[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Points of views and questions about the OLPC project. What should it be? How could it be better? Where is it needed most? Ask your questions here and let your opinion be known.

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Josh Cogliati » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:01 pm

Why is the give one get one program ending? The
program has brought millions of dollars of donations
to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
sales. So, why is the program ending?

Josh Cogliati


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
Josh Cogliati
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby isforinsects » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:29 pm

I *think* that it is ending for the following reasons:

1.) Quanta can only make so many machines per month, and there is a backlog of orders for target nations.

2.) It is a a *lot* harder to ship 10,000 laptops to 10,000 people than 10,000 to one country. Selling laptops retail isn't the business that OLPC really needs to be in.

3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.

Good question, and not an intuitive answer. This belongs on the wiki somewhere.

Seth

On Dec 28, 2007 8:00 AM, Josh Cogliati <jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com (jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com)> wrote:
Why is the give one get one program ending? The
program has brought millions of dollars of donations
to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
sales. So, why is the program ending?

Josh Cogliati


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
isforinsects
Support Team
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:08 am

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Steve Holton » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:04 pm

I must strongly recommend against ending the G1G1 program. Or at least replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market availability of growth systems and spares.

The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the adversaries know this.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel, customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through. (quite to my own disbelief)

The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative contracts to Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a trade-in allowance, etc).

As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.

This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.

On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth@isforinsects.com (seth@isforinsects.com)> wrote:
I *think* that it is ending for the following reasons:

1.) Quanta can only make so many machines per month, and there is a backlog of orders for target nations.

Agreed, but the competition knows that.
Constricted manufacturing channels are only a factor if a component is single source, and then only when hard deadlines (like 'ship before the holidays') are in play. OLPC supporters will gladly wait 2 months to get systems if they understand the wait up front. (Many already have...)


2.) It is a a *lot* harder to ship 10,000 laptops to 10,000 people than 10,000 to one country. Selling laptops retail isn't the business that OLPC really needs to be in.

Agreed 100%. That was a tactical mistake on the part of OLPC. If they had marketed XO's strictly as an educational tool, (they actually did a pretty good job) it would have gone a long way toward answering the inevitable questions like "how do I install Flash, why can't I connect to every imaginable wireless access point, etc.) The community would have found answers to those anyway (as proven) and OLPC wouldn't have been on the hook to do so.

However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at this point.


3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.

Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.


Good question, and not an intuitive answer. This belongs on the wiki somewhere.

Seth


On Dec 28, 2007 8:00 AM, Josh Cogliati <jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com (jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com)> wrote:
Why is the give one get one program ending? The
program has brought millions of dollars of donations
to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
sales. So, why is the program ending?

Josh Cogliati


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open





_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open




--
Steve Holton
sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)
Steve Holton
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Charbax » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:35 pm

I think OLPC probably prefers that schools in the USA start buying them in large bulk quantities (as in Birmingham Alabama) and that every child in the US also gets the laptop. G1G1 is nice, but the numbers are still much too small for OLPC to be able to push the manufacturing price down, so the point of G1G1 probably has been one of convincing the last sceptics that the project is a worthy one.

The point is to get the momentum going during these first weeks of initial deployments in Uruguay, Peru, G1G1, Alabama and the target should be to make a positive impression on everyone involved in those initial deployments so everyone will understand the need to invest big time in making OLPC work.

There could also be a commercial hardware I think sold in stores such as in WalMart, but that requires that a company like WalMart is ready to invest in doing the necessary R&D, Marketing, distribution on a commercial version of it, which probably shouldn't be made of the same hardware. This hardware of the XO is designed so that every child gets it through the governments and through the schools. Definition of "commercial" is the opposite of that. "Commercial" means only some people can buy it, so it should probably also be suited for example for adults and businesses just as every other laptop is today (larger sized keyboard, business design, larger screen, HSDPA/WiMax). So I'd probably see an adult version sold for $300 in WalMart, Aldi and other supermarket chains. Cause only by cutting out all expenses for marketing, distribution and other middlemen can such price be achieved as a commercial product without there being a loss.

Quanta did say, under the previous CEO, that they were going to make a commercial version of the XO and sell it for $200, I don't know if they have advanced on that project since, or if other companies are working on this, I'm sure they are. The XO hardware is supposed to be open-source, prehaps some patent royalties can provide OLPC with more funding, so I would guess the point is that any company who is interested may come and copy the whole thing to release it to more schools and more governments or to release it commercially if they want.

So instead of "Give 1, Get 1", it will be "Get 1 commercial open-source super $300 laptop, and $50 goes to the OLPC project in patent royalties or in a coorporate donation".

--
Charbax,
Nicolas Charbonnier
Charbax
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby isforinsects » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:57 pm

Comments in line:

On Dec 28, 2007 12:04 PM, Steve Holton <sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)> wrote:
I must strongly recommend against ending the G1G1 program. Or at least replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market availability of growth systems and spares.

I don't think that at the current pace (long lead times) and trying to catch up on Distribution countries orders, that G1G1 has any chance of continuing at the current time. As someone suggested earlier, if G1G1 is going to happen again, or machines are going to become available at another time, OLPC should let this be known now.

