Aim higher, reach further.

Will Low-Cost Laptops Help Kids in Developing Countries?


So far the organization has won the backing of some major technology companies as well as the United Nations. Intel Corp. INTC 0.08 % , which initially had its own low-cost PC design, decided to join the effort in July. The OLPC expects to begin mass producing its laptops, which are designed to be used outdoors and can be powered with a pull cord, later this year.

Join the Discussion

What do you think? Are low-cost laptops the best way to help children in the developing world? Join the discussion.



(The chairman of the One Laptop effort is Nicholas Negroponte, who has also been named to a panel formed to protect the editorial integrity of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones and Co. News Corp., which has agreed to buy Dow Jones, has contributed funding to OLPC.)

Stephen Dukker begins: Helping the developing world cross the Digital Divide is a fundamental act of decency, generosity and even self-interest for the developed world.

Unfortunately, the OLPC's approach will not succeed because it runs counter to a fundamental fact of life: Computers cannot exist independent of basic economic realities. Any delivery, service and support model that doesn't create profit will be unsustainable.

The Participants

Walter Bender is president of One Laptop Per Child, a Cambridge, Mass.-based nonprofit group. Mr. Bender is on leave from MIT, where he was executive director of the university's Media Lab, a technology research institute he helped found with Nicholas Negroponte.

Stephen Dukker is chairman and CEO of NComputing Inc., a Redwood City, Calif., start-up that develops technology to allow one computer to support multiple users. He was a founder and former CEO of eMachines Inc., a low-cost computer manufacturer acquired by Gateway Inc. in 2005. Mr. Dukker has also held executive roles at Computer City and CompUSA Inc.

The price of base-level PCs has been stuck at about $400 for years. As a result, there are still one billion potential users who cannot afford them. The OLPC project is targeting a $100 computer, but has struggled to break $200. But given economic realities, even $200 computers cannot generate the profit essential to create a robust IT ecosystem, required for continuing operation.

A PC must communicate, which mandates connectivity. That in turn demands configuration, maintenance, professional services, technical support, and software and hardware upgrades. When was the last time a totally new laptop platform launched without a flood of patches, upgrades and repairs for the first few years of deployment? How will this be managed and deployed?

One also must ask whether OLPC's low-cost laptops, with their PDA-sized seven-inch screens and low-performance processors, will actually meet the needs of users. For PCs to be productive, whether in the developing or the developed world, they require both a host of supporting services and reasonable features and capabilities.

Here in the developed world, the PC hardware industry has lived with nearly profitless computing for years... It's asking too much to believe an industry with no profits could be sustained in the developing world. We need something completely different, something that can change the basic economics of PC computing. I believe the answer to this problem will be technological, not charitable.

Walter Bender responds: I am pleased to hear that you resonate with the OLPC mission to help children in the developing world. However, to characterize our effort as an attempt to bridge the Digital Divide is somewhat off target. Our premise is that most children in the developing world lack the opportunity for a decent education. Our mission is to provide them with that opportunity because we think that learning is a critical factor is addressing many -- if not all -- of the problems that they face. We happen to think that the most efficient way to reach children and give them opportunity is to provide them with connected laptop computers.

I am somewhat confused when you refer to the OLPC approach as running counter to basic economic realities. While OLPC itself is a nonprofit, none of our suppliers, distributors, etc. are nonprofit. We are not asking anyone -- except for governments -- to provide laptops or services for free...

What is the basis of your assertion that OLPC is struggling to break $200? Further, what is the basis of your assertion that a $200 computer cannot generate the profit essential to create a robust IT ecosystem?

I agree with you that "a PC must communicate, which mandates connectivity." Our mesh network provides zero-configuration, free, high-bandwidth communication within the local community without the need for any additional infrastructure. Further, it allows for laptops to share any existing back-haul bandwidth; thus we gain an efficiency of scale&hellip;

In regard to hardware support, we have taken extraordinary measures to build a robust laptop -- much more robust that than the typical $1,000 machine: It has no hard disk to break; no internal moving parts; no fan; it is water and dust resistant; tolerates operation at 50C+ in high humidity; it survives a drop test at roughly three times the industry standard; etc. Further, it is designed to be field serviceable: A nine-year old can replace the motherboard with just a screwdriver.

In regard to software support, of course we will be issuing upgrades and patches, as is typical throughout the industry&hellip;

I agree with you that the way to achieve our goals is through technological advances. There are two ways to build an inexpensive laptop: One is to use cheap parts and cut corners; the other is to rethink the design from the ground up and use the highest technology. We have taken the latter approach and have build a first-class machine.

Mr. Dukker: It seems like OLPC and NComputing have a common mission of helping the developing world's children rise out of poverty and other social problems through computer-assisted education. We just have different approaches to delivering that computing experience.

When a developing country has to spend $175 (latest OLPC pricing) and commit to unknown costs of managing a laptop, it is reallocating money away from other critical programs such as fighting hunger and providing basic medical care for its citizens.

