Slashdot Mirror
$20 Cellphones Possible with TI's New Chip
swimgeek writes "Texas Instrument's Indian branch has succeeded in developing a single chip which combines the functions usually performed by multiple chips in a GSM cellphone. By doing so, cellphone costs can be dramatically reduced, thus making cellphones more affordable in developing economies. Nokia has been contracted to make the initial sets, with market launch in as soon as 9 months. More coverage here and here."
In dual-chip architectures, there are two chips: the (C)ommunications CPU and the (A)pplications CPU. C-CPU and A-CPU respectively. They typically communicate over a bus to pass data back and forth between the two chips, so there is a standard interface between the two.
It is pretty straightforward to program for this type of setup because you don't have to worry about what the other chip is doing. It's over there doing its thing while my program is over here doing its thing. The two don't talk so often. Typically, you'll even have two separate operating systems running on the separate chips, that's how far apart they are.
But what will it be like with only one chip, and presumably one memory block? Will the single OS running the chip have to handle all events and interrupts? How much more difficult will it be to write a multitasking phone operating system when such disparate things as mail applications and radio transmissions are handled on the same chip?
I'd love for cell phone prices to come down a little bit. Hopefully this brings the prices down, but if software gets more expensive, it may be a wash.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
A typical cell phone costs, what, $70-$100 and can do just about anything and has more processing power than most computers 10 years ago. If you strip out all the useless stuff out of a cell phone (you know, to make it, gasp, act just like a phone) I don't see how it can be that much of a challenge to bring it down to the $20 range.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
When I went to India a few years ago to visit relatives, I was surprised to see that they were all toting cell phones (and better ones than my lame Noka 2260 at the time!) and when I asked about their plans I was surprised to know that they had plans with UNLIMITED minutes for very low prices.
I am glad to see that we have innovation that will help connect the rest of the world, but I have to wonder, why the hell can't phones be made here at ultra-low costs? And what of the plans??!?! Everytime I want a deal on a cell phone I have to sign a contract (and these days you get the special deal only on 2 year contracts - read more at end of this post) and am locked into a shitty phone and a shitty plan. BTW if you have seen the list prices of phones (w/out service plan deal, you will notice how ridiculously pricey they are).
Note about 2-year contracts:
The exception I've seen (at amazon.com's cell phone site at least) regarding cell phone contracts is T-Mobile, which requires only a 1 year contract for all their deals. After hearing many horror stories about them I took a chance with them last year and was surprised to have absolutely no problems with reception or dropped calls or whatever here in CA (it seems like those problems were unique to an earlier range of phone models only). I once made a call to change the plan to a family plan and was also impressed by their AWESOME tech support, which doesn't go to some cheap call-center overseas like ATT.
It's also great for those of us who dig super fancy cell phones... I just bought a treo, and I'm loving it... but when I go to the beach or other electronic unfriendly places, I pop out the SIM card and put it in my old motorolla... I'm fortunate to have the old motorolla, but if I didn't, I would love to pick up some sub $20 phone to put the SIM card in.
So they can make tiny cellphones that connect opposite ends of the earth for $20, yet a VHS-sized scientific calculator with a funky green screen costs $100? Hm...
I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but yesterday I happened to drive by one of the biggest section of housing projects in the city where I live (and no, I wasn't out cruising for dope or hookers), and couldn't believe the number of mini-dish satellite TV antennas stuck on the porches and verandas. It was ridiculous: at least 50% of the apartments had them.
And where a few years ago you'd see lots of people just standing out in front of the buildings or sitting on the steps, now they're almost all using cellphones.
Anyway, just food for thought. My on-topic point is this: cellphones as a technology have already trickled down to all echelons of society here in the U.S., at their current price point. If they price of individual units was to drop to $20 tomorrow, I doubt we'd see any immediate change as consumers, because there's no reason to decrease the price. They've already saturated the market! Especially considering that the market is dominated by a few major players (who I bet have no problem colluding with each other if it kept prices high), I can see the price differential resulting from development in the field going straight into the cell companies' profit margins.
I'm absolutely no fan of government regulation, but my recent experience in buying a cellphone and service agreement have convinced me that something is very wrong with the state of that particular market right now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Why unplug? Just turn off the ringer. There should be a little switch on the side/botttom of every phone manufactured lately (last 30 years or so).
":) this will be good for some of us who just use cell phones as phones nothing else."
Why not use a land line, then?
Because in most parts of the world there aren't any landlines (at least, not enough).
One reason why GSM is adopted at such a rate is that in some countries there wasn't a working telephone system before.
And a GSM net is cheaper than putting a wired telephone system in place.
It's true that CDMA-phone-standard also uses CDMA-technology, but UMTS is based on GSM while also using CDMA-technology.
Kind of confusing... I just found this in an old ./ comment, though:
I disagree. If the cost of a phone drops to $20 all of a sudden people would be able to buy their phone independent of their carrier and then they could shop around for the best monthly contract.
I bought an unlocked Nokia in Dubai a couple of years ago and as a result, I have not been obligated to sign up for one of those oppressive "you'll-do-as-we-say" 3-year contracts.
Ever notice how Nokia has like 5 models available in North America compared to the dozens they have available around the world? That's because their distribution is locked into exclusivity contracts with carriers. However, if the phones were cheaper to manufacture, they could bypass the carriers and sell directly to the public.
I think the GP meant locked into your handset. With a GSM phone it's easy to get a new handset: buy new phone, take out SIM card from old phone, insert it into new phone, that's it. Often even your addresses are stored in the SIM card, not in the handset.
So why are newer operators in the US (T-Mobile, Cingular) using GSM, when the standard there is (was) CDMA? Why, in India, are the CDMA companies (Reliance, Tata) faring so poorly, with so many complaints of flaky service and hidden costs, compared to the GSM ones (Airtel, Hutch/Orange, RPG, BSNL, ...)? Could it be just that GSM is a more mature technology with less vendor lock-in?