Intel Relying On Ice Cream Sandwich For Tablet Push 215
An anonymous reader writes "Intel thinks tablets live and die by their software, not their hardware. So as they get ready for a big push into the mobile device market, they're relying on Ice Cream Sandwich to provide competition with Apple's products. From the article: 'The company has largely watched from the sidelines as mobile device makers have used processors based on ARM's microarchitecture to power their products in recent years. This despite the fact that Intel actually predicted the rise of what it called "mobile Internet devices," or MIDs, several years ago, and built a chip, Atom, for such gadgets. For all that [Intel CEO Paul Otellini] touts the software over the hardware when it comes to tablets, Intel knows it's got a lot of ground to make up to wrest design wins away from ARM. The Medfield System-on-a-Chip (SoC) is a promising but still uncertain step in that direction.' Otellini thinks the tablet market will get much more competitive over the next year as ICS devices mature and Windows 8 devices arrive."
Medfield (Score:2)
Intel won't succeed with its first iteration but it will slow down ARM a bit in an overall growing market, Intel might even take the low to mid of the market and leave the high end to ARM for now as Medfield is only competitive with ARM processors from a year ago. Both ARM and Intel will gain marketshare and eventually the market might become split between them, I don't foresee a 3rd player, maybe MIPS in the form of the Chinese-derivative Loongson?
Re: (Score:2)
What? Intel has been announcing they are just about to release a mobile chip for phones for at least 5 years. And the chip will totally dominate and kick ARM to the curb. And with Apple's recent reorganization of the computer hardware industry with the iPad, they're complete failure to actually release such a chip just hurts more.
Finally, both Intel and MS deciding that they mustn't hurt their margins entering this new market means their less functional, more power-hungry systems will still cost more than
Re:Medfield (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem for both Intel & Microsoft is that software for PCs are still pretty pricey, while software for tablets is really cheap, thanks to the repository stores. People who would mull over whether to spend $30 on a game would have no hesitation spending $1.99 or even $4.99 on it. Since the tablets have such inexpensive software, people can get a whole bunch of them, and Wintel can't have as many to offer there. So their trump card would be to offer Windows 8 tablets based on Medfield, and hope that it sticks. That's the only thing I can imagine bailing out Windows 8 from a fiasco in the tablet marketplace.
Tablets ain't gonna replace office laptops or servers, so there, both Intel & Microsoft are safe. But as far as home usage goes, tablets - particularly once they go head to head w/ PCs in price - will be seen as more and more attractive. As it is, the elimination of VGA and DVI from monitors is going to make a lot of monitors outdated, even though they are functioning just fine, while there will be so many affordable software titles available that at least on the home front, it has a good chance of heavily eroding the home PC business.
Re: (Score:2)
Does calling your operating system "Ice Cream Sandwich" sound really gay and unnecessary to anyone else? Like, say hypothetically. "Yeah man, I'm multi booting Linux, Ice Cream Sandwich, and Windows."
Is this what it has boiled down to? ChaCha? Twitter? Blogosphere? Web 2.0?
Couldn't we name use apt names for stuff, not drool spattered about by the UGA advertising major type?
Just call it "ICE" and then chill out.
Re:Medfield (Score:5, Informative)
maybe MIPS in the form of the Chinese-derivative Loongson?
That's already happening, and they're selling like hotcakes. http://www.mobilemag.com/2012/01/12/79-ainol-novo-7-paladin-tablet-does-ice-cream-sandwich/ [mobilemag.com]
The problem for Intel is the price of these SoCs:
http://rhombus-tech.net/allwinner_a10/ [rhombus-tech.net]
They may not be as capable as the Atom, but they're good enough to make very usable tablets at 1/10th the price.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's strictly a geek thing, but I'm not using any computer with a processor named "Allwinner".
Sorry, it ain't happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel won't succeed with its first iteration
Based on what? This isn't Microsoft software.
You do realize that "its first iteration" has come and gone already, right? This is "Mk 2", anyway. They wet their toe with the Atom, which was massively, massively successful, being used in everything from netbooks to desktops and even low-end servers (it is, by far, the most common CPU in my house right now: a low-end pfsense machine, a Logitech Revue, an Asus Eee, and a file server).
This thing is going to be pure Evil to ARM, particularly if it can handle thin
Not so fast Intel... (Score:2, Interesting)
Otellini thinks the tablet market will get much more competitive over the next year as ICS devices mature and Windows 8 devices arrive.
Intel should know that from last year, there's not been a tallet market save for an Ipad market [internet2go.net]. I do not think matters will change until Google and its partners tame the chaos within the Android ecosystem.
You ask your self: Why has a hugely successful company like Samsung released a [very compelling] Galaxy Note tablet based on already outdated software? Promising an update does not cut it either. It only showcases the chaos within the ecosystem, giving trolls fodder to feed on. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Apple now is almost down to a 50% market share in tablets, right?
Would you be so kind to provide a source for that? The most recent numbers I could find are in the Guardian [guardian.co.uk], where it's 88% worldwide and 95.5% in the US, from November 21, 2011.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Apple now is almost down to a 50% market share in tablets, right?
Ok, I think I found what you were referring to: it's 61% of all sales in Q3 2011 [guardian.co.uk]. However, remember that the iPad2 will soon be replaced by an updated model, which will boost the sales market share. Same thing happened with the iPhone 4S.
Bad Move! (Score:3)
Bad move, Intel. I used to rely on an ice cream sandwich. Then Häagen-Dazs stopped making 'em and everything else in my life went to complete shit for about three months. Take it from someone who's been down that road: if you're going to rely on ice cream sandwich, do not commit unless you have control of the supply chain.
Atom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If Intel does that, there was never a reason to abandon ARM, or sell XScale to Marvell. What can they do - change the Itanium product strategy (since it's failed on servers) and come out w/ energy efficient CPUs based on the Itanium instruction set? It'll abandon the 30 year old heritage and backwards compatibility all right, but what guarantee is there that it will be successful?
Maybe they could try doing a VLIW or EPIC version of ARM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Packaging techniques, and solutions, are another game altogether, and one anybody can play. You have companies like Tessera, which are pioneers in this field, and either Intel, ARM or any of the other vendors can come up w/ solutions like PoP, or other techniques that would enable tighter integration into smaller form factors. x86 itself is not a roadblock to that, but there ain't much that can be done to reduce what goes into an x86 CPU, as opposed to most others. But you are right - ARM is pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ARM's designs are very well established in the field now, with many manufacturers commited to using chips based on them.
ARM has some very talented chip designers, but interestingly the company is no longer relying on them for the success of the ecosystem. The ARMv8 ISA is now finalised, but ARM is letting other companies take the lead in bringing implementations to market. This is quite an interesting strategy. The main criticism for ARMv7 is that there is no second source at the top of the supply chain. The closest is Qualcomm, but their Snapdragon is based on the ARM Cortex A8 (just heavily modified). Complete third-p
Re: (Score:2)
what you and everyone else is forgetting is that the CPU is only part of the power consumption of a phone/tablet. There's the screen, radios, usb/micro-sd and the GPU. In the case of Intel, the Medfield system is already approaching the total power demand of an iPhone/iPad from the SoC. Another factor everyone dismisses is WIn8 and WP8 as the Medfield is x86, it'll be able to run Windows natively.
Another factor that will come into play with Win8 is Corporate purchases. If there's one thing MS knows well, i
Windows 8 (Score:2)
Actually, the best platform for Intel's Tablet push would be Microsoft's Windows 8 - it could do some minimal salvage of both Intel & Microsoft in the tablet market by offering a key advantage not there in iOS or Android - Windows compatibility. Windows 8 for ARM ain't gonna run those gazillion Windows apps out there, but Windows 8 on an Medfield may, and that would be the main selling point of Wintel tablets.
Otherwise, concede that the tablet market is an ARM monopoly (unless anyone comes out w/ MIP
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so which other CPU has any noticable presence in the tablet market? x86? MIPS? Power? Yeah, there are different companies that have licensed the architecture and are making different implementations of the CPU, be it TI, Qualcomm, Freescale, Apple, nVidia, et al but at the end of the day, the market is an ARM market, and not anything else.
