't run WOW on high settings, but that's not what it's for.
It will run the dictionary, electronic textbooks, word processor/office apps and Internet applications. I don't see how having this computer is better than having no computer even for the millions of "digital homeless". Remember, a lot of the kids that will get these laptops don't even have textbooks. - ihendley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+43Yes, some of the kids receiving laptops might need food and shoes, but are they only allowed to live in survival mode? Don't discount efforts to bring them education and hope.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+46I'm astounded at the people here who claim to be capitalists but don't understand the basic principles.
If Intel -- which is not in the business of selling laptops, and is in fact losing money on every laptop sold -- wants to get its processors -- its actual business -- into the hands of the world's kids, all it had to do was offer its CPUs to OLPC at a lower volume price than AMD. It would be in the market with first mover advantage, AMD would be out, and Intel would win this round without breaking any laws.
Instead, it builds a whole new laptop and dumps it at a massive discount below cost wherever OLPC tries to sell theirs. OLPC can't use the heavily discounted Intel CPUs in those, because Intel effectively won't let them.
The whole operation is clearly designed to knock OLPC out of the game, so Intel can later raise its prices to normal and/or abandon this market, which can't afford its products at normal prices. And btw, Intel customers, not Intel are the ones paying for this game.
If capitalism worked as Intel seems to think it does, we would have only one monopolistic company in every major segment by now. Any new upstart would be crushed because the giant could simply undercut them until the competitor went out of business. Capitalism would fail in one generation or less. Anti-dumping laws are essential for capitalism to work. - djtansey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+41@linkedlist
That isn't "healthy competition." It's anti-competitive behavior. If I have a boatload of money sitting around so I can sell my product at a loss, I can guarantee that no one will ever be able to beat me in terms of price. Healthy competition is companies competing to have the most efficient system so they can produce more product for less. - ekso, on 10/11/2007, -8/+38I completely agree with Negroponte. Just give a toy with information to a child and the information gets assimilated seamlessly.
I know *a lot* of people that learned English just playing games. - RAiNsTorm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+33The truly sad thing here is how badly most of you are missing the point, and the complete arrogance and ignorance surrounding this venture is amazing. I'm guessing most of you do not have a background in education and have no clue what the reality is.
This isn't about the specs of the laptop, it isn't about any of the things we take for granted and expect from a computer... it is about education. The price is even mostly a non-issue as long as they are cheap enough and they will become cheaper as they get bought and produced.
Education and access to information and knowledge is what a large number of places lack, and it is what keeps them from growing and prospering. The fact that people like Bill Gates, or companies like Intel, try to attack this is a shame. Sure, maybe they could do better maybe OLPC's first stab isn't perfect - but at least it is a ready solution and a start. Rather than condemn it, why don't they step up and compete to make a cheaper/better product? The nations who are in need will only benefit... but they aren't. The initial tests of the OLPC were positive and the kids loved it. It is inspiring and offers them keys to doors that otherwise would remained locked tight.
Ease up and look at the big picture here. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+34@torotorotoro (btw, what's the english equivalent of toro?)
Intel is the one engaging in monopolistic practices. Dumping is defined as selling a product well below cost to prevent a competitor from gaining any traction in a given market. That's exactly what Intel is doing, and it is illegal.
If Intel sells its laptop for a fair price, instead of passing the real cost onto regular Intel customers in a way that's designed to shut down OLPC, then they can do so freely. But their laptop will cost 3-4x as much in that case.
And the reason they do this is that once OLPC is dead, Intel will then stop its predatory pricing, bump their prices up 3-4x, and the kids who are supposed to benefit from all this will lose in the end, because there will be no competition left. That's why it's wrong.
Intel had the opportunity to offer a deep discount to OLPC to get their chips in this market. They chose to be ***** instead. My next CPU will therefore be AMD, without reservation. - brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -14/+43I watched 60 minutes last night and OLPC is sensationalizing. They're annoyed that other companies are competing in markets they thought they would have a lock on. Is Intel potentially being predatory? Probably. Google was predatory in Yahoo's market, Apple and MS are predatory in each others markets, etc. That's how capitalism works. When government interferes it usually isn't good.
