Never Understood why
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Apr 30, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
It is meant to be a learning tool for poor students, don't we have them in the US? Don't they have them in Europe, Rassia, or all over the world? Why exclude any poor students? Is there a valid reason? To me, It never made sense then and still doesn't make sense now. They really should make it available to anyone who wants it. Yes, there should be priorities, but make it available to others who can afford to buy it for a higher price and in the process subsidize free ones for other kids. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 30, 2007 6:51 AM EDT |
@Abe, It has to do with production ramp-up costs. OLPC must commit to a certain number of units to keep production costs down. The best way to do that was through government funded programs which could buy larger number of units than smaller organisations. And there's no way that you'd get the U.S. Government to commit to this program - we don't really have a centralised education system (even with the Department of Education). Also, from what I've heard through the grapevine on other boards, ZD-Net mischaracterised the "news" regarding OLPC and Microsoft, so this may be a case of the journalist getting it a bit incorrect. Wouldn't be the first time. |
| bigg Apr 30, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
I agree with Abe. Whether you are doing OLPC, Playstation, or most anything else that is similar, the important thing is to operate at a scale that makes it feasible. Selling at cost in the US will drive down production costs. That is why a small company could never compete with Dell or HP, which is one reason it is good for Dell to sell Linux, it seems to be the same with OLPC. I'm not sure why the price in the US should be higher. If the point is to help poor students, the goal should be to get as many laptops as possible in the hands of poor students. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 30, 2007 7:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm not sure why the price in the US should be higher. If the point is to help poor students, the goal should be to get as many laptops as possible in the hands of poor students. Well if its going to be running Linux it will probably not be available in America and if its going to be running Windows it will. It will just be a little more expensive, M$ has to make at least a little profit... |
| NoDough Apr 30, 2007 11:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:Well if its going to be running Linux it will probably not be available in America... Why would it be excluded from sale in the US if it was Linux based? |
| jdixon Apr 30, 2007 11:17 AM EDT |
> Why would it be excluded from sale in the US if it was Linux based? Scott is probably just voicing a cynical analysis of Microsoft's influence. That's not saying that he's not correct, mind you. |
| jsusanka Apr 30, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
"Well if its going to be running Linux it will probably not be available in America and if its going to be running Windows it will. It will just be a little more expensive, M$ has to make at least a little profit..." yup you are correct sir. don't you think the other article about it running windows and this are related? you bet it will have windows on it if it gets sold here in the US. we can't have people learning anything new - especially the children we all have to be hostage to the greatness and genius of bill gates. |
| tuxchick Apr 30, 2007 11:39 AM EDT |
I still think microshaft's own greed is self-defeating. They're so narrowly focused on micromanaging what customers do with their own stuff that they've forgotten how to sow for the future. I think their long-term plan is "keep tightening the screws." How tight can you go before you're completely immobile? |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 12:07 PM EDT |
> M$ has to make at least a little profit... Oh they will, they will.... > Scott is probably just voicing a cynical analysis of Microsoft's influence. Ya think? :D Seriously, anytime Bill and his 'gates foundation' or his MS empire get involved, we need to keep an eye on the money trail. It's always there, and, usually in plain sight. |
| Abe Apr 30, 2007 12:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:we need to keep an eye on the money trail. Absolutely, you think the trail might be leading back to MIT? Somewhere in the Media Lab? I wonder why the change of heart in making it run Windows, and the cost just went up again. Something smells fishy. |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 12:48 PM EDT |
> I wonder why the change of heart in making it run Windows, and the cost just went up again. Something smells fishy. Considering that the value of the dollar is slipping badly, I don't think that the pricing goal is that far off the mark, but again, I don't put any scam past Billie. |
| bigg Apr 30, 2007 12:58 PM EDT |
> I wonder why the change of heart in making it run Windows, and the cost just went up again. Something smells fishy. Actually, I don't think there was a change of heart. $100 was the goal, but they've said before that at least in the beginning they won't get there. And long ago, they said they were open to working with Microsoft, and made it clear that they were not in the Linux business. The author of that other story did get a lot of hits, though. This might be corrupt (and criminal charges can be filed if it is) but we just don't know very much right now. |
| Abe Apr 30, 2007 1:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Considering that the value of the dollar is slipping badly, I believe Taiwan's currency is based on the dollar, the same as China. That couldn't be a good reason for a $25 increase, would it? Quoting:I don't think that the pricing goal is that far off the markWell, they wouldn't raise the cost by $3 only, it is too obviuos. $25 is more reasonable. Was there a justification why it went up again? It started as $100, then $150. I can understand $50 for major redesign changes, but what is the reason for $25 increase? Am I missing something? |
| tuxchick Apr 30, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
" I can understand $50 for major redesign changes, but what is the reason for $25 increase?
