No Child Left Offline

There are several emphases. One is to include advanced video and music processing not typical of office machines. Another is collaborative hardware -- the mesh network and the operating system reinforce that. A third is the basic needs of the developing world, including but by no means limited to, the need for sunlight readability and power constraints. Almost none of our kids have electricity at school or home, thus the need for human power and, in turn, the requirement to average less than two watts (versus the 35-40 watts of your laptop).

Why did you pursue your two-for-one strategy -- allowing consumers to buy one XO laptop for themselves and one for donation?

It has been a knock-out success, generating almost $3 million per day, for 45 days, from the bottom up -- people funding people, a concept in keeping with the spirit of OLPC and open source.

Still, you've taken a fair amount of criticism for the "twofer" offer and other things. The Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek are two recent examples. The overarching theme of this criticism seems to be the feeling that the project isn't living up to its own ambitions. What's your reaction?

Elephant skin is needed. Look, no matter what you do, when a project is big, disruptive, and counter-intuitive, it is going to receive criticism, often stoked by commercial interests. When you challenge both Microsoft and Intel, you are not taking a picnic in the garden. Since day one, I have predicted 3 million units in year one and that is what we will hit. But if we hit 2.5 million, so be it. There has been a lot of talk, pretty gratuitous talk, about the $100 laptop costing $187 right now. It will drop to $100 in two to three years. The Give One Get One program re-sharpened our moral compass by allowing us to enter countries that otherwise would have had to wait (Rwanda, Haiti, Mongolia, Cambodia, Afghanistan). Both The Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek have a business-oriented point of view and have been looking at this project as an "industry disrupter" and laptop project, versus a humanitarian, non-profit, educational project. The world did not have a $3 version of Windows, nor $300 laptops before we started. Everybody thought, in 2004, that one laptop per child, olpc lowercase, was a stupid idea and computer labs in schools were better. Nobody argues that any more. We could pack up our tent and declare victory. We are not doing that because kids would not be well served. We have to move down market, less features, more simplicity, hit $100, and go lower. Along the way, there will be large amounts of criticism. We'll learn what we can, but certainly not wilt from it.

The New York Times reported that your partnership with Intel dissolved after you discovered that an Intel saleswoman was trying to undermine your agreement with the government of Peru. What went wrong?

Intel was truly disingenuous. I am surprised at the degree of dishonesty. Look at the way they leaked the situation, while asking us to collaborate on a press statement….Intel issued a statement to the press behind our backs while simultaneously asking us to work on a joint statement with them. Actions do speak louder than words in this case. As we said in the past, we view the children as a mission; Intel views them as a market. The benefit in the departure of Intel from the OLPC board is a renewed clarity in purpose; we will continue to focus on our mission of providing every child with an opportunity for learning.

Does the OLPC project represent a threat to private companies?

The World Food Program does not threaten McDonald's.