concept resembled a
tablet computer and was planned to have the inner workings of the XO 1.75. Price goal was below $100 and date was 2012. As of May 2010, OLPC was working with
Marvell on other unspecified future tablet designs. In October 2010, both OLPC and Marvell signed an agreement granting OLPC $5.6 million to fund development of its XO-3 next generation tablet computer. The tablet was to use an ARM chip from Marvell. At
CES 2012, OLPC showcased the XO-3 model, which featured a touchscreen and a modified form of
SugarLabs "Sugar". In early December 2012, however, it was announced that the XO-3 would not be seeing actual production, and focus had shifted to the XO-4. The XO-4 was launched at
International CES 2013 in Las Vegas The XO Laptop version 4 is available in two models: XO 4 and XO 4 Touch, with the latter providing multi-touch input on the display. The XO Laptop version 4 uses an ARM processor to provide high performance with low power consumption, while keeping the industrial design of the traditional XO Laptop.
Software The laptops include an anti-theft system which can, optionally, require each laptop to periodically make contact with a server to renew its cryptographic
lease token. If the cryptographic lease expires before the server is contacted, the laptop will be locked until a new token is provided. The contact may be to a country-specific server over a network or to a local, school-level server that has been manually loaded with cryptographic "lease" tokens that enable a laptop to run for days or even months between contacts. Cryptographic lease tokens can be supplied on a
USB flash drive for non-networked schools. The mass production laptops are also
tivoized, disallowing installation of additional software or replacement of the operating system. Users interested in development need to obtain the unlocking key separately (most developer laptops for Western users already come unlocked). It is claimed that locking prevents unintentional
bricking and is part of the anti-theft system. In 2006, the OLPC project was heavily criticised over
Red Hat's
non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with Marvell concerning the wireless device in OLPC, especially in light of the OLPC project being positioned as an open-source friendly initiative. An open letter for documentation was inked by
Theo de Raadt (a recipient of the 2004
Award for the Advancement of Free Software), and the initiative for open documentation has been supported by
Richard Stallman, the President of the Free Software Foundation. De Raadt later clarified that he finds an issue with OLPC having proprietary firmware files that are not allowed to be independently re-distributed (even in the binary form) by third-party operating systems like
OpenBSD, as well as receiving no documentation to write the necessary drivers for the operating system. De Raadt has pointed out that the OpenBSD project requires no firmware source code, and no low-level documentation to work on firmware, only requiring the binary distribution rights and documentation to interface with the said binary firmware that runs outside of the main CPU, a quite simple request that is generally honoured by many other wireless device vendors like
Ralink. Stallman fully agreed with de Raadt's request to open up the documentation, since Stallman is known to hold an even stronger and more idealistic position in regards to the proprietary components, and requires that even the firmware that runs outside of the main CPU must be provided in its source code form, something de Raadt does not require. De Raadt later has had to point out that such more idealistic and less realistic position has instead been misattributed to OpenBSD's more practical approach to make it look unreasonable, and stood on record that OpenBSD's position is much easier to satisfy, yet it nonetheless remained unresolved. OLPC's dedication to "Free and open source" was questioned with their May 15, 2008, announcement that large-scale purchasers would be offered the choice to add an extra cost, special version of the proprietary
Windows XP OS developed by
Microsoft alongside the regular, free and open
Linux-based operating system with the
SugarLabs "
Sugar OS" GUI. Microsoft developed a modified version of Windows XP and announced in May 2008 that Windows XP would be available for an additional cost of 10 dollars per laptop. James Utzschneider, from Microsoft, said that initially only one operating system could be chosen. OLPC, however, said that future OLPC work would enable XO-1 laptops to
dual boot either the free and open Linux/Sugar OS or the proprietary Microsoft Windows XP. Negroponte further said that "OLPC will sell Linux-only and dual-boot, and will not sell Windows-only [XO-1 laptops]". OLPC released the first test firmware enabling XO-1 dual-boot on July 3, 2008. This option did not prove popular. As of 2011, a few pilots had received a few thousand total dual-boot machines, and the new ARM-based machines do not support Windows XP. No significant deployment purchased Windows licenses. Negroponte stated that the dispute had "become a distraction" for the project, and that its end goal was enabling children to learn, while constructionism and the open source ethos was more of a means to that end.
Charles Kane concurred, stating that anything which detracted from the ultimate goal of widespread distribution and use was counterproductive.
Bugs Jeff Patzer, who interned for One Laptop Per Child in Peru, said that teachers there are told to handle problems in one of two ways: if the problem is a software issue, they are to flash the computer, and if it is a hardware problem, they are to report it. He said that this blackboxing approach caused users to feel disconnected with and confused by the laptop, and often resulted in the laptops eventually going unused. Several defects in OLPC XO-1 hardware have emerged in the field, and laptop repair is often neglected by students or their families (who are responsible for maintenance) due to the relatively high cost of some components (such as displays). On the software side, the
Bitfrost security system has been known to deactivate improperly, rendering the laptop unusable until it is unlocked by support technicians with the proper keys (this is a time-consuming process, and the problem often affects large numbers of laptops at the same time). The Sugar interface has been difficult for teachers to learn, and the mesh networking feature in the OLPC XO-1 was buggy and went mostly unused in the field. The OLPC XO-1 hardware lacks connectivity to external monitors or projectors, and teachers are not provided with software for remote assessment. As a result, students are unable to present their work to the whole class, and teachers must also assess students' work from the individual laptops. Teachers often find it difficult to use the keyboard and screen, which were designed with student use in mind.
Environmental impact In 2005 and prior to the final design of the
XO-1 hardware, OLPC received criticism because of concerns over the environmental and health impacts of hazardous materials found in most computers. The OLPC asserted that it aimed to use as many
environmentally friendly materials as it could; that the laptop and all OLPC-supplied accessories would be fully compliant with the EU's
Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS); and that the laptop would use an order of magnitude less power than the typical consumer netbooks available as of 2007 thus minimizing the environmental burden of power generation. The final XO-1, as shipped in 2007, complied with the EU's RoHS and drew between 0.25 and 6.5 watts in operation. The Green Electronics Council's
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) rated the XO-1 as non-toxic and fully recyclable, as well as longer-lasting, cheaper, and more energy efficient than contemporaries. The XO-1 notebook computer was the first laptop to be awarded an EPEAT Gold level rating.
Anonymity Other discussions question whether OLPC laptops should be designed to promote anonymity or to facilitate government tracking of stolen laptops. A June 2008
New Scientist article critiqued Bitfrost's P_THEFT security option, which allows each laptop to be configured to transmit an individualized, non-repudiable digital signature to a central server at most once each day to remain functioning. == Distribution ==