What is Digg?109 Comments
- brickbat, on 01/06/2008, -3/+54This just confirms my longheld view that intel are a bunch of *****. They joined the project to undermine it. ***** ***** *****.
Thank god for AMD. Lets hope they get their bloody processors competitive again. - sukkit, on 01/06/2008, -4/+47Intel's involvement with OLPC was always malevolent. Good riddance.
- anmar, on 01/06/2008, -2/+38I understand that companies need to make money, the what is in it for me type attitude, in this case, can really harm. A company such as Intel, or any other large corporation for that matter, can easily afford spending some money helping the OLPC cause.
Responsibility to share holders is all and well but responsibility to human kind should be up there too. Kids are humans and not markets. Shame on Intel. - CloseTheCode, on 01/06/2008, -4/+33If that's the case, then ***** Intel for behaving like douchebags.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 01/06/2008, -8/+34The thing I love about the OLPC guys is that they don't care whether or not they have a large market share. They only care about a large market. They welcome their competitors with open arms because they see the bigger picture: education. It's not about who has the better product with them, and I applaud them for that. We need more honest companies like that in the world. I hope they succeed too, and make the world a more educated. You're doing a great job on the greater good.
My only fear though is that they will not be credited with the idea 50 years from now when it has worked. Instead, the corporate, profit-mongering executive who lead his company to market share dominance will take full credit for coming up with the idea first. That's the day that I will get pissed off. - lonedust, on 01/06/2008, -2/+22"The OLPC Foundation is a tax-exempt (501c3) social-benefit organization chartered in the State of Delaware and headquartered at One Cambridge Center, Cambridge Massachusetts, 02142."
Bailing out Intel with arguments like "a business needs to cut loss when recognized" or "OLPC tried to prevent Intel selling their own product (classmate)" don't really work. OLPC is not for profit, and Intel knew that prior to jumping onto the bandwagon. I'm sure the idea of tagging the OLPC's charitable brand along with whatever similar products they're marketing to richer governments have cross the minds of Intel execs. I understand what they're trying to do but it's obviously taking advantage of what others in the OLPC group have already accomplished. Lame tactic in my book. - leupi, on 01/06/2008, -1/+19@Brian
When will people realize that not all people in third world countries are starving? The OLPC project is not, and has never been, about giving laptops to malnourished, starving people that do not have access to clean water. Of course those people need food more then a laptop, no argument there. There are plenty of people in developing nations that are healthy and fed but have little to no access to computers and technology; they are the target users of the OLPC project. People need to be fed and there are humanitarian efforts to address that issue, this effort addresses a different issue. - Mejogid, on 01/06/2008, -3/+19Is it really that hard to spell "OLPC"? It's only four letters, and "One Laptop Child Per" doesn't make all that much sense. Besides that, did you even read the article? I do, however, enjoy how you make up a three paragraph rant to (unconvincingly) defend Intel's actions without a solitary shred of evidence.
The statement goes into detail about Intel's actions, and is summarised well in the sentence "This is well illustrated by the way in which our separation was announced single-handedly by Intel; Intel issued a statement to the press behind our backs while simultaneously asking us to work on a joint statement with them." How do you explain that? - ncampo, on 01/06/2008, -2/+17It is sad when huge corporations such as Intel and Microsoft put profits ahead of good will. The Intel/Microsoft Classmate PC is a slap in the face of this wonderful organization (OLPC). Shame on Intel and shame on Microsoft. Intel was just trying to "look good" by sitting on that board making no contributions while slamming the project anytime it could and producing its own laptop. In the process it splintered the market and as a byproduct drove the price up for the very people that they say they are trying to help. I will think twice about using an Intel processor when I build my next PC.
- tshawkins, on 01/06/2008, -1/+16errrrh, the OLPC uses an AMD procesor, there is'nt an intel one
- bmartin, on 01/06/2008, -2/+14I've always been a fan of AMD, despite their inability to compete with Intel ATM. Every couple years, Intel races ahead of AMD and vice-versa. AMD might have been unwise to purchase ATI at the beginning, but they seem to be making progress: The ATI Vista drivers were ready (whereas the NVIDIA drivers were not; I've historically been a huge NVIDIA fan) and ATI is finally improving their driver support for Linux. It's about time!! A big thanks goes to Dell for nagging AMD to release better Linux ATI drivers. Now if we could just get them to release the source code...
I'm done with Intel. I don't care if they provide FOSS drivers for Linux. They're seedy. - Phocion55, on 01/06/2008, -5/+17I totally agree.
However, sadly, welcoming in companies like Microsoft and Intel with good intentions is like dousing yourself in honey and welcoming a grizzly bear into your home. - MasterDwarf, on 01/06/2008, -1/+12Intel: Yeah, well, what's in it for us?
- KiTchMe, on 01/06/2008, -1/+12What? AMD Geode has always been a CPU for this project. Intel was just pissed they weren't chosen...
- loudnobnoxious, on 01/06/2008, -0/+8Why not give laptops to the less fortunate in the United States?
- Phocion55, on 01/06/2008, -1/+9Human anatomy
- dwhitbeck, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8OLPC is better off without intel.
- MrSteamTank, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8The people who claim that it's good for competition have to understand that these laptops are bought in mass by governments not individual people. As much as I like competition in situations such as this having companies trying to actively screw other companies ends up in millions of people getting screwed. My home country, Uruguay, bought these laptops and now if the OLPC company goes under we'd get screwed out any sort of support.
It's like blu-ray vs hd dvd all over again with governments massively delaying purchases due to in fighting between companies. These delays ensure these countries will stay uneducated longer all due to the greed of a few companies. - PatrickBrown, on 01/06/2008, -2/+8"Actions do speak louder than words in this case. As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market."
Indeed that is true of all for-profit corporations. It reminds me of the ridiculous notion that libertarians, etc, try to assert when they suggest that privatizing certain government services will benefit the people. - Zap2, on 01/06/2008, -1/+7You know that OLPC isn't out to make money...right?
- thesonofdarwin, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Then they should not have joined a cause that was essentially a charity. They knew what they were getting in to, they did it for the badge of Goodwill when people heard their names. Too bad it backfired for them. It might be petty, but I'll remember this when I go to buy my next computer. This coming from a person who has only ever used Intel products.
- jsebrech, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Well, in defense of the libertarian idea, they are right in claiming that companies will do anything to get a bigger slice of a profitable market, including acting in their customer's best interests. Ofcourse, the flaws in that style of thinking are the underlying assumptions: that markets are inherently competitive (and new competition will arise if there is none), that markets are always profitable and therefore interesting to companies, that individually optimal choices of people result in an optimal choice for society, and that people actually act in their own best interests. All of these are false under some circumstances, and that's why free market capitalism only works if it is carefully regulated.
- ralph123, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Yes!!!!! Let's give the hundreds of millions who have enough food but need better education and better access to technology some food!!!!
I'm sure they'd be thankful for that.
Your are a genius... - LowRentDiggs, on 01/06/2008, -1/+6Because we spend most of our money on machines that kill people, not machines that educate people.
- arbulus, on 01/06/2008, -0/+5Seconded. I am in total agreement.
- arbulus, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4the cake is a lie!
- VPurpmalkV, on 01/06/2008, -1/+5@madroneDorf They state in the article that they have no problems with the other inexpensive laptops coming to the market. I don't think they're holier than thou at all. They have a mission, and they're doing a decent job at fulfilling it.
- blackjack75, on 01/06/2008, -2/+6I'll be short: With a laptop they can earn their own food.
- stackolee, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3Not at the front no, but the whole thing is very fishy. Mary Lou Jepsen just quit because she hopes to make profit from the new screen technology she helped invent (with tax payer subsidies toward the development, natch). Negroponte has also boasted, publicly to some extent, that he wanted to see a third of the world off wintel machines. Which sounds like competition in many ways.
- directive0, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3No matter what state of development I'd rather live in his country then have to spend 5 minutes with you in your living room.
- jaxcs, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3@ the two posters above. Making money is important for any company but it doesn't have to be the only consideration or the only kind of revenue received. Have you considered the kind of advertising campaign Intel could have launched if they played it straight? How about the tax write offs they could have claimed? Being a philanthropic company could also lead to good will and deals down the road through networking opportunities. Listening to the two of you, there is never any benefit to being charitable.
