Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is 'Quadroid' the New 'Wintel'?

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the don't-ask-meego dept.

Cellphones 150

CWmike writes "'Wintel' is the term that for years defined Windows-based computers running Intel chips. Now a similar expression is emerging for smartphones: 'Quadroid,' a term that refers to the Qualcomm chips used inside smartphones running the Android mobile operating system. The term, recently coined in a report by the PRTM consultancy, could catch on, largely because Qualcomm provides 77% of the chips in phones running Google's Android, which is expected to take the No. 2 slot in 2010. And the Quadroid alliance is expected to grow. Like Wintel has for PCs, Quadroid could push down profit margins for smartphone manufacturers, some analysts say. That might seem like a good thing to consumers, but may not be so good for many phone makers."

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In a word: no (2)

Senes (928228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427514)

In a few more words: we're not going to see what we saw with Wintel because people actually have to go out and select Android. Wintel was what you got when you walked into a store and walked out with a computer; most people didn't even know what an operating system was until it was far too late.

Re:In a word: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427548)

That's exactly the point. It wasn't always that way with computers, and it's now heading in that direction with smartphones. Walk into a non AT&T cell phone store and ask for a smartphone, see what they show you.

Re:In a word: no (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427740)

A blackberry... oh sorry, I live in Canada.

Re:In a word: no (1)

AVryhof (142320) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429190)

I got an HTC Vogue with Win Mobile as a "free" upgrade from Verizon.

Re:In a word: no (2)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427596)

What we saw with Wintel? What exactly did we see with Wintel?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wintel

Seems pretty dry to me. News editorialists love to invent portmanteaus and then pat themselves over the back for a self-perceived job well done, but virtually nobody outside of their little news bubble acknowledges it beyond groaning about its overuse. (staycation)

Re:In a word: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428546)

Take the stick out, slugger. You'll feel better.

Re:In a word: no (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429442)

I don't understand your complaint.

"Win-tel PC" or "Windows/Intel PC" is a perfectly good replacement to describe machines that were once known as IBM PC Compatibles.

Re:In a word: no (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427678)

I'm guessing that it will be rather worse for customers than Wintel...

Wintel duopoly = lower margins for the companies that "make" the computers = greater incentive to take payments in exchange for bundling shitware and/or attempt to 'differentiate' with vendor shovelware.

With cellphones: Same thing; but the customer is cryptographically prevented from uninstalling the crap unless the model is popular enough to attract a really solid mod scene and an easy-to-use custom firmware...

Re:In a word: no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427990)

With cellphones: Same thing; but the customer is cryptographically prevented from uninstalling the crap unless the model is popular enough to attract a really solid mod scene and an easy-to-use custom firmware...

Worse... you have features like $30/month tethering (arbitrarily limited to 5-8 devices) on Sprint plans, which duplicates the exact same core operating system function, and are prevented from using the free method instead (software rooting the phone = voided warranty).

Yeah yeah... carriers can't determine if you rooted it or not, provided you reflash the original firmware, but that isn't the point.

Re:In a word: no (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429314)

There is no cryptographic lock on pre-installed software, it's just that there is no interface for uninstalling it. If you root the phone (as easy as installing an app from the Android Market - yes, Google do allow rooting apps on there) you can remove bundled apps but you do have to be careful because like any custom distro removing random things may break something.

Usually there is no real need to remove bundled apps though. You can install any number of free apps to replace customised home screens and keyboards. Some of the bundled stuff is actually quite good, e.g. the HTC keyboard. They never lock you out from using the one of your choice though, and if you want a vanilla Android phone there are plenty of options.

The Qualcomm situation isn't as bad as Intel either because ARM is licenseable by anyone and because the architecture is set by ARM themselves everyone is producing compatible kit. Android runs on non-ARM hardware too. The reason Qualcomm are popular is because they are cheap, but there are no barriers to anyone else making competing chips, unlike in the Wintel days when Intel was using patents and proprietary extensions to try to kill the competition.

Actually Windows/Android situation is very similar (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427868)

In a few more words: we're not going to see what we saw with Wintel because people actually have to go out and select Android. Wintel was what you got when you walked into a store and walked out with a computer; most people didn't even know what an operating system was until it was far too late.

You are skipping the early history of Windows. Many people were very much aware of Windows, just as many are aware of Android. It was Intel that they didn't really know about, much like they don't know about Qualcomm. Windows 3 caught on because of huge marketing efforts and a high public demand to turn people's DOS boxes into something graphical and easier to use. People initially had choices, stick with DOS, move to OS/2 1.x (+ Presentation Manager GUI if interested), or buy a Mac. Well I guess SCO Unix and Microsoft Xenix were options too. :-)

As for your thesis that people just wanted a computer and got Windows without really knowing about, well the same is true for Android. Some people want a smartphone and buy some Motorola, Samsung, LG, etc phone without being aware of Android or Google.

