Hardware

Via engadget

-----

We've had a bit of a love / hate relationship with the Google Chromebook since the first one crossed our laps back in 2011 -- the Samsung Series 5. We loved the concept, but hated the very limited functionality provided by your $500 investment. Since then, the series of barebones laptops has progressed, and so too has the barebones OS they run, leading to our current favorite of the bunch: the 2012 Samsung Chromebook.

In that laptop's review, we concluded that "$249 seems like an appropriate price for this sort of device." So, then, imagine our chagrin when Google unveiled a very similar sort of device, but one that comes with a premium. A very hefty premium. It's a high-end, halo sort of product with incredible build quality, an incredible screen and an incredible price. Is a Chromebook that starts at more than five times the cost of its strongest competition even worth considering? Let's do the math.

Hardware

Wow. This is certainly a departure. If you're going to charge an obscene premium for a laptop with an incredibly limited OS, you'd better produce something that is incredibly well-made. In that regard, the Chromebook Pixel is a complete success. If you'll forgive us just one cliche, Google has gone from zero to hero with the Pixel. It's truly something to behold.

First impressions are of a laptop with surprising density. Apple's MacBook Pros, with their precisely hewn aluminum exteriors, have long been the benchmark against which other laptops were held in when it comes to a sense of solidity. In its first attempt, Google has managed to match that feeling of innate integrity with the Pixel, and in some ways go beyond it.

It's all machined aluminum, anodized in a dark, almost gunmetal color that successfully bridges the gap between sophisticated and cool. Everything is very angular; vertical sides terminate abruptly at the horizontal plane that makes up the typing surface. In fact, the only thing not bridged by right angles is the cylindrical hinge running nearly the entire width of the machine, but thankfully the edges of the entire laptop are just rounded enough to keep it from digging into your wrists uncomfortably. Battle scars received while typing have become a bit of an annoyance in many modern, aluminum-bodied machines.

A good, quick test of a laptop's rigidity is to open it up, grab it on both sides of the keyboard and try to twist. On a flimsy product you'll hear some uncomfortable-sounding noises coming from beneath the keys and, if you're really unlucky, you might send a letter or two flying. Not so with the Pixel. The torsional rigidity is impressive for a machine that is as thin, and as light, as this.

To put some numbers on that, the laptop measures 16mm (0.62 inch) in thickness and 3.35 pounds (1.52kg) in heft. That compares very favorably to the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina, the one that we would most closely pit this against, which is 19mm (0.75 inch) thick and weighs 3.57 pounds (1.62kg). So it's thinner and lighter, and with a very similar 12.85-inch, 2,560 x 1,700 display (which we'll thoroughly discuss momentarily), but with lower performance. It is, however, on par with the 13-inch MacBook Air when it comes to speed, and is only slightly thicker (0.06 inch) and heavier (0.39 pound).

A dual-core Intel 1.8GHz Core i5 chip is the one and only processor on offer here, paired with 4GB of DDR3 RAM and generally providing more than enough oomph to drive the very minimalist operating system, which is installed on either a 32 or 64GB SSD. The larger option is only available if you opt for the $1,449 laptop, which also adds Verizon-compatible LTE to the mix (along with GPS). Either model sports dual-band MIMO 802.11a/b/g/n along with Bluetooth 3.0. For those who like to keep it physical, there are two USB ports on the left (sadly just 2.0) situated next to a Mini DisplayPort and a 3.5mm headphone jack. On the right is an SD card reader, along with the SIM card tray -- assuming you paid for the WWAN upgrade.

For those who aren't interested in making use of that headphone jack, there are what Google calls "powerful speakers" built in here -- though they're hard to spot. They're integrated somewhere below the keyboard and, believe it or not, that "powerful" description is quite apt. You won't be giving your neighbors anything to complain about if these are cranked to maximum volume, nor do you need to concern yourself about cracking the masonry thanks to the bass, but the output here is respectably loud and good-sounding. These speakers are at least on par with your average mid-range Bluetooth unit, meaning you'll have one less thing to pack.

For the receiving end, Google has also integrated an array of microphones throughout the machine to help with active noise cancellation, including one positioned to detect (and eliminate) keyboard clatter when you're typing whilst in a Hangout or the like. Without the ability to selectively disable this microphone we can't be sure how great an effect it had, but we can say that plenty of QWERTY-based noise got through in our test calls. Google, though, has indicated it will continue to refine the behavior of that mic, so there's hope for improvement.

