4 ms·

The iPodTouch Is What The OLPC XO Should Have Been

11 points by fogus 17y ago

TrevorJ 17y ago
Synopsis: The ipod touch has better software architecture and mass-production has made it cheap ergo it is better than the OLPC. My conclusion: Apples to oranges. The touch does little to teach you to be computer literate, and the lack of keyboard means learning to type isn't even an option. For the target market in developing nations, the OLPC is still better than an ipod.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  Let me preface by saying I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the XO-1. In my year and a half or so of blogging it's probably the only blog topic that managed to enrage me (http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Rarely-Am-I-Actually-Angered-by-Something-I-Read-But-This-Piece-of-Drek-Managed-To-Do-It.aspx http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Rarely-Am-I-Actually-Angere...) So I'm biased. That said I'd argue the OLPC doesn't do much to teach kids how to be computer literate either. Look at the screen shots and you'll see the thing has more in common with a $99 calculator than it does with a PC of any kind. It's design centers around a few specialized apps and the Internet which are both things the iPod touch does better. So while I don't 100% agree with the author (a keyboard would be nice) his point is a good one. The OLPC is a lousy product that only gets by because it's aimed at people who supposedly have no other choice. But the iPod touch being at the price point it is means there ARE other choices which in turn makes the OLPC just a crappy project. Poor people deserve great computing experiences too!
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    Valid points. I wish that simply making slightly outdated equipment easily available to anyone who wants it, but doesn't have the economic means would gain more traction. Even if the hardware/software is outdated moving from windows 95 to windows Vista is less of a cognitive leap than going from Sugar to Windows or Linux or something. I think we sell kids short in terms of how much they can catch onto by playing around. I don't see the point in giving them a dumbed-down OS instead of a 'real' one.
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago
      Netbooks are getting to that point. They're both in the pircerannge of the OLPC (with a hefty discount for Governments buying in the 100,000 range) and they have mass market appeal behind them which should hopefully push software. Honestly, I'm surprised the market for netbook specific children's games isn't larger
      - TrevorJ 17y ago
        What would you consider 'netbook specific'? I've been able to run several mainstream games on my netbook pretty decently.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      I think Sugar is "a dumbed-down OS" the way Picasso made "dumbed down paintings".
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    It's design centers around a few specialized apps and the Internet This is a straw man. Of course mass production and competition were going to drive down the cost of access to the internet. The OLPC is designed to give children access to the internals of computation. The original design was to center around the idea of being able to take apart and tinker with any part of the source code, and get instant results, but always be able to back any changes out, so there are no negative consequences no matter how much tinkering you do. It was originally designed to let kids tinker with computers and programming.
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago
      I don't think that's true at all. I've read almost every review of the thing and I own one myself and there's very little focus put on the source editing ability (which I'll admit is probably the only think about the thing that I find impressive). Most reviews mention it as an after thought. Moreover if it's designed for kids in developing countries I'd think Internet access is much more valuable to them than development of their Python programming skills (meaning if there is a primary feature it would be that).
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        At first, internet access is going to be the most valuable. But what if some of those kids go on to tinker with the thing and start tweaking code? This is why everything possible in the OLPC is written in Python! It's not because Python is "cool." It's because Python is simple, and can give instant feedback. Perhaps a browser with access to w3schools and JavaScript is going to be better, though. Certainly cheaper.
padmanabhan01 17y ago
My opinion: kids don't need laptops to learn. Old school concept/understanding based learning works fine! I even think having a laptop then can be a distraction or a hindrance to actual learning. By the time they are in 8th or 9th grade, they can use normal computers. No toy devices required.
- mburns 17y ago
  The whole point from the beginning was that it has nothing to do with being a laptop. It is a matter of efficient delivery of information. Paper books are too expensive in a bang-for-buck sense. Purely an economics problem.
- bjelkeman-again 17y ago
  "Don't need", true. But can potentially really benefit from. Sugata Mitra had a cracking presentation at Activate09 in London the other week, where he showed how dropping computers in front of (illiterate) children could really make them go and investigate and learn. The trick (he said) was not to give one computer per child, but to have them work in groups. The Guardian (event organiser) said that the videos of all speakers would be up within a month, so maybe you can see this very inspiring presentation as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugata_Mitra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugata_Mitra
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Here is is presenting on the same subject in 2007: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_ki...
- stcredzero 17y ago
  It's not the "toy" part that's signifiant. It's the "tinker" part. Think of a 50's automobile with a carburetor and a distributor. You can take apart and tinker with those. In a 2009 car, the distributor and associated parts are a throwaway lump of plastic with metal tabs coming out. "Explorable" is perhaps an even better term. Squeak had the same aims. Skip to 8:20. You'll see kids using the software to explore robotics and do physics of gravitation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_ToU7m1MI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_ToU7m1MI
chaostheory 17y ago
hindsight is 20/20
illumen 17y ago
Good luck teaching children how to use objc. Seriously, python is way better than objc from an elegance perspective. You don't need a crazy bloated cocoa API built on top with python either. A book came out about pygame co-authored by someone in primary school. Not only are kids able to use python, but some also know it well enough to write books on the subject. The ipod touch is subsidised by itunes/appstore/phone company. It's a console. It's closed. ipod doesn't do collaboration well. Apple bans developers from talking bad about it - or tries to. It also doesn't have social learning features designed into the apps, or the OS. ipod touch has a much smaller screen, which is poor for reading and viewing videos. ipod touch can't be powered easily by a car battery. You can't place the ipod touch on a desk, sit in your chair and play with it - with other children sitting next to you. Imagine laying the ipod on the desk... it would lie there flat. Fail. The ipod touch is designed for a very different audience, and for different goals. To expect it is as good for teaching, and learning as an OLPC is silly. Has the author even seen an ipod touch in a learning environment? Has the author even seen an OLPC at all? I call uninformed ignoramus on the article - and fart in that general direction.
GHFigs 17y ago
The two projects have had very different aims and constraints. The iPod definitely would not have satisfied many of the aims of OLPC. Whether those aims were sensible or realistic or competently executed is an exercise for the reader.

