- Sunday, 29 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
The problem with political jokes is they get elected - Henry Cote
Paul Otellini tells Intel staff about the OLPC affair
THE CEO OF Intel has put a message on his internal bog that gives his staff his point of view (POV) on the recent rupture with the One Laptop Per Child folk.
He calls on the 88,000 people that work at La Intella to get some clarity about OLPC. And he talks about Circuit News – this, by the way, is the internal Intel newspaper that loves the INQ so much it claimed it bought us. Paul Otellini's bog entry has been reproduced on the front page of Circuit News.
So here we go with Paul O's thoughts. µ
Some clarity on OLPC…
"You've no doubt seen Will Swope's article on Circuit and the media reports that followed our resignation from the One Laptop per Child organization. While I knew that this difficult decision would result in negative stories and allegations in the media, I was committed to have Intel stay on the high road. We have not made any negative comments about the program, the product, or the facts around the breakup. However, the OLPC management has made a number of very disparaging comments about Intel and has significantly misrepresented the facts. This has led to confusion in the reading population and, in many cases, to an inappropriately negative view of Intel. When one of our customers wrote to me, expressing some significant concerns, I felt compelled to respond directly. After I did this, I realized that you, our employees, may have similar concerns. So I have decided to share my thoughts in the letter with you. Here's the essence of it:
“As you might imagine, there are two sides to this story.
"Permit me to give you some background. Intel, like many corporations, has a large philanthropic effort. I believe that we are unique though in that 100% of our philanthropy goes to education efforts around the world. This has been true since the company’s founding 40 years ago. In the last 10 years alone, we have donated $1B to education. We have established computer clubhouses for kids in disadvantaged areas, we have trained (for free) over 4 million teachers wo rldwide (and will have trained 10 million by the end of 2011) on how to teach better through technology and internet-based learning. We hold two major math and science contests every year, one in the USA and one internationally. They are the premier math and science contests for high school children in the world. We spend $10M every year to fund these events and the scholarships they award. We also have an 'ultra low cost notebook' called the Classmate whose design we make available to local OEM’s to sell to school districts around the world. What is unique about this notebook is that it is part of a comprehensive approach to teaching, including a significant amount of customized software for the teachers and students.
"I give you this information to help you in the context of the OLPC saga. Some people at Intel criticized Nicholas’s project when it was first started. That was a mistake, and we have long ago apologized for that. Last summer, I contacted Nicholas and asked him a question. It was 'is your goal to get every kid a laptop, or to get every kid an OLPC laptop?' He laughed and said 'the former, of course.' With that answer, I said we would like to work together.
"Intel signed a contract with OLPC. We provided the organization with $6M of funding in 2007, and were their largest single source of funding. We were working on porting our software to the XO, and were working on an Intel-based version of the product. Last fall, Nicholas demanded that we drop our work on Classmate (this fact was reported with a quote by Nicholas in the Wall Street Journal). He felt that our work was causing less success to OLPC as a competitor. I reminded him of his answer to my question when we talked in the summer. He disregarded it and said that he had changed his mind. Intel could not and would not withdraw our support to governments and the small computer manufacturers in developing countries who were building Classmate. Nor would I bow to his pressure to grant OLPC a 'monopoly' on kids. At the time of our breakup, Intel had honored every contractual commitment we had made to the OLPC organization.
"Despite the fact that Nicholas and his team have been all over the press telling their side of the story, we have elected to take the high ground and not lower ourselves to refuting his lies. Many of the press are now seeing both sides of the story and reporting accurately. I reference you to last week's Economist article on this topic.
"I want you to know that our reputation and our integrity mean more to me than any profit motive. I hope my explanation helps you put things in context.”
"To our employees I would add: you can know that we did everything we could to make this work, and that we will continue to invest on a world-class scale to enhance education and improve lives around the world. As you read and hear more (because likely you will), I would ask you to remember the facts of the situation and help us stay on the high road inside and outside of Intel."
Paul
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
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.


"...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

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.
when you parade it around on your high horse?
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
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.
This is not the version that I posted internally.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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
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.

...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.
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.
"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!!
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.
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.

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?