Why Intel Atom? [Archive] - maemo.org

railroadmaster

2014-12-04, 18:42

I am honestly curious, why was an Intel Atom processor choosen in favor of an ARM one in the Jolla tablet? X86 processors are generally more energy hungry than comparable arm based ones and the jolla tablet has a pretty small battery. Support for the Intel atom on the linux platform is abysmal to say the least. Plus there is the issue of software compatibility, all the native applications on sailfish os are compiled for arm so you won't be able to use any of the native apps from sailfish os. I guess you could run apps designed for desktop linux, but sailfish os lacks several components from desktop linux necessary for running said applications.
Were Intel Atom chips cheaper? Was there more available reference designs and were reference designs more customizable? Did Intel provide technical or marketing assistance of some sort?
To me it seems the tegra k1 would be a better choice given that it is arm based and has open source drivers with excellent linux support. Plus many tablets already use it.

Stskeeps

2014-12-04, 19:20

One particular reason is finding a good proposition that has a high-level display at that pricepoint, enough oomph to drive the display, a hefty GPU.. I think the Intel direction is quite nice.

hedayat

2014-12-04, 19:56

Morpog

2014-12-04, 20:21

Because of: Intel Turnkey Program

The program helps with reference designs, development tools and lots of marketing $$$. http://www.computerbase.de/2014-06/turnkey-programm-geld-fuer-smartphones/

http://abload.de/img/1401868855142047d7ers.jpg

szopin

2014-12-04, 20:35

Because of: Intel Turnkey Program

The program helps with reference designs, development tools and lots of marketing $$$.

Read it as Intel Turkey Program, which made sense, giving thanks for giving intel a chance in mobile

szopin

2014-12-04, 20:40

AFAIK, there is a possibility of running ARM binaries on Intel cpus using the Intel emulator. Which is what used in x86 Android devices to run ARM only binaries.

I don't know if Sailfish can (legally) also use the emulator. If possible, you'd be able to install ARM Sailfish packages (although with less performance).

Qemu can be used legally, though all libraries would have to come in two flavours too, might be not worth the extra load. Jolla has the advantage of being rather new, so not so many stale packages out there yet, wish we had extras devel that would automatically result in both types being available removing that problem altogether (at least for open packages)

billranton

2014-12-04, 20:42

szopin

2014-12-04, 20:50

Afaik, there won't be a compatibility problem. You just select a different target and compile for Atom and as long as your code is nicely portable, you'll be able to publish for both ARM and Atom with the same code. There are suddenly quite a few Atom Android tablets around too, so they should be well supported.

Yeah, pretty much every app in store will compile, unless author didn't bother checking if his work works in SDK emulator (it uses i486 target iirc, so x86 that should run on atom), only problem is guys who submitted only arm binary and left the scene

theonelaw

2014-12-04, 23:42

Read it as Intel Turkey Program, which made sense, giving thanks for giving intel a chance in mobile

They cannot even make proper linux drivers for the Bay Trail stuff,
so they have a bit of a credibility issue when they
shill this sort of thing

railroadmaster

2014-12-31, 18:18

Since the Jolla tablet is Atom based will this mean the ability to run Sailfish os on Intel Atom tablet like the myriad of 8 inch Windows 8 tablets?

bluefoot

2015-02-10, 08:45

Just to further expand on the contra revenue / turnkey program, which was very obviously why Jolla, Nokia and others chose Intel for their tablets ...

Intel lost $4.2b in the mobile / tablet space in 2014. That is how gross the market distortion is and how determined they are to (anti)compete. They even managed to register negative revenue in Q4.

Even if the Jolla Tablet is great (which I doubt at launch) and glossing over Intel's many other unsavoury aspects, for this reason there's no way I'll be buying one.

Kangal

2015-02-10, 09:19

bluefoot

2015-02-10, 09:42

- Intel's TurnKey
- Strong GPU
- Possibility to port Jolla Tablet OS to other Win8 Tablets
- Documentation (unlike RockChip, AMLogic, MediaTek)
- Less proprietary bits? (than Tegra chips)

All I know is, if it works... don't fix it.
Then again you never know, maybe it would've been better going with a Snapdragon 800 (or newer).

