tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post114223430765314207..comments2024-03-25T21:41:06.801-07:00Comments on Mobile Opportunity: The single-chip smartphone sideshowMichael Macehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1149226287408945772006-06-01T22:31:00.000-07:002006-06-01T22:31:00.000-07:00Thanks for the heads-up, anonymous.I haven't been ...Thanks for the heads-up, anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I haven't been able to find another link to that Microprocessor Report document, unfortunately (it was very hard to find in the first place).<BR/><BR/>Sorry. I will keep looking.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1148682466083510592006-05-26T15:27:00.000-07:002006-05-26T15:27:00.000-07:00the microprocessor report link is broken, could yo...the microprocessor report link is broken, could you direct me where to go?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142783535700671522006-03-19T07:52:00.000-08:002006-03-19T07:52:00.000-08:00Michael Mace recently wrote: I think the issue for...Michael Mace recently wrote:<BR/><BR/> <I>I think the issue for a developer like the nice folks at Llamagraphics isn't "which OS is winning," it's "will there be any substantial market for my mobile software at all?"<BR/><BR/>That merits a whole different post, one I'm hoping to write as soon as I get a little free time.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks so much to you and everyone else who is participating in the discussion for your insights on the single chip topic! <BR/><BR/>And yes, my gut feeling is that there's some kind of sweet spot at the intersection of the technical APIs and the business channels that makes an OS attractive for us as developers trying to serve existing customers with appetites for more sophisticated mobile software applications. That intersection may or may not be in the same place as the overall "winning" market share of the OS as reported by most industry analysts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142470705595566332006-03-15T16:58:00.000-08:002006-03-15T16:58:00.000-08:00Hi, Marty.Good stuff! Thanks for posting it, and ...Hi, Marty.<BR/><BR/>Good stuff! Thanks for posting it, and I didn't think it was gory at all.<BR/><BR/>A quick web search on the term "cognitive radio" turned up a lot of interesting stuff. The terms is generally used to refer to radios that can dynamically pick an available chunk of spectrum and use it on the fly -- kind of like the way airliners of the future will pick their own routes rather than flying in pre-set corridors.<BR/><BR/>I can see why the FCC would get twitchy about that concept, even though to me a single-processor mobile phone is a very different beast. I assume they're just afraid that a single-core phone could somehow be hacked to act as a cognitive radio. That sort of mirrors the operators' unfocused fear that open smartphones create a vulnerability for attacks on their networks.<BR/><BR/>There are some fascinating <A HREF="http://www.saschameinrath.com/2005_07_06_14_09__the_coming_cognitive_radio_revolution_aka_the_fcc_as_regulatory_ostrich" REL="nofollow">posts</A> speculating on what the world will be like when cognitive radio technology becomes widespread.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142365654899223732006-03-14T11:47:00.000-08:002006-03-14T11:47:00.000-08:00Marty wrote:>>There are other, more interesting pr...Marty wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>>>There are other, more interesting problems with dual-core versus single processor, but they only appeal to tech-geeks, so I'll spare you the gory.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks. Actually, I think I could put up with a little gore, if you feel like posting a summary. One of the things I like about the comments here is that we're educating one-other, and this is a subject I'd love to get more educated on.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dean wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>>>For me though, the main issue is this central one of "What's a smartphone anyway, and who does the smartness benefit?"</I><BR/><BR/>I agreed with all of your comments, and we are indeed getting to the heart of the matter. <BR/><BR/>When I say "smartphone," I'm thinking of a mobile device with an open application platform and the option to add a wide variety of third party apps. You're right, that's a legacy of thehistory of Palm, although for a long time Microsoft and Symbian also thought that way, and I think the S60 team still does.<BR/><BR/>But that's not what most of the operators have in mind, or perhaps I should say that open platform definition has been discredited because most open, app-enabling phones haven't sold very well.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, many press people, analyses, and developers are still using the term "smartphone" in the former sense. So they track things like OS share and number of applications and sweat about who's winning. Thus the breathless discussion of single core OS's and how they're supposed to be a decisive advantage in the competition for what will be the dominant OS.<BR/><BR/>I think the reality is, if the OS is just plumbing and doesn't support a big third party development community, then the forces that would drive the market toward a single OS standard are largely absent. Embedded software like Ajar and Obigo and Symbian and CE can coexist more or less indefinitely.<BR/><BR/>I think the issue for a developer like the nice folks at Llamagraphics isn't "which OS is winning," it's "will there be any substantial market for my mobile software at all?"<BR/><BR/>That merits a whole different post, one I'm hoping to write as soon as I get a little free time.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142338818719794302006-03-14T04:20:00.000-08:002006-03-14T04:20:00.000-08:00MichaelThere's a lot of interesting things on this...Michael<BR/><BR/>There's a lot of interesting things on this thread already. Just thought I'd add a couple of my own thoughts:<BR/><BR/>- for a handset manufacturer creating a broad range of products, a single-chip smartphone architecture may mean it can reduce its overall # of supported hardware platforms, with impacts on cost structure beyond pure "cost of goods sold".<BR/>- my understanding is that Microsoft and SavaJe are working heavily on single-core products. Also it's worth noting that lower-end Microsoft featurephones are on their way, courtesy of Intrinsyc and a couple of others working on adding functionality to a WinCE kernel.<BR/><BR/>For me though, the main issue is this central one of "What's a smartphone anyway, and who does the smartness benefit?"