I am working with three different non-profits in the US who would like to do small scale classroom size implementations via G1G1. But they can't get funding together or the projects in place in time (November > December). That isn't realistic for NP's in the US.

Implementations like this are really what we should be focusing on the in US. They are in a valuable position to provide implementation feedback and grassroots cheer leading domestically.


The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the adversaries know this.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel, customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through. (quite to my own disbelief)

With no small amount of help from you Steve. Which should be noted.

The price point isn't too bad. And it is providing machines for other nations at a very fast pace. Perhaps if an external company were to retail the machines at a similar price point it might take the strain off of OLPC. This company would want a margin of their own of course, which would take away from children too. But such is the cost of a well oiled machine.


The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative contracts to Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a trade-in allowance, etc).

As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.

This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.

Agreed. I want an extra screen to hack anyway.


However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at this point.


Logical fallacy. Just because you've sunk a bunch of money into something, if it sucks you should still go with what works better.

The structures are getting better. But they aren't satisfying "Gimme Cheap/free laptop now that works k thxs by" users. Not that we're trying to serve them, but *they* think that we are, and they are restless because of it.




3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.


Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.


Many logisitical considerations. Many many as I understand. They *should* be overcome sooner than later. And I think that OLPC has dropped the ball and explaining that fact to it's users.


Seth
isforinsects
Support Team
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:08 am

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Edward Cherlin » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:05 pm

On Dec 28, 2007 1:57 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth@isforinsects.com> wrote:
Comments in line:


On Dec 28, 2007 12:04 PM, Steve Holton <sph0lt0n@gmail.com> wrote:
I must strongly recommend against ending the G1G1 program. Or at least
replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market availability of
growth systems and spares.

Agreed.

I don't think that at the current pace (long lead times) and trying to catch
up on Distribution countries orders, that G1G1 has any chance of continuing
at the current time. As someone suggested earlier, if G1G1 is going to
happen again, or machines are going to become available at another time,
OLPC should let this be known now.

Questions must be asked before drawing conclusions.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly
one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to
suit facts."--Sherlock Holmes, in A Scandal in Bohemia, by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle

The first question is what Quanta is doing about increasing
production. I assume that the factory is capable of producing more,
since the original plan was to make a hundred million or more in 2008.
I hear that current production is 15,000 a day, which would come to
300,000 a month (five days a week) or 450,000/mo (seven days/wk). OLPC
says it has orders for about half a million units. (Not necessarily
signed contracts, but let that pass for now.)

Nobody knows whether next month's orders will be more or less. For
example: The bidding process in Brazil was poorly organized, and went
badly. Bidders were not informed of the decision to waive import
duties. They may have to try again. An order in January is not out of
the question, but is in grave doubt.

* Is Quanta running 24/7 (weekends, three shifts)?
* Can Quanta open another production line in the same facility?
* What limits production? Plastic? (Would another set of dies and
injection-molding equipment be needed?) Electronics? Space in the
factory?
* At what point (credible projections of volume over time) can Quanta
commit to opening another factory? What is the lead time?

For comparison, Nintendo has been behind in fulfilling orders for its
Wii game console for more than a year. No retailer can keep it in
stock. Presumably the factory is maxed out, but building another
wasn't cost-justified. (If anyone has facts on this topic, it would
probably be helpful to share them with us.) Does anybody claim that
Nintendo is therefore a failure? That this will allow Sony (LOL) or
Microsoft to crush them?

I am working with three different non-profits in the US who would like to do
small scale classroom size implementations via G1G1. But they can't get
funding together or the projects in place in time (November > December).
That isn't realistic for NP's in the US.

How many do they want? They will be able to order XO's in lots of a
hundred or more, cheaper than G1G1. I have been looking into setting
up an online XO supply operation. If I can aggregate orders for a
thousand, we are off. Even for a few hundred, we can discuss it.

Implementations like this are really what we should be focusing on the in
US. They are in a valuable position to provide implementation feedback and
grassroots cheer leading domestically.

I'm using the neophile Early Adopters as sources for documentation
issues. See http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_Publications and
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/New_Users.

The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which
would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North American
success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC mission from one of
developing an educational platform into one of competing in the North
American laptop computer market.) And the adversaries know this.

I don't think that this is correct. OLPC has more orders than the
Intel Classmate. The environment is challenging, but there are market
forces at work more powerful than any corporation. I don't have space
or time in this e-mail to give you my whole analysis, but I intend to
write it up elsewhere.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel,
customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through. (quite to
my own disbelief)

With no small amount of help from you Steve. Which should be noted.

The price point isn't too bad.

Wholesale
100 @ $299 (Give a half, get one)
1,000 @ $250 (Give about a quarter, get one)
10,000 @ $200 (Give about 5% of one, get one)

plus e-commerce markup...Yes. It will work.

Anybody want to join in? Anybody with money to invest? I'm putting
some of my savings into this.

And it is providing machines for other
nations at a very fast pace. Perhaps if an external company were to retail
the machines at a similar price point it might take the strain off of OLPC.
This company would want a margin of their own of course, which would take
away from children too. But such is the cost of a well oiled machine.


The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative contracts to
Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a trade-in
allowance, etc).
As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new
systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a
laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.
This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems and
spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they are) through
an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.

