Intel has recently chosen a different tactic and it may take some time to evaluate the relative wisdom of their plan.In short. One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit program designed to distribute cheap computers to the third world entered into a partnership with Intel wherein Intel would give the organization money and would work on designing a computer for them using an Intel processor instead of one from competitor Advanced Micro Devices. Intel sales staff are reported to have then told the representatives of foreign governments buying the One Laptop computers that they would be better-off buying a competing (and more expensive) device directly from Intel, and even disparaging the product they were to have been endorsing. One of these government officials is a long-time acquaintance of the founder of the One Laptop Per Child movement.
A falling out has ensued and Intel has now withdrawn from the program. Intel is an industry juggernaut, leading their field in market share for a long time. I am suspicious, though, that a long view might have lead them to play this one differently.
I have been given the impression that growth in any market most benefits the company which leads that market. If I work for Frito-Lay, and I give away Bob's Potato Chips to people in the third world who have never before tasted potato chips, I can expect those people to eventually develop a taste for potato chips (lower case) They will eat potato chips whether they are free or expensive. They will consume potato chips from every manufacturer, but mostly they will eat Frito-Lay potato chips - because Frito-Lay leads the market.
Every new market helps the industry leader.
I don't know if consumer resentment has an impact on long-term sales or if this move will even breed resentment towards Intel.
