Say hello to Lenovo's 5.5” Intel Atom IdeaPhone K900

Intel first announced its intentions to enter the smartphone market as far back as 2008, but they stated it wouldn’t be until 2009-2010 before any chips were ready for the general consumer. Fast forward to April this year and Lenovo’s K800 smartphone started to show that the Atom processor could indeed power a phone handset.

Now Lenovo has lifted the lid on the IdeaPhone K900, one of the first handsets that will run on Intel’s latest 2GHz dual-core Atom processor. As far as specs go, apart from the processor, here’s what we know:

  • 5.5” 1080p IPS screen
  • 2GB RAM
  • 16GB storage
  • 13MP rear camera, 2MP front facing camera
  • 5.7 ounces and just 6.9mm thick

There’s no word on the OS on this bad boy, but if there was enough demand, it could run a full Windows experience! But something is telling us to expect Android.

Lenovo don’t release their phones in the US, at least not officially, and this will be the case for the K900 with Lenovo’s representatives saying it will “probably not” reach the US. But given they are the number two smartphone manufacturer in China, if the international market proves successful, they could start to offer devices in the US.

So, if you live in China, you can get the phone from April! Later in the year it will arrive in India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Russia and the Philippines.

As a side note, Intel are looking to get into the smartphone market more, wanting (hoping, maybe) to power Windows Phone or even put Windows 8 on a phone handset.

Source and Images: VentureBeat

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung shows off world's first curved OLED TV

Next Story

A closer look at the Windows 8 sales figures

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Android running on x86 cant run anything using "native code" AKA NDK, unless specifically compiled to x86, which most of the apps/games are not.

vcfan said,
Android running on x86 cant run anything using "native code" AKA NDK, unless specifically compiled to x86, which most of the apps/games are not.

It isn't only games, a lot of non-game software has been using native code because of the performance limitations of the Android JVM. This is why many Apps are device specific and becoming more and more device specific.

Intel had ported it to x86 for quite a while I seem to recall. I have my RAZRi which is an x86 phone literally (Atom processor in it)

Angel Blue01 said,
Being Linux, it can be compiled for any architecture. See http://www.android-x86.org/ for an X86 build

Being Linux actually means it is 'less' portable than more advanced kernel/OS technologies. Windows NT is one that is far more portable and results in a faster OS for various architectures, as NT is written for the HAL architecture, not the hardware architecture. (So code is targeting an artificial architecture that the HAL converts/translates, making the NT C code far more universal and portable.)

For Linux to approach NT's speed on various platforms, substantial rewriting of the kernel must take place, replacing everything that is hardware specific and requiring NATIVE non-generic drivers compiled into the kernel. (Which is seldom done.)

It is funny that people see 'Linux' and think 'portability' when it is one of the more poor OS models for portability, and the only reason it has had wide support across architectures is the simple availability to the source code has made it easier for people to tinker and port the OS.

In contrast, for NT to get to a new architecture, Microsoft has to take time to tinker, and is the only reason it hasn't been continually released on every architecture. With Windows 4.0, Microsoft created a HAL and compiled NT for virtually every platform available at the time. (The main work in porting NT is the HAL and a few minor code adjustments that the HAL doesn't convert/translate.)

As for ARM Android Linux, the Linux kernel Google uses is NOT a FULLY optimized Linux distribution for each device, instead using generic shunt drivers in the compiled kernel.

Linux itself even when running on ARM also uses the base architecture target, which doesn't exploit any advantages an architecture has over x86 or x64.

Seeing phones like these makes me wonder why people made fun of Apple for increasing the screen size.


This is an awesome device... but it seems like manufacturers are just playing around to see what they can do/get away with.

MidTxWRX said,
Seeing phones like these makes me wonder why people made fun of Apple for increasing the screen size.

People make fun of Apple because increasing the screen size is pretty much ALL they did (well other than the Maps debacle, but let's not go there).

TCLN Ryster said,

People make fun of Apple because increasing the screen size is pretty much ALL they did (well other than the Maps debacle, but let's not go there).

Well I mean other than the screen size, the wifi chip was upgraded to also use 5GHz, the radio was upgraded and supports 4G LTE, it has an A6 processor which was upgraded from the A5 on the 4S, the front facing camera was upgraded to support 720p video, video recording improvements, obviously the upgraded connector (which will be annoying at first), larger battery, to name a few.

Finally, true processors on true "phones" (rather handheld PCs) I just really want AMD in this game too... ARM is simply too weak.

So is there any public announcement of how well Android is optimized for x86? Also apps? Will there be any for Androidx86 at launch?

My RAZRi runs on intel atom processor, emulators all of them run at full speed (I was a betatester for epsxe x86 android and it ran at 241 fps in some parts because the framelimiter went kaput and a beta of the n64 one ran also at full speed) most of the apps run fine no problem, the only ones that haven't run for me are Chaos Ring series from squaresoft.

I'm hoping in a years time, MS will be able to combine Windows Phone w/ Windows PC as the same OS. Then, you would have a device similiar to this, but when you 'dock' it, it would put FULL Windows on your external monitor.

Maybe w/ Windows Blue, they will start that transition, but hopefully by Windows 9, they will both just be the same OS.

greensabath said,
I'm hoping in a years time, MS will be able to combine Windows Phone w/ Windows PC as the same OS. Then, you would have a device similiar to this, but when you 'dock' it, it would put FULL Windows on your external monitor.

Maybe w/ Windows Blue, they will start that transition, but hopefully by Windows 9, they will both just be the same OS.

There is technically no reason they can't be doing this now, except carriers want a 'locked' plaltform that is capable of using their networks for calls/non-data.

This is where the 'politics' comes into play. There have been Windows XP and Windows Vista/7 'phones/computers' that supported calls and non-data access, but carriers were scared off and dropped support for them several years ago.

The UI does need to merge more, as the current Windows 8 Apps and UI is actually the less mature of the two, so maybe Windows 9 we will see this as a standard feature of the OS. In the meantime there is no reason HTC or Nokia even couldn't ship a Windows 8 device that handles calls, except the fact that a lot of carriers want the closed environment.

Just saw it on the verge and they're actually saying it'll have more than a day's charge. 25 hours talk time (so they say).

Too big. The "standard" 4.7 inch phones now are about as big as they can be and still be able to used with one hand. Anything over that and it's too big to wield effectively.

Wow, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be able to be hacked to put full Windows on it. Windows 8 for a better touch experience even if you lose phone calling ability. Amazing that they fit an Atom CPU into this form factor, There should be no reason why we can't have Atom CPU tablets this thin with a bigger screen, more storage (16GB too small for Windows) & micro HDMI. Keyboard/Mouse easily handled with Bluetooth. It will need a massive amount removed with vLite to fit into 16GB storage.

If it had HDMI output and a USB hub adapter, it could become the basis of a desktop PC setup. It would be great to be able to take around my home/work desktop PC, and phone, in my pocket!

Not a fan of the colour... I mean beige!

There's no word on the OS on this bad boy, but if there was enough demand, it could run a full Windows experience! But something is telling us to expect Android.

Something is telling me to expect Android as well: the 2GB of RAM in it.

2xSilverKnight said,
Only poorly coded roms needs that amount of ram. Vanilla android is completly fine.

I may be wrong, but I think he was implying that if it ran Windows (not Windows Phone) it would take more ram.

2xSilverKnight said,
Only poorly coded roms needs that amount of ram. Vanilla android is completly fine.

...with 1gb of RAM, which is exactly what the x86 version of Windows 8 needs as well.

The difference, one is a complete OS that is the same code base that runs on servers and supercomputers, the other is a limited mobile OS.

Shadrack said,

I may be wrong, but I think he was implying that if it ran Windows (not Windows Phone) it would take more ram.

No, you can run Windows fine with 2GB of RAM, especially on a mobile device. It was a joke, as Android used to be a notorious RAM-hogger compared to the other mobile OSes, iOS, Windows Phone, etc.

MightyJordan said,

No, you can run Windows fine with 2GB of RAM, especially on a mobile device. It was a joke, as Android used to be a notorious RAM-hogger compared to the other mobile OSes, iOS, Windows Phone, etc.

Oh, I see. I'm a newbie with Android and my phone has 2GB of ram so I guess I'm set then because it runs great .

Yea, this is starting to lose the plot a bit, I'd rather less than 4" screens for a phone, not something like these, they're more like a mini tablet!

I'd rather not have to buy a phone with a screen smaller than my pinky thanks.

Goldfire86 said,
Yea, this is starting to lose the plot a bit, I'd rather less than 4" screens for a phone, not something like these, they're more like a mini tablet!

NastySasquatch said,
I'd rather not have to buy a phone with a screen smaller than my pinky thanks.

You have a 4" pinky? What are you, a giant?