All of these devices ship with Android mainly due to the huge application selection and SOC manufacturers support. According to the latest estimates, devices in this category already sell in the tens of millions range (per year) which is not only impressive but clearly shows a trend. Due to the fact that the hardware strength of these mini-PCs have quadrupled in a very short time-period, we can safely say that they will very soon compete with desktops for a set of roles (improvement from 1Ghz Cortes-A8 with 512MB RAM to quad-core Cortex-A9 with 2GB of RAM in one single year).

Where does this leave desktop-Linux?

Well, without serious adaptation, desktop Linuxes would not be able to compete in this segment mainly because SOC vendors don’t support desktop-Linux technologies (like Xorg). Canonical has already realized this and started moving to the right direction. Ubuntu has one of the best ARM support (I would say it IS the best) and its new ARM versions will be able to run on commodity Android hardware, mostly thanks to the design decision of Mir running on top of stock Android GPU drivers. Others also plan with this in mind (see the recent Wayland-port to stock Android drivers).

While Canonical has done the most necessary steps, they still refuse to support running Android applications which I think is a really bad decision. I don’t think that Canonical/Ubuntu can create a sufficiently strong developer ecosystem which is at least remotely comparable to that of Google/Android. Without this, most of the consumers will never consider replacing Android with Ubuntu on their mini-PCs (or buy a mini-PC with Ubuntu).

I strongly believe that desktop-Linux needs to build on the success of Android. Apart from re-using Android’s hardware support it needs to provide a perfect execution environment for Android applications. This is much-much easier to do than providing Windows compatibility since the two systems are both based on the same Linux kernel and Android sources can be used any time without much constraint.

Due to the extraordinary rate of ARM hardware development, I expect that Android will introduce a desktop-environment soon (this has been rumored for ages) since simply there will be no reason for not entering the desktop space. That will result in a lot of traditional desktop-oriented ISVs to come out with Android versions of their wares. With Intel porting every Android version to x86 right after their release, the new, desktop-capable Android version will gain ground on x86 quickly. I wouldn’t be surprised if, at this point, Adobe’s Photoshop Express for Android gains a lot of desktop-features or a light, Android-desktop-version of Photoshop gets released.

In an environment like this, desktop-Linux can only flourish if it can show extra value and compatibility with Android. Without leveraging the Android app ecosystem (running Android applications) the value proposition seems way too weak to me for the average consumer.

On the other hand, if desktop-Linuxes can run both Android apps and traditional Linux applications as equal citizens, then only the matter of distribution remains. With the added value, these OSes may be more appealing for OEMs, but only if their installation/customization on stock Android hardware is as easy as Android’s itself. With sufficiently strong hardware support and easy installation options a lot of people may decide to upgrade their mini-PCs to  desktop-Linux since they would loose nothing but gain access to a set of high-power desktop applications (like Thunderbird and LibreOffice).

As Phoronix and others have discovered, Ubuntu Phone and Touch are using SurfaceFlinger as their compositor. SurfaceFlinger uses OpenGL ES to render applications screens/windows in a hardware accelerated way using the OpenGL driver of the GPU directly.

Now, Canonical is promising a completely integrated experience for Ubuntu 14.04 which will run Phone, Touch, TV and Desktop applications in one common GUI environment. How will they be able to fulfill their promise for Linux desktop applications currently running on Xorg?

So far, everyone has believed that the Ubuntu desktop is migrating from Xorg to Wayland. This migration has been going so slow that there is actually no visible sign of happening any time soon. It seems that Canonical has slightly changed the “to” part of their migration plans. They are not moving to Wayland, they are moving to SurfaceFlinger.

I, for one, think that this is a brilliant idea.

Compared to Android’s SurfaceFlinger, Wayland has not much appeal from the “possible benefits” point of view. SurfaceFlinger is developed by Google and is already deployed on countless Android devices. It has a sizable amount of developers working on it and its future is certain as long as Android is with us (which is pretty likely given its current market share and trends). Migration to Wayland hasn’t started in earnest so there would not be much effort thrown out of the window.

With the recent merging of the Android and the mainline Linux kernels, porting Linux desktops to Android hardware has already become somewhat easier. Wifi, Bluetooth and other hardware components can be accessed through the Android kernel released by the producer of the SOC/board. The biggest remaining problems are making Xorg and audio working. Xorg is used by all desktop applications while audio is used by only some (media players, screen-capture apps…etc). Xorg seems to be a fairly big problem because Android hw producers usually don’t provide X drivers at all and that makes the porting effort a show-stopper for hardware which otherwise run Android very well.

An Ubuntu desktop running on SurfaceFlinger would be a much easier subject for porting to common Android hardware compared to the current situation (as the quickly growing number of devices supporting Ubuntu Touch demonstrates this spectacularly). OpenGL ES driver comes with the Android kernel, released by the hw manufacturer, so SurfaceFlinger works right-away.

The most important part of the migration to Wayland has been the GTK and Qt backend implementations. These can also be created relatively quickly for SurfaceFlinger so 90% of the standard Linux apps would display on it right away (Qt may already has Android/SurfaceFlinger support based on their Git repository)

OK, but SurfaceFlinger is only one part of the problem, what about the rest?

It is very much possible that Canonical/Ubuntu is planning to migrate heavily to Android backend services (not only SurfaceFlinger) in order to take advantage of the huge popularity of Android among the hardware manufacturers.

Possibly, a wrapper may be created for the PulseAudio API to execute sound services with AudioFlinger. The opposite was deemed possible by one of the developers of PulseAudio, so it is certainly an option. This would make the typical audio-using Linux desktop application work on top of Android’s AudioFlinger on a stock Android kernel released by the SOC/board manufacturer.

Other Android services may also be targeted in a similar way. Hardware accelerated video playing would be a notable example but acceleration sensor, camera and GPS services would also become easy accessible for traditional Linux applications.

With such a services-migration completed, one could do a mostly complete Ubuntu port in a matter of days to Android hardware and the required skills would be way-fewer than they are now. As a result, Ubuntu would be available for almost every hardware which supports Android. Some of the ports would be done by Canonical (Nexus devices) and most of them by the community (with the Cyanogen community doing the heavy lifting in many cases).

I think this is a good strategy since it brings Linux desktop applications to commodity Android hardware. Personally, I don’t care what backend services allow my applications to run as long as they do it efficiently and without (many) bugs.

Closing the gap between Android technologies and the Linux desktop would allow the latter to stay competitive and make an integrated experience possible. Linux desktops would eventually become capable of running Android applications (Dalvik would be just another Java-like VM, next to OpenJDK and Snoracle Java) Also, Linux desktop applications may become able to run on Android as first-class citizens (by packaging the necessary wrapper libraries to SurfaceFlinger and others).

Why do I think this is a necessity?

It is widely rumored that the next major version of Android will introduce some kind of desktop environment for keyboard/mouse work. This would allow Android to start shipping on desktop PCs. Given the weight of Google, I imagine that PC vendors would immediately start selling x86/PC hardware with Android. They already do it with ChromeOS which is much more limited than Android, so a desktop-toting Android version would easily beat that in functionality (huge number of apps and an ecosystem rapidly growing up to the weight that of Windows).

In an environment like that, desktop Linux would rapidly loose its remaining competitive advantage and very soon the desktop would be dominated by Android alone (only in the Linux camp, not meaning Windows, although I think that it would eventually become a strong Windows-competitor). If desktop Linux is as easy to port to any hardware as Android and runs Android apps next to traditional Linux apps, the competitive advantage remains.

It is way too early to tell if the above is the plan of Canonical but using SurfaceFlinger points to this direction. I would definitely like to see Ubuntu and other desktop Linuxes on every possible Android devices.

UPDATE:

Soon after the article had been published, Canonical announced the development of their own compositor (Mir) and declared SurfaceFlinger as a component to be removed from the Ubuntu phablet stack. This mostly invalidates the assumption on their strategy. If Mir will be able to work with binary OpenGL ES drivers of GPU producers, that will probably make Ubuntu easier to port but definitely not as easy as an OS heavily based on Android technologies.

I strongly believe Ubuntu for Android is a game changer and that Ubuntu and Android badly need each other. See my earlier blog entry about this.

The problem

UfA is still nowhere to be seen, even though it was introduced in February, 2012. Canonical (the developer of Ubuntu) wants to distribute UfA exclusively through phone-OEM partnerships. This is understandable but doesn’t seem to be working out since we haven’t heard of any product announcements by now. Considering the usual product development timeframes, this means that we will not see any UfA capable product this year. In general, the rate of product announcements may mean that OEMs don’t buy into the idea of “Android extended by desktop Linux”.

The situation is aggravated by the possible onslaught of WindowsRT devices. If Surface and other WindowsRT devices manage to firmly establish themselves on the market, it will be a much harder fight for Android. Currently, Android is on the top in mobile, so Microsoft needs to fight the uphill battle with WindowsRT. A well timed, well marketed, spectacular innovation like Ubuntu for Android could give Android the fuel to fight WindowsRT. Seeing the recent announcements of WindowsRT devices, it very much looks like that brand-name OEMs have committed themselves to ship both Windows8 and RT devices in number, which hardly means any good for Android or Ubuntu.

Improving on the situation

The biggest problem is that UfA is practically invisible for the average Android user. UfA needs to get into the hands of users in order to generate a widespread need for it (which in turn can make it a requirement for OEMs).

Several Canonical employees have publicly stated that the company will eventually release this integration work as GPL’d open-source projects. Even if they wanted a business advantage by keeping it closed for a while, that advantage is worthless if the business environment becomes much worse due to the delays (OEMs committing to WindowsRT). UfA should be open-sourced immediately in order to form a basis for its distribution.

Partnering with CyanogenMod

CyanogenMod has always been about features. If UfA needs to be distributed by custom-ROMs (until OEMs catch up) the best place for this would be with CyanogenMod. CYM already supports a wide set of phones and tablets and a lot of people venture to use their ROM on a device which doesn’t get proper OEM updates. For example, my HP Touchpad now runs CyanogenMod 10 and I am impressed with the quality of this distribution. Due to the inability of HP, the Touchpad was a very limited device running WebOS (e.g. no hw accelerated video playback unless via a paid app, fairly slow browser…etc). Now, it happily serves the family both as a nimble browsing device and as a video player (YouTube and videos from the home NAS). The power of the Linux community helped to make the TouchPad a worthwhile purchase.

