Problems with the $100 laptop

Problems with the OLPC approach

Lee Felsenstein

Fonly Institute

lee@fonlyinstitute.com

10 Nov. 2005

 

Top down structure

 

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project (http://laptop.media.mit.edu/) rests upon a fundamental assumption that the creation and widespread distribution of a single type of computer will solve the problem of the “digital divide” in the developing world. By creating a laptop computer priced at $100 each (when sold in quantities of millions), the thinking goes, schoolchildren throughout the developing world will all be equipped with powerful tools for learning and exploration.

 

The educational theories behind this approach were developed by Alan Kay and Seymour Papert starting in the 1970's, and gave us both the LOGO language (Papert) and the concept of the laptop computer (Kay's Dynabook). While their work led to important advances in the shape and use of computers, it has not been generally validated as bringing about new paradigms of child learning. Children do not go out to play bringing along their laptops, and have not been generally observed to create LOGO programs spontaneously.

 

By marketing the idea to governments and large corporations, the OLPC project adopts a top-down structure. So far as can be seen, no studies are being done among the target user populations to verify the concepts of the hardware, software and cultural constructs.  Despite the fact that neither the children, their schools nor their parents will have anything to say in the creation of the design, large orders of multi-million units are planned.

 

Distribution problems

 

This represents a particularly striking form of a command economy where a market economy is an absolute necessity. The history of command industrial economies, like that of the former Soviet Union, shows that informal mechanisms of distribution develop unbidden. Gray markets (for items legally obtained) and black markets (for illegally obtained merchandise) come into operation. For this reason, among others,  we can expect the OLPC laptops to gravitate toward other segments of the population, where money and influence may be available but where budgets are still tight enough to place standard laptops out of reach.

 

The truth of  the assertion that through distinctive design the OLPC laptops will be rendered safe from theft or misappropriation depends upon the moral calculus of the appropriators. So long as they are capable of browser access, the laptops will have value in commercial use. If they can be had, competitive forces will create pressure for businesses to avail themselves of the new tool, as has so far happened with pirated software.

 

It is also reasonable to predict a reaction against the concept in recipient families. In developing societies children are perceived to have a place in helping the family advance, not in racing ahead and leaving the family behind. Unless it is evident that the laptop will improve the prospects of the family then support within the family may not be forthcoming, and the laptop will more likely be converted to cash.

 

It would seem apparent that serious social research must be done to determine family, village and societal attitudes before proceeding with a program like OLPC.

 

Hardware issues – power generation

 

But what of the absence of reliable electrical power? OLPC statements refer to the hand-cranked generator included in each unit, having a ratio of 100:1 for operating time to crank time. For an optimistically low power drain of 1 watt this implies a 100 watt generator.

 

A hand crank of 6 inch (15.24 cm) length operating at 2 turns per second would require a tangential force of 11.8 pounds (5.3 kg), assuming 100% efficiency of generation and storage. This would tire a strong adult quite rapidly. It would seem apparent that the figure of 100:1 was arrived at by means other than calculation.

 

Hardware issues – mesh networking

 

Questions about connectivity of the OLPC laptop are answered by referring to the wireless mesh networking capability to be built into the device. Each one will link to others nearby, which in turn will link to others until finally one links to something connected to the Internet, whereupon all of the other laptops pass their data through the final link.

 

This is a nice idea where the “Internet cloud” is reasonably pervasive and only the final 100 meters remain to be bridged. It will not work so well where the distance to the cloud is in the region of tens of kilometers and where that link is not a broadband connection and not reliable due to power outages.

 

Also, mesh networking depends upon most of the links being operational whenever connectivity is needed. Are we to assume that all of the OLPC laptops will be left running, especially when the effort of battery charging is considerable? Much more likely is that the laptops will have connectivity only in districts of cities where power is reliable and where higher-bandwidth channels are available through wireless access.

 

Infrastructure and alternatives

 

It is not advisable to implement technological systems with inadequate infrastructural support. In the case of the OLPC laptop, the lack of power and Internet backhaul capability will present a serious impediment. This problem can be addressed by the large-scale implementation of community ICT systems, which bring immediate economic benefits in terms of extending telecommunications, agricultural information, telemedicine and e-government functions.

 

In the literature of the OLPC project such suggestions have been brushed aside with the comment that “one does not normally think of community pencils”. Of course, one does not normally think of pencils costing $100 each, and which soak up money needed for traditional pencils. Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa tells of how in Rwanda his schoolteacher had the pupils write on their legs using thorns. Pencils can be quite precious, and in poor schools are indeed treated as community resources.

