OLPC-XO 1 Object Lesson

OBJEC TLESSONS

O L P C XO - 1 MAXWELL FERNANDEZ

OLPC XO -1 The XO-1 is an object that quite literally fits into a network of other objects, whose goal is to connect the user to a vast array of opportunities.

A computer can be broken down into a set of singular objects that coincide to create the functioning machine a person interacts with.

String many of these computers together and you get a network of people interacting and learning.

The XO-1 is a low-cost computer that attempts to do this while operating in a distinct set of circumstances. Simplified to its pure form the XO-1 is low-cost rugged computer but exploded into each of its pieces this computer and every other computer is curated set of objects, p ro c e s s o r, d i s p l a y, k e y b o a rd, m e m o r y, b a t t e r y, webcam and Wi-Fi antennas. These could be broken down even further to what is on the boards themselves, the transistors, resistors, conductive and insulative materials mined from planet earth.

Ultimately each and every one of these objects, culminate in a product that is greater than parts of its sum. All of these curated objects that each have their own distinct histories, become divorced from or in another view continued through this new sum. By connecting to the internet, the XO-1 then becomes an extension of the internet and the rest of the world. The ability to plug into a universe of information that effectively has no end. With all of the laptops on the market at the time what made this one so special? Well at the time of its creation no laptop had ever been conceived at such a low cost. Curation is key here as each part of this computer has been carefully selected to attempt to not sacrifice usability for cost.

The XO-1, spearheaded by Nicholas Negroponte and his organization One Laptop per Child, aimed to transform education through providing laptops page 1

to children in the developing world. The challenge was to create a laptop for less than one hundred dollars, at the time the market for laptops was such that the average laptop computer started at around the one-thousand-dollar mark.

The organization set out with the following five principles: 1.

The kids keep the laptops 2.

Focus on early education 3.

No one gets left out 4.

Connection to the internet 5.

Free to grow and adapt.1 While the computer succeeded in some of these aspects outlined by the organization, what OLPC proved was that it was possible to create a cheap c o m p u t e r.

O L P C ’s XO-1 as a concept was attempting to revolutionize the wrong thing as it attempted to push a constructivist approach to education. As Negroponte suggests in his TED talk “solutions to the big problems… include education…we all in this room learned how to walk, how to talk, not by being taught how to talk, or taught how to walk, but by interacting with the world, by having certain results as a consequence of being able to ask for something o r b e i n g a b l e t o s t a n d u p a n d r e a c h i t .” 2 H e t h e n goes on to say that at a certain age kids are expected to pivot and learn material through being taught, this could be through a teacher or a book. The XO-1 aims to bring back the ability for a child to lean on their own accord through this i d e a o f “c o n s t r u c t i v i s t l e a r n i n g ” p o s e d b y S e y m o u r P a p e r t w h i c h “ b o r r o w s h e a v i l y f r o m J e a n P i a g e t ’s t h e o r y o f c o n s t r u c t i v i s m ” 3. T h i s w a s t h e t e a m ’s concept of “hidden agenda” Their focus was to ensure “that children in the developing world have access to something other than training that develops wrote skills. Using the XO laptop, the goal is to support self-guided learning and

exploration in ways that enable children to become critical thinkers, innovators, and 4 e n t r e p r e n e u r s .”

The formal logic of most objects is two-fold, for one they are designed out of the requirement for them to fulfill a need or function; two they attempt to divulge a story or message from the designer to their user through a slew of aesthetic choices. The XO-1 is one that is playful and toylike, to better allow for a facilitation between the child using it and the base of information they a r e t r y i n g t o a c c e s s . To b r e a k d o w n t h i s i d e a o f the laptop as a facilitator you have to break down each of the functions of the computer itself. The XO-1 was different at the time of its conception in that it was designed to fulfill multiple needs.

With limited funds for the children to acquire different types of devices, the designers attempted to include the as many of the functions from a variety of devices into one. The display of the XO-1 is attached to the keyboard is through a swivel mechanism, the intention here is that the user has the agency turn the screen to show a friend, use it as a television, or as a tablet if they s o p l e a s e . A s a t a b l e t t h e X O - 1 ’s f o r m a l l a n g u a g e morphs into something more renunciant of a book, which as a concept for storing and acquiring information dates back millennia. Through the addition of the simple swivel mechanism, the XO-1 generates a multiplicity as to the form it takes and the roles it fulfills as a tool. The keyboard becomes an object of creation and reaction as it how is how the user inputs information or instructions to the machine. The means in which information is consumed and reactions are made are all simple ideas but fundamental to how a person will interact with the XO-1.

Through its design the XO-1 attempts to represent how it operates in developing communities, the

page 2

page 3

antennas that flip up on both sides of the display improve the Wi-Fi signal, and while folded down protect the various IO ports. While serving the purpose of protecting the computers hardware the antennas also point outward to improve signal. The laptop was designed to work within a “ m e s h n e t w o r k ” 5, m e a n i n g t h a t i f o n e c o m p u t e r i n a classroom was connected to the internet, through a sort of mesh, one computer would connect another and that to another and so on.

The idea was that students in deserts with few obstructions could pass their network on to classmates over longer distances when at home.

In other parts of the world for instance in the rain forest this proved much more challenging. At the very least in the classroom setting the antennas both served their purpose of spreading signal across the classroom, as well as allowing kids to c o n n e c t o n e o n o n e t o e a c h o t h e r ’s m a c h i n e s t o share information. This mesh network is also only as fluid as the nodes of which it is made up of, the XO-1 runs an operating system that is opens sourced allowing for the users to adapt the software as they themselves adapt.

The XO-1 connects the communities it ser ves to the world at large and a pool of information spanning the globe. Is the content to which the laptop displays not an object in itself? The software that runs on it, the books stored on it, the information stored on it, the essays drafted on it, the code written on it, and ultimately the network it connects to; are all of these concepts, or objects made up of objects, displayed by objects? The XO-1 becomes so much more than just a singular material object: it becomes the vessel for an object that suddenly becomes so v a s t i t c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a “ h y p e r o b j e c t ”, t h a t “hyperobject” being knowledge. Now any computer t h e n h a s t h e p o w e r t o b e c o m e a “ h y p e r o b j e c t ” 6, a n d i f t h e O L P C t e a m ’s i n t e n t w a s t o s p r e a d

education to developing communities then question then becomes how seamless and how well can their object feed from and display information ultimately leading to education, the o b j e c t p r o m i s e d b y t h e X O - 1 ’s c r e a t o r s .

To t a k e a m o r e m a c r o p o s i t i o n a l i t y, a n d c r i t i c a l stance to the XO-1 the following questions must be asked: One does the object [the XO-1 computer] operated as intended within the constraints laid out by those who have conceived it? Two does the object operate when taken out of those constraints in a broader context? The answer to the first question in the case of the XO-1 is a simple no it does not, as tested by, Beuermann in the American Economic Journal the XO-1 was largely a colossal failure in its mission of education, “the effects of providing OLPC laptops to be used at home and find no evidence of effects on academic 7 achievement or cognitive skills” . But on a broader level, later iterations at a higher cost improved t h e X O - 1 ’s f u n c t i o n a l i t y. T h e r e i s a s o r t o f c o s t benefit relationship that exists around the XO-1 as Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames state the “poorest countries targeted by OLPC cannot afford laptop computers for all their children and would be better off building schools, training teachers, developing curricula, providing books and 8 subsidizing attendance” , rather than a computer that may last a couple of years that functions mediocrely at best. This changes however when you shift expectations and zero in on the object itself. With these constrains the team at OLPC has been able to create a low-cost computer that laid the foundation for iterations of the XO-1 and other laptops designated “netbooks” that improved functionality at a slightly higher cost. This may be exactly what a community or society that is just making the flip from developing to developed needs as they attempt to compete with other highly technologically advanced societies. By this

page 4

page 5

logic these marginally more expensive computers could also then be purchased by the poorest members of developed nations, allowing for more oppor tunities and social mobility.

This computer was not the answer for countries that lack basic human needs, it did however prove the feasibility for other manufacturers to develop cheap computers. It also for the purposes of design is a perfect example how a device or machine or any object can be pulled apart to divorce its parts from the whole to study the relationships within, to better understand how the object forms relationships to the world in w h i c h i t o p e r a t e s . To c l o s e t h e c o m p u t e r i s a n object comprised of objects that connects to objects and is ultimately a vessel in which other objects are created or represented.

page 6

Endnotes 1 “Our Story.” One Laptop Per Child, www.onelaptopperchild.org/about/.

2 Negroponte, Nicholas. “Transcript of ‘One Laptop per Child.’” TED, www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_one_laptop_per_child/transcript?language=en.

ENDNOTES 3 Ames, Morgan G.. The Charisma Machine (Infrastructures) (p. 35). MIT Press.

1 .

“Our Story. ” One Laptop 4 Kane, Charles; Bender, Walter; Cornish, Jody; Donahue, Neal. Learning to Change the World (pp. 33-34). St. Martin’s Publishing Group. Per Child, www.onelaptopperchild.org/about/.

5 Ames, Morgan G.. The Charisma Machine (Infrastructures) (p. 70). MIT Press.

2 . Negroponte, Nicholas. “Transcript of ‘One Laptop per Child.’” TED, 6 Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press, 2017. www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_one_laptop_per_child/ 7 Cristia, Julian, et al. “Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 9, no. 3, 2017, pp. 295–320., transcript?language=en. doi:10.1257/app.20150385.

8 Warschauer, Mark, and Morgan Ames. “CAN ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD SAVE THE WORLD’S POOR?” Journal of International Affairs.

3 . Ames, Morgan G.. The Charisma Machine (Infrastructures) (p. 35). MIT Press.

Kane, Charles; Bender, Walter; Cornish, Jody; Donahue, Neal. Learning to Change the World (pp. 33-34). St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

4.

Ames, Morgan G.. The Charisma Machine (Infrastructures) (p. 70). MIT Press.

5.

Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press, 2017.

6.

Cristia, Julian, et al. “Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 9, no. 3, 2017, pp. 295–320., doi:10.1257/app.20150385.

7.

Warschauer, Mark, and Morgan Ames. “CAN ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD SAVE THE WORLD’S POOR?” Journal of International Affairs.

8.