Google looking for chip partners to enable Android to compete with Apple's A9 chip

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 108
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    Evidently, gaming is important to you, so battery life isn't a big issue. Buy the Pixel C or the Shield Tablet and enjoy. My point is that nVidia has stated that they are out of the mobile market, the Tegra is now targeted for vehicles, and indications are that nVidia processors aren't competitive for tablets. As all of the specs haven't been announced to date, it appears that the Pixel C is still being developed. With the rumors of the next A series processors being built System on Package (SoP), it is going to be even more difficult for nVidia to catch up.

     

    Apple obviously has a roadmap for development of the AX series, and Metal supersedes OpenGL for games; there won't be any PC games being ported for the simple reason that the tablet gaming market isn't the same as the PC gaming market. 

     

    Here's a link to a Tegra X1 vs A8X comparison from January of this year:

     

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/04/heres-how-nvidias-new-tegra-x1-stacks-up-to-the-k1-and-apple-a8x-on-paper/

     

    All of those numbers are based on a development system benchmarked by nVidia against an iPad Air 2 with and A8X back in January. Shield TV is the other device using the Tegra X1. With luck, Google will have the Pixel C out in December, eleven months after the Tegra X1 was announced, and now you are counting on the next generation of Tegra to both exceed the performance of the A9X, and ship in a tablet product before Apple drops the A10 or A10X?


    You're making assumptions about me, I have no interest whatsoever in owning an Android tablet.

     

    nVidia has not stated they are leaving the tablet market.  They just aren't making SoC's for cellphones anymore (think Tegra 4i).

     

    Just because the Pixel C is coming out in Q4, doesn't mean that Tegra X1 couldn't have launched months ago inside of a tablet.  Again, it's already been inside the Shield TV since Q2 2015. I can't predict when or what OEM's will do with the hardware, but there should be no reason for the A10/A10X to be on the market before the next generation Tegra SoC is ready for market. 

  • Reply 82 of 108

    People shouldn't forget where Apple's processor expertise came from. It came from two key acquisitions-PA Semi and Intrinisity. The combined cost of these acquisitions was around $500 million. The A-series processors have been instrumental in driving iPhone and iPad sales, so it's safe to say that Apple earned back the money it spent on those two companies several times over.

  • Reply 83 of 108
    MS with Win10 wants to stuff a desktop OS into a phone-sized package... and just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should. As time wears on and portability (weight and size) and battery life become more important, the ARM chip and a matching OS will carry the day...and the Intel/MS strategy will hit limits way before ARM/iOS will.

    The former is just bull-headed thinking, while Apple's way is imaginative thinking.

    As far as competing with iOS, Microsoft's strategy is a losing one. But MSFT would love to take Android's marketshare and such a strategy just might work.

    If MSFT can run a full version of Windows on a sufficiently powered x86 CPU with decent battery life and run the majority of Android applications, most Android users will gravitate toward the platform. Microsoft could easily usurp Android from Google by going after the hardware OEMs. The Surface Pro is only the first volley. As soon as MSFT includes an Android runtime environment and Intel provides a processor competitive with the run on the mill ARM CPU, the Android OEMs are in trouble. Since Android is released for free and can already run on x86, it should be relatively straight forward to include an Android runtime environment within Windows. A Windows phone would then become far more compelling. And if MSFT sucks the air out of the other OEMs? Google's situation is actually pretty precarious.

    MSFT cannot do the same to Apple and iOS for a number of reasons.

    Google is going to find that commoditizing mobile devices can just as easily work against them as much as it did for them.

    It's interesting that the thermonuclear attack Jobs talked regarding Google is going to come from none other than MSFT. Let's see how Google fares this time.
  • Reply 84 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    herbivore wrote: »
    As far as competing with iOS, Microsoft's strategy is a losing one. But MSFT would love to take Android's marketshare and such a strategy just might work.

