I disagree. Access to understandable technology is more important than content. These are not mere content delivery devices. Unfortunately, decision makers are poorly informed, and people are lazy, and prefer something already polished over a box of pointy tools.
Seems like there was a perennial disagreement (which is continuing today) about the degree to which OLPC was meant to help teach computing, or a curriculum, or just give students and teachers some tools to do parts of what they were doing anyway in a higher-tech way.
Edit: I particularly appreciate bryanwb's comments on autodidacticism at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047351, which point at a fourth possibility: the idea that just having access to computers is good for kids.
Yes, this is true. I don't mean to say better software wouldn't have helped--I think OLPC was killed by a combination of factors. (Not least the early trajectory of its hype cycle.) But better software alone ... I don't think it would have materially changed the outcome in any way.