Agreed. I want an extra screen to hack anyway.



However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system to
1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at this point.

Yes, we can offer to take over the existing operation.

Logical fallacy. Just because you've sunk a bunch of money into something,
if it sucks you should still go with what works better.

The structures are getting better. But they aren't satisfying "Gimme
Cheap/free laptop now that works k thxs by" users. Not that we're trying to
serve them, but *they* think that we are, and they are restless because of
it.
3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to
scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.

Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to try to
exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical considerations I
don't understand) But if making them available in Europe comes at the cost
of availability in North America, I'm going to be arranging to purchase my
spares through GreyMarketEurope.

Many logisitical considerations. Many many as I understand. They *should*
be overcome sooner than later. And I think that OLPC has dropped the ball
and explaining that fact to it's users.

Yeah, their PR is pretty feeble. They are top-heavy with geeks, of course. ^_^

Seth

--
Edward Cherlin
Earth Treasury: End Poverty at a Profit
http://www.EarthTreasury.org/
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."--Alan Kay
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
Edward Cherlin
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Steve Holton » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:18 pm

On Dec 28, 2007 4:57 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth@isforinsects.com (seth@isforinsects.com)> wrote:
I am working with three different non-profits in the US who would like to do small scale classroom size implementations via G1G1. But they can't get funding together or the projects in place in time (November > December). That isn't realistic for NP's in the US.

Implementations like this are really what we should be focusing on the in US. They are in a valuable position to provide implementation feedback and grassroots cheer leading domestically.


Exactly. But you're talking a XOEE project- XO's for education. For OLPC this is the core mission and OLPC is distracted from it at their own peril.

I can imagine the difficulty raising $12K to put 30 XO into a single classroom. Perhaps there's a better model.
The XO is perfect for homeschoolers, and I'm planning to run a pilot myself as soon as I get my hardware.
$1200 is within budget for most families fortunate enough to be able to get by on a single income.
But what would be the point of convincing other homeschooling families of the benefits of XO collaboration if there's no way for them to get into the program? It would be viewed as gloating, and not a promoted behavior in those circles. Hence the necessity for growth hardware.

With 3 XO's and 3 kids, if one becomes 'special' due to malfunctioning or dead hardware, I've already got problems. With two down, 'collaboration' becomes meaningless. I.e. must have access to spares.

Without growth and spares, the XO hacker community size becomes frozen Dec 31. Few will be interested in 'getting into' XO development if they can't get a system to work on. I don't have stats, but I get a sense the number of clued hackers who are actively involved in XO exploration and development has skyrocketed since G1G1 was announced. I know there was only mild interest in the XO when demo'd to TriLUG (Triangle Linux User's Group) at Red Hat a year ago, and the usual question (where can I get one) and response (you can't) was a turn-off. Why bother.





The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the adversaries know this.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel, customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through. (quite to my own disbelief)


With no small amount of help from you Steve. Which should be noted.

The price point isn't too bad. And it is providing machines for other nations at a very fast pace. Perhaps if an external company were to retail the machines at a similar price point it might take the strain off of OLPC. This company would want a margin of their own of course, which would take away from children too. But such is the cost of a well oiled machine.


I don't think a commercial market, business school analysis is appropriate here. Any price above cost-of-goods will grow the market. A 2x COG (as in G1G1) grows the market double, if the market will support it, which it does. If OLPC remains a player at the G1G1 price point, it creates a market floor with plenty of margin for external companies, encouraging them to enter.

Remember, the OLPC mission is not profit, first mover advantage, or monopoly rents through lock-in; it's all about market penetration.


The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative contracts to Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a trade-in allowance, etc).

As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.

This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.


Agreed. I want an extra screen to hack anyway.


However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at this point.



Logical fallacy. Just because you've sunk a bunch of money into something, if it sucks you should still go with what works better.

The structures are getting better. But they aren't satisfying "Gimme Cheap/free laptop now that works k thxs by" users. Not that we're trying to serve them, but *they* think that we are, and they are restless because of it.


Tactical mistake on our part. Marketing the XO as a laptop computer puts us into direct competition with Microsoft, Intel, ASUS, etc. And we have to compete against them on their own turf. Is it any wonder they dig out talking heads from the technology sector (Dvorak, etc.) to discuss the failings of the XO as a laptop computer, and the inappropriateness of sending laptop computers to starving kids in Africa?

On the other hand, if OLPC made a policy of discussing ONLY the educational, non-profit nature of the XO, and discussing it ONLY in an educational context, refusing to refer to the XO as a "laptop", etc. the discussion would have to take place in educational and non-profit forums; places where the direct competition can't even have a voice unless they are donating money to the project.

And the XONA hacker community wouldn't be distracted for a moment.


3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.


Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.



Many logisitical considerations. Many many as I understand. They *should* be overcome sooner than later. And I think that OLPC has dropped the ball and explaining that fact to it's users.


I wonder how much of the North America G1G1 infrastructure can be utilized directly by a G1G1 Europe rollout? Certainly things like the wiki, bugs discovered, failure modes, etc, but possibly also email/web based service and support staff and such.



--
Steve Holton
sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)
Steve Holton
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby William » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:05 pm

On Friday 28 December 2007, Edward Cherlin wrote:
* What limits production? Plastic? (Would another set of dies and
injection-molding equipment be needed?)