Only the first point is relevant. AFAIK the whole tablet project was opportunistic - plans weren't long-standing, they just jumped on it when they realised tablet hardware in general was quite cheap and Intel were offering even small players some sweet, sweet subsidies.

Re: Documentation, the devs at Jolla only appeared to find out or realise that it uses UEFI BIOS some time after the deal had been done and after the launch ... whilst I'd put that down to naiveté, they hinted in the blog post that they were having some difficulty discovering or finding documentation for how a lot of stuff works. I seriously doubt if Mediatek's rampant success of late is in spite of poor documentation for partners (for general public is another).

mikelima

2015-02-10, 10:06

Only the first point is relevant. AFAIK the whole tablet project was opportunistic - plans weren't long-standing, they just jumped on it when they realised tablet hardware in general was quite cheap and Intel were offering even small players some sweet, sweet subsidies.

That is probably a big part of the reason. I do not think that is bad anyway.

Also, from a user/hacking point of view, it opens possibilities. The tablet is likely able to boot a desktop distribution from a pen drive/microsd in case of need. The screen is probably small for this use case, and a "Brazil" type contraption may be needed*, but it could still be useful, or fun to try.

If you think it would be nice, please vote for my question:

https://together.jolla.com/question/65357/jolla-tablet-boot-from-microsdpendrive/

JulmaHerra

2015-02-10, 10:29

Only the first point is relevant. AFAIK the whole tablet project was opportunistic - plans weren't long-standing, they just jumped on it when they realised tablet hardware in general was quite cheap and Intel were offering even small players some sweet, sweet subsidies.

Of course it's opportunistic, but it might also be long-standing. New Atom's are actually quite good chips and during this year Atom's will have integrated LTE-modems, so I wouldn't be surprised if second handset is loaded with one. AFAIK such move would also enable worldwide support and distribution as Intel's LTE modems are "universal". Add in subsidies and there should be another opportunity to get good HW and support for decent price, which should help Jolla in competition - as we already know, Jolla phone has been criticized for being expensive for that HW.

bluefoot

2015-02-10, 12:03

Of course it's opportunistic, but it might also be long-standing. New Atom's are actually quite good chips and during this year Atom's will have integrated LTE-modems, so I wouldn't be surprised if second handset is loaded with one. AFAIK such move would also enable worldwide support and distribution as Intel's LTE modems are "universal". Add in subsidies and there should be another opportunity to get good HW and support for decent price, which should help Jolla in competition - as we already know, Jolla phone has been criticized for being expensive for that HW.

The chipset is also a gigantic package and remains extremely power hungry in comparison to pretty much any of the ARM family. This requires a very large phone usually, and a huge battery. It also has extremely weak on chip image and video processing, amongst a host of other issues. There's also the fact that even with the huge subsidies and 'marketing' money, it remains hugely uncompetitive in price on mobile. I'd be shocked if there aren't issues with the modem or drivers / firmware for it too, as it'll be their first one.

If this is the 'reference platform' Saarnio mentioned with regard to supposed partnerships, it'll never see widespread adoption among any quality Chinese OEMs and would go down like a lead balloon. It'd also eliminate any synergy / time saving with the libhybris work that has gone into and continues to go into Mediatek (and other ARM) chipsets for Ubuntu Phone.

Also, with regard to their security first mantra ... is anyone ever going to believe that, having a device with an integrated Intel mobile modem?

That is probably a big part of the reason. I do not think that is bad anyway.

Also, from a user/hacking point of view, it opens possibilities. The tablet is likely able to boot a desktop distribution from a pen drive/microsd in case of need.

Actually, UEFI is a major problem for an open device. It was designed from the ground up to shut out third party software / OSes / ROMs. Indeed, if you can recall, in the run up to its launch on desktop, there was a great deal of worry that it would be impossible to install non MS operating systems on systems shipped with it preinstalled. This was the intention, but they backed down due to the storm that erupted. For a mobile platform that wants to be open or have an unlocked bootloader, they're going to need to disable a lot of the UEFI features (and certainly much of the security), from what I understand. It was originally meant to only work with OSes that provided a secure, approved key. This is why Jolla are "making no promises" on this front for the tablet.

nodevel

2015-02-10, 12:11

@mikelima @JurraHerra A friendly reminder - you're just feeding a troll that will take no logical arguments, so you might as well give up (you'll always get a "this is a huge problem; they are doomed; I hope I'm wrong, but I think that they doing all this on purpose, to be evil" kind of response).
Plus you are quoting his posts for those who came to the conclusion that it is better to ignore it.

juiceme

2015-02-10, 12:49

Yes I get the idea, generally you want to try to starve dem trollies..