Am I missing something?" Think of the children, Abe. Little Billy G and Stevie B are in danger of going to bed hungry. |
| jdixon Apr 30, 2007 1:36 PM EDT |
> Little Billy G and Stevie B are in danger of going to bed hungry. Did they mess up on their stock options homework again??? :) |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 1:41 PM EDT |
> Little Billy G and Stevie B are in danger of going to bed hungry. ROFL.... Good one TC. |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
> I believe Taiwan's currency is based on the dollar, the same as China. That couldn't be a good reason for a $25 increase, would it? Well, the dollar has been slipping against the euro, and yen and even china's whatever. Essentially China's been carrying us for some time now... Why do you think we trade with them? Really, all that is irrelevant, as it's all paper with no backing anyway. Who knows what the economy is really like??? Personally, I'd say that the cost of this 'war' has put us and our children under many time over.... Can we spell 'bankruptcy'? |
| jdixon Apr 30, 2007 3:33 PM EDT |
> Personally, I'd say that the cost of this 'war' has put us and our children under many time over.... Can we spell 'bankruptcy'? Well, if you can't you'd better learn. But seriously, the war has nothing to do with it. That's what, $150 billion per year out of a $3 trillion dollar budget. That's off the top of my head, but I think the figures are in that range. What's going to bankrupt the country is the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security boondoggle. The programs will start running in the red within 20 years, and the difference will have to be made up out of general revenues. There's no politically viable way to raise taxes enough to cover them, and there's no politically viable way to cut the programs. The only alternative is deficit spending on an undreamed of scale. It's not going to be pretty, no matter what happens. |
| azerthoth Apr 30, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
Reminds me of a novel I have read the cover off of ... twice. Gordon R. Dixon's Wolf and Iron. It supposes that with the worlds economies so interdependent on each other that the total collapse of one of them could conceivably collapse all of them in a cascade. How could that happen though, I mean seriously with Japan supplying the US consumer with all the electronic gee wizardry and China or Mexico supplying nearly everything else we have a perfectly stable world economy. *cough* |
| hkwint Apr 30, 2007 3:49 PM EDT |
Quoting WikiPedia, who's quoting Negroponte in turn:Quoting:In May 2006, Negroponte told the Red Hat's annual user summit: “It is a floating price. We are a nonprofit organization. We have a target of $100 by 2008, but probably it will be $135, maybe $140. That is a start price, but what we have to do is with every release make it cheaper and cheaper— we are promising that the price will go down.” Compared to Nov 2005 (demonstration OLPC with Kofi Annan), the Dollar is worth 15% less (measured in Euro's) than today. However, measured in New Taiwanese Dollars, that's only ~1%. |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 3:52 PM EDT |
> the war has nothing to do with it I'd have to agree it has 'little' to do with it, but it's indicative of the general head state. As for SS, that's just another example of what happens when our government and officials engage in embezzlement from the pensions fund on a colossal scale... Heck, I'm still ticked off that they can (illegally?) use or ss# as the de facto ID. |
| bigg Apr 30, 2007 4:01 PM EDT |
> What's going to bankrupt the country is the Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security boondoggle. Social Security is not much of the problem. It's almost exclusively the cost of health care that will be the problem. As for Social Security running out of funds, realize that working stiffs have been paying far more than necessary for decades now, and that money was used so that the deficits of Reagan and Bush I would look smaller, and it would look like Clinton balanced the budget. Counting that money, Social Security is fine for many years. |
| jdixon Apr 30, 2007 4:42 PM EDT |
> Counting that money, Social Security is fine for many years. Counting that money, Social Security would be fine for many years, but that money's spend and gone. The difference will have to be made up from the general budget, which means one or more of the scenarios I mentioned above (increased taxes, lowered benefits, or deficit spending). |
