Paul obviously wanted this to be known externally. That is why he posted it internally on an unrestricted internal blog which was accessible by blue badges and green badges.

BTW - anybody know why Bill Sayles, GM of IT was escorted out by security on 12/21?

I like how I the comment I posted, which was pro-Intel, was censured. INQ is a biased outlet; Intel Jihadists. It's disappointing.

OLPC was trying to enforce a monopoly, yet when Intel is accused of doing the same, Intel is chided.

[Nah, no one censored you. It's up to us what we do with this comment thing. We want no square words. Mike Magee]

Agree with Intel or don't agree, the many many statements I have seen that Intel is pure evil for not giving away all its money and giving poor people chips for free are just unbelievably unfair.


I'm a bit biased, but I believe Intel is sincere here. And I have joined in lambasting Intel when they were under-investing, making sub-par products, and holding back technologies in order to reduce competition for "protected" products.

But letting one particular non-profit dictate to Intel what it can sell and to whom and on what terms doesn't make any sense. And even a critic of capitalism can note that capitalism will get a lot of money and productive capacity behind cheap chips that Negroponte can't.


A lot of comments on this and other articles seem to suggest that Intel must be in the wrong. They weren't the first greedy company, they won't be the last, and I have no doubt that the folks at OLPC don't want competition of any kind.

"When one of our customers wrote to me, expressing some significant concerns, I felt compelled to respond directly."

Google perhaps!

Looking back this time last year we read news that "Google has begun buying Intel server components in high volume, said Pat Gelsinger, a co-general manager of Intel's Digital Enterprise Group, speaking about the Google relationship on an internal Intel blog ...
http://www.news.com/Intel-inside-again-for-new-Google-servers/2100-1014_3-6153431.html

As both a very large Intel customer, and a long-time supporter of the OLPC project, Google might have a thing or two to say about the whole issue!!

Truth is Intel makes huge profits the way the industry works today. And Intel managment feel that their established business model domination is extremely threatened by a small open-source hardware and software project like the OLPC project.

Fact is Intel does not have a processor that consumes as little power and costs as little as the AMD Geode processor.

Fact is Intel does not want the market to embrace $200 laptops. Intel would loose all sales of Dual Core High-K metal gate quadro core processors if most new laptops only will have 400mhz fanless ultra low voltage, since most people in fact don't need more processing power to browse the Internet and access all their unbloated Web Apps and other most basic apps on the laptop.

Fact is Intel wants the business model of big margins on expensive hardware to continue to be the defacto mainstream standard for when people need to upgrade their computers. Fact is Intel is not present in any of the low cost new solutions coming out such as the VIA based $199 Shuttle and Zonbu desktop computers or the $150 OLPC laptop.

Fact is the Intel Classmate brings absolutely nothing to improve education nor improve battery life or lower the cost of laptops. The Classmate is designed to fail. Intel does not want to mass produce cheap laptops. Classmate has 5 times shorter battery life, double or triple the manufacturing price.

Given all these facts, I believe Nicholas Negroponte has been really polite not to tell more of the disgusting ways Intel's salespeople in Nigeria, Mongolia, Peru, Mexico, Pakistan, India, Libya and so many other countries have been doing non other than telling blatant lies to trash the OLPC project and that Intel has given those sales people all means to attack the OLPC effort in any way possible. Threatening to remove existing investment projects such as the ones mentionned by Paul Otellini was most probably one of the dirty tactics used (just look at the facts, how much Intel say the plan to invest and have invested in Indian and Pakistani ICT, presents given to Nigerian ICT, personal level friendships and promise of free teacher training in Microsoft Excell spreadsheet software in cooperation with Mexicos presidents. Intel has been using all of its connections to undermine the OLPC project.

...That he never addressed the particular incident of some unidentified Intel representatives speaking to Peru about the Classmate systems after an agreement was reached for the OPLC laptops.

Much easier to refute generalities than specifics, certainly.

We all know what's ethical means at Intel... It's not because you give away millions of $ to charity that you don't have very unfair commercial practices (i.e. Korea, Japan, EU, NY,...)

Nicholas cought you pants down and we're talking of poor kids here. How ugly.


GZ -- I think your quote and analysis of Otellini's text do not reflect well upon your reading comprehension. Methinks you're a lawyer? Marketing? Politics?

Regardless, or -- even better -- unregardless (apologies to GZ who will argue with my wording), Otellini was pointing out that competition should champion a product. After all, isn't the monopolizing of certain markets what got Intel in hot water before? Isn't the best climate to create a product a competitive one? Should OLPC have no rival? Is everyone just blinded by the pseudo-altruism of OLPC?

Why would OLPC not want a competitor? Sounds like an inferiority complex.

Think about this: When Intel is CHARGED with monopolization (v. AMD) it is universally accepted as a "bad thing". But when OLPC freely discloses and endorses its intent to create a monopoly nobody says anything. Bloody hypocrites.