Welcome to the business world!
The only problem I see is if Intel prevents OLPC from sustaining itself and thus doesn't continue its missions and fails and then Intel and others stop their pursuit of the OLPC markets. - noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24You feel threatened by a bunch of kids with a crummy laptop?
Let me ask you something if we don't educate kids because they could take our job... who is going to replace us when we retire, or say, in your case, get fired for incompetence? - CompIsMyRx, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25Obviously you don't get the point of the OLPC project. The point is to increase the world's education in the poorest countries through the use of computers. It's a humanitarian effort. I seriously doubt that these kids will "take our jobs" as part of some evil plot you've imagined. And even if that was true, it would cause US companies to get off their asses and start innovating again.
- KnockItOff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Well said.
The OLPC project is designed for the poorest children in the poorest countries where even things like electricity are not givens. Before you go off on what a terrible system it is, go to the OLPC Wiki and look at the mission of the project and how they are addressing issues like powering the computer, networking the computer. This is NOT a typical laptop. It is a good option for education in very poor countries. - gothicx00, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Nobody seemed to touch on one of the big reasons that both MS and Intel are pushing into that market. A whole generation of computer users are going to be brought up on an architecture that doesn't rely on either of them. These kids are going to grow up, go to college and get on with their lives, but when it comes to choosing a computer they are going to look back and say "Hey a linux platform on the other guy's chip got me through school, shouldn't it be good enough for my day to day uses?" Really it's all about the longevity of customers.
Yeah if some kid used these in elementary school and never touched them again, or anything like it, it prolly wouldn't be much of an impact. But if the OLPC guys get their way, they'll use this venture as a launch pad for inexpensive, easy to use computers for all aspects of education, all the way through the college level.
And if they truly do succeed in grabbing that market, there goes 30% of both MS and Intel's future market share. They can't stand that. It's bad dreams involving those scenarios that keep the big execs up at night.
So what do they do? They do the only thing they know how to do, what they've always done. At best, they'll just be able to compete on a decent level with them and retain most of their market share; at worst, they'll push them out of the market all together.
Honestly, proprietarety and push marketing techniques is what brought computers out of the depths of being appliances or toys. But as hardware and software companies are learning to work amongst each other better and churn out products that work on a variety of platforms, we are moving more towards end-user choice. And if Intel and Microsoft aren't careful they are going to end up the next IBM. If they continue to push what *they* think we want down *our* throats, we will defect to the alternatives so much so it will give their competitors the advantage over them. - aggies11, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21That plot was from a *comedy* television show. I don't think the moral of the story was "If children are starving and you can't afford to give them the whole muffin, just throw away the stumps and let them die".
Aggies - gtluke, on 10/11/2007, -14/+32i actually watched this last night
12 hour battery life? recharge it by pulling a string for a few minutes?
TRIPLE wifi range with 3" antenna?
was i the only one doubting these claims? - mcherm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20@somedigger5:
You write: "Do you seriously want to give these ***** kids our jobs?"
Answer: No... I want to give them YOUR job. My job is secure. I'm hiring programmers -- today I have about 5 open positions (both contract and permanent) and I can't find people to fill them. That's not true, I can find lots of applicants, what I can't find is QUALIFIED applicants -- people with the necessary Java programming skills and enough communication skills to put in front of our business customers along with a desire to work.
I have these skills, plus in-depth domain knowledge that will make my job secure -- not because there's no competition, but because I am better than (add more business value than) the competition. You, on the other hand, aren't even going to be considered for the job, because, based on what you wrote in your comment, you haven't got the communication skills.
-- Michael Chermside - cantormath, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Intel is trash....Not because of their hardware......but because of the people that run the company. Intel is trying to HURT OLPC........Dont fool yourself.....
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20Because they're not making the CPUs available. Intel is selling whole laptops at a discount. It would be great if there were some way to use that, raid the motherboards, etc.. to lower the OLPC price. But Intel also controls to whom it sells those.
That's what proves this is predatory, btw. Intel won't sell their CPUs to OLPC at the same price they're discounting them in their laptops. Intel isn't even in the "selling laptops" business, but they entered it to knock OLPC out.
