Intel has started calling the iPhone a flawed browsing experience. The chip giant attributes this to Apple's choice of an ARM core to power its moderately successful mobile phone. The news comes from the Intel Developer Forum in Taipei, as reported by Cnet, but the company's disdain for all things ARM is nothing new. Intel has …
Intel must surely know they're talking nonsense here! What does the processor architecture have to do with the Internet (in whole or part). As long as the processor has enough speed, it's the software that's responsible for something as high-level as a browser, surely?
[Insert your own car/petrol/road analogy here.]
x86 is a disease
Here are a few literal translations for what intel has said here:
"Mobile browsing currently stinks because no one is paying us any royalty/licensing fees"
"YOU need a mobile phone that also is a handwarmer/portable stove top! Get an x86 phone today!"
"x86: Everyone else is jumping off a bridge, why aren't you?"
"We sorry, but we seem to have missed the bus on this 'mobility fad'. Please, please buy our kit"
"Mobile browsing is nothing without our proprietary, inefficient, power hungry, over-complicated, non-concurrent, patched up, outdated instruction set!"
Pardon my higgerance but
didn't Intel post-DEC-StrongARM own at least one set of the ARM ecosystem before they flogged part or all of it off to Marvell?
Anyway, I thought you needed a massively-loss-making Itanic to enjoy the full overweight Intel-specific Internet browsing experience on Windows, 'cos pretty much Intel can do on their x86, AMD can do equivalently on their x86 too (for now).
Full Internet on my mobile
I've got an HTC Diamond handset running Windows Mobile 6. I have the latest remote desktop client. I remote to my windows server where I've got a full copy of IE + full suite of internet tools.
I don't use it much - if I did I would setup a copy of XP running on a VM at 640x480 res to match my mobile - and establish it as a permanent setup.
Works like a charm and remote desktop isn't even too bad on a GPRS connection when working in 256 colour mode.
Where are the Macbots?
I long for their feedback.
Atom? No, Itanium!
Mobile phones need the Itanium for full internet experience.
Wow - thanks for throwing that bone out to the types out here who probably still remember (vaguely) gopher.
It's been a long time (sniff sniff)
Reminds me of the old Pentium II ads
which made it sound as if having a Pentium II would make your files download faster.
Did iNTEL just blink first?
I smell sour grapes coming from Santa Clara. MHz ain't gonna save you now!
One good thing to come from the jesus phone
Is that the web2.0 developer muppets at last have a reason why Flash is not, should never have been and never should be the basis of a website or required for navigation. Perhaps Steve could do us a really big favour on the next one and disable Java script in the client too....
Heh. Dissing on the iPhone's experience based on the device using ARM processors is, well, stupid. In fact, I'd say its good *because* it isn't using Intel's crap!
Maybe they're mad that Apple didn't buy into them as they did with their stupid move with the Macs going from PPC to x86.
That said, most competent smartphones are using ARM, including my BlackBerry. I'll never let an Intel processor run my mobile!
I suppose Intel is correct. How well is an ARM chip going to run an ActiveX component?
Gopher? I thought the future was WAIS?
I smell fear...
I think Intel has just noticed that mobile devices are coming on fast, and that they don't have a processor anywhere near as useful as the ARM. Look at the Nintendo DS, it's several years old, two screens, touch screen, wifi, and has *two* ARM CPUs all run from a tiny little battery.
Try that with Intel gear and you'll need a pocket full of batteries even for a short train journey.
Intel, stick to what you're good at, big number crunchers, the mobile device is a different ball game, and ARM have been playing on this court for years.
Intel is not a serious contender for the mobile phone: the power consumption gives you an unacceptable choice of useless battery life or great big heavy battery. So why the sour grapes? Is it that ARM are positioned to advance into what Intel regards as its turf? Maybe an ARM-powered Eee-sized Macbook or something?
Time to increase my holding in ARM shares!
Intel issues correction to ARM / iphone comments
But in a posting to Intel's Chip Shots blog Thursday afternoon, Anand Chandrasekher, the head of Intel's low-power efforts, threw his fellow executives under the bus in admitting that Intel's current low-power x86 processors don't even come close to matching the power consumption numbers--a vital design parameter in smartphones--of those made by ARM's partners, which are used in smartphones like the iPhone and over 90 percent of all the mobile phones in the world. The post follows in its entirety.
Anand Chandrasekher issued a correction on comments made by members of his team yesterday at Intel's Developer Forum in Taiwan. As general manager of the Group responsible for Intel's ultra-mobility products, he acknowledged that Intel's low-power Atom processor does not yet match the battery life characteristics of the ARM processor in a phone form factor; and, that while Intel does have plans on the books to get us to be competitive in the ultra low power domain - we are not there as yet. Secondly, Apple's iPhone offering is an extremely innovative product that enables new and exciting market opportunities. The statements made in Taiwan were inappropriate, and Intel representatives should not have been commenting on specific customer designs.
Re: Insert your own car/petrol/road analogy here.
If I may make an analogy; if you throw a stone in a bucket of water, the ripples spread outwards. And if you throw a stone in a bucket of three-toed Sloths, you don't get any ripples at all.
??? <=====(This isnt a title?)