Integrated in the bezel is a webcam situated in the center-top of the bezel, next to a small status LED to let you know when Big Brother is watching. One final piece is the power plug, a largish wall wart that takes a cue from Apple by including a removable section. Here you can slot in either a flip-out, two-prong end or a longer, three-prong cable. The inspiration is obvious, but we're not complaining. This lets you have both a short, easy-to-pack version when you're traveling light and a longer but rather more clunky version for those times when you need a bit more reach.

We do, however, wish Google had also taken inspiration from Apple and Microsoft and included some sort of magnetic power connector. We found that the small plug, with its traditional, single-prong-style connector, had a tendency to slowly work its way out of the laptop when the cable had any tension from the left. Thankfully, a bright glowing light on the connector lets you know when the laptop is charged or charging -- and thus when the thing has slid out far enough to lose connection.

Keyboard and trackpad

Island-style keyboards continue to be all the rage and, for the most part, Google makes no exception for its latest Chromebook. The primary keys float in a slightly recessed area, comfortably sized and comfortably spaced. Each has great feel and great resistance. Typing on this machine is a joy.

However, the row of function keys that rest atop the number keys, discrete buttons for adjusting volume and brightness and the like, is a different story. These are flush with each other and far stiffer than the normal keys. This isn't much of a bother, since you won't be using them nearly as frequently as the rest, but butting them right up against each other makes them difficult to find by touch. Thankfully, all are backlit, so locating them in the dark is no problem.

We also wished for dedicated Home and End keys, after finding the Chrome OS alternative of Ctrl + Alt + Up or Down to be a bit of a handful. Regardless, you'll quickly learn to type around these relatively minor shortcomings and enjoy the great keyboard. Thankfully, the trackpad is equally good.

It's a glass unit, darkly colored and positioned in the center of the wrist rest, which makes it slightly shifted to the right compared to the space bar. It has a matte coating but still feels quite smooth, resulting in a very nice swiping sensation indeed. Of course, with a 12.85-inch touch-sensitive display, you may find yourself using it less frequently than you think.

Display

Again, up top is a 12.85-inch, 2,560 x 1,700 IPS LCD panel that we can't look at without thinking of the very similar 13.3-inch, 2,560 x 1,600 panel on the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. It's smaller but packs an extra 100 pixels vertically, giving it a slightly higher pixel density of 239 ppi. Naturally, that's far from the full story here, and those who are really into proportions will know that resolution equates to a 3:2 aspect ratio. In other words: it's rather tall.

A 16:9 aspect ratio (or something close to it) is the prevailing trend among non-Macs these days, but even when acknowledging that, this one feels particularly tall. Still, we didn't exactly mind it. As mentioned above, the keyboard is plenty roomy, and given that Chrome OS isn't particularly friendly to multi-window multi-tasking (manually justifying windows is a real chore) we were rarely left wanting a wider display.

That was, really, our only minor reservation about this panel. Otherwise we have nothing but love for the thing. It is, of course, a ridiculously high resolution, which makes pixels basically disappear. Indeed the simple, clean and stark Chrome OS looks great when rendered with such clarity, but we couldn't help but lament the occasional excess of white space that's becoming common across many of Google's web apps. For a display with a pixel density this high, it feels somewhat under-utilized.

That is until, of course, you boot up the 4K sample footage Google thoughtfully pre-installed on the machine, which looks properly mind-blowing -- even if it is only being rendered at slightly higher than half its native resolution.

This is a glossy panel, tucked behind a pane of Gorilla Glass, so glare may be a bit of a problem if your work setup has bright lights positioned behind you. Still, reflectivity seemed to be on par with the latest, optically bonded panels -- that is to say, far from the "mirror, mirror" effect provided by many of the earlier gloss displays. Contrast is quite good from all angles, though the color accuracy drops off if you look at it from too high or low, with everything quickly getting a bit pink. Slightly pretty.

And, finally, this is indeed a touch-enabled panel, something we didn't know we needed on a Chromebook -- and frankly we're still not sure we do. We'll discuss that in more detail in the software section below.

Performance and battery life

Again we're dealing with a 1.8GHz Intel Core i5 processor here, a bit on the mild side compared to most higher-end laptops. Still, it proves to be more than enough to run the lightweight Chrome OS. That's paired with 4GB of DDR3 RAM and, predictably, integrated graphics courtesy of Intel's HD 4000 chipset.

It's no barnstormer, but it runs a browser with aplomb. And, really, that's about all it's likely to do with the limited selection of apps available for Chrome. Everything we threw at it ran fine, though after extended sessions we did notice heavier websites started to get a little bit stuttery. It's nothing that rebooting the browser didn't fix.

