anon (anon@anon.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Anon (no@email.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>>Foo_ (foo@nomail.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>>>---------------------------
>>>>Yes. I think smartphones will trickle down in the coming years, because the price
>>>>of entry-level smartphones will decrease and the price of 3G data access will decrease
>>>>too. So people like me will soon switch to smartphones even though they won't make
>>>>a heavy use of it, and they will expect decent standby times out of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are and will be many low end Android phones coming out which will cause smartphones
>>>to entirely replace the feature phone market over the next few years. A lot of
>>>the "smartphones" will be only in name as their owners will use them only as phones,
>>>and never use any smartphone functionality such as browsing or apps. I wouldn't
>>>be surprised in fact to see disabling the ability to load apps, removing the browser,
>>>Wifi capability etc. on the very lowest end models as a method of artificial market segmentation.
>>>
>>>I'm sure someone will make (if they aren't already) Android phones that are a bit
>>>thicker to accomodate a jumbo battery, which would allow a month of standby time
>>>for those who almost never use their phone. You're not the only who has this usage
>>>model, my retired parents have a cell phone that they only use when travelling.
>>>I think maybe my dad also brings it with him when he goes to the grocery store
>>>so he can call my mom if he can't find something on her list :)
>>>
>>>My point in dismissing the advantage in standby when compared to the iPhone 4S
>>>is that customers who buy the iPhone or an Android phone comparable to the Medfield
>>>reference platform are buying them to be used heavily as smartphones. The battery
>>>life when actually using them is pretty much the same. The difference in standby
>>>time is only relevant to a certain segment of the feature phone replacement market,
>>>and I doubt Intel plans to (or even can) compete with ARM in that ultimate cut throat
>>>market where saving even a few pennies in the BOM rules supreme.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would agree pretty much.
>>
>>One other thing to consider, I suspect that cutting down a high end phone to such
>>minimal capability (smaller dimmer screen, slower cpu, lesser gpu, less memory,
>>no 3g, no wireless, no gps, less sensors, etc) would allow a significant increase
>>in the standby time without having to look too deeply at the core architecture.
>
>No, you're not looking at the complete picture. I mean, your statement is correct,
>but when you have less peripheral power draw, then you have relatively larger idle
>core power draw. So it becomes more important to have lower power core.
>
>Manufacturers of course want to put the smallest, cheapest battery on there that they can.

I'm not missing the point, thats why I said 'slower cpu' as by my understanding idle power demands also tend to drop heavily with lower end CPUs due to their base silicon being on lower leakage processes.

I have not verified that, but it does make a certain amount of sense, no?