And guess who is paying for Intel's dumping? Anyone who buys Intel CPUs, that's who. - dlsspy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Somebody set us up the tutorial.
- Retsep, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21Since when did Intel become a welfare agency? I thought they were a for-profit corporation.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20The FUD and illegal "dumping" campaign against OLPC is in part due to OLPC using Linux vs. Windows, and also AMD vs. Intel.
If Intel was so interested in serving this market responsibly, they could have provided their CPUs to OLPC as cheaply as they're discounting their OLPC-like computers. - levi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19Apparently you missed the video. Thats what he's trying to do but every time he gets a country that promises to buy the OLPC Intel comes in and under cuts his bids.
- Hemenbeck, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17It's important to remember this: Intel was approached about being an OLPC partner, but they declined.
Now that AMD is involved and the project is nearing success -- Intel is trying to kill it. There Classmate won't work anyway. It's not custom built for developing countries. It's just a stripped down office laptop. - CamperBob, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19Actually, I want to build a time machine and give Ramanujan one of these puppies. Since I can't do that, I'll settle for handing out a hundred million of them to kids who are alive today, and see if anything interesting happens.
If some underfed third-world kid with a hand-cranked laptop is a threat to your job, you should probably take up a new career. Try professional alcoholism. Lots of job security there. - rocke86, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1049354722405908055&hl=en - noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15They are using sleasy, possibly illegal, tactics to lock down a developing 'market' this isn't about Intel wanting to help, it isn't about healthy competition, it is about 'no way in hell you're going to sell a $100, non-Intel, laptop to millions of developing nations and shut us out'.
- seasleepy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14OLPC isn't aimed at countries where kids don't have food and shoes, it's aimed at those where they're probably okay on the basics but who may not have the money to spend on extra educational aids like laptops.
- noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12We've been funneling food and supplies into these nations for decades. All you get is generation after generation of barely-fed uneducated children, no one breaks the cycle. If you can teach them and get them on an even technological ground with more developed nations then suddenly you have a generation of barely-fed yet increasingly educated and productive children their children will have the benefit of educated parents and will be more educated, eventually (just liek with India) a market will spring up and these people will realise that they can put their own food on the table and afford more education.
Give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish. - MWeather, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Not every poor person is starving and dying of malaria.
- brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10They definitely use standard network protocols.
The segment said that in several years they should be available in this country but you have to buy two, one for yourself and one for a child in another country. - jimbobfam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I think you missed the major concept behind these computers. They are entry level training devices intended to hook kids into the value of an education. As the guy said, they are seeing 50% increases in class sizes from the previous year.
- DS513, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11OLPC - Bringing Pr0n to the third world since 2007.
- daftman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11@brufleth
But this isn't a business world. THis is a charity world.
The difference between OLPC and Intel laptop is that OLPC uses open and free software. Intel force windows down your throat. Thus in order to maintain and support the Intel laptop you need to have more people using and educated about microsoft software.
I rather have a product has free and open software.
@malkir
He is doing it for the children. He doesn't want to children to be locked into the certain vendor. If that vendor decide to raise the price 2-3 years down the track, those poor kids and their government have to fork out more money. Don't be so short sighted. - Theli, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8@brufleth
"I watched 60 minutes last night and OLPC is sensationalizing. They're annoyed that other companies are competing in markets they thought they would have a lock on. Is Intel potentially being predatory? Probably. Google was predatory in Yahoo's market, Apple and MS are predatory in each others markets, etc. That's how capitalism works. When government interferes it usually isn't good.
Welcome to the business world!"
Like daftman said, in this case it is a charity world. You cannot assume that competition will have the same positive effect here. And your defense of Intel is just confused.
I mean, you are saying that Intel's actions are justified because they are a corporation. Isn't that like saying that I am justified in stealing stuff because I'm a thief? It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Now, I'm not saying that this will have negative consequences. Perhaps more options will provide the developing countries with a better deal, or perhaps they will simply pick the cheapest alternative and the kids will be left with less. - bwilstyle, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Intel's foreign policy sucks.
- mandarin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Intel always has been evil. Check out the tactics it uses against other CPU manufacturers.
