2 days before Intel CEO Paul Otellini would unveil the Classmate 2 or the Intel-powered XO at the CES, Intel announced that they are quitting the OLPC board.
Intel claims that they are quitting because of Nicholas Negroponte wanting them to stop the promotion of the Classmate/Eee to education in third world countries, but I think that the real reason is that Intel does not have a good enough processor for the OLPC project to use as an alternative to the AMD Geode LX-700. Intel has not been able to develop a processor to match the price, power consumption and performance requirements of the OLPC project. Paul Otellini could have looked like a fool at the CES if he had to unveil an Intel powered XO that was performing worse in terms of price and power consumption compared to the AMD powered one.
Intel executives probably have seen the OLPC project more as a threat than as an opportunity to their core business from day one. Intel probably wants to do whatever they can to stop the development of cheap laptop alternatives using cheaper fanless AMD processors and even ARM based processors in the future (XO-2, XO-3…), which is a direct threat to Intel’s market-dominating X86 standard.
I think that Intel did not achieve or want to achieve any of these technological and pricing advancements in an Intel-powered XO and thus in fear of being ridiculed at CES with a more expensive Intel-powered XO with shorter battery life, Intel, as a last resort, decided to quit OLPC and blame it on Nicholas Negroponte.
Intel might think it is a superior technology provider and that it can simply continue to market its Intel powered education laptop against the OLPC project. Intel probably feels too unconfortable with the prospect of supporting the development of cheap low powered laptops by being a member of the OLPC board. I think that Intel sees those cheap XO laptops as potentially becoming huge devastating disruptors to the established expensive laptop business in the developped nations. A commercial XO could replace all laptops in the business productivity, educational, personal and entertainment sectors of the PC and laptop business, which is the reason Mary-Lou Jepsen, OLPC’s previous CTO, is working on her new business to commercialise XO technology in the coming weeks and months.
When will we hear of the first commercial cheap laptop projects using many or most of the OLPC XO open-source technologies? Quanta’s ex-CEO talked about Quanta producing a commercial version of the XO many months ago. I think that any company with an interest in indroducing low margin, large volume, low cost, low power laptops, could most probably come in, approach Mary-Lou Jepsen and the OLPC for access to using the open-source hardware and software of the project for commercial projects. And this could lead any of WalMart, Dell, Medion-Aldi, Google, AMD, Amazon and IBM to introduce commercial $200 laptops in the near future, all running optimized and free versions of Linux.
Would the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation not be criticised for working against the work of the Red Cross to bringing vaccinations and food to starving and sick populations? Why would anyone want to compete with a non-profit open-source project like OLPC? I have been asking those questions to Intel ever since I filmed an Intel representative at the WCIT in May of 2006 when they first introduced the Classmate PC.
If anyone has a better technology to decrease the price, improve the battery life, improve the e-book screen readabillity, improve the flash/divx video playback performance or improve the connectivity with WiMax, cellular, satellite or other technologies, then logically that entity currently simply can contribute that new technology into the open-source development for the XO-2 by simply contacting OLPC, posting on their Wiki, making press announcements and talking about their newer, better technologies to bloggers and to the media. I think that Intel doesn’t want to share it’s R&D, distribution network, design ideas and proprietary technologies with a non-profit like OLPC. I think that Intel hates the open-source hardware/software/distribution revolution.
8 Comments
IBM sold off its laptop division to a Chinese company called Lenovo. Certainly they have the manufacturing muscle to deliver, but I can’t speak on their behalf.
So Intel’s spots get opened up to view and they are not pretty; nor were M$ dirty tricks when Gates was caught blatantly lying under oath, and Balmer’s greed exposed.
When Corporations get so large, so greedy that they lose all morality they need to be shunned and shut-down.
Intel didn’t “leave” the OLPC project. AFAIK they were on notice for repeatedly acting/advising against it in favour of their own equipment.
I think you’re right on with “I think that Intel doesn’t want to share it’s R&D, distribution network, design ideas and proprietary technologies with a non-profit like OLPC. I think that Intel hates the open-source hardware/software/distribution revolution.”
Intel’s market dominance in the CPU chip market is due entirely to the fact that Microsoft ONLY works on Intel-compatibles. This leaves companies like AMD with severe disadvantages despite the fact that in my opinion, AMD has had more innovation in their chip designs (generally lower-power consumption for cooler operation at comparable performance levels).
Because of cross-licensing terms between AMD & Intel, I suspect that AMD is unable to get traction with any revolutionary chip designs without also licensing those designs to Intel simply because MS won’t write to their innovations if they did whereas MS *WILL* write to Intel innovations leaving AMD to play catch-up.
I’m glad to see that the fact that Intel has lost track of customer design desires (low cost, cool operation, no need for powered fans or liquid nitrogen for CPU cooling, etc) is coming back to haunt them.
I support the OLPC use of AMD chips because it not only lowers cost, but also promotes competition - providing AMD a market where they can truly lead and where their innovation can be utilized by an OS that is not controlled by a third-party with known ties to their biggest competitor.
I also support the OLPC use of AMD chips because the selection of AMD chips endorses AMD as the more innovative CPU chip developer. I’m tired of the way the MS code bloat has continued to chew up every last bit of the increased CPU power being provided by chip manufacturers and I cannot tell you how pleased I am that someone has recognized the vacuum at the low-end of the desktop/laptop market and that it can be filled using Linux on cheap, low-end hardware.
The OLPC project is scaring MS no end. We now have generations of kids that represent vast future markets growing up and learning on Linux-based laptops - laptops that cannot be coerced by MS to run Windows because they just do not have the vast resources required to handle the MS code-bloat. Add to this that the monolithic design of the MS operating system, the increasing size of the MS operational footprint for minimum performance requirements and the evolution of the entire MS ecosystem all work against MS ever being able to work on low-end hardware again. This is further exasperated by the possibility (probability?) that over time the OLPC may change to a non-x86-based CPU and you find that the third-world market is being pulled out from under MS by the OLPC and Linux’s ability to be hardware and CPU agnostic.
In summary, *ANY* ideas, technology, or R&D that Intel shares with OLPC will ultimately undermine their monopoly hardware position and their partnership with their monopoly software buddies at MS. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that at least some of Intel’s reticence to follow through on commitments made to the OLPC project have much to do with their MS partner’s objections because MS knows this is one game they are totally unprepared to play, but that they can sabotage via Intel’s participation.
I am *so* glad that AMD now has quad-core chips available for sale. We really need AMD around to keep–how does The Register call them?–”Chipzilla” honest.
Funny that even though AMD was totally Microsoft’s whore there for a while (”Athlon64: the world’s only Windows-compatible 64-bit processor”), Microsoft still didn’t produce a 64-bit Windows until Intel came out with their versions. Yes, “Wintel” is very much in effect.
I find myself wondering if Microsoft had anything to do with LANCOR’s phony patent suit against OLPC.
Yes, Intel has nothing to match the AMD Geode in terms of delivering performance while being low power.
AMD Geode is powerful. Sadly, the XO is being perceived as slow. Could it be the XO software?
Puppy Linux is just another Linux, but it is robust and small enough to run speedily in the GX466, XO’s abandoned processor. OLPC did not welcome Puppy Linux to its laptop project, but Intel did, although belatedly.
If the XO would not be perceived as a performance machine, then the Intel laptop would come out as the market’s low-cost laptop, and not the XO.
I’ve been boycotting Micro$oft and Intel for years. We only buy AMD boxes, and delete the windoze.
I understand the XO runs a version of Fedora. I’m gonna see if I can get Debian to work on it when I get mine next week…
Post a Comment