Will Nicholas Negroponte Ever Understand That Competition Isn't About Killing OLPC?

from the get-over-it dept

We've never quite understood Nicholas Negroponte's position when it comes to the $100 Laptop/OLPC/XO (whatever it's called these days). While the idea behind creating a super cheap, super durable useful computer for children in developing nations is good, Negroponte has always approached the idea as one where only he should be allowed to see that vision through. When other companies decided it might be a good idea and wanted to target that market themselves, Negroponte flipped out and started attacking them for trying to undermine his project.

Sorry, Nicholas, but competition isn't undermining.

In fact, competition is generally what drives all parties to be better at what they do, in order to fend off the competition. Yet, somehow, the UK's Times Online has bought into Negroponte's side of the story and written up an article bashing Microsoft and Intel for trying to "kill" the OLPC. The article is riddled with factual errors and opinion substituting as fact, but the worst is in the central point of the article. The author mistakes companies all aiming for the same market as a nefarious attempt to "kill off" Negroponte's pet project -- as if he has some universal right to the market that no one else can attempt to enter. It also brushes over some simple facts, like the one where many countries have looked at the OLPC and realized it doesn't really serve their needs just yet. That, if anything, should be even more reason why competition is necessary. It helps create better products that actually serve the needs of people in those markets, rather than just what Negroponte decides they must want in his top-down manner.

Filed Under: competition, execution, ideas, nicholas negroponte, olpc
Companies: amd, intel, microsoft, olpc


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 13 Aug 2008 @ 3:37am

    Re: Who Believes Reasearch Would Sway Mike?

    Mike, I have addressed this issue in the past. There is no point in my sticking any research in front of you because all you would do is spew more BS without regard to reality.

    Huh? You won't present your research because you're afraid I'll respond to it? That's convincing. If my responses were really BS without regard to reality, that would easily be shown, so why would you fear presenting the research. The only reason to do so is either that you don't have any or you know it's weak.

    And frankly, every time you open your mouth about patents you insult inventors.

    Can you explain how trying to help them make more money and find larger markets is insulting? So far the only one spreading "insults" has been you, remember? You claimed I had my head up my ass. I think that's a rather direct insult. Whereas I'm explaining to inventors how to get a larger market.

    I'm confused how that's insulting.

    I am dealing with Nobel's who are inventors, you are citing Nobel's who are not inventors.

    We're talking about the economic impact of innovation here. I would think that you would want economic experts to do so. No?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.