Canonical could easily set up a project which integrates Ubuntu for Android into CyanogenMod for a lot of devices. In order to avoid bloat, the UfA capable device ROMs could ship with an installer application which download and install the necessary extra components and Ubuntu for Android itself. This way, the base Cyanogen ROM could remain small but any user could transform its device into a full Ubuntu desktop when the need arises.

Selling Canonical branded devices with Ubuntu for Android

Since Canonical has practically no OEM partners, it cannot effectively alienate them (as opposed to Microsoft with the Surface) by selling branded hardware. Seeing the headway with OEMs, nobody could blame Canonical if it turned to hardware sales as a means to more effectively distribute Ubuntu to end-users. Canonical doesn’t have to make money on the hardware, the goal is to put out as many running Ubuntu instances as possible which may generate support contracts.

Naturally, I wouldn’t recommend actually building hardware, only customizing already-available, generic products from ODMs.

How about a Android/Ubuntu stick-PC?

Although Canonical seems to be focusing on phones with UfA, the emerging stick-PC category is also very interesting for a set of reasons. First of all, they cost almost nothing, so the volume may be very high (just what Canonical needs). Secondly, these sticks mostly come with only Android support, but fairly common hardware (like Mali400 GPU, Cortex-A9 cores…etc) so customizing their Android distribution with Ubuntu for Android should not be a significant undertaking.  Thirdly, they come with fairly strong memory bandwidth so Ubuntu will work much better than on limited phone hardware. I was fairly surprised how fast an Allwinner-A10 based laptop can run Ubuntu so you can imagine the speed we get with a new, RK3066 based stick. Hardware-wise, all Canonical needs to do is having an RK3066 stick customized with the ODM for the targeted use case (2GB of RAM and 8GB of flash should be the baseline).

With sufficient volume, a $100 Ubuntu stick looks doable. That device would run all of the typical Android apps/games (like Angry Birds, ShadowGun…etc), serve as a media-center with XBMC for Android and turn into a full-blown Ubuntu desktop if the user wants to do some serious work (or just needs the known-and-trusted Linux desktop). Such a stick could be used as a “TV smartener” with an RF keyboard/touchpad (including a decent torrent client like Transmission) or a normal desktop PC when combined with a monitor + keyboard and mouse.

Whatever Canonical chooses to do, it needs to be done quickly, since the current, favourable market conditions (e.g. the relative weak position of Microsoft in the mobile segment) may not remain with us indefinitely.

Current trends

Desktop Linux is slowly gaining market share but its advancement is excruciatingly slow. The desktop itself is loosing market share to mobile operating systems like Android and iOS primarily because Internet usage is shifting towards mobile devices. A lot of people use their mobile phone as their primary computing device and mobile phone hw is developing leaps and bounds to serve these use-cases (bigger screens, quad-core processors…etc).

Due to its touch-oriented, mobile-centric features + Google’s strong push, Android is rapidly expanding its market share among the mobile operating systems and is the most successful Linux distribution ever.

Ubuntu for Android (UfA)

Ubuntu for Android blends Android and Ubuntu in the perfect manner. Ubuntu and Android share the same Linux kernel instance so there is no dual-booting, they run in parallel. When the need arises, the user can switch to the desktop interface of Ubuntu for productive work, typically when a mouse and keyboard gets attached to the device (via a docking station, a lapdock or simply a bluetooth keyboard/mouse)

The two operating systems are completely synergistic. Some examples:

• Ubuntu is capable of using the databases of Android (e.g. uses Android’s contact database in the email software)
• Ubuntu uses Android’s network management
• You keep all of your touch applications and use them on the Android interface but you also have the full desktop arsenal when you switch to Desktop Mode
• Android’s touch applications can also be displayed on Ubuntu’s desktop interface (in windows) and you can use them with keyboard and mouse

Why Android needs Ubuntu and the Linux desktop:

Android is heavily touch oriented and cannot very well serve desktop-oriented productive use-cases (like editing a spreadsheet) even though ARM hardware is now absolutely capable to make a phone or a smartbook a primary computer.

Desktop Mode is important in order to make a mobile device a no-compromise, primary computing solution.  Today’s touch-interfaces alone can only serve content consumption.

Current Android office suites are no match for LibreOffice and the touch interface in general is no match for the Desktop when productive work is to be done. Ubuntu includes a lot of other powerful desktop productivity software in their repositories. It provides the full spectrum of sophisticated software like GIMP, Open/LibreOffice, Dia, full-blown Java applications like MindCraft, SweetHome3D, TimeslotTracker, JED, Azureus…etc. Full-featured browsing with Firefox (including plugins like AdBlock), proper, full-blown email client like Thunderbird…etc.

Desktop Mode is a weapon in the mobile OS wars and it would be a key feature against WinRT and iOS. WinRT will have no meaningful Desktop Mode but Apple may decide to migrate desktop features to iOS (from OS X). Since Apple’s new strategy of keeping older iOS devices on the market is very successful, Android  needs further innovation and distinguishing features.  This is a very good article which has similar arguments as my own.

Why Linux/Ubuntu/Canonical need Android?

Android is still spreading at an impressive rate. Apart from mobile phones, tablets and tablet/smartbook hybrids like the Transformer Prime,  it gets into smart-TVs, set-top-boxes (Mele A1000) and other devices.

Android is a well-known consumer brand now, much-much stronger than Ubuntu or Linux in general. A lot of hardware manufacturers are now releasing their devices with Android because that immediately gives market recognition and a huge selection of readily available apps.

UfA has the potential for bringing a lot of users to Ubuntu/Linux and this may be the best way to achieve a  much higher market penetration. Canonical may as well stop developing the standalone desktop and still have a growing penetration if UfA becomes successful.

The Problems

There is a set of problems ahead for UfA and Canonical.

Canonical is currently focusing to dockable mobile phones as the sole target for UfA. Although it is true that mobile phones are the highest-volume Android devices at the moment, they are not necessarily the best devices for expressing the synergy between the two operating systems. Tablet/smartbook hybrids like the Transformer Prime are a more natural target since they already have a sufficiently big screen attached and keyboard/mouse built-in the docking station part of the device. For using UfA with a mobile phone (with acceptable performance) you would need a state-of-the art mobile phone and extra accessories (like a docking station). Docking stations are not widespread at all, you practically cannot buy them with the exception of some phone models like the Atrix. With the Transformer Prime+its dock, you immediately have everything you need to use UfA, no extra expenses.

Ubuntu for Android is practically a closed-source product at the moment and it is not available for the general public. The reasoning behind this is somewhat understandable since installing UfA into an Android instance is a technically complex task and requires rooting the device + a lot of hw-specific settings and configurations (e.g. the X Server). It is really not like selecting an app from Google Play and pushing the Install button. For this reason, Canonical decided that it will try to market UfA exclusively through OEM partnerships so UfA will arrive pre-installed with your device or not at all.

The biggest problem with the above is that it limits UfA adoption severely. Since UfA was announced and presented at the beginning of this year, we should have already heard about a lot of announcements by Canonical and device manufacturers. With the obvious lack of those announcements, we have to assume that there are not enough OEMs which recognize the importance and distinguishing features of UfA. I believe this may be the problem of  chicken & egg. First, users must see UfA in action in order to recognize that they need this feature in their next phone/tablet/smartbook/set-top-box and demand it from the manufacturers. The closed-source nature of UfA also makes it impossible for the Linux community to contribute.

I strongly suggest that Canonical select some successful, high-volume mobile devices which are already on the market and release UfA for them as after-market mods. My first target would be the Transformer Prime but the HTC One X and the Samsung Galaxy S3 may also be good targets.

Partnering with the Cyanogen Mod team may be a good way to do this since they already support a wide range of devices (they are especially strong with HTC models) and established themselves as the prime producers of after-market ROMs. The cooperation may give birth to a special Cyanogen edition (let’s call it Cyanobuntu) in order to distinguish the base Cyanogen ROMs from the Ubuntu-extended editions.

Once Cyanobuntu gets sufficiently well known on a set of devices, OEMs may be much more easier to persuade about the advantages of Ubuntu for Android.

Time is of the essence

Ubuntu for Android started off at a very good time but the competition is not standing in one place either. WinRT and Windows8 (for x86) tablets are coming this fall and may prove strong contenders in the mobile computing segment. Windows8  will have both an unlimited Desktop Mode and the Metro touch interface. WinRT will have no meaningful Desktop Mode but it will ship with MS Office so it will have appeal for a set of users.

There is no time to loose, Android and Ubuntu must be ready when Windows 8 makes it début.

As you may know, Ubuntu for Android will provide a complete desktop environment for Android phones, tablets and smartbooks. The nice thing is that this environment will be pretty much integrated with Android (like network management for the 3G connection and wifi).

The Ubuntu desktop will be able to run not only traditional Linux desktop applications like Open/LibreOffice and GIMP but it will also be able to execute desktop Java applications like TimeSlotTracker, MindCraft, TED and even developer IDEs like Netbeans (at least I don’t see any reason why not).

I have already tested Oracle’s Java SE Embedded on my HP Touchpad (under the WebOS / Ubuntu combo available for it) and I am fairly satisfied with its speed and stability.

I imagine Java SE Embedded from Oracle will be possible to install on Ubuntu for Android aside from the Java implementations available from the repositories (IcedTea and OpenJDK). The Java SE Embedded is downloadable as a standalone installer from Oracle’s Java SE Embedded pages.

It would be nice if Canonical could include an easy way to install the Oracle’s version of Java SE into Ubuntu for Android in order to make it simple for everyone to install Java applications. However, even if this doesn’t happen you will have the option of easily install OpenJDK/IcedTea from the package manager (which should suit most desktop apps) and install the Oracle JRE if the former don’t work well with your apps.

