I think there a number of problems with the laptop idea. Some arithmetic will illustrate my point (courtesy of Jeffrey Sachs, not my favourite person but he has a point here):

An anti-malaria bed net costs $5 and lasts for 5 years.
$100 buys 20 bed nets.

The money for one laptop can be used to protect a person for 100 years from Malaria (assuming the net provides perfect protection). One effect of this would be to reduce child mortality and as a consequence reduce fertility rates significantly. Surely, the reduction of fertility rates will have a far greater measurable effect on the wellbeing of a nation than access to the internet. The world’s population is exploding and we all need to deal with the prospect of a complete lack of resources for developing countries.

It’s clear that the people behind this project did not think this whole thing through. My main problem is with the view that technology will solve educational problems. Like I said before, what’s wrong with spending money on pencils and books and more importantly teachers? If every kid has a laptop but no teacher I don’t see how they will learn. By video conference? I don’t think that is a solution and this laptop is truly a half-baked idea.

After all the major problems of the developing country have been solved can we entertain the idea of giving every child a laptop. At this moment in time our efforts should be diverted to more effective means to achieve the millenium development goals or equivalent goal.

http://greenskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/10/innovation-now-you-can-give-one-get-one.html