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 joust on 4/29/2007 3:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Your criticism of US policy seems problematic in a quite a few ways.

First off, you ignore the possibility that other countries act in their own interests. That the US acts in it's own interests as well is no travesty here.

Secondly, presumably you're referring to Iraq here with all this talk of civil wars and oil. You infer, perhaps misguidedly, that the US went to war for oil. You seem to miss very real possibility that the US chose to forsake oil to install a democracy.

Let's assume oil is the main driver behind our policy. We will choose the options that will get us the most oil from as many countries as possible for the least cost.

Had the US truly been so keen on oil at any cost, why didn't the US simply cut a deal with Saddam? I think it quite possible that the US could have simply said, "Alright Saddam, in exchange for not destroying you, just pump us your oil at a nice $.50 a barrel."

For one thing, the French were in favor of dropping sanctions, having funnelled billions of dollars to Saddam in the oil-for-food program. Certainly the Russians would have also agreed, as they love purchasers for weapons and nukes.

For that matter, were the US so hellbent on getting oil, as you presume, why doesn't the US give whatever Iran wants in exchange for oil? Hell, we could give the Iranians the bomb in exchange for oil. What about getting oil from Sudan? We could just let their little genocide go unnoticed.

Clearly, the courses of action I listed are completely ludicrous. Why are they so ludicrous? Because the US values oil much less than you presume. Your assumption is taken to absurdity if actually applied. That the US will start a war (the highest price you can pay for something) mostly for the sake of oil, when other cheap oil-optimizing alternatives exist, is absurd.

RE: 175$ becomes the price
By themadmilkman on 4/29/2007 5:37:49 AM , Rating: 1
No, given the evidence that has come to light, it would appear that we went to war with Iraq because our President wanted to finish what his father did not, namely take Saddam Hussein out of power. The whole process has been littered with examples of the government ignoring facts, promoting lies, and other foolishness. And all for what? A move from a relatively stable, but unfriendly regime, to what now essentially appears to be a turf war between various Iraqi factions, with the unfortunate side effect of killing American soldiers.

But no, we definitely didn't go to war over oil, at least not as a primary concern. Please. There are plenty of oil sources that would have been much easier to capture than Iraq.

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki