Of course any company d like to lock you up, if they are able to, such as Intel or Apple.
At the same time, I totally like the whole ARM eco-system.
The bottom line is: It is good to see one more competitor on the market.
This is another perfect example how Intel is somewhat twisting the arms of a key customer to waste money on one of the biggest joke (smartphome). RMB3399 is the price of a high-end smartphone, yet this phone offers the almost antique Android 2.3.7, and 1-core CPU. State-of-the-art smartphones are offering Android 4.0+, 1.5GHz dual-core. I have no doubt that this MP benefits Intel the most (debugging the process and the design), but why Intel keep pushing crap to the innocent consumers!
Intel should simply buy ARM. I cannot see how Intel will change the ARM trajectory. The problem is not just the technology, but the model. ARM makes business sense to many makers, Intel locks you up. That is the difference.
Battery life on the reference phone, according to Intel, is expected to be up to 8 hours for a standard 3G voice call with standby power lasting up to 14 days.
I am very interested in understanding how long a charge will last. In addition, more information on the beaming from mobile to TV would be nice. Competition is good. Intel fabrication technology vs ARM architecture, who's the winner?
So how big is the battery, and how long does it last? Performance alone will not be enough if battery life is not acceptable. Is the battery in this device is user replaceable?
I would think that Intel would be sensitive to the power issue in designing a reference platform.
NASA's Orion Flight Software Production Systems Manager Darrel G. Raines joins Planet Analog Editor Steve Taranovich and Embedded.com Editor Max Maxfield to talk about embedded flight software used in Orion Spacecraft, part of NASA's Mars mission. Live radio show and live chat. Get your questions ready.
Brought to you by