Re:Actually Windows/Android situation is very simi (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428596)

Windows was shipped with IBM(?), and that caused a markedshare to form.
Now.... we also have anticompetive practice from Microsofts DOS against drdos, and etc...
The thing about Wintel is that you had MS, who had managed to root up a monopoly, which ran on x86, and Intel killed of all comptetion in the x86 platform.
We won't see Quadroid as Wintel, because I doubt they will be allowed to roam free. And there will be sort of a competition internally and externally.

Re:Actually Windows/Android situation is very simi (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428680)

Windows was shipped with IBM(?), and that caused a markedshare to form. Now.... we also have anticompetive practice from Microsofts DOS against drdos, and etc...

Before all that there was tremendous interest in Windows 3 prior to its launch and a lot of people eager to use it once it became available. At the time people were really interested in using a graphical environment rather than DOS. Also at this time Microsoft was telling developers that Windows was temporary, just something for DOS users to use for now, and that the future would really be OS/2 1.x with the Presentation Manager GUI.

Re:In a word: no (2)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427972)

No, we're not going to see what we saw with Wintel because, AFAIK, there are no third-party native apps for Android phones. Microsoft could have ported Windows to a MIPS architecture (for instance), but why would they? Windows developers were/are distributing native code that runs on x86 chips: they'd have to at the very least recompile their application to run on Windows MIPS. Users wouldn't understand the issue, and it would cannibalize the platform.

On the other hand, if Android apps run on a VM, then it doesn't matter if you've got an ARM architecture, an x86 architecture, a Power architecture...the bytecode should be the same. So even if Android were to completely dominate the smartphone market, the chip manufacturers really shouldn't rest on their laurels, because they can be replaced much more easily. Linux already runs on it...

Re:In a word: no (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428054)

Microsoft could have ported Windows to a MIPS architecture (for instance), but why would they?

Actually, they did. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

"Various versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures, initially Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64 supported in later releases."

Re:In a word: no (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429522)

A couple fixes:
  • There are plenty of third party apps that use native code. With Android NDK(came out with Android 1.5?), you can write native code for ARM, and a lot of people use it. I've just started playing with it, but it should be much better for highly interactive stuff.
  • Android runs on top of a Linux kernel (a good and a bad thing with Linux's driver model)

answer (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427518)

No.

The writing is on the wall. (4, Funny)

Zugok (17194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427532)

So does that make the Nokia-MeeGo combination a NoGo? I don't like the sound of that!

Re:The writing is on the wall. (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427684)

Android has got a better branding, you can't beat that green Android robot, it is beyond argument especially with non-tech people. Now all the "MeGo.." jokes around, Nokia+Intel teams should have picked at least some animal or something people can easily relate to, this new OS will be hard to push especially when the other side (Android) has the Google marketing muscle behind it.

Re:The writing is on the wall. (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428534)

I'm a pretty techy person, and I don't think I'd recognize the Android robot. I actually had to just go Google it to see what you're talking about--I don't think I've ever even seen or noticed it before.

Re:The writing is on the wall. (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427840)

Now thats fucking funny!

I hope not, but its funny.

(still laughing)

Re:The writing is on the wall. (2)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428068)

Android -> Quadroid => Hemorrhoid.

Re:The writing is on the wall. (1)

Nirvelli (851945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428772)

You're a bit late [engadget.com] on that one.

Re:The writing is on the wall. (1)

Zugok (17194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428822)

Ah but that's about MeeGo on a Nokia being a 'no go' because Maemo is uh...a 'go'... Where as I am talking about MeeGo on a Nokia being a NoGo or was that a no go... uh what was I talking about again?

bad for consumers as well. (3, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427534)

When the race to the bottom occurs, and everyone's trying to grab marketshare rather than profit, OEMs are going to crap out ever more unreliable, useless hardware. The whole thing's a mess.

This isn't good for consumers. the Android software ecosystem WILL suffer. custom UI skins will be more bloated and useless, apps will become more and more fragmented, and I'm not sure if consumers are going to be willing to put up with it.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427690)

custom UI skins will be more bloated and useless, apps will become more and more fragmented,

good news you can just put your own version of android on your phone with your own custom ui or none at all.

im just waiting for catonical to grab an android release make it look like gnome/unity throw in a half decent shell and release it as ubuntroid or whatever their gona call it

Re:bad for consumers as well. (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427694)

When the race to the bottom occurs

Where is this happening?

Samsung, LG, HTC, Moto et al. seem more interested in a race to the top providing the best high end phone. Even in Wintel land, its a race to the top with Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, Toshiba and so forth competing for the best product in each price category. Heuwei and others seem more interested in providing the best low end phone possible.

