3 ms·

Enough with the toy computers. This race to the bottom is sickening. I understand the third world could benefit from this. I ask though why do they have to get

Enough with the toy computers. This race to the bottom is sickening. I understand the third world could benefit from this. I ask though why do they have to get crap? They don't need as much as us, I understand that. Why can't we work on giving them good hardware? We can bail out banks and try to cure aids. I think were more than capable of a better solution and making the economics work.

ghshephard 17y ago
You do realize, of course, that just 20 years ago, this computer would have been considered "Outrageously over-powered, no individual could conceivably need so much performance/memory" I sometimes wonder why it is that, as individuals, we look at the systems that were shockingly powerful and capable, and now consider them to be "crap."
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  We're not approaching the year 1990. We should be moving things forward and not making them acceptable because they would have been insanely powerful 20 years ago. Software has evolved a ton. Sure playing Sega genesis games on my phone would be something unbelievable, but stopping there would be selling ourselves short, hence we have games with 3d graphics. Compromising and racing towards the bottom is just a coward's game.
- tjr 17y ago
  These machines are considered "crap" in comparison to current machines and what software is currently expected to run on machines. I reckon it'd be pretty awesome as an OS/2 Warp machine.
- Retric 17y ago
  One of the more amusing things to do with mondern computer system is to find the most recent year when they would be the most powerful computer on the planet. My guess is a 400MHz modern CPU would place this around 1985 if you include the graphics system etc.
- rms 17y ago
  I blame Flash
anigbrowl 17y ago
OK, their next cheapest thing is called the 'Bing' (LOL trademark infringement...), costs $389, and runs an atom with 1GHz and a ~10" screen. Is this closer to what you think is a good base spec? I presume the point you're trying to make is that a computer aimed at the developing world should be x86 compatible so that users will have a realistic choice of software an budding engineers and programmers will have access to a platform that will give them transferable skills rather than a possible technological dead end (don't know what's in this $99 device, perhaps an ARM?). So if we take $100 as a desirable price target that manufacturers could hope to break even on, and assume some aid for development help and technological fairy dust to help us along, what would be your 'sensible minimum' spec?
- zandorg 17y ago
  My Mum just bought a Samsung M
seldo 17y ago
Shitty computers for the third world is better than no computers. In the same way, we don't stop digging wells for tiny villages just because we can't supply them with hot and cold running water in every house.
elblanco 17y ago
You got a lot of downvotes, but I actually upvoted you since I think that fits within HN's guidelines of a comment that creates a lot of discussion. I think something you are overlooking is that this is like hardware we used to use 10 years ago. And we (the 1st world) were pretty darn productive with that kind of hardware and the software that could run on it. There's no reason in the world why something equivalent wouldn't be just as beneficial for the developing world. >I ask though why do they have to get crap? Because they are poor. Cheap stuff is usually crappy stuff. If your price-point is $99, in an industry where the average is ~$1000, and you want to fit into that low price-point, you end up with low-end stuff - period. Put another way, a $3000 laptop still costs $3000 (maybe more) in the developing world. There's no "3rd world discount" just because they live in the 3rd world. AND we've already tried subsidizing decent hardware/software through the OLPC program and that hasn't exactly turned out like anybody hoped. To a rural farmer in Africa who wants to keep track of his harvest schedule, balance the books and gaining access to the Internet so he can comparison shop from seed suppliers, $3000 may as well be $infinity and he'll just continue to muddle along -- heck, $500 may as well be $infinity depending on the case. But $99 is something you can squeeze out of being a bit more frugal on the petrol usage in the tiller for a few months.
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  Definitely agreed. It's progress for sure and you can't hand out $1,000 laptops. My point is more about people being complacent with "Good enough" and it being okay to give the 3rd world something that was fine 10 years ago. They're less behind, but we're still complacent with leaving them behind. It's like giving a homeless man a piece of bread. Why not try to give them a full meal? I'd love to see a concerted effort from a bunch of smart people to make a device that actually got the 3rd world on a level that they can do some of the important things we can with a computer TODAY. I know this sounds crazy and maybe irrational, but that's usually how disruptive things get started.

