The daylight-readable screen was most interesting to me. Not sure anyone has achieved mainstream success with this, though https://daylightcomputer.com/product is trying.
OLPC seems like a good example of spending too many "innovation tokens" at once. Very difficult to succeed when making a new system with unique hardware components and new software all at once.
It would be interesting to know how this could be less innovative and still have had a chance to work.
From my perspective, the point was the software. Getting that software to markets with unreliable electricity and little money would have been a problem without a new type of hardware device. In the end though, it was the hardware that dominated the consciousness, which was too bad. OTOH, if they hadn't tried, that might mean something like 2+ million kids might have had a worse education (assuming that the OLPC machines were useful to their education), so I doubt it is fair to call it a failure.
It definitely wasn't aimed at US or European mainstream success, nor was it even really offered in those markets, so lack of success in those markets is expected.
The displays were readable outdoors by daylight. That was a killer feature right there and it didn't catch on.
My octa-core 'phone' with OLED display is useless in sunlight. I tried using it as a sat nav last summer and there were situations of panic near freeway exits when the screen got illegible.
I remember this at the time, a really interesting idea (for 2006) to try and change the world by getting the next generation in the developing world onto the internet. I saw headlines about the project from time to time and my vague impression from the time was that they got bogged down in open-source purity arguments (lots of arguments about what should be on the device and what not on the device, and creating their own OS/UI rather than going with a common one, some seeing it as a way to conquer Windows for the next generation ) and ever increasing scope-creep or constantly redesigning everything as technology progressed. And so they never really shipped.
I guess with the ubiquity of smartphones these days you could say that 'one laptop per child' more or less happened anyway, but not quite in the way anyone imagined.
Very interesting device, saw this in a small prototype city (below 6k people) that managed to acquire one device per person and setup eletronic versions of the city services at a time much before this was common. The city even had free WiFi for everyone - low bandwidth but still useable.
Haters hate: -3 karma overnight. I've seen those cynical jive expositions on OLPC (and other topics.) Something like the opposite of a social justice warrior, social cynic hooligans.
Beware! There are haters among you who will poison your every dream for their own!
I have never figured out the causal direction of Yves Béhar's fiascos and flops (OLPC, Theranos, Juicero, Ouya, among many). Was it the hubris of the founders who wanted their products designed by Béhar, or was it the design of the products themselves?
I worked on OLPC, and wouldn't assign much fault to Yves (although there was a heavily publicized hand crank on the side of the first designs that turned out to fail to a few minutes of serious thought).
Like you're imagining, the sort of people whose primary talent is to acquire funding through exciting demonstrations end up hiring people who are good at creating exciting demonstrations, as a correlation. The MIT Media Lab (where OLPC originated) was all about exciting demonstrations.
Other "exciting" agencies were involved: Pentagram owned the UI/UX design work despite, I think, never having worked on software design/development before.
(In OLPC's case I think all of this turned out surprisingly well, but people will disagree.
It's easy to say "oh they should have used Android/iOS" before realizing that neither existed at the time.)
I don't know about the others but OLPC was trying to solve a 2nd order problem (education) when the 1st order problem, clean water, food, etc wasn't solved. A case of a solution being fitted to the user rather than the most pressing needs of said user, which can happen without appreciating a vastly different culture/context. The most useful feature of OLPC was as a flashlight.
I had one of these as a kid, got it as a christmas present because my dad did the give one get one thing. It was a lot of fun and I remember messing around with Python on there because it came with an interpreter, I think.
There's plenty of critics & inadequacies. And yeah, it was kinda slow as hell. But damn, 10+ years ago this was so ultra ambitious a hardware platform, given the absurdly low price target. Which never scaled into efficiency!
But much more so, the software ideas were so interesting. We criticize the platform readily for being used as just another OS, but who else has dared to try to build a learnable intelligible computer? Who else has better ideas we can talk about?
Taking the already existing DBus that underpins the rest of the FreeDesktop world was smart. Using meshed link-local XMPP to network DBus was a hop switch and jump further, reusing so much, but making an interesting cross-system networked application, one that was learnable & understandable & in reach as well as powerful & networked. Such a smart way to take what already was & go just a little further.
I really wish there had been a longer run of trying to grow into it. Most remarkable to me is that there haven't been any attempts at constructivist systems since. We can pan and dump on this aplenty, but what are we doing to try to give broad views of computing to kids, to make accessible the system itself? Who else has tried? This was a great economical attempt given very little time space and opportunity to grow into itself, and that's a shame.