Sorry but your argument is bad.

Competitive environments don't support races to the bottom, only highly restricted environments support products that are deliberately underpowered, striped of features or just not fit for purpose

This isn't good for consumers. the Android software ecosystem WILL suffer

No, it isn't good for certain one-size fits all competitors. It's excellent for Android customers. UI's sort themselves out as some thrive, some die and orders establish themselves in the same way that various technologies fought on Windows, all can co-exist but one or two become dominant. I'm not a liberatard but the market really will sort this one out.

custom UI skins will be more bloated and useless, apps will become more and more fragmented

Try saying fragmentation a few more times, at least you wont sound like more of a fanboy. The fragmentation myth has been disproved time and time again, I mean tweetdeck had all of two android developers for the hundreds of handsets (in reality they coded for 4 versions of Android, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1 and 2.2). If you don't know how interpreted code works and why android uses this model you shouldn't be participating in this conversation.

In the end it still comes down to "do or not do". Wintel is still on top because it does more then any other OS (Linux rules the servers because it does more then any other *nix). Windows does nothing, well lets not kid ourselves, its a bloated, buggy, unreliable piece of crap but it runs all my work programs, games and anything else I throw at it. This will be the same on mobile OS's, in a years time there will be a lot that Android does that other mobile OS's don't do, already my Moto Milestone w/Android 2.2 is more like a desktop machine in a form factor that is convenient to make phone calls on.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (3, Insightful)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429348)

Where is this happening?

Samsung, LG, HTC, Moto et al. seem more interested in a race to the top providing the best high end phone. Even in Wintel land, its a race to the top with Dell, HP, Asus, Lenovo, Toshiba and so forth competing for the best product in each price category. Heuwei and others seem more interested in providing the best low end phone possible.

The race to the bottom is about the platform itself, not about a few individual manufacturers and their high-end models based on Android. If it turns out in a few years that you have 95 craptastic el-cheapo Android phones on the market for every 5 high-end ones, you guess what most people will be buying. The cheap craptastic ones. It's would be just like Wintel land, where the vast majority of laptops sold are sub-$700, and all of them have crappy build quality, crappy batteries, crappy screens, etc. People buying a laptop just look at the GHzs and the GBs and then choose the least expensive option they can find. That's a race to the bottom for you: flooding the market with so many cheap options that price and volume become the leading factors in the design of your product.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429496)

The race to the bottom is about the platform itself, not about a few individual manufacturers and their high-end models based on Android. If it turns out in a few years that you have 95 craptastic el-cheapo Android phones on the market for every 5 high-end ones, you guess what most people will be buying.

And this is what is wrong about the argument.

This has not happened in the PC market nor in the current mobile phone market. There has been a slight shift towards high end devices of late. Despite Manufacuters like Acer making PC's "to a price" high end sales continue (Sony VAIO, Dell Latitudes, HP Envy's and so on). The thing is that the low end and high end markets exist as different entities in computers, so I think the same will happen with phones.

I understand your augment but I still think it doesn't apply. It's not like toasters where fancy boutique toasters were eliminated by $15 toasters made in bulk in China, there is value in quality when it comes to computers and similar devices and more importantly, people see value in quality in computers.

The Nokia 3310 has not dominated the market for the same reason the $500 Acer Travelmate has not dominated the market, because there are different markets with different needs and expectations. The existence of a low end segment does not cheapen the market when there is a big enough difference in what the market wants.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427782)

Yeah, but just think of all the cheap jailbroken Linux remote-control tracking device cameras we will have two years from now. Like, a whole beowulf cluster of them.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (0)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427932)

in a year or two, powering up a 1.6 android phone will likely result in a rapid influx of insta-pawnage that'll rival connecting a Windows98 machine to the internet:) There'd be so many bots auto-pawning you, you probally couldn't get from a hard reset to making a phone call before it's un-useable!

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429448)

Except that live 1.6 machines will be as rare as hens' teeth because the network operators will provide OTA upgrades to 2.2 before the problem gets serious.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429568)

Sure.... You do realize that all Android phones are newer than the iPhone 3G?

I have two Android devices, one has a promised update to 2.2 in early 2010 and the other is officially stuck at 1.6. The security update situation on Android is crap. http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/26/android-how-security-can-work-while-failing/ [sophos.com]

Re:bad for consumers as well. (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429570)

oops, meant early 2011

No not really (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427958)

A race to the bottom for margins doesn't mean quality as well. In most competitive industries you find that will it does allow for cheap, crap, items it also allows for reasonable, good, items. Look at desktop PCs. Graphics cards are extremely cutthroat. Prices are wonderful, consumers can get a powerful midrange card that does great on modern games for less than $200, and even approaching $100. However those cards can be perfectly well made. You can find cards with lifetime warranty in that range. You can get cheap, ultra low end cards of course, that are neither very powerful or well built, but you don't have to. Higher send stuff is still made, including some ridiculously high end stuff.

