Talk:Mobile Internet device

new

This is not an advertisement. It is information on a new type of UMPC. The reason any hardware is mentioned at all is to give an example of what type of product a MID is. Intel is mentioned because they invented MIDs. Rverhasselt 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm eagerly looking forward to Intel's MID's to come out, so I'll finally be able to browse the web with a handheld device!

Oh, wait.... Guy Harris (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisions of October 21 thru 24

In my view this page needs to be reverted to 09:12, 21 October 2008 as the current content is unreadable, uncited and inaccurate. Make any objections, if there are none I will do this tomorrow. Jamougha (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The current article is poorly written and inaccurate -- some of the sentences are completely incoherent (eg "These technologies can be seen on EDA... ...Palm and various hybrid form factor design, though sometimes electronic dictionary and netbook of the third world countries education initiative form factor is strongly disputed.") It needs to be rewritten or reverted. 24.85.91.86 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. Not quite sure which revision you figured to revert to (none display with the exact time you list), but going back to something like this version [1] would seem to be a step in right direction. Lost a bunch of references in the external links, and the new material is unreferenced and badly needs copy editing. (Also deleting the additional page split off about Mobile Internet Device (Intel) - there isn't enough material here yet to warrant splitting the page.) Zodon (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. The revision Zodon suggests is the same 09:12 (UTC), 21 October revision as Jamougha proposes, and I'd second that one as the most recent revision before all the rambling digressive nonsense started appearing. Letdorf (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

Done. The article still has multiple issues. I'll return to it tomorrow and see if I can make any improvements. Jamougha (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of the Term "Mobile Internet Device"

To add a caveat to my above comment, I guess the article probably should acknowledge that "MID" isn't exclusive to Intel, and the term does have a more generic sense - for instance ARM also use it.[2] Letdorf (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

"Mobile Internet" is used as a generic word related to technologies used by mobile, wireless networks and devices. Mobile Internet Protocol (Mobile IP) is an IETF standard for communications protocol that allows mobile device users to move from one network to another while maintaining a permanent IP address. Mobile devices are typically mobile phones/handsets. For example a laptop is not a "mobile" device, but a portable device. (Note, I have no knowledge on the Intel device, so my comment is generic). IDNaa (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the term is specific and refers to a genre of device that is only now beginning to emerge. The devices will use 3G/4G data networks to deliver desktop style internet and application access everywhere while being more compact than most current UMPCs. See 'Commercialization & Prototypes' below for examples FelixHcat (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your "No", because what I wrote is fact. Have a look at the internet domain ".mobi" which is purely dedicated mobile internet [3] and see who the investors are: mobile operators, technology vendors and content providers - for mobile internet. Among them is also GSMA. I have used my mobile devices for very many years now so this is not new. (Currently I have iPhone and Nokia devices). Have also a look into The World Wide Web Consortium, to read "The Mobile Web Initiative's goal is to make browsing the Web from mobile devices a reality, explains Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the Web." [4]. This initiative was started at the time .mobi was prepared for. See also Mobile_IP for some more technical info. if needed IDNaa (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This title of this article isn't "Mobile Internet", it's "Mobile Internet Devices". The phrase Mobile Internet Device (and the acronym "MID") seems to have acquired a specific meaning in the last couple of years, and doesn't just mean any device which is considered "mobile" that you use to access the Internet any more. I guess it might be slightly less ambiguous if we lost the "s" from "Devices" in the title. Letdorf (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