 

Once stationary community systems become widespread, bringing the Internet (with attendant local wireless access) and reliable low-wattage electrical power capabilities, the ground will be ready for the kinds of laptops described by OLPC. But in that case a diverse marketplace involving a range of types and uses, forms and allocation of the laptops should be in operation.

 

The OLPC methodology is far too rigid to succeed at its stated goals. If it goes forward as currently described, the laptops will most likely wind up in other than students' hands, in areas where infrastructure is more likely to be adequate. The content of material available through the laptop is likely to involve advertising merchandise to audiences more likely to have discretionary money.

 

It is sufficiently discomfiting to consider that the outcome of a massive project like OLPC may be a different form of commercial television for the developing countries. Worse yet would be the preemption of funding for many other projects designed under a community model. Future talk of computer systems for the developing world would meet the dismissive response that “it's been tried and it failed”.

 

Conclusion

 

The time will certainly come when the appropriate tool to promote economic development will be a laptop produced very inexpensively in large volume. Before that point it will be necessary to implement systems that provide infrastructure which the laptop will need, in addition to producing tangible economic benefits for their users. OLPC is to be commended for raising issues and focusing attention, and for posing some technological challenges in a highly visible way.

 

However, the “can do” approach taken by OLPC points in the wrong direction. The solution is not proven to be appropriate, and the distribution model is open to challenge.  Despite this, large sums of money are to be committed to the project in advance to fund manufacturing in deals where the customers are government ministries and not the end users.

 

It is important to begin discussions now that question assumptions and that are open to alternate approaches, lest the outcome be one that diminishes equitable development and that poisons the public trust in ICT as applied in pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty.

(This is the first of a series of posts on this topic.)

Comments

[lanzdale]

Lucky children of the third world to have such a spokesperson. The silly little urchins shouldn't even try to be on the internet because many cases can be thought up where it won't work.

This is PR writing by someone working for someone who fears competition. It follows the form “not guilty and even so ... list follows. Fine in law but not when used between friends arguing in order to understand.

Two names are left out of this big project, Microsoft and Intel (and who knows who else in infrastructure, the phone companies?).

For me this article sheds more light on any tax-free charitable work these big corporations might be doing than anything about the OLPC project. (Although my suspicions are now aroused about there motives as well!)

I think they (and we in the USA) should have the $100 laptops now AND as soon as it's ready the $75 PC plus (unlike in the USA) low priced infrastructure. Competition is needed, not spin and fake charity.

Lee Felsenstein replies:

If lanzdale is saying that I am in the pay of Intel or Microsoft I challenge him to provide evidence of this charge.

I suggest that lanzdale read the rest of the posts in this sequence - the links exist at the top of each posting. He will see that my motivation is not to prevent children from getting computers or from linking to the Internet, but to prevent a disastrous iplementation program from being put into effect, with the result that the whole idea of computers for people in developing countries would be discredited and defunded.

Fortunately, two years has made a great deal of difference. The original implementation program lies in ruins, and OLPC has had to accept the idea that teachers and even parents will have a significant say in the deployment of the XO computer. See also http://www.olpcnews.com for details.

[Spider Griffin]

Whoops, my mistake, I am referring to the article by BitWize posted September 28. Apologies there...;)

[Spider Griffin]

I agree that "Problems with a $100 Laptop" is a well-written and logically sound article.

I would like to underline the words in the post from Dan on October 21. It echoes my sentiments precisely; written better than I could, I think his words need drawing attention to.

[Blogger Jotman]

I blog from Thailand. And I've reported on the OLC program. To read the perspective of someone familiar with life in several developing countries of SE Asia, check out these posts at Jotman.com -

http://jotman.blogspot.com/search/label/-%20Education%20-%20One%20Laptop%20Per%20Child%20%28OLC%29

[Dan]

magnetic power has been done.

(Dan - please give a reference - Lee)

[Bitwize]

Great article. As an IT professional myself I have to say that the OLPC project does seem to hinge on a few misguided assumptions
1. That computers and internet technologies are positively beneficial, and work for the good of humanity. One look at the net will show that at least 90% of internet traffic is useless, mindless, pointless, somewhat depraved etc etc.
2. Computers enhance rather than inhibit learning. Again this has not been proved, indeed this question is a point of serious contention in educational circles. Surely a programme to give all children access to a teacher, some chalk and a blackboard would be more effective.
I fail to see what use this project will be. This just goes to reinforce the view that techies/geeks/nerds, call them what you will, are completely out of touch with the world around them. What next? one child one iPod?
There are a lot more burning issues that need top be addressed. What about one child one fresh water tap, one child no guns, one child at least one living parent who can earn enough to feed their kids after working 20 hours a day.

