Every project has its critics, and it's delicious to see their complaints nailed to the doors of ISF and similar churches of cyber-democracy. That being said, I think that criticism of a project on its own merits is more useful than arguing that its resources are better spent elsewhere.
In general, the power of opportunity cost arguments is proportional to how fixed the resources at stake are.
Sometimes it's simple: got 100 friends but only one extra ticket to the Cher concert? Pick one amigo and expect 99 fewer holiday cards this year.
But the $100 laptop - like most projects - is more complex. If it went away, not all the mad money and peeps behind it would simply jump ship to another endeavor. Some of these resources jumped on board the $100 laptop specifically because of that project's unique parameters. From the altruistic inclinations of individuals inspired by its noble mission, to the opportunism of tech companies and their marketing departments, the $100 laptop represents a consortium of interests. The considerable momentum behind the project is as much art as science.
There are synergies at work here. Within the project for starters, but at least as significantly at higher altitudes: to pick on one suggested "competitor";, cell phones may very well be the future of Africa (and humanity in general) but their development as such need not be *instead of* the $100 laptop. A $1 cell phone project could be a partner in the increasingly enthusiastic effort to bridge the digital divide, and I suspect that many of its most dedicated proponents could be veterans of the $100 laptop initiative itself. Such projects are not only not competitors, they are partners.
- JWT
.