Let OLPC make a product that competes in an open market. That's what the rest of us have to do.

MJL

Intel signed an agreement. Notice that Otellini said nothing about the agreement. 

All he did is wave his hand and try to categorically claim that OLPC and Negreponte lied. So in effect he is calling the officials(the ones in several different governments around the world he would probably like to have as customers for the classmate) that reported Intel's blatant violation of the agreement liars. 

Also, a signed agreement trumps a side conversation( that he has probably mis-characterized) every time.

Truth is Intel makes huge profits the way the industry works today. And Intel managment feel that their established business model domination is extremely threatened by a small open-source hardware and software project like the OLPC project.

Fact is Intel does not have a processor that consumes as little power and costs as little as the AMD Geode processor.

Fact is Intel does not want the market to embrace $200 laptops. Intel would loose all sales of Dual Core High-K metal gate quadro core processors if most new laptops only will have 400mhz fanless ultra low voltage, since most people in fact don't need more processing power to browse the Internet and access all their unbloated Web Apps and other most basic apps on the laptop.

Fact is Intel wants the business model of big margins on expensive hardware to continue to be the defacto mainstream standard for when people need to upgrade their computers. Fact is Intel is not present in any of the low cost new solutions coming out such as the VIA based $199 Shuttle and Zonbu desktop computers or the $150 OLPC laptop.

Fact is the Intel Classmate brings absolutely nothing to improve education nor improve battery life or lower the cost of laptops. The Classmate is designed to fail. Intel does not want to mass produce cheap laptops. Classmate has 5 times shorter battery life, double or triple the manufacturing price.

Given all these facts, I believe Nicholas Negroponte has been really polite not to tell more of the disgusting ways Intel's salespeople in Nigeria, Mongolia, Peru, Mexico, Pakistan, India, Libya and so many other countries have been doing non other than telling blatant lies to trash the OLPC project and that Intel has given those sales people all means to attack the OLPC effort in any way possible. Threatening to remove existing investment projects such as the ones mentionned by Paul Otellini was most probably one of the dirty tactics used (just look at the facts, how much Intel say the plan to invest and have invested in Indian and Pakistani ICT, presents given to Nigerian ICT, personal level friendships and promise of free teacher training in Microsoft Excell spreadsheet software in cooperation with Mexicos presidents. Intel has been using all of its connections to undermine the OLPC project.

...and I wonder why they haven't followed through.

Take a "Little Valley 2" board ($63 retail), a USB Flash stick ($7?), a 60W power supply ($20?), a small LCD display ($90?), a fan and a plastic case with keyboard and - voila - you have a ~$200 notebook computer.

Maybe not the most ergonomic or smallest notebook computer on the planet, but a notebook computer nonetheless.

This was the regular spin for the troops but this line went too far:

"I want you to know that our reputation and our integrity mean more to me than any profit motive. "

I dare to say that in front of the shareholders.

In english, I believe this is called bull spit.

This is not the version that I posted internally.

Good to hear 'The Truth' (tm) from Intel.

I guess that means the OLPC folks are liars.

So the Peruvian guy who said Intel's rep. tried to scare him off OLPC is also a liar, as are the guys that did a technical comparison between the systems.

Golly Gosh, Intel. You're absolutely surrounded by liars.

I'll just bet those anti-trust people are liars too. Yes, all of them!

Right on GZ.

Seems Intel have a negative view in how clients view them heh.

Otellini's blog linked to an article from economist.com, which dissed OLPC.
Take notice that Intel is the official sponsor of that site's Debate series.

http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?action=hall

Intel $$$ >>>> economist.com

when you parade it around on your high horse?

As a child, have you ever been sweet talked into giving away your candy because thats the right thing to do? 
P Otellini has just taken mine!!!

10 Million dollars per year should mean about 50,000 laptops at 200$ each. Then why is intel interested in selling their laptops... why not just give them away. Per year, 50,000 children will benifit from it and in about 10-15 year about 750 thousands children will grow into professionals who know (or only know) how to use Intels' platform. 

Think big for god's sake, n such that everyone is a winner.



Oh oh! He said the word "monopoly"!!!! Paul Otellini did. He is a big chief at Intel..which is ..THE monopoly. Hah!To Mr Paul: I do not believe you are sincere in you declaration. We all know your corporation has always been trying to make huge profit, and the customers were the last of the priorities. Now you come out with this, it's not gonna hold. You tried to sabotage OLPC deals with the foreign governments, and this looks awfully a lot like Microsoft's business' tactics. There is a reason for people calling your two companies the Wintel monopoly. The only way I could believe you is if I was brainwashed which I hope I am not. Maybe your fans will buy it, but me, I will never buy one of your CPUs unless I am forced to. You are pretty good at forcing people making only one choice - your products, but hopefully that will change.

"...and, in many cases, to an inappropriately negative view of Intel." - Paul Otellini

Hmm. Exactly what is the appropriate negative view we should have of Intel?

GZ