    If MSFT can run a full version of Windows on a sufficiently powered x86 CPU with decent battery life and run the majority of Android applications, most Android users will gravitate toward the platform. Microsoft could easily usurp Android from Google by going after the hardware OEMs. The Surface Pro is only the first volley. As soon as MSFT includes an Android runtime environment and Intel provides a processor competitive with the run on the mill ARM CPU, the Android OEMs are in trouble. Since Android is released for free and can already run on x86, it should be relatively straight forward to include an Android runtime environment within Windows. A Windows phone would then become far more compelling. And if MSFT sucks the air out of the other OEMs? Google's situation is actually pretty precarious.

    MSFT cannot do the same to Apple and iOS for a number of reasons.

    Google is going to find that commoditizing mobile devices can just as easily work against them as much as it did for them.

    It's interesting that the thermonuclear attack Jobs talked regarding Google is going to come from none other than MSFT. Let's see how Google fares this time.
    Google is doomed.
  • Reply 85 of 108
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Google is doomed.

    Actually, Google doesn't (yet anyway) have a viable desktop platform competitive to MS or Apple, and other open source OS's have better current opportunities. That isn't to say that Chrome OS is dead, or that Android OS can't be extended, but Google is finding itself limited today by the breadth and depth of its offerings in its ecosystem comparative to the competition. The fact that the tablet processor in the Pixel C, a product not yet delivered or fully spec'ed to the public, is a Tegra X1, against the delivery this week of the iPad Pro with the A9 X, and availability of x86 Surface and Surface Pro, would  be worrying. Hence the desire for Google to have more control of the processor design and manufacture.

     

    I expect that ultimately, Qualcomm and Samsung will solve the tablet processor issue for Android OS, but it doesn't appear that Google will be able to improve its position in the desktop market, and will continue be a runner up in the tablet market.

  • Reply 86 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    tmay wrote: »
    Actually, Google doesn't (yet anyway) have a viable desktop platform competitive to MS or Apple, and other open source OS's have better current opportunities. That isn't to say that Chrome OS is dead, or that Android OS can't be extended, but Google is finding itself limited today by the breadth and depth of its offerings in its ecosystem comparative to the competition. The fact that the tablet processor in the Pixel C, a product not yet delivered or fully spec'ed to the public, is a Tegra X1, against the delivery this week of the iPad Pro with the A9 X, and availability of x86 Surface and Surface Pro, would  be worrying. Hence the desire for Google to have more control of the processor design and manufacture.

    I expect that ultimately, Qualcomm and Samsung will solve the tablet processor issue for Android OS, but it doesn't appear that Google will be able to improve its position in the desktop market, and will continue be a runner up in the tablet market.
    Does it need to improve it's position in desktop search? Actually I think it would be advantageous for Google NOT to take any further share. In fact I think that it's by Google's intent that Microsoft products are suddenly appearing on mobile devices preloaded, including Google Android ones.
  • Reply 87 of 108
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Does it need to improve it's position in desktop search? Actually I think it would be advantageous for Google NOT to take any further share. In fact I think that it's by Google's intent that Microsoft products are suddenly appearing on mobile devices preloaded, including Google Android ones.

    Not at all, but Alphabet may want to create more opportunities for hardware sales.

  • Reply 88 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    tmay wrote: »
    Not at all, but Alphabet may want to create more opportunities for hardware sales.
    Probably, but how would a greater percentage of search drive hardware sales?
  • Reply 89 of 108
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Probably, but how would a greater percentage of search drive hardware sales?

    More like, how much will Siri and Cortana impact search for Google?

  • Reply 90 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    tmay wrote: »
    More like, how much will Siri and Cortana impact search for Google?
    I hope they do to at least some extent. The answer why Google would like it might not be so obvious tho. Anyway, I guess you've rethought the connection between Google's ability to sell more hardware products themselves and the high percentage of search requests they already handle? Personally I think of them as two separate elements of their business.
  • Reply 91 of 108
    Intel literally sees themselves in a life and death situation. They are desperately working to produce a viable x86 CPU than can compete with ARM in the convergence of desktop and mobile computing. Microsoft missed out on mobile but can leverage its legacy OS and the breadth of available software. Apple has created its own vibrant ecosystem. To be fair, Google has created its own marketplace also. However, Apple's is vertically integrated and Google followed the commodity model. Google's marketplace is about to be swallowed by Microsoft and Intel.

