Slashdot Mirror
Intel Relying On Ice Cream Sandwich For Tablet Push
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."
Yeah, it's a good chip. In performance-per-watt, it'll outdo any other Intel chip with ease. By x86 standards it sips power, even if you include the northbridge. But that is by x86 standards... by ARM, it just can't compete. If Intel really want to succeed in mobile, they'll need to take a big risk: Abandon the thirty-year heritage and backwards compatibility of x86/64.
The mantra for the future should be "It's not the hardware or the OS, it is the content stupid". If you can create a device that enables the end user to easily access content of their choosing then you are on a winner. The issue has always been ticking all the boxes, apple was the first to do so and android soon followed. So yes Intel is dead on the money, the hardware is a minor player but at the same time important as it is one of the many tick boxes that must be implemented correctly.
I think the OP is confused about what should be called 'retarded'. There is no virtue in having a bad interface. WinCE had a bad interface. The stylus wasn't a better tool in most cases. It was what we used because the interface failed. WinCE also failed at offering "business" use. Android, and even iOS have far more and better business tools than WinCE did.
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.