As has been widely publicized, this project was a total[0] failure[1]. Can anyone from the "developing world" <eyeroll emoji> comment on what has succeeded in its place? Mobile phones? Chromebooks?
I think "total failure" is a bit harsh. At the very least it sparked people's imaginations, and shed some light on what would work and wouldn't work in the real world. Perhaps netbooks/chromebooks that came after also took some inspiration from it.
Even though the project may not have been succesful, I therefore think it had a pretty strong impact on the democratization of computing, and may also have influenced the development of Chromebooks.
[+] [-] xnx|1 year ago|reply
OLPC seems like a good example of spending too many "innovation tokens" at once. Very difficult to succeed when making a new system with unique hardware components and new software all at once.
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|1 year ago|reply
Pixel Qi was always one of those companies I thought should have succeeded but didn't.
This a decent walk through of their timeline in tech history:
https://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/the-rise-and...
Still today I would love to have a minimalist 'typewriter' laptop that I could work with just sitting outdoors in full sun.
[+] [-] jdboyd|1 year ago|reply
From my perspective, the point was the software. Getting that software to markets with unreliable electricity and little money would have been a problem without a new type of hardware device. In the end though, it was the hardware that dominated the consciousness, which was too bad. OTOH, if they hadn't tried, that might mean something like 2+ million kids might have had a worse education (assuming that the OLPC machines were useful to their education), so I doubt it is fair to call it a failure.
It definitely wasn't aimed at US or European mainstream success, nor was it even really offered in those markets, so lack of success in those markets is expected.
[+] [-] bubblesnort|1 year ago|reply
My octa-core 'phone' with OLED display is useless in sunlight. I tried using it as a sat nav last summer and there were situations of panic near freeway exits when the screen got illegible.
[+] [-] Bluestein|1 year ago|reply
Word. Had same problem today. Hiking off of a beaten path. Useless. Had to actually turn back.-
[+] [-] codeulike|1 year ago|reply
I guess with the ubiquity of smartphones these days you could say that 'one laptop per child' more or less happened anyway, but not quite in the way anyone imagined.
[+] [-] a1o|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] illuminant|1 year ago|reply
I owned one (g1g1), and visited a rural village participating in the program. Everyone was pretty excited and things were really happening.
The tech was cool. I dreamt of making the software a bit better (I didn't.)
Alas, even dreams die.
RIP OLPC
[+] [-] illuminant|1 year ago|reply
Beware! There are haters among you who will poison your every dream for their own!
[+] [-] kepano|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cjbprime|1 year ago|reply
Like you're imagining, the sort of people whose primary talent is to acquire funding through exciting demonstrations end up hiring people who are good at creating exciting demonstrations, as a correlation. The MIT Media Lab (where OLPC originated) was all about exciting demonstrations.
Other "exciting" agencies were involved: Pentagram owned the UI/UX design work despite, I think, never having worked on software design/development before.
(In OLPC's case I think all of this turned out surprisingly well, but people will disagree. It's easy to say "oh they should have used Android/iOS" before realizing that neither existed at the time.)
[+] [-] karmakaze|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] s-video|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dzhiurgis|1 year ago|reply
Different goals and different societies, but still - I’m sure developing countries have screen addiction issues too.
[+] [-] _whiteCaps_|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jauntywundrkind|1 year ago|reply
But much more so, the software ideas were so interesting. We criticize the platform readily for being used as just another OS, but who else has dared to try to build a learnable intelligible computer? Who else has better ideas we can talk about?
Taking the already existing DBus that underpins the rest of the FreeDesktop world was smart. Using meshed link-local XMPP to network DBus was a hop switch and jump further, reusing so much, but making an interesting cross-system networked application, one that was learnable & understandable & in reach as well as powerful & networked. Such a smart way to take what already was & go just a little further.
I really wish there had been a longer run of trying to grow into it. Most remarkable to me is that there haven't been any attempts at constructivist systems since. We can pan and dump on this aplenty, but what are we doing to try to give broad views of computing to kids, to make accessible the system itself? Who else has tried? This was a great economical attempt given very little time space and opportunity to grow into itself, and that's a shame.
[+] [-] jpm_sd|1 year ago|reply
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/16/17233946/olpcs-100-laptop...
[1] https://philanthropydaily.com/the-spectacular-failure-of-one...
Here in Massachusetts, USA we're on the One Chromebook Per Child plan. Seems to mostly work OK.
[+] [-] foobarian|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] patapong|1 year ago|reply
Even though the project may not have been succesful, I therefore think it had a pretty strong impact on the democratization of computing, and may also have influenced the development of Chromebooks.
[+] [-] shortrounddev2|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cynicalpeace|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]