Typical injection molding cycle times for parts that size are 30 - 45 seconds,
so if the 15,000 a day production estimate is accurate. I would think they
already using multiple molds. Likely multi-cavity molds for the smaller
parts...
--
William
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
William
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:56 am

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Charbax » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:53 pm

On Dec 29, 2007 1:18 AM, Steve Holton <sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)> wrote:
Without growth and spares, the XO hacker community size becomes frozen Dec 31.


I don't know what the actual numbers are, but from what OLPC has said during G1G1 initial release, only people who ordered on the first day of G1G1 on November 12th has got them delivered by now. So that probably means about 90% of G1G1 participants still have not received their G1G1 XO laptop.

So G1G1 is not stopping on 31st December, many people are still going to receive them during the next weeks and months, since OLPC is probably delivering the laptops to Uruguay, Peru, Mexico, Birmingham Alabama in priority.

Depending on possible further announcements of big orders of the XO laptop by other countries in early January, I think that will be the factor determining if the continuation of G1G1 is needed. The point of G1G1 being to get the initial production started with sufficient quantities of orders placed and to show the developped world that the mass produced XO is for real, and that OLPC is ready to sign large orders with any country.
--
Charbax,
Nicolas Charbonnier
Charbax
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Steve Holton » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:26 pm

On Dec 28, 2007 8:53 PM, Charbax <charbax@charbax.com (charbax@charbax.com)> wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007 1:18 AM, Steve Holton <sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)> wrote:
Without growth and spares, the XO hacker community size becomes frozen Dec 31.



I don't know what the actual numbers are, but from what OLPC has said during G1G1 initial release, only people who ordered on the first day of G1G1 on November 12th has got them delivered by now. So that probably means about 90% of G1G1 participants still have not received their G1G1 XO laptop.

I guess I should have said "the potential XO hacker community size becomes frozen Dec 31."
So does the potential educational community.


Once a technology product is delivered to market, the tech-support staff becomes the sales staff. That was Microsoft's key to making Windows a success: on-site evangelists.

How many people will get their first up-close exposure to an XO after their opportunity to get one has evaporated, seeing as how (by your numbers) only 7,000 of 70K XO's have hit the North American streets so far? I know what my reaction was when I was told, before G1G1 was announced, that I could never be a member of the XO club. Ho hum. When G1G1 was announced, I put my money down first day. And volunteered for the help staff.


So G1G1 is not stopping on 31st December, many people are still going to receive them during the next weeks and months, since OLPC is probably delivering the laptops to Uruguay, Peru, Mexico, Birmingham Alabama in priority.

Anyone in Alabama who thinks the XO is cool (but doesn't already have one) will have to content themselves with drooling over it, or going gray-market. Gray market drives prices up, which reduces entry barriers for competition, with no benefit at all to OLPC.


Depending on possible further announcements of big orders of the XO laptop by other countries in early January, I think that will be the factor determining if the continuation of G1G1 is needed. The point of G1G1 being to get the initial production started with sufficient quantities of orders placed and to show the developped world that the mass produced XO is for real, and that OLPC is ready to sign large orders with any country.

--
Charbax,
Nicolas Charbonnier
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open




--
Steve Holton
sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)
Steve Holton
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Steve Franks » Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:02 am

I hope I'm not echoing someone else's sentiments verbatim, but,

I've been a developer since my grandparents got suckered into paying
286 prices for an IBM 8088 in 1991 (I think I was 14). As I got
older, I heard the old sysadmins evangelizing unix in college when a
20MHz workstation was $5000 and a 66MHz PC was $1500. All the noise
between MS and Unix got me to form an opinion, (which it the point I'm
getting around to) namely:

Microsoft is King Of The Hill because of (1)Visual Basic (2)MSDN, and
(3) the $1500 PC. Namely, planets aligned to increase the number of
developers by maybe 1000 times in a short while by (1) Lowering the
learning curve for making something useful (VB Tool), (2) Making
documentation ubiquitous and unified (MSDN), and (3) Hardware was
suddenly reasonably easy to lay hands on.

One week ago I knew squat about Linux, now, I could appreciably help a
student (namely mine) make her XO "do something", and I'm about to
contribute a quick report on running Sugar on top of XFCE4 (yes, it
works great, plus alt-tab works).

If we didn't have one this wouldn't be the case. I'm not going to get
particularly ecxited about running an XO emulator on my PC and start
adding to the wiki, or writing apps; not without my own 'toy' - basic
human nature.

I'd say G1G1 is pretty much essential by my philosophy - look at
wikipedia compared to other online encyclopedias.

Besides, mixing 'gift for me, gift for charity' is a killer marketing
move if nothing else - hopefully the G1G1 numbers speak to that...if
it was up to me, I'd get Newegg.com and Thinkgeek.com to become
resellers for G1G1. Why ever stop it? I'll bet G1G1 would hold it's
own indefinitely against Asus eePC (sp?), etc, if it was as well
publicized. I don't mean it would necessarily outsell a giant
manufacturer, but I'll bet it would keep the doors open at OLPC, and
keep some core developers paid to make apps that really uphold the
OLPC philosophy - like PBS for TV. There is more to life than
commerce, and other than being a geek, that's why I did G1G1 on the
first day. That's why my folks bought a Prius even though they never
commute.