That said, there are areas where tablets just cannot give enough. For example, any kind of work which requires more serious input while being mobile. The problem of efficient input can be solved with accessories like a bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Usually, when you prepare your tablet for extra-home journeys, you buy a case which also hosts the keyboard.

If we stop here for a moment, we may realize that a tablet in a foldable bluetooth keyboard case is actually a modular netbook (or a smartbook if you like) which is capable of loosing its keyboard for added mobility. This realization, however, is imprecise because the typical netbook software stack is mostly missing: a full-featured office suite, a browser with your favourite extensions and all of the desktop bells-and-whistles you are used to.

How could we improve on this situation?

In the case of Linux based mobile operating systems like Android, WebOS and MeeGo, the answer is fairly simple: bring back the Desktop Mode as the second work environment besides the touch interface. Desktop Mode may automatically activate when you attach a keyboard or a mouse and runs all of your traditional Linux desktop applications. The user is of course should be allowed to easily switch between touch-mode and desktop mode (preferably with a dedicated hw button)

If you think this as a lunacy, think again. Microsoft has already announced that Windows 8 will have this double nature (the metro UI for touch applications and the desktop for traditional applications).

Some people think that the typical ARM based tablet hardware would not be able to run desktop heavyweights like OpenOffice and Firefox. They are wrong and nothing proves this better than the Ubuntu ports already done for the Toshiba AC100 (a video about it is here). This video clearly demonstrates that Tegra2 level hardware with even 512Mb of RAM (and run from an external SD card)  is capable of running these applications with acceptable speed (e.g.: cold startup time of 8 seconds for OpenOffice 3.2 Writer). We can safely say that a HP Touchpad’s dual-core SOC overclocked to 1.7Ghz will run these applications significantly faster from the internal SSD and with 1GB of RAM. An even more powerful, Kal-El (Tegra3) based tablet with 1-2GB of RAM will clearly pass Atom-based netbook performance.

Of course, there have already been attempts for providing the Desktop Mode for Android machines. The Webtop interface of the Motorola Atrix is fundamentally a desktop environment, albeit a very limited one.

As I have suggested recently for the HP Touchpad, I believe that every Linux based mobile OS should provide a lightweight desktop environment and a full complement of desktop applications by default (or at least an extremely easy way to install them). Only this way can they counter the very real advantage a dual-mode Window8 would have.

A lot of people think that this was an absolutely unnecessary and sorely mistaken step, especially in light of the possible revival of the Touchpad after the PC business has been separated. Not that the Touchpad is a very competitive device in its current form. It has many glaring design mistakes by HP like missing ports (HDMI out, USB host), no expandable storage …etc but it also has many good features like its high-quality IPS-screen, Beats audio system and over-clockable processor.

WebOS also has a huge disadvantage compared to iOS and Android: very few applications, and this seems to be quite a show-stopper in the current situation (a chicken-and-egg problem).

How could HP make this product more successful without resorting to souch brutal fire-sales like the one we have recently seen?

I believe, that HP should exploit one of the big strengths of the core of WebOS: Linux.

WebOS is built on the Linux kernel and it already uses a set of Linux desktop technologies on top of it (Gstreamer, PulseAudio…etc). In a particular sense, it is a heavily customized Linux distribution (distro), like Ubuntu, which is  purposefully made incompatible with the grand armada of Linux desktop applications in order to allow applications which use strictly WebOS-only APIs.

The development strategy of allowing WebOS-only applications makes sense, since it ensures a consistent level of user experience (e.g.: all applications are properly touch-oriented) and makes it easy to enhance the foundations of WebOS without breaking applications. However, it locks HP into an uphill battle which seems impossible to win from the current situation.

Therefore, I suggest a change of development strategy, which concurrently allows significantly enhancing the number of applications available for WebOS and makes the system appealing for different use-cases.

The main component of the new strategy would be to allow running full-desktop Linux applications on the Touchpad in a so-called Desktop Mode. This Desktop Mode would automatically activate when WebOS senses a keyboard or mouse attached to the system (only Bluetooth in case of the Touchpad).

Desktop Mode would make it possible to use the TouchPad as a Linux netbook while keeping the touch oriented interface for the tablet-mode. Best of both worlds.

Desktop Mode would be a completely standard, lightweight Linux desktop  (e.g: XFCE). and would run the traditional Linux desktop applications and also display the WebOS applications in separate windows. This work environment would not be very different from the Webtop interface of the Motorola Atrix but it would not be such a limited environment. It would be a full-blown, configurable Linux desktop with all of its advantages.

Ideally, you should be able to easily switch back and forth between the Desktop Mode and the Card Interface of WebOS (possibly with a dedicated hw button on new models).

Since Desktop Mode would run every imaginable Linux desktop applications (including Java, Python and even Mono ones), it would make the TouchPad an extremely versatile mobile device. It would be more welcome in the enterprise than its competitors.

The hardware of the TouchPad (dual-core processor clocked at 1.7 Ghz and 1GB RAM) should be absolutely able to handle both Desktop Mode and the Card Interface applications concurrently. Obviously, desktop heavyweights like OpenOffice would open and run slower, but I imagine they would be fast enough to be usable. HP could ship Desktop Mode with lightweight applications (Abiword, Gnumeric…etc) while allowing the easy installation of heavy programs (at your own peril).

The best option for the Desktop Mode would be a chrooted Ubuntu instance because that would mean a very powerful application environment with a lot of readily installable aplications in its repositories (appstore). The WebOS Internals team already ship the X-Server for WebOS, so a well-working Linux desktop is absolutely doable on top of WebOS.

HP could also sell a netbook-kit as an accessory to the Touchbook, which would include a case with a built-in stand and a built-in keyboard. When the TouchPad is in the case and oriented for netbook-mode, the Desktop Mode would automatically activate.

Of course, this solution would not fully compensate the inherent weaknesses of the Touchpad but it would make it  more appealing for those people who consider netbooks as usable devices and expect their tablet to be as capable as their predecessors in mobility.

Although, the AC100 looks like proper hardware design, it became only mildly successful. Some of the reasons may have to do with the primary operating system, Android (see my earlier article about this) but even more can be attributed to the design decisions Toshiba made.

Since these machines are now available in my home country (Hungary) at quite attractive price points (~$250 USD, some people seem to be trying to get rid of it soon after purchase) I can’t help bumping into it all the time. Since I am a gadget fan, I always have my hand trembling seeing those prices and I need to cool myself down before doing some impulse-buy, I regret later.

What could make me click on the “Buy” button?

More memory

First of all, 1-2GB of RAM instead of the measly 512MB the AC100 hosts. Why the heck tried Toshiba sell a netbook with 512MB of RAM when ALL of the Atom N450 netbooks seemed to come with 1-2 GB at that time? This amount of RAM would allow to slap Ubuntu onto the machine and not worry about running out of memory when loading up OpenOffice. Ubuntu has been demonstrated on the AC100 and even looks snappy. (see this site dedicated to Ubuntu on the AC100). Toshiba could easily put 2GB of RAM into the machine without major cost-increase.

Desktop OS and/or Android

Putting 1-2GB of RAM into the AC100 would open the gate for using a proper, netbook-oriented desktop OS which can take advantage of the form-factor. They should use Ubuntu, since that could be fixed up on this hardware in no time (especially if they purchase some consultancy from Canonical).

I don’t think that Android needs to stay on the machine but if Toshiba still thinks it is such a good idea for any user-group, they could make the AC100 dual-boot, or even better, run both OSes in parallel (2GB of RAM would make this absolutely possible). Android would be the light-and-easy OS on the device but the user could any time switch to a full Ubuntu desktop with an Android launcher icon and start using OpenOffice or other decent desktop software. The paravirtualization developed by B-labs would be an instant solution for this problem and would future proof the machine for a possible Windows8 scenario later.

More battery

The 8 hour runtime of the AC100 is decent enough but more battery-time is always welcome. The enclosure has a LOT of free/empty space under the keyboard due to the ultra-compact nature of Tegra2 and its supporting circuitry. Toshiba should again take advantage of the form-factor and add one or more extra battery docking bays under the keyboard which could extend the runtime to 16-24 hours. (Admittedly, they would make the unit weight much more but since these batteries would be optional, this decision would be up to the user. A 24-hour runtime with a 3-battery arrangement would make the AC100 extremely appealing for a large-set of users. It would be acceptable that the batteries are charged in series (so the recharge process is lengthier) so that Toshiba doesn’t have to switch to a more expensive power supply. (Although the power supply issue is probably not a serious cost factor).

What else

Of course, there would be a lot of things to be improved (more USB ports, higher-resolution display…etc) but I tried to draw up things which require smaller redesign so that an improved version could be implemented faster.

I believe the AC100 line could be made really successful and Toshiba should take steps to make this happen.

I root for MeeGo because it has a lot of advantages over Android and iOS:

• More open than Android, the source code repositories can be read by anyone, and anyone can contribute at least patches. Any device manufacturer can take the source code any time and try to slap MeeGo onto its device.

• Has a lot of optimizations for both ARM and x86 (Intel & Nokia cooperation), so it is relatively easy to deploy it on both hardware architecture. (Important for manufacturers.)
• It uses a more standard Linux kernel than Android so it can follow the progress of the Linux kernel much more closely than Android (continuously better device support…etc).

• It is a real, full-blown Linux system. The user interface – while nicely optimized for touch -  is based on standard X-Windows technology, so EVERY current Linux software can run on it without major porting work (e.g. Firefox, Open/LibreOffice, Thunderbird). Tablet optimized and non-tablet-optimized software can run next to each other. Of course you need a keyboard and mouse for the non-tablet apps.
• Imagine the Motorola Atrix: Due to the previous point, you wouldn’t need a separate Webtop environment for desktop applications, one, sophisticated shell can handle all applications concurrently. (in the case of the Atrix, the currently shipping Webtop environment is dumbed-down, static, non-extendable Linux desktop which integrates poorly with the concurrently running Android apps)

• Among other technologies, it can run full-blown Java apps as well, not only Flash, like Android. This could be a strong differentiation in an enterprise environment.

• It is absolutely imaginable to run Android apps in the MeeGo environment  if the developers decide to support it (Dalvik is just another VM like the Java VM and dual/quad-core ARM Cortex-A9 with 1GB RAM can run as many VMs as you want). This is going to happen on the BlackBerry Playbook, there is no reason for not implementing it in MeeGo.

I believe Nokia has made a HUGE mistake by choosing Microsoft WP7 for its primary platform. MeeGo has a much better chance of becoming a real, multi-vendor OS solution that seamlessly replaces Symbian. It would give as much differentiation for Nokia as WP7 does and it would fit better with the current customer base of Nokia (a lot of which will never buy a WP7 phone).

This technology may have similarly big impact on solar collector technology in terms of cost and system complexity.

Solar collectors produce heat from solar rays by heating a heat-transfer liquid (solar hot-water collector) or air (solar air collector). Solar collector systems are much cheaper than solar PV systems but are still fairly complicated and expensive.

For example, liquid-transfer collectors require piping, pumps and complex control mechanisms (solar controller computer which tells when pumps operate…etc) for transferring the collected heat to the storage. Air-collectors also need fans, fairly large holes on walls/roof, control mechanism…etc.

With the Hypersolar concentrator, one could build a system like this:

• The solar panel has a very simple construction, it only concentrates light (ideally the full spectrum) into optical cables. The Hypersolar glass is directly connected to the optical cables, there is no need for insulation in the panel.

• Piping is replaced by optical cables which (in this system) transfer all collected photons to a central heat storage (a large water tank). The water tank is equipped with a high-performance photon/heat converter (black metal absorber and a simple pump to move the hot water away from the photon/heatsink). The converter should be a very simple metallic device with good thermal engineering.

• From this point everything is the same as a normal solar-hot-water system which provides hot water for heating and sanitary purposes. (piping the hot water from the storage to bathrooms, from storage to the floor-heating pipes or to fan-coil radiators…etc).

In larger systems the optical cable must be protected against accidental damage since it will transfer energy at high rates.

Naturally, more complex systems can also be built. For example several optical cables can be used and each of them can go to a specific room and connect into a hot-air producing photon sink (some sort of fan-coil radiator unit). This would make heat distribution easier and eliminate the need for a larger central heat storage. Naturally, the radiator units in the room need to be some sort of hybrid  since they need to produce heat at night as well (e.g. work with electricity at night).

I am wondering why they would force this direction. Do they know server requirements better than Intel? Why do they think that low-power x86 server chips are so important?

I believe the answer comes from the following factors:

• Power efficiency is becoming more and more important in the server room. Intel processors (Microsoft’s home turf) have less than stellar watt/performance efficiency but they are the best in raw performance / cores.
• ARM provides the best watt/performance in general computing (far far better than Intel x86) and ARM is seemingly scalable to the server performance range (with multiple cores and coming to 28nm high-performance production processes)
• Microsoft doesn’t have a server operating system presence on the ARM architecture. Linux on the other hand runs on ARM, has optimized distributions for ARM SOCs.
• ARM licensees are actively pursuing server chips (Nvidia, Nufront…etc)

If 4-16 core ARM server processors appear in the near future, servers built with them would have superior watt/performance ratios so they may quickly gain acceptance.

These systems would be perfectly served by Linux distributions (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse) and Microsoft could not offer anything for them. Linux is already the strongest player in the datacenter and this would grow its market share considerably while reducing the market-share of Windows simultaniously.

Even if Microsoft manages to create a stable Win8 server OS solution with all the required additional Windows sw (database systems, application servers…etc) on ARM in 2-3 years, it will be pretty much too late. They will need to play catch-up with Linux. The Microsoft Win8 solution will have to sell for peanuts to be in the game which would make it very much unprofitable in the short-medium run. Moreover, as x86 server market share goes down, their x86 Windows Server OS profits also go down.

All in all: If ARM processors appear in the market in the near future, Microsoft may face a steep uphill battle in the datacenter. If x86 based Atom server can slow down the onslaught of ARM servers, Microsoft may gain enough time to come up with a Win8/ARM server solution and avoid serious loss of server market-share.

Nvidia has recently announced its Project Denver effort which also shows how seriously the graphics company wants to transform into an all-out computer technology company shipping mobile, desktop and server processors as well not only graphics solutions.

As a result, Intel will have to face not only AMD in the desktop/server segment but a big-name ARM technologist as well. (And several smaller ones like Nufront)

Tegra3 is not well known yet, but some guesses can be made:

• Quad-core Cortex-A9 symmetric multi processing for generic application code execution
• Likely at least 1Ghz top, possible up to 1.5 Ghz, dynamic frequency scaling and individual core-power-off
• Geforce 8 or 9 level graphics core, likely with high-profile 1080p playback and encoding
• Support for Linux and Android
• Possibly produced on a <40nm process (GlobalFoundries 28nm anyone?)

If Nvidia can produce this on the GlobalFoundries 28nm process (or similar), we can be quite certain that the new SOC will still be viable for smartphones and will be an extremely appealing solution for tablets and Motorola Atrix-like phone/netbook/tablet modular solutions.

It will make Moorestown Atoms a very-very hard sell for Intel in the mobile phone and tablet space since the computing-power advantage of Moorestown is gone and Tegra3 will be much more efficient (being an all-out ARM solution). Android-centered OEMs will most likely go with ARM anyway and if there is a big-name producer like Nvidia with a powerful solution for their premium products, they will certainly pick that up instead of the Intel gear.

And this is only the mobile space. When Project Denver from Nvidia and Nufront start selling ARM based server SOCs, Intel will have to fight a battle in the datacenter which was absolutely home-turf so far.

All of this may not have happened at all (or would have happened years later, giving Moorestown a chance) if Intel had not chosen to deny Nvidia the hardware interfaces for building Ion2. They switched a huge threat and possible cut-throat competition in every computing segment for a very short-term gain in one segment.

Was it worth it Intel?

It is worth mentioning that this concept is not brand new and that a smaller company called Always Innovating (AI) has a similar, even more modular product: the Smart Book.

The main difference between the two products is that the computing core of the Smart Book is only a MID, not a real mobile phone like the Atrix.

The advantages of the Atrix over the Smart Book (SB):

• The computing core of the Atrix is a real, usable mobile phone, not only a MID (IP phone as AI calls it) as with the SB. The Atrix phone is a high-end Android phone with beautiful, high-res screen (comparable to the iPhone4).

• The computing core of the Atrix has 1GB of RAM and a powerful Tegra2 (dual-core Cortex A9) instead of the last gen, slow Cortex-A8 SOC and only 512Mb RAM in the Smart Book.

• Computing core of the Atrix has a built-in 3G modem (with strong HSUPA and HSDPA) while the SB has only wifi radio and requires you to use an external 3G modem to connect to the internet when on-the-go.

The advantages of the Smart Book (SB) over the Atrix:

• Much more modular. The SB has tablet jacket AND keyboard/netbook dock for the tablet jacket, while the Atrix only has a netbook jacket for the phone. The SB’s tablet jacket has a capacitive touch interface
• The SB has real a real desktop operating system (Ubuntu) running when in desktop mode while the the Atrix has only Webtop (that only looks like a full blown desktop but it is only a Splashtop-like quick-linux OS, so it is limited to a selection of programs and is not easy to extend with apps).
• The SB has 2 inner USB ports for replaceable 3G modem or storage key which can always ship safely within the netbook dock (no protrusions)
• The SB’s netbook dock can be used as an independent bluetooth keyboard
• The SB’s tablet screen can be used as a secondary display of a desktop (DisplayLink)
• The SB has a dockable (into the talet) HDMI to USB adapter (DisplayLink)

In order to be the perfect companion, the Atrix needs to:

• Increase its modularity by separating the netbook dock into a tablet and a keyboard stand or at least release a tablet dock as well
• Upgrade the Webtop desktop environment to a real, powerful desktop Linux (aka Ubuntu 10.04) or at least ensure that Ubuntu can also be used in place of Webtop. It is important that the user be able to switch between Android and Ubuntu real time

The Smart Book could be a worthy contender to the Atrix by:

• Upgrading the computing core to a dual-core OMAP4 with 1GB of speedy RAM
• The computing core needs to be a real-word Android mobile phone with a strong HSPA data modem

I believe Motorola is in a better position to make the Atrix a one-stop computing solution but I also root for Always Innovating to make the Smart Book a successful product.

Both products clearly mark the future: modular, mobile computing for everyone.

Java should start off on the same road as LibreOffice under a different name.

The new “Java” language should be sufficiently close to Java that a one-to-one source converter tool can be written for trivial porting of Java libraries. Apache Harmony is a good basis for this but Snoracle patents will have to be worked around.

The platform should be completely modular and compatible with the packaging systems of Linuxes (apt/yum) and other repository based packaging systems, so that self-containing application packaging can be avoided (this is the case now with most Java applications).

While the language should be backward-compatible with Java, it should incorporate most of the new language advancements of .Net, Python and Ruby. Of course only those which don’t kill basic Java language features like strong-typing.

The new “Java” platform should have an Apache-led, democratic governing body. Similar to the JCP but without veto rights for anyone.

When the platform matures to 1.0 (if Google backs the project with enough cash, it could be reached quickly, since Harmony is likely a good starting point), Apache and Google should publicly announce that they stop active Java development, freeze all of their Java-based projects until they get ported to the new platform. Google should deprecate Java in the App Engine and thus forcibly move developers to the “new” Java. This migration should be easy/trivial.