Instead of spending $175 per child, our model offers an $11 per child solution that leverages existing infrastructure and ecosystems. The NComputing solution essentially taps the unused power of a regular desktop PC and enables seven students to use it simultaneously. So a school with 300 students can outfit a 30 seat computer lab with a few desktop PCs and NComputing access terminals for less than $5,000. Compare that with an OLPC deployment that would cost over $50,000 ($175 x 300 students). Perhaps this simple calculation is a key reason developing countries like India are declining the OLPC model for a more cost-effective model.

Kudos to the OLPC project for generating tremendous press over the last few years for the "$100 laptop" but to quote the old lady in the Wendy's ad, "Where's the beef?" Last accounts show an initial price of $175 with three million unit volumes required to bring prices down. And how many actual OLPC laptops have been deployed in the past three years?

But since the hardware is just a delivery mechanism, is it safe to assume that you would support our efforts to load the software onto standard Windows or Linux PCs and multiply the power of the PCs with our access terminals? Considering the fact that we can deliver our solution at 1/10th the cost of the OLPC laptop, and include a healthy profit margin for a delivery and support chain, we would together not only improve education, but kick start entrepreneurs around the globe.

Mr. Bender: Your choice of words describing our missions is interesting: "computer-assisted education." At OLPC, we'd say: "computer-enabled learning." Let me make an analogy to immunology that Antonio Battro first brought to my attention: A vaccine is not a cure; it is an agent that enables your body to manufacture a cure. Likewise, computing is not a cure; it is an agent that will enable children to engage in learning.

It is not clear from your description what existing resources NComputing is able to leverage that OLPC cannot. Perhaps you could explain.

A prototype of One Laptop Per Child's low-cost machine ENLARGE
A prototype of One Laptop Per Child's low-cost machine One Laptop Per Child

The computer-lab approach, which is well established, is also well-known to be relatively unimpactful. Another colleague, David Cavallo, who has spent many years doing projects in the developing world, has a telling story from Curitiba, Brazil. The schools there had computer labs; the average amount of computing time per child was approximately 15 minutes per week. It is not clear what one can learn beyond rudimentary IT skills with such limited access. Certainly one cannot harness the power of computation as an expressive medium -- a thing to think with -- unless you have more regular access. When David approached the headmaster of the school, suggesting that he reallocate the time that the children spend in the lab -- six weeks of intensive computing time once per year, sufficient time to have a meaningful engagement -- the response was no. The reason given was that the children only come to school on "computer day."

The OLPC approach is one of saturation: The children have access to computing 24-7. Even if they don't have more than two to three hours per day in school -- typical in the developing world -- they have ample time to explore, express, and communicate outside of school. Further, a laptop program touches the whole family: siblings, parents, grandparents, etc. The community impact is enormous.

Regarding virtual terminals, it is not clear to me that you can build a virtual terminal system for a lesser cost than you could one of our laptops. Plus you lose the ability to run untethered, greatly limiting reach.

In regard to your question: "How many actual OLPC laptops have been deployed in the past 3 years?" the answer is none. We only start mass production this fall. However, we have approximately 7,000 prototype laptops in the field, in schools in Cambodia, Thailand, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Brazil, Uruguay, Peru, and the U.S&hellip;.

I laud the fact that there is enterprise around NComputing. There is no reason not to expect that OLPC will not also impart a spirit of entrepreneurship where ever it is deployed -- indeed, our insistence on open source and open standards and that the laptops be circulated throughout the community as part of local capacity building has and will have a catalytic affect on local economies.

Mr. Dukker: I see your point on the subtlety between "education" and "learning" and defer to your organization's deep knowledge and experience in the learning marketplace over the past 45 years&hellip; Rather than debate the ways schools teach or children learn, we try to address the tools they need to accomplish the objective. Having deployed the solution in over 70 countries though, we have learned that a single model does not work. Each country, each state, each school and each teacher will have a different way to accomplish computer-enabled learning. A monolithic model simply won't work.

You believe that student lab environments are ineffective. Most of the educational world (including the developed world) would disagree. Even in the U.S., with the highest educational spending per pupil, only a handful of states have run limited pilots with laptops. Doesn't it make sense, as a first step, rather than use the developing world's scarce economic resources to distribute immediately obsolescing, unproven technology into the harshest environments in the world, that we rather support the creation of "connected" local, public computer/Internet and resource centers?

Another concern is the ability of centralized governments to deploy and manage 250,000 laptop deployments at a time (minimum order quantity for OLPC). There are very few organizations (much less central governments) that have that kind of planning, architecting, deployment, and management capability. Heck, even large global enterprises have a difficult time deploying 10,000 laptops. This gets back to a core ecosystem issue: unless there is a private-sector based ecosystem, deployment and maintenance becomes a nightmare&hellip;

Our belief is that a user needs access to what a computer does, not an actual computer. One CPU per user has a limited future. You could easily reduce the chip count and cost of the [machine] (and actually get it below $100) by partnering with us to build a model that shares the extra power of PCs.