Steve
Tucson, AZ, USA
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
Steve Franks
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Jim Sayre » Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:42 am

I think the key is for project management to remember that the OLPC
project is a revolutionary idea to shift from paper-based learning to
digital learning, with the XO is just one very early tool that will
begin that process. It's ability to replace a conventional laptop is
besides the point, since it has a completely different core purpose.

Having said that, though, the project is missing a huge potential
benefit by cancelling G1G1, rather than remarketing it as a way for
people in developed countries to contribute to the project's core
purposes. While using the internet is just one (and not the most
important) educational activity students will use the XO for, it can add
a great deal of value to the tool, and at the same time help to solve
(rather than create) problems.

An earlier thread suggested pairing students in G1G1 families with
students in the recipient countries. There's no reason why such pairing
requires both students to have XO computers, but it would be a nice
touch, and would help the donor student understand what the recipient
could and could not do. But a major benefit of such pairing would be to
develop a large community of knowledgeable volunteers to serve as
helpers for the recipient students. I've seen a couple of comments
along those lines, and I agree with them. I'm on the Board of a
non-profit community network with over 10,000 users and only one
employed tech person; we manage almost everything through volunteers.
The OLPC project is a far more attractive and manageable way to
contribute some time than to coach users with a variety of old and maybe
defective equipment through a variety of connection problems.

Similarly, our volunteers manage most of our membership and donation
activities. A great deal of the volunteering is done online, and I
can't see any reason why the OLPC project, with the level of commitment
it already has (and more on way with each new G1G1 unit that gets into
circulation) can't do the same. Volunteers could keep track of the
payments, maintain a database or donors who would be offered chances to
volunteer, ensure that delivery problems are explained and resolved,
pair interested students, find suitable volunteer jobs for donors
willing to contribute, and so on. The amazing levels of coordination
achieved by the open source software community proves that none of those
things are impossible.

In addition to the one to one relationships that would be created, each
donor family is a potential evangelist for the project. The elementary
school which my daughter attended beginning about 10 years ago had only
a stand-alone computer lab with maybe 20 Macs. Classes would rotate
into the room once a week for an hour or so of computer learning, which
was by design and necessity an entirely separate subject from the rest
of the schooling. During all those years, I had to pay up to $100 per
year in "supply fees" because our school board, despite all its tax
support, couldn't make ends meet otherwise. The parent association came
up with the funds for the computer lab, and even much of the playground
equipment. If someone had shown the parents that for $150 each (in the
first year) the school could provide every child with their own
computer, making digital learning an integral part of the whole
educational process, I think they'd have overwhelmingly supported it.
Of course, in those days laptops were more like $2000, so it wouldn't
have been practical, but now it is. And the benefits of creating such
educational clusters of OLPC users throughout the developed world are
enormous - to foster volunteers, donations, political support, and (by
the way) better educated kids.

G1G1 is a win win idea if there ever was one. I don't see why
manufacturing should be an issue. If the capacity is there to fill a
country's order, it can be used to built a reasonable number of units
for donor families. The donation portion of the cost would presumably
be held until there's enough to fund (or supplement) an order for 3rd
world use. In the meantime, the pairing would be with recipient kids
who already have the XO; I agree that trying to identify the individual
child whose computer was donated by the family would make it very hard
to manage, and while some charities find that sort of thing good for
advertising, I don't think it's necessary. This isn't a project to
adopt a child, it's to foster a better means of education.

Jim

PS: While educational uses should be by far the main focus, aspects of
the XO have great potential benefits for other purposes. Have you ever
tried to use a conventional laptop in your car on a sunny day. If the
screen technology really allows for use in bright sunlight, it would be
a better tool for many travelling users (and even those who just want to
do email on their patio in the summer).

Probably the most innovative feature is the built-in mesh networking.
Companies have to hire consultants to set up internal networks, and
maintaining them is a constant expense. Our community network is
beginning to experiment with mesh as a means of allowing residents in a
housing complex (low-income public housing in particular) to share just
a few broadband internet connections, and in the process enable all of
the kids to have the benefits of home computing. But just buying an
add-on mesh device and configuring it will cost a substantial chunk of
the XO's price tag, and it has mesh built-in and pre-configured as part
of the OS. Now that's a option that not even top end computers
currently offer. The military has some projects to use mesh on the
battlefield, but no one else is doing it on a large scale for useful
purposes. The XO could be a technology leader in this area, and if
classes in developed countries begin to adopt it, and realize its
benefits, so will the parents. Think of the good publicity that would
generate for the project.


Steve Holton wrote:
I must *strongly* recommend *against* ending the G1G1 program. Or at
least replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market
availability of growth systems and spares.

The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which
would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North
American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC
mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of
competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the
adversaries know this.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel,
customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through.
(quite to my own disbelief)

The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative
contracts to Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a
trade-in allowance, etc).

As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new
systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a
laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.

This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems
and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they
are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.

On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth@isforinsects.com
<mailto:seth@isforinsects.com>> wrote:

I *think* that it is ending for the following reasons:

1.) Quanta can only make so many machines per month, and there is
a backlog of orders for target nations.