High-def videos play smoothly, though when pushing the pixels (or running games), the machine does get fairly warm. The fan vents are below the hinge; a thin sliver of an opening that thankfully doesn't seem to dump a lot of hot air into your lap. It's noticeable, but it isn't particularly loud or annoying and again, since you likely won't be doing too much taxing stuff here, don't expect to hear it all that often.

When it comes to battery life, Google estimates the 59Wh battery will provide "up to" five hours of continuous use. And, indeed it may. On our standard battery run-down test, which loops a video at fixed brightness, the machine clocked in at four hours and eight minutes for the WiFi model. The LTE model, with its LTE antenna on, came in about 30 minutes shorter at 3:34.

These numbers are rather poor, unfortunately. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina clocks in at more than six hours on the same battery test, while both the 13-inch MacBook Air and the latest Samsung Chromebook score about 30 minutes more even than that.

Connectivity

As mentioned above, both Chromebook Pixel models include dual-band MIMO 802.11a/b/g/n, which means you'll be sucking down bits at an optimal rate more or less regardless of what sort of router you're connecting to.

Stepping up to the $1,449 LTE version of course means you can walk away from those routers. That machine includes a Qualcomm MDM9600 chipset to receive on LTE band 13, intended for Verizon in the US only. So, then, we tested it in the US in two different LTE markets on both coasts. Speeds varied widely from location to location, but in general matched or exceeded the speeds we saw from other Verizon-compatible mobile devices.

In terms of more practical connectivity concerns, it's worth noting that the modem takes about 30 seconds to reconnect after the laptop resumes from its suspended state, which is a bit annoying but certainly no slower than your average LTE USB modem. Also, Verizon is kindly including 100MB of data each month for free for your first two years of Chromebook ownership, but after that you'll be stuck paying up for one of Verizon's tiered data plans.

Oh, and the Pixel lacks an Ethernet port, and does not include an adapter. We tried a few standard USB Ethernet adapters and all worked without a hitch.

Software

As we concluded in our review of the most recent version, Chrome OS has come a long, long way since that first Chromebook crossed our laps. What we have now is a far more sophisticated and comprehensive experience than we did a few years ago, but it's still incredibly limited compared to the broader world of desktop operating systems.

Simple tasks like file management can be a real chore if you're doing anything other than moving a file into a subdirectory. And while the OS itself has a refreshingly simple visual style, it's also very stark and, frankly, a somewhat wasteful design. Not to keep harping on the file explorer, but each file in a list is separated by a sea of white big enough to basically double the effective height. When you're skimming through a big 'ol list of files in a directory, it takes a lot more scrolling than should be necessary given the resolution of this display.

At least Google made the scrolling easy. As mentioned above, the trackpad is quite good and very responsive. Multi-finger gestures are responsive, so good that you might not be inclined to reach up to that touch panel. But, you should, because the experience is generally good as well, though you'll rarely be doing anything more than scrolling webpages or documents. There's not really a whole lot more Chrome OS can do, but even in games like Cut the Rope and Angry Birds, touch was just as good as... well, as it is on an Android tablet.

That said, it's disappointing that Google didn't introduce any gestures to the OS to match its newfound touch compatibilities. In fact, you can't even pinch-zoom in the image viewer or even on most pages in the Chrome browser -- only in specifically pinch-friendly websites (like Google Maps). There are no three- or four-finger gestures for switching apps, and swiping in from the bezels does nothing. Except, that is, for a swipe up from the bottom, which alternatively shows or hides the launcher bar.

Again, we won't restate the entire review of Chrome OS, but it's important to note at least briefly that functionality here is still very minimal. There are built-in apps for viewing photos and videos, for browsing files, for taking photos from the integrated webcam, an app for taking notes and... the web browser. That, of course, is the most important part. Suffice to say, if you can't do all your work from inside of an instance of Chrome on some other platform (like Windows or Mac), you probably won't be able to do it here, either.

Still, we did want to point out one important part of the software, and that is it's easily replaceable. The bootloader is not locked and we've already seen the thing rocking Linux -- and looking quite good while doing it. So, if you happen to be looking for an incredibly well-designed laptop to run that most noble of open-source operating systems, this could be it.

Pricing and competition

We can keep the pricing bit short, because there are only two options here. For $1,299, you can get yourself the WiFi model with 32GB of local SSD storage. For $1,449 you step up to the LTE model, which throws in 64GB of storage in a bid to sweeten the deal.

Should that still be too bitter for your tastes -- and we're thinking there's a very good chance it will be -- Google has included plenty of other incentives that are at least mildly saccharine. First among these are 12 free Gogo passes for in-flight connectivity, each one worth about $14 for a total of $168. The other, rather more compelling add-in, is 1TB of online storage free for three years.