OLPC's key development in our view is the software -- who cares about the hardware as long as it gets the job done inexpensively? We think that our hardware model, which did not exist when you started your project, coupled with your software creates the ideal solution.

Mr. Bender: You wrote: "Rather than debate the ways schools teach or children learn&hellip;" If the goal is children learning, then to shy away from the debate of how children learn most effectively and simply focus on technology deployment seems rather odd.

"A monolithic model simply won't work&hellip;" Agreed. Therefore, we are advocating something much more fluid than a thin-client model tied down to a computer lab. What could be less monolithic than giving every child and teacher a laptop from which to configure his or her learning experience?

"You believe that student lab environments are ineffective." It is better than nothing, but it is far from optimal. Just the point I made earlier about duty-cycle: 15 minutes per week vs. 24/7. Access just at school vs. access at school and home. Access for the student vs. access for the family. And the types of learning one can engage in with a lab environment is also restrictive. If the lab were the optimal solution, why have we all migrated to laptops?...

"Another concern is the ability of centralized governments to deploy and manage 250,000 laptop deployments at a time&hellip;" First of all, the large minimum orders are a launch condition, not a steady-state requirement. It is necessary to get large numbers to prime the supply chain. Also, even where countries are ordering these quantities, they are not all arriving at once. They are spread out over a year, on a ramp, so that the logistics can be worked out incrementally. We also have a number of partnership with organizations that specialize in logistics, including the United National Development Programme and private-sector partners, to help the governments with the deployment. These organizations know how to work at scale and how to reach remote locations.

I don't know how you build a virtual terminal for $11 that has a display that is suitable for reading, but if you can, I'd love to incorporate some of your technology into the laptop. But there are other considerations as well. For example, does you system run off of the power grid (e.g., can it exploit solar or human power)? If not, how do those children who live off the grid use it?

Mr. Dukker: I understand and respect your zeal for the OLPC mission... Yet, I do not believe we should confuse our mission with any particular product. It's the end result that counts.

Technology has advanced since Nicholas Negroponte first presented the idea of the $100 laptop at the World Economic Forum in January of 2003. Today, there is simply a better way to rapidly and realistically extend the value of computing to school children and others in the developing world. We have no doubt that if our technology were available back then, it would have made sense to incorporate it. This is the risk of technology: Decisions correct today may not be in three to five years. That is a fact&hellip;

Multi-user PC access technology, such as NComputing offers, is changing the economics of our industry and will be fundamental in meeting the needs of the next billion computer users around the world in a cost-effective energy-efficient manner.

Our terminal access devices cost only about $11 (without monitor) per seat to manufacture and therefore do not require a charitable model to reach the marketplace. In fact, we now have distributors and resellers who are profitably selling, deploying and supporting our solutions into schools and business in 70 countries around the world -- stimulating the creation of the necessary commercial IT provider infrastructure essential to enable these users. The initial cost savings, however, is only the beginning. Upgrading our systems requires only the replacement of the host PCs, not the terminal devices themselves. Meanwhile, because of the tremendous energy efficiency of our systems, they can be deployed in areas and schools where power is a precious commodity. These savings can then be redirected to meet other important needs within developing countries -- for example, the development of a communication infrastructure that is so critical to realizing the full value of computing.

I fully respect the efforts of OLPC. I only hope that you will look to new technologies, such as our own, that can help your organization and our industry realistically and much more rapidly reach the laudable goals you have so eloquently articulated&hellip;

Mr. Bender concludes: There are roughly one billion school-aged children in the developing world. It will take many combined efforts to reach them and give them the opportunity for learning that they deserve.

"I do not believe we should confuse our mission with any particular product." Product no; but that doesn't mean we should be agnostic about technology or about its impact on learning. There are constraints in the developing world that demand our attention; further, the status quo is failing, so incrementalism is the riskiest course of action.

When I was a child we had educational technology: the mimeograph machine. We referred to it as the Purple Plague. Uninterested teachers used it literally to "crank out" worksheets. But it didn't enhance learning.

I am certain that you can manufacture a low-cost thin-client device; I am equally certain that you can use it to deliver instructional material. And furthermore, I am sure that it is an easy, low-risk sales proposition. But meeting customer demands is not necessarily congruent with meeting the needs of children. Providing electronic access to content is undoubtedly more efficient than delivering printed materials. But how does it change the lives of children and their families? Is it the new mimeograph machine?...


It goes without saying that Internet access and tools for expression (text, music, video, graphics) are the contemporary "toys" for learning. Every child of any means in the developed world has access to a computer at home and usually his or her own, with music, DVD, plus interactive and rich media to do anything from learning languages to play games.

The world can afford to make these same resources available for every child.

What do you think? Are low-cost laptops the best way to help children in the developing world? Share your thoughts and join the discussion.

Write to the Online Journal's editors at

Show More Archives

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks