The OLPC laptop – educational tool, technical revolution or both?

As distribution of the OLPC project’s XO laptop nears, has the shift of attention from the educational aspects of the project to the technical aspects injured the project?
When Negroponte and the MIT Media Lab started talking about their plans for a “$100 laptop” they never ceased to remind everyone that this was first and foremost an educational project and not a technology project. The project was well grounded in Seymour Papert’s “constructionist” theory of learning, an expansion on constructivist theories’ notion of “learning as creating meaning” to emphasise the conscious activity of creating, i.e. “constructing” as opposed to “having been constructed”. However, the primary target audience for this revolutionary educational project, children in developing and under-developed countries, presented the project members with considerable technological hurdles, ex. how to overcome limited access to electricity and the Internet, how to ensure that the computers can endure harsh environmental conditions, etc. Although it was clear that, if successful, the project would deliver many technological innovations, the claim was that the primary focus was always on the educational aspects of the project.
Critics quickly came crawling out of the woodwork. Many criticized what they felt would be a waste of development funds that would be better used to provide the poor with food, water, medicine, etc. As the project moved forward, we finally started getting glimpses of what the computer would look like, and even got hints of how it would actually work. That’s when the criticisms started to get confused. Many criticized the “non-standard” interface (and here) and the decision to use a Linux-based system, presumably based on the assumption that anything that isn’t Windows (or at least Windows-like) isn’t preparing users for a realistic future. Some even attacked the computer itself, claiming that it was too “cute”, too “gadget-like”. Even some big-wigs, like Bill Gates and Intel’s Craig Barrett (who, by the way, heads the UN’s Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID)) were delivering low blows, claiming that the $100 laptop would never amount to much more than a toy, all the while scrambling to introduce their own products to compete with the OLPC project (Barrett and Negroponte seem to have made up since).
Somewhere along the way, I think the critics managed to put OLPC on the defensive and directed attention away from the initial educational goals to technical and other aspects of the project. Negroponte lost his cool – lashed out at Intel for competing with his non-profit, started making unfounded claims. He played right into the hands of the critics and the critics seized the opportunity.
Although the OLPC project continues to receive considerable attention, very little is said about the initial educational goals of the project (ex. this BBC piece). Almost everything is about the technology, which, while certainly noteworthy, is really more a means to an end than a goal in itself. There is little if any mention about the nifty “activities” (why should a “desktop” metaphor make sense?) and software being developed.
I think that the real value of the OLPC project is in the educational goals of the project and the foundation that they are built on. These certainly are not above criticism (Robert Kozma has done a good job of shaking things up), but they are what will make or break the project in the end. With delivery of the machines apparently right around the corner, the OLPC project should put more resources into these educational aspects. In fact, they should never have stopped doing so. Kozma’s criticisms of the theoretical assumptions of the OLPC crew are perfectly valid. The OLPC project could have spent a lot of valuable time testing and refining these theoretical aspects.