Working prototype of $100 MIT notebook computer

[K. Eng]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/laptop-1116.html

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan unveiled the first working prototype of the $100 laptop Nov. 16 at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia. Annan was joined by Nicholas Negroponte, chairman and co-founder of the Media Lab at MIT, in presenting the laptop to the gathering.

The $100 laptop, first announced by Negroponte at the World Economic Forum in January 2005, is an ultra-low-cost, full-featured computer designed to dramatically enhance children's primary and secondary education worldwide. It is a joint project of the Media Lab and the nonprofit One Laptop per Child (OLPC) association, which aims to equip the world's schoolchildren and their teachers with a personal, portable, connected computer.

These won't initially be on sale to the general public; only governments will be able to buy them in large batches. However, I think it is only a matter of time before stuff like this makes it into the commercial space. Do these pose a danger to Windows and MacOS notebooks? MIT's folks have claimed that these $100 wonders can do everything a $1000 notebook can do.

However:
+ These machines have low res displays (800x600 effective)
+ Low storage capacity (1GB or so)
+ Slow processor (500 MHz of unknown type)

Hence, tasks like media encoding, digital video editing, MP3 storage, and other computationally intense tasks will probably not be done on these machines. In these areas, Windows and MacOS machines will probably continue to dominate.

But for web surfing, email, word processing, and spreadsheets, this is more than good enough. With a WiFi connection and 4 USB ports, these machines will have plenty of connectivity.

As a side note, the lime green/yellow color scheme is awful.

What do you think?

[Kyocera]

Oil for laptops? Food for Laptops? Another scam.

Isn't this the same guy under investigation for Oil for food program. There has also been rumors that the U.N. wants to take over the internet.
Ridiculous.

[BillMorrow]

i wonder what the final result will be..

of handing each child on the planet, especially those who can't yet read, a functional computer, with an internet connection..

no one can predict it, only surmise what it will be, with an error rate of, say, 90%..

my guess is that cybercrime, like the $800 too good to be true computers spoken of in another thread, will be part of the result..
that, and an amazing gusher of new ideas..

[dsvochak]

When there's a group made up of MIT, AMD, Brightstar, Google, News Corp and Red Hat targeting developing nations with linux based machines a million units at a time, Microsoft may be a little concerned. If millions of children learn on, and get used to linux, Windows OS's could be significantly less profitable.

The other interesting part of this is what states may do. "...[Gov.] Romney said he thought Massachusetts children could also benefit. Two weeks ago, he announced a plan to spend $54 million to roll out the program over two years, starting in fall 2007." Michigan had a plan to provide laptops to school children that had to be shelved due to cost. Something like this could revive the plan.

[Adam]

I think the whole $100 price tag thing is just for publicity. If they really did only cost $100, why won't they sell it to the public at an inflated price? I'm sure there are tons of people out there who will pay $200 for one... effectively buying one for a 3rd world child with the $100 of profit. They could even sell them for $300 I bet.

Also, if a family in a 3rd world country where the montly wage is like $30... and some American charity organization gave their kids these $100 laptops, you can bet the kids won't be playing with them very long. I guarantee they will sell them for whatever they can get for it.

[K. Eng]

Keep in mind that the group of people who are planning to distribute the $100 laptops are MIT people, not UN people. The UN Secretary General was just there for the unveiling of the prototype.

What the UN wants is largely irrelevant. The UN has neither the resources nor the resolve to take over the Internet. If the UN decided to conquer Harlem, there is no question that Harlem would win

I'm not sure why many Americans hate the UN. The way the organization is set up virtually ensures that it can do nothing without American approval.

Oil for laptops? Food for Laptops? Another scam.

Isn't this the same guy under investigation for Oil for food program. There has also been rumors that the U.N. wants to take over the internet.
Ridiculous.

[Kyocera]

The UN has brought a lot of grief on itself in the last decade or so. It always seems to be getting in the middle of our taking over countries, searching for WMD's and not finding them etc. I don't particularly dislike the UN but I do think its global political position has shifted a lot, it seemingly used to be a somewhat benign organization with little real clout, but now the US has moved it way ahead of the blue helmeted guards that were peacekeepers.