[Tom Lee]

Dear Lee,

I only now happened across your thoughtful essay on the OLPC project. I've been deeply concerned by many of the same points you've raised. And as the target cost creeps up to the $200 mark, the danger of creating a very different sort of "digital divide" within the OLPC-target communities only grows more acute. I am disheartened whenever I think how far that $200 could go in the third world if properly spent. Teaching basic reasoning can be done for far less. And it is certainly true that merely possessing a computer does not automatically confer an ability to think. The poster who did not understand -- and was rather obnoxiously stubborn about it -- that an N:1 operating time ratio necessarily implies a power ratio of that same magnitude is a case in point.

The seductive lure of a technological quick fix to society's problems is an ever-present danger, and therefore any proposal along those lines needs to be studied carefully beforehand. In my never humble opinion (I attended MIT with these folks, and humility is not a virtue there), the OLPC project is a well-intentioned, but fundamentally misdirected effort.

Thanks for providing a forum for this exchange of ideas. [And thanks also for having donated some of your hardware bits to me off of craigslist -- it was a great pleasure and honor to meet you.]

-Tom Lee, Stanford University

[ian amor]

Hello Lee ,
I have found you !Purely by chance
I have been in the process of trying to find a computer to realise my dream of redistributing
the worlds wealth ( a small problem ! )
You are working on this? May i contact you about my project which is starting in Mian Channu Pakistan
..from March 2008...
We are going to need cheap simple computers...
It's wonderful to see the work you are doing ..
regards ian amor

[Lee Felsenstein]

I thank Marshall Lentini for his comments, which are in line with my thinking. The first paragraph was in no way intended to be a comprehensive analysis of sociological consequences of the OLPC project. It was intended, rather, to be a thumbnail representation of the position of OLPC.

[Marshall Lentini]

Technics aside, the introduction of the laptop into rural communities has sociological consequences which are not, of course, fully addressed by the one-paragraph nod at the beginning of your critique. Let us take Villa Cardal in Uruguay as an example. The issue of resale and theft is moot: Florida department as a whole has a very low crime rate, and the people in the area are not known for criminality. Rural Uruguayans are on the whole decent people not given to crime of any kind. On the other hand, the laptop will "spoil" the rural cultural environment, and probably lead to increased future migration to Montevideo, thus impoverishing rural areas. Far more important than cranking the cord is the fact that among Latin American youth, computer technology is used for little more than video games and social networking sites. A handful of these students will go on to become programmers, some others will learn about the world through the internet, but the majority will use it for petty amusement, and petty amusement will more and more define the culture of Latin America. One of the nice things about Uruguay is the absence of "globalism"; these laptops will of course serve to "plug in" rural kids and eventually create another copy of a copy of narcissistic American anti-culture. What exactly is the goal of OLPC?

"Our goal: To provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment and express themselves."

But what does all that mean? Explore and experiment with what -- electronic music? social networking sites? One must consider how many young people will actually gain a broader worldview from personal, portable access to the internet, as opposed to those will just use it as a toy. This criticism applies to internet use as a whole, of course. The problem is its artificial injection into a small, rural culture, which makes of it a miniature copy of "global" culture. "Expression" is one of those cheap, characteristically vapid words used by marketers, which really means: the chance to become more narcissistic and wrapped up in a virtual world.

The whole thing is a gimmick with all the typical trappings of the slick, white-background "One World" tech pushers, which will see every last village in the world smiling and holding up its product for the camera to exercise the West's obsession with condescension and pity toward those who are not of it.

[McDade]

My Question is why are the children and students of the United States being left out. It seems everyone is very concerned about other nations, when our children need the help just as bad.

[Lee Felsenstein]

Michael Burns is the first person to claim that 100:1 was never mentioned as the power conversion goal. In fact, Nick Negroponte gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal in October or early November 2005 making this extreme claim. I had watched the number creep upward until it reached that high point.

I had thought that I finally had gottten some response from the OLPC crew, but Googling Mr. Burns' name and OLPC told a different story.

Congratulations on earning your Summer of Code at OLPC, Michael. Perhaps while you're there you can access archives of the OLPC website pages on power generation, which were removed following this post.

