backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on May 1 at 5:25 PM

Even though the price of the OLPC has risen to $175, it is still cheaper than alternative projects

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) group recently announced that its low-cost laptop would be raised from $100 up to $175, but the group is still confident that enough orders will be placed for the group to begin mass production before September.  The goal behind the project is planning to offer inexpensive notebook computers to school children in developing nations.

Even with an increased price tag of $175, the notebooks are still much cheaper than what the computer industry has traditionally offered.  OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte previously stated the price of the notebooks could drop almost 25 percent per year.

A number of factors have caused the increase in the laptop, including design costs and a raise in price of nickel.

"We are perhaps at the most critical stage of OLPC's life," said Negroponte.

Using a modified version of Red hat Linux, the Quanta Computer-built laptop offers users an interface that has pictographic icons instead of traditional windows and folders.

OLPC reportedly already has 2.5 million unit orders, but has to reach the 3 million order mark before May 30, or the group's hardware suppliers will not have enough time to get parts ready, according to Negroponte.

OLPC officials said on Thursday that it may offer laptops to U.S. schools, even though the group previously said that the laptops would be for foreign children only.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Oobu on 4/29/2007 1:28:10 AM , Rating: 0
I don't want my tax money going off to yet ANOTHER country. It's wasted enough as it is. No more please. Call me inhumane or what have you, but in my opinion the US needs to start minding its own business and focusing on its own problems.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
> "Americans spend 100 billion USD on gambling...yet the US spends less than 14 billion in aid to other countries."

According to USAID.gov, total foreign assistance in 2005 was $34.360 Billion. That's over twice the amount of the next highest country, and includes only government sums. The figure is dwarfed by private contributions from US citizens, corporations, and institutions, which annually give over 3.5 times as much as does the federal government.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By creathir on 4/29/2007 3:17:19 PM , Rating: 5
What does is matter that we spend $100 billion in gambling? So we gamble. Your point? We can spend our money how we like to. We are not REQUIRED to be the world's charity.
The fact that we give more than any other nation on the planet is a testament to how big our hearts are, yet it is just not enough, is it? What would be enough for you? 25% of our GDP? 50%? 75%? What do you want exactly? Why not talk about the utter WASTE in the rest of the world? This really aggravates me when we are chastised for giving, giving, and giving, yet it is never enough.
Why don't you step up if you are so concerned about it, instead of berating us. You certainly have managed to find a way to post on the Internet, a luxury in many societies. You could have spent the money on that computer of yours by donating to a charity.

The point is, it is your money. You spend it like you want to. It is the gambler's money. He spends it as he wants to. It also, is the philanthropists money, and they spend it like they want to.

Stop whining.

- Creathir


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Oobu on 4/29/2007 5:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, thank you.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/30/2007 4:29:36 AM , Rating: 2
I do spend money on charity--as a rule of thumb--10 % of my income is spent on charity--and, yes, i have donated the last five computers that i have possessed to charity--

It's not a question of whining but about making a point--as an economist i understand the basics of aid--aid has been described by critics like Susan George as a 60 bn jetsetting industry. In her words too--never before have so many suffered for the works of so few--a quote which she used to decry the tremendous amount of waste in the aid industry--if 75 % of money which is given in aid is gone to the donor country, i fail to see how aid can be relevant--this is why organisations like the grameen bank have won the Nobel--the greatest aid to poverty has come rom the Third World itself--in the form of micro-credit


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 3:24:35 PM , Rating: 5
> "you make no comment about the fact that money is spent on gambling or porn..."

So you feel people shouldn't have the right to spend their own money on whatever they choose? Its even more hypocritical when I'm confident you yourself spend the majority of your own income on yourself, rather than donating it to charitable causes.

> "...or the fact that 2/3rds of aid is tied aid"

2/3 of government aid...or less than 1/5 of total US aid. And I still fail to see the relevance here. If the US government writes a check for someone to buy food with, is it too much to ask that they require the food to be bought from US farmers? You make it sound as if tied aid shouldn't be counted at all. Remember, the dollars may eventually come back to the US...but the products and services purchased with those dollars do not.

> "or the fact that private financial contributions are mostly temporary..."