I understand it is devices, the devices used to access mobile internet. The links I gave, are also related to this. I found an article which might be interesting [[5]]It starts with The mobile phone ... has transformed from a simple voice communicator to a personal multifunction, multimedia device. With the integration of new features, the ordinary phone is evolving into the Mobile Internet Device (MID). Have a look at the article, as I think this is what you are talking about. The US marked and the European marked have been different, and GSM (including EDGE/3G+) has been standard in Europe, while US has used (cell)phones more limited to what the operator wants the user to use. This is why I did put in pointers to W3C and to the .mobi internet domain. The devices will constantly evolve, with more powerfully devices every now and then, each one carry some new buzzwords. This is the nature of high.tech. If you don't find my comment useful, just give me a hint - but I honestly believe you need to be aware of the ambiguous terminology - and state clearly what you want to distinguish or highlight here. IDNaa (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a disambiguation link might be in order. Is there perhaps another article (or category of articles) that deals with the general class of mobile devices that can access the internet that could link to with a hat note? Zodon (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the acronym "MID" and the term "Mobile Internet Device" are used on popular gadget blogs such as Gizmodo and Engadget (click for examples) to refer to a specific class of Intel Atom powered devices. See the commercialization and prototypes section below for specific examples of devices being marketed as MIDs. These devices will run desktop operating systems which is a major point of distinction from smartphones and other devices that access the mobile internet. FelixHcat (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That blog also have iPhone. In your view, do you consider iPhone a "MID"?IDNaa (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being needlessly argumentative. The article you mentioned with a picture of an iphone was tagged in that way since it was discussing Apple's prospective interest in the Moorestown MID platform. Please allow me to quote from that specific article "Because these new Mooretown MID (mobile internet device) chips are an improvement on the ultraportable Menlow chips we have now—smaller, faster and consuming far less power while idling, many are saying that Mooretown's power to efficiency balance [if used in] Apple's true ultraportable could help bridge the application gap of phone and laptop." This article and this quote strongly support my original assertion that MID is, infact, a specific term.

I also saw this "Intel Corp. this week used a developer forum in Taipei to tout its upcoming Moorestown platform for next-generation mobile Internet devices (MIDs) while slamming Apple's iPhone as a device bogged down by its use of ARM processors." [6]. I consider this marketing talk where competitors fight each other. The war between ARM/Intel is old, and some years ARM is better, other years Intel comes best out. As written her [7] the chip giant projects a global market of 180 million units annually by 2010 for "Mobile Internet Devices" (MIDs), which are conceptually similar to Nokia's N800 tablet. (Nokia consider their device as a mobile internet device, BTW). I have been trying to point out what was in the start here: the term does have a more generic sense than what was initially assumed. And during the process of justifying the start of .mobi, tension was related to the understanding of "mobile internet devices" (plural), which was before Intels entrance to this marked. No offense please. :) IDNaa (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then I think we can agree. MID is a blanket term that refers to a specific class of device. These devices may or may not include Intel technology and stand in a class separate from smartphones, although the distinction seems to be somewhat ambiguous. Please refer to my comment below. FelixHcat (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is of interest here, but there is a "DeviceAtlas"[8] which has information on different mobile devices. It is for web developers and it claim to be the world's most comprehensive database of mobile device technical information. DeviceAtlas is also described by .mobi and in different commercial articles [9]. Article for a Sony device: [10]. It is comercials, Also some "smartphones" (and/or a mix) [11], [12]. IDNaa (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (more later...)

