Intel, OLPC Sever Ties After Six Months Of Collaboration

It was a match made most begrudgingly by two clashing factions, and one which often seemed far too uncomfortable for all involved and more trouble than it was worth to keep together. But it was nonetheless a partnership widely viewed as a critical compromise that would have to be maintained, against all odds, if the grander mission both parties had publicly pledged strongly to was to be achieved.

Well, so much for the value of good will. It appears Intel has now reneged on its agreement with the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) organization to include the chip-making giant’s own circuitry in a number of its devices, which OLPC would proceed to market as one of two options offered to developing countries and their youngest citizens; the other option being the original device contrived in partnership with AMD.

Or was it perhaps Nick Negroponte who blew his whistle first and tossed Intel from its development circle? To be honest, we may never know. And no matter, really. Regardless of reasoning, the result of this rather high-profile separation is the proliferation of headlines tinged with negativity all across the Web, which can hardly be construed as beneficial to OLPC’s efforts. Unfortunately, we can’t tell you we didn’t think we’d see such a day come. The signs of the demise of the now-shorted venture were plainly in view from the get-go.

The alloy contrived between OLPC and Intel - with heavy notes of bitterness, for sure – was never an ideal mix. Prior to the announcement of their partnership in the summer of 2007, Intel greatly irked MIT professor and chief evangelist Nicholas Negroponte by assembling its own rugged – though far less ingeniously engineered – laptop, in collaboration with Microsoft, for distribution to classrooms mostly devoid of modern technologies. As many of you might have already learned long ago, that reality didn’t sit well with the OLPC head.

Of course, Negroponte would ideally be cheerful to see a large corporation attend to the basic educational needs of children, and he said as much shortly after the XO laptop had spend some time out in the real world. But he took the Intel-run initiative to be undercutting his own; and would thus be to the detriment of his global concept. He also railed publicly Intel’s decision to include proprietary and closed-source software in its package, and spoke disparagingly of the Classmate PC’s cost (roughly $300; OLPC offers its device for $200).

In short, the head of OLPC despised the competition, for the fact that he viewed it as naught but corporate opportunism shrouded with a candy coating of nobility.

Another noteworthy conflict of interest which arose a good amount of time after XO was first instructed was that, in July of 2007, OLPC and Intel joined hands – for the sake of the kids, of course. Yet the news mustn’t have delighted Negroponte’s original chipmaker of choice, AMD, in the least. The smaller of two silicon specialists after all quite openly viewed its primary opponent in the fabrication business as a Goliath-like character that wished to do everything in its power to steal the market shares of entities smaller than itself. So to have had to contend with Intel in the realm of philanthropy and humanitarian investment in addition to the free market must surely have been an infuriating situation to have to deal with.

Well, here were today. OLPC is now absent its Intel partnership. Does this mean a downturn will result for the organization? We think not. We certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say that, because of Intel’s departure from the OLPC board, the organization might lose momentum. OLPC is likely to survive handily with AMD still in the picture. (There’s no indication that the production of laptop computers is or will be diminishing anytime soon.)

But that being said, Negroponte would do well to assure both countries and individual consumers who have purchased or in fact plan to do so in the near future that OLPC is not damaged in the least by Intel’s leave – and may even be better for it. In hindsight, the chipmaker could have just as easily been taken for a distraction as a helping hand, and the project’s chief promoter should say as much and as often as necessary to keep OPLC on its current trajectory.