StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2007-03-06 12:15pm**

Intel chief sings praises of iPhone

Inability of Windows to play in the ultra mobile space leaves market to OS X and Linux

Apple's iPhone is forcing a new wave of mobile device innovation, and validates the superiority of Unix-like systems on mobile devices over Windows, claimed Intel chief executive Paul Otellini.

"Virtually every computer and handset manufacturer on the planet is struggling to figure out how to compete with Apple," Otellini said at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference in San Francisco.

Apple's forthcoming iPhone offers far more features than competing mobile phones, and Otellini believes that handset manufacturers will have to switch to more powerful yet energy-efficient processors to compete.

Intel is developing an ultra low power micro-architecture with integrated graphics that will be able to power mobile devices with mere milliwatts of power. The first version of the chip is slated for release later this year.

The chip features the same architecture as existing server and desktop systems, and will be able to run all existing applications and services.

"If we get power and price down to the right point, I think it is a killer silicon compilation to these kinds of devices," said Otellini.

Intel spun off its mobile phone chip business last year to the Marvell Technology Group. It has been suggested that Apple's iPhone will run a Marvell Xscale processor.

Apple has not disclosed the hardware specifications of the iPhone, but has said that it will be running a special version of the OS X operating system that powers Mac systems.

Otellini touted ultra-mobile handsets as one of the most promising markets for Linux and other Unix derivatives such as OS X.

Microsoft has been unable to meet Intel's requests to create a Windows version that performs well in the mobile space, he claimed.

"Where I see Linux as an opportunity is in ultra-mobile handsets. These things are much more inclined to be a Linux or a Unix derivative kind of product like OS X," said Otellini.

"The power performance footprint in terms of the kernel for Linux for ultra-mobile is quite good as opposed to the footprint for Vista.

"You can get Windows CE in there, but you sure can't get Windows Vista in there as a small kernel version, which we are nudging [Microsoft] to do. We would like to see Microsoft do a much more power-optimised, form factor-optimised kernel."

Windows CE comes in a smaller version for use in embedded devices such as set-top boxes. Microsoft has also developed a special version of the software for mobile phones marketed as Windows Mobile.

But Windows CE fails to meet the feature demands of so-called ultra-mobile PCs, offering full PC functionality as well as all day battery life.

Microsoft and Intel unveiled a first version of such an ultra mobile PC last year codenamed Origami. Although it generated much initial hype, the device was considered a poorly engineered first version.

Posted: **2007-03-06 02:46pm**

I think Microsoft would have to rip so much out of Vista to make it run on a mobile phone that it wouldn't be worth it. Windows CE is not that bad, relatively speaking, its just woefully outclassed by scaled down Unices. I'm not at all sure that the NT architecture is really scalable in that manner. At any rate, I think its just as well that Microsoft get pwned in the mobile space, and Intel is moronic if they think that attempting to prop up Microsoft's efforts in that arena is going to help them in any way.

Posted: **2007-03-06 06:52pm**

Microsoft's greatest strength has always been its ability to leverage different software markets and proprietary formats in order to "de-commoditize" markets and force users to stay within its stable (this is actually called "vertical foreclosure" in antitrust laws, but antitrust is basically dead in America).

The problem, from their viewpoint, is that the handheld market doesn't work well with this. People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.

Posted: **2007-03-06 07:18pm**

I don't really understand the complaints. While the quality comparison between the iPhone software and Windows Mobile is still open (and I'm willing to bet that Apple will probably have an advantage here do to designing the whole widget, thereby allowing them to make a better fit between the hardware and software), evoking the full blown OSX while discussing the iPhone is simply wrong, especially because Apple is planning it as a closed platform, so it isn't any different then other mobile OSs. The latest Windows Mobile essentially is Vista for phones, at least as much as the so-called OSX implementation on the iPhone will be compared to the full OSX.

If you go a size up, to the Origami/Ultramobile devices (a cross between a PDA and a laptop in size and functionality) you get the full featured Vista with all that entails, although with a performance penalty do to the speed of the processors in those devices. There is no comparable Apple product which offers the actual OSX in a less-then-laptop size, nor touchscreen/tablet capable for that matter.

Posted: **2007-03-06 07:29pm**

Darth Wong wrote: People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.

Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.

Posted: **2007-03-06 09:29pm**

Mobius wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.
Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.

How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?

Posted: **2007-03-06 10:27pm**

Darth Wong wrote:
Mobius wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.
Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.
How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?

No VOIP on cellphones with wireless internet connections leads to more charging for "cellular minutes".