| jimf Apr 30, 2007 5:08 PM EDT |
> Counting that money, Social Security is fine for many years. Yeah bigg, it's probably enough for me, but, you may not get through it ;-) |
| bigg Apr 30, 2007 5:21 PM EDT |
> The difference will have to be made up from the general budget Yes, it was just a little bit of dishonest advertising on the part of Congress that won't make much of a difference for those of us working the next forty years. In any event, I don't think anyone could actually live on Social Security anyway. |
| hkwint May 01, 2007 12:53 AM EDT |
Please, could you refrain from using the abbreviation of Social Security on this site? It has a really, really bad association in the region where I live. Maybe it's just me being a bit sensitive here, but thanks anyway. (In case somebody doesn't understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS ) |
| jimf May 01, 2007 2:44 AM EDT |
> In case somebody doesn't understand Oh I understand without even looking hkwint, but we're obviously NOT referring to the Nazi Schutzstaffel, which might understandably cause bad memories in many areas of Europe. That said, censoring the two letter abbreviation when used in another common context strikes me as false sensitivity, and, overly political correctness. Now, if this were primarily a Dutch site I'd obviously feel differently. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2007 4:46 AM EDT |
jimf - It's hard for us to grasp how the Dutch or the Poles or others might feel about such things, however I'm inclined to agree, especially when one considers that the events in question concluded more than 60 years ago. |
| hkwint May 01, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
--Mistake-- |
| hkwint May 01, 2007 5:46 AM EDT |
Okay, if that's the case, sorry to bother and for hijacking the conversation, and please keep discussing Social Security and OLPC issues. I just wondered if the people using the abbreviation were conscious of the 'other' meaning (some abbreviations are 'contaminated'). Because our 'National Day of Commemoration of the Dead' is this Friday, and nine people - among which resistance and persons in hiding - died in a bloodily SS-raid (the ones which didn't have been executed by SS the next day) only 3 miles from here, I was thinking about it, though it's 60 years ago. But, enough about that. As for the debt of the USA to foreign countries: I still wonder how long it can last. Some people say it will finally collapse because of the debts, while other say that's almost impossible. The situation with health care is exactly the same here in Europe, which is why there's a big discussion in my country how this should be handled. As it seems now, rich retired people have to pay for the 'old age pensions' (hope that's the correct word) of all other people, people will have to work more years (retirement will be 'postponed' by one or two years), and there are cuts in the costs of health care. Also, hospitals etc. should compete against each other (which doesn't go without saying in my country). Sadly, the pension funds in my country made big investments in American real estate and shares of American companies (MS etc.), so risks for the American economy are a real issue over here, and a lot of people are a bit worried (especially because the dollar loses value compared to the Euro, so the pensions are worth less in Euro's). Well, only time can tell I think. |
| jdixon May 01, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
> As for the debt of the USA to foreign countries: Well, that's a difficult subject. As I understand it, the USA actually has very little debt to foreign countries except to the extent that they own US government bonds. Those bonds have a fixed payment amount over a fixed period. The foreign governments have no way to demand early payment, so the only option they have if they decide they don't want the bonds anymore is to sell the bonds, if they can find a buyer. That will reduce the value of the bonds, but have little other effect. The inability to sell further bonds will, in theory, reduce the USA's ability to run deficits, which would have a greater effect. The only real problem for the US would come if they can't cover the payments due on the bonds. That would get "interesting". |
| dinotrac May 01, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
