Intel, Google Team To Optimize Android For Smartphones

angry tapir writes "Intel and Google announced on Tuesday that they would partner to optimize future versions of the Android OS for smartphones and other mobile devices using Intel chips. Intel CEO Paul Otellini demonstrated a smartphone with the upcoming Medfield chip running on Android during a keynote at the Intel Developer Conference being held in San Francisco. However, Otellini didn't mention the version of Android running on the smartphone. Intel wants to make x86 the architecture of choice for smartphones, and porting Android will provide a larger opportunity to the chip maker in the smartphone market, Otellini said."

Comments

Should be relatively platform agnostic already

[walshy007]

Linux already runs on x86, and if google played their cards right code quality wise (bit endianness etc) It should all be just a recompile away more or less. (with new peripheral drivers of course... as with any new peripherals on a new device)

Re:Should be relatively platform agnostic already

[Funk_dat69]

There are Android-specific patches to the kernel, including an extensive security model, custom locking mechanism, and different frame buffer support among others. A lot of this code may have some ARM-only trickery. Add to that the library of redundant device drivers that phone companies write and discard (that may or may not work) and you have yourself a chunk of work there.
It doesn't help that Google has no interest whatsoever in getting their code merged into the Linux kernel properly. In fact, that's the main problem with Android. If their patches were merged and properly supported, device drivers would be better and it would be easier to do an x86 (or ppc or what have you) port. It's too bad since userspace is basically all java- the apps should just work on a new arch, but that benefit is torpedoed by Google's lack of follow-through in working with the community to get stuff merged.

In other news, Meego certainly seems doomed to hacker-land.

Bye, Bye Meego

[chill]

Well, if you were delusional enough to hold out hope for Meego after it was dropped by Nokia and then "development hold" by Intel, this is your wake-up call.

Re:Bye, Bye Meego

[queazocotal]

It's not dead, it's pining for the fjords!

Re:Wintel no longer cutting it?

[unixisc]

There are some really fast ARM based CPUs, like nVidia's Tegras, out there, as well as some ARMs that are fast enough to be used as GPUs. Also, does Corei7 give the power savings that are needed? Because now, both performance and power consumption are important, and ARM has always trumped x86 in power consumption. Heck, even the new MIPS platform is competitive w/ ARM on power consumption, and competitive w/ x64 on performance. I don't see what this deal would have for Android.

x86?

[zrbyte]

Why would we want to stick to x86 in the smartphone, portable device world? x86 is an aging architecture, which still pulls back the PC market, granted with PCs we need backwards compatibility. But the smartphone market is new and thus able to adopt new architectures. And the world is seemingly moving in this direction. This is just some wrangling by Intel to try to push into the portable market.

Re:x86?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why would Google possibly object to Intel adding their pet OS to the list of operating systems that intel pushes along with their embedded CPUs?

I'd be a bit shocked if the next Nexus whatever phone happens to have Intel inside, Intel just hasn't cracked the low power problem very well; but they move Atoms like crazy for slightly higher powered applications. It isn't make-or-break; but I doubt that Google would mind displacing WinCE in a few of the ubiquitous-but-wastefully-overpowered Kiosk/Signage/etc. applications that are typically intel/WinCE or intel/XP-embedded powered today.

Plus, while it isn't officially blessed and released at present, Android already runs on x86. The "GoogleTV" products are all Android running on an Atom-based STB SoC(the CE1400 if memory serves.)

Re:x86?

[mwvdlee]

All six in order of appearance; Mainframes, OS, Databases, Routers, Fanboys, RAM.

Re:Wintel no longer cutting it?

[CadentOrange]

You are deluded if you think an ARM processor is going to come remotely close to touching a Core i7 in performance.

Does it have to? How many applications actually need top of the line Core i7 performance? The majority of applications will be able to get by with significantly less. However, I agree that the GP is deluded to think that Apple will replace the Intel processors in the product line up with ARM chips any time soon.

Re:Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Jaxoreth]

Intel should just throw an arm core in there with the x86 core.

Sure, and then a leg core. But that would make the cost prohibitive.

Re:WTF? ARM is the best architecture for smartphon

[Sockatume]

What phones need is more software designed for the mouse and keyboard.

And why is this on slashdot?

[BitZtream]

No shit? Intel is going to work with OS vendor to make OS run better on their chips ...

Are we going to have headlines that read 'Intel does research into making microprocessors!' next?

This is not news, this is SOP at any business like this.

Re:Android already on x86; GoogleTV has Atom cpu.

[BitZtream]

The Native code library (NaCl) will be unportable currently.

Native code is not NaCl. NaCl is an entirely different beast, x86 in a browser, in theory sandboxed.

However, they plan to base the next version on LLVM making that too platform independent.

LLVM won't help anything be platform independent. Native code is platform specific, thats why its called native. Using LLVM to produce byte code that runs in an interpreter like Dalvik is not making native code platform independent.