Same w/ the comment about Apple/Google - they pretty much have the bulk of the market. Others, like RIM, HP, Microsoft are asterisk players in this market
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there are many companies using the ARM architecture is exactly what keeps it from becoming a monopoly.
Just look at the first root word in monopoly. Mono, meaning one. In the context of market, and business it means one company. Now if all, or most of the companies producing ARM based chips colluded to fix prices then that would be illegal, but it wouldn't be a monopoly, it would be collusion.
Anyway being a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that status to leverage your way into other markets is.
The hardware is not important? (Score:3)
How weard is it for somebody to claim that the hardware it not important, the important thing is the software, and go on talking on how they'll create a product with the same software everybody else uses.
Yeah, the hardware is not important... I'll belive it when you stop using Android.
apps? (Score:2)
I don't get it.
Sure, Intel may port android to atom platform.
But what about apps?
The average dev builds ARM binaries, and that it not about to change.
Even if they build for other architectures, it is hard to test without actual hardware test devices.
That's not how I take my medication. (Score:2)
Ice cream does sound a bit more delicious though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't wait and see.... Windows CE was around on tablets (including ARM and MIPS-based ones) for a long time before Android ever existed. They were typically called Handheld PC or Palm-size PC devices. Windows CE 2.1 was actually pretty tolerable on the HP 320LX and Sharp Mobilon HC4100 I had. Never liked releases much past that.
Apple also had "tablets" long before Android, iOS, etc. The Newton MessagePad of which the 2100 was actually really nice and the eMate 300 bit slow but cool nonetheles
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly the attitude that landed MS on last place on the mobile market. Calling its potential users morons and retards for wanting a sloppy dumbed-down UI, when in reality they were just average users who wanted a simple interface.
It doesn't matter when WinCE was around when it didn't deliver what people wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
It didn't deliver what 14-year-olds wanted. It delivered what business users and field techs wanted quite nicely.
Re: (Score:3)
I tried to use several types of PDAs etc for a decade in business environment. It was always more trouble than it was worth. Until iphone came along in 2007.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't called WinCE for nothing. And you guys think that Open Source folks can't name products....
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, so Compaq made iPaqs for a decade and never sold one. And HP never sold any Jornadas either. Never mind Linux also ran on the same hardware for years using either the GPE or OPIE environments or even sometimes plain X11.
Complex apps are near impossible to write for touch-based devices with small screens and the Android API and standard widget libraries suck. I would MUCH rather use OPIE on small screens. They could have done touch UI's back then but people who work for a living (the target market f
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about that. WinCE was way, way ahead of competitors for some time in many ways, right up until they abandoned Windows CE in preference for "Windows Phone". Things like:
* Mobile access to commonly emailed documents
* A good integrated mail client
* Thorough integrated contact management
* Excellent 3rd party mapping/GPS software
* Streaming and local video support
These are things Apple still lacks, and which Android devices are just now coming around to doing well. WinCE's biggest shortcomings were
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's talk about the other two typical problems with WinCE devices.
Until 2003, portable Windows CE devices nearly always had volatile storage. It was nearly part of the spec.
Windows CE's interface made no concession to small devices whatsoever, meaning they had to be operated with a stylus. Who cares about ugly, let's talk about usability.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Previous technology was engineered towards the goal of giving tools to businesses and professionals. Current devices are engineered as "entertainment devices". Microsoft never implied its potential users were retards at all. They just never considered the retard market being so large. They thought they would sell to businesses first and it would trickle outward. Like every other thing they have ever done.
Every other company gave up when they realized tablets were bad interfaces for productivity tasks. Only one company thought to turn it into an interactive idiot box, err.... television set.
"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public"
H.L. Mencken as channeled by Steve Jobs
Re: (Score:3)
You are implying that businessmen and "professionals" are all adept at electronics. And conversely that if you are not an expert in IT, then you must be living in a trailer park, collecting unemployment.
