Microsoft Cell Phone or MIT $100 Laptop? · 353 words posted 01/31/2006 11:14 AM
As the New York Times has reported, Microsoft may plan to make an end run around the MIT $100 laptop by creating a cell phone PC, with inputs/outputs for TV and keyboard:
Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co-founder and chairman, demonstrated a mockup of his proposed cellular PC at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this month, and he mentioned it as a cheaper alternative to traditional PC’s and laptops during a public discussion here at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.
Craig J. Mundie, Microsoft’s vice president and chief technology officer, said in an interview here that the company was still developing the idea, but that both he and Mr. Gates believed that cellphones were a better way than laptops to bring computing to the masses in developing nations. “Everyone is going to have a cellphone,” Mr. Mundie said, noting that in places where TV’s are already common, turning a phone into a computer could simply require adding a cheap adaptor and keyboard. Microsoft has not said how much those products would cost.
Which device is better? There’s a clear answer: both.
Development entrepreneurs, just like players in any marketplace, have to compete for mind-share and capital. Some aspects of the open-source laptop program will encourage substantial market distortions: in particular, the laptop’s consumers typically won’t pay for it. Instead, government and private funds will put the laptops in the hand of its end users. Lest one doubt about the effect of third party payers on efficiently allocating consumption of resources, look at the current state of the US health care system.
It’s a win-win situation if Microsoft’s entry into a market spurs the MIT program to lower its costs, expand its reach, and build a better product. And Microsoft may be on to something; cell phones in poor countries already meet many of the development goals that drive the distribution of laptops.
I’ve used this space for several years to highlight development projects in countries like Laos and Nepal. It’s not easy to get it right, but without a doubt: more players in this field are better than fewer.
* * *