In previous "Open" posts I have focused on the disparity of what we have verses what we need. Today I want to focus on what has come to be known as OLPC. I am astounded at the foot dragging and stone-walling that has been going on with what will be the single greatest contribution to computing community. And I know why the industry hasn't stepped up to OLPC.
- Consumer electronic manufacturers do not want to acknowledge that a functional PC can be produced for such a small price.
- Consumer electronic manufacturers do not want to acknowledge just how few resources the average PC user really needs.
For too long now we have been locked into the BIG box model. Touted as 'bigger is better' and 'Mo' power!' the average consumer has been saddled with a PC that lays dormant 90+ percent of the time. This overgrowth of personal computing power has been driven lock-step by monopolistic software developers who have through rigorous legal wrangling forced us to "upgrade". All the while such upgrades offer little in the way of innovation or even real function. One need only reflect on Microsofts' Vista to see the real failing of this business model.
Were Joe P.C. Average to have a hands-on opportunity I know s/he would do very well with a small form personal computer running a small operating system. But the purveyors of behemoth applications and operating systems decry the lack of functionality. Me thinks they doth protest too much! They have chosen to "give" us what we think we want (at their direction and recommendation) instead of what we need. PC manufactures and their crony software developers should take a very real lesson from the Detroit Big Iron folks.
Remedial Math 101:
Joe Average can afford $100 for a PC. Is it better to sell one PC at $1000 or 1000 PCs at $100?