And yes, a tablet has some severe restrictions. But the things it can do, it does with a lot more ease.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:4, Interesting)
Another big failing with WinCE was that it's compatibility with itself was horrendous. If you bought an application that said it was WinCE compatible, there was a very good chance you couldn't run it on your device. Apple solved this by having stricter APIs and a very limited set of hardware. Android solved this by visualizing the processor. When WinCE was released, the Apple path of limited hardware was really the only path MS could have taken for compatibility, as the hardware wasn't up to snuff yet for emulation. I suspect the didn't do that because it was in direct opposition to how they made their fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they have goofy oversized widgets for sloppy finger-based simple computer usage by retards? No. They were pen based. You know..... for functional useful software in a professional environment instead of a web browser on steroids for morons that can't type or write legibly anyway.
And the sales figures for all of these were shit. I think you agree with Intel: it's all about the software.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Much better than the froth and venom spewing from GP.
Wonder how an Android/iOS interface would differ if it was limited to resistive screens? (And I don't mean how would some nasty Chinese toilet tablet work. How would things be different from the ground up with resistive screens more firmly in mind.)
Re: (Score:2)
There were resistive-capacitive screens around at the time, as well. Many of the resistive screens weren't all that bad, either - I had an NEC MobilePro 780 and its screen did not require that much pressure to activate at all (arguably being more accurate than most capacitive screens I've seen since, even while using just a finger). It all depended on the display in use, I suppose.
On the contrary, it took me weeks to get accustomed to the capacitive-only screen on my first smartphone. Talk about irritating.
Re: (Score:2)
Never noticed that on my Psion 5mx. Perhaps I have superhuman strength or something.
True, you could only use it for simple things (the same as an ordinary mouse) - select, drag etc. No gestures and stuff. But the UI was so well designed - no frills, clean, logical - it was really easy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit relative to computer sales at the time or tablet sales of today.
Why the haterade for people who use computers in a different way and for different reasons than you do? "Poke-and-drool"? "Computer illiterate"? Is it necessary to tear down others to make you feel better? Do you simply not know how to communicate your thoughts and ideas in a more positive manor? Let go of the negativity, man. Your blood pressure will thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No I'm just tired of having to pay double for a machine useful as a tool instead of a locked-down funnel for paid entertainment content.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows CE 2.1 was actually pretty tolerable on the HP 320LX
DOS on the HP 200LX was much better than the 320 LX. A working RS-232 port, something so few put in, great for a roaming terminal, and people got them working with bar scanners and such for mobile inventory years before there was an App for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The 320LX had an RS232 port. Just slap a null-modem adapter on the sync cable. PCMCIA RS232 and ethernet cards could be used as well. There was plenty of inventory software for WinCE.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Informative)
You missed the mark... What made the iPhone break thorough was the fine integration work. I had a WinCE PDA a decade ago, too, and it was an absolute nightmare to use for anything... Little things like the power button putting the device into standby (instead of just shutting off the screen) made it useless as an MP3/Ogg player.
The apps were all massively crippled. Pocket Office was inferior to Wordpad. Browsers were all crap, crippled compared to desktop versions, and nobody had figured out how to render full sized web pages on a 240x320 screen. They were still massively dependent on desktops. And worst of all, WinCE was just unresponsive crap. It was laggy as hell on 300MHz+ CPUs when Palm and others were snappy on 30MHz CPUs. The start menu model was never a good idea. And I despised having to go download a REGISTRY EDITOR for my PDA first thing to fix insanely stupid default settings...
Now if you actually wanted to get stuff done, Psions were awesome. Slide-out keyboard. Office suite that allowed composing pretty full-featured documents, even embedding charts and drawings into documents, and printing them out directly to the nearest IRDA enabled laser printer. There, some of the limitations were avoided just because the portrait display eliminated side-to-side scrolling with web browsing and whatnot. Even had a PDF reader, but you'd have to squint to read the tiny fonts, or deal with side-side scrolling every line... the software that makes smartphones tolerable today just wasn't even a dream back then.
Re: (Score:2)
I never got a chance to play with the Psion.
I'll concede that WinCE had crap browsers but most browsers sucked back then, especially mobile.
