Dear Mr Rampersad, Thank you for your posting an open letter. I thought it was an open forum and I appreciate your reminder.
I do not yet know what to respond to. Just that I do have significant interest and some experience- about 15 years of global information technology management and have worked in Asia, Africa, Europe, US and continue to support Fortune 100 companies and those with under $10,000 revenue with the same zeal. The founders of Simputer have been known to me for a while and I am immensely fond of them. That has not colored my view of the product and dare I say that ultimately its not about how good a product the creator or those passionate about it think it is, the test of a product's utility lies in its marketability. Just like everyone agreed that Apple macintosh was a great product and they created the PC so to say but IBM won the day and finally in less than 20 years of creating the business exited it completely. And Apple became much better at innovation and creating a whole new world of iPods instead.. Simputer Never became a product. Its a great prototype that needs to be perfected as a "product". A product is not an idea. It is something that gets accepted as a product that adds value at the level it gets perceived at. Simputer has not even sold 10,000 units in 5 years and that is less than the beta testing numbers of any product I have seen in the past decade and a half. Frankly I am amazed at the passion Simputer has generated without contributing anything in terms of technology. Its not an iPod or has not broken a new ground. But I see nothing else that got so hyped in the past few years for what it has to offer. Now we know that Simputer is being sold to another company that may have more capabilities to productise it. Its great to have an opportunity to discuss with those who are serious about finding a solution and I will be glad to find time for that. Thanks On 11/29/05, Taran Rampersad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An open letter to Mr. Satish Jha: > > Since this is the first post I have seen from you on the DDN email list, > I am not sure that investing my time is worthwhile in a response to you. > In what is below, you have not endeavoured to respond to the challenges > myself and others have posted on the same list, instead giving > speculative rhetoric. > > You also have not responded in the past to the very same UN ICT policy > list with regard to the Simputer, which is from the nation where you are. > > I ask that you verify that you are willing and able to discuss this > subject at length on the DDN list before I give a more in depth and > appropriate response, which in fact will not have the $550 million > dollar laptop as the central focus but instead will look at a variety of > tools - such as the Simputer - and that you be willing to participate in > an in depth discussion beyond the commercial endeavours and into the > actual needs of society. I ask all of this because contacting you in the > past, or getting a response from you, has seemed to be impossible. This > is a more far reaching topic, and we need - as Andy suggested - to close > this topic. However, I am eager to engage you in discussion since you > have so far not discussed. Rather, you have submitted opinions and not > responded to replies. > > If I do not hear from you, I can only strongly suggest that your > participation in this thread is not of discussion, and therefore is not > something I would deem worthy of a response. I apologize in advance for > offense, but your failure to respond to emails on the UN ICT email list > seems to indicate that you are unwilling to discuss. > > I will not entertain the rhetoric of someone unwilling to discuss. > Never. Please demonstrate otherwise. I will gladly discuss with you if > there is to be discussion. Please be guided. > > Sincerely, > > Taran Amar Rampersad. > > Satish Jha wrote: > > > Nicholas Negroponte has done it once again. He has capyured the imagination > >of the world interested in bridging the digital divide by talking about a > >laptop for $100 and creating a vision of One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). > >Interestingly while the organised world has responded positively to his > >strategy, the activists in the space see it is intrusive from someone who > >does not listen to teh ground. It has been called "top-down", elitist, > >redundant, another way of MIT usurping the people's movement by using its > >branding power, a plain bad machine that does not meet the requirement and > >where the crank came off the laptop when Kofi Annan displayed it at WSIS, a > >product when its simply a prototype and so on. Some say the funds may have > >been allocated for better purposes. > > > >Just the intensity of reaction is a amazing. Reminds me of the green > >revolution days when there were people who were busy leading it and a bunch > >of critics who could see little right about it and now the critics have > >faded and all of us are reaping the benefits of having gon through it. > > > >In the case of $100 laptop the poor do not have to realy pay for it. Someone > >else is planninbg it for