Intel could Atomise handsets in two years

were is the mass produced low power AVC Encoder SOC

iv said it before and ill say it again, were is the mass produced generic low power Hardware AVC Encoder SOC capable of H@L4.1 D1 at least for these Realtime OS's and consumer devices of all types to start using ?

the AVC/H.264 H@L4.1 Encoder tech is available off the shelf for a long time now, as has 11n/Wimax longer range chipsets, but noones bothered to put them together in a single or dual SOC package to take advantage of the global mass market demand for static and portable SD AVC reltime encoding at 24/25fps....

this grab for the second best realtime OS (QNX 6 being the far better optopn OC) seems like a perfect time to take the available AVC H@L4.1 and current Wimax chipsets and combine all 3 parts into something the worlds end users could really make use of TODAY at a generic level, Intel \and others please do so ASAP....

Woah, Intel bought Wind River?

That's the real story here. They have the Real-Time-OS market pretty much sewn up - almost every small, high-availability embedded system runs on VxWorks.

- We aren't talking phones here. This is serious industrial kit.

Microsoft don't have any RTOS products at all - and Linux isn't one either.

interesting times

Can it be that after decades of failure to kill x86, Intel management have become blind to its problems?

Intel's engineers tried for years to shake off the ghastly x86 architecture (producing iAPX432, i960, Xscale, iTanium), while customes avoided x86 whenever they had a choice, in comms hardware, workstations, servers, games consoles and of course Macs. But the Microsoft monopoly, and Intel's superior fab processes repeatedly saved x86 from the knacker.

Multicore ARM with dedicated media processing add-on has advantages that surely trump Intel's Atom and successors. The whittling away of the Windows monopoly seems to leave as Intel's only advantage: more and better fabs than anyone else. x86 may go nowhere in handhelds, and only serve to accelerate the shriveling of the Wintel CPU cash cow, starting with netbooks stealing from the mainstream Windows CPU business.

When Microsoft switched Xbox from Xbox to PowerPC, they didn't think many moves ahead. IBM no longer could be bothered with Apple's PowerPC volumes for Mac, so one might expect up-and-coming Apple's Mac to fade from the scene. But with IBM not delivering PowerPC, and Intel out of the console market, it was a no brainer for Apple to step in and become Intel's premium customer (OS X had been running on x86 long before PowerPC). Instead of marginalising Apple, MS gave Apple parity, able to build as many Macs as they want from the same parts supply that feeds MS's OEM partners, as cheaply as them. No supply problems, no cost problems, no performance problems any more. What a blunder by MS.

Or have I got it all wrong?