My 75MHz MIPS-based Mobilon 4100 wasn't all that slow. It choked on things once in a while. It was far from perfect but didn't exactly suck.
I was more more of a NewtonOS fan myself. The MP2100 was quite nice. Never got a chance to play with Psion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Psion 5MXs were astonishingly good. The keyboards were twice as good as anything since.
This N900 I'm writing on is the only usable PDA since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The apps were all massively crippled. Pocket Office was inferior to Wordpad. Browsers were all crap, crippled compared to desktop versions, and nobody had figured out how to render full sized web pages on a 240x320 screen.
I go into detail about that here:
http://dotancohen.com/eng/dell_axim.php [dotancohen.com]
I must note that every complaint that I had about that Windows Mobile device is about three times more valid for todays tablets. One step forward, four steps back.
Re: (Score:3)
"Did they have goofy oversized widgets for sloppy finger-based simple computer usage by retards? No. They were pen based. You know..... for functional useful software in a professional environment instead of a web browser on steroids for morons that can't type or write legibly anyway."
I love you.
*hugs Thinkpad tablet* (no, not the slow-ass Android version - a REAL Thinkpad tablet!).
Re: (Score:3)
Just like microsoft had a wait and see attitude with mobile phone OS then iOS and Android swept the market and then they released windows mobile 7 to a world that didn't care.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Microsoft entered the mobile device business long before Apple and Linux, the problem was that they sucked. Really bad. Until Windows Mobile 7 I always told people "whatever phone you get, make sure it doesn't have Windows on it". Now nobody asks me anymore... the question is "should I buy an Apple or something with Android on it?". So you're right about the not caring bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like microsoft had a wait and see attitude with mobile phone OS then iOS and Android swept the market and then they released windows mobile 7 to a world that didn't care.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Microsoft entered the mobile device business long before Apple and Linux, the problem was that they sucked.
I dunno. Someone upthread remarked on the Apple Newtons, which were released a couple of years before the first release of Windows CE. No idea when Windows Pen first came out. Certainly none of these early attempts were that much earlier than the others.
But your basic point seems mostly correct: Microsoft did have some initial offerings that considerably predate Android and iOS. Perhaps OP is referring to Windows Mobile 7 & 8?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But your basic point seems mostly correct: Microsoft did have some initial offerings that considerably predate Android and iOS.
As did blackberry, nokia, palm and probably others.
Apple reinvented the smartphone by bringing together the multitouch capacitive touch screen with a proper browser engine to make a phone that people actually felt comfortable using the web on. About a year later they introduced a heavily hyped app store and were able to bring together far more apps than other phone vendors had managed in the past.
Google turned android (which aiui was already in development as a blackberry clone) into an iphone clone complet
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if Windows 8 is terrible, personally, I think Android will end up losing the tablet war. The reason is that windows 8 will be able to leverage its existing base of "software capital", and bulldoze its way into the tablet market. Android simply does not have certain critical software (e.g. - MS Word) running on it.
Think of it this way. The mass market desktop pc will die. For the vast majority of users, a simple tablet like device, with word processi
Re: (Score:2)
having looked at windows 8, i would have to say that it is what makes me think it is (not "will be") terrible. granted it was the developers preview but even that was enough to make me run screaming in the other direction i have been unable to sleep due to the nightmares its memory has brought me ever since.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Informative)
What makes you think Windows 8 will be terrible?
I'm using the Developer's Preview right now and I can tell you it's annoying as Hell, and it's not gonna change. Why? Because the things that make it annoying are things Microsoft wants to push.
There's no real Start menu. All programs have to be launched either from the Metro interface, an Explorer window of the program folder, or having the app docked on the taskbar. The Metro-enhanced apps look great on the Metro launcher, but regular apps just get their Start menu files added as tiles.I have several tiles labeled "Uninstaller" but I have no idea what program they uninstall because they aren't grouped at all with their parent programs like they were in folders on the old Start menu. Same with those apps "Read Me" files. But if Microsoft put a regular start menu in people would likely jump right into the Desktop and not even bother with Microsoft's Metro at all, continuing to use their PC like they did in Vista/7. That would threaten Microsoft's plan to steer everyone into using their Metro app store and taking a 30% cut, like Apple does on their App Store. There's also a lack of regular menus in Explorer. It's been replaced with the Ribbon interface. Microsoft sees Ribbons as the future: usability or customer preference be damned.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds pretty bad to me although I think non-technical users might not care.