For my own account, I will visit the local library to look up the article in question so that I can post a definitive citation here. I should have done so long ago. It used to be posted on the OLPC website, as I recall.

Mr. Burns chides many unnamed people to clean up their facts. The other quotes he references are from comments, which I refuse to edit away from their author's original words.

[Michael Burns]

Please, author and commentors, read the FAQ at laptop.org. These concerns are largely based on inaccurate assumptions.

"100:1 ratio"
I have never heard this quoted. There target has *always* been 10:1. That is, 1 minute of power generation will give the laptop 10 minutes of battery.

(see http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003707.html for an article by OLPC enthusiast Ethan Zuckerman in which he talks about the 100:1 ratio - LF)

"GBs of OS space"
The operating system currently takes about 100MB.

"Why not donate computers?"
Too power consuming, not portable, not environmentally friendly, extremely difficult to support technically.

"Harddisks"
There are no moving parts. They use flash memory.

Debate is good. Criticism is good. But please be so kind as to catch up with the current information about the project.

[JK]

Wouldn't they be better off with real PCs? I think it is an interesting project, but why spending so many resources on a 100 USD laptop, instead of just moving say, our discarded PCs to Africa?

I don't see how giving a laptop to each child changes anything. They would still need clean drinking water, and spending resources on that may be more intelligent. Or, is the idea that the kids will look up "water drill" on their laptops and then start drilling one? Hardly very realistic, is it?

[J.]

Good points. People have to start somewhere when creating a useful tool for developing nations. It's good that they started a while back with this initiative because nothing would get accomplished if perfect conditions are required.

[Cynthia Anne Womack]

I'm cynical enough to think all qualms about this project should be respected and investigated even as my hopeful side applauds all efforts to aid the children
most in need of education and its benefits.

While the culture is being trained,the
infrastructure is being worked out,the
technology is being perfected and the
villains are being identified and curtailed,let's test drive these machines on our own underclass.

Let's let the green and other adventurous types use the handcranked laptops in their earth-sheltered,off-
the-grid homes or the boondocking
recreational vehicles they've got parked
at Wal-Mart.

By the time the machines have proven
themselves in our neediest communities
and our priviledged citizens have adopted them as efficient and convenient,they may be ready for use in
some better thought out versions of the
third world programs.

Otherwise,I fear that better communications systems,better access to electricity,better technology and better
education will just give us a fancier
grade of terrorist and slicker Internet
charlatans.

Let's think well before we act and let
us act without delay.

[N. Rajeaswar]

OLPC should be built on the cell phone platform ( and not on the down sizing of the laptop platform ). It just needs a OS from a SSD of about a few MB ( as opposed to the current O.S in GB's ). It should have support for 10/100MBps + Modem support all are on board.

Hard disk ( even though it is a great invention) is a limiting factor for the life of any computer. So, this machine should not have a Hard Disk.

OLPC should have a Ram Disk built on "cell phone like memory" which are always backed up by battery ( when not in use ). Only the memory should be protected. On demand the user should have the facility to copy the contents ( may be on a daily basis ) to the SSD. Currently the SDD has a life of 1M ( 1 Million times ). So, it can last for 1 million days which is good for a lifetime of a person.

The RAM disk should be used for normal operation ( only on demand it should copy files / contents to the SSD ) thereby increasing the life of the system.

It should have provision to accept DC source from any standard battery.

[crystal]

i think its ok but make them cooler looking. there ugly.

[g-indian]

Hi all,
I will only tell which i have realized. In India Arround 4 years ago government decided to make its Member of Parliaments computer literate started a plan to introduce LAPTOPS(actual, not $100). Most of The members are unaware of such a thing. so they FUNNYly asked what it is and what to do with it? And to be surprising they are all never went to a senior school. So the laptos were used as toys for their todlers. (They thought it as a modified electric Harmonium a musical instrument). after a year or so one of my friend went to such an MP's hose and found out the child is playing with a laptop, and told the MP about that. He exclamed is it of any use of you? then take it.

The very next year again some company to attaract the governmet orders distributed laptops to all the MPs. To avoid misuse and if the MP can give it again to my friend, I asked my friend to approach the same MP. To our surprise he told that he has sold it and if needed he can arrange one from his parlamentarian coligue.

If this is the scenario what can be expected fro remote village schools?

I dout the school teachers here in India are aware of computer. It would be better to give nice books, slates, chalks,pencils and pens in the hands of school children then only they can develop.