That, believe it or not, is worth a whopping $1,800, which of course means that if you were looking to rent that much data for a period of three years you'd actually be better off just buying a Pixel. It would, effectively, just be a nice, free toy.

For everyone not interested in storing copious quantities of stuff in the cloud, both price points are rather dear to put it mildly. As ever, it's difficult to compare a Chromebook to other laptops on the market thanks to the limited functionality provided by the OS. So, we'll focus primarily on hardware comparisons, and as we mentioned above, we find ourselves inclined to compare this to the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display.

That machine, with a full operating system and a faster, 2.5GHz Core i5 processor, starts at $1,499. That, though, has a 128GB of SSD, twice that of the biggest Pixel. We could also see many comparing this against the 13-inch MacBook Air, which offers the same CPU, integrated graphics and 4GB of RAM for the same $1,199. It's lacking the high-res screen but it perhaps makes up for that with, again, 128GB of storage.

On the PC side of things, that resolution is unmatched, but the other specs certainly aren't. We recently had reasonably good feelings about Samsung's Series 5 UltraTouch, a 13-incher packing a similar Core i5 CPU, 4GB of RAM, but again a 500GB platter-based hard disk. An SSD isn't an option, but the $849 price is certainly more palatable.

Again, none of these is an apples-to-apples comparison, as the Pixel offers a touchscreen, something all the Macs lack, and offers LTE connectivity, thus making it even more of a rare bird on the laptop scene. Whether these unique attributes, plus the various goodies Google is throwing in, turn this into a compelling proposition compared to the competition is something you'll have to decide for yourself.

Wrap-up

Again we reach the dreaded wrap-up section on a Chromebook review. It's simply never easy to classify these machines. In some regards, the Pixel is even harder to pigeonhole than its predecessors. The level of quality and attention to detail here is quite remarkable for what is, we'll again remind you, Google's first swing at building a laptop. Boot-ups are quick, performance is generally good and, of course, there's that display.

But, with one single statistic, Google has made the Chromebook Pixel even easier to write off than any of its quirky predecessors: price. For an MSRP that is on par with some of the best laptops in the world, the Pixel doesn't provide anywhere near as much potential when it comes to functionality. It embraces a world where everyone is always connected and everything is done on the web -- a world that few people currently live in.

The Chromebook Pixel, then, is a lot like the Nexus Q: it's a piece of gorgeous hardware providing limited functionality at a price that eclipses the (often more powerful) competition. It's a lovely thing that everyone should try to experience but, sadly, few should seriously consider buying.

Via The Verge

-----

The frosted-glass doors on the 11th floor of Google’s NYC headquarters part and a woman steps forward to greet me. This is an otherwise normal specimen of humanity. Normal height, slender build; her eyes are bright, inquisitive. She leans in to shake my hand and at that moment I become acutely aware of the device she’s wearing in the place you would expect eyeglasses: a thin strip of aluminum and plastic with a strange, prismatic lens just below her brow. Google Glass.

What was a total oddity a year ago, and little more than an experiment just 18 months ago is now starting to look like a real product. One that could be in the hands (or on the heads, rather) of consumers by the end of this year. A completely new kind of computing device; wearable, designed to reduce distraction, created to allow you to capture and communicate in a way that is supposed to feel completely natural to the wearer. It’s the anti-smartphone, explicitly fashioned to blow apart our notions of how we interact with technology.

But as I release from that handshake and study the bizarre device resting on my greeter’s brow, my mind begins to fixate on a single question: who would want to wear this thing in public?

Finding Glass

The Glass project was started "about three years ago" by an engineer named Babak Parviz as part of Google’s X Lab initiative, the lab also responsible for — amongst other things — self-driving cars and neural networks. Unlike those epic, sci-fi R&D projects at Google, Glass is getting real much sooner than anyone expected. The company offered developers an option to buy into an early adopter strategy called the Explorer Program during its I/O conference last year, and just this week it extended that opportunity to people in the US in a Twitter campaign which asks potential users to explain how they would put the new technology to use. Think of it as a really aggressive beta — something Google is known for.

I was about to beta test Glass myself. But first, I had questions.

Seated in a surprisingly bland room — by Google’s whimsical office standards — I find myself opposite two of the most important players in the development of Glass, product director Steve Lee and lead industrial designer Isabelle Olsson. Steve and Isabelle make for a convincing pair of spokespeople for the product. He’s excitable, bouncy even, with big bright eyes that spark up every time he makes a point about Glass. Isabelle is more reserved, but speaks with incredible fervency about the product. And she has extremely red hair. Before we can even start talking about Glass, Isabelle and I are in a heated conversation about how you define the color navy blue. She’s passionate about design — a condition that seems to be rather contagious at Google these days — and it shows.