    Apple has a very capable CPU and will very likely incorporate the A(n)X into their desktop lines at some point. Every other device in the Apple lineup is now on ARM save the desktop and laptop lines.

    Google does not have a capable desktop OS and the available ARM CPUs are not up to doing the job. Samsung is capable of producing a desktop class ARM CPU but it's going to take time. Google should have been working far more closely with Samsung 3 to 4 years ago when they had a chance. It's probably too late. Microsoft is bringing it and so is Intel. Google's Android is now in the crosshairs. It is doubtful that Google will be able to survive unscathed.

    Google should have been concerned far more with MSFT all along as it turns out. Microsoft is selling Surface Pros pretty well. That trend will likely accelerate and very likely come at the expense of Android marketshare.
  • Reply 92 of 108
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Does it need to improve it's position in desktop search? Actually I think it would be advantageous for Google NOT to take any further share. In fact I think that it's by Google's intent that Microsoft products are suddenly appearing on mobile devices preloaded, including Google Android ones.

    Microsoft would have no compunction in taking Google's search engine off any and all Windows devices, both desktop and mobile. Hence Google's/Alphabet's precarious position.

    With Apple's marketshare, MSFT does not have to worry about the monopoly issue in taking on Google head on. And that's where they are headed. Google is now in a race against time. They had better hope they can work with someone in coming up with a CPU that offers unique functionality on mobile devices running Android, that the functionality is a show stopper, and in a timely fashion before MSFT and INTC can release even better products. Otherwise, Android users will begin the migration back to Wintel. I've not seen many dump their iPads for a surface/surface pro. But with the release of the surface/surface pro, the Android tablets have nearly entirely disappeared. And MSFT can lock out Google search like they did with the Netscape browser all those years ago. This time without having to worry about antitrust issues given Apple's position.

    Siri and Cortana will be the next battlefield for search. Google's platform dreams are going to go up in a puff. They did themselves no favors in attempting to make Android a commodity model and worked with Intel porting Android onto x86. It's now going to come back and bite them hard. The unfortunate thing for them is that MSFT is going for the jugular.

    Won't make much of a difference to me as I don't use anything from Google. Whether the company lives or dies does not matter. Looking at things from an objective viewpoint, Google is now going to be in a fight for it's very survival. And that fight is with MSFT, not Apple.
  • Reply 93 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    herbivore wrote: »
    Looking at things from an objective viewpoint, Google is now going to be in a fight for it's very survival. And that fight is with MSFT, not Apple.
    Google is doomed
  • Reply 94 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    herbivore wrote: »

    Google should have been concerned far more with MSFT all along as it turns out. Microsoft is selling Surface Pros pretty well.
    You've apparently forgotten that Microsoft was the reason Google was so interested in Android and mobile in the first place, over 10 years ago now. It wasn't Apple they were worried about back then.
  • Reply 95 of 108
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You've apparently forgotten that Microsoft was the reason Google was so interested in Android and mobile in the first place, over 10 years ago now. It wasn't Apple they were worried about back then.

    It seems that Google took their eyes off of MSFT and focused their efforts based on what Apple was doing instead. Big mistake on their part. MSFT has big plans in bringing Windows to mobile. And it involves making Windows the preferred development platform and giving the platform the ability to run iOS and Android applications.

    3D force touch and Apple pay are just two things that come immediately to mind that Windows will not be able to run. Android apps are a much different story.

    I actually like the Surface Pro. If it can run the majority of Android applications, one would not need to purchase an Android device at all. For Google, it means search calls get routed instead to the Bing engine built right into the software. Potential for disastrous loss of advertising dollars if such a Windows platform gains traction and negatively impacts the sale of Android devices. It is a very realistic scenario.

