I don’t buy the idea that selling another product in the same market is de-facto “tearing down” the competition, or that Intel can’t simultaneously support both products. Companies compete against themselves all the time; it’s part of branding. If done right, the two brands are genuinely different and therefore appeal to different people with different needs. It would certainly be hard to argue that having a choice between Windows and Linux is not a benefit to people in the third world.

Intel screwed up by not supporting OLPC from the outset. Instead Craig Barrett called it a “100 dollar gadget.” Probably not the most appropriate stance toward the efforts of a humanitarian organization. I think what happened afterwards is that Otellini tried to mend fences by joining and financially backing OLPC. Unfortunately, Negroponte made that process quite difficult. Intel was apparently put on “probation” (Negroponte’s word) where they had to accede to OLPC’s numerous demands (e.g. trashing the Classmate PC) or else be expelled from the organization. It’s clear in retrospect that Negroponte preferred a quasi-dictatorial “clarity of purpose” (again, his term) to meaningful compromise.

Too bad. In making that choice he threw away a great opportunity to leverage Intel’s considerable resources for the benefit of millions.

If Intel had decided to stay out of the OLPC consortium, there’s no blaming them. But tearing down what you agreed to build is bad business practise. Intel should have known from the start that pushing two competing products was a definite conflict of interest. There was no grey area here – it’s like McDonalds joining the World Food initiative then telling third-world countries, “Screw it. Why don’t you buy our cheap eats instead?”

This is just one viewpoint – OLPC has come under attack for other things. Like how its initial target price of $100 had to be revised. How children in Iraq and Afghanistan have other basic needs as well – security, clean water, medical treatment.

But unethical sales practices cannot and should not be condoned. Whether big corporation or family-owned small businesses.

Do you really belive that Intel “deliberately sabotaged” OLPC? If so, I suppose you also imagine that that joining OLPC was Intel’s devious ploy to destroy the competition from within. Maybe you’ve been reading too many spy novels lately?

I notice that you conveniently omit the fact that the XO runs Linux while the Classmate PC runs Windows. Are you so condescending as to imagine that third world children don’t want or need the same platform that 97% of rest of the world uses? I suppose for Intel to mention this useful fact constitutes unfair competition.

If you had bothered to take your anti-corporate blinders off you might have figured out the real story: Intel was forced out of OLPC by the unreasonable demands of a megalomaniac named Nicolas Negroponte. Negroponte essentially told Intel that if they wanted to stay in OLPC, they needed to abandon the Classmate PC and only promote the XO. Never mind the fact that various countries might actually benefit from being given a alternative platform that better suits their needs.

Here’s the bottom line Erna, stop assuming that corporations are evil and that poor people are stupid. No one can force Peru or Nigeria to buy something they don’t want. At least Intel is giving them a choice; Negroponte, the good guy in your scenario, is more interested in building his green computer empire than in helping people.