technology.timesonline.co.uk — This is the story of the OLPC project since it was announced in January of 2005. Intel and Microsoft are monopolies that used brute force to delay the OLPC non-profit open-source project from starting the cheap laptop revolution, taking away the profit margins from a multi-hundred-billion dollar laptop and PC industry.
Aug 10, 2008 View in Crawl 4
init100Aug 11, 2008
"In fact MS used to make Internet Explorer for Linux"They did? I know they once made a version for Solaris, but I never heard of a version for Linux.
catbellerAug 11, 2008
Monopolies don't operate under the same laws as "companies". Microsoft is a monopoly, ruled as such as a matter of fact, and therefore by law is regulated from doing just what did with OLPC - extending its dominance into other markets by leveraging its monopoly. We don't let that happen because they can eventually own, well, everything, and because it's bad for US - the people that license corporations to exist in their splendor. The world has no OLPC in its future because MS decided to smash it down enough to prevent its success.
charbaxAug 12, 2008Submitter
Intel selling low quantities of worse laptops at a loss is not competition. Intel is selling at a loss to try to stop the competition.Intel Atom based laptops cost twice the price of the OLPC XO-1 or more. Even Asus seems to be moving over to more expensive Eee since they do not especially like loosing money on the first Eee that was introduced.
bipolarruledoutAug 12, 2008
This isn't about money. There are few people in business who don't think their product is the best and are going to recommend it over a competitors. They may even want to give it away and feel proud doing so. Frankly I don't think they wanted Intel onboard at all. If you don't believe that then maybe AMD actually HAD a cheaper processor and Intel didn't see any competitive advantage to "undercutting" them on essentially a non-profit venture. I think it's far more believable that they simply didn't want intel inside. And I'm pretty damn sure they didn't want Microsoft anywhere near it because it's a more noble/true/free/responsible project to have it 100% open source when it really doesn't NEED to be. Heaven forbid that the third-world use "the mans" closed source software. It almost implies that Microsoft is exploiting people by GIVING AWAY closed source software simply because it's not open which wouldn't be a stretch within the community where open source equals freedom and not as in beer.
troyeAug 12, 2008
I wish they had an option to configure the website so that the entire story is on one page, double spaced, and in a serif font. I hate having to click through multiple stories just to read the story; I'm not lazy at all, but it ruins my reading experience. Just my 2 cents.
deucediggalowAug 14, 2008
Microsoft reminds me of the cigarette companies... get kids hooked and they'll keep coming back for the rest of their lives