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 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


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











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