or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel running mobile "marathon," iPhone and iPad have head start
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel running mobile "marathon," iPhone and iPad have head start

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Intel Chief Executive Paul Otellini sees the mobile race as a "marathon" that the company will ultimately take the lead in, in spite of Apple's significant head start.

Otellini expressed the views Wednesday in an email to employees, which was obtained by Bloomberg. Echoing Tuesday's earnings call comments, he referred to "the big question on many people's minds" as how Intel will make up for its minimal presence in the tablet and smartphone markets.

"Winning an architectural contest can take time," said Otellini in the email, noting that the effort will be a "marathon, not a sprint."

Despite being the world's largest chipmaker, Intel does not provide chips to any current smartphones or high-profile tablets. The Santa Clara, Calif., company is "on track to showcase [its] first production smartphones in 2011," said Otellini, but skeptics suspect that it's too little too late.

Otellini himself has said that the company's mobile Atom processor should have come 2 years earlier. The Atom chips have proved to be too power-hungry for most mobile implementations smaller than a netbook. Early rumors of an Atom-based Apple tablet or smartphone failed to materialize. The iPad and iPhone instead run a custom-built ARM A4 processor.

Citing the company's late entry into the server market, which it now dominates with over 90 percent market share, as an example of a come-from-behind success, Otellini remains undaunted.

I am also very optimistic about our opportunity in tablets and smartphones, even though we are not first to market with a solution, Otellini said. Ultimately, we can and will lead.

Intel posted record earnings this week, but Otellini admitted that the iPad and other tablets may be eating away at PC margins, especially netbooks. Otellini hinted that tablets will "probably" impact PC sales.

"We take a longer-view of the tablet opportunity," Otellini told investors Tuesday. "In the end, it will be additive to our bottom line, and not take away from it."
post #2 of 39
maybe it is just me but ARM has a larger head start than a few years. The are king of lower power and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Intel has made a good run with their notebook line of processors and the Atom looks like it has potential, but it seems it hasn't really made the progress you would expect.

We'll see I guess.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #3 of 39
I don't get it. Since when is the solution to not making the right chips to make the products that use them? Apple is not in competition with Intel, hell, they use their processors in Macs. Why does Otellini have to beat Apple in the hardware game when their expertise is in silicon. Seems like something has been left out of this story. Is Intel now moving into the consumer electronics field? That would be huge news in itself. An Intel branded laptop? An Intel branded desktop. No more just "Intel Inside," but "Intel Inside and Outside"?
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #4 of 39
Intel is acting more and more like a whiney adolescent every day. "Guys, c'mon...! Can't I just have a monopoly? I promise I'll be good!"
post #5 of 39
I don't get why Intel is so obsessed with the iPad and iPhone. Intel shouldn't be worried about Apple but ARM who's kicking their asses in mobile. Apple is not even in the chip business. They make their own chip for their own use.
post #6 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I don't get it. Since when is the solution to not making the right chips to make the products that use them? Apple is not in competition with Intel, hell, they use their processors in Macs. Why does Otellini have to beat Apple in the hardware game when their expertise is in silicon. Seems like something has been left out of this story. Is Intel now moving into the consumer electronics field? That would be huge news in itself. An Intel branded laptop? An Intel branded desktop. No more just "Intel Inside," but "Intel Inside and Outside"?

The point is that intel vows to supply the majority of chips for mobile devices, not that they will make the actual devices.
post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I don't get why Intel is so obsessed with the iPad and iPhone. Intel shouldn't be worried about Apple but ARM who's kicking their asses in mobile. Apple is not even in the chip business. They make their own chip for their own use.

I guess the rise of ARM CPU architecture and the popularity it has now in the mobile device market has touched Intel's bottom line.

"Wintel" will eventually be cut off from virtually all mobile devices (sans laptops) if the current trend continues, that's why MS and Intel are so furious at attacking Apple now - Apple is just a nominal target, their real enemy is ARM.
post #8 of 39
What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

A good example of this is that if say the mac started using some new Apple/AMD hybrid chip (similar to what they are doing with ARM). Then thats a reason for other companies to also start looking elsewhere.

