3 ms·
Well, they were targeting Android, and the apps were emulating ARM on x86, and they were going against a strong incumbent. Accounts on the web of this failure s
by fulafel 11mo ago
Well, they were targeting Android, and the apps were emulating ARM on x86, and they were going against a strong incumbent. Accounts on the web of this failure seem to bring up other failings as the main problems.
- fulafel 11mo agoEg this review of the AZ210 phone from 2012 seems to think the battery life was good: https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/orange-san-diego https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/orange-san-diego "Battery life during our test period seemed to be pretty good and perhaps slightly better than many dual-core Android phone’s we’ve tested."
- IshKebab 11mo ago> the apps were emulating ARM on x86 They weren't (except some games maybe). Most apps were written in Java and JITed.
- fulafel 11mo agoWell, apps tuned for performance and apps using native code have more than a little overlap. Even back then there were a lot of apps besides games that used native code for the hot code paths. But games of course are huge by themselves, and besides performance you need to have good power efficiency in running them. Here's some more details: https://www.theregister.com/2014/05/02/arm_test_results_attack_intel/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/05/02/arm_test_results_atta... (note it's a 2-part, the "next page" link is small print )