IBM has a study saying people prefer mobile devices over a PC [13]. An article with documentation of the Intel linux-based "MID also has list of typical applications for mobile internet devices: [14]IDNaa (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation: At CeBIT (3/2008) Intel presented overview of what Intel saw as it's potential marked segment for MID: Intel's first generation 'Menlow' had Vertical Spesific HH,Portable navigation, Internet Tablets, HH Games and Portable video devices as target. Intel's next generation 'Moorestone' is targeting the smartphone marked. (see the Intel roadmap slide shown at CeBIT [[15]]. Intel say they are collaborating with both Ericsson and Option on new 3G HSPA data modules...[[16]] Bottom line; Intel is targeting the high-end marked of mobile internet devices. The Wikipedia article on smartphone has an introduction where it states that there does not exist an industry standard for what a smartphone is. Similar should be here, as 'Mobile Internet Device" is not limited to marketing talk on for example Intel's Moorestone MID Platform, and there are no industry standard specifying this. Also, a "mobile internet device" is not equal a "portable PC" IDNaa (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to establish a more precise definition of the term than what is currently posted "Mobile Internet Device (MID) is term used by several vendors, including Intel, ARM and TI to describe a multimedia-capable handheld computer providing wireless Internet access" I posit that MID defines a device running x86 architecture in a handheld form factor significantly more portable than netbooks or most UMPCs. Is this accurate? Can anyone shed some more light on this? Where is the line between smartphone and MID? Where is the line between MID and UMPC? Does the instruction set (x86/ARM) factor into the definition? FelixHcat (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated the definition to be more accurate... is the source a valid reference or do we need to find more citations/ref? FelixHcat (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I put back some of the details deleted from the definition/lead (with associated references). I think the specifics that it is handheld, wireless and multimedia are helpful. (Size alone doesn't imply handheld (e.g. SpaceCube), and have to know how big the comparison items are. Wireless seems to be basic to the category.) Zodon (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this ain't relevant here, but surely something like an mp3 player with a browser and wireless access kind of fits as an MID, if not maybe someone could explain from a more basic level what the definition of an MID is. eg is the latest wireless touch-screen ipod not an example? If the article is going to offer up some examples maybe it should try and be comprehensive or at least representative in any list it offers. A better overview is required, _then_ the details, but thanks for the present efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.9.175 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercialization & Prototypes

Something should be said regarding the commericalization of the Aigo P8860 (notable is its lack of HSPA) and other protypes [17] that are coming to market including the Asus R50A, WiBrain i1, BenQ MIS S6, Clarion MiND, Compal's MID, Elektrobit's WiMAX enabled MID, Lenovo's MID, LG's, and Panasonic's Toughbook CF-U1 FelixHcat (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New Image Needed

I think we could use a better image... something similar to this or this... I can't figure out the copyright crap, are these images uploadable to wikipedia? FelixHcat (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the UMPC picture by the N810 of Nokia and added a Atom-based MID in the Intel section. Both pictures you suggested look more like a UMPC (still, it's hard to define the difference). I think, Steve Jobs named the iPhone two years ago as a 'breakthrough' mobile internet device (have to check the keynote). -- Saiht (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

UMPC vs MID

Intel explains the difference between a UMPC and an MID [18] FelixHcat (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Mobile internet device Aervanath (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Per WP:SINGULAR, I propose renaming this article to Mobile Internet Device. Letdorf (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

I agree. --Canaima (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to singular term, but the title should be mobile internet device (without initial capitals). It is not a proper name, but rather a generic description of a type of device, rather like cellular telephone. •Life of Riley (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is the MID article illustrated with a picture of a UMPC?

This makes no sense. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I changed it and hope you like the N810. The german wikipedia has a better one, but this picture is not in the commons yet. -- Saiht (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

MIDs with ARM CPUs

The article only mentions Intel based hardware. It needs information on ARM and other platforms. The Chinese company SmartQ has a range of ARM based MIDs, so do other companies. Bizzybody (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Silvermont and Airmont dates have been pushed back

Intel later pushed back the original schedule of release dates for Silvermont and Airmont. Article should reflect.

Intel technology for tablets

The following table has been removed from Tablet computer, where it doesn't belong. Maybe someone may want to merge it with the Intel MID platforms section?. Diego (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Intel tablet platforms

Intel chairman Andy Bryant has stated that its 2014 goal is to quadruple its tablet sales to 40 million units by the end of that year, as an investment for 2015.

Oak Trail platform (2011)

Intel's first generation tablet platform (codenamed Oak Trail ) contains a 45 nm Intel Atom processor (codenamed Lincroft) and a 65 nm Platform Controller Hub (codenamed Whitney Point). Since the memory controller and graphics controller are all now integrated into the processor, the northbridge has been removed and the processor communicates directly with the southbridge via the DMI bus interface.

Atom	Oak Trail platform
Mobile chipset	a 65 nm Intel SM35 PCH (codenamed Whitney Point)
Mobile processor	a 45 nm Intel Atom processor (codenamed Lincroft) with integrated GMA 600 graphics (PowerVR SGX 535 based)
Wireless network	a wireless radio

Clover Trail platform (2012)

Intel's second generation tablet platform (codenamed Clover Trail) contains a 32 nm Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Cloverview).

Atom	Clover Trail platform
Mobile processor	a 32 nm Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Cloverview) with integrated CPU (codenamed Saltwell) and graphics (PowerVR SGX 545 based)
Wireless network	a wireless radio

Bay Trail platform (2013)

Intel's third generation tablet platform (codenamed Bay Trail) contains a 22 nm Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Valleyview).

Atom	Bay Trail platform
Mobile processor	an Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Valleyview) with integrated CPU (codenamed Silvermont) and graphics (Gen 7)
Wireless network	a wireless radio

Cherry Trail platform (2014)

Intel's fourth generation tablet platform (codenamed Cherry Trail) contains a 14 nm Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Cherryview).

Atom	Cherry Trail platform
Mobile processor	an Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Cherryview) with integrated CPU (codenamed Airmont) and graphics (Gen 8)
Wireless network	a wireless radio

Willow Trail platform

Intel's fifth generation tablet platform (codenamed Willow Trail) contains a 14 nm Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Broxton, by mid 2015).

Atom	Willow Trail platform
Mobile processor	an Intel Atom SoC (codenamed Broxton) with integrated CPU (codenamed Goldmont) and graphics (Gen 9)
Wireless network	a wireless radio

References

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mobile Internet device. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013081058/http://www.fwdconcepts.com/MID8.htm to http://www.fwdconcepts.com/MID8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030042943/http://www.arm.com/markets/mid/ to http://www.arm.com/markets/mid/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4807155541.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Are these dead now? (2022)

I came across this article (as one does) and noticed they describe a class of device I don't really see any more, like the iPod Touch or the Windows-based netbook (which morphed into the Chromebook), and it got me wondering: is this a dead product category? There haven't been really any major additions to this article at least since the end of 2014, check this diff, mainly just small copyediting, template updates (bots marking links as dead), and the like. Smartphones are basically ubiquitous now, and from my (eurocentric) experience low-end smartphones killed whatever market niche these devices filled.

So I was thinking of ways to update this article to reflect this, but I'm not that experienced in big changes; how would one go about doing it? Turn it into the past tense, "the Mobile Internet Device was a category of mobile device of the late 2000s and early 2010s, providing (entertainment etc.) (...) As smartphones got cheaper during the 2010s, the market for specialized MIDs evaporated."? How does one reference the absence of any new product in a category, and the lack of any market or academic interest in a category, absent a retrospective "The Death of the MID" essay in some magazine, that a quick google didn't bring up? - oatco (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: The list of subsections of Intel microprocessors makes me think the MID was mainly a marketing term by Intel to compete against the ARM-dominated smartphone market. - oatco (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

An 'ARM-dominated smartphone market' didn't really exist at that time. Mottenkiste (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Archos vs Intel MID platform

While this subject is rather dated, and the article could use a bigger overhaul, I lack the knowledge of this device class (as I would define it, see the last part of this comment) to do so. But at least I felt that the largest part of the article being a long section titled "Archos Internet tablets", while it was really mostly about Intel's MID platform was clearly wrong. So I split it and titled the longer part appropriately. Unfortunately, the remaining paragraph/section about Archos' tablets is a bit rudimentary. Maybe someone could elaborate on those devices (or, just delete the section).

I also could not see the point in the Oct 2009 "improve this article" box (not even what content it actually refered to, the one above or below the box), I removed the box (sorry, I don't know the correct term for this kind of boxes in English.

BTW my impression is that this article was meant to be about the original, late-2000s' (pre-iPad) idea of a largely stylus- or keyboard-controlled MID (as exemplified e.g. in the Nokia devices of the late '00s), not the touch-oriented tablets as we know them now. In this sense, the summary is partly at odds with the content of the article (2-way communication? Real-time sharing?). And while I'm at it, the Nokia devices of the time deserve an appropriate mention. Mottenkiste (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)