Consumers benefit when manufactures are encouraged to lower profit margins. After all, from a consumer point of view, profit is just money wasted. The best situation for a consumer is that a company earns no profit, all money is going to cover the cost of the good. It is not good when a company can charge a massive margin for no reason. That is just wasted money for a consumer.

Also for the most part with cellphones, relatively low quality is ok since they aren't things people keep. Technology progresses too fast and people want the new gadget. Fine, but that means that building a phone to last 10 years when it will be used for 1 is silly.

Now when phones settle down, when they stop changing at such a breakneck pace, then yes, would be nice to maybe get a phone and keep it for many years. However I don't see that happening any time soon, particularly since phones are partly fashion and thus you need ot be new and trendy all the time in most peoples' minds.

Re:No not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428184)

You're right. You can spend $600 (equal with the price of a smartphone) and build a PC capable of handling almost anything thrown at it over the next 2 years. e.g., off the top of my head, a Deneb (Phenom II X4) 965, Radeon 5770 or similar, 4GB DDR3-1600, latest AMD chipset mobo, 500-600W PSU, etc...

It's stupid how expensive cell phones currently are. They don't even come down in price when they become deprecated. G1s sell for ~$200 new on Ebay even today (totally absurd, worth $25); Droid original is $560, ~$400+ new on Ebay (absurd, worth $150); Nexus One is still original price at ~$500 (worth ~$300 today); HTC Hero is $450, $300-400 new on Ebay (totally absurd, worth $80). By today's standards, all of these phones are crap, yet they have had hardly any depreciation. Even Ebay's asking prices are outlandish. But, oh boy, you sign up for a 1-2 year contract, and you can pick out a Droid X/{GalaxyS-line}/Evo/G2, which blows the others away, for $0-100 USD.

Goddamn I can't wait for the dual-core A9's (and the Adreno 220) to stomp the current mobile market, and for it to drastically drive down costs the way the C2D did.

Re:bad for consumers as well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428260)

No i do not think so at all. The final sentence: "That might seem like a good thing to consumers, but may not be so good for many phone makers." triggers all my alarms of a call behind the scenes for price fixing. And that offers nothing good for the consumer, only their already high profits.

Awwww (1)

Aerorae (1941752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427568)

Poooor phone makers~ /sarcasm

If this does for phones what it's done for pc's, the consumer is going to finally win at least a bit when it comes to their phone. Finally they won't be screwed by BOTH their carrier AND their manufacturer.

SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427582)

Stop it you motherfuckers. Just fucking stop it. Stop with the ass-grabbing buzz-wording over-hyping bastardizing-jargon based marketing bullshit! I'm sick of it and you all need to police yourselves from now on because I simply don't have the resources to slap the shit out of every last one of you like you deserve.

    FUCK.

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (-1)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427610)

Oh if only I didn't post in this thread already...I even have mod points.
+5 Awesome

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427646)

Stop it you motherfuckers. Just fucking stop it. Stop with the ass-grabbing buzz-wording over-hyping bastardizing-jargon based marketing bullshit! I'm sick of it and you all need to police yourselves from now on because I simply don't have the resources to slap the shit out of every last one of you like you deserve.

    FUCK.

The best part is, you can substitute this article for any other on Slashdot, and this post still works just as well!

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427738)

Thanks for the heads-up, I hadn't noticed the depth of this pool, and totally agree it needs to stop. Working together we can leverage our synergy and slap the shit out of them, as you say. PM me and we'll set an ETA for FIFANY.

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428360)

While we're thinking outside of the box, we also need a major maturity model paradigm shift away from the juvenile counterculture phrases such as "fail", "moar", "cheezburger" and anything else associated with microblogging, social media or lolcats. With careful best practices, we will hopefully begin to see a downtrending of these low hanging fruits, their constituents and a huge ROI on our value add bitchslaps.

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428522)

*Gag* [twitch] (foam)

I feel like I am trapped at a Quality Assurance meeting with an endless powerpoint presentation and no door!

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427892)

Steve Jobs? Is that you?

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (5, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428146)

Uh oh, looks like someone could use a staycation!

Re:SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP!! (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428278)

Props for not ranting as AC!

_heads to the fish market for wet trouts_

Dumb (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427602)

I think this moniker is dumb and pointless. Wintel meant two things - you were buying x86 compatible hardware preinstalled with Windows. There were multiple OS options when the term was coined, and it concisely meant that the machine was not preinstalled with OS/2, just MS-DOS, etc, but Windows specifically. Intel meant that the machine was Intel x86 compatible, which, again, was important at the time when the architecture of the machine mattered because many x86 programs did not even run in Windows.

So for starters, "Qualcomm" is a misnomer, because it is actually an ARM chip, and that is the important part. Android doesn't run on only Qualcomm chipsets, but on ARM compatible devices.

Second, people don't get a choice of OS and / or CPU architecture when they purchase a phone. There is no mixing and matching. Thus referring to the phone by its chipset is totally pointless.

Third, just because it's Qualcomm doesn't give any idea of the actual hardware. Does it have a FPU, GPU? What's the processor speed? We don't gain any important information from knowing that it is a Qualcomm chipset.

Everything that a consumer needs to know can be described in the name of the OS at this time when it comes to Smartphones, which is why "Quadroid" is lame and useless.

Re:Dumb (1)

ClarkMills (515300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427744)

"ArmDroid" then?

EVERYBODY!!! (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427822)

Replied to on WinMOMAP :)

Cheers!

Re:Dumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427838)

"ArmDroid" then?

Given that Wintel was OperatingSystem-Platform, I would have thought AndArm was more appropriate.

Re:Dumb (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428504)

Well, considering the crazy prices some of these fashion accessories...errr...I mean smartphones are going for AnARM my be more apropos, as in it will cost you AnARM and a leg. Personally I think anyone making bets as to which OS/Chip will win at this stage of the game is just dumb. For the first time since the 80s we have all these different chips, everything from Samsung's to NV's Tegra, and all seem to be popping up with new features seemingly every other week, so it really is anybody's guess ATM.

It isn't like when Wintel came about, which the amount of apps for Windows made it the deciding factor, because all these smartphones will have app stores and the average Joe won't know the difference between App A or B. And don't forget just two years ago nobody would have though Android would just pop up and start stomping established players like RIM, and it really wouldn't be hard with the basic Linux and BSD building blocks out there for someone to cook up something that blows Android away. This market is just too volatile ATM to be making any comparisons to wintel at this time.

Re:Dumb (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428528)

'DroidArm sounds cooler.

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427770)

Exactly, I highly doubt Qualcomm will end up cornering the market like intel has. We have Samsung, Sony, Apple, Texas Instruments, etc all manufacturing basically the same chips.

Re:Dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427836)

I think this moniker is dumb and pointless. Wintel meant two things - you were buying x86 compatible hardware preinstalled with Windows. There were multiple OS options when the term was coined, and it concisely meant that the machine was not preinstalled with OS/2, just MS-DOS, etc, but Windows specifically. Intel meant that the machine was Intel x86 compatible, which, again, was important at the time when the architecture of the machine mattered because many x86 programs did not even run in Windows.

So for starters, "Qualcomm" is a misnomer, because it is actually an ARM chip, and that is the important part. Android doesn't run on only Qualcomm chipsets, but on ARM compatible devices.

Second, people don't get a choice of OS and / or CPU architecture when they purchase a phone. There is no mixing and matching. Thus referring to the phone by its chipset is totally pointless.

Third, just because it's Qualcomm doesn't give any idea of the actual hardware. Does it have a FPU, GPU? What's the processor speed? We don't gain any important information from knowing that it is a Qualcomm chipset.

Everything that a consumer needs to know can be described in the name of the OS at this time when it comes to Smartphones, which is why "Quadroid" is lame and useless.

http://howdoimakewine.blogspot.com/

Re:Dumb (don't forget the software/hardware chain) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427846)

It's also incredibly dumb because a key part of the wintel issue was that it removed any hope for a non-x86 architecture. Nobody would buy non-x86 because there was no software. Nobody would make any software because nobody bought non-x86.

Clearly this doesn't apply to android. Linux is (I believe) the most widely ported OS in the world, and most programs for the android are written in Java, which is a language and runtime specifically designed to avoid architecture lock in.

Precisely (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427914)

This is also why you never hear the term "Wintel" anymore unless from an outdated tech journalist, an ARM zealot, or perhaps a strange Mac zealot. It holds no meaning anymore. Almost all PCs are effectively Wintel and ALL are x86 which is why someone will just say "a PC" and it is assumed. To the extent you hear anything it is about the OS and then only in the case the OS is not Windows.

This is just tech journalists being stupid.

Re:Precisely (2)

wintermute000 (928348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427970)

er you've not worked in enterprise IT have you, or maybe its just something us strange Aussies say.
MS server techs are universally referred to as 'wintel' (as distinct from unix, mainframes etc.)

Maybe a regional thing (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428576)

I do enterprise support for a large research university in the US. We call them "PCs," "Macs," and so on. Never heard Wintel used and we actually DO have Solaris SPARC units at work. More or less when someone says "PC" it is assumed they mean "x86 platform running Windows," unless there is a quantifier like "Linux PC" in which case x86 is still assumed.

Re:Maybe a regional thing (1)

wintermute000 (928348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428616)

no we don't use it to refer to end user PCs. We use it to refer to the MS server stack and OS, and the guys who work in that environment.

e.g. 'people can't connect to exchange - call the wintel techs'. Seen it everywhere - conversations, ticket system queues and reports, department names (e.g. Servers, Wintel vs Servers, unix), resumes (listing skillsets etc.)

guess maybe its just still prevalent in Oz but not where you are.

Competing systems (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428048)

Somehow I skipped the most important part of what I was going to say. At that era in computing, everyone and their brother was producing home computers. I can't be bothered to look at an actual time line to make sure these were all contemporary to the term "wintel", but to throw out same names:
Apple Macintosh, Commodore 64, Commodore Amiga, Texas Instruments TI-99/4A, Timex Sinclair, Tandy TRS-80

None of those machines were compatible with one another in any way, and each of those machines had a unified OS and hardware architecture. Thus Amiga represented both an OS and hardware, and it was simple branding to know that Amiga software ran on an Amiga computer.

When it came to x86 the hardware and OS were completely separate entities, and thus there were multiple operating systems for x86. The term wintel was very useful because it described both the hardware and OS, which was helpful in purchasing both computer hardware and computer software. So essentially you can add Wintel to my list of computers above, and it will fit right in, which is why the term was coined.

Re:Competing systems (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428124)

Wouldn't the term "windows" have sufficed? Windows didn't get very far on either alpha or ia64.

Re:Dumb (1)

ThermalRunaway (1766412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428392)

Not that I disagree with this being slightly stupid but...

I don;t see a difference between your statement that buying Wintel meant x86 compatible HW and saying Quadroid means buying ARM HW. And if Intel had suddenly switched all its CPUs to some other arch, it still would have been Wintel. Because that meant more than the specifics of the HW.

Just becuase you say Intel doesn't give you an idea of the HW either. Is it 1 core or 8? Does it have hyperthreading... how big is the cache? Blah blah.. some exact thing as "Quadroid".

I would argue that everything you need to know is NOT in the name of the OS. Someone says "Android" and I still dont know what it is. Is its 1.6, or 2.1? Or do I get lucky and get 2.2? Is it a vanilla Google built, or is it HTC or Samsung or Moto screwing with the UI. Do I still get the stock apps, or am I stuck with the HW manufacturers apps?

Then lets add in carrier specific BS. Am I stuck with VZ crap I can't uninstall on top of Moto apps?

I would say better names would be VerMotoid, or HTCdroidmobile, or SamTTroid. The CPU is the least of the issues with android phones at the moment...

Re:Dumb (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428516)

Wintel did not always mean IBM PC compatible, BTW. In Japan, the NEC PC-98 was once common. Other examples include SGI Visual Workstation 320/540. These are all now obsolete, of course, and support for these was abandoned in XP.

Linux will save us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427626)

"Wintel" happened at a particular time in history. That time is past.

The predominant operating system for PCs was proprietary and was designed for a single CPU architecture. Android is based on Linux and Linux is designed to be portable. It might be that Qualcomm's Arm-based SoC is the most popular hardware for smartphones today, but that could easily change. It could even change to (gasp!) MIPS or (double gasp!) some form of x86.

Re:Linux will save us (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427720)

NT was actually designed with portability as a goal(development didn't even begin on x86, that was a later port) and existed at least briefly in the wild on x86, AMD64, IA64, Alpha, MIPS, and PPC, along with a few others that never made it to release; but saw active development use.

The third-party software scene, on the other hand, is pretty much a joke on anything that isn't x86 or, gradually, AMD64, so the only exotic survivor is IA64 in a few niche environments.

Now, the fact that Android is designed for most 3rd-party software to run inside the Dalvik VM, on the other hand, could make a serious difference in portability(analogous to what NT's history might have looked like if Windows development had been .net CLR rather than win32 from the beginning...). The only trick would be those applications that make use of Android's native code access mechanisms, or those that only function at acceptable levels on hardware with particular characteristics.

Re:Linux will save us (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428502)

The third-party software scene, on the other hand, is pretty much a joke on anything that isn't x86 or, gradually, AMD64, so the only exotic survivor is IA64 in a few niche environments.

And even that support will be abandoned in the next releases of MS products.

Re:Linux will save us (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429280)

Android went the same way as NT: it was initially designed with full portability in mind, didn't provide NDK for native code, and was available for two different CPU architectures (ARM and x86, you can still find android 1.6 distribution for eeePC). All programs were supposed to run equally on all platforms.

Google, however, quickly realized that there is no market for anything but ARM, and NDK is a must (especially with no JIT for Dalvik available until Froyo - meaning very bad application performance).