Posted: **2007-03-06 10:39pm**

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Mobius wrote: Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.
How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?
No VOIP on cellphones with wireless internet connections leads to more charging for "cellular minutes".

Would VOIP and cellular data charges work out less? Cellular data, here at least, is still pretty expensive.

Posted: **2007-03-06 10:44pm**

Darth Wong wrote: How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?

Most Cell networks are not magically separated universes. However some new cells phones, are firmware coded only to work with one network. You have to physically change the chip if you want to switch from AT&T to Sprint or Verizon.

Not true of all cell phones, but most of the companys are having the various Cell phone produces make these "crippled" phones to discourage you from switch services. Nevermind the manditory two year contracts most of them make you sign.

However it also applys to ring-tones and the VOIP issue. Hell there are cells phones that were deliberately reworked so you could not even play MIDI files. Only the super special crap Verizon only sound file type, IE one you could not play on your IPOD, or on your PC, or on anything else but your cell phone.

Heck I remember one phone that could play Mp3's but designed so it was quite hard(IE it involved software hacking) to actual USE mp3's for ring tones. Because they WANT you to pay 99 cents or 10 cents or whatever they think they can charge for ten seconds worth of a song.

Posted: **2007-03-06 11:20pm**

Spyder wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?
No VOIP on cellphones with wireless internet connections leads to more charging for "cellular minutes".
Would VOIP and cellular data charges work out less? Cellular data, here at least, is still pretty expensive.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant on home or office networks, not the telecom provider's cellular data network.

Posted: **2007-03-06 11:35pm**

Cell phones can communicate with 802.11b/g networks?

Posted: **2007-03-06 11:40pm**

Uraniun235 wrote:Cell phones can communicate with 802.11b/g networks?

Some of them.

Posted: **2007-03-07 01:22am**

Mr Bean wrote:Not true of all cell phones, but most of the companys are having the various Cell phone produces make these "crippled" phones to discourage you from switch services. Nevermind the manditory two year contracts most of them make you sign.

If you want a subsidised handset, you'll have to commit to staying with the carrier. Handsets cost in the area of A$500 - A$1500 - they need to know you'll be with them for a while before they can begin to recoup that cost, or they're just throwing money away.

I'd be surprised if these two year contracts you've quoted are really mandatory if you BYO your handset.

Posted: **2007-03-07 04:17am**

Darth Wong wrote:
Mobius wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.
Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.
How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?

when they cripple let's say bluetooth or voice recognition and then sell it back to you for 5€/months.
or you need to use their uploading service to tranfer pics from you computer to your telephone.

Posted: **2007-03-07 06:26am**

Darth Wong wrote:Microsoft's greatest strength has always been its ability to leverage different software markets and proprietary formats in order to "de-commoditize" markets and force users to stay within its stable (this is actually called "vertical foreclosure" in antitrust laws, but antitrust is basically dead in America).

The problem, from their viewpoint, is that the handheld market doesn't work well with this. People want a handheld to run its built-in functions and interface with other handhelds using open protocols. This runs totally counter to Microsoft's philosophy, which is based on closed protocols and the artificial narrowing of consumer choice.

What people want and what the carriers want are two different things. You might be right about Microsoft wanting more closed protocols and standards, but they are practically saints compared to the way the big four carriers handle things.

Sure, you've got J2ME and BREW which are supposed to provide some kind of standard platform for software development, but in actual practice none of this works correctly. Porting between handsets is still a major pain in the ass, and porting between carriers is even worse because without permission to access certain APIs you are essentially at the mercy of the carriers with regards to what you can and can't do.

Windows Mobile development is actually much easier to handle for a few reasons:

1) You can use Visual Studio and all the assorted tools, which is an excellent development platform.

2) Porting is trivial. Windows Mobile only supports two screen resolutions in version 5 and all of the hardware is virtually identical. When you create an application to run on one phone, it's going to run on all WM5 devices.

3) WM5 handsets do not require carrier certificates. I can't overemphasize how important this is.

From initial indications, iPhone solves none of these problems better than WM5 (the first two are moot with a single handset, and they do not appear to be licensing it for third parties), but the third item Apple has already appeared to have caved on. Notice that Apple says there will be no third party development for the iPhone? This was probably a condition of their agreement with Cingular and not Apple's idea as Cingular would LOVE to be able to control Smartphone content on their network.

