anon (anon@anon.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Anon (no@email.com) on 1/26/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>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?
>
>Cutting out a lot of power draw and reducing CPU speed for a phone that will only
>be used for calls and text, makes the CPU's idle power use relatively more important,
>doesn't it? So they certainly could drop Medfield speed and put it in phones without
>sensors and with very small screens, and that would certainly increase standby time.
>But it's idle power consumption would become a relatively much larger issue, so
>nobody would use it when they could just use an ARM instead.
>

In short, your post sounded like you saw an opportunity for Medfield like architecture in lower end phones. I'm just pointing out that it's drawbacks would seem to only get worse at the low end, without deep changes to core microarchitecture.