On Dec 28, 2007 4:57 PM, Seth Woodworth <<a href="mailto:seth@isforinsects.com">seth@isforinsects.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I am working with three different non-profits in the US who would like to do small scale classroom size implementations via G1G1. But they can't get funding together or the projects in place in time (November > December). That isn't realistic for NP's in the US.
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>Implementations like this are really what we should be focusing on the in US. They are in a valuable position to provide implementation feedback and grassroots cheer leading domestically.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Exactly. But you're talking a XOEE project- XO's for education. For OLPC this is the core mission and OLPC is distracted from it at their own peril.<br><br>I can imagine the difficulty raising $12K to put 30 XO into a single classroom. Perhaps there's a better model.
<br>The XO is perfect for homeschoolers, and I'm planning to run a pilot myself as soon as I get my hardware.<br>$1200 is within budget for most families fortunate enough to be able to get by on a single income. <br>But what would be the point of convincing other homeschooling families of the benefits of XO collaboration if there's no way for them to get into the program? It would be viewed as gloating, and
<b>not</b> a promoted behavior in those circles. Hence the necessity for growth hardware.<br><br>With 3 XO's and 3 kids, if one becomes 'special' due to malfunctioning or dead hardware, I've already got problems. With two down, 'collaboration' becomes meaningless.
I.e. must have access to spares.<br><br>Without growth and spares, the XO hacker community size becomes <b>frozen</b> Dec 31. Few will be interested in 'getting into' XO development if they can't get a system to work on. I don't have stats, but I get a sense the number of clued hackers who are actively involved in XO exploration and development has skyrocketed since G1G1 was announced. I know there was only mild interest in the XO when demo'd to TriLUG (Triangle Linux User's Group) at Red Hat a year ago, and the usual question (where can I get one) and response (you can't) was a turn-off. Why bother.
<br><br><br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints which would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the adversaries know this.
<br><br>The market price point is proven. <br>The community is proven. <br>The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution channel, customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through. (quite to my own disbelief)
</blockquote></div><div><br>With no small amount of help from you Steve. Which should be noted.<br><br>The price point isn't too bad. And it is providing machines for other nations at a very fast pace. Perhaps if an external company were to retail the machines at a similar price point it might take the strain off of OLPC. This company would want a margin of their own of course, which would take away from children too. But such is the cost of a well oiled machine.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't think a commercial market, business school analysis is appropriate here. Any price above cost-of-goods will grow the market. A 2x COG (as in G1G1) grows the market double, if the market will support it, which it does. If OLPC remains a player at the G1G1 price point, it creates a market floor with plenty of margin for external companies, encouraging them to enter.
<br><br>Remember, the OLPC mission is not profit, first mover advantage, or monopoly rents through lock-in; it's all about market penetration.<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware through:
<br>- natural attrition of hardware failures.
<br>- tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative contracts to Quanta to build something else.
<br>- market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a trade-in allowance, etc).<br><br>As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the XO as a laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.
<br><br>This could be accomplished:<br>- short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
<br>- long term: multi-source hardware availability. </blockquote></div><div><br>Agreed. I want an extra screen to hack anyway. </div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1 system to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at this point.</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>
Logical fallacy. Just because you've sunk a bunch of money into something, if it sucks you should still go with what works better.
<br><br>The structures are getting better. But they aren't satisfying "Gimme Cheap/free laptop now that works k thxs by" users. Not that we're trying to serve them, but *they* think that we are, and they are restless because of it.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Tactical mistake on our part. Marketing the XO as a laptop computer puts us into direct competition with Microsoft, Intel, ASUS, etc. And we have to compete against them on their own turf. Is it any wonder they dig out talking heads from the
<b>technology</b> sector (Dvorak, etc.) to discuss the failings of the XO as a laptop computer, and the inappropriateness of sending laptop computers to starving kids in Africa?<br><br>On the other hand, if OLPC made a policy of discussing ONLY the educational, non-profit nature of the XO, and discussing it ONLY in an educational context, refusing to refer to the XO as a "laptop", etc. the discussion would have to take place in educational and non-profit forums; places where the direct competition can't even have a voice unless they are donating money to the project.
<br><br>And the XONA hacker community wouldn't be distracted for a moment. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can start to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.</blockquote></div><div><br>Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.
</div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>Many logisitical considerations. Many many as I understand. They *should* be overcome sooner than later. And I think that OLPC has dropped the ball and explaining that fact to it's users.
<br> </div></div></blockquote><div>I wonder how much of the North America G1G1 infrastructure can be utilized directly by a G1G1 Europe rollout? Certainly things like the wiki, bugs discovered, failure modes, etc, but possibly also email/web based service and support staff and such.
<br></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Steve Holton<br><a href="mailto:sph0lt0n@gmail.com">sph0lt0n@gmail.com</a>