Nokia/Intel flip-flop

In June of last year I wrote a piece about the deal between Intel and Nokia. At the time, I wrote that the announcement was probably more about Netbooks than smartphones, and that the real winner might have been Intel because they could obtain 3G chipset IP on license from Nokia.

Times have moved on, and there was a Nokia netbook announced, and there was no smartphone.

The main thing to come out of the deal was the merging of two failed linux distributions: Nokia's Maemo and Intel's Moblin have merged to make Meego. I don't know what the name means, but presumably the inclusion of the word "go" as part of the name is some way to suggest it as a portable OS.

However, I then noticed the other day that Nokia sold it's entire 3G chipset business to Renesas in a shock move whose implications are still not clear. In the pleasantries of the press release, Nokia and Renesas will be collaborating on future HSPA+/LTE chipsets (a continuation of a past collaboration), but all of the employees in that division will transfer entirely under Renesas.

So this is a firesale of an asset that Nokia on the one hand can do without (they can source 3G chipsets competitively on the open market), but on the other hand they can make obvious symbiotic use of in their handset business.

Is Nokia's market share dipping below the point where it makes sense to have 3G in-house? Is it not possible any more to amortize the cost of that R&D across other parts of the business and still make a profit?

Back onto the original subject of Nokia and Intel, what does this mean for Intel's sourcing of 3G components now? The original deal was to include Intel putting a respirator around the nose and lips of Nokia's 3G business - has this fallen through?

If Intel's traction in smartphones keeps looking as limp as it currently does, there's little demand for this notional part of the deal, and Intel may be forced into sourcing parts from the open market, instead of having a two way love fest with the Finnish giant.

Intel Atom announcement - knee Jerk reaction?

Is Intel striving for relevance in the mobile computing age?

I don't know the answer to this question, but a number of things have happened in the last week that indicate a possible motive for Intel to re-iterate information that was already out in the public domain.

First of all, HP have announced their intention to buy Palm. This is at a time when HP were showing their "Slate" device, which was based around Atom and Windows 7. Now that HP have made a strategic investment in Palm and brought a fully formed mobile platform into their organisation, it was only going to follow that they cancelled their Slate initiative - although this is just rumour at the moment, but probably makes sense.

Secondly, LG have announced that they have no intention of releasing the GW990 Moorestown based smartphone that was announced at CES.

Is Intel's recent re-iteration of the existence of Moorestown a ploy to counter the above news, and refocus attention back onto their intentions towards the ultra-portability market?

Intel Moorestown - the pied piper of Hamlet? Doubtful...

Intel's claim is that they will have X86 developers following them in droves to provide their software on mobile devices. I don't buy Intel's arguement about developers following them onto smartphones purely because of experience on the desktop. The arguement is several-fold.

Firstly, Intel don't talk about Windows for the smartphone. Yet the entire back catalogue of software they'd like to associate with their mobile platform almost universally comes from the Windows stable. The one thing that Intel can do that ARM partners cannot do is test the viability of Windows 7 on a smartphone form factor, since Moorestown is an X86 platform so in theory should be able to boot this OS. My opinion is that having done this, they have found it to be a poor user experience, because they have gone down the route of developing their own Linux distribution to fit into the space that Windows is not being trumpeted to fill. Have you ever heard Intel saying their smartphones will run Windows? No, and my opinion is that you won't hear that any time soon.

Secondly, Meego is a merge of Nokia's Maemo, and Intel's Moblin. I have a Maemo device, and there are not that many applications available for it. Nor are there many for Moblin. Meego has only just been released, and it will suffer for a long time without applications - as its parent OSes have done for a long time (especially maemo) - until devices exist in the market place to encourage developers to take part. The beauty of the iPad is the legacy of iPhone applications, and the fact that Apple was partnering with new developers on the larger iPad form factor before its release to take advantage of it in new ways - leveraging a portable legacy unrivalled in the industry. By contrast, Intel's OS offering in this space is starting from a poor base and trying to compete with the iPhone OS and Android, both of which have traction and mindshare in the marketplace. [And why does Android have a growing, and decent, applications base? Because there are devices out in the market that are now receiving critical acclaim...]

So, Intel are effectively having to start from scratch on the software front in the mobile space, and in my opinion they are trying to soften the blow of having to go down this route by referring to their X86 desktop legacy as a potential solution to a software gap that is as yet unplugged, even if that legacy doesn't exist.

The third leg on this stool is the issue of platform ownership. At present, a mobile phone manufacturer will decide what access developers have to their mobile platforms. The two most popular platforms with application marketplaces/stores are the iPhone and Android, with WebOS deserving a mention because of its recent acquisition by HP through its parent company Palm.

If the platform is an openly adopted one like Android for example, there is still an element of control that a manufacturer has to add or subtract the Android marketplace from the phone. If the platform is a closed one like the iPhone OS, the applications store is closed and scrutinised by the company, in order to control the user experience (although they are an exception here).

When you come to Linux, the story gets quite murky. There is no Linux applications store, but if there were it would have to support multiple platforms and distributions. The problem has to be narrowed down to just Meego from Intel's perspective, where the intention is for it to span ARM and Intel platforms in order to build - at present - Nokia-only devices. So far, I know of nobody who has taken Nokia's old open source Maemo OS and used it to make a device of their own except for Nokia, so questions abound regarding the scope of Intel's Meego OS effort in the and its ability to penetrate the marketplace.

The question on this third leg really is whether or not Intel will enforce the inclusion of their applications store into any device shipping with Meego? And also, will anyone really adopt Meego, given the histories of Maemo and Moblin?

The fact that Intel cannot draw upon any of their legacy desktop software for the mobile space - because Mobile is not based around windows - is being hidden behind a smokescreen of talk about the legacy of development that Intel has in the desktop world with Windows. If you waft the smoke away, I don't think that Intel has a strong story here.

Apple change of strategy?

With all of the recent chatter regarding the disappearance of Intrinsity from the technology community, a question opens up about the strategy of the company that has in all likelihood bought them: Apple.

It all started with the announcement of the Hummingbird processor by Samsung - see my January 27th post about the ipad for a link in the comments to the press release surrounding the Samsung/Intrinsity collaboration to create a 1GHz implementation of the ARM Cortex-A8 processor.

When the iPad was announced, and the clock speed was said to be 1GHz, and it runs the iPhone OS, and the timescale was about right for Hummingbird to be in production, it was clear that the great performance of this hardware is in part down to the excellent implementation skills possessed by Intrinsity, since this chip is in all likelihood an exact match for a Hummingbird enabled System on Chip (SoC).

So why would Apple buy Intrinsity? I think the answer lies somewhere between their need for full custom silicon across the board (including at the processor RTL micro-architectural level), and the need to proceed quickly to market with the fastest possible implementation of off-the-shelf components, built in a semi-custom manner using Intrinsity's techniques.

Intrinsity possess a mix of technology and knowhow that allows them to do a really good job of making designs operate faster. They create a custom version of a given off-the-shelf processor design that addresses the slowest paths through the chip, and then adds special fast logic into those paths to speed them up. This makes the logical path between the clocked elements of the processor shorter, allowing the clock to run faster.

Because a strategy that focusses around Intrinsity relies on feeding them with other people's silicon designs (they do not actually design anything - they customise the generic design descriptions for fast operation in a given semiconductor companies process node), this suggests to me that Apple might be continuing with their use of ARM's licensable processor IP for the foreseeable future.

If Apple sticks with optimising off-the-shelf components in ways that other people cannot - now that they own Intrinsity - what does this say about their suspected ambitions towards designing their own in-house ARM processor?

I think the answer is two-fold.

Firstly, Apple are getting good performance out of ARM's "soft" cores by being clever in how they are implemented. This is quite low-hanging fruit, since the whole design and verification task has been done by ARM in creating the CPU in the first place. The "only" thing Intrinsity would have to do is identify the areas of the design that were holding back the top-end frequency, and make optimisations to those for speed.

Secondly, it isn't easy designing a processor from scratch. I believe that Apple retain a large percentage of the CPU design talent that they obtained from PA Semi - it would only have been the top-brass involved in business development that would have left to form Agnilux (now bought by Google). However, PA Semi's last ARM implementation would have been the experience gained from working on StrongARM at DEC and the ARM architecture has certainly moved on to include many new features. For an architect to get up to speed on that, and then work out what the CPU will look like is non-trivial, and bringing a team up to scratch on how to build that - and verify it - is not a two year task. It can take up to 4 years to turn around a CPU from scratch, especially if you've not worked with the architecture either for a long time, or on it's latest incarnation.

It also opens the question of what Apple thinks they can achieve over and above what ARM can achieve in CPU design? ARM are experts at designing their own CPUs, and have a spectrum of nifty high-performance implementations available in the applications CPU space. Give or take wanting a CPU with better performance or lower power, I can only think that Apple have decided to take their time on designing their own processor, and will stick for the foreseeable couple of years using optimised ARM macrocells.

If/once Apple do successfully complete the creation of their own CPU, the Intrinsity guys would then be deployed to analyse it, and make its implementation go faster. However, if you have that many in-house implementation engineers working alongside your designers, it would be possible to feed information to the designers about where the worst paths were in the design, and get them shortened before moving from the design description into the synthesis and layout stages of the project. This to some extent negates the value of having Intrinsity on board, because their skills lie in taking a pre-verified box off-the-shelf that you cannot change in any way, and making logically equivalent cycle accurate implementations of it that are faster and possibly lower power than if they were just synthesised automatically into standard bulk-CMOS. As such, it is a little bit questionable how much of Intrinsity's unique abilities can co-exist with the presence of an in-house design team, and what percentage benefit can be gained by using Domino logic on a design that is as fast as it can be in its RTL implementation.

So I've said it before in a previous post and it is worth repeating here - PA Semi designed CPUs in Apple devices will take many years to appear. Now I can add that they will only be marginally faster than what opther companies are capable of now that Intrinsity co-exist alongside a design team working towards a common cause. Just where I think Apple's own processor designs might wind up appearing in the product line is a matter for another post. But one thing is sure - Apple are intent on crafting their own silicon, and the game is changing still.

ARM takeover by Apple? Rubbish

The speculation about ARM being taken over by Apple is unfounded. ARM's business model runs contrary to everything Apple stands for. Apple are a closed, secretive, paranoid business intent on guarding every aspect of every product. ARM has an open, partner driven business of supplying intellectual property to the whole of the electronics industry. If Apple bought ARM and kept them entirely to themselves, they would be stripping the entire electronics industry of the only standardised supplier of IP, leaving the army of ARM partners and customers completely in the lurch, without any further prospect of plugging their roadmaps in future. This would have the consequence of leaving Intel as the only architecture left inside the marketplace. Other niche suppliers such as MIPS would then be the only companies left in the silicon IP business, each of whom do not have anywhere near the level of ecosystem that ARM has to fight off the insurgence of Intel. This takeover would devalue the price paid for ARM to such an extent that the acquisition alone would be suicidal for both Apple and ARM.

Pure rubbish, espoused by people in the city who don't have a clue about ARM, or what a poor fit it would be for Apple.

iPad - all the hall marks of hummingbird

Apple today announced the iPad - their slick looking tablet computer. It is based around an ARM architecture processor, but in a chip package designed by their semiconductor team from P.A. Semi. Their role has undoubtedly been vast in the creation of the chip (called the Apple A4 chip), taking on various technologies and combining them together into one SoC.

Their semiconductor manufacturing partner is Samsung, and a recent announcement from Samsung regarding a custom implementation of the Cortex-A8 processor using Intrinsity's Fast14 domino logic seems the prime target for the processor in the iPad.

With Apple's investment in Imagination Technologies, Apple will have one of the latest PowerVR SGX cores sitting nicely alongside the Cortex-A8. This pairing - alongside possible video engines, and other features like high performance memory controllers etc., make the SoC design undertaken by Apple thoughtful, but not mind-blowing. Their use of a domino logic implementation  for the A8 macrocell is the key to the speed uplift, and the low power usage even at just 1V. But there is no mystical P.A. Semi designed custom ARM CPU implementation in there right now. They've merely added the necessary tweaks to get what they already use in the iPhone running as fast as it can possibly go without burning a hole in your purse.

Where Apple seem to be best at differentiating themselves is in the software, though. That thing looks slick, and I can't wait to get a play around with it! The browser and maps look flawless, indicating a very good level of performance in the adapted iphone OS. And their graphics drivers will have to be a step up from what is required for iPhone, given the extra clarity in the display.

I didn't like the name, and I didn't originally like the concept, but Apple stuff is always so beautiful, and it always just works. I now look forward to its arrival here in the UK.

The fact that it doesn't have Intel anywhere near the thing also makes me glad.

Crisis Mapping - the power to help

The most inspiring stories of human fortitude and courage have been trickling out of the aftermath of Haiti's devastation, and I can't help the welling sense in my heart that I need to do something to help.I could give my money, but this just feels so pitiful. I know the DEC (Disasters Emergence Committee), and other groups like it, are undoubtedly the best-placed when it comes to the logistical nightmare of accumulating donations, and airlifting essential supplies to those in most desperate need of the most basic care. £50 could pay for a kit to help treat the wounds of 25 people. But it just seems like so little, when compared to wanting to save everyone, and restore their lives to how they were before this cataclysm.

So it is with great hope that I read about the efforts being put in by groups like the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) to provide communications equipment that can be deployed in a disaster to restore the essential links necessary to share information between agencies on the ground. I was also relieved to hear of the quirk of Haitian ISPs (Internet Service Providers), which sees the vast majority of them routing their internet service over robust - but slower - satellite links, rather than over the single - damaged - under-sea fibre optic cable that the country installed in the 90s.

As such, the little known activity - not quite discipline - of crisis mapping has been able to flourish, allowing for the visibility of many pieces of vital information related to everything from infrastructural damage, to the whereabouts of people - to be shared. When combined with the powerful routing capabilities of online mapping systems, great things start to happen. An agency can see where roads are impassible and route their convoys around those obstacles. They can query live information about hospital capacities in outlying cities, and find routes for ambulances to take the injured for treatment. A map of damaged buildings can help target temporary shelters at a particularly ruined area.

With this information being input by volunteers on the ground, the visibility of so many important parameters in the chaos of disaster relief increases in proportion to the number of volunteers there are to maintain that information. And so it shall be that I plan to "bone-up" on crisis mapping as a way to possibly help in future disasters. There's a great little site here about it.

in essence there are two types of information that maps (and other related information systems) will carry - static data, and dynamic data.

The static data relates to the status of infrastructural elements, such as the impassible roads. Once a road becomes impassible, it will remain that way until someone sorts out a clearance operation. It then enters the realm of dynamic information later on, for the recording of the atomic change in state from impassible to open, but then it settles back as static information.

The dynamic information is harder to track, and involves the semi-liquid movement of supplies, people  and relief workers. It involves the tracking of empty beds in hospitals, the location of vital assets such as earth moving equipment, and the list of living (and dead) residents of a particular encampment. Such systems are less accurate, and the ephemeral nature of their data often means these systems are under-developed, and are sometimes bespoke for that particular disaster. They tend to address local needs, and are often based on the pre-existing systems of the local infrastructure, and of the relief agencies themselves. A lot of the effort here is dedicated to integrating the various systems together, and providing shared portals to aggregate information from different sources.

This blog is about novel uses for technology. Although mapping is not that novel, the technology that can show where would be a good place to eat out is also the best at showing usthe way through the most destructive of crises.