From a marketing point of view, there is some merit in creating a flagship phone branded with an Intel CPU having a high clock speed. To stay in the game now, it's not about how good a phone is, it's about how good consumers think it is. The vast majority of mobile phone buyers are not concerned with the pros and cons of CPU architecture, OS efficiency, etc. when comparing specs, they only see the big number.
I don't see billboards and TV ads for Snapdragon or ARM Cortex processors, it's all Intel, everywhere. Intel is the biggest brand name when it comes to 'computer' processors. How impressed will consumers be when offered a phone with 'the same' processor as their laptop/desktop PC and an 'Intel Inside' sticker on the box?
It's like saying: "All those other phones just use obscure, puny phone processors. This baby has the same CPU as your laptop."
If Nokia can ship the N9 running Meego with an Intel CPU and demonstrate more than three day's 'real life' smartphone use out of a regular size battery, I think I'd have to take my hat off to them.
high end handsets like N900, N9 are designed for technical enthusastics like us, so the CPU Architecture definately matters
Guess that's just a rumour, would be pretty stupid to use a Atom CPU and as noted before, theres no real source for this information beside the article on the magazines site (That doesn't seem to have a source, so I think they just mixed something up here).
The SoCs inside the phones aren't just a ARM-Processor. There's usually a DSP too and maybe some hardware accelerators for video and other things. Since the Atom lacks those (And still eats much more energy) it would suck as a processor for a mobile phone - a rather bad idea then, especially for a flagship device. I don't think that a crappy 1,5 GHz Atom would decode 1080p in realtime at all - A Cortex A9 does this without really using the 2 ARM cores :P
I rather guess that Nokia may bring out some MeeGo Tablet, that may have an Atom processor. But yeah thats just my guess, hope it won't appear on a hundred blogs now
@ysss You're right on the money. The point I'm making is that its all about marketing and spin. 'Intel Inside' and a high clock rate CPU will really give the PR people something to play with. I still wince at a tablet device being advertised as 'an incredibly powerful computer' when it's little more than a big mobile phone without the phone function. Advertising lately seems to be telling lies and getting away with it.
@maverick788us The N900 was/is a great device, I love it to bits but it's still pretty much regarded as a flop. I'm not sure it's commercially viable to produce a device just for 'technical enthusiasts' any more. Nokia will need to sell the N9 in biblical quantities and there just ain't enough geeks in the world. The N9 may well disappoint you deeply as it will have to be a fully commercialised device, not a niche one like the N900.
high end handsets like N900, N9 are designed for technical enthusastics like us, so the CPU Architecture definately matters
These new "hype high end flagshis" are for masses and by far fastest growing segment. N900 certainly was for really small niche but N9 tries to be the GS, iphone ans HTC competitor.
You can ask iphone or GS users about their proc and they will not have any idea.
... I don't think that a crappy 1,5 GHz Atom would decode 1080p in realtime at all - A Cortex A9 does this without really using the 2 ARM cores :P
This isnt quite true, as a 1.3 Atom can perform this task, given the proper software: http://forum.pocketables.net/showthread.php?t=2278.
I'm positive the experience can eventually be replicated on the N9, especially on the dual-boot partitions.
I regrettably skipped the N900(due to carrier and screen size). I'm not likely to make the same mistake twice. Looking forward to this release.
Guess that's just a rumour, would be pretty stupid to use a Atom CPU and as noted before, theres no real source for this information beside the article on the magazines site (That doesn't seem to have a source, so I think they just mixed something up here).
The SoCs inside the phones aren't just a ARM-Processor. There's usually a DSP too and maybe some hardware accelerators for video and other things. Since the Atom lacks those (And still eats much more energy) it would suck as a processor for a mobile phone - a rather bad idea then, especially for a flagship device. I don't think that a crappy 1,5 GHz Atom would decode 1080p in realtime at all - A Cortex A9 does this without really using the 2 ARM cores :P
I rather guess that Nokia may bring out some MeeGo Tablet, that may have an Atom processor. But yeah thats just my guess, hope it won't appear on a hundred blogs now
My own post above suggested this maybe more than just a rumour, regardless it gives the forumn something to think about.
wow, it's too bad you guys can't read the specs we found and put in the first 10 pages... so sad. i guess i have to make a new thread for those too lazy to read anything properly.
wow, it's too bad you guys can't read the specs we found and put in the first 10 pages... so sad. i guess i have to make a new thread for those too lazy to read anything properly.
Those mailing and bug lists about medfield?
You can find anything you want from them if you search for what you wanna see.
There's people who are xxx@Nokia.com in bug and mailing lists that i have seen to work with every other platform(just not seeing much of Qualcomm).
Mailing lists about RM-680 are full of TI and Nokia people. Example Santosh Shilimkar seem to work around RM-680 and one more RM device/proto.
Sounds kind of fishy to me...
Something along the lines of "Let's make the ad so people think it's better than it is, not how truly good the thing is..."
Sounds kind of fishy to me...
Something along the lines of "Let's make the ad so people think it's better than it is, not how truly good the thing is..."
The total returns to cutting marketing and R&D spending at the time of
improved profitability are significantly negative across all three benchmarks. In four years
potentially myopic firms, on average, under-perform their size and book-to-market matched
benchmarks by -13.3% (median= -13.8%) when the benchmarks are selected without additional
restrictions on their earnings condition in the initial period. On average, myopic firms under-
perform their performance-equivalent bench-marks (i.e., firms with positive earnings surprise in
the initial period) by -17.7% (median=-17.2%) and their matching benchmarks with a negative
earnings surprise by -14.4% (median=-13.7%). 9
Nobody will ever read this but it is just too good not to quote. sigh
