RCR Unplugged recently told readers of Intel Corp.’s efforts to port Google Inc.’s Android operating system to its Atom chip, in the hope that the ever-popular Google operating system might add some oomph to the chip firm’s foray into the mobile and smartphone space.
But while Intel’s offering of an OS choice is a good thing, others believe that Android running on an Intel platform is something of an oxymoron.
The critics note that the two are incompatible, seeing as Android was developed to be a mobile platform, while Atom is clearly a PC product, which kicked off the whole netbook craze a couple of years back.
While the mobile and handset industry has been eagerly throwing itself behind new smartphone and tablet initiatives, many manufacturers in the PC space blanche at the prospect of cheaper, more powerful devices coming into the market and cannibalizing their lower end products.
After all, why buy a netbook when one can buy a tablet? Both devices can be used for basic functions like browsing the Internet and media consumption, but tablets offer a whole world of promise that a netbook doesn’t, at a comparable, if slightly cheaper price point.
So while telcos are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of being able to upsell products to customers who certainly won’t be trading in their smartphones any time soon, PC makers are wondering how to salvage the situation as customers look for cheaper, more portable options with better battery life.
Where does this leave Intel, the PC chip making giant? Well, it leaves the firm desperate to crack into the telco market, something it has been unsuccessful at doing for the past 15 years.
Moorestown, Intel’s latest iteration of its lowest powered Atom chip, is still not good enough to compete with the likes of ARM, and even appears to be on the decline.
Announcing its earnings earlier this week, Intel admitted Atom revenues for the first quarter amounted to $355 million, a fall of 19% compared to the fourth quarter of 2009. There is also talk on the Taiwanese street that interest in netbooks is beginning to dwindle, and one could conjecture that the drop in Atom profits is the direct result of OEMs reducing their orders as they dramatically cut back on netbook production.
Also, until Intel’s chips even come close to the power consumption levels of ARM, the smaller British firm has little to worry about from its much larger rival.
But there’s more to it than that, even. Intel has a reputation for pushing its brand in ways that make its partners look insignificant. In the PC space, Intel uses its significant power to dominate hardware vendors and hijack consumer awareness.
It’s an Intel HP PC, or it’s an Intel Dell PC, this is the type of marketing that has made a chip making firm a household name, something extremely bizarre when one considers it properly. Surely if Dell makes a laptop, Dell should get the lion’s share of the credit, not Intel?
Handset makers are not ignorant of Intel’s marketing methods and sources tell us the various telcos are determined not to be trivialized by Intel, or overshadowed by its chips.
Other mobile chipmakers are extremely shy and very reticent in terms of (not) shouting about their mobile chip hardware from the rooftops, which explains why not too many consumers would know what someone was talking about if they asked whether their phone had “ARM inside.” Credit is given to the handset makers and mobile operating systems – the two things the user literally comes face to face with when using a new device.
Therefore, even if Intel’s Moorestown was up to scratch in terms of power consumption and size for mobile devices, the firm is not really well placed in the market.
If the firm makes low-end products, like tablets or the odiously named MIDs (mobile internet devices) any good, then what incentives would customers have to buy the higher end products? And if the lower end products weren’t any good, then why would consumers consider them in the first place?
One could even call it the Moore’s law paradox. It’s a paradox that even Intel’s questionable bundling tactics might have a hard time dealing with.
Intel has in the past been harshly criticized over its somewhat dubious tactics of bundling products and offloading them to key partners at below market pricing in order to sweeten the pill, but the telco market operates quite differently to the PC industry and those methods just won’t fly.
The telco’s and their hardware suppliers are just too big and just don’t trust Intel not to steamroll in and try to take over the show.
Some handset makers, who wish to remain anonymous, have even been heard muttering that their products are not some kind of Trojan Horse sitting around to help Intel extend its franchise. Harsh words indeed.
At the end of the day, Trojan Horse or not, it’s clear that battle lines have been drawn and the war is between the PC and the mobile space.
Android is a mobile operating system and Atom is a PC product. So, sure, Android can run on Atom, but PC isn’t mobile, so is blending the two really such a good idea? Probably not.