them, someone else is organising it and its coming > >out of funds that have been generated for the project. The following two > >perspectives seem to sum up teh key differences. > > > >>From Satish Jha of Digital Partners India and a response from Arun Subbiah > >of M S Swaminathan Research Foundation: > > > >>From Satish Jha/ Digital Partners India: > > > >There are some ideas that stir the imagination. Or we cannot explain why it > >caught the attention of as many people all over the globe in such a short > >time. Positing any idea this way is also a major contribution. It is > >interesting that Dell came up with a $99 contraption only after the idea was > >floated by Negroponte. The interesting point is that it is an IDEA that has > >become a PROTOTYPE and NOT a real product as yet. However, if any other > >company or group can produce it, I would consider Negroponte's purpose to > >have been served. > > > >As regards it being a top-down approach, I would like to be enlightened by > >those who know better if computer itself is not top down? Or any other piece > >of technology for that matter is not "top-down" where "top" is the creator > >and down is the user.. Bottom upwards is a great idea but there are a few > >things that move that way.. hot air for one.. and we can expand the list as > >we go along.. > > > >Probably a more relevant question to ask may be how should or may education > >shape up if we can reduce a laptop to the size of a copy book and make it > >just as light and convenient and sturdy.. Will it change the way we learn in > >schools.. what should be the price point for us.. will it be better to have > >shared slates (Negroponte has a grander vision of one laptop per child). > > > >To say that the money spent on this project could be better spent elsewhere > >reflects a mindset of utilising money as per some policymakers wish.. It is > >an entrepreneurial spirit where some people have come together to support > >the idea because they believe it "may" work. Those who look at it as > >something that is crowding out other expenditure are picking a leaf out of > >central planning book.. Should we not shed that mind set? > > > >Sometimes we need to take a step backwards and ask if we are asking the > >right questions. Often the progress we may make will depend on the questions > >we ask. And if only we begin to probe from the point of what impact it may > >have, what assumptions it reflects, we may cut down the journey to reaching > >any goal we may set.. > > > >While I see the merit in debating OLPC, I would have preferred if the idea > >or a competing or a better one had come from amongst us.. Let us not ignore > >the fact that the power of a Negroponte is not larger than the might of a > >Dell which has become the largest PC producer in the world. In the market > >based democracy Dell is at the top of the mountain and Simputer at a foot > >above the Ocean. That is the spectrum we are dealing with. Choice to be at > >the mountain top or at the beach is entirely ours. > > > >Arun Subbiah's response: > > > >Mr Satish Jha is an accomplished man. He has been a journalist, editor of > >a national newspaper, a manager, a consultant, policy analyst and much > >more. He writes well. But then while responding to my intervention, he has > >not countered any one of my statements, and yet I am sure he would have > >made many readers think he has. That is why the Tamil saying I quoted must > >be remembered always. Whatever we hear from whoever, we must try to reach > >the truth. > > > >Mr Jha begins his argument with " There are some ideas that stir the > >imagination. Or we cannot explain why it caught the attention of as many > >people all over the globe in such a short time." I never questioned that a > >low-cost device is useful and can help spread education. [Incidentally, > >all kinds of things become popular quickly. Mere popularity is not of much > >value.] If we look at it as an idea of a low-cost computing device the > >credit, I guess, should go to the IISc professors who thought of the > >Simputer. And Mr Jha certainly knows why the Simputer did not really pick > >up and become a big-time technological breakthrough. I do not know about > >Dell taking the idea from MIT, but certainly Simputer was thought of years > >ago. > > > >So if we had to celebrate an idea, we should have celebrted the Simputer. > >If I may ask, did not Simputer stir the imagination of Mr Jha? That the > >Simputer is on the beach and some other product is on the hilltop is > >relevant in the context of business, but not in the plane of valuing ideas > >or creativity. > > > >Mr Jha is intelligent enough to understand the context in which 'top down' > >and 'bottom up' are used. No one says that we can build computers through > >a bottom up approach. Surely we cannot build sophisticated technologies by > >mobilizing thousands of villagers in rural India. When people talk about > >bottom up, they mean a consultative process. The question they ask is: > >"Have we assessed the actual needs of the people whom we want to serve? > >Have we consulted the potential end users?" Such questions are important > >even in