Agreed, but the competition knows that.
Constricted manufacturing channels are only a factor if a component is
single source, and then only when hard deadlines (like 'ship before
the holidays') are in play. OLPC supporters will gladly wait 2 months
to get systems if they understand the wait up front. (Many already
have...)


2.) It is a a *lot* harder to ship 10,000 laptops to 10,000 people
than 10,000 to one country. Selling laptops retail isn't the
business that OLPC really needs to be in.


Agreed 100%. That was a tactical mistake on the part of OLPC. If
they had marketed XO's strictly as an educational tool, (they actually
did a pretty good job) it would have gone a long way toward answering
the inevitable questions like "how do I install Flash, why can't I
connect to every imaginable wireless access point, etc.) The community
would have found answers to those anyway (as proven) and OLPC wouldn't
have been on the hook to do so.

However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system
to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at
this point.

3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start
to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.


Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to
try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical
considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in
Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going
to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.

Good question, and not an intuitive answer. This belongs on the
wiki somewhere.

Seth


On Dec 28, 2007 8:00 AM, Josh Cogliati <jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com
<mailto:jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com>> wrote:

Why is the give one get one program ending? The
program has brought millions of dollars of donations
to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
sales. So, why is the program ending?

Josh Cogliati


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org <mailto:Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org>
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open



_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org <mailto:Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org>
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open




--
Steve Holton
sph0lt0n@gmail.com <mailto:sph0lt0n@gmail.com>
!DSPAM:528,477556e786771405164501!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open


!DSPAM:528,477556e786771405164501!


--

Jim Sayre
jfsayre@vcn.bc.ca

_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
Jim Sayre
 

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby nlee » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:12 am

the G1G1 program is a huge strain on the people directly involved in the project, though. there are a lot of benefits, such as the number of enthusiastic people brought into the project, eager to get cracking and help out. on the other hand, we're scrambling to keep donors happy, answer customer support questions, deal with possible returns, etc. even passing a lot of this to the volunteer community, there are still things that must be handled within the organization, especially if this is a commercial or semi-commercial enterprise. many view themselves not as donors, but as customers, and expect a high level of service, documentation, support, and so on for something that is very much a work-in-progress. this means that somebody working on it has to stop whatever they're building to work on documentation, communication, answering angry emails...

having the documentation and directions and support staff is a great thing, and is really something that i've wanted for a while, but if we continue G1G1 the number of issues will continue to increase, just from the sheer volume of people with XOs, and at a certain point i believe it will begin to really have a negative impact on the productivity of the community. running a G1G1 type program full time would be great publicity, support, make people who want to be able to get laptops happy, but it would also greatly increase the number of people who don't understand that OLPC is not in the business of selling cool gadgets to [comparably] wealthy adults, and these people demand service at a level that involves abandoning the educational goals of the project in favor of a better business model. OLPC is not here to be a corporation, and placing too much emphasis on G1G1 and similar programs is a risky move, because it puts OLPC down the path towards competitive business.

is turning over developers to customer service and marketing really what's best for this project?

can the project succeed without consumer support?

-nikki

On Dec 29, 2007 2:42 AM, Jim Sayre < jfsayre@vcn.bc.ca (jfsayre@vcn.bc.ca)> wrote:
I think the key is for project management to remember that the OLPC
project is a revolutionary idea to shift from paper-based learning to
digital learning, with the XO is just one very early tool that will
begin that process. It's ability to replace a conventional laptop is
besides the point, since it has a completely different core purpose.

Having said that, though, the project is missing a huge potential
benefit by cancelling G1G1, rather than remarketing it as a way for
people in developed countries to contribute to the project's core
purposes. While using the internet is just one (and not the most
important) educational activity students will use the XO for, it can add
a great deal of value to the tool, and at the same time help to solve
(rather than create) problems.

An earlier thread suggested pairing students in G1G1 families with
students in the recipient countries. There's no reason why such pairing
requires both students to have XO computers, but it would be a nice
touch, and would help the donor student understand what the recipient
could and could not do. But a major benefit of such pairing would be to
develop a large community of knowledgeable volunteers to serve as
helpers for the recipient students. I've seen a couple of comments
along those lines, and I agree with them. I'm on the Board of a
non-profit community network with over 10,000 users and only one
employed tech person; we manage almost everything through volunteers.
The OLPC project is a far more attractive and manageable way to
contribute some time than to coach users with a variety of old and maybe
defective equipment through a variety of connection problems.

Similarly, our volunteers manage most of our membership and donation
activities. A great deal of the volunteering is done online, and I
can't see any reason why the OLPC project, with the level of commitment
it already has (and more on way with each new G1G1 unit that gets into
circulation) can't do the same. Volunteers could keep track of the
payments, maintain a database or donors who would be offered chances to
volunteer, ensure that delivery problems are explained and resolved,
pair interested students, find suitable volunteer jobs for donors
willing to contribute, and so on. The amazing levels of coordination
achieved by the open source software community proves that none of those
things are impossible.