I hope the rest of the world won't jump on the internet bandwagon and say we are evil for not turning it over, it would break down three days after it happened and never be the same. It really is so far fetched that I can't believe it is actually all over the news.

Those poor kids will never get those laptops, they need batteries, electricity to charge them, cell towers for band width, a backbone for a connection, all the infrastructure to be able to use the thing is just not there yet. It really is a nice thought, I have an old toshiba satellite with win95 and one of those funky track ball mouse that plugs in to the side, I could donate that. It works. I'll even through in the pcmcia network card so they can Cat5e into their cardboard hut walls make some drops.

[K. Eng]

Hmm. As for the batteries, these things use rechargeables that are recharged via a hand crank, so electrical charge sources aren't really an issue. NiMH batteries are comparatively inexpensive anyways.

As for networking, the machines are supposed to be able to do peer-to-peer via 802.11. Connection to the internet could be accomplished through a single WiMax station, which splits off to local clients through 802.11.

Those poor kids will never get those laptops, they need batteries, electricity to charge them, cell towers for band width, a backbone for a connection, all the infrastructure to be able to use the thing is just not there yet.

[dsvochak]

There's an interesting article about this in Fortune magazine.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles ... -1,00.html

It appears that Nick Negroponte is a man who should be taken seriously.

As far as the actual machine, it's all relative. When I bought a 701c, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. A 500 MHz processor, 128mb ram and 1g storage makes the 701 look like something prehistoric.

[Kyocera]

Someone will make a huge amount of money on this "feel-good" venture, how many kids in the US could use a laptop? In Harlem or Chicago or South Carolina. WHY was this not proposed here if it is such a wonderful idea. It is a disgrace to "issue" third world kids laptops before the kids in this country.

[AlphaKilo470]

I'm going to say that a $100.00 laptop is a very nice concept and does have a niche market that it could be successful in if it's marketed right but making it exclusive to the third world is not a good investment. Making the third world a market focus is good but to make it exclusive will yeild less than favorable results as most people in third world countries will buy food and clothing before buying a computer and because of financial limitations of most folks in third world countries, technology doesn't even make it to their spending list.

I believe that selling these computers at school supply stores, college bookstores, toystores and stores such as Walmart and Kmart would be better for profits.

Yes, I do realise these things are designed primarily for bringing technology to the third world but if you make the thirld world your exclusive market, you most likely won't make enough money to keep producing these computers.

[K. Eng]

The way I understand it is that OLPC (the corporation that the MIT people created to develop and distribute the machine) is going to solicit orders from governments in the amount of $1M or more. The governments will then distribute the machines to people for use. I don't think will be restricted to developing countries only.

If the City of Philadelphia (which is deploying a free 802.11 network) were to submit an order for $1M of these machines I doubt OLPC would turn down the $.

Someone will make a huge amount of money on this "feel-good" venture, how many kids in the US could use a laptop? In Harlem or Chicago or South Carolina. WHY was this not proposed here if it is such a wonderful idea. It is a disgrace to "issue" third world kids laptops before the kids in this country.

Edit:

Here's some stuff from the Fortune article posted above:

Many veterans of past efforts to empower the world with technology are skeptical, but that doesn't deter Negroponte. He's jetting around the world, lobbying presidents to commit to at least one million laptops. So far, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva has agreed to buy a million, he says, and Chile, Argentina, and Thailand are lining up. There's even interest domestically. Governor Mitt Romney wants half a million for the kids of Massachusetts.

There are State-side customers, and I am sure OLPC will not turn down extra business when there are so many American kids in need.

[K. Eng]

I agree. If OLPC were to sell these in developed countries, it could charge a slightly higher price and use the profits to subsidize costs in the developing world.

Mr. Negroponte has claimed that the $100 notebook computer can do almost anything a $1000 notebook computer can do. If that is the case, I would buy one in a second for use as an auxiliary system.

If it can do word processing, spreadsheets, email, and web browsing, that's already 90% of what I use my T40 for. It might not be able to store massive amounts of MP3s, play DVD or MPEG4, or process/retouch digital photos, but that is stuff that I do only rarely.

A $100 notebook that does the basic stuff appeals to me greatly. It's just like my cell phone (Samsung x475); sleek, functional, and without the fluff!

I believe that selling these computers at school supply stores, college bookstores, toystores and stores such as Walmart and Kmart would be better for profits.

Yes, I do realise these things are designed primarily for bringing technology to the third world but if you make the thirld world your exclusive market, you most likely won't make enough money to keep producing these computers.

[Kyocera]

Would this be much different than selling third world countries $100 tv's, with a promise of beaming them educational programs and PBS 24/7. When my kids got their hands on either my laptop or their own desktop it was primarily used for downloading games and my daughter for chatting. I would go through the history on her PC and it was 89% yahoo messenger. I don't mind because they do very well in school, but the computer has little to do with that. If a challenging homework assignment is undertaken it is used as an encyclopedia. But as far as them sitting in front of the computer and teaching themselve rocket science "not happening". It is really pie in the sky hopes to hand every kid in the world a computer and expect a massive change in the overall world demographics, i.e. make poor people wealthy, dumb people smart, starving people full, sick people well. This is smoke and mirrors for a new world financial market, and as usual the people who will suffer are the ones the program is designed for in the first place. Give them some food, clothes, build a school, give out free cars, power plants (a hand crank jig to charge a battery for a laptop, am I the only one that sees that as ridiculous) for electricity, medicine, etc. etc. etc.

[K. Eng]

Would this be much different than selling third world countries $100 tv's, with a promise of beaming them educational programs and PBS 24/7.

I think it is much different to give someone a laptop as opposed to a TV. As you have pointed out by way of your daughter using a computer for chat, a laptop is interactive and enables two or more way communication, something a TV cannot do. A computer can allow a person to create things (like a Blog for others to read) and enhance existing things (like a business). It's easier for people to coordinate and colaborate with each other too.

But as far as them sitting in front of the computer and teaching themselve rocket science "not happening". It is really pie in the sky hopes to hand every kid in the world a computer and expect a massive change in the overall world demographics, i.e. make poor people wealthy, dumb people smart, starving people full, sick people well.

I agree with you here for the most part, but I think the goal is not to make these kids rocket scientists, but to give them a link to each other and the global marketplace of ideas. If even 1 in 1000 of every kid is inspired to do greater things because of this machine, maybe it will be worth it.

This is smoke and mirrors for a new world financial market, and as usual the people who will suffer are the ones the program is designed for in the first place. Give them some food, clothes, build a school, give out free cars, power plants (a hand crank jig to charge a battery for a laptop, am I the only one that sees that as ridiculous) for electricity, medicine, etc. etc. etc.

I think the hand crank is a good idea. It is a simple method of putting energy into the machine, and will work where electrical power is scarce and needed for other things. The technology is old and proven.

[Kyocera]

Have to admit that you make some good points, if this really does get to the right people at the right time it may turn on that one kid, I think we all hope for that. I just saw a picture of the device and can see it definately has no fluff. No thinkpad there . It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

[Tom B]

Totally ignoring the politics, when do you think really think a complete $100 PC or laptop with WiFi will really become a reality?

At present, the cheapest PDA costs what?

[jdhurst]

I haven't yet seen a production dymanic to make this happen for modern machines. If one sold for $100, it would have to be produced, complete with operating system and software for $50. That does not leave any money for producers once the parts have been procured to make a worthwhile profit. ... JD Hurst

[dsvochak]

It doesn't appear from any of the news articles available at
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/news.html
that there is any intention to make a profit. One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit association.

There is also this from the ABC story on the above link:

"But negotiating with governments has proved to be strenuous — Negroponte called it "very hard" — and the price quotes to build the machine remain closer to $110 than $100. "We're not even going to promise they're $100," he said. "They may be $115. What we're promising is that the price will float down."

[LtTPfan]

I beleive the high price for laptops is not so much due to production costs but more so due to what the market will bear. Consider that an Xbox 360 contains six (6) microprocessors, while a laptop has one.