Though the question of design is at the front of my mind, a picture of why Glass exists at all begins to emerge as we talk, and it’s clearly not about making a new fashion accessory. Steve tries to explain it to me.

"Why are we even working on Glass? We all know that people love to be connected. Families message each other all the time, sports fanatics are checking live scores for their favorite teams. If you’re a frequent traveler you have to stay up to date on flight status or if your gate changes. Technology allows us to connect in that way. A big problem right now are the distractions that technology causes. If you’re a parent — let’s say your child’s performance, watching them do a soccer game or a musical. Often friends will be holding a camera to capture that moment. Guess what? It’s gone. You just missed that amazing game." Isabelle chimes in, "Did you see that Louis C.K. stand up when he was telling parents, ‘your kids are better resolution in real life?’" Everyone laughs, but the point is made.

Via TXCHNOLOGIST

-----

 

Via Slashgear

-----

3D printers are undeniably cool, but their price also puts them out of the reach of most; that’s where 3Doodler steps in, a 3D printing pen hitting Kickstarter today and promising to make sketches physical. The chubby stylus squirts out of a stream of thermoplastic from its 270 degree-C nib, which is instantly cooled by an integrated fan. By laying different streams of plastic, tugging up streams of it to make 3D structures, and piecing different layers together, you can create 3D designs on a budget.

In fact, early Kickstarter backers will be able to get the 3Doodler from $50, though that award tier is already nearly halfway claimed at time of writing. Next is the $75 bracket, which should stick around a little longer, with the eventual Kickstarter goal being $30,000.

Unlike traditional printers, which require programming, the 3Doodler takes a more abstract approach. You can freeform draw sketches, or alternatively trace out patterns that have been printed, and then peel the set plastic off; 3Doodler suggests possibilities include jewelry, 3D models, artwork, and more.

It’s not going to be the way you print your next coffee cup or car wheel, as we’ve seen promised from regular 3D printers, but the plug-and-play approach has plenty of appeal nonetheless. The Kickstarter runs for the next month, with first deliveries expected in the fall of 2013 assuming it’s funded.

Via ars technica

-----

Mobile computing's rise from niche market to the mainstream is among the most significant technological trends in our lifetimes. And to a large extent, it's been driven by the bounty of Moore’s Law—the rule that transistor density doubles every 24 months. Initially, most mobile devices relied on highly specialized hardware to meet stringent power and size budgets. But with so many transistors available, devices inevitably grew general-purpose capabilities. Most likely, that wasn't even the real motivation. The initial desire was probably to reduce costs by creating a more flexible software ecosystem with better re-use and faster time to market. As such, the first smartphones were very much a novelty, and it took many years before the world realized the potential of such devices. Apple played a major role by creating innovative smartphones that consumers craved and quickly adopted.

To some extent, this is where we still stand today. Smartphones are still (relatively) expensive and primarily interesting to the developed world. But over the next 10 years, this too will change. As Moore’s Law rolls on, the cost of a low-end smartphone will decline. At some point, the incremental cost will be quite minimal and many feature phones of today will be supplanted by smartphones. A $650 unsubsidized phone is well beyond the reach of most of the world compared to a $20 feature phone, but a $30 to $40 smartphone would naturally be very popular.

In this grand progression, 2013 will certainly be a significant milestone for mobile devices, smartphones and beyond. It's likely to be the first year in which tablets out-ship notebooks in the US. And in the coming years, this will lead to a confluence of high-end tablets and ultra-mobile notebooks as the world figures out how these devices co-exist, blend, hybridize, and/or merge.

Against this backdrop, in this two-part series, we'll explore the major trends and evolution for mobile SoCs. More importantly, we'll look to where the major vendors are likely going in the next several years.

Tablet and phone divergence

While phones and tablets are mobile devices that often share a great deal of software, it's becoming increasingly clear the two are very different products. These two markets have started to diverge and will continue doing so over time.

From a technical perspective, smartphones are far more compact and power constrained. Smartphone SoCs are limited to around 1W, both by batteries and by thermal dissipation. The raison d’etre of a smartphone is connectivity, so a cellular modem is an absolute necessity. For the cost sensitive-models that make up the vast majority of the market, the modem is integrated into the SoC itself. High-end designs favor discrete modems with a greater power budget instead. The main smartphone OSes today are iOS and Android, though Windows is beginning to make an appearance (perhaps with Linux or BlackBerry on the horizon). Just as importantly, phone vendors like HTC must pass government certification and win the approval of carriers. There is very much a walled-garden aspect, where carriers control which devices can be attached to their networks, and in some cases devices can only be sold through a certain carrier. The business model places consumers quite far removed from the actual hardware.

In contrast, tablets are far more akin to the PC both technically and economically. The power budget for tablet SoCs is much greater, up to 4W for a passively cooled device and as high as 7-8W for systems with fans. This alone means there is a much wider range of tablet designs than smartphones. Moreover, the default connectivity for tablets is Wi-Fi rather than a cellular modem. The vast majority of tablets do not have cellular modems, and even fewer customers actually purchase a wireless data plan. As a result, cellular modems are almost always optional discrete components of the platform. The software ecosystem is relatively similar, with Microsoft, Apple, and Google OSes available. Because tablets eschew cellular modems, the time to market is faster, and they are much more commonly sold directly to consumers rather than through carriers. In terms of usage models, tablets are much more PC-like, with reasonable-sized screens that make games and media more attractive.

Looking forward, these distinctions will likely become more pronounced. Many tablets today use high-end smartphone SoCs, but the difference in power targets and expected performance is quite large. As the markets grow in volume, SoCs will inevitably bifurcate to focus on one market or the other. Even today, Apple is doing so, with the A6 for phones and the larger A6X for tablets. Other vendors may need to wait a few years to have the requisite volume, but eventually the two markets will be clearly separate.

Horizontal business model evolution

Another aspect of the mobile device market that is currently in flux and likely to change in the coming years is the business model for the chip and system vendors. Currently, Apple is the only company truly pursuing a vertically integrated model, where all phones and tablets are based on Apple’s own SoC designs and iOS. The tight integration between hardware and software has been a huge boon for Apple, and it has yielded superb products.

Samsung is one of the few others companies that takes a vertically integrated approach to phones and tablets, although in truth its strategy seems to be ambivalent on that point. Unlike Apple, Samsung’s SoCs are readily available to third parties, and some Samsung devices, such as the S7562 Galaxy S Duos, use SoCs from competitors. More recently though, there has been a trend of Samsung devices using Samsung SoCs, at least for the premier products. For the moment, Samsung’s approach is best characterized as a hybrid, particularly as the company lacks a bespoke OS.

The rest of the major SoC vendors (e.g., Intel, Qualcomm, Nvidia, TI, Mediatek, etc.) have stayed pretty far away from actual mobile devices. These companies tend to focus on horizontal business models that avoid competing with customers or suppliers.

In the long term, mobile devices are likely to evolve similarly to the PC and favor a horizontal business model. The real advantage is one of flexibility; as costs drop and the market expands, it will be increasingly necessary for vendors like HTC to offer a wide range of phones based on radically different SoCs. While a vertically integrated company like Apple can focus and maintain leadership in a specific (and highly lucrative) niche, it would be very difficult to expand in many growing areas of the market. The differences between an iPhone 6 and a $20 feature phone are tremendous and would be very difficult for a single company to bridge.

However, SoC vendors will attempt to reap the benefits of vertical integration by providing complete reference platforms to OEMs. Conceptually, this is a form of "optional" system integration, where the phone vendor or carrier can get the entire platform from the SoC supplier. This has the principal advantages of reducing time to market while also providing a baseline quality and experience for consumers. Currently, this approach has mostly been tested in emerging markets, but it's likely to become more common over time. There is a crucial distinction between reference platforms and vertical integration. Namely, OEMs can always choose to customize a platform to differentiate, and the SoC vendor avoids dealing with consumers directly. Typically, most of the customization is in terms of software on top of a base operating system.

Focus on the intellectual

One unique aspect of mobile devices is the availability and prevalence of third-party intellectual property (IP). Unlike the PC industry, it is a common practice for SoC vendors to use a variety of external and internal IP. ARM and Imagination Technologies are the best known IP vendors, with reputations established for CPUs and GPUs respectively. Most major SoC blocks are available as IP, which creates a very broad and diverse ecosystem. Even vertically integrated companies such as Apple rely on third-party IP.

Vertical integration of IP within the context of a single chip makes tremendous sense and is likely to be the future for most SoC vendors. While third-party IP is highly flexible and can reduce time to market and development costs, it comes with real trade-offs. The licensing costs are typically on a per-unit basis and thus are increasingly problematic at high volume. At a certain point, the variable licensing costs outweigh the fixed development costs, and it makes more sense to use internal resources.

Moreover, there are risks associated with third-party IP that are more difficult to control. For instance, Intel’s Clovertrail tablet has been delayed, likely due to problems with the Imagination Technologies graphics drivers for Windows 8. And third-party IP is often intended to address a wider market and may not fit with the intentions of a specific vendor. For instance, licensed ARM cores cannot be substantially modified, which removes an element of flexibility for companies with good CPU design teams.

Over the next decade, the higher volume vendors will likely focus on reducing the amount of external IP and emphasizing internal development expertise. That means licensing ARM’s instruction set and designing custom cores (as Apple has done with the A6), rather than using the stock cores. In other cases, SoC vendors will develop or acquire the necessary building blocks, such as baseband processors. One area where third-party IP will probably continue to be popular is graphics, largely because of the complexity of the software stack. Modern graphics APIs and drivers are very challenging, and the development cost may prove prohibitive for all but the very largest companies.

Manufacturing trends

The SoCs for mobile devices are inextricably tied to semiconductor manufacturing, and any look into the future must be based on a realistic assessment of the underlying technology. While Moore’s Law has continued to operate, certain aspects of silicon scaling stopped roughly a decade ago. In particular, shrinking transistors ceased granting an intrinsic increase in performance. The industry adapted and embraced a number of novel technologies to boost performance where appropriate.

Perhaps the biggest question looming over the industry is the fate of Moore’s Law and whether transistors will continue to shrink. Ten years is a very long time to make technical projections with any degree of certainty. However, there is no reason to believe that process technology scaling will stop—the advantages of shrinking are still quite large. In the next few years, the industry will move from 193nm conventional lithography to 13nm EUV lithography, which should last for quite some time. Going forward, though, innovations in materials will be absolutely necessary for Moore’s Law, and these will happen at a faster pace. To date, the major changes in manufacturing have been copper interconnects, strained silicon, high-k/metal gates, and now fully depleted transistors (e.g. FinFETs or FD-SOI), and there is plenty of promising research for the roadmap.

However, these new techniques are increasingly expensive from both a development and variable cost standpoint.  Each new technique tends to winnow the field of manufacturers a bit more. Fujitsu and TI both have excellent process technology, but they could not afford to develop high-k/metal gates at the 32nm node and instead moved to a fabless model for digital logic. It's nearly certain that the number of leading edge manufacturers will shrink to just a handful. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung have the volume and can continue to afford the pace of Moore’s Law, but the economics may be prohibitive for everyone else.

Even so, a fabless model is not necessarily a panacea because of the rising variable costs. In the past, TSMC and many foundries have been able to avoid expensive techniques, but that option is no longer feasible. For instance, conventional lithography cannot draw features below 80nm without multiple patterning. If double patterning is required for a process step, it will cut the throughput of that step in half. FinFETs are similarly complex and will impact throughput as well. These costs (along with profits for TSMC or GlobalFoundries) are ultimately passed along to foundry customers as higher wafer prices.

Long-term, this translates into an advantage for the two IDMs: Intel and Samsung. First, an IDM essentially pockets the profits from both manufacturing and design, whereas fabless companies only collect the latter and must give up the former to TSMC or GlobalFoundries. Second, IDMs have greater control over the supply chain and are less likely to be subject to availability problems as a result of manufacturing challenges. Third, the cost delta between IDMs and foundries is likely to erode for the technical reasons outlined above.

One new technique which will be adopted across the industry over the next decade is 3D integration. Many mobile devices already use chip stacking, where several different integrated circuits are vertically stacked in a single package. Typically, chip stacking relies on connecting different layers of the stack with low-density bond wires or solder bumps. However, many companies are actively working on solutions to connect different layers via through-silicon vias (TSVs), which are much denser and offer greater connectivity and power savings. 3D integration using TSVs is far more sophisticated than 3D packaging, since a single integrated circuit can span multiple layers. The primary use case for 3D integration is packaging high-speed memory with an SoC to deliver superior bandwidth for graphics. Currently, the only products using 3D integration are FPGAs from Xilinx, but the technology should become relatively common during the next few years, and it should be available later to all mobile vendors.

Manufacturing roadmap

Currently, Intel is about two years ahead of the rest of the industry in terms of high-volume manufacturing for high-performance products (i.e. server, desktop, and notebook SoCs). Intel’s 22nm Ivy Bridge went into production at the end of 2011, around the same time that TSMC started producing 28nm GPUs. Additionally, Intel tends to be about one node ahead of the industry for performance features such as strained silicon, high-k/metal gates, and FinFETs (e.g. Intel introduced high-k/metal gates in 2007, foundries in 2011 and 2012). Looking forward, Intel’s manufacturing is expected to stay on a two-year cadence at least through the 10nm node in late 2015, and there is no reason to expect any deviation from this trend further out.