The less technical the users are the more they will care. To the people who just don't get computers not having a start button or desktop means they now know just a little more than before they started using windows.
They will hate it because it they will have to figure out the crazy methods (see xkcd comic, cant find it) to do stuff all over again.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for that clear answer. Sounds pretty bad to me although I think non-technical users might not care,
The Metro interface itself needs more work to show it can cut it as a launcher interface, too. In its current incarnation, it's scrolls left and right. You can move it with the scroll wheel on your mouse or drag a scroll bar that appears on the bottom, but it feels like a kludge way to navigate through all your apps. It's like someone up in Redmond suddenly realized "oh yeah, you have to have a touch-screen to swipe! That might be a problem for people who don't (like almost all desktop users)". Besides the "extra files" getting tossed into the interface in separate tiles I mentioned, there's the problem or navigating large collections of apps. On a tablet this isn't so much of an issue because of the more limited storage space on tablets, but on a desktop machines you could find yourself getting a bit weary scrolling through all those tiles to reach something at the other end. A full install of the Adobe CS4 Master Collection adds 25 new tiles to the Metro grid. There needs to be a way of dividing the "Full" Metro launcher view into sub-screens, like you can on iOS when you pull up specific "genres" of apps (or like you had programs and their support files segregated into folders named for the publisher on the old Start menu). Non-tech users will feel this as well once they have a healthy collection of free games from the Metro store or traditional apps from other places installed.
The Metro UI (and the included apps that come with it) are also obviously written under the assumption your screen is 13" or smaller. The Metro apps all run full-screen (and can't be changed to windowed) and their controls are all oversize for a desktop environment (I have a 1920x1200 display -- waste. of. space. ). I hate it when I hit certain links in the Desktop zone (usually in control panels) and for some reason instead of Firefox launching IE is coded to launch instead. And not the Desktop (normal) IE, but the Metro full screen version that whooshes everything else I'm working on out of view. I've also been unable to find a way to actually Exit any of these Metro apps, either. I can click out of them and back to the Launcher, but I cannot stop the process without actually End Tasking them from the Process Manager. They eventually go into a "hibernation"-like state instead if you don't use them. Also amusing: the Process Manager keeps track of network utilization and data usage on a per-app basis (obviously written with tablets and metered 3G data plans in mind).
but what interested me most was the bit about the 30% cut with the Metro App Store.
Correction: It's 20% for above $25,000 in sales [tomshardware.com]. But it is exactly what it appears, Microsoft finding a way to take a cut from application sales revenue on programs they ha nothing to do with writing, just like Apple's store.
Re: (Score:2)
Best Buy and NewEgg have warehouses and (in BB's case) brick and mortar stores to pay for. How does their markup compare to Microsoft's, btw?
The only way to publish Metro apps is going to be through Microsoft's App Store. Developers wont be able to sidestep them and sell direct to consumers (like they can sidestep NE/BB). They can still make regular Desktop Apps, but with making Metro the default UI that could be seen as making your software a "second-class citizen".
Maybe I would have less issue with their
Re: (Score:2)
Best Buy and NewEgg have warehouses and (in BB's case) brick and mortar stores to pay for. How does their markup compare to Microsoft's, btw?
Yes and Apple has no expenses whatsoever. It's not like Apple has to build data centers and maintain an infrastructure where there 200 million users can start downloading one of 100,000 apps within seconds of purchasing one. I guess people think that just because someone doesn't have physical store but an online store, they have no capital expenditures at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This developer's preview is on a desktop (Core i7 920, 6 GB RAM). I am under the impression there is only going to be ONE "Windows 8", and everyone will run it. I have seen nothing to suggest there are separate versions (except for 32 and 64 bit) or that the one I am using is meant for a tablet device. The Desktop mode is full of "normal" sized UI elements just like Windows 7 that would be hard to control on a small screen. I suppose Microsoft could opt to do their "Home", "Professional", "Ultimate" feature
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
how about that on a basic level, you don't try to have a consistent interface between portable devices and desktops/laptops. That's just a no, and a bad idea.