ghshephard 17y ago

You do realize, of course, that just 20 years ago, this computer would have been considered "Outrageously over-powered, no individual could conceivably need so much performance/memory" I sometimes wonder why it is that, as individuals, we look at the systems that were shockingly powerful and capable, and now consider them to be "crap."

jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
We're not approaching the year 1990. We should be moving things forward and not making them acceptable because they would have been insanely powerful 20 years ago. Software has evolved a ton. Sure playing Sega genesis games on my phone would be something unbelievable, but stopping there would be selling ourselves short, hence we have games with 3d graphics. Compromising and racing towards the bottom is just a coward's game.
tjr 17y ago
These machines are considered "crap" in comparison to current machines and what software is currently expected to run on machines. I reckon it'd be pretty awesome as an OS/2 Warp machine.
Retric 17y ago
One of the more amusing things to do with mondern computer system is to find the most recent year when they would be the most powerful computer on the planet. My guess is a 400MHz modern CPU would place this around 1985 if you include the graphics system etc.
rms 17y ago
I blame Flash

anigbrowl 17y ago

OK, their next cheapest thing is called the 'Bing' (LOL trademark infringement...), costs $389, and runs an atom with 1GHz and a ~10" screen. Is this closer to what you think is a good base spec? I presume the point you're trying to make is that a computer aimed at the developing world should be x86 compatible so that users will have a realistic choice of software an budding engineers and programmers will have access to a platform that will give them transferable skills rather than a possible technological dead end (don't know what's in this $99 device, perhaps an ARM?). So if we take $100 as a desirable price target that manufacturers could hope to break even on, and assume some aid for development help and technological fairy dust to help us along, what would be your 'sensible minimum' spec?

zandorg 17y ago
My Mum just bought a Samsung M

seldo 17y ago

Shitty computers for the third world is better than no computers. In the same way, we don't stop digging wells for tiny villages just because we can't supply them with hot and cold running water in every house.

elblanco 17y ago

You got a lot of downvotes, but I actually upvoted you since I think that fits within HN's guidelines of a comment that creates a lot of discussion. I think something you are overlooking is that this is like hardware we used to use 10 years ago. And we (the 1st world) were pretty darn productive with that kind of hardware and the software that could run on it. There's no reason in the world why something equivalent wouldn't be just as beneficial for the developing world. >I ask though why do they have to get crap? Because they are poor. Cheap stuff is usually crappy stuff. If your price-point is $99, in an industry where the average is ~$1000, and you want to fit into that low price-point, you end up with low-end stuff - period. Put another way, a $3000 laptop still costs $3000 (maybe more) in the developing world. There's no "3rd world discount" just because they live in the 3rd world. AND we've already tried subsidizing decent hardware/software through the OLPC program and that hasn't exactly turned out like anybody hoped. To a rural farmer in Africa who wants to keep track of his harvest schedule, balance the books and gaining access to the Internet so he can comparison shop from seed suppliers, $3000 may as well be $infinity and he'll just continue to muddle along -- heck, $500 may as well be $infinity depending on the case. But $99 is something you can squeeze out of being a bit more frugal on the petrol usage in the tiller for a few months.

jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
Definitely agreed. It's progress for sure and you can't hand out $1,000 laptops. My point is more about people being complacent with "Good enough" and it being okay to give the 3rd world something that was fine 10 years ago. They're less behind, but we're still complacent with leaving them behind. It's like giving a homeless man a piece of bread. Why not try to give them a full meal? I'd love to see a concerted effort from a bunch of smart people to make a device that actually got the 3rd world on a level that they can do some of the important things we can with a computer TODAY. I know this sounds crazy and maybe irrational, but that's usually how disruptive things get started.