Suddenly not only do they loose Apple but then lets say Dell and Acer leave as well.
It would ruin their OEM market.

And the reason why they don't go after ARM is because they don't make cpus themselves. they just design them.
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

A good example of this is that if say the mac started using some new Apple/AMD hybrid chip (similar to what they are doing with ARM). Then thats a reason for other companies to also start looking elsewhere.

Suddenly not only do they loose Apple but then lets say Dell and Acer leave as well.
It would ruin their OEM market.

And the reason why they don't go after ARM is because they don't make cpus themselves. they just design them.

I'm gonna disagree a little here. I think it's quite likely that apple will go into time and money required to make a custom chip and possibly even system on a chip for future macs. Dell and HP have no reason or ability to do so, because they don't make the software, and therefore can't really optimize the chips for their architecture.

Intel is not in trouble if apple has its own chips, they are in trouble if android has ARM chips. But I guess this point has been stated quite a few times already.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #10 of 39
We will see how this develops.
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Citing the company's late entry into the server market, which it now dominates with over 90 percent market share, as an example of a come-from-behind success, Otellini remains undaunted.

The primary difference between server and mobile computing is that mobile computing requires the processor to work when not connected to a wall outlet. This basically means that power efficiency is the No. 1 priority of mobile computing. In that sense, there's really no "give", when compared to server computing, where raw power trumps all else.

Unless Intel can top ARM in power efficiency, then ARM will retain the lead in mobile computing. Besides, even if Intel creates a top-notch x86 mobile processor, then any mobile device maker currently on ARM (almost all of them) would have to do a PowerPC-Mac-style conversion process that would take years, and bloat app sizes during this transition. Intel's best off licensing ARM and creating a best-in-class ARM processor, instead of relying on its own technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

I doubt that Steve would switch from Intel to ARM for their Macs so quickly after PowerPC to x86. Remember, the PowerPC to x86 was hard enough. Transitioning from Intel to AMD is easier, because both make x86 processors that could work with current Mac software.
post #12 of 39
It is amazing to remember Apple founded ARM back in the 1990 with Acorn. It's a shame they didn't hold the technology and IP in house. Selling off that ownership may be one of SJ's few mistakes.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #13 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

A good example of this is that if say the mac started using some new Apple/AMD hybrid chip (similar to what they are doing with ARM). Then thats a reason for other companies to also start looking elsewhere.

Suddenly not only do they loose Apple but then lets say Dell and Acer leave as well.
It would ruin their OEM market.

And the reason why they don't go after ARM is because they don't make cpus themselves. they just design them.

Just remember that AMD, despite producing some great chips now and then, consistently loses money. Working with a company long term that has financial problems is pretty risky. If Apple switches from Intel to AMD, AMD goes under, Apple would have to tuck its tail between its legs and go begging back to Intel for chips.

Never underestimate the power that Intel has. Many times AMD had superior chips well before Intel had anything similar. Intel caught up and floods the market with chips and AMD loses. All this despite the fact that AMD chips are generally lower priced.
post #14 of 39
To Apple, the bottom line is profit margin. Otherwise if percentage of the total market is the barometer, then the likes of HP, Dell, Acer, etc, would have been viewed more valuable by the stock market.

Intel chips of course, can overtake Apple's iPads and other iOS gadgets (iPhone, iPod Touch), if other makers of tablets would stick to Intel chips, which is not a certainty unless they can produce more energy efficient chips or they buy chip manufacturers that produce the one most used in mobile computing.

There is a concept in historical analysis called determinism (I think) where simple but critical incidents can have great impact on the outcome of events that will have far-reaching impact. One famous example is the "Trojan Horse" that changed the course of the Hellenic Wars. It's just like the role of "catalysts" in determining the outcome of chemical reactions.

The Wintel technology went head-to-head with Apple in the "mobile music" hardware, and we know where that consumer technology is at right now. Will there be a change in "mobile music"? It is probable but the possibility of that happening is not likely -- until a new technology supplants the existing "mobile music"technology, e.g., Walkman (of the 1980s) to iPods in the current decade.

It was the transformation of the iPod technology to morph into a more multipurpose/multifunctional consumer/tech gadget made possible by the combination of newer technologies (ARM, and other chips technologies) and softwares (iOS) that led to the gradual eclipse but not demise of the prior iPod technology.

Here again, even in smartphones, it is probable (and may even be likely) that the likes of Androids and mobile OS may eclipse the total output of IOS hardware, but that is not a certainty. However, Steve Jobs learned from his missteps during the Apple vs Wintel competition in the 1980's-1990s, and developed a strategy beginning with the iMac aesthetics and technology/software that led to the domination of iPods in mobile music hardware technology.

So far, many other companies are simply following the lead of Apple. And, as noted by others more thoughtful tech analysts, no company has so far offered a comparable consumer product equivalent to the iPod -- which could become Apple's Trojan horse to blindside other manufacturers in terms of the future consumer choices of young people today.

Unlike the smartphone gadgets sector, Apple's other iOS products are not dependent on the mediation of telephone companies -- but dependent on Apple's marketing strategy, advertising, continuing innovation to push the boundaries and most of all, its focus in the end user, be it individual consumers or companies. So far it is doing all the correct moves.

In this regard, I hope Apple will accelerate the development of the html5, to be at the forefront and truly marginalize the ever presence of the more ubiquitous Flash. For example, my new MacBook Pro still defaults to flash version when viewing media, like You Tube. The proponents of html5 must ensure that existing and newer internet site will have a more developed html5 technology so that it will be adopted as default rather than the option. This is not a done deal, at the moment. Companies, like Google, and developers of mobile OS, may have every interest and inclination to develop and prefer Flash over html5, just to slowdown Apple's iOS gadgets marketshare.

The impression of chic, high quality, ease of use for consumers, increasing choices for Apps and their specific when combined with competitive cost will ensure Apple's position as it has done so far in the iPods.

The ecosystem carefully developed and nurtured by for its products, OSX and iOs -- is formidable in maintaining the Apple's competitiveness and more important its profitability; even if it won't be the leader in terms of total units sold. The effectivity of misinformation, e.g., open/choice vs walled garden may have impact. Also, Apps are a critical factor in the lead of Apple; but these are made by individuals and companies beholden to the iOS only so long as it serves their purpose.

As other mobile OSs come to maturation and gain traction, as Android did, then they become lucrative markets to be explored by Apps developers, as is already happening, especially among bigger gamemaker software companies.. This will be accelerated if major movers, like Google will wise up, take the risk and invest more money to develop an ecosystem comparable, if not better than that developed by Apple.

In regard mobile OS, I am not to sure about the proprietary Windows Phone 7 which has to be licensed for a fee by mobile gadget manufacturers, when they have free choices like the Android, and possibly even Chrome, in the future. Licensing fee of even $5-15 per gadget is a lot of money reducing the profit margin of hardware manufacturers, especially with the available open source OS -- that each company can fork, just like China is doing. In a sense, this is the strength and potential Achiless heal of "open source". For example, fragmentation complicated the development and subsequent consumer use of technologies. On the other hand, "standardization" can stymie development and takeover of newer and "better" technologies.

There is also a fatalistic view of history: "This too shall pass.". Nothing last!.

Empires have fallen, to the extent that the mightiest of the past are among the weaker among nations of today. And this applies too to industries (the horse buggy replaced by the train and then automobiles, etc.) and companies -- Standard Oil, Hearst Publication, MaBell, AOL, IBM (still around, but not the IBM of the 1950s to 1970s),

New technologies supplant old technologies -- affecting the fate of nations, industries and companies in turn affecting humanity.

The original visionary has impact on the lifetime of a company. We wish that Steve Jobs will leave forever. There are some in Microsoft who wish Bill Gates will come back, but he has moved on behind the simple pursuit of power and domination to more lofty goals to help improve the plight of humanity

In his own way, Steve Jobs is doing the same in his obsession with the role of technology and ease of use, to help consumers and companies. I hope Steve Jobs may have time to devote some of his contemplative time to go further.

But, even if he will not ever take the same course as Bill Gates did, his vision in technology, aesthetics and consumers will endure -- that the consumer is not a simple cash cow. One can profit without forgetting the user.

CGC
post #15 of 39
I'd say this is more like a 'death march' for Intel. Ironically, Intel acquired an ARM foundry, but chose to go with their own design (Atom) instead. Intel ALWAYS wants to own both the IP and manufacturing capacity. Now they realize that Atom is late and power-hungry compared to other ARM-based designs. Of course, the key is software. They will not only have to convince others to port their software to a design that is more expensive and power hungry. Apple is pretty well set, with their own A4 design, and the rest really don't have a product which competes with iPad. Google is doing well, with Android, but the handsets are mainly ARM-based. Moore's Law doesn't hold up where the design point is watt-per-cycle, not total cycles...
post #16 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

A good example of this is that if say the mac started using some new Apple/AMD hybrid chip (similar to what they are doing with ARM). Then thats a reason for other companies to also start looking elsewhere.

Suddenly not only do they loose Apple but then lets say Dell and Acer leave as well.
It would ruin their OEM market.

And the reason why they don't go after ARM is because they don't make cpus themselves. they just design them.

Bingo!
post #17 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Apple is not in competition with Intel, hell, they use their processors in Macs.

Intel will be in direct competition with Apple when they release Meego (a Intel\\Nokia mobile OS). From what I've heard relations between the two companies are icy at best.

Other phone manufactures are also using ARM, however both Android and WP7 are designed in such a way that they could move between ARM and x86 as opposed to Apple\\iOS that totally cuts out x86 (even to the extent of Apple working on their own ARM SOC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continue to move toward AMD\\custom chips and away from Intel altogether.

As the world pushes toward mobile computing Intel are starting to lose their grip on the chip market and they know it. ARM is by far the biggest single threat to Intel's existence.

Atom so far hasn't delivered on the promise of low power mobile computing (or at least not compared to ARM). The belief is that Medfield (release 2011) will bring Atom in line with ARM and the next iteration (release 2012) could take Atom beyond ARM, however it's impossible to say where ARM (or Apple's custom ARM SOC) will be in 2 years time.

It has also been surmised that Microsoft's lack of presence in the tablet arena is at least partially due to their backing of Intel/Atom and that a custom Windows tablet UI is in development awaiting the release of a mobile SOC from Intel that is competitive with Apple's ARM offering.

So we have...
  • Apple with across the board backing of ARM to the total exclusion of x86 (mobile\\tablet\\living room)
  • Google with the capability to back both
  • Microsoft with WP7 (ARM or x86) and an x86 tablet
  • Intel\\Nokia with MeeGo (presumably to push x86 in both mobile and tablet)
  • RIM - Seems to be ARM across the board
  • HP\\Palm - probably ARM

So there isn't just a battle of the mobile OS's going on, there is a battle of mobile architectures as well!
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

I'd say this is more like a 'death march' for Intel ...

the enterprise and consumer market segments for servers, desktops and notebooks seems quite fine nowadays. 'death march' is hyperbole at the moment.
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It is amazing to remember Apple founded ARM back in the 1990 with Acorn. It's a shame they didn't hold the technology and IP in house. Selling off that ownership may be one of SJ's few mistakes.

For years in the late 90s, selling off its ARMHY holdings was about the only positive thing about Apple's quarterly reports.
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

...

Suddenly not only do they loose Apple but then lets say Dell and Acer leave as well.
It would ruin their OEM market.

You must be kidding. Intel is in no danger of losing the desktop or server market. Nobody doubts that all major OEMs will continue to use Intel chips for the foreseeable future. x86 rules this segment. There are no challengers. And there are only two suppliers of consequence of x86 chips: Intel and AMD. AMD only has the fabs to supply a small percentage of the market, and their products are at present uncompetitive. Bringing new fab capacity online costs many billions of dollars (that AMD doesn't have), and takes several years.

In fact, Apple can't even afford to switch to AMD for this reason. You probably aren't aware, but a few years back Dell made a big commitment to selling AMD-based machines, and bought tremendous volume of AMD CPUs. Ironically this nearly destroyed AMD. To get the Dell deal they had to offer very low prices, and Dell consumed a huge portion of their output, which alienated their core market (smaller system builders). It was an unmitigated disaster.
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post

Intel is in no danger of losing the desktop or server market ...

yes. Intel Xeons, for example, are far more prevalent than AMD Opterons in the data centre. as for the consumer market, the Core series is doing quite well at the moment.
post #22 of 39
Intel simply doesn't like the whole A4 processor idea. Apple has the power and resources to determine their own destiny.
post #23 of 39
Intel is scared because ipad uses non intel chips and that product is kicking the tail of intel powered computers. 'What intel is saying is that they need to get on this tablet gravy train NOW!
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

...Other phone manufactures are also using ARM, however both Android and WP7 are designed in such a way that they could move between ARM and x86 as opposed to Apple\\iOS that totally cuts out x86 (even to the extent of Apple working on their own ARM SOC)

I don't think it's that drastic, as other posters have pointed out to me previously iOS is really just a version of OS X. So we have "AppleOS" freely moving between ARM and x86 now.

They've learnt their lessons from the PowerPC to Intel transition and I'm sure Apple is ready to go iOS on x86, Mac OS X on ARM all should the occasion arise. I'd be deadly surprised if Apple doesn't have a bunch of gear in Cupertino running OS X (10.7 particularly) on ARM hardware.
post #25 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

I don't get why Intel is so obsessed with the iPad and iPhone. Intel shouldn't be worried about Apple but ARM who's kicking their asses in mobile. Apple is not even in the chip business. They make their own chip for their own use.

Not true. Apple doesn't make any chips.

Apple has licensed an existing design and possibly made some modifications to it (although the modifications appear to be minor. The A4 chip is largely a stock design). In any event, Apple is not a chip maker, they are a chip purchaser.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

The point is that intel vows to supply the majority of chips for mobile devices, not that they will make the actual devices.

Pretty brave boast considering that "Intel does not provide chips to any current smartphones or high-profile tablets."

Zero to dominant in a few years? Not bloody likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

What you are going o find is that over the next few years companies such as Apple will move all of their CPUs away from intel. and THAT is the real reason why they are scared.

Nonsense. There is no sign of companies moving all their CPUs away from Intel. AMD's share has been relatively steady for years and there's no major breakthrough on the horizon that's going to change the CPU market.

The mobile device market is different because ARM has been dominant for years and Intel doesn't even have a competitive product. But no one moved away from Intel because they weren't using Intel in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

And the reason why they don't go after ARM is because they don't make cpus themselves. they just design them.

That's foolish logic. ARM is a competitive chip design. The actual producer of the ARM chip doesn't matter. What does matter is that OEMs are buying ARM chips and Intel wants them to buy Intel chips. If Intel has to be in that market, they have to produce a chip that is competitive to ARM's designs in price, performance and energy usage.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I don't think it's that drastic, as other posters have pointed out to me previously iOS is really just a version of OS X. So we have "AppleOS" freely moving between ARM and x86 now.

They've learnt their lessons from the PowerPC to Intel transition and I'm sure Apple is ready to go iOS on x86, Mac OS X on ARM all should the occasion arise. I'd be deadly surprised if Apple doesn't have a bunch of gear in Cupertino running OS X (10.7 particularly) on ARM hardware.

I don't think it's an issue of the OS moving between the processors, but the huge wealth of applications that run on it. It's fine to switch up things like platforms, OSs, when market share was much lower, but now that macs have broken the 10% barrier, and is becoming more and more used by many, shaking things up like the powerPC, then intel shakeup again, makes users, developers a little fatigued with the changes.
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
What I got... 15" i7 w/8 gigs ram,iPad2 64gig wifi, 2.0 mac mini, 2.0 17" imac, appleTv, Still running my old G4 466 upgraded to 1.2GHz maxed ram as a pro tools machine, and 2 iphones.
Reply
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

I don't think it's that drastic, as other posters have pointed out to me previously iOS is really just a version of OS X. So we have "AppleOS" freely moving between ARM and x86 now.

They've learnt their lessons from the PowerPC to Intel transition and I'm sure Apple is ready to go iOS on x86, Mac OS X on ARM all should the occasion arise. I'd be deadly surprised if Apple doesn't have a bunch of gear in Cupertino running OS X (10.7 particularly) on ARM hardware.