Granted you can turn off metro, but even approaching this idea in 2011-2012 when it clearly has been demonstrated by the market to be an unconditionally horrible idea and to go ahead with it anyway? Is this really a hard thing to figure out?
Even for "android on laptops" via chromebooks, you don't have them setting it up as the exact same interface all
Re: (Score:2)
KDE did the right thing by having completely different designs for desktops vs netbooks (I believe what they call netbooks is basically their interface for tablets). The requirements of the 2 are different, since it's a lot more trivial to land one's finger anywhere on a screen than move a mouse pointer all over it. As a result, they have 2 good interfaces for either platform.
Indeed, the decision to force Metro - which would be fine as a tablet interface - on to the desktop defies any logic, the usabili
Re: (Score:3)
The above claim - of Windows 8 being able to run legacy Wintel software - will only be true about Windows 8 tablets based on x86, not ARM. Windows 8 on ARM will not run legacy Wintel software any more than Windows NT on Alpha or MIPS ever ran legacy Wintel software, which given the lack of native support, ended up being their undoing. Windows 8 has not been attracting ISVs the way Apple or Google have, and so that platform will depend mainly, if not solely, on support for legacy apps. If Medfield can tru
Re: (Score:2)
As for your questio
Re: (Score:2)
You make some interesting points. However, the Win32 API will probably remain the same. As such, it will be a simple matter of recompiling legacy apps for ARM. I don't see the big problem here?
"Simply recompile" was the argument used to show how portable UNIX was across platforms. However, the end user isn't going to recompile (and the vendor isn't going to hand out the source code to let the end user recompile), so the legacy app just won't work.
(Unless they adopt a true hardware abstraction layer like IBM's AS/400, where the app code was recompiled on the fly for the new architecture on first use. But since x86 apps weren't distributed that way, then it won't happen)
Re: (Score:2)
'Simply recompile' was also a valid argument w/ NT on RISC, but as we all know, vendors never bothered recompiling their apps for those platforms, and neither was most of the source code available. However, MS VC++ did exist for RISC platforms, but no one came. Since developers haven't been flocking to Windows 8, I don't see vendors of existing apps recompile their applications for tablets, and see them go for $1.99. What they might agree to is enable touch support for their generic apps, so that if they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...I think Android will end up losing the tablet war. The reason is that windows 8 will be able to leverage its existing base of "software capital", and bulldoze its way into the tablet market. Android simply does not have certain critical software (e.g. - MS Word) running on it.
What's to stop anyone from using all the existing FOSS? Is there something I missed about it being especially difficult to port (e.g.) OpenOffice from Linux to Android? And this is something of a strawman in any case. See below.
Think of it this way. The mass market desktop pc will die. For the vast majority of users, a simple tablet like device, with word processing capabilities, and media/internet capabilities, is all that's needed. Bulky laptops will disappear too, turning into tablets with Asus "transformer" like capabilities. Eventually, a multitude of device will be consolidated into one single tablet device - a single personal computer. People will want to do everything they did with their desktops, on their tablets. This will include word processing.
Hello there. I'm a writer. Writing is what I do. I do it 8-10 hours a day. I am going to do it with a separate, horizontal, *physical* keyboard and a vertical monitor. I am NOT going to do it using a virtual keyboard on the same 10" touchscreen I'm trying to read my work on. Ain't g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that windows 8 will be able to leverage its existing base of "software capital", and bulldoze its way into the tablet market. Android simply does not have certain critical software (e.g. - MS Word) running on it.
What base? No one can use their existing software running on Windows on x86 today and expect it to run on Win8 on ARM. At best it will be a simple recompile. At worst it will be a full port. Also you assume that even MS has solved the major problem with using full MS Office on a touchscreen: UI. Apple sidestepped the problem by saying the iPad is mostly for content consumption with a little bit of creation. Office and most Windows programs are built for keyboard and mouse not touch. MS will have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
People are buying the Galaxy Tab?