    Google may be doomed. We shall see if they are able to outflank MSFT by partnering up with a CPU design firm. It would look to be a long shot.
  • Reply 96 of 108
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,087member
    herbivore wrote: »
    It seems that Google took their eyes off of MSFT and focused their efforts based on what Apple was doing instead. Big mistake on their part. MSFT has big plans in bringing Windows to mobile. And it involves making Windows the preferred development platform and giving the platform the ability to run iOS and Android applications. .
    Microsoft has had big plans for mobile for a looong time. Billions of dollars and 10 years later they still have big plans. I doubt Google has ever taken their eyes off them.
  • Reply 97 of 108
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Microsoft has had big plans for mobile for a looong time. Billions of dollars and 10 years later they still have big plans. I doubt Google has ever taken their eyes off them.

    I agree.

     

    I think that Google has a huge advantage in search on the desktop and that they could shore that up with more desktop hardware offerings (Chrome OS evolution/Android OS on Windows), but whether they do that or not isn't all that big a deal.

     

    Apple holds a prominent premium position, and Siri and Cortana might might have a slight negative impact on Google search. Arguably, Android OS and iOS ecosystems are so dominant as to place MS's mobile at risk yet again. I'm just not seeing the uptake.

     

    Tablets and hybrids are really the only niche that MS has a chance of improving in, and I'm not seeing any huge benefit to MS from consumers switching from notebooks to hybrids; it seems a wash to me, contrary to the optimism that it will lead to improve ASP's.

     

    Ultimately, Android OS has had good success with a breadth of offerings in mobile, and really only needs to up its game in tablets to block MS. A couple of decent ARM offerings from Qualcomm or Samsung, and Google is back in the game. 

  • Reply 98 of 108
    tmay wrote: »
    I agree.

    Ultimately, Android OS has had good success with a breadth of offerings in mobile, and really only needs to up its game in tablets to block MS. A couple of decent ARM offerings from Qualcomm or Samsung, and Google is back in the game. 
  • Reply 99 of 108
    Intel is desperately pouring resources into their mobile CPUs. A big winner from Intel running Windows 10 along with Android applications in a phone or tablet would take a lot of sales away from the Android OEMs.

    Samsung is unlikely to work with Google with respect to CPU design for fear of the risk of losing Apple's business. Qualcomm might, but TSMC won't be fabbing it on the state of the process also for fear of potentially losing Apple's business. Intel won't fab it. Guess that leaves Global Foundries who may also turn Google down as they also stand to get a lot of Apple's business.

    I guess Google is going to work with Qualcomm to design the CPU and start building their own fabrication plants. Or have the CPUs built on old nodes that aren't competitive.

    I mean how long will people buy Android phones built on GOOG/QCOM CPUs built on old nodes if windows 10 phones run Android apps. faster?

    MSFT is not done. They aren't done by a long shot. And Google is far more vulnerable than AAPL. After all, if Google play calls are actually being handled by the windows equivalent, how will Google continue to drive their advertising based revenue model?

    The fact that Google is going this route speaks of desperation. The company worked hard to turn smartphones into a commodity model. Now they are turning around and trying to turn them back into a proprietary model?

    The only people I see buying Android tablets? Very frugal people who spend virtually nothing on Google Play. In the workplace environment, Surface pros seem to be multiplying like rabbits.

    When all is said and done, it will still be Apple and Microsoft. Google will be an afterthought. That day is coming. I for one will not mourn the loss of Google.

    Sorry guys, SSNLF and QCOM can't save that company.
  • Reply 100 of 108
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Microsoft has had big plans for mobile for a looong time. Billions of dollars and 10 years later they still have big plans. I doubt Google has ever taken their eyes off them.

    Billions of dollars and several years later also hasn't stopped Intel either.

    Only Apple will be able to take on Intel with respect to CPU design.

    Intel's laptop CPUs handily beat Qualcomm's mobile offerings.

    Windows 10 running on an Intel CPU will be an awfully hard combination to beat going forward. Especially with the ability to run the breadth of Android applications.

    The Windows guys are literally salivating at the prospect of taking away Android's ARM market share. They have good reason too. The buzzards are beginning to circle. Google is worried. And what they are proposing reeks of desperation.
Sign In or Register to comment.