As Groovetube mentions above, it's the 200,000+ iOS applications that would be an issue. They would all need to be rebuilt for the new architecture and resubmitted by the developers. Emulation is an option on the desktop but not really practical in a mobile device.

Apple could potentially use x86 in a new iOS based device that didn't support the existing application store, but the iPod\\iPhone\\iPad are most certainly locked to ARM.

It think that's one of the reasons Apple brought control of the A4 in house. They know they need to maintain quality of the ARM SOC because their entire mobile platform depends so heavily on it.
post #28 of 39
Quote:
The Atom chips have proved to be too power-hungry for most mobile implementations smaller than a netbook.

It isn't necessarily about devices smaller than a netbook, it about specifically phones. A tablet being about the same size as a netbook, could use an Atom but for the sake of the ecosystem, if you are running the A4 in your phone, you will want to use the same architecture in your tablet.

When you get down to the basics of mobile devices, it is about heat and battery life compared to cpu processing power. A4 just has the right balance for current mobile hardware/software implementations.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

I'd say this is more like a 'death march' for Intel. Ironically, Intel acquired an ARM foundry, but chose to go with their own design (Atom) instead. Intel ALWAYS wants to own both the IP and manufacturing capacity. Now they realize that Atom is late and power-hungry compared to other ARM-based designs. Of course, the key is software. They will not only have to convince others to port their software to a design that is more expensive and power hungry. Apple is pretty well set, with their own A4 design, and the rest really don't have a product which competes with iPad. Google is doing well, with Android, but the handsets are mainly ARM-based. Moore's Law doesn't hold up where the design point is watt-per-cycle, not total cycles...

Moore's observation has not been accurate at all about much anything.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/The...f-Moore--s-Law


I agree that Apple is safe in the mobile market with the A4 and I think they will only widen the gap with performance and battery life over the next 18 months. After that, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Intel will be in direct competition with Apple when they release Meego (a Intel\\Nokia mobile OS). From what I've heard relations between the two companies are icy at best.

Other phone manufactures are also using ARM, however both Android and WP7 are designed in such a way that they could move between ARM and x86 as opposed to Apple\\iOS that totally cuts out x86 (even to the extent of Apple working on their own ARM SOC)

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continue to move toward AMD\\custom chips and away from Intel altogether.

As the world pushes toward mobile computing Intel are starting to lose their grip on the chip market and they know it. ARM is by far the biggest single threat to Intel's existence.

Atom so far hasn't delivered on the promise of low power mobile computing (or at least not compared to ARM). The belief is that Medfield (release 2011) will bring Atom in line with ARM and the next iteration (release 2012) could take Atom beyond ARM, however it's impossible to say where ARM (or Apple's custom ARM SOC) will be in 2 years time.

It has also been surmised that Microsoft's lack of presence in the tablet arena is at least partially due to their backing of Intel/Atom and that a custom Windows tablet UI is in development awaiting the release of a mobile SOC from Intel that is competitive with Apple's ARM offering.

So we have...
  • Apple with across the board backing of ARM to the total exclusion of x86 (mobile\\tablet\\living room)
  • Google with the capability to back both
  • Microsoft with WP7 (ARM or x86) and an x86 tablet
  • Intel\\Nokia with MeeGo (presumably to push x86 in both mobile and tablet)
  • RIM - Seems to be ARM across the board
  • HP\\Palm - probably ARM

So there isn't just a battle of the mobile OS's going on, there is a battle of mobile architectures as well!

You forgot
1. Qualcomm
2. Nvidia
3. Marvell also I guess
post #31 of 39
Intel should be more worried about ARM than Apple and their products. It is after all, the single company that is beating them in mobile chip design.
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

We wish that Steve Jobs will leave forever. There are some in Microsoft who wish Bill Gates will come back, but he has moved on behind the simple pursuit of power and domination to more lofty goals to help improve the plight of humanity

In his own way, Steve Jobs is doing the same in his obsession with the role of technology and ease of use, to help consumers and companies. I hope Steve Jobs may have time to devote some of his contemplative time to go further.

But, even if he will not ever take the same course as Bill Gates did, his vision in technology, aesthetics and consumers will endure -- that the consumer is not a simple cash cow. One can profit without forgetting the user.