Re: (Score:2)
People are buying the Galaxy Tab?
Now that there is a CA$100 price drop [appleinsider.com] someone might.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan, and would consider the Intel Android tablet - but not a Windows one. But it has to have the right mix of features and be a good value and be competitive with the field on the date of purchase. The WiDi tech looks really sweet, and a HDMI WiDi dongle to use in my TV, monitor, or conference room bigscreen might put it over for me.
Can't wait to give this a try if they can get someone to make it. But that's going to be their biggest problem. PC vendors aren't going to touch Android on Intel.
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only PC vendors, but even most Android manufacturers ain't gonna prefer Intel to ARM, unless Intel can demonstrate lower power consumption AND greater performance @ the same time. And they'll have no reason to - all the apps already there for Android are Android on ARM. Plus you have a rich ecosystem of ARM manufacturers - Qualcomm, Freescale, TI, et al.
If you're not going to consider a Wintel tablet, there is really no reason to look @ Intel. The only thing Intel brings to the table is w/ Windows 8, where there is at least the theoretical possibility of running legacy software on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is good, yes, and that's part of the reason why everyone is so down on Intel: they have a history of anticompetitive behaviour. In contrast, the ARM ecosystem is actively fostering competition. In the ARMv7 world, most companies license core designs from ARM and then just add things like GPUs and DSPs for differentiation. In the ARMv8 world, this is going to change: at least two companies (including nVidia) are planning on bringing their own independent implementations of the ISA to market be
Re:Yes it's totally software, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But what am I talking here... tablets have no point, other than being an e-penis, anyway. Same as SUVs. They are expensive, impractical, slow, and basically all the bad things in one, and the best in none. ^^
In the long run, they will be replaced by mobile phones. Or from my p.o.v., they never found a place that a real computer or a proper smart phone (one at least offering what S60 offered 10 years ago, like a file manager, communications tools, media playback, Internet surfing, install whatever you like, 3d and video acceleration, big display, full-featured hardware) hadn't already taken.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think trying to read in bed with my mobile or my laptop is kinda sucky, and I think a tablet might work much better for this. I don't see it replacing either of them anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it's not a good form factor for some use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
so, I should shell out between $500 and $830 to read in bed?
It's going to need to replace more than a paper back book to separate me from a whole paycheck.
I mean, my phone doesn't do that either but I think you need to come better than "reading in bed"
Re: (Score:3)
so, I should shell out between $500 and $830 to read in bed? It's going to need to replace more than a paper back book to separate me from a whole paycheck. I mean, my phone doesn't do that either but I think you need to come better than "reading in bed"
You can get kindle fire for about USD200 [amazon.com]. And yes, for book reading on your bed, it's overkill. So, aside for reading sci-fi novel in bed, I use my Archos 70IT to browse, read books, newspaper, comics, mangas, watching videos, ssh-ing to my NAS box at home, etc etc on my 4 hours daily commute
Re: (Score:2)
so, I should shell out between $500 and $830 to read in bed? It's going to need to replace more than a paper back book to separate me from a whole paycheck. I mean, my phone doesn't do that either but I think you need to come better than "reading in bed"
You can get kindle fire for about USD200 [amazon.com]. And yes, for book reading on your bed, it's overkill. So, aside for reading sci-fi novel in bed, I use my Archos 70IT to browse, read books, newspaper, comics, mangas, watching videos, ssh-ing to my NAS box at home, etc etc on my 4 hours daily commute
Also he presented it as a use case, not a target function for the device. I like to use a tablet in the Kitchen for recipes, and to watch the news.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't... Tablets are too damn heavy and that starts weighing on you very quickly. Plus, there's no way to hold them one-handed... through pure chance, phones are just the right size where wrapping your hand around them makes a great "handle". Tablets need some new technology that'll allow an easy one-hand grip. Maybe that'll be straps, or finger holes, or some gel backing ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)