marketing industrial products (for profit), but all the more > >important in development. The use of 'the hot air' analogy, I thought, was > >not decent. I think even if we disagree with someone we could still be > >polite. Incidentally, use of such phrases will make one thing that Mr Jha > >does not believe at all that anything can be bottom up. That I am sure is > >not true. [Incidentally, failing to appreciate the need for following > >'bottom-up' approaches cost MIT Media Lab (in India) a bit.] > > > >No one questions a sturdy portable low cost device can be helpful. The > >issue is should we announce a (non)-product with such fanfare at such a > >major internatinal event. Shouldn't we have waited till a few machines are > >ready to be despatched? If the idea and the product are so great that they > >could stir the imagination of the entire world, why do we need a Kofi > >Annan to release them in an international conference? > > > >Mr Jha writes: "To say that the money spent on this project could be > >better spent elsewhere reflects a mindset of utilising money as per some > >policymakers wish.. It is an entrepreneurial spirit where some people have > >come together to support the idea because they believe it "may" work. > >Those who look at it as something that is crowding out other expenditure > >are picking a leaf out of central planning book.. Should we not shed that > >mind set?" When Larry Press put forth the issue of choices before a poor > >country, he did not question the value of enterpreneurial spirit. Mr Jha > >is using his ability to use words to set up a nonexistant enemy and shoots > >him down. If the MIT team is free to have their ideas, should not the > >people and governments in poor countries have the right to choose what is > >in their best interest? Why should we tell them that they have a poor > >mindset? This is a classic case of the top down way of thinking. The poor > >may choose the 100 dollar computer as the best option, or allocate a part > >of their resources to invest in it. But they should not be denied the > >right to choose. And by the way, what is wrong with the central planning > >book if all it says is you allocate your resources optimally among > >different possibilities? I think it is sound economics. > > > >"Sometimes we need to take a step backwards and ask if we are asking the > >right questions. Often the progress we may make will depend on the > >questions we ask. And if only we begin to probe from the point of what > >impact it may have, what assumptions it reflects, we may cut down the > >journey to reaching any goal we may set". No problems here. If ever the > >100 dollar computers reach the poor children, certainly it would make a > >difference. > > > >Mr Jha would like those who have entered the debate to suggest any > >alternative product which may yield better results. I was not talking > >about the 100 dollar machine as inferior to other machines. My concern was > >about the premature publicity of a non-product. > > > >Incidentally, I was one of the earliest to wish Prof. Negroponte and the > >MIT team all success. I have great admiration for MIT, for it is the first > >higher educational institution in the world to make available its > >courseware for free on the web. > > > >Let me once again wish all success to the One Child One laptop project all > >success. And thank Mr Jha for commenting on my views. > > > >Arun > >[Subbiah Arunachalam] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Satish Jha > >Special Adviser, Kofi Annan Centre for Excellence in ICTs > >Principal Adviser, vMoksha Technologies > >Co-Chair, Economic Opportunities Commission, WITFOR > >Management Consultant - Technology Strategy, Management and Program/Project > >Management > >www.vmoksha.com; www.dpindia.org; www.aiti-kace.com.gh; www.witfor.org > >_______________________________________________ > >DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > >DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org > >http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > >To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word > >UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Taran Rampersad > Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.knowprose.com > http://www.easylum.net > http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran > > Coming on January 1st, 2006: http://www.OpenDepth.com > > "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo > > _______________________________________________ > DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list > DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org > http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide > To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE > in the body of the message. > -- Satish Jha Special Adviser, Kofi Annan Centre for Excellence in ICTs Principal Adviser, vMoksha Technologies Co-Chair, Economic Opportunities Commission, WITFOR Management Consultant - Technology Strategy, Management and Program/Project Management www.vmoksha.com; www.dpindia.org; www.aiti-kace.com.gh; www.witfor.org _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
