9 ms·

With the exception of Google TV (which is Honeycomb/x86 at the moment), I don't think Google is focusing on the x86 platform for Android themselves. I think the

by fpgeek 15y ago

With the exception of Google TV (which is Honeycomb/x86 at the moment), I don't think Google is focusing on the x86 platform for Android themselves. I think they're just happily accepting AMD's and Intel's contributions for a few reasons: 1. A good Android/x86 port will give them the option of offering an Android simulator (like Apple's iOS simulator) to developers as an alternative to the much-maligned emulator. 2. If Intel or AMD gets anywhere with x86 smartphones and/or tablets, it is better for Android if it is involved (or at least prepared). 3. They'd rather have the android/x86 work take place under the official umbrella, rather than be an external fork (especially if the existing external fork(s) would otherwise get high-profile sponsors like Intel and AMD).

mbell 15y ago
Its worth noting that the only reason I know of that Google TV and some other early gen "media box" type devices ended up on x86 was the lack of an ARM SoC that could handle 1080p MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 decoding on the higher codec profiles. Boxee for instance publicly stated this was the reason for canning their original design based on the Tegra 2 SoC. There are now ARM SoCs which can do this, NVIDIA's Tegra 3 and the new TI OMAP 4 line. I wouldn't be surprised to see many such devices move back to the ARM SoC platforms in their next incarnations.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Hmmm... I didn't realize the availability of appropriate ARM SoCs was a factor. I'd presumed that having Intel as a co-developer on Google TV was why it launched on x86. However, I can see how the causality can go the other way (not having usable ARM SoCs meant picking Intel as a partner). I wouldn't be surprised to see devices move back (to line up with the bulk of the Android ecosystem, for instance), but since battery life / power consumption isn't a big issue for TV peripherals, I could see things staying with x86 as well. We'll see.
  - mbell 15y ago
    Outside political influences I would see ARM SoCs as a much better fit in this space. While power consumption isn't an issue directly it is an issue indirectly in the form of heat and coincidentally cooling. A device without a fan is desirable from a noise perspective in a living-room, a cost stand point and a "sex appeal" standpoint (pretty case, tiny or no power brick, etc). ARM systems can also be generally cheaper to implement as with many SoCs there is no "chip set" just the single SoC and a couple auxiliary parts. Few parts and fewer traces generally results in a cheaper product. I would _think_ but certainly don't know that maintaining a single set of optimized drivers would also be a win. As many of the ARM SoCs share sub-components with the SoCs used already on android. Thus there is a cost win in being able to use existing drivers. On the other hand anyone that has used linux on Intel GMA video knows there are some "issues" with those devices and since android sits on linux, I would assume they had to do a bunch of custom work to get it working well (or maybe its just an X11 thing).
- wmf 15y ago
  Also, Intel canceled their Atom CE line, so now there aren't any x86 chips that are optimized for STBs.

by fpgeek 15y ago

mbell 15y ago

Its worth noting that the only reason I know of that Google TV and some other early gen "media box" type devices ended up on x86 was the lack of an ARM SoC that could handle 1080p MPEG-4 AVC/h.264 decoding on the higher codec profiles. Boxee for instance publicly stated this was the reason for canning their original design based on the Tegra 2 SoC. There are now ARM SoCs which can do this, NVIDIA's Tegra 3 and the new TI OMAP 4 line. I wouldn't be surprised to see many such devices move back to the ARM SoC platforms in their next incarnations.

fpgeek 15y ago
Hmmm... I didn't realize the availability of appropriate ARM SoCs was a factor. I'd presumed that having Intel as a co-developer on Google TV was why it launched on x86. However, I can see how the causality can go the other way (not having usable ARM SoCs meant picking Intel as a partner). I wouldn't be surprised to see devices move back (to line up with the bulk of the Android ecosystem, for instance), but since battery life / power consumption isn't a big issue for TV peripherals, I could see things staying with x86 as well. We'll see.
- mbell 15y ago
  Outside political influences I would see ARM SoCs as a much better fit in this space. While power consumption isn't an issue directly it is an issue indirectly in the form of heat and coincidentally cooling. A device without a fan is desirable from a noise perspective in a living-room, a cost stand point and a "sex appeal" standpoint (pretty case, tiny or no power brick, etc). ARM systems can also be generally cheaper to implement as with many SoCs there is no "chip set" just the single SoC and a couple auxiliary parts. Few parts and fewer traces generally results in a cheaper product. I would _think_ but certainly don't know that maintaining a single set of optimized drivers would also be a win. As many of the ARM SoCs share sub-components with the SoCs used already on android. Thus there is a cost win in being able to use existing drivers. On the other hand anyone that has used linux on Intel GMA video knows there are some "issues" with those devices and since android sits on linux, I would assume they had to do a bunch of custom work to get it working well (or maybe its just an X11 thing).
wmf 15y ago
Also, Intel canceled their Atom CE line, so now there aren't any x86 chips that are optimized for STBs.