This would of course practically kill Java but the new “Java” platform would become much stronger than Java has ever been because of the following:

• Since it would be distributed under the Apache license, it would be very commercial-friendly and appealing to companies. We can expect every sane company moving to the new platform in the medium term especially because:
  • This platform would be truly open and the stewards (Apache/Google and possibly others) respected and trusted (esp. Apache)
  • Nobody actually believes that Oracle will be a good steward of Java.
  • Oracle will want to squeeze every last penny of Java (will hurt Java developers/users) without actual development of the platform. Just like they did with Oracle Forms and Reports.
• Due to the open-source nature, packaging and modularity of the new platform, all Linuxes would happily include the new platform and this new “Java” would soon become the primary  development language of Linux projects, completely ousting Mono/.NET on the way. Those Linux projects would run on Windows as well so they would strengthen the migration path from Windows to Linux.
• Strong Linux support would bring a substantial developer base to the platform (the open-source developer crowd).
• Google would officially switch to this platform and the success of Android would help its rise considerably.
• Android would bring a substantial developer base (huge number of Android developers)
• Running Android applications on desktops would become possible which doesn’t make sense now but it will soon, since a lot of Android apps will be soon rewritten for tablets and thus become eligible for desktop use.
• The new language should become a primary citizen on the LibreOffice platform. Possibly a basis for every new, larger development in LibreOffice.
• When projects like Maven and Ant get frozen on the old Java platform, developer migration will ensue en-mass to the new “Java”.

The new platform would quickly dominate the server-side, where Java is the strongest currently and Linux is on the rise. It would also quickly dominate the mobile space due to Android.

It is possible that the new platform would also become successful on the desktop, at least in the enterprise space where a lot of Java desktop applications are deployed. The Linux desktop would be the first, possibly it would be followed by the Windows desktop.

Java in its current form, under the stewardship of Oracle, is destined to slow decline. Only a radical renewal like this could put it firmly back to the map of relevancy.

The bezel of the tablet has been slightly enlarged (as can be seen on the picture):

There will be four base variants of the Adam:

• PixelQi screen, wi-fi
• PixelQi screen, wi-fi, 3G cellular modem
• Ordinary LCD screen, wi-fi
• Ordinary LCD screen, wi-fi, 3G cellular modem

Both the PixelQi and the ordinary LCD screen will have capacitive, multi-touch interface and 1024×600 resolution, anti-glare coating (matte finish). This is especially useful for reading and outdoor use. PixelQi variant is usable in direct, strong sunlight.

There is no info yet on the HSDPA/HSUPA speeds for the 3G cellular modem.

For internal storage, 16 and 32 GB flash will be selectable.

Common specification elements:

• Nvidia Tegra2 System On Chip operating at 1Ghz (dual-core ARM Cortex-A9)
• 1 GB of RAM (DDR2, 667Mhz)
• WLAN 802.11 b/g/n (previously it was not known whether it will have “n” as well)
• Bluetooth 2.1 EDR with A2DP (for stereo bluetooth headsets)
• External loudspeakers (expected to be good quality for enjoyable video playback), external microphone, headphone and microphone jack
• 3.2 Mpixel swivel camera which will be usable for both taking photos and video calls
• 2 normal size USB ports and 1 mini-USB port
• HDMI output
• microSD card slot
• Docking port
• 3-axis accelerometer
• Ambient light sensor and automatic screen backlight adjustment (this will have a big, positive impact on the battery runtime)
• Manual LCD back-light switch (most useful for the PixelQi variant)
• Standalone GPS chip and antennea (with support for A-GPS quick positioning). The Adam will be capable for navigation without 3G network coverage
• Sound volume keys
• Backside trackpad (this is an interesting part, check the videos on Youtube)
• 24 Wh battery (3-cell configuration). Expected runtime is 15 hours for wifi browsing (recently reported on the blog), 140 hours of listening to audio, more than a week standby
• Operating system is Android Froyo (2.2) with a custom, tablet-enhanced user interface

It is not yet known whether the Adam will have a digital compass (for better navigation and augmented reality apps). It has been asked on the Notion Ink blog comments but no confirmation yet. It would be very much logical to have it in a machine with this hardware level but the long-time omission from the specs indicates otherwise.

Target end-user prices are between $400 and $500 for the 4 variants in the US. Their target is to keep even the fully loaded variant below the price of the entry level iPad.

Availability/release of the Adam is not finalized, but the Early Access Program winners (developers) are expected to have their machines shipped around November 15. Public release should happen soon after in order to make the Adam available for the Christmas shopping season.

Sources:

• Notion Ink Blog
• Notion Ink Company Website

That would be an awesome success for Oracle since it is by nature (steward of Java) interested in running Java applications in Android devices. Devices shipping with Android (tablets with dual-core ARM processor and 512Mb to 1 GB of RAM) are powerful enough to run full Java applications, even with Swing. Desktop applications are quite common in the enterprise space and would make Android devices very appealing in this segment. Especially in the tablet form factor.

Due to the overwhelming success of Android, Oracle would gain a lot of possible support contracts for Java SE on Android (support contracts are the ones Oracle is usually after)

Oracle should get over the need for controlling where Java SE can go (it is currently not allowed on phones) and remove these restrictions. Most of them don’t make any sense anyway.

Google and Oracle should work together to create a flawless SE JVM for Android (the Linux runtime is probably a good basis for that) and make sure that graphical Java programs (Swing) run nicely and feel native on Android. Sun has made a lot of optimizations for ARM Cortex A9 level processors, that work should not be lost.

Synergies between Java and Android are already very strong, this step would correct Google’s original mistake of leaving out SE compatibility of Android (I know the reasons but still I think it was a big mistake nontheless).

My Treo 650 was a real workhorse, containing hundreds of contacts, thousands of calendar entries (I use the calendar actively and like to keep entries for a very long time for reference), lots of todos and memos. As a long time Linux/Ubuntu user, I have synchronized and backed up my Treo with JPilot, which is an excellent Linux application. In the past, I have used several Palm devices and I was always able to migrate my complete PIM database with ease between the old device and the new one.

Now that my Treo seems to be dead, I was considering buying a Palm Pre. Researching the Pre, I soon learned that the old synchronization protocol (Hotsync) doesn’t work at all with the Pre and there seems to be no way to correctly synchronize the Pre with my Linux desktop. Since I store relatively sensitive information on the Treo, I would never synchronize my PIM database with a cloud service like Google. Thus, Palm’s new Synergy sync methods are practically useless for me.

This problem is not only related to the Linux desktop, Windows users are affected as well but they at least have existing third-party options for synchronizing the Pre with Outlook.

Now, this is a real show-stopper for me and lowers the Pre from a trusted Palm device to the level of the average smartphone in my eyes. Palm seems to have lost an avid user since if my workflow is broken anyway, I might as well switch to Android. Android has a much bigger community than WebOS, so there is a bigger chance that I find a well working syncing solution to the Linux desktop.

It is also ironic that although Palm’s new WebOS is a Linux device, Palm has decided to break compatibility with the Linux desktop since the only working way between them was HotSync.

It should have been of paramount importance for Palm to ensure compatibility with its own Palm Desktop software and all of the other desktop software which was communicating with Palm devices over HotSync. Currently, Treo owners don’t have an easy way to upgrade to the Pre/Pixi since their PIM databases cannot be easily migrated to the new device the way they are used to. As a fair chunk of Treo users were business people, I am sure, most of them are NOT comfortable with their PIM database stored in the cloud. Palm should understand that cloud storage with Synergy – while a good thing – is NOT a replacement for HotSync in a lot of user scenarios.

I believe that Palm’s lower-than-expected sales of the Pre and the Pixi can be amounted to this, incompatibility with the old ways and the well-working syncing solutions and desktop tools. Their established Treo/PDA customer base will simply switch to other phones and leave them. This way they loose all of their inherited advantage with this people.

If they want to save the customer base which is still on PalmOS, they should VERY QUICKLY create the HotSync client for WebOS or create a HotSync Synergy plugin and restore compatibility with the Palm Desktop and all of the other desktop software which are still using Hotsync.

The Smart Book is an ultra-modular, ultra-mobile computing device, which integrates an IP phone, a tablet and a netbook into one, Linux based machine. Although, there is not enough information (yet) about the exact nature/working of the hardware/software components, the modularity of the device is stunning.

As the basis, you have a MID / IP phone unit which houses a Texas Instruments Cortex-A8 (likely an OMAP3) SOC with a powerful graphics core and 512 Mb of RAM. This is the computing core of the whole set. It has microSD slot for extra storage and a 1500 mAh battery. You may use this for quick email checking and limited web-browsing if you want to carry only a very small device with you.

When the need arises, the MID can be inserted into a tablet “jacket”. This provides an 8.9″screen and an extra 6000 mAh battery for the computing core (the IP phone). You can use the tablet for comfortable browsing/email reading/book reading and you can still accept phone calls with a bluetooth headset.

If you need to do some serious typing (or run out of the battery of both the tablet and phone-core), you can dock the tablet into a stand with a keyboard which makes the device a proper netbook/laptop and gives you an extra 12000 (!!!) mAh battery capacity. When this happens, you may switch the computing core to a full Ubuntu Linux from the Android you used on the MID. This is done with a dedicated hardware button (called the AI button).

The battery life is not yet known, but if the battery capacity figures are real, it should be brutal. Some assumptions for the web browsing activity on wifi:

• 3-4 hours for the MID alone (1500 mAh)
• 10-14 hours for the tablet set (1500 + 6000 mAh)
• 20-34 hours for the netbook set (1500 + 6000 + 12000 mAh)

Some other goodies:

• One of the cases (tablet or the stand) can house a USB key so it won’t protrude from the device and you can safely ship it, always inserted into the device, removing only when you need to stick it into an other computer.
• The tablet can be used as a secondary display for an arbitrary computer which has a USB port (by DisplayLink technology)
• The MID has an HDMI out so it can directly connect to a TV
• You get a USB-HDMI converter in the pack which can be used independently (e.g. connecting an arbitrary computer with no HDMI out (only USB) to a TV). This also uses DisplayLink at its heart. The converter unit can be inserted into the dock (like the USBkey) so you will not loose it.
• The keyboard dock can be used as a bluetooth keyboard with any arbitrary computer, not only with the tablet/MID combo.

The modular sales method is also well thought-out. You don’t need to buy the whole device in one go for $549. You can buy it one-by-one, $199 a piece.

My grievances with the machine:

1) The seeming lack of computing power. I would like to have at least dual-core Cortex-A9 SOC with 1Gb of RAM. I perfectly understand the design reasons leading to the single computing core solution (only this can result in an affordable price for the whole system) but I still think that the OMAP3 core is not enough for netbook-strength applications like OpenOffice and Firefox and the 512Mb of RAM is very much on the borderline for a Ubuntu Gnome desktop. If this machine had some Tegra2-level processing guts and more memory, I would shout “Ipad killer” and try to register a pre-order entry (which is already available, by the way).

2) The MID should be a real mobile phone with a sufficiently powerful HSPA modem, phone buttons and it should run a phone oriented GUI of Android. This would make the whole idea a one-stop solution for most of the mobile computing needs of the average people (including myself). I hope AI will soon create a version which has a real phone as the core of the Smart Book set.

That said, I believe the concept is brilliant and Always Innovating may very well have created a good implementation which will be successful on the market.

Finally, Nvidia developers caught up with the demand and released the first version of the official LDK dubbed as Linux for Tegra (L4T). The announcements on the Tegra2 developer forums is here.

Now, we can hope that this development kit can become the basis of targeted Linux distributions for the upcoming Tegra2 based machines such as the Notion Ink Adam and the Boxee Box.

I, for one, will only buy a Tegra2 tablet or smartbook if there is realistic chance that I will see a well working, full-Linux distro on it sometime soon. I may use Android on them for a while but I certainly think that such powerful hardware demands a proper, full-Linux operating system on it. I will be happy to use MeeGo, Ubuntu Unity or some other touch-oriented desktop-GUI and its widgets but absolutely expect to run OpenOffice, Firefox and other powerful apps when I attach a keyboard to the machine.

The AC100 smartbook, recently announced by Toshiba, has some intriguing features, worth to blog about. First of all, it is built around Nvidia’s Tegra2 system-on-chip (SOC). The Tegra2 is a powerful, ARM SOC with two generic application processing cores and integrated media cores (AV decoding/encoding…etc). The AC100 is the most promising netbook form-factor machine with Tegra2 to date. (Of course there are a lot of Tegra2 based systems announced, but those are mostly tablets). Smartbooks already on the market (HP Airlife, Sharp Netwalker), suffer from lack of performance (due to a combination of underpowered, single-core, Cortex A8-level SOCs and/or slow RAM) and are not considered as breakthrough products (at least not in the blogosphere).

The AC100 has a chance to be a successful product in the netbook/smartbook category. Although the hardware has some weaknesses (only 512Mb of RAM instead of at least 1Gb, only one USB port, very small resolution LCD), it has a solid brand name written on it, and the Nvidia foundations are appealing.

I expect the factory installed Android 2.1 perform acceptably but I don’t think it is the ideal OS for this device. Android’s touch oriented GUI won’t shine on the AC100 simply because the machine lacks a touch-screen and Android’s software selection is simply no match for this hardware.

Laptop-like smartbooks with keyboards (like the AC100) are much better served with a full-desktop Linux due to the fact, that on these devices, buyers will expect full-fledged applications like OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Firefox…etc. Android would be very limiting for the use cases expected from a netbook/smartbook (editing complex text documents, spreadsheets, using a full-fledged browser, email client…etc). Tegra2 with 1Gb of fast RAM could run OpenOffice and other desktop software with good performance. Instead, it will be reduced to run mini, Android versions of the real stuff (what is available for Android instead of OO and such). I believe, at this point, Android is much more suitable for content consumption, than content creation. In contrast, the AC100 hardware is definitely suitable for the latter and many potential buyers will find Android as insufficient for their purposes.

I just hope that Nvidia & Toshiba get their act together and quickly release an Ubuntu variant for Tegra2 based systems because I am afraid the OS part of their AC100 offering is much weaker than the hardware. The Android 2.1 can remain the factory default but the easy install option of a solid, full-desktop OS should be provided (Ubuntu/ARM is just that). I would also suggest increasing the amount of RAM and the USB ports in order to make the product directly comparable to Atom netbooks (and not be ashamed after the comparison). With these improvements, Toshiba could create a very strong contender for the business of those who are waiting for a powerful smartbook or tablet and not willing to compromise with Apple’s offering.

It is an intriguing question whether smartbooks will widen Linux adoption and erode the often criticised monopoly of Windows on pc-like computing devices.

Since the desktop line of Windows currently doesn’t run on ARM processors, we can exclude XP/Vista/7 from the list of likely contenders as smartbook operating systems. Windows 7 successors are currently not planned to be ported to ARM and even that wouldn’t be a complete solution since Windows applications will have to be ported as well (a very wide, close-sourced ecosystem).

Microsoft has Windows CE for ARM processors. Windows CE has already been deployed several smartbook-like devices (e.g. the original Psion Netbook) so it is definitely a contender in this market. However, WinCE 6.5 currently doesn’t support multiple or multi-core processors  and more than 512Mb of RAM so advanced ARM SOCs like the Tegra2 would be very much limited by this OS. Solving multi-processor support will require significant investment from Microsoft. Incompatibility with the desktop line of Windows is also a severe limiting factor for WinCE. WinCE devices cannot be sold on the appeal of general Windows-compatibility, the user will not be able to install Windows applications onto the device.

Linux on the other hand has a very good technical background on ARM. It has no limitations for processing cores and operating memory and has targeted distributions for this architecture. Android is an outstanding example but several well-known distributions – like Ubuntu – have ARM ports in addition to their x86 base edition. Also, due to the fact that most of the Linux applications are open-source, they are at least possible to port, so we can expect the full usual complement of desktop Linux applications to show up on an ARM Linux distribution when the need becomes visible for them.

Technical factors aside, there is always the argument for Linux: being free . This may be important with smartbooks due to the very low targeted price point which doesn’t tolerate even moderate OS licensing fees (like $50/unit). So unless Microsoft gives Windows CE for practically free, Linux has the advantage here.

Since Windows CE has practically no advantages over Linux on ARM (in fact quite the opposite), Linux has a fairly good chance to be deployed on smartbooks as the primary operating system shipping with the device. Now, we can get into specifics. What kind of Linux and what kind of GUI?

Google’s Android is a very special Linux distribution. It’s touch-oriented GUI is simple and usable but it doesn’t run X-Windows so lacks the usual full-fledged Linux applications (Android applications are specifically written for the Dalvik virtual machine and its APIs in Java.) With this in mind, and considering the current frenzy around Android, I expect it to be deployed heavily on smartbook tablets. This form-factor is ideal for use cases in which full-fledged desktop applications are not necessary (e.g.: a web tablet with media player capabilities). More advanced Linux users will likely be able to install a full desktop Linux onto their tablets but the average consumer will be satisfied with Android.

However, laptop-like smartbooks with keyboards are better served with a full-desktop Linux like Ubuntu due to the fact, that on these devices, buyers will expect full-fledged applications like OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Firefox…etc. Android would be very limiting for the use cases expected from a netbook/smartbook (editing complex text documents, spreadsheets, using a full-fledged browser, email client…etc). I believe, the exact GUI environment is not really important for this kind of smartbooks although some netbook specific desktop environments (like Ubuntu Netbook Remix and Moblin) may be more efficient for smartbook models with low-resolution screens (below 1024×768).

My conclusion is that every kind of smartbook device can be put to its full potential with a properly customized Linux variant. Manufacturers seem to be aware of this since most of the already announced products are known to ship with Android (e.g.: Notion Ink Adam) or hinted to ship with some kind of Linux (e.g.: Lenovo Skylight).

How will this affect Linux and the upcoming tablets based on it?

When I say Linux, I mean Google’s Android and Chrome operating systems as well because they are all based on Linux.

I believe the iPad will have a positive effect on Linux adoption. The bigger its success will be, the bigger help it will provide to Linux. Now, I agree that this sounds controversial first, because the iPad runs Apple’s own iPhone OS which is a competitor to Linux but the logic gets more obvious if we think about the biggest hurdle for Linux adoption: compatibility with Windows.

When buying computer-like devices, people still expect compatibility with Windows and windows applications. Microsoft’s monopoly of the desktop makes it hard for alternative OS-es to make headway. The iPhone made a dent in this cornerstone because it proved that it can serve as a viable, ultra-mobile internet device, a role played by, overwhelmingly, Windows laptops before. The iPhone created a huge ecosystem of software developers/publishers completely independent from Microsoft and Windows. The iPad will continue this trend and will highlight this market in a much more meaningful manner.

People buying the iPad will be aware that their device will never run Windows programs yet they will buy it anyway. Their example will further destroy the myth that a computer needs Windows to serve useful purposes. The iPad, due to its size, is more of a “computer” in the eyes of the people than an iPhone, regardless of the technical similarities.

After the iPad successfully lowers resistance to non-Windows computing devices, Linux will have a much better chance of competing in the mobile computing market and, eventually, on the desktop.

Let’s compare this tablet to one of the more promising Tegra 2 tablets on the way to the market: the Notion Ink Adam. Admittedly, the Adam is not on the market yet, while the iPad is quite sure gets there soon. Nevertheless, we give the benefit of the doubt to Notion Ink (especially, considering how badly Nvidia wants to start the Tegra 2 device line). In my comparison, the Adam runs Ubuntu Linux with the Mobile Edition which has a touch oriented user interface. The first version of the Adam is expected to come with Android but since Nvidia officially supports Ubuntu on the Tegra 2, we can expect a fully working Ubuntu edition on the Adam soon enough. Moreover, for such powerful hardware as the Adam, even Android seems limited to me.

Screen technology and diplay features

Both the iPad and the Adam have ~10″ LCD displays with capacitive touchscreen technology. However, the Adam features PixelQi technology which means lower power consumption, direct sunlight readability and higher contrast when switched to BW mode for reading. The Adam will have a hardware switch for easy mode-changing (BW/low-power colour/full colour) which will help lowering the power consuption (like a wifi or 3G radio shut-off switch). The iPad doesn’t seem to have any hw switch, not even one for adjusting the brightness of the screen (meaning: unless there is an ultra-easy touch gesture for it, nobody will adjust the brigthness for ambient light conditions). The iPad specs page lists an ambient light sensor, so the OS may be able to automatically turn-down the backlight when not needed but this won’t save you as much as the power saving modes of the PixelQi screen. All-in-all, the screen of the Adam seems to be more versatile and power efficient.