[spongebath]

What I find amazing is the fact that no-one has mentioned the problem of content and support. Does it really matter what the hardware or os consists of? You are talking about distributing these laptops to hundreds, if not thousands of communities, each with their own concepts of "proper" education, i.e. what is acceptable and unacceptable for their children to learn. Who is going to modify this content for them? You will have to educate at least one person per community on how to modify this content. How much is that gonna cost? And what about maintainence? Warranty? Repair? If you flood the market with these, some bright entrepreneur is going to figure out how to subvert the os into actions not intended by it's owner. Who's going to protect from that? And who's paying? I agree with the concept, I really believe that we need to help where we can, but owning a laptop assumes a much larger support structure than is currently available in 3rd world countries.

[Lee Felsenstein]

Replying to DDHokia's latest objection:

In the posting I said:
"...a ratio of 100:1 for operating time to crank time. For a ...power drain of 1 watt this implies a 100 watt generator". To object, as DDHokia does, that "energy isn't mentioned at all" is to ignore the fact that the whole point is to generate, store and use energy, and that to set a ratio of times is to set a ratio of watts per watt of power consumed.

By "Operating time" I mean time during which the computer operates. "Crank time" should be self-explanatory - the time during which the generator is to be cranked.

100 percent efficiency is, of course, never achieved, but it is a concession to the proponents of crank power because it yields figures more in their favor than mine, and it removes any arguments about efficiancy assumptions.

Thus:
joules = watts * seconds
joules in = joules out (@ 100% eff.)
watts in (crank) * time (crank) = watts out (run) * time (run)
cross-multiply to find:
watts(crank)/watts(run) = time(run)/time(crank) (100 or 40 or 3 - your choice)

Thus the ratio of watts required from the generator to watts drawn by the computer is exactly the ratio of running time to cranking time, and the number of watts required from the generator under ideal conditions is the number of watts drawn by the computer times the ratio of operating time to crank time.

For efficiencies of less than 100%,
joules in = joules out / efficiency.
which means that watts (run) must be divided by the efficiency factor in the above equations. This in turn means that, in order to maintain the same ratio of run time to crank time (100 or 40 or 3) the wattage of the generator must also be divided by the efficiency factor, which is always less than 1, and thereby increased.

Engineers make these calculations all the time - I have been doing so for 35 years - and I marvel that they seem so difficult for some people. Those who put their trust in OLPC due to its connection with M.I.T. should reconsider this trust in light of the fact that no one connected with the project apparently did such simple calculations (a point which is now acknowledged - see my post "rolling right along").

[DDHokia]

(pps it would be ridiculous to think that cranking a handle for 40 minutes would allow 1 minute of use as opposed to the 1 minute cranking for 40 minutes. don't you trust the wired.com article)

[DDHokia]

can't you understand plain english? the ratio they give is for the time cranking it up against the amount of time that the laptop can be used as a result. Energy isn't mentioned at all.

you have no idea about how much energy can be generated or is used so how you can construct absurd calculations based on nothing is beyond me.

You have many valid points in your argument but this isn't one of them.

(ps if there was 100% efficiency from generation to output then 80 joules generated should be converted into 80 joules of output, but of course nothing is remotely near 100%)

[Lee Felsenstein]

OLPC has given many different ratios - the highest was 100:1 in an interview with, I believe, the Wall Street Journal. Now they have said 10:1, 40:1, 30:1, and 3:1. As I point out in my most recent post, OLPC has given up on the hand crank idea, as no matter what the ergonomics don't work out.

No, I did not get the ratio "the wrong way round" and I cannot understand why you say this "has nothing to do with power". It has everything to do with power. The calculations I made were on a per-watt basis. Now OLPC is estimating that their drain will be 2 watts. If the ratio is 40:1 (and if there is 100% efficiency) then the generator has to provide 80 watts. Do you dispute that?

[DDHokia]

You misinterpreted the ratio.

OLPC statements refer to the hand-cranked generator included in each unit, having a ratio of 100:1 for operating time to crank time.

As I hope you can see this ratio has nothing to do power consumption or generation and you're calculations are unnecessary. The ratio 100:1 for operating time to crank time means that for one minute of cranking the laptop can run for one hundred minutes. You got this the wrong way round and mistakenly thought it corresponded to power.

Lookind at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,69615-0.html?tw=wn_politics_5

it says:

It boasts a 7-inch screen that swivels like a tablet PC, and an electricity-generating crank that provides 40 minutes of power from a minute of grinding.

a ratio of 40:1 as opposed to 100:1.