4) Just like many graphics chips, this processor does some black magic to boost performance and Intel doesn't want to give any clues to competitors by releasing specs and/or open drivers.
One reason it's common for GPU makers to be secretive is that there is a very big risk that GPUs and their drivers violate patents, and the makers of these products want to make it as difficult as possible to ascertain whether patents are being violated. They won't even broach the topic because that would draw them in to willful infringement.
So a proprietary OS maker like Microsoft can conclude a deal with IMGTek and give them all the secrecy they want, and Linux is left out.
Apparently even Intel can't get IMGTek to open up. Intel probably doesn't want to complicate their negotiating position with IMGTek by saying anything about whether Intel's GPUs might be sufficiently power-efficient to go into mobile parts. There is a lot of money, and a lot of product viability at stake. Intel GPUs have open source drivers.
This is another example of how patents are directly counterproductive to their originally intended goal of encouraging open innovation. Patents are not just creating a minefield, but are encouraging everyone to be more secretive at the same time.
I actually have some sympathy with a hardware company in this position; if all your competitive advantage is in actually in software, open source is a tricky proposition. Nobody cares about the driver interface to the rendering pipeline any more - I imagine it's heavily dictated by the need to make open standards fast (eg. OpenGL). Power saving? That's a whole different ballgame.
It's a real pain that there are no useful standards for power saving - I've had to disable almost all of the cool processor features on my DAW (C-states, core parking, EIST) because they completely wreck real-time audio latencies, and cause clicks and glitches in DAW software (using external FireWire audio hardware). I notice that Cubase on Windows 7 dynamically installs a different power saving profile on startup, but presumably that means running it as Administrator, and we're back to the bad old days of running as root everywhere.
This is a non-story, Atom versions following this one will be able to run Linux fine.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_%28system_on_chip%29
See also http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTA1N... which talks about Intel's plans to drop PowerVR and go back to an internal (Intel) design:
The future SoC that's expected to introduce the new graphics is "Silvermont" and expected availability by early 2013. Before the exciting Silvermont there is expected to be the "Clover Trail" Atoms released this calendar year, but it doesn't sound like that SoC will bear new graphics capabilities. I hope to have some more details soon and am very excited to see Intel do away with the PowerVR graphics and its horrific driver support.
It's probably not that they can't but more that they won't because they aren't going to make any cash out of it with Linux.
It's also because they are scared of ARM getting a head start on Win8 tablets.
If they do this with a Core 2 and an IGP, then I'll start worrying.
Why does the idea that Linux is incompatible with profit still persevere? It's especially ridiculous considering the rise of Android.
Android is pretty much all over ARM. They aren't going to get a look in there easily. Windows 8 is a great opportunity as it's a fresh platform.
In fact Blackberry is the last survivor of the old cellphone world. (EDIT: And Samsung of course, but they are just copying Apple stuff and get sued for it.)
The only ones having profit from Android are Google and HTC. Google because they created the system and run the App Store. HTC because they manufacture the reference devices and because they are cheaper than the rest.
Wake up mates, open source destroys the old business models.
As for HTC: "HTC Corp. said Friday its unaudited second-quarter net profit fell 58% from a year earlier, as the Taiwanese smartphone maker struggles to compete with industry leaders Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. HTC said in a statement its unaudited net profit for the three months ended June 30 was $7.40 billion New Taiwan dollars ($247 million), down from NT$17.52 billion a year earlier. Its revenue dropped 27% to NT$91.0 billion from NT$124.40 billion." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457751...).
You are also incorrect about HTC manufacturing the reference devices. While they did make the Google Nexus One, the Google Nexus S was Samsung, the Google Galaxy Nexus was Samsung, the Motorola Xoom was technically the Honeycomb reference device (read as: Nexus), and the Google Nexus 7 is Asus. In other words, HTC has manufactured only one of the five Nexus devices (out of six if you count the Nexus Q). To assert that HTC is generating profit "because they manufacture the reference devices" is inaccurate given that the Nexus One was released in 2010 and no longer sold through first party sources such as Google Play (the devices available for purchase at the time of this writing are the Galaxy Nexus, the Nexus 7, and the Nexus Q).