In addition to the one to one relationships that would be created, each
donor family is a potential evangelist for the project. The elementary
school which my daughter attended beginning about 10 years ago had only
a stand-alone computer lab with maybe 20 Macs. Classes would rotate
into the room once a week for an hour or so of computer learning, which
was by design and necessity an entirely separate subject from the rest
of the schooling. During all those years, I had to pay up to $100 per
year in "supply fees" because our school board, despite all its tax
support, couldn't make ends meet otherwise. The parent association came
up with the funds for the computer lab, and even much of the playground
equipment. If someone had shown the parents that for $150 each (in the
first year) the school could provide every child with their own
computer, making digital learning an integral part of the whole
educational process, I think they'd have overwhelmingly supported it.
Of course, in those days laptops were more like $2000, so it wouldn't
have been practical, but now it is. And the benefits of creating such
educational clusters of OLPC users throughout the developed world are
enormous - to foster volunteers, donations, political support, and (by
the way) better educated kids.

G1G1 is a win win idea if there ever was one. I don't see why
manufacturing should be an issue. If the capacity is there to fill a
country's order, it can be used to built a reasonable number of units
for donor families. The donation portion of the cost would presumably
be held until there's enough to fund (or supplement) an order for 3rd
world use. In the meantime, the pairing would be with recipient kids
who already have the XO; I agree that trying to identify the individual
child whose computer was donated by the family would make it very hard
to manage, and while some charities find that sort of thing good for
advertising, I don't think it's necessary. This isn't a project to
adopt a child, it's to foster a better means of education.

Jim

PS: While educational uses should be by far the main focus, aspects of
the XO have great potential benefits for other purposes. Have you ever
tried to use a conventional laptop in your car on a sunny day. If the
screen technology really allows for use in bright sunlight, it would be
a better tool for many travelling users (and even those who just want to
do email on their patio in the summer).

Probably the most innovative feature is the built-in mesh networking.
Companies have to hire consultants to set up internal networks, and
maintaining them is a constant expense. Our community network is
beginning to experiment with mesh as a means of allowing residents in a
housing complex (low-income public housing in particular) to share just
a few broadband internet connections, and in the process enable all of
the kids to have the benefits of home computing. But just buying an
add-on mesh device and configuring it will cost a substantial chunk of
the XO's price tag, and it has mesh built-in and pre-configured as part
of the OS. Now that's a option that not even top end computers
currently offer. The military has some projects to use mesh on the
battlefield, but no one else is doing it on a large scale for useful
purposes. The XO could be a technology leader in this area, and if
classes in developed countries begin to adopt it, and realize its
benefits, so will the parents. Think of the good publicity that would
generate for the project.



Steve Holton wrote:
I must *strongly* recommend *against* ending the G1G1 program. Or at
least replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market
availability of growth systems and spares.

The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which
would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North
American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC
mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of
competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the
adversaries know this.

The market price point is proven.
The community is proven.
The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel,
customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through.
(quite to my own disbelief)

The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
- natural attrition of hardware failures.
- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative
contracts to Quanta to build something else.
- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a
trade-in allowance, etc).

As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new
systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a
laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.

This could be accomplished:
- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems
and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they
are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
- long term: multi-source hardware availability.

On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Seth Woodworth <seth@isforinsects.com (seth@isforinsects.com)



<mailto:seth@isforinsects.com (seth@isforinsects.com)>> wrote:

I *think* that it is ending for the following reasons:

1.) Quanta can only make so many machines per month, and there is
a backlog of orders for target nations.


Agreed, but the competition knows that.
Constricted manufacturing channels are only a factor if a component is
single source, and then only when hard deadlines (like 'ship before
the holidays') are in play. OLPC supporters will gladly wait 2 months
to get systems if they understand the wait up front. (Many already
have...)


2.) It is a a *lot* harder to ship 10,000 laptops to 10,000 people
than 10,000 to one country. Selling laptops retail isn't the
business that OLPC really needs to be in.


Agreed 100%. That was a tactical mistake on the part of OLPC. If
they had marketed XO's strictly as an educational tool, (they actually
did a pretty good job) it would have gone a long way toward answering
the inevitable questions like "how do I install Flash, why can't I
connect to every imaginable wireless access point, etc.) The community
would have found answers to those anyway (as proven) and OLPC wouldn't
have been on the hook to do so.

However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system
to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at
this point.

3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start
to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.


Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to
try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical
considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in
Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going
to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.

Good question, and not an intuitive answer. This belongs on the
wiki somewhere.

Seth


On Dec 28, 2007 8:00 AM, Josh Cogliati <jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com (jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com)


<mailto:jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com (jjcogliati-olpc@yahoo.com)>> wrote:

Why is the give one get one program ending? The
program has brought millions of dollars of donations
to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
sales. So, why is the program ending?

Josh Cogliati


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list

Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org) <mailto:Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)>
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open



_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list

Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org) <mailto:Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)>
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open




--
Steve Holton

sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com) <mailto: sph0lt0n@gmail.com (sph0lt0n@gmail.com)>
!DSPAM:528,477556e786771405164501!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open



!DSPAM:528,477556e786771405164501!


