the G1G1 program is a huge strain on the people directly involved in
the project, though. there are a lot of benefits, such as the number
of enthusiastic people brought into the project, eager to get cracking
and help out. on the other hand, we're scrambling to keep donors
happy, answer customer support questions, deal with possible returns,
etc. even passing a lot of this to the volunteer community, there are
still things that must be handled within the organization, especially
if this is a commercial or semi-commercial enterprise. many view
themselves not as donors, but as customers, and expect a high level of
service, documentation, support, and so on for something that is very
much a work-in-progress. this means that somebody working on it has to
stop whatever they're building to work on documentation,
communication, answering angry emails...
having the documentation and directions and support staff is a great
thing, and is really something that i've wanted for a while, but if we
continue G1G1 the number of issues will continue to increase, just
from the sheer volume of people with XOs, and at a certain point i
believe it will begin to really have a negative impact on the
productivity of the community. running a G1G1 type program full time
would be great publicity, support, make people who want to be able to
get laptops happy, but it would also greatly increase the number of
people who don't understand that OLPC is not in the business of
selling cool gadgets to [comparably] wealthy adults, and these people
demand service at a level that involves abandoning the educational
goals of the project in favor of a better business model. OLPC is not
here to be a corporation, and placing too much emphasis on G1G1 and
similar programs is a risky move, because it puts OLPC down the path
towards competitive business.
is turning over developers to customer service and marketing really
what's best for this project?
can the project succeed without consumer support?
-nikki
On Dec 29, 2007 2:42 AM, Jim Sayre < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I think the key is for project management to remember that the OLPC
project is a revolutionary idea to shift from paper-based learning to
digital learning, with the XO is just one very early tool that will
begin that process. It's ability to replace a conventional laptop is
besides the point, since it has a completely different core purpose.
Having said that, though, the project is missing a huge potential
benefit by cancelling G1G1, rather than remarketing it as a way for
people in developed countries to contribute to the project's core
purposes. While using the internet is just one (and not the most
important) educational activity students will use the XO for, it
can add
a great deal of value to the tool, and at the same time help to solve
(rather than create) problems.
An earlier thread suggested pairing students in G1G1 families with
students in the recipient countries. There's no reason why such
pairing
requires both students to have XO computers, but it would be a nice
touch, and would help the donor student understand what the recipient
could and could not do. But a major benefit of such pairing would
be to
develop a large community of knowledgeable volunteers to serve as
helpers for the recipient students. I've seen a couple of comments
along those lines, and I agree with them. I'm on the Board of a
non-profit community network with over 10,000 users and only one
employed tech person; we manage almost everything through volunteers.
The OLPC project is a far more attractive and manageable way to
contribute some time than to coach users with a variety of old and
maybe
defective equipment through a variety of connection problems.
Similarly, our volunteers manage most of our membership and donation
activities. A great deal of the volunteering is done online, and I
can't see any reason why the OLPC project, with the level of
commitment
it already has (and more on way with each new G1G1 unit that gets
into
circulation) can't do the same. Volunteers could keep track of the
payments, maintain a database or donors who would be offered
chances to
volunteer, ensure that delivery problems are explained and resolved,
pair interested students, find suitable volunteer jobs for donors
willing to contribute, and so on. The amazing levels of coordination
achieved by the open source software community proves that none of
those
things are impossible.
In addition to the one to one relationships that would be created,
each
donor family is a potential evangelist for the project. The
elementary
school which my daughter attended beginning about 10 years ago had
only
a stand-alone computer lab with maybe 20 Macs. Classes would rotate
into the room once a week for an hour or so of computer learning,
which
was by design and necessity an entirely separate subject from the
rest
of the schooling. During all those years, I had to pay up to
$100 per
year in "supply fees" because our school board, despite all its tax
support, couldn't make ends meet otherwise. The parent
association came
up with the funds for the computer lab, and even much of the
playground
equipment. If someone had shown the parents that for $150 each
(in the
first year) the school could provide every child with their own
computer, making digital learning an integral part of the whole
educational process, I think they'd have overwhelmingly supported it.
Of course, in those days laptops were more like $2000, so it wouldn't
have been practical, but now it is. And the benefits of creating such
educational clusters of OLPC users throughout the developed world are
enormous - to foster volunteers, donations, political support, and (by
the way) better educated kids.
G1G1 is a win win idea if there ever was one. I don't see why
manufacturing should be an issue. If the capacity is there to fill a
country's order, it can be used to built a reasonable number of units
for donor families. The donation portion of the cost would presumably
be held until there's enough to fund (or supplement) an order for 3rd
world use. In the meantime, the pairing would be with recipient kids
who already have the XO; I agree that trying to identify the
individual
child whose computer was donated by the family would make it very hard
to manage, and while some charities find that sort of thing good for
advertising, I don't think it's necessary. This isn't a project to
adopt a child, it's to foster a better means of education.
