iPhone powered by Samsung, not Intel?

The iPhone (no, not that iPhone, or this one either) is powered by an Intel processor, right? Afterall, Steve Jobs told us all himself that one of the major reasons for making the switch to Intel was due to their sexy silicon roadmap. Well you, and pretty much everyone else would be wrong. The all seeing, all powerful iPhone -- just like the iPod -- is powered by a Samsung processor according to an Apple spokeswoman speaking to Reuters. FBR Research believes that the remaining major components are supplied by Marvell (802.11), Infineon Technologies (baseband), Broadcom Corp. (touch screen controller), and Cambridge Silicon Radio (Bluetooth). However, we won't know for sure until the iPhone undergoes the knife.

[Via Ars Technica]

[tacos @ Jan 11th 2007 5:38PM]

Can someone explain why my g4 has "powered by intel" on it?

[Michael @ Jan 11th 2007 7:28PM]

You put it there?

[lwnexgen @ Jan 11th 2007 5:38PM]

I don't think intel even has any mobile-phone suitable processors, unless they stuck one of the UMPC processors in there.

[pixelbender @ Jan 11th 2007 5:41PM]

The iPhone has flash memory supplied by Intel, so there is SOME "Intel inside."

[ScOObyDoo @ Jan 11th 2007 5:49PM]

Unless it ran on a Pentium I don't think Intel even has any mobile chips left for devices like this. I'm pretty sure they sold all their mobile chips (like the xScale) to Marvell.

[Quincy @ Jan 11th 2007 5:49PM]

So then it's not really running on OS X in the full and complete sense, now is it Steve. Come on Stevie J. fess up buddy and stop telling us that THIS THING runs OS X. OS X really? And now we're thinking there's Samsung inside? Come on Jobs, give us the real scoop. :)

[doyouflip @ Jan 11th 2007 6:06PM]

Quincy, are you implying that an Intel chip is required to run OSX?

[Bart @ Jan 11th 2007 6:09PM]

Quincy, please - describe all of the components of OS X that have to be present to pass your genuine OSX bar. I think Apple assumed a certain level of understanding that at the very least, the presentation layer was new and that when SJ said true OS X he meant the kernel and core technologies such as QE, CI, etc. (there was a slide on this) Also...OBVIOUSLY to anyone not trying to just spew FUD (I sense more hate than FUD), like you are, would realize that all of that technology can be ported to a new processor just like it was in the past year going from MOT to INTEL.

I mean what, did you think they loaded up 2GB of OSX on a core solo or something???

There is some genuine critiques to be made but some you guys are really reaching.

[os4 @ Jan 11th 2007 6:10PM]

Quincy, OSX is a portable OS. It does not have to run on Intel processors. Not sure what you mean by "full and complete sense". Steve never said those words in his keynote. And, in the context of this thread, the processor used in the device has no impact on OSX's use in the device.

[disciple83 @ Jan 11th 2007 5:58PM]

It would be the same thing as saying that the HTC Artemis or iMate JAM run windows, when in fact they run windows mobile or PocketPC, scaled down versions of the OS. Jobs can call it OSX if he wants to, but anyone who has seen the pictures knows that there is no way the full OSX is in there. More than likely, at the time he walked out on Cisco talks to tell the world their phones suck, he hadn't actually come up with a cat name to call his little mini operating system. Personally, I think "kitten" would be apropriate, considering some people think this thing is cute, cuddly, and probably would lick itself it it had all the hardware necessary.

[Quincy @ Jan 11th 2007 8:04PM]

@doyouflip
The answer to that would be No.

[Arbee26 @ Jan 13th 2007 9:53PM]

No. I believe quite a few people have managed to install it on their AMD machines. :)

[Quincy @ Jan 11th 2007 8:18PM]

Good grief. That's not what I'm saying at all. You guys need to relax a little bit also. My comment was in jest and said jokingly, but with a point. All I'm saying is what disciple83 partially said, though much better than I. To call it OS X is somewhat ludicrous. Pocket OS X is more like it, and trust me I am a Huge Apple fan. -But to portray it as if there are no fundamental differences from the other OS X that we know and love is just Uncle Steve spreading his reality distortion field again. -Which as we now all know now, Bart is completely enveloped by.

[Arbee26 @ Jan 13th 2007 9:50PM]

@OS4, Steve was very vague when he said it's 'runs OSX'. He should have said 'portable version of OSX' likes Windows Mobile. I think the techies would assume this but there's a lot of people who would think it's the full blown OSX and expect to do things like install office or photoshop and then be dissappointed. Maybe it's was a deliberate omission in order to make it sound better than it is.

[whoooHooo @ Jan 11th 2007 6:32PM]

what about the display driver, thats gotta be one of the sexiest parts of these devices but it doesnt get any love. These chips are long and skinny x=25mm y=.8mm and have an amazing amount of functionality built into them. A little birdy told me that the display driver in the iPhone is designed and manufactured in the USA as well.

[Jean-Michel Decombe @ Jan 11th 2007 6:38PM]

Apple switched from Intel to Samsung processors after betatesters kept dropping the phone with a burning sensation in the palm of their hand.

[EnricoFermi @ Jan 11th 2007 7:16PM]

This newly released Samsung processor is x86 and runs Windows XP. The chip was a specialized version of the Transmeta Efficeon produced for Samsung. They were showing it off at CES 2007, and it would fit the form factor of the iPhone. This version was 1Ghz though. I would imagine that if it is in the iPhone that it runs closer to 700Mhz and at 1 watt according to Transmeta.

http://tinyurl.com/yb6bbc

[kev @ Jan 11th 2007 8:07PM]

Are you applying that it's actually running OS X? Are you nuts? Because it looks like it and Steve Jobs says so, doesn't mean it's running full OS X. Besides, which company are you dealing with? You have to have some really high hopes to think that they'd openly allow you to develop stuff for it.

[Matt @ Jan 11th 2007 9:38PM]

"You have to have some really high hopes to think that they'd openly allow you to develop stuff for it."

Not really. I was under the impression that you can run third party applications on other smartphones (running Windows Mobile, Symbian, and such).

[kev @ Jan 11th 2007 8:07PM]

implying, rather

[PUREZX @ Jan 11th 2007 9:16PM]

Intel is not in the cellphone chip business any more. Their cellphone chip business has already been sold to someone else (forgot who) as of middle of 2006 - part of the major Intel reorg. Therefore, the iPhone is not powered by Intel.

[GadgetGav @ Jan 11th 2007 11:23PM]

ZZZZZZZZZZ
Does it really matter..? Unless the next version has an open system that apps can be added to, who really cares?
Who really thought it had an Intel Core Duo in there anyway..? Seriously, just because Jobs says it runs OS X and the new desktops run OS X? That's quite a leap. Have we all forgotten that OS X ran on IBM chips last year..? Even supposing that at some point in the future other apps can be installed, I would think as long as they meet the API rules for OS X, like a widget for instance, they'll run on the phone - *THAT'S* the reason Jobs is touting that it runs OS X - one development environment.

[dietopdelamination @ Jan 12th 2007 2:01AM]

I can attest to that Infineon chip. I see it almost every other day.

[bangraman @ Jan 12th 2007 5:27AM]

quote from kev:

"Are you nuts? Because it looks like it and Steve Jobs says so, doesn't mean it's running full OS X."

LIsten to Kev everyone. Despite Job's announcement, the iPhone is actually running in Vista. How cool is that. Perhaps Job's also not telling us that he works for Cisco part time Mondays and Fridays.

[Johan S @ Jan 12th 2007 4:36PM]

I speculate it could be a powerpc because Samsung has licensed POWER from IBM.

A little web searching produces: http://www.theregister.com/2004/03/05/samsung_joins_ibm_65nm_r/

I could be wrong to assume of course.