<BR/><BR/>The Palm OS community has always looked at the smartness being "for the end user" - installing assorted cool applications from myriad developers.<BR/><BR/>However, while I'd argue that's true for PDAs, it's generally not true for smartphones. I'd say that 40% of the benefit of smartness is for the manufacturer, 50% for the operator, and only 10% for the end user.<BR/><BR/>Some manufacturers like smartphone OS's because (once they're over the initial and non-trivial learning curve) they can churn out phones, tweaking apps, tuning for operators, making differential changes or easily adapting to different form factors. Nokia and HTC are the obvious beneficiaries here, while a lot of Symbian, MS and Palm OS licencees still haven't got over the initial hump.<BR/><BR/>(Some) operators like (some) smartphones because <BR/><BR/>(a) they can create custom "locked smartphone" handsets and UIs (3 and DoCoMo most obviously, and also Vodafone in the future); <BR/>(b) they can get easily-customised versions of a desirable high-end platform (eg all the operator-specific HTC variants); <BR/>(c) they get higher data usage from some applications<BR/>(d) they can deploy specific niche apps for particular services, such as a favourite email client, or a new "dynamic content" engine like Flash or Action Engine<BR/>(e) once in a while they may actually sell a 3rd-party app<BR/><BR/>I'm a classic example of a user who doesn't really care. I've got a Treo and an MDA Vario (HTC Wizard), and I've owned Symbian phones in the past. I've never bought a 3rd party app, and I've only used them when someone's given me a demo. I've recently downloaded a Skype client to the MDA, but otherwise that's it for me and "smartness", besides the fact it helps the WiFi and keyboard work more intuitively, and I might use Pocket Word once in a while.<BR/><BR/>So, would I rather have a cheaper, single-core WinCe or Linux? Frankly, it doesn't matter. Because I think the 90% (ie operators & manufacturers) WOULD want one, because it gets them closer to what they need - a flexible, low-cost, MULTI-TASKING, phone that they can customise easily & drop in new apps "at the factory".<BR/><BR/>(Multi-tasking featurephones are another pet topic of mine, which I won't harp on about here. Suffice to say I reckon they're going to be more important than "proper" smartphones).Dean Bubleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719150957239368264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142278790707450462006-03-13T11:39:00.000-08:002006-03-13T11:39:00.000-08:00Ahh, two excellent comments. Thanks, guys.Rafe wr...Ahh, two excellent comments. Thanks, guys.<BR/><BR/>Rafe wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>>>People may or may not be willing to pay a premium for smartphones but the same is not true of features phones. Feature phones are where the gigantic numbers are</I><BR/><BR/>Simon wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>>>It's about Symbian OS adoption and making Symbian at least competitive with proprietary OSs.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you're both right, and you're pointing out something that I should have said a lot more clearly in my post: Making a mobile OS single-processor matters, but it doesn't matter in the way that a lot of people have been positioning it.<BR/><BR/>If you're evaluating the mobile OS as a platform, something that enables the sales of lots of third party apps, then being single processor doesn't matter much because it doesn't move the needle on the sort of phones that drive a lot of app sales (for anything other than simple games). So when a reporter covering smartphones or a software developer like Llamagraphics asks about it, I think the answer is, "don't worry about it."<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if you're talking about the competition for what will be the embedded OS for feature phones, then yes, being single processor is extremely important because even a savings of a few pennies makes a huge difference when you're selling tens of millions of phones.<BR/><BR/>But that's the OS used as plumbing, where it drives neither end user demand nor application sales. For the five of us who enjoy debating Symbian vs. <A HREF="http://www.obigo.com" REL="nofollow">Obigo</A> vs. <A HREF="http://www.ttpcom.com" REL="nofollow">Ajar</A> vs. <A HREF="http://www.openwave.com" REL="nofollow">OpenWave</A> it's interesting. But it's really not all that meaningful to users and developers.Michael Macehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966107280587843091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142263154576628522006-03-13T07:19:00.000-08:002006-03-13T07:19:00.000-08:00"and because price isn't the main barrier to smart..."and because price isn't the main barrier to <B>smartphone adoption,</B> anyway"<BR/><BR/>I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't think the aim is "Smartphone Adoption". It's about Symbian OS adoption and making Symbian at least competitive with proprietary OSs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17898384.post-1142243638430842152006-03-13T01:53:00.000-08:002006-03-13T01:53:00.000-08:00This is a really interesting post. I think its ver...This is a really interesting post. I think its very important to challenge the assumption that single chip is the golden goose. It's not, it just part of it. I don't entirely agree with Michale on pricing. People always wants something cheaper. The support issue is a fair point, but it reflects something wrong with the usability / user experience and that has to be corrected seperately.<BR/><BR/>Freescale reckon their 3G single chip reference design for S60 is going to cut development costs by 50% which if true is quite impressive. I think the thing to appreciate is single chip it not just cost savings in component terms but also in development cost and time. <BR/><BR/>Another (related) point is that with single chip phones you can also develop a smaller manufacturing run and yet stll be cost effective (because of the development time saved).<BR/><BR/>However the most important thing about single chip is that it opens up the mid-tier device market to the mobile OS'. People may or may not be willing to pay a premium for smartphones but the same is not true of features phones. Feature phones are where the gigantic numbers are (the 100's as opposed to 10's of millions). That's why I think Symbian has an advantage with the single chip capabilities. Its not really that important in the high end (although arguably the P990 etc can cary the extras - wifi, better camera etc. without a cost increase because they are single chip), but it is very important in the mid/low end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com