A statement which is both incorrect and irrelevant. Aid is aid, period. Per capita and in gross totals, US private donations are the largest in the world. Whether that aid is spent on "temporary" food and shelter to keep a person alive after a natural disaster, or "permanent" aid such as building hospitals or water-processing plants, matters not at all.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By nah on 4/30/2007 4:33:09 AM , Rating: 1
I do spend money on charity--as a rule of thumb--10 % of my income is spent on charity--and, yes, i have donated the last five computers that i have possessed to charity--if you think that money spent on porn is Ok--well ,wonderful

It's not a question of whining but about making a point--as an economist i understand the basics of aid--aid has been described by critics like Susan George as a 60 bn jetsetting industry. In her words too--never before have so many suffered for the works of so few--a quote which she used to decry the tremendous amount of waste in the aid industry--if 75 % of money which is given in aid is gone to the donor country, i fail to see how aid can be relevant--this is why organisations like the grameen bank have won the Nobel--the greatest aid to poverty has come from the Third World itself--in the form of micro-credit


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By othercents on 4/30/2007 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
You give someone food you feed them for a day. You teach someone how to farm you feed them for a lifetime.

No matter how much money and food we throw at the problem the problem is still going to exist until someone teaches them how to take care of themselves. If you had a friend that was in need of food, clothing, and a place to stay you would probably invite them over to your place, but if after 6 months they are still in the same situation or worse what would you do? Give them more money and hope it fixes the problem?

Granted there are extenuating circumstances that aid is needed for the short term, but we should also be looking at the long term solutions otherwise we might be paying to feed our friend for a lifetime.

Other


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By Talcite on 4/29/07, Rating: 0
RE: 175$ becomes the price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2007 3:48:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "Ahh yes, the US gave alot of money, but what percentage of the US GDP is that figure?"

If you consider private donations, the US leads the world, both in total dollars and as a percentage of GDP. If you consider public donations only, the US is still first in total dollars, but ranks 20th as a percentage of GDP.

However, that figure doesn't reflect spendings such as the US's financing the lion's share of the UN, the World Bank, and similar organizations. It also doesn't reflect how those aid dollars are spent. France's foreign aid, for instance, is spent almost totally as a lever to advance French foreign interests, or to promote sales of French arms or other products overseas.

Furthermore, it doesn't reflect the disastrous effects of European agricultural subsidies, upon which the EU spends over $40B/year, subsidies which countless organizations have identified as exerting a crushing cost on developing nations, by preventing their primary exports from competing fairly within the EU.

Finally, I have to point out an inherent flaw in your reasoning, that the donating of huge sums to money to corrupt regimes in third-world nations is a moral imperative...or even that its to be desired. Quite often the results of such aid are more negative than positive, and appears to be given more to ease the "white guilt" of the donor rather than to perform any useful purpose. The costs of denying a regime MFN trading status due to human rights violations, or enforcing a trade embargo are never counted as 'foreign aid', but quite often they are far more valuable to the people of that nation than simply writing a check and hoping some small portion of it actually makes it way into their hands.


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By mthambi on 4/29/2007 11:26:22 AM , Rating: 1
I bet that figure includes billions in military aid to Israel, Egypt etc. and reconstruction funding (aka subsidies for Haliburton) for Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I compiled the per-capita non-military govt aid some years back. The US came at the bottom of the top 20 wealthy countries in the world. (It makes no sense to compare absolute aid. Is it surprising that say Denmark gives a smaller absolute amount of aid than the US?).


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By awer26 on 4/29/2007 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Absolute aid given is just as important as the % given. No, Denmark shouldn't have to give as much as us, and we should definitely give more than them, but we shouldn't have to match percentages. If a person with $1,000,000 gives $500,000 in charity I think it is better than a poor person with $10 gives $5. Recouping the $5 is going to be much easier than the $500k (yes that's an extreme example, but its the same principle)


RE: 175$ becomes the price
By mthambi on 4/30/2007 11:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand. The comparison is not between a person with $1000000 giving $500000 and one with $10 giving $5. It is between 100 people having $10 each ($1000) giving $500 vs 1 person having $10 giving $5.

To look at it another way, I am sure EU gives a lot more in absolute aid than the US.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki