[geeks] One (Windows) Laptop Per Child

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Sun, 01 Oct 2006 @ 08:51 +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson said:

> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:00:48PM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > However, the fact remains that the prices on even decent hardware is
> > falling all the time, so a lot of people will just decide to spend
> > another $100 and get a real laptop.
> 
> To paraphrase the RHPS "I didn't make it for you". The idea behind it
> is that the people buying them don't have another $100 to spend.

There are several targets for the laptop, some of which will certainly
have the money.  Those that don't, I'm willing to bet won't have the
money for it period, especially after you add the extra costs of owning
it.

This is a road very well travelled, and the story so far has always been
the same.

> > The other issue is that I don't see what people are going to run on it.
> > It lacks the power for a ton of software, and certainly lacks enough
> > storage and storage speed.
> 
> I hate to be mean, but who cares?  Does anyone who needs a spreadsheet
> really need Excel? Or Word, FireFox, or Open Office? Many current
> users do, but a lot of people using the cheap laptop won't. 

The cost of the machine and the budget of the user have zip to do with
how much data they need, or think they need, or what applications
they'll want to run.

I see a machine that looks like a Windows laptop to the end user, but
won't be able to do the same things, and a user base who will try to do
exactly that.

I also can look back at past projects and see that they ran into exactly
the same problem.

Maybe this one will get it right, but I have my doubts.  It's just not
as easy as "build cheap machine by the millions".

> > It will need people to write applications about like they write PDA
> > software, and I wonder if that will happen.
> 
> They do, but many people ignore it. Look at Damn Small Linux (aka DSL)
> or many of the other versions like it. 50 meg of compressed file system,
> boots from ROM or a USB stick, web browser, media player, FireFox,
> and a whole lot of other stuff. DSL will run comfortably on a relatively
> slow X86 with 128m RAM, probably will work on 64 (the smallest I've
> used is 96). 

Yes, it will run... but to actually do anything you need more than that.

I think even fairly low end users will eat 1GB pretty quick.  In fact,
since a lot of them will be ignorant and inexperienced, they might
well use it up faster than normal.

That's another problem with projects like this.  Locally old comnputers
are put into service by various organizations, and this is exactly what
happens in those projects.  The people try to run too much and store too
much, even when shown alternatives.

> > Expensive PDAs sell based on features and small size, and even then low
> > end laptops eat into their sales because some people start thinking
> > "Hmmm... for another $100 I can have a laptop with a big screen and a
> > keyboard".
> 
> The real problem is the screen. A TFT screen is expensive, in Q10m, around
> $40 for 320x240 and there are size limitations. OLED screns can be almost
> any size (large or small), and if made in huge quantities, cheap. 
>  
> > A general purpose computer has more to live up to.
> 
> You're aiming too high. Aim for people who don't have a computer and need
> minimal functions.

No, I'm not aiming too high.

I'm just reflecting on what I've seen happen in the past.

Maybe this will be "the one", but the odds are against it.

This is a hard thing to make happen.

The engineering to build the machine cheaply with good features is only
about 10% of the whole game.

-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- [Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak
is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime
literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express
it. -- 1984, George Orwell ]]