Let me give a particularly relevant story about this issue. I work at a company which has a wireless strategy that includes a mobile application. One of the big four carriers has come out and said that they will not allow us to run on their network because they intend to launch a competing product to ours. Essentially they wish to lock us out because they want full control over the services they offer to their users. With WM5, they have no way to do this, but with the iPhone, they can just refuse to grant a development license.

Posted: **2007-03-07 06:39am**

Mobius wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Mobius wrote: Well at the end, the customer still loose with crippled firmware aimed to maximize the profit of cellphones carriers.
How does limited cell-phone functionality maximize the profit of cell-phone carriers?
when they cripple let's say bluetooth or voice recognition and then sell it back to you for 5€/months.
or you need to use their uploading service to tranfer pics from you computer to your telephone.

It's not just that, there are many things that the cell phone companies simply don't want you to have unless they can have total control over it. Doesn't anyone wonder why carriers took so long to roll out data services? The answer is simple: they didn't want people to use uncontrolled data services to access services that they don't control. The big four are terrified of simple becoming providers of a pipe, they want to be full blown content distributors and to make money off of EVERYTHING that is used on a cell phone.

Some examples of crippled/constrained services would be bluetooth file push, RFID, third-party applications that have unrestricted access to phone APIs and SSL support.

Posted: **2007-03-07 07:14am**

when i was looking for a prepaid car in france, a representant of one of the carriers told me that my belgian phones wouldn't work cause it wasn't enough high-tech for their systems (nevermind that my phone is a Nokia E61 which is the state of the art of current nokia business smartphone)

Posted: **2007-03-07 07:47am**

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Cell phones can communicate with 802.11b/g networks?
Some of them.

Actually, quite a few now I believe, but America hates Wi-Fi phones, so they're doing far better in Europe and Asia. The Register had a feature on it the other week.

Posted: **2007-03-07 07:51am**

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Cell phones can communicate with 802.11b/g networks?
Some of them.
Actually, quite a few now I believe, but America hates Wi-Fi phones, so they're doing far better in Europe and Asia. The Register had a feature on it the other week.

Wi-fi phones ARE stupid. Wi-fi was never meant as a replacement for cellular, as the range of the technology indicates. If we really want mobile IP telephony, we should be pushing Wi-MAX, not dicking around with Wi-fi.

Posted: **2007-03-07 10:28am**

How many people seriously want to run applications on their phones, other than an address book or Tetris? I can see people using their phones for doing things like taking pictures or playing music, but would people really want to run out and buy fancy apps for a cell-phone? Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I want everything built into my cell-phone from the start, and I'm not likely to buy a third-party application for it.

Posted: **2007-03-07 10:34am**

If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

The sort of bullshit the US carriers seem to be getting away with judging by posts in this thread would see them assraped in court here.

Edi

Posted: **2007-03-07 10:47am**

If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

The sort of bullshit the US carriers seem to be getting away with judging by posts in this thread would see them assraped in court here.

Indeed. In certain parts of Europe, this practice was deemed illegal because it forces people to enter into more than one transaction (the phone and the plan while only the phone is advertised). Maybe the same can be done in the US?

Posted: **2007-03-07 10:53am**

I'm not sure if US carriers could be punished for their practices since they are subsidizing your phone purchase. But they should be forced to declare up-front on all their advertising that you are getting a feature-limited phone.

Posted: **2007-03-07 11:03am**

Bounty wrote:
If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

The sort of bullshit the US carriers seem to be getting away with judging by posts in this thread would see them assraped in court here.
Indeed. In certain parts of Europe, this practice was deemed illegal because it forces people to enter into more than one transaction (the phone and the plan while only the phone is advertised). Maybe the same can be done in the US?

wait does that mean no iPhone for us in Belgium?

If you don't want to be bothered by bullshit from carriers, buy your own handset that does not have everything disabled. It'll cost you more initially, but all you need is a sim card change when you switch operators.

something which is basically impossible in France (unless you are talking about very high-end phone)

Posted: **2007-03-07 11:22am**

The Kernel wrote:
Wi-fi phones ARE stupid. Wi-fi was never meant as a replacement for cellular, as the range of the technology indicates. If we really want mobile IP telephony, we should be pushing Wi-MAX, not dicking around with Wi-fi.

Eh? The services are for better Internet and local Wi-Fi connection capabilities, without having to go on the mobile network itself which can be patchy and cost more. I don't see why anyone would use Wi-Fi when the mobile already allows cheap phonecalls without a Wi-Fi access point anyway, which is why the VoIP aspect never appealed.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Intel CEO: Windows has failed us in the mobile space

Intel CEO: Windows has failed us in the mobile space