--

Jim Sayre
jfsayre@vcn.bc.ca (jfsayre@vcn.bc.ca)


_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org (Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org)
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open


nlee
Support Team
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: Needham, MA

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby znmeb » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:40 am

Nicole Lee wrote:
Running
a G1G1 type program full time would be great publicity, support, make people
who want to be able to get laptops happy, but it would also greatly increase
the number of people who don't understand that OLPC is not in the business
of selling cool gadgets to [comparably] wealthy adults, and these people
demand service at a level that involves abandoning the educational goals of
the project in favor of a better business model. OLPC is not here to be a
corporation, and placing too much emphasis on G1G1 and similar programs is a
risky move, because it puts OLPC down the path towards competitive business.

is turning over developers to customer service and marketing really what's
best for this project?

can the project succeed without consumer support?

-nikki

I really think you're right. The G1G1 program should end in the
USA/Canada on 31 December 2007 as planned, for a lot of reasons. Some of
them you listed above, but in actual fact, a more pressing reason is
that OLPC is a non-profit organization and can't hope to compete with a
large manufacturer head-to-head. The two "unique selling propositions"
of the XO to adults seem to be the screen and the wireless. I don't
think it's going to be very difficult for large R&D organizations to
duplicate those.

There seem to be three classes of G1G1 donors -- people who are getting
them for their own children, those who are getting them so they can
develop software for children, and those who are getting them for
themselves. You can probably guess which class I'm in by the fact that I
loaded wxMaxima and R on mine. :)

I guess I question whether children in the USA really need the XO --
there are plenty of software packages that run on conventional PCs, and
we have the infrastructure that the "target market" for the XO lacks.
And I really think adults who want a lightweight low-cost
no-moving-parts Linux notebook can probably get along just fine with an
ASUS Eee.

So that leaves developers. For them, some kind of developer program
probably should be put in place beyond what's there already, now that
there's a production line in operation and the base platform is stable
enough that casual users and non-Linux people have little risk of
bricking their machines. In short, I'd like to see more XOs end up in
Afghanistan, Haiti, Cambodia, Mongolia and Rwanda and in the hands of
people who want to develop software for them.
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
znmeb
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:28 pm
Location: Aloha, Oregon USA

[Olpc-open] Why is G1G1 program ending?

Postby Antoine van Gelder » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:43 am

Nicole Lee wrote:
OLPC is not here to be a corporation, and
placing too much emphasis on G1G1 and similar programs is a risky move,
because it puts OLPC down the path towards competitive business.


If I may summarize from what I understand:


Goal of corporation: "Make money now and in the future"
Measurement of corporation: $$$.Number.of


Goal of OLPC: "Educating children now and in the future"
Measurement of OLPC: ChildrenEducated.Number.of


The OLPC goal is a little bit more complex than the corporate goal! :-D


Up to a point G1G1 helps foster the goal of OLPC by:

. Increasing the available pool of developers for the
platform which not only increases the utility (and
hence the value of the XO to the buyer) of the machine
but also grows the pool of evangelists for the XO.

. Increasing the viability of the project in the eyes of the
citizenry and by extension the folk who take responsibility
for serving that citizenry. (Apologies to any Americans
on-list but I consider myself to be a citizen, not a
consumer! *grin.duck.run*)

. Bringing in some cash -> To be clear, afaik the idea has not
and for various reasons probably shouldn't be, to fund the
educational mission out of this money but rather through
the sales of laptops to groups who have a responsibility to
seeing that the citizenries children are educated. Is this
correct ?

. Availability of XO-1 through 'official' channels removes
much of the incentive of grey-marketeers to go parasitic
on the XO's ass.

. Provides a channel for single-unit purchases in countries
where there is ZERO government/business/aid support for
OLPC's mission.

. Does wonders for the mental health of our global democratic
community by giving the citizenry a channel for their
hard-earned money which goes to some purpose other than buying
some anonymous plutocrat another yacht.


Beyond a certain point G1G1 works against the goal of OLPC by:

. Distracting OLPC staff who should be thinking about
educational issues (what must this software be able to do
to increase the pupil pass rate) into dealing with tech
support issues (why doesn't the XO-1 talk to BigRandomCorp's
wifi base station) that don't benefit the educational mission.

. Threatening (or being perceived as threatening) the market of
manufacturers of low cost computers. Possibly getting OLPC
entangled in distracting arguments about who has the cheapest,
lowest-cost computer rather than who has the laptop which can
_measurably_ increase the pass rate of children at school and
which can _certifiably_ deliver education to children without
any schools at all.

. There may potentially be production capacity issues, although
to be fair, most folk given a choice between solving production
capacity problems by increasing production capacity or by
rate-limiting sales are not as short-sighted as South African
business executives.

. Distracting OLPC staff who should be thinking about marketing
issues (how do we explain to government ministers that they're
going to be heroes when the teachers are no longer responsible
for spending 100% of their time holding pupil attentions and
will now be able to spend the bulk of that time answering the
questions of pupils who have specific problems) into thinking
about supply-chain issues (how do we get a XO-1 from Taiwan to
Newcastle faster than Steve Jobs can get a Macbook from a
regional warehouse to lower-Poughkeepsie.)



/me tosses his vote for Ed Cherlin as President for G1G1 International
in the hat and idly wonders how long it takes to arrange a credit note
for half a billion dollars these days.

- a



--

"Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a
design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication
structure."

- Melvin Conway
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
Olpc-open@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
Antoine van Gelder
 

Next

Return to Open Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron