51–60 of 72 posts
Hasn't this been known for about 6 months now? Clover Trail isn't an Intel part, it's a PowerVR core licensed from Imagination. Intel doesn't have the rights to release the specs on PowerVR and Imagination has never wanted an open source implementation, even if Intel writes it.
I believe there is some rudimentary support for that in the kernel now, so Linux may work on it [just with no 3d acceleration] anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And regardless, you can, rightly, expect a laptop to be able to run linux (albeit you can't expect it to be quirk-free). You can run linux and other operating systems on many phones and tablets as well. But the fraction of those that consider that is waay smaller than for a laptop (and I doubt anyone would expect it from a typical phone/tablet). As well as the result being barely usable and more of a proof of concept…
One should no more expect to be able to run Linux on their laptop than OSX.
Hasn't this been known for about 6 months now? Clover Trail isn't an Intel part, it's a PowerVR core licensed from Imagination. Intel doesn't have the rights to release the specs on PowerVR and Imagination has never wanted an open source implementation, even if Intel writes it.
I think what you mean to say is that the GPU is licensed IP. The design of the CPU and production of the SoC is being done by Intel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One should no more expect to be able to run Linux on their laptop than OSX.
The concept of "should" is bizarre and irrelevant. The reality of the situation is that right now, you can .
Yes, it is possible to boot Linux on an iPad. And it is also likely that one will be able to likewise boot Linux on devices using the new Intel parts.
But this does not make for a reasonable expectation that end users (let alone general consumers) will have a viable practical alternative to do so in the future. In general the trends are in the other direction, particularly in regards to hardware being configured as general computing devices rather than having systems more firmly embedded.
A few years ago, Napster, made it look as if music would be freely distributable. A few years before that, there was no advertising on the internet. Earlier, commercial software was shareable among people who did not purchase it. At one time computers filled large rooms.
Change happens.
It's not that the chip won't run linux. It's that the device it comes shipped in will be UEFI locked down such as to make it impossible to install anything... Until it's jailbroken and you install whatever on it you like.
Why do people keep saying this? The x86 devices are required to allow loading other OS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google made only $550 million from Android between 2008 and 2011 according to figures from the Oracle trial ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/29/google-earn... ), compared to $38 billion in total revenues for 2011. While half a billion over three years is not trivial, it is rather insignificant compared to $38 billion over one year for search advertising. Trefis analysis of Google's stock price estimate…
Interesting numbers... However those numbers are not everything. What counts is whether customers buy products or not. There are plenty of examples of successful mass products that were sold too cheap. For instance Microsoft's X-Box, they sold it much under price. You might list that under marketing costs. Their strategy however paied off, now they are a big player in the game device market. Of course Google spend lo…
Nexus devices are the reference devices that were supposed to be used by developers: at the Google I/O conference, each attendee received a Nexus 7, Nexus Q, and Galaxy Nexus (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228585/Google_gives_...). If you have a different opinion of what Android "reference devices" are, then provide them for evaluations by the denizens of Hacker News (of which includes a number of Google employees).
It is not necessary to "ask yourself who the real profit makers are," because the revenue numbers for HTC and Samsung are available to the public. The numbers state that Samsung is alreaduy generating more profit than HTC by a significant margin. Samsung's numbers have been increasing. HTC's numbers have been decreasing. Here are some articles that perfectly summarize the point:
"[HTC] posted its third consecutive drop in profit after cutting its revenue forecast amid competition from Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co." (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/htc-second-quart...)
"Soaring sales of smartphones lifted Samsung Electronics Co.'s profit to a company record in the first quarter and executives said that a new model hitting dealers next month will fuel its financial results during the second." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230472330457736...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No cash with Linux? Seriously? Why does the idea that Linux is incompatible with profit still persevere? It's especially ridiculous considering the rise of Android.
Android has made Nokia nearly bankrupt already, Siemens/BenQ has stopped making mobile phones while Android existed. Windows CE/Mobile/whatever seems to have no chance on the market anymore, eventhough they seem technical superior! Palm completely failed with its WebOS. In fact Blackberry is the last survivor of the old cellphone world. (EDIT: And Samsung of course, but they are just copying Apple stuff and get sued…