Continued Irony among Bottom-end Laptops
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Dec 16, 2009 12:34 PM EDT |
The One Laptop Per Child Project (OLPC) was originally intended to provide such a low-end laptop as the Cherrypal device.
From the OLPC XO-1 Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLPC_XO-1 :
Quoting:The subnotebooks are designed for sale to government-education systems which then give each primary school child their own laptop. Pricing was set to start at $188 in 2006, with a stated goal to reach the $100 mark in 2008. In actual implementation, prices have remained $199 each for both the winter (northern hemisphere) 2007 and winter 2008 Give One, Get One campaigns (and thus $398 per pair).And yet the OLPC "$100 laptop" never reached this stated price. Of course there are several main reasons for this price failure. George Snell mentions these within the CBC News piece 'Give one, get one: '$100 laptop' project to sell to public', http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/09/24/xolaptops.html : Quoting:It [the OLPC XO] became known as the "$100 laptop" project due to the original estimated price, which has since climbed to $188. OLPC spokesman George Snell said earlier in September that a variety of factors upped the price, including currency fluctuations and rising costs of such components as nickel and silicon.The irony from this is twofold : - The Cherrypal device may now really become the "world's first $99 laptop" to supplant the XO (maybe even eventually in developing countries?) - OLPC-associated persons are practically rationalizing OLPC's steeper-than-expected costs. See Michael Trucano's blog and its subsequent Comments in 'OLPC: A Steep Cost? Or a Profitable Edu-Investment?', linked to at LXer via http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/129555/ Indeed, Will Trucano and others associated with the OLPC Project justify any planned cost increases in the XO device ?? -or- Will the OLPC Project instead consider lowering the XO's own costs by the actual continued presence of bottom-end "sub-$100" laptops such as Cherrypal's devices ?? |
| hkwint Dec 16, 2009 4:15 PM EDT |
The matter is design goals. What's more important: -A $100 device? -Something which is desert / rain forest and child proof, has tethering etc.? Also, let's look at WHY there is this $100 laptop today: -OLPC started the netbook market, -Reaction of Intel showed they were afraid, showing there was a real market for low voltage CPU's and 'netbooks', -Asus respondend with the Eee and took over, -ARM thought: "There's another market than only phones, where we already have a market share of 98%" -as a result, ARM netbook SoC's became cheaper than 'separate' chipsets, -Big bunch of CPU-makers competing on ARM-SoC's, possible because "the architecture not withheld from / limited to competitors" like x86, -Investors found out about netbooks and their popularity, so they were more likely to invest, -Because heavy _political_ resistance organized by MS& Intel (which OLPC didn't suspect), OLPC didn't meet their mass-production goals, -Cherrypal buys some cheap Chinese moulds and uses cheap plastic & condensors and the ARM9 which came into existence partly because of OLPC, to produce $100 netbook. So as a matter of fact, it's not sure wether this Cherrypal can replace OLPC, and the Cherrypal is a result of a new market OLPC created. In some way OLPC has reached one goal: The availability of a $100 netbook. However, it's unsure whether the result is fit for the market OLPC aimed at. I work at a company doing plastic moulding in China, and I strongly believe the Cherrypal is not as good as the OLPC; probably apart from less software being available / optimized for ARM9. I say put the OLPC in the climate chamber, put it in UV-light, start duration tests and we'll see if the Cherrypal is any good at all (I'm pretty sure the plastic they use will crumble after put in direct sunlight for a long time). This leads me to believe it's OK to rationalize the initial costs of the OLPC I believe. |
| DiBosco Dec 16, 2009 5:48 PM EDT |
A pedant writes... ...I seem to remember ARM9s being around long before OLPC. It is possible my meory's playing tricks, but I think I remember ARM9s being around in 2001. According to this site: http://www.bdti.com/procsum/arm9.htm It was announced in 1997, so I'd guess the first chips would have been not that long afterwards. |
| tuxchick Dec 16, 2009 8:47 PM EDT |
Be careful, the Cherrypal site got compromised. A couple hours ago their cherrypal.com/openstore/ link redirected to a .ru domain. |
| hkwint Dec 17, 2009 5:04 AM EDT |
Yes DiBosco, you're right, I seriously screwed up. ARM Cortex A9 is not part of the ARM9 family. So when I read "ARM9" is in the Cherrypal, I assumed it was the Cortex A9, not some CPU of the previous century. Even more reason to believe the Cherrypal Africa will probably not be able to fully replace the OLPC. |
| caitlyn Dec 17, 2009 7:16 AM EDT |
Actually, I linked through to Cherrypal's website. Their $99 Africa is currently offered with Windows CE only, not Linux. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 04, 2010 3:29 PM EDT |
I've been looking into Cherrypal, and it does offer a $99 Africa model with Linux ("Ubuntu, or Debian, or Green Maraschino"): http://www.cherrypal.com/openstore/product_info.php?products... I've read somewhere that they usually ship with Xubuntu, and I assume Green Maraschino is Cherrypal's own distro (not sure if it's been released yet). |
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!