"Microsoft, makers of most of the computer software in the world, tried to kill it with words, and Intel, maker of most computer chips, tried to kill it with dirty tricks. Of course, they don't admit to being attempted murderers. And when I introduce you to Intel's lovely spokesperson, Agnes Kwan, you'll realise how far their denials go. But the truth is the two mightiest high-tech companies in the world looked on Negroponte's philanthropic scheme and decided it had to die."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-21
Member since:2006-01-02
I work at Microsoft... none of the people I work with are scumbags or money-grubbers. Also, as a corporation Microsoft is one of the most generous American companies in giving money and time. Most employees do the same, giving on average a few percent of their salaries to charities with company-matched donations. It's hard to defend raver31's accusations, given the philanthropy of the company and the people in it.
Microsoft seemingly did not have something specific to give in the OLPC case and Bill Gates thought it was not a great showing. People formerly within the project also seem to have publically stated that the project was in some cases driven more by ideology than practicality. The author of the article makes it seem like Microsoft and Intel used mind tricks to shoot down an excellent product. Maybe Microsoft and Intel were not fully supportive of the project, but the project itself had delivery and quality problems that reduced its appeal.
I personally think that computing has a limited role in primary education. It's enough that kids learn the basics of how to type somewhat competently and how to do basic tasks like producing and printing text, but elementary education should be far more focussed on more basic development of the student's reasoning abilities. This generally does not require a computer at all.
Member since:2005-07-06
So if you are not rabidly anti MS, you are automatically a fanboy and any opinion you have is null and void? If your strongest rhetorical tool is claiming "all who disagree with me must be crazy and can thus be ignored" then you should probably look over your arguments.
Member since:2007-07-13
They don't have an Allah-given right to kill any and all competition - especially one helping the Third world - although you obviously think so. PlatformAgnostic my azz, in many discussions you've proven to be a shill through-and-through, you should at least write a disclaimer to state that you're on the MS payroll - then I'd have no problem with you stating your opinion (since their wouldn't be the astroturf facade any more).
I think I read that they offered a very cheap or no-cost version of Windows for these laptops, but the OLPC people didn't want it. Apple also made a similar offer with OS X that was similarly rebuffed.
What else would you expect?
Few have a problem that MS made an offer, I certainly don't. The difference is, Apple didn't try and kill the XO when their offer was declined.
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2006-07-30
Nice ad hominem.
While you're at it, could you tell us how exactly MS killed the XO?
Ok, so it hurts when somebody like Bill Gates says the XO sucks.
Sure, that carries a lot of weight, coming from him.
But if MS is _really_ trying to kill something, they start the FUD machine:
-get the facts
-cancer
-communism
I didn't hear an apology for any of this from MS, did you?
No, compared to its usual bully tactics MS was on its best behavior.
Considering that getting all the children in the developing countries to use Linux would threaten their current business model, I have two possible explanations:
a) MS thinks that the XO sucks so badly that it will never amount to anything.
b) A lot of people in MS management have a soft spot for charities.
If all MS did about Linux was one company executive saying "Meh, it sucks." their sudden kindness would sure creep me out. Seriously, Bill saying "It sucks" and Linux eating MS marketshare would be ok with me.
Member since:2006-01-06
Even Microsoft couldn't kill the XO + Linux, if it had simply been a better product. But it wasn't. It may make you feel better to blame Microsoft for other peoples' failures in developing XO, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yer, and? Are we supposed to be astonished that they turned down Windows and OS X that shipped with absolutely no software of any educational value whatsoever?
Member since:2007-09-06
If I remember back that far, one issue with Windows was that MS said "sure, let us give you WindowsCE". Another problem being "heck no you can't have the source code available with the click of a button for any child to see."
It was a long while back now though so I could be remembering it wrong. I just remember that MS was aproached and was unwilling to provide what was needed.
Member since:
2006-01-02
Eh? What was Microsoft supposed to do? I think I read that they offered a very cheap or no-cost version of Windows for these laptops, but the OLPC people didn't want it. Apple also made a similar offer with OS X that was similarly rebuffed.
What else would you expect?
I think the aticle is pretty wild-eyed and rather aggressive in its labeling. Microsoft manipulates people's impressions through 'sheer might'? Give me a break...