Jim
PS: While educational uses should be by far the main focus,
aspects of
the XO have great potential benefits for other purposes. Have you
ever
tried to use a conventional laptop in your car on a sunny day. If the
screen technology really allows for use in bright sunlight, it
would be
a better tool for many travelling users (and even those who just
want to
do email on their patio in the summer).
Probably the most innovative feature is the built-in mesh networking.
Companies have to hire consultants to set up internal networks, and
maintaining them is a constant expense. Our community network is
beginning to experiment with mesh as a means of allowing residents
in a
housing complex (low-income public housing in particular) to share
just
a few broadband internet connections, and in the process enable all of
the kids to have the benefits of home computing. But just buying an
add-on mesh device and configuring it will cost a substantial chunk of
the XO's price tag, and it has mesh built-in and pre-configured as
part
of the OS. Now that's a option that not even top end computers
currently offer. The military has some projects to use mesh on the
battlefield, but no one else is doing it on a large scale for useful
purposes. The XO could be a technology leader in this area, and if
classes in developed countries begin to adopt it, and realize its
benefits, so will the parents. Think of the good publicity that would
generate for the project.
Steve Holton wrote:
> I must *strongly* recommend *against* ending the G1G1 program. Or at
> least replace it with some mechanism for maintaining white market
> availability of growth systems and spares.
>
> The availability of hardware is the one of the last chokepoints
which
> would allow an adversary to kill-off the OLPC mission and North
> American success. (The other is mission creep: changing the OLPC
> mission from one of developing an educational platform into one of
> competing in the North American laptop computer market.) And the
> adversaries know this.
>
> The market price point is proven.
> The community is proven.
> The infrastructure problems (a huge hurdle) for distribution
channel,
> customer service, support, etc. have been largely worked through.
> (quite to my own disbelief)
>
> The next chokepoint would be to drain the market of hardware
through:
> - natural attrition of hardware failures.
> - tying-up the manufacturing facilities by offering lucrative
> contracts to Quanta to build something else.
> - market removal (buying-up systems offered on eBay, offering a
> trade-in allowance, etc).
>
> As long as OLPC can maintain the availability of spare parts and new
> systems for growth, both the XONA (XO North America, using the
XO as a
> laptop computer) and the XOEE (XO Educational Endeavor) will grow.
>
> This could be accomplished:
> - short term: make a committment to the availability of new systems
> and spares (price point is unimportant, enthusiasts being what they
> are) through an 'Official OLPC program'.
> - long term: multi-source hardware availability.
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 1:29 PM, Seth Woodworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
wrote:
>
> I *think* that it is ending for the following reasons:
>
> 1.) Quanta can only make so many machines per month, and
there is
> a backlog of orders for target nations.
>
>
> Agreed, but the competition knows that.
> Constricted manufacturing channels are only a factor if a
component is
> single source, and then only when hard deadlines (like 'ship before
> the holidays') are in play. OLPC supporters will gladly wait 2
months
> to get systems if they understand the wait up front. (Many already
> have...)
>
>
> 2.) It is a a *lot* harder to ship 10,000 laptops to 10,000
people
> than 10,000 to one country. Selling laptops retail isn't the
> business that OLPC really needs to be in.
>
>
> Agreed 100%. That was a tactical mistake on the part of OLPC. If
> they had marketed XO's strictly as an educational tool, (they
actually
> did a pretty good job) it would have gone a long way toward
answering
> the inevitable questions like "how do I install Flash, why can't I
> connect to every imaginable wireless access point, etc.) The
community
> would have found answers to those anyway (as proven) and OLPC
wouldn't
> have been on the hook to do so.
>
> However, the hard part of building the infrastructure to ship 1
system
> to 1,000,000 different people has largely been built. Sunk cost at
> this point.
>
> 3.) They need to stop G1G1 in the US and Canada so they can
start
> to scale up for Europe and Asia G1G1 sales.
>
>
> Europe and Asia deserve a chance to G1G1, too. (A mistake, IMHO, to
> try to exclude them from G1G1, but there may have been logistical
> considerations I don't understand) But if making them available in
> Europe comes at the cost of availability in North America, I'm going
> to be arranging to purchase my spares through GreyMarketEurope.
>
> Good question, and not an intuitive answer. This belongs on
the
> wiki somewhere.
>
> Seth
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2007 8:00 AM, Josh Cogliati
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>
> Why is the give one get one program ending? The
> program has brought millions of dollars of donations
> to OLPC. As well it provides a good way to get
> hardware if you are undecided on developing for the
> machine. Plus it provides a price ceiling on ebay
> sales. So, why is the program ending?
>
> Josh Cogliati
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Olpc-open mailing list
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Olpc-open mailing list
> [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Holton
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Olpc-open mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
<http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open>
>
>
> !DSPAM:528,477556e786771405164501!
>
--
Jim Sayre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Olpc-open mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
!DSPAM:528,4776018b86773336415487!