However, Intel’s mobile SoC designs are two years behind the cutting edge of manufacturing, with 32nm SoCs shipping today. Over the next two to three years, Intel will pick up the pace of SoC development, hitting 22nm by the end of 2013 and 14nm by the end of 2014. Long-term, the mobile SoCs will probably reach about six months behind the PC designs in terms of manufacturing, driven by cost constraints. Specifically, Intel’s fabs are quite expensive for the first year, when yields are still ramping up and the factory is depreciating. The ASPs for notebooks and desktops are high enough to amortize these costs. After six to 12 months, the costs are much lower and more amenable to phone and tablet products.

Looking at the foundries is a little more challenging and confusing. First of all, TSMC, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung tend to announce production well in advance of actual mobile SoCs shipping. However, assuming a two-year cadence is a very reasonable guideline. That places the 20nm planar node (and attendant SoCs) in late 2013 or early 2014.

The 14nm node will be quite problematic for the foundries, though. Without EUV, it will be necessary to use double patterning on the metal interconnects, which will substantially increase costs. Instead, the foundries are developing a hybrid process that uses a 14nm FinFET to boost performance, but they're keeping the same 20nm metal interconnect. From a practical standpoint, this means the foundry 14nm process will be comparable to Intel’s 22nm process in terms of performance and density, despite the name. The foundries claim that the hybrid 14nm/20nm process will arrive in 2015, which seems somewhat optimistic given the challenges involved in achieving yield for FinFETs. Moreover, that will make the transition to a 10nm node even more difficult, as the foundries will have to move from 20nm interconnects to 10nm interconnects and skip a generation.

Long-term, it seems like the foundries are expending significant effort to narrow the gap with Intel. Historically, this has proven to be an elusive goal, and there are few fundamental changes that suggest this would be feasible. It's most likely Intel’s mobile SoCs will accelerate over the next few years and ultimately reach and then maintain a 12 to 18 month lead in process technology (and hence density) over the competition. The real question is how fast the foundries will be able to implement techniques like FinFETs and other performance enhancements. It is quite possible this gap could narrow from the current four to five years down to three to four years.

In the conclusion of this series, we will explore how these trends come together and impact the leading mobile SoC vendors and where they are expected to evolve over the next five to ten years.

David Kanter is Principal Analyst and Editor-in-Chief at Real World Tech, which focuses on microprocessors, servers, graphics, computers, and semiconductors. He is also a consultant specializing in intellectual property evaluation/development and technical/competitive analysis.

Via ExtremTech

-----

If you’re terrified of the possibility that humanity will be dismembered by an insectoid master race, equipped with robotic exoskeletons (or would that be exo-exoskeletons?), look away now. Researchers at the University of Tokyo have strapped a moth into a robotic exoskeleton, with the moth successfully controlling the robot to reach a specific location inside a wind tunnel.

In all, fourteen male silkmoths were tested, and they all showed a scary aptitude for steering a robot. In the tests, the moths had to guide the robot towards a source of female sex pheromone. The researchers even introduced a turning bias — where one of the robot’s motors is stronger than the other, causing it to veer to one side — and yet the moths still reached the target.

As you can see in the photo above, the actual moth-robot setup is one of the most disturbing and/or awesome things you’ll ever see. In essence, the polystyrene (styrofoam) ball acts like a trackball mouse. As the silkmoth walks towards the female pheromone, the ball rolls around. Sensors detect these movements and fire off signals to the robot’s drive motors. At this point you should watch the video below — and also not think too much about what happens to the moth when it’s time to remove the glued-on stick from its back.

Fortunately, the Japanese researchers aren’t actually trying to construct a moth master race: In reality, it’s all about the moth’s antennae and sensory-motor system. The researchers are trying to improve the performance of autonomous robots that are tasked with tracking the source of chemical leaks and spills. “Most chemical sensors, such as semiconductor sensors, have a slow recovery time and are not able to detect the temporal dynamics of odours as insects do,” says Noriyasu Ando, the lead author of the research. “Our results will be an important indication for the selection of sensors and models when we apply the insect sensory-motor system to artificial systems.”

Of course, another possibility is that we simply keep the moths. After all, why should we spend time and money on an artificial system when mother nature, as always, has already done the hard work for us? In much the same way that miners used canaries and border police use sniffer dogs, why shouldn’t robots be controlled by insects? The silkmoth is graced with perhaps the most sensitive olfactory system in the world. For now it might only be sensitive to not-so-useful scents like the female sex pheromone, but who’s to say that genetic engineering won’t allow for silkmoths that can sniff out bombs or drugs or chemical spills?

Who nose: Maybe genetically modified insects with robotic exoskeletons are merely an intermediary step towards real nanobots that fly around, fixing, cleaning, and constructing our environment.