However I just got to know;

Also, with regard to their security first mantra ... is anyone ever going to believe that, having a device with an integrated Intel mobile modem?

How does this make a device any more unsafe than using integrated Qualcomm modems, given the history of the company???

javispedro

2015-02-10, 15:41

Actually, UEFI is a major problem for an open device. It was designed from the ground up to shut out third party software / OSes / ROMs. Indeed, if you can recall, in the run up to its launch on desktop, there was a great deal of worry that it would be impossible to install non MS operating systems on systems shipped with it preinstalled. This was the intention, but they backed down due to the storm that erupted. For a mobile platform that wants to be open or have an unlocked bootloader, they're going to need to disable a lot of the UEFI features (and certainly much of the security), from what I understand. It was originally meant to only work with OSes that provided a secure, approved key. This is why Jolla are "making no promises" on this front for the tablet.
What the f*ck are you talking about? First and foremost, UEFI is actually about interoperability, and most definitely not about "shutting out third party software". Plenty of the stuff it does (e.g. searching for ESP partitions on all media instead of hardcoded, defining a portable bytecode for running firmware from extension cards, etc.) clearly shows they really didn't have security in mind, and instead they were trying to create something unified even between different ISAs (at that point, Itanium and x86; today, possibly ARM and x86).

"in the run up to its launch on desktop" most UEFI BIOSes there was certainly absolute NO worry about running other OSes, if only because most if not ALL UEFI BIOSes back then shipped with the CSM aka "old BIOS compatibility mode".

I don't understand which Jolla feature they would need to disable from UEFI. And the fact that Jolla doesn't want to disable any of the "security" features is Jolla's decision, as has been argued many times (by me -- a lot -- and others).

UEFI is actually good for interoperatibility, because at least it provides a (minimal) bootloader<->OS API, which guarantees that even a stupid hobbist like me can probably run a HelloWorld-like OS.

You are most probably confusing the concepts of UEFI and "Secure Boot", which was an idea that appeared relatively much more recently.

There was indeed a backslash more or less by the time, and that's because Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, mandated Win8-logo ARM devices to have a locked-down UEFI bootloader.

Guess what. A locked-down bootloader has nothing to do with UEFI or x86. ARM was there much earlier. The concept of a "locked bootloader" is something that is so common on ARM that we basically assume that every device one can buy will have a locked bootloader -- or even no bootloader at all. That is a concept that is still tremendously alien for me and the reason I see everyone who argues 'locking down a bootloader improves security' with slight disdain.

Microsoft actually WENT and released a Win8 ARM device with a locked bootloader -- the Surface RT 1 & 2. I pity everyone who actually bought one of those two stupidly crapped devices instead of the much better and hackable Surface Pro. To this day, the bootloader on the RT hasn't been brocken. Fortunately, Windows RT is all but dead these days.

Jedibeeftrix

2015-02-10, 16:17

it does raise the interesting prospect of 14nm Intel Cherry Trail for Jolla 2:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8831/intel-shipping-14nm-cherry-trail

Copernicus

2015-02-10, 16:20

Intel lost $4.2b in the mobile / tablet space in 2014. That is how gross the market distortion is and how determined they are to (anti)compete. They even managed to register negative revenue in Q4.

??? If I'm the owner of a company, and I see a need to get my company's products into a particular market, I don't see why I wouldn't use the resources at my disposal to get into that market. In fact, if I didn't use those resources, I'd probably be fired for incompetence.

Moreover, if all that Intel is doing is moving money around, that doesn't guarantee them success. (Sad to say, Nokia is a perfect example here; seeing that they were losing market share to competing products, they abandoned their own internal R&D infrastructure and tried to simply buy their way back into the market...) I would imagine that Intel's success or failure will ultimately depend on their hardware, not on their bank account.