jdixon - I think our Dutch friend is referring more to "American debt" rather than "US debt", by which I mean debt originating in the US. That would include private corporations and individuals, as well as any government debt. Personally, I don't know what to think of that. The biggest concern to me is not the sheer amount of debt so much as the continuing growth and the degree to which we rely on foreign benefactors/manufacturers. Periods of debt interspersed with periods of surplus would indicate a healthier economy, and, to me, that is the concern...that we don't seem to generate any surpluses. |
| jdixon May 01, 2007 6:56 AM EDT |
> referring more to "American debt" rather than "US debt", by which I mean debt originating in the US. That would include private corporations and individuals, as well as any government debt. Hmm, good point. I haven't seen any figures on the private debt owed to foreign interests. Does anyone know of any good sources and/or analysis. IANAE :). |
| jimf May 01, 2007 10:22 AM EDT |
> to me, that is the concern...that we don't seem to generate any surpluses. To me it's that this 'healthy economy' that you keep referring to generates nothing but paper. |
| hkwint May 01, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
Well, here's an example: Today, GM earns more by granting of credits (and mortgages) than by making auto-mobiles (I heard this on Dutch 'Business News'). This leads to 2% of all credits in my country (NL) coming from GM. I thought GM was supposed to be a car manufacturer, but that's the branche where they are making big losses. The debt of GM (_one_ US company only) is about equal to the national debt of my country (16 million inhabitants), IIRC. 07 May '05, Standard & Poor's reduced GM & Ford's debt ratings to 'Junk Status', which meant it isn't sure if they can ever pay back a part of their giant debt worth (that part) $290 billion: http://newpaper.asiaone.com/printfriendly/0,4139,87843,00.ht... Okay, Microsoft and ExxonMobil are doing very fine, but there are a lot of companies like GM; and the question is if the debts those companies have, will ever be paid. Especially because rising retiree health care costs is also an issue. GM is trying to catch up with Toyota, and they announce trucks which will be more fuel-economic than today's Toyota trucks, but when those GM-trucks arrive, Toyota has moved forward, and moreover, fuel has risen in price. Oh, and BTW, nobody over here at LXer believes MS will be as profitable as today in ten years from now, or am I wrong? |
| dinotrac May 01, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
Hans - GM is a very sad case. The once-mighty manufacturer has fallen on its own stupidity, which is sad, because they actually know how to make good cars. The problem is a short-sighted focus on today's consumer. Nothing wrong with making money on what people are buying today, but a smart company makes sure its other products are strong so that a thoroughly predictable and inevitable increase in fuel prices -- hey! You think it's bad now, wait 'til India catches up with China -- leads consumers to change their wish lists. They can still make it if they want to, but nothing's guaranteed. |
| jdixon May 01, 2007 12:39 PM EDT |
> Today, GM earns more by granting of credits than by making auto-mobiles ... This leads to 2% of all credits in my country coming from GM. I assume from this that you're referring to the fact that GM makes more money by handling car loans than by making the cars. That's undoubtedly true, but that's GM loaning money, not GM being in debt. > The debt of GM (_one_ US company only) is about equal to the national debt of my country (16 million inhabitants), IIRC. That's entirely possible, but it has nothing to do with their making money on car loans. Yahoo and Google list GM's total debt as just over $48 billion. |
| hkwint May 01, 2007 3:57 PM EDT |
Indeed, car loans are no debts, I meant what they earn from it. But, they (GMAC) also do insurances and mortgages, and these are NO car loans (as far as I am aware); check for yourself what they (used to) do: http://www.gmacfs.com/us/en/index.html It seems GM sold their 'financial' subsidiaries recently (March/April 2006), which may be why their debt is not as high as I believed it was; I wasn't really up to date. I don't know why the debt is different from what I thought, but I also suspect they kept the books in 'creative ways' a bit. Nonetheless, Chrysler (DCX) has a debt of about $100b. and Ford(F) of $170b (Yahoo finance is really nice!), which brings the debt of 'Detroit' to $320b. In comparison, NL public debt in 2005 was about $290b. I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy. At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil, since someone I know told me how much they earn; appalingly big numers of Dollars. Therefore, I guess, ExxonMobil could by an OLPC for every American child this year without losing money. However, they rather use their money to buy back their own shares... |
