Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$20 Cellphones Possible with TI's New Chip

Posted by timothy on from the ever-cheaper dept.

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."

14 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Is It Just Me? by Adrilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this grand invention for Texas Instruments was done in India.

    --

    "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
  2. Dupe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dupe...

    http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/ 25/1735243&tid=215&tid=100

  3. How will they keep C and A separate? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:How will they keep C and A separate? by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The new thing is to have a single DSP/processor that can run the OS and the signal processing apps. This allows getting rid of one chip, which is what they are so excited about.

      If you imagine that you took what was formerly on two chips and just put them on one, it should make sense that this is quite possible.

      You see the same thing with the x86/x87 combination in the Pentiums. Or microcontrollers that now have all the crap you need (except for reset circuit and serial drivers) on one chip.

      In the case of the DSP, programming it might be tricky, but so what: some geek does it once, and then you run that software on a million items: however painful it is, it gets amortized.

      If you are the processor company, you do it for your customers, so that they can get the silicon out there ASAP, and you get back all your NRE.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    2. Re:How will they keep C and A separate? by pchan- · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article is not clear on this, so I can see where you would be confused. What you're talking about has been done years ago. The most common nokia phone chip is the TI OMAP, which couples an ARM 9 processor core with a TI 5000 series DSP core. This is already in your phone today.

      What the article is talking about is incorporating RAM, the RF circuitry, probably flash, and power management (usually done by an external microcontroller). That is, bringing all the other chips on the board into the die. Mind you, they are talking about a 20$ bill of materials (BOM) cost for the phone, this is NOT the price that you would pay. An OMAP sells for about 10-12USD in massive quantities. The price of this new part would probably be similar, but it would eliminate the need for many peripheral chips (thereby reducing the total board cost). What we're talking here is probably a reduction from 25 USD to 20 USD in the BOM. If they were sold through normal retail channels, expect to pay 2x to 4x the BOM cost.

      The CNET reported does not seem to be clued in on what this really means. This in no way means 20 dollar phones for anyone. It just means that phones are going to get just a little bit cheaper to manufacture, and that TI is going to take away some business from other part suppliers. Good news for TI, pretty much meaningless for everyone else.

  4. I'm sure the networks will swallow it by grahamsz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Phone costs will drop, but generally since they are subsidized by your contract you'll never know.

    Also it's worth noting that most of the world use 900 or 1800 mhz cellphones, whereas gsm phones in the US typically run on 1900 mhz - I doubt this chipset will be initially manufactered in US frequencies, although some latin american countries do use 1900.

  5. Infineon was first by S.Gleissner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well... last month infineon introduced a mobile phone for under $20.
    (link in german)
    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=/n ewsticker/meldung/61656&words=Infineon%20Handy

  6. Think smaller, not cheaper... by GrpA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know it's not the theme of the article, but it's just as obvious...

    One chip means smaller and lower power consumption possibilities as well. It goes hand in hand with cheaper.

    It will help lead to phones in watches as well as integration into other devices (eg, directly into mobile PC's as a standard chipset for GPRS integration. )

    Cheap is nice too, but it's just part of the overall advantage.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  7. Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Okay cool, next time I'm hiking someplace and get bitten by a snake or hit by falling rocks, or if I'm out sailing and the boat starts taking on water, I'll just reach for that handy landline.
    You dang kids with your fancy "landlines." Why back in my day when our ship sank and we washed up on a deserted island's craggy shore and climbed up the face of the cliff only to be knocked into a pit of snakes by falling rocks we had to signal for help using smoke signals from the fire we started by rubbing two of the cobras together, AND WE LIKE IT!
  8. So... by greenhybrid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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...

  9. Re:Dial-A-Bomb by mabinogi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > At what point will technology become so cheap and simple to use, that it will make terrorism that much more effective and efficient.

    About 40 years ago.
    Any terrorist that needs to wait for a big company to release sub $20 mobile phones before he can make a cheap remote detonator isn't trying.
    A 7 year old could make a cheap remote detonator from parts bought at Radio Shack with his or her pocket money.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  10. Feeding the troll, just in case someone agrees. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're an idiot. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. If you're going to kill people, you're not going to be stopped by having to pay an extra 30 bucks for a phone, and a remote detonator can be rigged up for the cost of a remote control car and a screwdriver already.

    But even if that weren't the case, stop making every fucking thing about terrorism. You're making us all dumber.

  11. Re:who gives a shit by Spruitje · · Score: 4, Interesting


    ":) 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.

  12. Re:Why not before? by NadMutter · · Score: 3, Informative
    One of the main limitations to doing this in the past is that the rf and baseband sections typically were fabricated using different technology - CMOS wasn't up to amplifying/(de)modulating signals in the GHz range for the 'off the shelf' fab processes. Hence you needed at least two IC's - one CMOS for the baseband & CPU/DSP stuff and a SiGe for the RF amplifiers and demodulator.

    With fabs dropping feature size, incorporating low-k dielectric etc, this has become no big deal to fab in CMOS. Further, from this, the converters (ADC and DAC) can run faster - up to the broadband freqs so they can do 'direct conversion' and then demodulate etc using DSP. This pushes the burden over to software but makes it easier to have dual band or tri-band phones without lots of oscillator circuits in there. Other standards such as EDGE/GPRS can be done in software which is expensive to design but it's easier to re-program flash memory than to re-spin an IC. All this means more integration and lower unit cost.