PAGING WEBSTER PAGING WEBSTER, YOUR ATTENTION IS NEEDED IN THE COMMENT SECTION.
That is all thank you.
@x86 is a disease
ROFL Very very nice
"Oh fine dont use our Pentium processor in your device. Bet you it wont add 2+2 and get 3.999999999999999999999996.......oh damn"
Intel dissing Apple?
Surely not? Does this lover's spat mean no more Intel Mac PC clones or MacBook Airs (which is, after all, an Intel laptop wrapped in toxic Apple materials)?
IMO, Intel are right, but for the wrong reasons. A device can't be the "full" Internet experience until the user is free to run whatever they want on it.
That's most definitely NOT the iPhone.
Paris, because the Internet experience wouldn't be the same without her.
More Intel bullshit
How long does this statement come after they stopped XScale? Most previous if not current generations of PDA's use(d) an XScale processor, which was ARM based.
Of course, you can't keep promoting it if you stopped the technology.
Anyway, when run on the same frequency, ARM is more powerful, so this intel bullshit is clearly marketing driven. It hurts their 'technical' credibility, however....
the iphone a "moderately" successful phone? how naive do u want to be?
i'm not an apple fanboy, but the browsing experience on the iphone is far superior to any other mobile device on the planet (except maybe the android phone, i've not tried that yet)
x86 is good now?
I've always thought that x86 was kind of... useless. Sure it's popular, but that's largely for political and economic reasons which drove events in the 80s. And now nobody can really switch.
I mean all consoles now run PPC, mostly because it's easier to program, and it's simpler to put down in silicon.
I also rather think that the architecture is one of the last things that would affect a mobile browsing experience, with screen res and interface ranked close to the top.
Well, I'm shocked!
Of course this has nothing whatever to do with Apple switching chip supplier.
Why Intel should worry
Start with a small footprint, low power processor for PDA phones. Expand it a little, make it go a bit faster and then put it into netbooks running Linux. [Repeat ]
Power consumption is key to anything smaller than a 13" laptop, and if Windows is not the dominant OS on these platforms then the ARM could, with careful positioning, clean up. And that is a reason for Intel to be worried.
Right now, anything bigger than a PDA has, by definition, an Intel or AMD processor in the middle and both companies have been pursuing performance over energy consumption for some time. A cunning development strategy could see ARM-powered netbooks appearing with a vastly superior battery life to those currently in the market.
Or, put another way.
"We hope to god that monumental amounts of marketing bullshit will save us from the catastrophic management fuckup we made when we flogged off XScale."
Flash on ARM
It is probably just a matter of (relatively short) time before this happens. I'm sure that Adobe can see that, if sufficiently many people access the web using devices that don't run Flash, then web-sites will stop using Flash. So Adobe had better make sure that all popular platforms (and iPhone is definitely that) can run Flash.
Intel's rhetoric in the ARM vs. Atom discussion seems somewhat like American election rhetoric: If you can't convince the voters on your own merit, you can always throw FUD at the opponent.
ha ha ha
Same old same old anti-iPhone article. Instead of actually saying "we have a phone that can do this and that which the iPhone can't", they just point fingers and say "it can't do this". Grow up and instead of pointing fingers, if the iPhone is that bad, then produce an alternative thats better? Oh, wait.. you can't.
The Macbots are right here making the same points as everyone else — that the choice of an ARM CPU architecture is irrelevant to the user interface on not just the iPhone, but the rest of the 90% of smartphones that apparently use it. It's as clear to them as it is to you that inserting the iPhone into their argument is just a shorthand for "small internet devices", since it's a currently well-known example.
There can be only two
I became convinced about 10 years ago that eventually there will be just two architectures, ARM and x86. x86 will be in all boxes which have a mains (or car) power supply and do not move (except with the vehicle) , ARM in all mobile battery powered devices. And they'll each interpret each other's code as required or an ANDF such as Java or Flash will be used for downloadable apps.
You never know, x86 WIN32 API might become one such ANDF. But mobile devices' ARMs will interpret it. I'm enjoying seeing it come true...
Go ARM, ARM FTW &c.
PS Yeah of course there'll also be any number of 8 and 16bit controllers in application specific chips, completely hidden, I mean all the above at the UI/browser/application level.
i haz iphone
Is Intel telling me that I did I not win the internetz?
Flash... done. Java... done.
Just waiting for Adobe and Sun to reach agreement with Apple...
"How well is an ARM chip going to run an ActiveX component?"
It won't, and that's a Good Thing [tm]
Who still uses ActiveX anyway? I don't think I've used a website with it since IE5.
I'm sure I posted a "Sarah Palin"-related quip here last week, mocking a republican worried that Obama was an "Arab" ... and linked to "badmouthing" a "Jesus"-phone ...
Oh well, must have not been funny enough - or maybe I used the wrong icon.
Or perhaps another similarly-named article ??
"Intel badmouths Jesus Phone" - Or as Sarah Palin might say ...
"Jesus was an ARAB !!!"
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
- Flesh-flapping, image-zapping app Snapchat NOW ad-wrapped
- Vid NASA eyeballs SOLAR HEAT BOMBS, MINI-TORNADOES and NANOFLARES on Sun
- TV Review Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots