When I first saw a PC running Windows, I thought that I would be better off not using it because I would eventually lose the understanding that DOS gave me of how a computer really works. Today, I realize how utterly ridiculous that notion is. Why did I think that typing “mkdir” into a DOS command line gave me a better understanding of how computers worked than right-clicking on the image of a folder? I have the same feeling of absurdity today when I read of critics of the new $150 XO computer that is being distributed to children in developing countries by One Laptop Per Child. The XO has a new operating system as well as a new user interface, which have prompted some critics to refer to it as a crippled machine and suggest the children should get a “real” computer. As Nicholas Negroponte, founder of One Laptop said of children using “real” computers, “In fact, one of the saddest but most common conditions in elementary school computer labs (when they exist in the developing world), is the children are being trained to use Word, Excel and PowerPoint. I consider that criminal, because children should be making things, communicating, exploring, sharing, not running office automation tools.”
I’m skeptical that giving laptops to children in developing nations will do much to pull up their standard of living, but I do know that we need to stop thinking of the current incarnation of the PC as an unchangeable form. Computers are a tool and tools come in many different shapes, sizes, and operating systems. We don’t worry when children ride bikes to the corner store because they’re learning nothing about driving a car, and we shouldn’t worry that children using “weak” computers (if they even are weak) aren’t learning to use “real” computers. The goal of $100 computers for children is leading to innovative solutions like the XO and its success or failure will not be based on how much it resembles an office PC. The lesson here is obvious – innovation requires you to question your biases and beliefs and be prepared for criticism and doubts along the way. Perhaps more interesting, though, is to see that, like the rest of us, technologists aren’t immune to constrained thinking either.