- 955701, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Your statement is ridiculous - the only reason I am doing as well as I am is because of the commodore 64 my mother bought me when I was 11 and the addiction to computers that ensued. Top that with my dad later buying me a computer instead of a car for college and I am now making enough money to take care of myself and both of them.
I was little - chicken and rice was fine but you couldn't take away my computer.
If I can, I'm buying one of these for my children. And my nephews and nieces. - DTJunkie07, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@somedigger5
What do you do for a living?..Pick strawberries?..Collect my garbage every Friday? - jerrygofixit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7In case any of you were wondering the specs:
OLPC: http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php/Hardware_specification#Specifications
Intel Classmate PC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classmate_PC#Technology - init100, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@fac3less
"No offense but.. every company reduces prices to eliminate competition. Heh, ***** that's basic marketing / economics folks."
Yes, but there are two ways to reduce prices:
1. Reduce prices by reducing production costs.
2. Reduce prices by reducing your marginal.
The first way is always legit, and the second way is legit if your margin stays at or above zero. Reducing prices by reducing your margin below zero is not as legit. It could even be illegal, depending on the jurisdiction.
Note: I'm aware of two marketing concepts where you are selling below cost, loss-leader and price-dumping. The first appears legit, and the second appears illegal. The exact difference ins't entirely obvious to me though. Anyone have a good explanation? - Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Two problems you completely ignore.
1) Classmate PC isn't going to use Windows either
2) The moment OLPC goes under, that Classmate PC will go up to $400 - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Alright. They can pay for more then. Get another computer.
- tutivlahos, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8"If you give a man a fish, he will have a single meal. If you teach him how to fish, he will eat all his life."
- aaaaaakash, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8sure they need food and shoes. And if we spoon-feed them for years to come, when will they become accustomed to being independent? After all, isn't that the ultimate goal? I think OLPC is the right idea in building societies that will raise a generation that can learn the skills needed for modern society (get jobs, set up their own social systems). This program targets the immediate generations for the outside world, as opposed to giving families the opportunity to start their quilt shop that will only reach the outskirts of their village. Besides, Negroponte is a computer engineer, if he wants to do something good...isn't this it?
- Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The true spirit of charity...
- RevEng, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Somedigger, I find it interesting that you identify the fact that we can only drive SUVs and drink Starbucks, and otherwise be gluttonous and wasteful as long as people are repressed in third-world countries.
However, I'm astounded by your logical conclusion that we need to continue repressing these people so that we can continue our gluttonous ways.
May I take you back to the third grade, where a nerdy kid was being beaten up by a bully with half the brain but twice the brawn. The nerd was being beaten up because he pointed out the bully's flaws, and the bully didn't want others to see them, so the nerd was repressed with physical violence. Low and behold, once the nerd grows up, his brains end up being a more valuable trait in the global economy, and as such, he proves the bully wrong.
Now perhaps you can see the error in your logic. Sure, you could continue to repress these other people, but for what? So you can drink overpriced coffee and drive a gas-guzzling car? Surely the amount of innovation that these repressed people could give to the world would be well worth you drinking no-name coffee and driving a sedan. You may even just find yourself that if you spent less time working to pay for your luxurious lifestyle that you would have more time to spend on your luxuries.
I can only hope that your tyrannical rant about keeping down others to pay for your sins was blatantly tongue-in-cheek. If not, perhaps you should consider what it would be like if one day you ended up on the other side of the fence. Remember, we don't get the choice of what life we are born into. You are lucky to be where you are and should consider yourself as such. You could just as easily have been one of those kids working 16 hours a day for your next meal. - clackerd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5i bet the OLPC computers will get duke nukem forever before i do.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -29/+33@linkedlist
No its not because its not about helping people, its about continuing the Intel-M$ lock in. Sure you give it to them cheap, at first. Then after they are locked in and dependent, you stick it up their ass sideways, the M$ way. Typical dirty tricks on the part of Intel and M$$$$$. - Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@op
About a million other diggers have said the same thing...
If the OLPC project was cancelled, it wouldn't help any other charities, it would just mean no laptops for the poor countries' kids. It's not like the supporters would all switch over to another charity.
Also remember that education is pretty damn important, even if not quite as concerning as malaria. -
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is