| jdixon May 01, 2007 5:03 PM EDT |
> But, they also do insurances and mortgages... OK, but the same story. Those are assets, not liabilities. Those people owe GM money, not the other way around (Note: Yes, accounting considers money you have but owe back a liability, but money you don't have but are owed an asset. I'll never understand accountants.) The money GM owes is probably mostly corporate bonds. > I hope the automobile-branche is not representative to all US economy. It's not. Keeping things somewhat on topic, Intel owes less than $2 billion, Microsoft has no debt, and Red Hat owes $570 million. It varies widely based upon what the company does though. Businesses like railroads and electric companies tend to have a lot of debt since they require a lot of land and infrastructure. Most tech companies are very low debt. Other companies fall in between. > At least I know this is true for ExxonMobil... Exxon has more debt than you would expect. Google indicates that they owe about $8.35 billion. Of course, their net income was over $9 billion last quarter alone. |
| jdixon May 01, 2007 5:16 PM EDT |
Hkwint: I should add, though it may be obvious, that debt is only bad if you can't pay it back. The problem with GM isn't just that their debt is so high. It's that the debt is so high while revenues are falling and profits have been non-existent. If GM were making enough money to pay back their debt over a reasonable amount of time, they wouldn't be in trouble. And at that, things have improved significantly. Their debt was over $279 billion just over a year ago, and they actually had a net income (before adjustments) of $950 million last quarter. Taking in money has never been GM's problem (their gross revenues were over $270 billion last year, and over $51 billion last quarter), their problem has not spending more than they make. A situation I'm sure most of us can understand quite well. |
| hkwint May 02, 2007 1:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:OK, but the same story. Those are assets, not liabilities. Yes, I understood that, and that was not my problem. My problem was, a _car_ manufacturer made more money by delivering financial services, than by delivering cars. It's the same if Microsoft would make more money by selling Xbox'es than by selling software: If that were the case, the 'business of minor importance' would outshine the core-business, which can never be good if you asked me. |
| jdixon May 02, 2007 3:07 AM EDT |
> If that were the case, the 'business of minor importance' would outshine the core-business, which can never be good if you asked me. Well, GM is the company which is famous for saying (from memory) GM isn't in the business of making cars, they're in the business of making money. When a company becomes more concerned with their profit than their product, what happened to GM is the almost inevitable result. Companies make money by making good products and taking care of their customers. If they do that correctly, the money takes care of itself. If they start worrying about the money instead, they soon don't have either products or money. So, yes, in my opinion, it's never a good thing. |
| dinotrac May 02, 2007 3:40 AM EDT |
>When a company becomes more concerned with their profit than their product, No kidding, as the product ultimately drives the product. Most of those GM car loans go to finance GM cars. GM has been more or less screwed since the Roger Smith days. An accountant in charge of a car company! He truly never saw cars as anything other than "units". That's how the execrable Cadillac Cimarron came to be. |
| NoDough May 02, 2007 6:12 AM EDT |
OTOH, when a business' primary value proposition wanes, its good for that business to show the flexibility to move into another value proposition that is profitable. Case in point. A guy I know owns a meat slicer made in the 1940s by a company called International Business Machines. |
| jdixon May 02, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
> OTOH, when a business' primary value proposition wanes, its good for that business to show the flexibility to move into another value proposition that is profitable. Yes, but the value proposition in cars hasn't really waned. Just ask Toyota. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!