That said, Android, being Linux-based, is still very easily portable to any other platform. E.g. if Intel decides at any point to go with Android in addition to MeeGo, it can be achieved very quickly. And the android market could always filter application not compatible with the platform it is running on. So different platform won't be a pain for customers, only to developers using native code.

Rhymes with... (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427658)

Sounds more like an STD.

Nah, more like a muscle (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427680)

You know, sort of a cross between your quadriceps and your deltoids.

If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (2, Interesting)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427676)

What's the Samsung-built ARM stuff in an iPhone? Sapple? Samphone?

The world needs to know. This is important!

Re:If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427766)

Or the fact that every single WP7 phone has a Qualcomm SOC.

WinComm? Qualldows 7?

Re:If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428354)

A4ne.

Re:If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427878)

And how about a Windows phone? Qualdows Phone System 7 Mobile Series for Handhelds?

Qualdows Phone System 7 Mobile (1)

pem (1013437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427912)

Yeah, "Where's Qualdows?" I looked all over for it, and Microsoft assures me it's there, but I just can't see it.

Re:If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428250)

Sample.

Samsung-built ARM for iPhone... and Samsung Wave! (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428666)

What's the Samsung-built ARM stuff in an iPhone? Sapple? Samphone?

The world needs to know. This is important!

The ARM processor used by the iPhone 4 (Apple A4)...is the same than the used by the Samsung Wave (Samsung S5PC110A01).

At least according to an annalysis by cnet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20007162-64.html [cnet.com] )

Re:Samsung-built ARM for iPhone... and Samsung Wav (1)

pslam (97660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428856)

The ARM processor used by the iPhone 4 (Apple A4)...is the same than the used by the Samsung Wave (Samsung S5PC110A01).

At least according to an annalysis by cnet: ...

No, that would be the same core not the same processor. You can see in the images linked that it's only a very small fraction of the total SoC that's common to both. It's a bit like calling a Xeon the same processor as a Core 2 Duo - it basically is, but that glosses over the gigantic details of everything else in the chip, and they're not even highly integrated examples.

Re:If Qualcomm+Android = Quadroid... (1)

PeterKraus (1244558) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429350)

Siphone.

Right, because the ~25% remaining are irrelevant (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427688)

This is absurd - (A) to not even refer to the main processor in this meaningless marketing term, and then (B) to exclude (or mislabel!) nearly a quarter of the market...

I'm not a conspiracy kind of guy, but seriously - is Qualcomm behind this transparent marketing grab or what???

Just like intel, there are better processors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427736)

Just like Intel (when the term was coined) there are better more advanced and less expensive alternatives to Qualcomm chipsets.

so, is that because a term has been coined ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427788)

then 'intellokia' has been coined even earlier. so looks that Nokia+Meego will win ?!
http://www.atulnene.com/blog/meego-20101112.html

Awesome Job (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34427904)

some douche marketing firm made a buzzword that nerds will hate and regular people will never know of!

fuck off

I'm with you (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428016)

I won't stand for this kind of market-baggery!

Qualcomm is to CPU's as VIA is to chipsets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427926)

Qualcomm is to CPU's as VIA is to chipsets. That is, bargain engineering lowed priced garbage.

There are better ARM CPU makers like TI.

What Use, "Quadroid?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34427984)

I had no idea anyone these days used a phone -other- than an iPhone or a RIM... really, if I judge from what I see people actually using (younger people, I admit), then I see no local market for Quadroid (Andriod/Qualcomm). The again, I may be in a backwater (Vancouver, Canada). I keep reading about these Vertu (and other luxury brand) phones on BornRich.org, but have yet to see one on the streets... a gold-plated / diamond encrusted iPhone or RIM, I can understand, but is there actually any interesting functionality (built-in or add on via apps) exceeding these two on any luxury or alternate (Quadriod, what have you) phones? Perhaps it's the wealth of apps on the iPhone or the instant messaging of the RIM that make other phones look ridiculous, but I can't honestly say that I've seen competition, despite what the cell-plan providers want to market or bundle with their plans. Now a miniature satellite phone for use all over the planet, I can understand as being praiseworthy, but are Slashdoters so Linux-centric that they find a commercial platform like Quadroid actually -interesting-? Like I said, Vancouver Canada (at least what I see of it in my daily routine) could -very well- be a backwater. Last time I came back from a Asian vacation (Tokyo in particular - wow-) I certainly saw how far behind we were, technologically, and how lame our best cell phones were compared to the cheap, and very widely used models prevalent all-over Asia, and how deprived I felt, noticing this, (given what my usage bill was with my cell provider, I felt I -deserved- a better available phone - lighter, smaller, bigger screen, faster, etc. closer to models in production, elsewhere in the world) so are they Quadroid phones in the US (with amazing apps, etc.), and elsewhere now that walk over the ones I see here in Vancouver, Canada, in my daily routine? I like the response here "Dumb" that explains why the term "Quadroid" is exceedingly lame, but I'd also like to have some idea of the actually relevance of the phones themselves that fit into this platform... if one already has a latest model iPhone or RIM (which it seems, here, "most" users do) what use is the Android platform, aside for an interesting place to develop your own applications or mobile phone, if you are so technically endowed? :)

