>>105579981
>Why did it fail, /g/?
The devices themselves were underpowered, built like shit and ran a locked-down operating system. Even if the children who received them somehow developed in interest in computers, they wouldn't have been able to explore it, considering how limited the software was. Besides, the countries in which these things were distributed had bigger issues to deal with than large-scale access to computing. The money that was wasted into these computers could have been used to provide clean water, nutritious meals, proper infrastructure and competent teachers. My guess is that the whole project was virtue signaling by a bunch of Californian tech executives and grifters who thought of computers as some sort of silver bullet.
>And how would you have made it a resounding success, had you been the Director General of the initiative?
I would have focused on low-income households in developed countries., and I would have given them normal laptops with no software or hardware restrictions. At the time, a lot of poor people couldn't afford a computer, and could have actually learned new skills by having access to their own computer.