CGC

An excellent conclusion to your excellent essay, but the 'leave' tripped me up. You wanted 'live' but were autocorrected wrongly, I presume.
post #33 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

As Groovetube mentions above, it's the 200,000+ iOS applications that would be an issue. They would all need to be rebuilt for the new architecture and resubmitted by the developers.
....

All of those 200,000 apps are compiled to x86 code while in development. To test the code on an actual iOS device the same source code is compiled to run on an ARM chip. The x86 code is already being created, it just isn't distributed. It seems like it would be an easy "flip of a switch" to create x86 versions of apps that were created using Apple's development tools.
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Nonsense. There is no sign of companies moving all their CPUs away from Intel. AMD's share has been relatively steady for years and there's no major breakthrough on the horizon that's going to change the CPU market.

The mobile device market is different because ARM has been dominant for years and Intel doesn't even have a competitive product. But no one moved away from Intel because they weren't using Intel in the first place.

A few years ago, all apple computers used intel. Now apple uses other CPUs for some of their product lines. And these happen to be the product lines that are having explossive sales growth, the product lines that have made apple the 2nd most valuable company on the planet.

Intel obviously wants a bigger piece of that new market.
post #35 of 39
What's really sad is that Intel had a pig in this race, the XScale processor line, which they divested in 2006, in order to focus on catching up and win back a lot of business that AMD that won earlier in the desktop PC and server CPU markets. In hindsight, that's probably the right thing for them to do for their survival, but it left them without an adequate mobile CPU. The XScale was in fact, an ARM design, and had Intel kept it going, they might today have one of the best ARM CPUs around.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post

All of those 200,000 apps are compiled to x86 code while in development. To test the code on an actual iOS device the same source code is compiled to run on an ARM chip. The x86 code is already being created, it just isn't distributed. It seems like it would be an easy "flip of a switch" to create x86 versions of apps that were created using Apple's development tools.

It's not impossible, just impractical. Apple would need to co-ordinate the recompilation and resubmission of every application in the store (apparently that has reached 300,000 now!).

Assuming Apple couldn't tell that the two different packages for the two different architectures came from the same code-base, they would also need to do at least some form of recertification for the application (essentially treat it like a version upgrade submission).

For better or worse Apple have locked in ARM for their mobile devices (and unless Intel can pull the proverbial rabbit out of their hat, at the moment it looks like "for better")
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

It's not impossible, just impractical. Apple would need to co-ordinate the recompilation and resubmission of every application in the store (apparently that has reached 300,000 now!).

Assuming Apple couldn't tell that the two different packages for the two different architectures came from the same code-base, they would also need to do at least some form of recertification for the application (essentially treat it like a version upgrade submission).

For better or worse Apple have locked in ARM for their mobile devices (and unless Intel can pull the proverbial rabbit out of their hat, at the moment it looks like "for better")

I could see Apple implementing a Rosetta (emulator) solution if they really, really had no other choice. There are a lot of emulators used on desktops to run arm based applications and some are quite impressive. Not the best way but definitely doable in a pinch.

I happen to agree with you though, they are "all in" on arm. To me on any mobile device, notebooks included, battery life is the biggest deal.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I could see Apple implementing a Rosetta (emulator) solution if they really, really had no other choice. There are a lot of emulators used on desktops to run arm based applications and some are quite impressive. Not the best way but definitely doable in a pinch.

I happen to agree with you though, they are "all in" on arm. To me on any mobile device, notebooks included, battery life is the biggest deal.

I think it's possible in theory but I don't think emulation would work on a mobile platform in practice. There is just too much efficiency lost in the emulation process.

Unless of course, Intel did pull a rabbit out of their hat and released something that was twice as quick, cheaper and used less power than Apple's ARM SOC of the day. Not likely I would think.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I think it's possible in theory but I don't think emulation would work on a mobile platform in practice. There is just too much efficiency lost in the emulation process.

Unless of course, Intel did pull a rabbit out of their hat and released something that was twice as quick, cheaper and used less power than Apple's ARM SOC of the day. Not likely I would think.

I would love to know Apple's answer to this, albeit hypothetical in most likelyhood.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Intel running mobile "marathon," iPhone and iPad have head start