As originally cited in the WSJ, it appears as though Intel has abandoned the One Laptop Per Child program, citing a “philosophical impasse,” according to Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. This is putting it mildly. According to Gizmodo, not only did Mr. Negroponte persist that Intel stop selling the Classmate, but that they should also halt working with any company that makes inexpensive notebooks such as Asus. This couldn’t come at a worse time, as the CTO of the OLPC just resigned in order to start a for-profit company to commercialize technology she invented with OLPC. This is all pretty fresh news and the OLPC has not made comment yet, so there could be more than what is currently at the fore.

In all honesty, it doesn’t really surprise me all that much that the two organizations have dissolved their relationship of only six months. After all, Negroponte and Intel have had two very different visions, and rationales, for delivering personal computers to emerging nations (or markets rather).

Apparently, the Classmate is by far outselling the XO laptop (OLPC’s version) despite the fact that it is more expensive and offers less features overall, but has more processing power.

It is unfortunate that these two organizations are unable to resolve their differences. It seems odd to me that the two laptops are in competition with one another when they are at two separate price points and have different features. What if the OLPC program and Intel had worked together on creating another version of the XO with a better processor and more memory? (The XO would have to replace its AMD chips with Intel ones). Although this would tier the market, it would still provide lower end laptops to various developing nations. In effect, a country with high human development such as Brazil could better afford the classmate and wouldn’t need some of the features that the current XO offers (such as a turn crank or pull string). In areas of low to medium human development; i.e. most of Africa, these alternative features can be beneficial. I, however, am in agreement with Dan Herman’s opinion on the subject.

According to G. Pascal Zachary, Stanford journalism lecturer, “In today’s world the real value to a computer is it being networked… Finding a network in the poor areas is either impossible or very expensive.” Due to poor infrastructure in most developing nations, as well as the concept of connectivity by proxy with the XO, finding an internet connection will likely be rather difficult. In addition, the current trend of mobile devices becoming ‘all-in-one’ could provide people in developing nations with various modes of communication (including telephony) that would require far less electrical power and is more inconspicuous. This could help prevent theft.

On the other hand, although the implementation of technology as a form of aid within developing nations doesn’t necessarily address immediate needs, investments made in technology and in education could help those in the future once implemented.

On the OLPC website, it is claimed that the GUI (graphical user interface) embraces the spirit of the network. It is all about community and collaboration – working and playing together to learn, create and communicate. This, in essence, appears to be the goal of the OLPC program. If what is being reported about Nicolas Negroponte is in fact true, then totalitarian rule over design and implementation appears to defeat the purpose and the intended goals of the program itself. Besides, competition can only help to drive improvement. Impoverished youths will receive better laptops. Isn’t this the goal of the OLPC program – to help the children?