Processing power

The custom Apple A4 processor of the iPad runs at 1Ghz and is a single-core ARM Cortex A9 solution. The Tegra 2 of the Adam features 2 Cortex A9 cores running at 1 Ghz. Due to the exact same technology platform, I expect the Adam almost two times as powerful as the iPad and this should be very much noticable in the more important applications (e.g. web-browser). The iPad has the stock ARM Mali 50 graphics core, while the Tegra 2 includes a Geforce 9 level graphics core. Although, I am not very familiar with the capabilities of these cores, I expect the Nvidia core to be more powerful since this is where Nvidia has strong competency. Some say the Mali core is not even in the same league as the Tegra 2 graphics core but this remains to be seen. (Disclaimer: it is possible that current reports about the inclusion of the Mali are inaccurate and the iPad uses a PowerVR graphics core like the iPhone).

GUI/desktop enviroment

The iPad runs the GUI environment of the iPhone OS (an OS X derivative), while the Adam runs Ubuntu Mobile (at least in my comparison). The Adam may not support multitouch in the short term but already has support for gestures (e.g: a swipe for moving to the next image in the image browser). The iPad supports multitouch and a wide array of gestures. I expect the iPad GUI easier to use and more refined (at least for the time being, since Ubuntu Mobile is quite a young project).

The “desktop” is easy to use in both environment, very similar application startup and indicators. The Ubuntu OS will run several applications in parallel while you will be able to use only one app ata time on the iPad. (see about  this later)

Web Browsing

The iPad doesn’t run Flash but said to render normal webpages snappily in its custom Safari browser. Youtube is supported just like on the iPhone but no Flash games and no Java applets in webpages (see about interpreters later in the application section).

The Adam will run full editions of Firefox/Chrome/Opera and expected to have an optimized Flash version (Flash 10.1 coming soon) so it will be good for running web-pages with video streaming and Flash games. Java applets (rare nowadays) will work too.

Playing video / Listening to music

The iPad has no HDMI output (has a simple VGA output, max res: 1024×768) and is rated for decoding 720p videos. This is a far cry from the 3 simultanious 1080p streams of the Tegra 2 and built-in HDMI port of the Adam. The Tegra 2/ Adam offering is far more powerful and makes the Adam a viable HTPC if you want to play the movies from your tablet onto your HDTV screen.

Both have a 3.5 mm jack and speakers so hw-wise, listening to music should not be a problem. Ubuntu has powerful music player applications which are on par with iTunes of the iPhone/iPad.

Playing games

The Geforce graphics core of the Tegra 2 in the Adam will be quite sufficient to play 3D games. The performance of the Mali 50 is not widely known at this point but is not expected to be worse than the graphics core in the iPhone 3GS so it is likely able to run 3G games like the demo based on the Unreal engine. I expect the Tegra 2 graphics core of the Adam  more powerful.

Camera / video chat / VOIP

The iPad doesn’t have a built-in camera which is a glaring omission. The Adam will have a 3Mp built-in camera, which is more than enough for Skype videophoning. Moreover, the Tegra 2 supports real-time hardware encoding of 1080p streams to H264 so, properly written video-chat applications should work extremely well on the Adam. Ubuntu should run any Linux VOIP app compiled for ARM. I expect Skype and other open/closed source software work well on the Adam in the short-medium term.

Apple has recently lifted the restrictions on Skype and other VOIP apps in the iPhone app catalog so the iPad will have the voice part OK but you will need an external cam for video chats and currently there is no information on the video encoding capabilities of Apple’s A4 SOC.

Battery runtime

The iPad is rated for 10hrs of use (wifi browsing). The Adam is specified to have 16 hours of wifi browsing. The Adam looks like the winner here but the iPad’s 10-hour runtime is also quite good.

Ebook reading

The Adam’s PixelQi screen supports this activity much better especially in sunlit places. Ubuntu runs FBReader (my favourite ebook reader software) and has viewers for every kind of complex-document formats (most of them will be displayed in Evince, in case of Ubuntu). The iPad has a new reader application which is too early to write about but expected to be an intuitive reader-app (if the track record of Apple is any indication).

Navigation

Both devices include GPS units, so navigation software should be available for both. Google Navigation will certainly run on the Adam, I just hope it doesn’t get blocked from the iPad app-store.

Other applications, Multitasking

While the iPhone has a huge selection of applications in Apple’s app-store, most of them will have to be tailored for the iPad for full potential. This will surely happen if the iPad becomes successful but it may happen slowly if the device proves to be less than a clear success. Application-wise, I expect the Apple iPad to be as closed as the iPhone, so you will be able to install only Apple-approved applications from the official app-store.

Ubuntu on the Adam can run any full-desktop or command line Linux/ARM software from the Ubuntu ARM repositories. This is a huge selection of software and includes powerful applications like OpenOffice, GIMP and others. These may not be optimized for the touchscreen interface but the Adam’s backside trackpad can help using them in tablet mode and in docked mode you will be able to use a USB mouse and keyboard just like with a netbook. Moreover, Ubuntu is completely free of limitations so you will be able install whatever software you want.

The iPad currently has multitasking disabled so you can run only one application at a time. The Adam has the full multitasking of Linux. The Adam’s dual-core hardware should run several applications efficiently in parallel. A good use-case for this: a Bittorrent download running on your Adam while reading an ebook (I do this quite often on my OLPC XO-1).

Apple doesn’t allow applications running in interpreters so you will never run a Flash/Java/Python/.Net-Mono application on the iPad although the hardware is sufficient for them. The Adam’s Ubuntu will run any of those applications without any restrictions. Flash 10.1 is expected to be optimized for ARM SOCs and Java 6 has an optimized version for the Cortex A9 processors so the Adam should run apps based on these technologies well. Desktop and Webstarted Java clients are quite common in the enterprise IT world so the Adam may get some love from there.

It is not yet known how much RAM the iPad or the Adam has, but based on the Tegra 2 development board, the Adam will have at least 1 Gb of RAM which is quite sufficient for running even several complex applications in parallel.

Storage

The Adam will have expandable storage by a microSD slot, while the iPad seems to have no storage expansion slot at all.

Price

The cheapest version of the iPad is announced for $499 in the US. The Adam is expected to carry a sub-$400 pricetag ($320 is a current estimate).

Conclusion

The iPad hardware seems to be seriously lacking when compared to the Adam’s Tegra 2 foundations, PixelQi screen, trackpad and other features.

Application-wise, the playground is more leveled but for Linux-savvy people the choice is a no-brainer. The iPad will certainly appeal to people who want devices which “just work” and accept the serious, artificial limitations imposed on their device.

Reference:

iPad specifications  by Apple

Ubuntu Mobile Edition

According to this faq-like post on the official Nvidia Tegra developer site, Ubuntu Linux is supported as an operating system for Tegra 2 based devices.

This is extremely important for both Nvidia and Linux in general since a lot of IT-savvy people find Android insufficient for the netbook form factor and ask for a “real” Linux on these very promising devices.

I tend to agree with this view primarily because Tegra 2 @1Ghz is a powerful SOC for a smartbook/netbook/tablet which can run a full desktop Linux with decent speed. I see no reason to limit Tegra 2 based systems to inferior operating systems like Android or Windows CE (bah). As an example, Windows CE 6.0 supports only 512Mb RAM and only one processor. Since the Tegra 2 has two Cortex A9 cores,Windows CE will not be able to utilize both. Android has no X-Windows on it so it cannot run normal Linux software, only software directly written for Android. In contrast, Ubuntu for ARM supports multiple processors, any reasonable amount of RAM and most of the popular Linux software can be installed readily  from the Ubuntu ARM repositories, and even the more obscure sw likely requires only a recompile.

A simple Gnome desktop or Ubuntu’s Netbook Remix user interface may not be perfect for a touchscreen operated tablet but is very useable with the traditional laptop form factor. Some of the Tegra 2 tablets will add a pointer device as well, in addition to the touchscreen (like the Notion Ink Adam) so these machines will be easy to use with a customized, full Linux desktop.

Perspective:

The list of currently known Tegra 2 tablets/smartbooks.

Some performance comparisons between Cortex A9 (like the Tegra2) and Intel’s Atom:

• Cortex A9 dual-core vs Atom demo side-by-side
• ARM Cortex A9 vs Intel Atom N450 Pine Trail

The most notable ones:

• The Boxee Box media player
• The MSI 10″ Android tablet
• The Compal Android tablet
• The ICD Ultra and Vega tablets
• Mobinnova Beam WinCE smartbook
• Notion Ink Adam Android tablet
• Audi future car navigation system
• ASUS Eee Pad tablet
• Pegatron Neo smartbook
• ViewSonic VTablet 101

The flood of Tegra2 products doesn’t come to me as a surprise since the technical capabilities of the SOC has been known for a while and is considered impressive. The chip contains 2 ARM Cortex A9 cores running at maximum 1Ghz and other cores for graphics, audio and HD video encoding/decoding.

While most of the currently popular ARM based devices contain Cortex A8 level cores, Nvidia seems to be ahead of others in the ARM ecosystem by quickly designing and implementing a dual core A9 solution.

Device designers/manufacturers seem to be appreciating Nvidia’s efforts judging by the number of devices announced for the platform.

Intel may have made a big mistake by alienating Nvidia from the Atom architecture by denying information about the hw interfaces. Although, Ion 2 has been announced, Nvidia’s focus is clearly on Tegra now and that may result in some very serious competiotion to Intel’s Atom.

Continuing this line, I have found a demonstration video which shows a 1.6 Ghz Atom (likely the 270) and a 500Mhz Cortex A9 development board side by side. Both of the machines run at the same screen resolution, same memory and same operating system (looks like a stock Ubuntu with Gnome).

The video demonstrates web browsing performance with typical websites. The Cortex A9 board seems a little bit slower but not significantly, and at still a perfectly acceptable speed.

Now, the most astounding part is, that the A9 board runs only at 500 Mhz which means that its performance is throttled back for ultra-low power consumption. Cortex A8 level SOCs – the current generation – are known to run at 1 Ghz (Snapdragon, OMAP3, Armada) and the Cortex A9 Sparrow demo chip runs at 2Ghz (produced on the 28nm GlobalFoundries process).

This means that a completely doable Cortex A9 at 1.5 Ghz would have about 3 times the performance of the demo 500Mhz development board and still consume much-much less than the Atom. It would definitely leave the Atom 270 and N450 in the dust.

Moreover, the development board had no graphics accelerator at all, while finalized OEM SOCs will definitely have GPUs built-in (for example the Tegra 2 will include a Geforce GPU coupled with the two A9 cores).

The Cortex A9 at 500 Mhz is an ultra-low-power configuration and it is safe to say that it would take 1/10 – 1/5 of the consumption of the Atom which means much-much better battery runtimes.

In theory, the 1.6 Ghz Atom puts out ~4000 DMIPS and the dual-core, 500 Mhz A9 puts out only 2500 DMIPS raw power. This means that the A9 also has an architectural advantage somewhere. This may be the two real cores of the A9 versus the one-core-with-hyperthreading of the Atom. Since web browsers are by nature heavily multithreaded, the dual-A9 may support this type of application much better.

I can’t wait to see some prototype A9 devices displayed at CES.

freescale-tablet

Freescale has come up with a tablet reference design which they expect to be selling for under $200. It is not entirely clear whether they meant end-user prices or OEM production prices but $200 for a production price would be way too much for a Cortex-A8 category tablet, so I assume they meant end-user prices.

What is interesting about this design, that they have created a special, simplified user interface, which may be appealing for the target audience.

The operating system is a Debian derivative.

This machine would be ideal as an ultra mobile browsing/emailing, video/music playing device at home or when traveling.

The 7″ screen may be too small for some but it definitely makes the machine more portable.

Via Endgadget

More information here.

Since newer Pine Trail Atom netbooks are already getting fairly good battery runtimes, the question is unavoidable for the smartbooks: will we get at least similar performance to the Atom based netbooks? New Intel based netbooks will mostly use the netbook-oriented Atom N450 chip (Pine View), so I will try to draw a comparison between this chip and the known characteristics of A9 SOCs.

Since it is extremely hard to come by good comparative data between ARM and Atom, partly because Cortex A9 based systems are not yet available for the public, this post is highly speculative and by no means should serve as the basis for purchasing your next smartbook/netbook.

By ARM’s specifications, the Cortex A9 core has an approximate raw performance of 2.5 DMIPS/MHz. It can run at 2Ghz when produced on the 28nm GlobalFoundries process. This is 5000 DMIPS/core with an expected 10000 DMIPS for a dual core setup (MP CORE version).

Since it is more likely that the first A9 SOCs will be manufactured with a 40nm process, we only calculate with a 1.5 Ghz top frequency which would yield about 7500 DMIPS.

Now, performance wise. the new N450 is only marginally better that the earlier Atom chips (5-10%, see this Anandtech article) and several discussions report that the older Atoms get 2.5 DMIPS/Mhz, a 1.6 Ghz Atom yields about  4000 DMIPS (one of the discussions). Pine View Atoms for netbooks (N450 descendants) are not planned to be made dual-core in the near future so we calculate with only one core.

I am aware that this is not a perfect comparison since DMIPS values between different architectures are not 100% comparable, but these results would mean an 80% advantage in raw power for the dual-A9.

Some more considerations:

All recent ARM chips include hardware decoders for H264 video while the N450/NM10 has no such capability. This means either choppy HD video from Youtube or an external H264 decoder chip (like the Broadcomm one or an Nvidia Ion like extension). Certain Cortex A9 SOCs promise multiple 1080p stream decoding in parallel (like the Tegra 2) without loading the general purpose ARM core. Moreover, in the case of the N450, the maximum output on hdmi is restricted to 1366×768 (1440×1050 for the analog vga out). So you can forget about viewing HD videos with your Atom netbook even if you have an external, HD monitor or TV.

Flash hardware acceleration is coming (with Flash 10.1)  to all ARM machines with H264 decoders but in case of the N450 alone, there is nothing to accelerate with. So you better check whether your Atom netbook has the external video decoder or you will never watch streamed hd videos with decent speed. It is fully possible that Nvidia won’t produce a new ION chipset for the new Atoms since Intel denied access to the relevant hw interfaces. Instead, Nvidia will work even harder on Tegra 2.

Architecture wise: the new Pine View Atom remains in-order architecture, produced on 45nm while the Cortex A9 is out-of-order core (more modern, inherently more powerful than the Atom) with easy implementation on the TSMC 40nm process and the GlobalFoundries 28nm process.

The n450 SOC and the NM10 companion chip(set) still works in a 6.5w TDP while the dual-A9 SOCs are expected to work in a 2W TDP. This is massive difference and makes it likely that the same battery will last much longer with an A9 smartbook than with an N450 netbook. The N450 doesn’t need active cooling anymore (this is good news) so the new machines will not have fans but the TDP values above indicate that Atom netbooks will likely be hotter than A9 based smartbooks especially in continued use.

The third generation Atoms – which could improve the situation – will come only in 2012, seriously late compared to A9 based chips (1Q 2010).

Conclusion:

It very much seems that dual core Cortex A9 SOCs will be at-least on-par with the Pine View N450 Atom, performance wise, and possibly overpower them by 50-80% in raw processing power. Graphics performance, end-user price and battery runtimes are also expected to be much better for the A9 based machines.

Unless, Intel comes out with much more powerful Atom designs for netbooks, ARM Cortex A9 based smartbook products may severely cut into Atom netbook sales. X86 compatibility is less of a factor in this segment, so consumers may decide based on perceived performance, battery runtime in which A9 smartbooks seem to have the advantage.

Smartbooks is an upcoming, low-cost consumer device category. These machines are expected to cost significantly less than current netbooks (sub $200-250 end-user price) while supporting the same functions (full web browsing, ebook reading, playing video/audio). Smartbooks will likely come with Android, full-desktop running Linux operating systems or Windows CE. Since these computers are based on ultra power-efficient ARM system-on-chip designs, they are likely to provide at least day-long battery runtimes (12-16 hrs with browsing on wifi is promised by several vendors).

As can be seen, capabilities and cost-wise, smartbooks coming in 2010 get very close to the upcoming OLPC XO-1.5. Some of the smartbook versions (based on Tegra 2 or other Cortex A9) will way outperform the XO-1.5 in processing power and battery runtime.

Naturally, the comparisson is more complex than this, since the XO has some special features, which are not planned for every currently known smartbook designs. The most notable are:

• Daylight-capable PixelQi screen for working/reading in direct sunlight. Some of the smartbooks will likely also come with PixelQi screens.
• Rugged industrial design with rubberized keyboard. There is no currently known smartbook product which puts special emphasis on usage in harsh environment but all ARM designs are fanless and it is likely that a lot of smartbooks will come with smaller capacity SSD drives so smartbooks will be likely less prone to typical laptop failures that the average netbook.
• Special educational software (Sugar). The Sugar Learning Platform is now available for a set of “normal” Linux distributions as an alternative desktop environment, next to Gnome and KDE, so with minimal effort, Sugar and activities can be made usable on smartbooks as well.

Again, it seems that a smartbook derivative should be able to play the role of an XO in an educational environment.

Two of the huge advantages of smartbooks is availability and economies of scale.They are planned to be available from a host of sales channels, most notably from 3G service operators at subsidized prices. This means, that some of the smartbooks will likely come at zero initial price, only a 2 year data contract will need to be signed. At the targeted end-user prices (sub $250) smartbooks will be immensely popular as secondary home computers and mobile companions (just like netbooks but even more) which means that economies of scale will be reached quickly and prices will go further down.

In contrast, OLPC products are not available for individuals or small projects and currently there are no major project sales at OLPC. This means that there is no easy way to reach economies of scale (unless, suddenly a lot of countries start ordering XOs, which is unlikely). G1G1 programs will not work again, the first was a success, the last one was a complete failure. (G1G1= give 1, get 1 = donate 400$, you get 1 machine for yourself and 1 other machine is sent to the developing world as your donation).

All of these factors point into one diection: If OLPC wants to stay as a relevant IT/educational effort, it should realign its hardware and “business” strategy taking advantage of  the upcoming smartbook revolution.

To a certain extent, this seems to be happening. OLPC is planning to switch to ARM by 2011 with their XO-1.75 product and continue this line with the XO-3 in 2012. There is not much information about the XO-1.75 but it seems that it will be based on a Marvell ARM chip. Since Marvell hasn’t announced plans for Cortex A9 based products, we can assume, that OLPC will use one of the smartbook-oriented Armada (a Cortex A8 SOC).

Software-wise, OLPC has already improved its position by providing Gnome and Sugar as equal desktop alternatives on top of the default Linux OS shipping with the XO-1.5. This way, the XO can be a much more versatile tool when needed. Even Microsoft’s Windows XP is expected to run well on this machine, which may be appealing to some of their prospective customers.

These steps are certainly necessary but I would suggest a much more aggressive startegy:

• Stopping as much in-house hardware development as possible. Partnering with a smartbook producer, taking a polished, tested ARM Cortex A9 board design without any further customization. I would skip the Cortex A8 processors in order to ensure better performance than the VIA C7-M in the XO-1.5.
• The industrial design may be kept at OLPC but I suggest scrapping those extreme designs which has been recently circulated for the XO-3. Use a simple, 10″ touch tablet form factor or the current laptop design with a 10″ PixelQi screen.
• Using a Linux distro already customized for the said board and add Sugar only as an alternative to the default desktop environment.
• Sell the XOs to everyone in the developed world, ensure the widest possible availability. A $50 donation markup over the costs is reasonable but G1G1 style sales attempts should be strictly avoided. If sufficient sales can be generated, that will make sure that the project stays known to everyone.

This way, a lot of development costs could be spared and OLPC could come up with an ARM based XO product in 2010, long ahead of schedule. A move like this would revitalize the community around OLPC and put the organisation firmly back to the map of relevance.