This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Qualcomm Snapdragon 820

Qualcomm acknowledges that "processor" is an accepted and broadly used generic term for a wide range of products, including ASICs, CPUs, DSPs, GPUs, MICs, and probably at least a few others. It also admits that we already have a term to describe microprocessors that integrate a broad range of functionality, including Wi-Fi, I/O, cellular radios, enshroud, and memory controllers. We call that an SoC (System on Bit). Nevertheless, Qualcomm no longer feels that term is large enough, either. Its statement is beneath:

The Qualcomm Snapdragon Mobile Platform takes our offerings beyond a single chip. While the single processor form cistron is truly a system-on-a-fleck (SoC), housing custom technology like an integrated modem, CPU, GPU, and DSP, there is a lot more going on outside of the chip that is designed to ultimately support a wide multifariousness of devices. Technologies from the RF Forepart — without which your mobile device wouldn't exist able to acquire a indicate, make a telephone call, or surf the web — to Qualcomm Quick Charge, the Qualcomm Aqstic audio DAC, Wi-Fi (802.11ac and 11ad), touch controllers, and finger print engineering, are all engineered to piece of work together with the SoC to deliver a superior and smooth user experience.

With the Snapdragon mobile platform we tin can now articulate the value that we provide to a device manufacturer — from developing algorithms for great pictures and videos, to making certain that the battery is long lasting. More than chiefly, the word "platform" volition be used to explain the combined key user experiences — camera, connectivity, bombardment life, security, immersion — that these essential technologies are designed to deliver. And these experiences are not just for smartphones anymore, but are applicable across verticals such as automotive, IoT, and mobile PCs.

There's some precedent for this kind of rebranding effort. When Nvidia launched its Tegra 2 smartphones, information technology attempted to rebrand Tegra products equally "super phones" rather than the already-common "smartphone." It was a breathy attempt to use marketing to position a device as somehow superior to other smartphones on account of being labeled differently, as opposed to actually being better. It was besides never clear how the branding was supposed to scale — if devices based on Tegra two are "super phones," and devices based on, Tegra 3 or Tegra 4 are "super tablets," powered by "super chips," how did any of this help customers make decisions about which products to buy? I'd debate it didn't.

The other example is from further back in time. Intel launched its Centrino brand in 2003, equally an ostensible manner of promising finish users they'd receive better bombardment life, better performance, and better wireless network connectivity than they would if they used a not-Centrino solution. Centrino-branded systems all required an Intel processor, chipset, and wireless solution.

Only while there are historical parallels to the electric current situation, what Qualcomm seems to be going for is much more aggressive. It's one affair to take CPU and graphics and declare these are essential to your production'south value offer. It's another entirely to claim you lot're changing your own make conversation by including things like an RF Front end, Qualcomm's Aqstic sound tech, touch controllers, or finger print technology. While I don't desire these components to suck, I also don't spend much fourth dimension worrying almost whether my phone packs the latest version of Aqstic. Then the visitor goes further, claiming that past referencing a "platform," they're explaining key user experiences around cameras, connectivity, bombardment life, security, and whatever Qualcomm is referring to when it says "immersion."

A solution to Qualcomm'south antitrust problem, long-term product scaling

I tin only think of two adept reasons for Qualcomm to brand a redefinition like this. Start, the visitor has come under heavy fire from antitrust regulators and other companies around the world for its licensing practices and patent royalty rates. 2d, we're reaching a point of diminishing marginal returns in smartphone performance. Information technology's not every bit easy as it one time was to wave a paw and deliver twenty-30% improved performance year-on-year.

Either way, by declaring Snapdragon a platform, Qualcomm tin also claim to always take improved the product, fifty-fifty if the improvements themselves are marginal. Afterwards all, when you include things like software and your RF front end in the definition of your "platform," and then you're rarely going to run out of means to showcase your innovations to the public — and you don't have to explain exactly how this Snapdragon is better or different than the old Snapdragon. Remember, the high-cease products are all Snapdragon.

Come up to recollect of it, this does remind me of another visitor — Microsoft, and its "Everything is Windows 10 ever and forever at present" position. It wasn't great then, and it isn't swell now. By and large it just confuses people. And with all due respect to Qualcomm, which makes cracking products and technology in general, it'south hard to see how this motility is positive for anyone but the company's legal and marketing teams. Information technology's not better engineering, and information technology's not better for customers.