x86 Smartphones

[the.weavster]

It seems Intel may have really come up with a contender this time:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/11 ... martphones
http://www.pcworld.com/article/253993/f ... _week.html

A good step towards making PB for mobile a possibility?

[USCode]

So does this mean we will be able to use PB for Windows to write smartphone apps, since the phone will be x86-compatible and Windows 8 phone is based on the same codeline as Windows 8 ?
Maybe not since Windows Phone 8 may not support Win32 ... ?

[the.weavster]

I would imagine most of the phones are likely to be Android, hardly anybody buys Windows phones.

In the not too distant future we should have x86 mobiles in the market place.
The Linux kernel and the Android kernel are being merged: http://liliputing.com/2012/03/linux-ker ... erged.html
Canonical are working on Ubuntu for Android: http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android

I was just wondering if these developments create an opportunity for PB.

[Num3]

Sounds like a dead horse...

Sure, they have ported android for the x86 mobile device, but there are only a few user apps for it...

[RichAlgeni]

With Intel entering the game, I think you'll be surprised at how strong they come out of the gate. Add to the fact that in many ways Android is dropping the ball in much the same way Blackberry has. Verizon and HTC promised that Ice Cream Sandwich would be out in very early 2012 for my HTC Rezound. I keep being told it is coming, but still haven't seen it. If this keeps up, it could swing open the door for Intel and an x86 smartphone.

The one sure winner in all of this is Apple and the IPhone.

[the.weavster]

Sounds like a dead horse...

Sure, they have ported android for the x86 mobile device, but there are only a few user apps for it...

Would Android apps need porting? Surely they're bytecode aren't they?

[Fred]

No need to port except if you are using the NDK to use native libs

[the.weavster]

The one sure winner in all of this is Apple and the IPhone.

iPhones are functionally limited. I would imagine they only attract smartphone virgins, anybody who's already had a Symbian or Android device are likely to become frustrated at the things iPhone can't do.

[RichAlgeni]

iPhones are functionally limited. I would imagine they only attract smartphone virgins, anybody who's already had a Symbian or Android device are likely to become frustrated at the things iPhone can't do.

No question, but what they do, they do well, and people who have them love them. I learned to loathe my Blackberry, and I don't like Android much better.

[the.weavster]

iPhones are functionally limited. I would imagine they only attract smartphone virgins, anybody who's already had a Symbian or Android device are likely to become frustrated at the things iPhone can't do.

No question, but what they do, they do well, and people who have them love them.

I had an iPhone 3G and hated the bloody thing! I realise my friends and family are not necessarily representative but the majority of people I know who've had an iPhone have now either replaced it with an Android device or they've gone back to a feature phone. iPhones are not just functionally limited they have a tendency to smash to smithereens if you drop them (do the new ones have Gorilla Glass yet?), that was enough to convince one or two that cheap feature phones were a better idea after all.

Personally I went back to Symbian (a NOKIA 5800 XM) although I've now got various Android devices too.

I learned to loathe my Blackberry

My partner's got a BlackBerry Bold and I find that little touch pad far too sensitive, it drives me mad. I'd actually prefer it to have a clicky little joystick like I had on my old NOKIA E61. The hardware has a nice quality feel to it though.

[blueznl]

I recently moved to an Android phone (hell, it was *cheap* as it was *free*) but I certainly miss several things my ol' BlackBerry just did right...

- the email handling - close to perfect on a BB in my opinion (a little example: I don't want to switch folder to check what I've sent, I just want all in the same list)
- the amount of traffic generated (way less on the BB, even when browsing)
- the keyboard (I want a decent keyboard, on an affordable phone!)
- battery life (my old 8900 did way better than this LG, with roughly the same battery, and still my LG lasts way longer than the Samsung Android my wife owns)

Still, all the apps on Android are nice. Cheap. And I like the way I can rearrange the Android screens. We also own an iPad, and the amount of inflexibility is staggering. Can't hide icons, can't play DLNA, can't easily access files, no external memory slot, the list goes on and on. Once you go Apple, it's Apple all the way, even when you don't want to. But hey, the wife wanted an iPad, I wanted some Samsung tab. She won. (Heh, she mostly does )

[DarkDragon]

No need to port except if you are using the NDK to use native libs

Not even then, as the ndk has a simple flag for compiling x86 code and it will work, except if you use low level stuff like inline assembly.

http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html
The architectures supported by the ndk are ARM, ARM-v7 (with hardware fpu support), x86 and now also MIPS. You can bind all architectures of your ndk program into one jar.

@blueznl: why did you buy a phone without keyboard if you want one with keyboard?

[blueznl]

@blueznl: why did you buy a phone without keyboard if you want one with keyboard?

Didn't 'buy' it, it came free with the subscription The subscription itself was cheaper than anything I ran into, even without a phone. So getting a free phone was a no-brainer.

I considered sticking to my BB, but using it without a BB server subscription makes the mail client in the BB pretty useless. On top of that, some apps in Android are quite useful.

I will buy a phone somewhere later this year or next year, one that includes a decent keyboard. A 'Torch' like device running on Android would probably be my favorite.

[RichAlgeni]

I might have been a bit harsh in my opinion of the Verizon LTE Android. The problem is the small battery they include. If you wish to connect to a 4G network, the 3G radio also transmits, since LTE and EVO are not compatible. Then if you also with to connect to wireless, you have a 3rd radio transmitting. If I did 20 minutes of calls a day, 10 messages and 2 email, I would get about 7-8 hours of battery time. I have finally just turned of LTE, and are just using EVO (3G) here in Florida. With WIFI enabled, I get about 14 hours a day on the battery. Still not wonderful, but better.

[jeff1909]

[quote="RichAlgeni"]I might have been a bit harsh in my opinion of the Verizon LTE Android. The problem is the small battery they include. If you wish to connect to a 4G network, the 3G radio also transmits, since LTE and EVO are not compatible. Then if you also with to connect to wireless, you have a 3rd radio transmitting. If I did 20 minutes of calls a day, 10 messages and 2 email, I would get about 7-8 hours of battery time. I have finally just turned of LTE, and are just using EVO (3G) here in Florida. With WIFI enabled, I get about 14 hours a day on the battery. Still not wonderful, but better.

I agree. My LTE will basically remain off until the battery life of these devices improves. I also do have a mophie pack which I use sometimes, and when I do, I turn LTE on. But the pack weighs the phone down significantly.

-Jeff