Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th May 2013 12:42 UTC
Google The only thing from the interview I care about: "We are thinking about how to make Android handle updates better. We see ways we can do this. It's early days. We're talking with our partners and working our way through it. We need time to figure out the mechanics, but it's definitely an area of focus for me and for the team." We've seen empty promises about this before, though.
Thread beginning with comment 561482
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Android is open-source, Windows isn't. The x86 ISA is patented, ARM architecture is more verbose, while under licensing scheme too. It's less of a threat than it was.


Edited 2013-05-13 22:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

vaette Member since:

I find this to be backwards though. x86 is patented yes, but Intel has done an amazing job at providing everyone excellent documentation and standards on everything. When you have an x86 system you know how interrupts will work, how the timer works, how the thing boots, how to enumerate and talk to accessories, how power is managed, and a lot of other things. The documentation is all available, in a form that for example Linux developers can use. Linux runs, on a basic platform level, fine on millions of different PC configurations. New ones are released every day, and the basic functionality just works, because it is all documented and well understood. Just a thing like USB: a huge R&D project by Intel over many years, then they designed chips and software that worked with it, documented how to make devices that interact with it, and released every part of it for anyone to use for free.

With ARM, with a just as patented core (though easier to license for big players) absolutely nothing of that holds, every SoC does it differently, and it varies from being poorly documented (Qualcomm) to a proprietary secret (Samsung). Getting Linux running on a new SoC is a troublesome undertaking that must be performed over and over.

This is not an argument against the sentiment in your post, but Intel gets an awful lot of hate for one thing (the x86 ISA), and I really do think they deserve a lot better.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Kochise Member since:

Never said that Intel doesn't deserve their credit where it is due (R&D, amazing performance, Atom, energy efficientcy, etc...) but AMD ain't any less deserving (first at 1 GHz, 386 DX at 40 MHz, Athlon, HyperTransport, nice multi-core architecture, APUs, etc...)

If Intel has restricted its documentation's openess, that sure would have been bad because at the time being, there was more powerful alternatives (68k, Alpha, Sparc, etc...) and it was needed to explain the segmented memory and FPU/MMX shared registers.

What really saved Intel was (b)ackward compatibility and... their FPU which permitted games like Id's Quake where AMD's offering was shining in interger implementation. The PC architecture was basically inherently doomed for games face to Amigas.

But hopefully MCGA (320x200 in 256 colors) and SoundBlaster were a "game changer". If Intel hadn't opened their spec enough, no one would have been able to overcome so many hardware's flaws (through mode-x, dos4gw, xms, int, ...)


Reply Parent Score: 1