Re:What Use, "Quadroid?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428200)

Rather than counter your wall-o-text with a wall of my own breaking down all the function and features you can get with a high-end android phone that are not available or are not as good on iPhone or RIM phones I will simply say this: Go to your local wireless store (preferably one with well-informed employees) and really check the Androids out. I mean REALLY check them out, with an open mind. I'm not saying you'll decide to throw away your iPhone or RIM and buy it on the spot but as long as you don't go in with a serious case of fanboyism, you'll appreciate why there's such a fuss about Android all of a sudden. You may love it and you may hate it but there's no denying the openness and capability of Android (unless of course you're an iPhanboy with an inferiority complex which from your post it doesn't sound like you are.)

DISCLAIMER: No, I don't work for Google. Yes, I do consider myself a fandroid. Yes, I have used various iPhones, Blackberries and WinMo phones (though not the WP7 yet, I can't get past the building blocks on the home screen.) I have a Motorola Droid that I have put against three of my friends' iPhones (two jailbroken 3GSes and a 4) and my Droid took the 3GSes apart before I rooted (one click root w/ Z4Root) and the 4 shortly after. I know what these phones are capable of and I could never go back to the hum-drum of Blackberry or the "simplicity" of iPhone.

Re:What Use, "Quadroid?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428356)

OOPS, I made a wall anyway. Oh well.

monopoly is never a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428082)

"That might seem like a good thing to consumers,"

No monopoly has ever been good for anyone. Not even for the monopoly itself. We might just wonder where we could be in PC-industry (if it existed) if MS (and Wintel) was not given a total control.

Android in Cars (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428246)

I know MS has got WinCE in a variety of cars like some BMWs.
If Dodge starts to use Android, and they put it in any of their cars with high performance engines then will they call it "hemiroid?"

bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428280)

Low profit margins would suggest crap systems... just like wintel!

Proof you're not a robot (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428302)

CAPTCHA: Bullshit - crossing a bull terrier with a shitsu

No. Not possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34428374)

x86 has three licensees. ARM has like 90. Don't worry about it.

I'm gonna have to say... (1)

mdw2 (122737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428412)

no. Is this really a question?

Nonsense (1)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428590)

While Windows + Intel is a double vendor lock in (technical mostly from Windows, but emotional also from Intel), Andriod can run on different CPUs and Android-apps can run on different CPUs so there is no such vendor locking. The goal of using Linux as Android basis was to be flexible when it comes to CPUs. And the Dalvik/Java-platform is also a thingy to support different CPUs. So it is something completely different.

Eh? (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34428706)

Is 'Quadroid' the New 'Wintel'?

In the sense that it's a retarded portmanteau word then yes, it most certainly is.

they're already as much that as they will ever be (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429120)

mobile phone manufacturers do essentially this: they buy arm chips, display units and stick them to a board, flash sw and stick the product into a cardboard box for sale.

qualcomm has just been a decent supplier for this period of time, with available supplies.

it would be more preferable to talk about the ARM revolution. but talking about that is so old news you wouldn't get any hits with it.

A(ndroid)+Qua(lcomm) = Aqua? (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429250)

If we follow the template of software + hardware (Windows/Android + Intel/Qualcomm), why not call the mutant daughter Aqua (with the advantage we don't have to coin a word).

Qualcomm has nowhere near the monpoly Intel had. (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429340)

For example the entire GalaxyS line of smartphones does not run on Qualcomm chips, they run on Samsungs. The GalaxyS is on track to be the best selling mobile phone world-wide, ever. This is not even counting the Galaxy Tab. And next year the GalaxyS2 is rumoured to be out.

That is just one example. Anyway the point is Qualcomm is in a good position but they have nowhere near the power Intel had in the day. It is relatively simple to run the Android platform on any processor type.

What are they talking about? (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34429358)

While Qualcomm is major player, it hardly has a market share of Intel: Samsung sells a bunch load of phones and they have their own platform. Motorola Droid/Milestone and its newer versions are all based on TI OMAP platform. Lots of new phones will be released with Nvidia Tegra 2. Several Chinese phones are Marvell Armada (former Intel XScale) based. The platform makers are in stiff competition so their margins can't be too high. And unike Microsoft, Google doesn't charge a lot for its OS (you know, it's free). ARM itself faces an imminent competition from upcoming low-power Intel chips.

In short, this article is a BS and waste of time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?