OLPC - "eaten my homework"

[Ben Scott]

On 5/31/06, John Abreau <jabr at blu.org> wrote:
> So you're saying someone who is knowledgeable about actual textbook
> production costs is wrong, because if you ignore the real-world
> costs he pointed out, you can imagine something completely inadequate
> for a cheaper price.

  No.  I'm saying that some of the real-world costs apply to the
laptop, too -- namely the cost of the content, which I'm told is a
significant cost for most books.  I'm also saying that applying
assumptions normal to textbook printing in the US to a hypothetical
project to provide low-cost textbooks to the third world is not
reasonable, jist as applying the cost of a laptop for a business in
the US to OLPC is not reasonable.  In particular, US textbooks are
produced in small runs with relatively low lead times, are updated
relatively frequently, and often cary extras (e.g., CDs, curriculum
support, etc.) unrelated to the textbook itself.  Given that
information that separates those costs from the actual cost of
printing and binding a durable book is lacking in this discussion, I
feel these are valid points.

  There's also the fact that, as someone else pointed out, it's a lot
easier to build infrastructure to print books then it is to build
infrastructure to manufacture laptops.  A project to help "developing
nations" build printing operations in, coupled with royalty-free text,
might be a very practical solution.

  Jeff Kinz was correct when he emphasized the differences between the
OLPC project's "laptop" and what I can buy from Dell; I don't
understand why these hypothetical textbooks have to be limited to what
I can buy at the UNH Bookstore.

  I started out my involvement in this thread not really having an
opinion for or against the OLPC concept, or the printed text
alternative.  If this discussion happens to mirror the assumptions of
the OLPC people (namely, assuming "It must be cheaper if it's on a
computer"), the OLPC project might not be as well considered as I
would have hoped.

> I looked at nationalcolorcopy.com, and I see no indication that they
> produce anything as rugged as a textbook.

  I thought I made that clear when I wrote, "This isn't what it would
actually cost to print a text book".  Jeff Kinz asked me to back up
what *I* was saying (reasonable); I provided that information as a
readily available demonstration that prices get dramatically lower if
you print in volume.

  I just realized that Jeff Kinz actually pointed me in the direction
of one bit of additional information that durable books do not need to
cost $50 or more: "[Textbooks] have stringently high costs because
their construction and content is different than anything else except
coffee table books."  Some quick spot checks find examples of such
"coffee table books" for under $10 at popular online retailers.  Again
(and I'll try to make this as clear as I can), THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO
SUGGEST THESE ARE EQUIVALENT TO A TEXTBOOK.  This is presented only as
evidence that the question "Do textbooks have to cost so much?" is a
reasonable one.

-- Ben