"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:2005-07-06
If I understand correctly, the XO was never intended to be a computer for a computer sake: it is intended to help children access information. The sort of access many of us take for granted.
Which is really what makes the lack of support from Intel & Microsoft so sad. They saw the XO as a computer which didn't use their own technology and products, rather than a simple information access device. Microsoft were only concerned with the lack of Windows on the XO, when it really shouldn't matter one bit what OS it's running. The XO as a concept is so simple you shouldn't even be able to notice.
Member since:2006-02-05
I used to be one of the microsoft haters, and it was only after I started developing for the platform and going to conferences and whatnot that I came around. The worst thing I have to say about the company and the dev culture around it is this whole "All good things come from redmond" thing they have going on. While that can be irritating, it is far from evil.
I seriously doubt any of these people who do the "OMG BLACK HELICOPTERS!!" thing about microsoft have any real contact with the movers and shakers in the company.
Member since:2006-01-19
I doubt those likeable guys inside Microsoft have any contact with the guys who do the politician-buying, standards-body stacking and company-killing.
But those guys are the ones who make the big decisions, the ones that make Microsoft so evil towards outsiders.
For them it's Microsoft-way or NO way. As if they had the RIGHT to get money for every computer sold.
I, for one am a victim of Microsoft's lock-in tactic. I would like to use something other than MS Office, but the company I work for cannot change because the whole industry is using MS Office file formats.
For me, Microsoft is a company which does about 100 times more evil, than it does good.
Member since:2007-07-13
Yay! You've finally come out! If only you would admit to yourself that you are not actually "PlatformAgnostic" at all then you wouldn't be liable to accusations of astroturfing whenever you forget to put a disclaimer on.
Sigh. You are missing the forest for the trees, mate. Even the most rabid Linux or Mac fanboi would be a fool if they denied that the individuals within MS are among the smartest and most upstanding folk you could encounter. However, the corporate culture of the aggregate is shocking - not only ruthless (as would be expected for hard competition), but underhanded, and slightly evil (prepared to unfairly harm others for its own ends. People are ruined by Microsoft's unfair (and found to be illegal) practices).
Here's a political analogy (and politics is always dangerous so please be a little tolerant). The current Russian invasion of Georgia (since Ossetia is currently recognised by the international community as within Georgia) is comprised of individuals that are probably very good people that are looking after their comrades and fellow Russians within Ossetia. They see it as defence of Rodina, the Motherland. Yet, as an aggregate army they are definitely committing evil. Invading a sovereign state and killing civilians - all to keep the Russian populace under control in nationalistic fervour. The population lap it up - which is what you are doing by not critically analysing the actions of your own company (despite many good people working there). Before everyone starts Russian bashing, no country or organisation is immune to this (so let's not start on Iraq ok?). The point is, good people can work for bad organisations, even if the bad organisations sometime do good things (dare I invoke a certain Nationalist Socialist providing full employment and reviving of his countries depressed economy as another example).
Wake up!
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:2005-10-19
Yep, totally agree. However readers should not be fooled into thinking this is a MS-specific phenomenon.
The truth is, that practically all (for profit) corporations have only one goal - To be a monopoly.
Corporations, are like human beings. Numerous studies have shown that human beings will cheat and steal, if they are reasonably sure they can get away with it.
This inbuilt tendency is exacerbated by corporations because they are subject only to their shareholders, who have only one aim - profit.
For an excellent analysis of this corporate mindset, see http://www.thecorporation.com/ , which ultimately concludes that were corporations human beings, they would be certifiably insane.
Microsoft only seems worse than other corporations for the same reason that humans seem more destructive for our planet. They have the power to do as they please.
Member since:2007-12-04
Member since:2005-11-15
People who work for Microsoft are in the same position as people working for any other multinational corporation: They have to find some personal ethical basis for working for an organization that is concerned only with profit. All the 'ethical' things corporations do are effectively part of their marketing budget.
As soon as OLPC became about technology and about software philosophy then it lost focus on education. How many adults have learnt new skills using computer based and online training; why should children have to sit in rows in a dusty classroom and be lectured by a teacher in front of a blackboard; Why not provide a low cost educational electronic book to all of them.
As for the latest war - you would think that in the 21st century we could handle border adjustments with less murder, mayhem, destruction and suffering - why shouldn't people have their own country that reflects their culture and language instead of being split apart by some line that some dictator drew on a map a long time ago.
We need to understand there is a lot more to these countries that just the oil and gas pipelines that run through them.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-16
If you look at the numbers for the early Nineties, you will find that at that time Bill Gates (like Al Gore) had far less charitable giving than I did, in spite of haveing orders of magnitude more income. Both men only started giving when the stories of their stinginess hit the press.
fwiw.
Member since:2005-07-06
I can agree with that. The project was badly run, didn't have enough clear aims and didn't deal with the BS and mudslinging well.
Nevertheless, a very, very cheap computer that can be distributed on a very large scale without Windows pre-installed was, and still is, an exceptionally large threat to Microsoft's Windows installed base and their basic business model. It was also a threat to Intel if their chips weren't at the centre of it.
It still is a problem, particularly for Microsoft, as many more of these devices will be initiated and produced over the next few years. Even worse, many of the manufacturers will not be traditional OEMs and won't have the slightest clue as to why they should run Windows on their devices or what benefits it brings.
Member since:2005-06-29
I find it very interesting that the OLPC project started hemorrhaging developers and engineers soon after the decision was made to go with Windows on the machines. Their reasons were generally the same: Negroponte's goals with the OLPC went from being about education to being about putting as many laptops out in the world as possible. At that point, it might as well have been any old netbook.
I honestly don't think Microsoft and Intel wanted to kill the project; I do think they were both affronted that there would be children out there not learning their company names from the cradle to adulthood. The fact that the project was designed from the ground up to be as open and free as possible should have been a clue to Microsoft to find less intrusive ways to get involved. But no, they had to take over as they always do (embrace, extend, extinguish) and try to shoehorn their mainstream OS onto a niche device. Sadly, Intel just cried and went home when Negroponte (rudely, in my opinion) demanded that they not try to market the Cloudbook in the same areas.
I think the whole project was mismanaged from the beginning. An ultra-low-cost, open source (hardware and software) rugged device is a great idea. I personally don't think Windows should be in the picture at all; it would have been far more philanthropic for Microsoft to have developed open-source educational software for the device but they just don't really have experience with that sort of thing. All they know is how to take over and even if their intentions were good, the result was sour.
As an aside, you said you work for Microsoft but your username here is "PlatformAgnostic". Very intriguing. 
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.