[emorphien]

I beleive the high price for laptops is not so much due to production costs but more so due to what the market will bear. Consider that an Xbox 360 contains six (6) microprocessors, while a laptop has one.

Those 6 microprocessors in the Xbox are good at specific tasks and are probably not as complicated as the one-chip-does-all situation found in desktops and laptops.

The way to drive down cost on any of these things would be high volume production or reduce the specifications and use less expensive components.

[Rob Mayercik]

Those 6 microprocessors in the Xbox are good at specific tasks and are probably not as complicated as the one-chip-does-all situation found in desktops and laptops.

Hmm... Seeing as an XBox (last I heard) was really just a PC set up in a dedicated games-console configuration, I wonder if this might spur regular PC developers to start looking at the same architecture for regular PCs.

After all, you can make a supercomputer out of 8088s (if you can find enough that work and gang them together correctly), so why not get away from a "one processor does it all" to something more decentralized? Seems to be working for SETI and cancer research, and we're starting to see it with the latest P4s and XP (a guy I work with told me he got a mind-blowing performance boost in Doom 3 by devoting one of the cores in his processor exclusively to his video card).

Rob

[K. Eng]

Having lots of processors works well in some kinds of tasks like graphics, weather modeling because there aren't any dependancies among the results. However, there are other tasks that simply cannot be executed in parallel, no matter how hard one tries to optimize the algorithm.

Over at Ars Technica, this is frequently debated by programming and algorithm heads who have far greater knowledge of this than I do. It has been a few years since my last computational theory class, and I was never terribly talented in that area anyhow.

Single thread performance is still extremely important. XBOX processors are good at certain easily paralellizable tasks, but not so good in general computational tasks.

Hmm... Seeing as an XBox (last I heard) was really just a PC set up in a dedicated games-console configuration, I wonder if this might spur regular PC developers to start looking at the same architecture for regular PCs.
...
After all, you can make a supercomputer out of 8088s (if you can find enough that work and gang them together correctly), so why not get away from a "one processor does it all" to something more decentralized?
...
Rob

[K. Eng]

And now for some news related to the $100 PC. Intel's chairman and former CEO, Craig Barrett, seems to think the $100 PC is a dud.

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=231

But Barrett said similar schemes in the past elsewhere in the world had failed and users would not be satisfied with the new machine's limited range of programs.

"It turns out what people are looking for is something is something that has the full functionality of a PC," he said. "Reprogrammable to run all the applications of a grown up PC... not dependent on servers in the sky to deliver content and capability to them, not dependent for hand cranks for power."

I think Barrett underestimates the $100 notebook PC. If it runs linux it will be fully reprogrammable... and there will inevitably be armies of open source developers writing programs for it. The only thing the $100 PC will not be able to do is advanced multimedia. However, for basic information delivery and communcations, I think it is more than adequate.

The hand crank is a secondary power source... not a dependancy if you ask me. If anyting, the hand crank frees the machine from needing to fuel up at an AC line that may or may not be reliable...

[Kyocera]

K.Eng
I think Barrett underestimates the $100 notebook

who underestimates it?

[dsvochak]

From an article at PC World:

Taiwan's Quanta, the world's largest maker of notebook computers, will manufacture an ultra-low-cost laptop developed by Nicholas Negroponte, the chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,123921,00.asp

Apparently, by this time next year, we will get to see whether it works.

[rkevans]

Updates are available here: http://pedia.media.mit.edu/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child

Rick

[tfflivemb2]

I guess Mr. Goody-Goody Gates doesn't like it:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/ptech/03/1 ... index.html

[Kyocera]

Bill Gates

"If you are going to go have people share the computer, get a broadband connection and have somebody there who can help support the user, geez, get a decent computer where you can actually read the text and you're not sitting there cranking the thing while you're trying to type," Gates said.

And make sure it has Windows, please.

[christopher_wolf]

Intel doesn't much like it either

I guess it can't really do any harm, but what is the point if it ends up doing no good?

Everyboding having access to the Net and a computer is a good thing, but how much has that even helped our society? It might not be as much as some people would like to think.