There is, however, someone making a profit off of Android: Samsung. From the same article: "In stark contrast to HTC's weak earnings, Samsung said earlier Friday that it will likely post a record quarterly operating profit for the second quarter that ended June 30. The South Korean electronics giant, which is due to release audited results later this month, expects an operating profit of between 6.5 trillion won ($5.7 billion) and 6.9 trillion won for the quarter, compared with 3.75 trillion won a year earlier." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230414120457751...)
TLDR: The assertion that Google and HTC are (significantly) profiting from Android is incorrect and instead should assert that Samsung is the only one making (significant) profits from Android.
However those numbers are not everything. What counts is whether customers buy products or not. There are plenty of examples of successful mass products that were sold too cheap. For instance Microsoft's X-Box, they sold it much under price. You might list that under marketing costs. Their strategy however paied off, now they are a big player in the game device market.
Of course Google spend lots of money into Android, we don't want to imagine what all this patent crap and marketing costs. Android is however the predominant mobile platform and HTC its biggest vendor. (With reference devices I mean the actual devices that were supposed to be used by developers.)
Samsung is without question in a nice position but they are replacable, they are a big brand and they have a lot to loose. HTC appeared out of nowhere and is now one of the biggest players in the smartphone market. Just ask yourself who the real profit makers are.
Samsung is doing short-term profit. You know why? Because people don't by Samsung devices, they buy Android devices. It's not Apple vs Samsung vs HTC, it's iOS vs Android.
Going back to the actual topic: who cares what processor is inside an Android? Only the CPU manufacturers. The customers and the assemblers just care about software support and performance.
Nexus devices are the reference devices that were supposed to be used by developers: at the Google I/O conference, each attendee received a Nexus 7, Nexus Q, and Galaxy Nexus (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228585/Google_gives_...). If you have a different opinion of what Android "reference devices" are, then provide them for evaluations by the denizens of Hacker News (of which includes a number of Google employees).
It is not necessary to "ask yourself who the real profit makers are," because the revenue numbers for HTC and Samsung are available to the public. The numbers state that Samsung is alreaduy generating more profit than HTC by a significant margin. Samsung's numbers have been increasing. HTC's numbers have been decreasing. Here are some articles that perfectly summarize the point:
"[HTC] posted its third consecutive drop in profit after cutting its revenue forecast amid competition from Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co." (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/htc-second-quart...)
"Soaring sales of smartphones lifted Samsung Electronics Co.'s profit to a company record in the first quarter and executives said that a new model hitting dealers next month will fuel its financial results during the second." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230472330457736...)
Samsung may be exceptional, although I doubt their current success is long-term. HTC's success, eventhough it is in absolute numbers smaller than Samsung's, is way larger in relative numbers. Samsung was popular before Android, HTC was when Android was released just a "chinese noname brand".
To illustrate this even more: HTC was founded in 1997, Samsung was founded in 1938.
There a many examples of companies that are able to make lots of money with hypes, but most often after the hype is over, they stop earning that extra money. Even when the current smartphone hype is over, HTC earned something that Samsung already had: brand recognition.
You were wrong.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows/20792/microsofts-haul...
Nokia also made a similar amount in patent licensing from Apple. I believe Nokia is also suing HTC so might start collecting patent licensing from them at some point.
(It has been a repeated news story the last year.)
1) Microsoft has exerted leverage over Intel and got them to go down the preferred supplier route. Possible, and not overly surprising.
2) Intel is trying to carve a niche out and thinks its best bet is with the old hound.
3) The boring technical reason that there's loads of implementation and they can't be bothered making the changes to the Linux packages.
It sounds like it'll run but with none of the fancy features to shut down cores under low use, but Linux developers have been adding missing functionality for years so it's not exactly unusual.