11 points by fogus 17y ago

Synopsis: The ipod touch has better software architecture and mass-production has made it cheap ergo it is better than the OLPC. My conclusion: Apples to oranges. The touch does little to teach you to be computer literate, and the lack of keyboard means learning to type isn't even an option. For the target market in developing nations, the OLPC is still better than an ipod.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
Let me preface by saying I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate the XO-1. In my year and a half or so of blogging it's probably the only blog topic that managed to enrage me (http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Rarely-Am-I-Actually-Angered-by-Something-I-Read-But-This-Piece-of-Drek-Managed-To-Do-It.aspx http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Rarely-Am-I-Actually-Angere...) So I'm biased. That said I'd argue the OLPC doesn't do much to teach kids how to be computer literate either. Look at the screen shots and you'll see the thing has more in common with a $99 calculator than it does with a PC of any kind. It's design centers around a few specialized apps and the Internet which are both things the iPod touch does better. So while I don't 100% agree with the author (a keyboard would be nice) his point is a good one. The OLPC is a lousy product that only gets by because it's aimed at people who supposedly have no other choice. But the iPod touch being at the price point it is means there ARE other choices which in turn makes the OLPC just a crappy project. Poor people deserve great computing experiences too!
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  Valid points. I wish that simply making slightly outdated equipment easily available to anyone who wants it, but doesn't have the economic means would gain more traction. Even if the hardware/software is outdated moving from windows 95 to windows Vista is less of a cognitive leap than going from Sugar to Windows or Linux or something. I think we sell kids short in terms of how much they can catch onto by playing around. I don't see the point in giving them a dumbed-down OS instead of a 'real' one.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Netbooks are getting to that point. They're both in the pircerannge of the OLPC (with a hefty discount for Governments buying in the 100,000 range) and they have mass market appeal behind them which should hopefully push software. Honestly, I'm surprised the market for netbook specific children's games isn't larger
    - TrevorJ 17y ago
      What would you consider 'netbook specific'? I've been able to run several mainstream games on my netbook pretty decently.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    I think Sugar is "a dumbed-down OS" the way Picasso made "dumbed down paintings".
- stcredzero 17y ago
  It's design centers around a few specialized apps and the Internet This is a straw man. Of course mass production and competition were going to drive down the cost of access to the internet. The OLPC is designed to give children access to the internals of computation. The original design was to center around the idea of being able to take apart and tinker with any part of the source code, and get instant results, but always be able to back any changes out, so there are no negative consequences no matter how much tinkering you do. It was originally designed to let kids tinker with computers and programming.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    I don't think that's true at all. I've read almost every review of the thing and I own one myself and there's very little focus put on the source editing ability (which I'll admit is probably the only think about the thing that I find impressive). Most reviews mention it as an after thought. Moreover if it's designed for kids in developing countries I'd think Internet access is much more valuable to them than development of their Python programming skills (meaning if there is a primary feature it would be that).
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      At first, internet access is going to be the most valuable. But what if some of those kids go on to tinker with the thing and start tweaking code? This is why everything possible in the OLPC is written in Python! It's not because Python is "cool." It's because Python is simple, and can give instant feedback. Perhaps a browser with access to w3schools and JavaScript is going to be better, though. Certainly cheaper.

