Apple to dial x86 for iPhone?
Claimed shift to Intel could explain downer on third-party apps
Suddenly, Apple's apparent downer on third-party iPhone software development becomes much clearer. Taiwanese moles claim the company is considering founding future iPhones on the next generation of Intel's Ultra Mobile Platform.
Today's iPhones are based on ARM processor technology. Intel abandoned its ARM chip line in practice last year, but focused its efforts on its own x86 processor platform in spirit back in 2005. Since the two are incompatible, moving to x86-based iPhones would by necessity render all existing iPhone apps unusable on the new platform.
Now, Apple has managed such transitions in the past, on the Mac. First, it moved from Motorola's 680x0 family of CPUs to the PowerPC platform. More recently, it migrated from PowerPC to x86. In both cases, Apple did a good job, but the size of its userbase made putting big resources behing the migration essential.
Apple could do the same thing with the iPhone, but since the handset is a new platform and Apple is in a position to minimise the development of the kind of apps that would require it to subsequently invest big dollars in transitioning to a new iPhone platform, that could well be exactly what it's done.
The only iPhone application development Apple has encouraged are applets that run within the Safari browser, and these would be relatively easy to move to a new processor platform. All the others will require re-compiling from ARM to x86, and even then Apple can't guarantee that users will upgrade to new versions - or even that the original coders will do the re-compile.
Intel's Silverthorne: small die
That leaves Apple's support teams fielding calls from iPhone users - many of whom have priority service packages, part of the lure to get them to fork out up to $699 for original 8GB iPhone - who complain their handsets crash when they run application X.
To avoid that, Apple has to incorporate ARM emulation technology in the iPhone so that such apps will run - and even then it's not a certainty.
But cut off third-party native application development and you can head off all these problems at once.
There's the logic - is it likely? That depends on the veracity of the claim Apple is pondering a move to Intel technology. It's said the shift would take place with 'Moorestown', the follow-up to next year's version of UMP, aka 'Menlow'. Moorestown is due to become available in the 2009/2010 timescale, according to Intel, so if Apple does shift to Intel, it'll almost certainly happen with the third generation of iPhone.
To make the move sooner, Apple would have to go with Menlow, due in Q1 2008 and which combines Intel's 45nm 'Silverthorne' processor and the 'Paulsbo' chipset with on-board graphics. But Menlow's perhaps aimed more at small web tablets than phones, so Apple might well want to wait for Moorestown, which puts processor and chipset into a single chip, and its forecast big reduction in power consumption: 20 per cent of what Menlow uses.
COMMENTS
Why indeed
x86 in phones is a sick joke, just the decode unit to convert the worlds worst instruction set in to something remotely executable is larger than an entire ARM based system on chip. The only way it will ever be competitive for mips/watt is if Intel manage to prevent any ARM designs being made on fab plants newer than 2 generations ago.
This is not a reason for preventing 3rd party applications or releasing SDK
I'm sure that many people misunderstand the technical issues at play when changing a processor so let me explain this for everyone at a very "user" level:
1.) Processors run Machine Code, Programmers write in c, c++ or ASM, Programmers then compile programs from these higher level languages (easier to read than machine code) into machine code using software called "a compiler"
2.) Releasing these applications for Intel chip when written for ARM is no more difficult than recompiling for the new chips.
3.) SDK would not change, only the compiler would change... that will have to be provided by Apple (though the 3rd party area can and will do it).
4.) Many people who already own iPhone are not going to buy a new one and so all applications which Apple provides are going to have to be compiled by them for not only ARM but also the newer Intel.
Basically to close, this is all just rumor so far. Apple is not expected to support 3rd party applications. The developers of 3rd party applications will continue to update and support their programs for as long as they are able to write them for the iPhone. Apple suggesting or this author inferring that this is the reason/justification for not allowing 3rd party applications or releasing an SDK is total ... well for lack of a better word that will make it through the censorship, BUNK.
-Mike Keefer
missing the point
Hobson- the popup that says "contact (any) vendor" is exactly what Apple is trying to sidestep. They are clearly trying to raise the usability bar. They want a phone that doesn't throw confusing questions at grandma. Only computers do that. Perhaps artificial, but I think that's what they're shooting for. It may not make a better product on an absolute scale, but it will be improved enough to increase sales.
Let's face it- they could handle the portability thing IF 3rd party applications were the goal.
They could also add rotating blades, extension grip and a 6hp gas engine, if tilling the garden were the goal.
Thing is, the goal seems to be making a phone that's super easy to sell because it never confuses users with any kind of popup about contacting anyone.
What problem ?
What a complete red-herring !
OK, so a few developers will still be lazy and ignore the lessons of the past decade or two, but for most apps it will be a case of :
edit code
type 'make'
build process spits out two binaries !
Just for reference, and as a quick example, I note that Debian GNU/Linux has support as standard for 11 (yes eleven) architectures - and have automated build processes so that people don't have to manually build different packages.
Also, don't forget that developers already have to support multiple architectures in the Wintel world - that's several different versions of Windows (pre-Vista) which all have different requirements, and Vista which is totally different. Oh yes, and don't forget that there are 64bit versions of Windows as well.
As for Apple having to field support calls asking why their phone crashed - <male reproductive organs> ! All the OS has to do is check the architecture of the app before launching it, and if it's wrong then pop up a dialog telling the user that it's incompatible and to "contact the application vendor".
See, no problem.
It's not the chip that matters
Well, not much, especially not with Mac OS X for Intel already exists. But many third party applications will want to access the hardware where drivers, specs and developer support will be required and Apple is probably not ready for this. They might open the technically non-phone iTouch's to developers to encourage the "nearly" phone market that American WiFi hotspots and WiMax and "spectrum neutrality" would seem to offer without pissing off the networks: fashion accessory with VoIP capability in most metropolitan areas.
But x86 is shit for a mobile platform particularly when it comes to the item dearest to most users hearts: power consumption and battery life. Intel's engineers will no doubt do some amazing work but ARM offers more bangs per Watt or dollar.