- arbulus, on 01/06/2008, -0/+3Well, it's like researching cures for cancer and AIDS at the same time. Both are terrible diseases that desperately need cures. But do we forgo research on cancer to focus only on AIDS? No, there's nothing wrong with working on two extremely important projects at the same time. So it's the same case here: there are organizations out there helping to feed and provide infrastructiure to countries that need it. There is also the OLPC project providing technology to those who have basic infrastructre, but little or no access to technology. There's no need to abandon the OLPC project because there are still countries out there that have no food. Both can coexist.
- bitspace, on 01/06/2008, -1/+4Education is the underpinning of growth and success for any civilization, and I believe it is in that spirit that the OLPC project operates. The vision of the project is to provide access to information and education for the underprivileged, thereby giving them a chance to grow as a society and care for themselves.
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime. - rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Intel makes some good chips, but only thanks to AMD. If it weren't for AMD, Intel would just sit on their asses and recycle the same old crap again and again.
- fuzzynyanko, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Well, you don't exactly need a Crysis rig to run the things the OLPC can. AMD has some really nice low-lost solutions for the casual user.
- mizike, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3as others have said; it's actually been the complete opposite...Negroponte wants to provide poor people with access to computers on his terms, he's been extremely disparaging of any and all competitors, including the comparably priced classmate...
- CloseTheCode, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4You sir, have summed yourself up perfectly.
- 3tcp, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4Part of the plan was to be able to mass produce these laptops on such a large scale that the cost would fall and more people would end up getting them as a result. Intel shouldn't have gotten involved if they weren't happy with that.
- ahvi, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Is there cake?
- xpankrat, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2Gotta love "small and remote places (Mongolia)" bit. Here's Mongolia -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum ...
It's clearly remote, and undoubtedly very very small. - CloseTheCode, on 01/06/2008, -2/+4Now come on, be honest, you know NOTHING about the OLPC project do you?
- Gabberwok, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Intel and Microsoft are worried that OLPC could threaten their respective monopolies in developing markets. It only makes sense for them to want to sabotage the project.
- 1310nm, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2The story I read before heading Negroponte's reaction was that Intel was told by the OLPC project that they would have to stop developing other cheap laptop models. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/ ... This is the 3rd version of this story I've heard so far. Here's yet another. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/ ...
- rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2You don't see the value in competition?
The Core 2 Duo is an excellent chip DIRECTLY because of the ass-kicking that AMD gave Intel with the K8. Intel got lazy after the Pentium and the CPU market really began to stagnate. Once AMD started making better chips and became a real competitor (I'd say somewhere around the K6, not that the K6 was an Intel-beating chip, but until then, none of Intel's competitors could really match their chips), Intel was forced to start making competitive products again.
And I'm not really touting AMD, but more commenting on Intel's attitude. Intel has demonstrated this willingness to rest on their laurels when possible many times in the past. - solid12345, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2I'm tired of hearing the AIDS *****. AIDS is a virus. No virus has ever been cured in the history of mankind. We can't even cure the common cold, a virus is not a living thing like bacteria that you can kill with anti-biotics.
There is no cure for AIDS yet because the ability to cure it really is decades away. - Gabberwok, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2You can always buy a "give-one-get-one" OLPC and then give away one of them to a child in the US. I'm not sure many US kids would want one though, even if they couldn't afford a normal computer.
- bmartin, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Being charitable does not excuse him from anti-competitive practices. If he wants to do "good will" here, why not donate a couple $billion to the OLPC, or donate copies of XP? Competing with charity is NOT charitable.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+2using your logic... every big company should give 2 billion to every worthy cause. you have 0% concept of economics.
staving ppl- 2 billion
olpc - 2 billino
health care for the needy - 2 billion
and on and on... that would be ALL the profits. - inactive, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I know plenty about it. The sentiment behind it is good, but these people don't need technology. They are simple people. They need a good way to get food.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because people have food for them to earn. The reason they are all starving is because NO ONE OVER THERE HAS ANY!!!! There is NO FOOD TO EARN!!!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 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 