padmanabhan01 17y ago

My opinion: kids don't need laptops to learn. Old school concept/understanding based learning works fine! I even think having a laptop then can be a distraction or a hindrance to actual learning. By the time they are in 8th or 9th grade, they can use normal computers. No toy devices required.

mburns 17y ago
The whole point from the beginning was that it has nothing to do with being a laptop. It is a matter of efficient delivery of information. Paper books are too expensive in a bang-for-buck sense. Purely an economics problem.
bjelkeman-again 17y ago
"Don't need", true. But can potentially really benefit from. Sugata Mitra had a cracking presentation at Activate09 in London the other week, where he showed how dropping computers in front of (illiterate) children could really make them go and investigate and learn. The trick (he said) was not to give one computer per child, but to have them work in groups. The Guardian (event organiser) said that the videos of all speakers would be up within a month, so maybe you can see this very inspiring presentation as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugata_Mitra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugata_Mitra
- GHFigs 17y ago
  Here is is presenting on the same subject in 2007: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_ki...
stcredzero 17y ago
It's not the "toy" part that's signifiant. It's the "tinker" part. Think of a 50's automobile with a carburetor and a distributor. You can take apart and tinker with those. In a 2009 car, the distributor and associated parts are a throwaway lump of plastic with metal tabs coming out. "Explorable" is perhaps an even better term. Squeak had the same aims. Skip to 8:20. You'll see kids using the software to explore robotics and do physics of gravitation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_ToU7m1MI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_ToU7m1MI

chaostheory 17y ago

hindsight is 20/20

illumen 17y ago

Good luck teaching children how to use objc. Seriously, python is way better than objc from an elegance perspective. You don't need a crazy bloated cocoa API built on top with python either. A book came out about pygame co-authored by someone in primary school. Not only are kids able to use python, but some also know it well enough to write books on the subject. The ipod touch is subsidised by itunes/appstore/phone company. It's a console. It's closed. ipod doesn't do collaboration well. Apple bans developers from talking bad about it - or tries to. It also doesn't have social learning features designed into the apps, or the OS. ipod touch has a much smaller screen, which is poor for reading and viewing videos. ipod touch can't be powered easily by a car battery. You can't place the ipod touch on a desk, sit in your chair and play with it - with other children sitting next to you. Imagine laying the ipod on the desk... it would lie there flat. Fail. The ipod touch is designed for a very different audience, and for different goals. To expect it is as good for teaching, and learning as an OLPC is silly. Has the author even seen an ipod touch in a learning environment? Has the author even seen an OLPC at all? I call uninformed ignoramus on the article - and fart in that general direction.

GHFigs 17y ago

The two projects have had very different aims and constraints. The iPod definitely would not have satisfied many of the aims of OLPC. Whether those aims were sensible or realistic or competently executed is an exercise for the reader.