http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/ Engadget Comments for Apple eyeing Intel platform for future iPhone? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://i20.tinypic.com/2emofpf.png

Haha just joking. :)]]>Oct 3rd 2007 5:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
How about reporting on all the other tech stories? How about, say, an updated launch rumor on the AT&T 8310 Curve, seeing as it obviously DIDN'T prelaunch today? ]]>Oct 3rd 2007 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/20/tired-of-iphone-and-or-apple-news-on-engadget/]]>Oct 3rd 2007 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/too bad those alternatives dont have the nice formatting of the normal site.
Also, we wouldn't mine an apple thing every once in a while, but not so much!]]>Oct 3rd 2007 7:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 11:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 5:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 5:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 5:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 5:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
i also have to agree with Rex. Yawn. who cares about apple?]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
- "the Moorestown chips will be based on Intel's 45-nanometer manufacturing process and therefore promise to be ten times more power-efficient than today's embedded mobile chips, enabling longer battery life in smaller form factors."

- "Moorestown will combine the CPU, graphics, video and memory controller onto a single chip. Based on Intel's "Menlow" MID design due out a year earlier, it will also incorporate wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi, 3G and WiMAX."

- "the move to the Intel architecture and away from the ARM-based Samsung chips would also present the opportunity for [Apple] to narrow the gap in the software code base of its handheld products -- like the iPhone and iPod touch -- with that of its Mac personal computer line."

- "[the chips] are not expected until 2009"

So, if Apple ends up shifting the iPhone platform away from Samsung to Intel we could see better power management, 3G, and more similar code across their devices. However, we won't see any of those benefits until 2009.

The AppleInsider post:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/03/apple_considering_intel_chip_for_future_iphone.html
]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 6:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/X86 is horrible for small devices also you don't want desktop code on a portable device.
Besides with the latest frimware fiasco I think the iphone is now dead.]]>Oct 4th 2007 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
While you are right in that something like Intel's UMPC chip would offer more functionality like 3G, WiMax, etc...

Power management versus the Samsung ARM in the iPhone would not be in it's favor.

Intel means that the power management is better than currently existing *UMPCs*, which is basically a shrunken down Pentium. They don't claim to compare it to the ARM class of embedded processors.

Read this about power in the 45 nm "Silverthorne" intel processor for UMPCs : http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/Intels-x86-ISA-grows-down-today-laptops-tomorrow-the-iPhoneBlackberry.ars/1

Battery life 6 hours of usage, 10 hours standby

Compare that to Apple's current battery life out of the iPhone : http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html

# Talk time: Up to 8 hours
# Standby time: Up to 250 hours
# Internet use: Up to 6 hours
# Video playback: Up to 7 hours
# Audio playback: Up to 24 hours

Combine that with the fact that UMPCs have significantly larger batteries than a cell phone like the iPhone, and it's clear...

Apple would either have to make the iPhone much bulkier to fit a bigger battery to use Intel's stuff, or continue to use ARM.

I work in the embedded (actually cell phone) industry, and I think it is really quite silly to think that Intel's x86 will be brought into a device like the iPhone in the next year or two.

Intel's lowest power x86 chip, that they are discussing today, is at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more power hungry than the most common ARM chips that are in the market today in phones and smartphones today.

ARM processors today are capable of standby currents at less than 1 mA... The entire platform of an iPod or a cell phone like the iPhone may draw less than 5 mA when in Standby mode... they can be left in standby for more than 1 full week and still have a charge left in them.

Platforms based on Intel's chips still need to be plugged in every day... interesting for the UMPC size platform, but as a cell phone, unacceptable. ]]>Oct 3rd 2007 7:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
Thanks for posting that reply - I was just quoting another site and couldn't provide much analysis otherwise but you added some true expertise to the mix.

That's really interesting about the UMPC/phone comparison - I didn't realize what was behind Intel's numbers. I'm curious now as to any veracity to the Digitimes rumor: your point seems to shoot it down pretty handily.]]>Oct 3rd 2007 7:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 6:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
This BusinessWeek article, for example, lists Phillips, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Infineon, and others as chip suppliers but not Intel.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2007/tc2007072_957316.htm

And a notable Reuters story came out right after the iPhone was announced stating that Intel was not the supplier of iPhone chips.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1028892820070110

Finally, an Apple spokeswoman retracted a statement she'd made that Intel was the supplier.

Your sister might be right that Intel's chip is in the iPhone - I just don't know why Intel and Apple would keep it under wraps.]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/I thought it was a Samsung licensed ARM processor based on what I've read, no inside info. Also I thought Intel sold it Xscale unit to Marvel.

In any case, you could be right since things change so fast in the processor market.]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/This is an x86 instruction set processor, so it becomes more of a MacPhone than an iPhone. It's going to be a real battle between Intel and ARM so lets see what the future brings to market. ARM says you don't want code written for desktops on a mobile device. Perhaps true.

It also means we will see more Windows and Linux devices, so Apple will have some serious competition since everyone can offer a "real" internet browser.
]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
It needs one much more powerful than the current one and Intel is the right guys to turn to. ]]>Oct 3rd 2007 6:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 8:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/Oct 3rd 2007 8:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
Not a bad plan...]]>Oct 3rd 2007 11:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/03/apple-eyeing-intel-platform-for-future-iphone/
My problem is the base power, and most specifically, standby and idle current. The phone industry today has gone through great lengths to create phones that don't consume a lot of power when they're sitting in your pocket, waiting to receive a call.

The Silverthorne based UMPCs will be capable of 10 hours of standby time, and if you actually read some of the reports from IDF, you'll see that for Moorsetown, they're talking "all-day" battery life for this next generation 09 platform.

From PC mag : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2185246,00.asp

"Our design target is for 4 to 7 inches in terms of the screen [size]...this is not a volume cellphone," said Gadi Singer, vice president of Intel's mobility group. "We are looking at the high end of the [cell phone] category, as well as a completely new category of mobile devices. At [a screen size of] 4 inches and above we will be very competitive in terms of the power envelope."

They are very careful to qualify that their product is not targeting volume cell phones, and are targeting 4 to 7 inch screen arena... an arena, if you've noticed, that the iPhone doesn't even occupy. The reason is because while their processor may spank all of the ARMs that power cell phones and smartphones today in computing, they have a processor with tens of millions of more gates, and consume more power because of it. You want the complexity of a Pentium+GPU? You'll pay for it in the number of gates.

Intel never claimed that their new x86 SoC will have the same power consumption as the iPhone's ARM. They claimed that it would fit into 4 to 7 inch devices and create a new high end market of bigger devices (with bigger batteries of course).

Take it from someone who works in the industry, on power especially...
On today's best smartphones, the iPhone included, when the phone is in Standby mode, the current sunk by the phone's application CPU responsible for the OS drops to nearly zero... on the order of 100s of microamps.

The vast majority of the remaining current is consumed by the cellular baseband... the very same one that would go into a phone powered by Moorsetown.

Even still, the standby current of most phones on the market today is on the order of 3 mA, when connected to a cell network. Will Intel's platform be able to do the same?]]>Oct 4th 2007 1:02AM