RISC-V is an open, royalty-free chip architecture positioned as an alternative to the ARM and x86 chips that dominate the PC, mobile, server, and embedded spaces. And it’s been picking up steam in recent years.

But a chip is only as good as the software that can run on it. So it’s interesting to see that Google is planning to bring full support for RISC-V chips to Android in the coming years, which could pave the way for RISC-V phones, tablets, smartwatches, set-top-boxes, or automotive systems, among other things.

From Google’s RISC-V Summit keynote about AOSP & RISC-V

Here’s a roundup of recent tech news from around the web.

Google wants RISC-V to be a “tier-1” Android architecture [Ars Technica]

There’s already some initial Android Open Source Project code for RISC-V architecture, but graphics, networking, and a whole bunch of other basic features are still under development.

3G in the US rides into the sunset [Light Reading]

Verizon shut down its 3G network at the end of 2022, effectively bringing an end to 3G in the US (AT&T and T-Mobile had already shut down their networks earlier in the year).

NVIDIA Brings RTX 4080 to GeForce NOW [NVIDIA]

NVIDIA is bringing RTX 4080 graphics to its GeForce Now cloud gaming platform with higher performance, lower latency, and up to 240 Hz resolutions. Requires an Ultimate membership – RTX 3080 members get a free upgrade. New members can sign up for $20 per month or $100 for six months.

First Google Pixel 7a hands-on video is already here [Android Headlines]

This hands-on video allegedly shows the upcoming Google Pixel 7a with a Pixel 7-style design, dual rear cameras, a hole-punch front-facing camera, and a 90 Hz display.

Keep up on the latest headlines by following @[email protected] on Mastodon. You can also follow Liliputing on Twitter and Facebook, and keep up with the latest open source mobile news by following LinuxSmartphones on Twitter and Facebook.

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. This is a very telling development from Google –

    we know that they’ve been a member of the RISC-V Foundation for a long time,
    we know that they’ve incorporated RISC-V in their kit, including their home-brewed Titan co-processors in Pixel phones,

    but starting to support Android for RISC-V means that they are anticipating the first technology coming out with RISC-V as primary processors.

    We know that T-Head’s 1520 SoM has the processing of a top-flight smartphone from 2016 – which would be more than adequate for what many people do on their smartphones. And Sipeed are already promising a RISC-V smartphone coming out this year, using the module.

    Google must recognise that a lot of tech is manufactured in and exported from China, and that China is intent on moving away from US I-P.
    Despite “China2025”, Google won’t want to lose market share in the huge domestic Chinese market… maybe they’re hoping that the Chinese government won’t notice that they’re an American company?

    A couple of interesting points though:
    – Google thinks RISC-V needs some improved extensions. Well… they’ve got deep pockets : Make It So. And
    – once Android RunTime supports RISC-V, a large number of Android apps written in Java will be available too, which would produce a big boost to RISC-V’s adoption.

  2. Google: “Growing from prototype to performant [sic]” — idiots! There is no such word as “performants”. Why would Google make up a new word when “performer” is indicated? It’s pushing the boundaries of grammar, not technology.

          1. Just so — Oxford doesn’t list this; I’ll keep on objecting to this unnecessary coinage regardless.

    1. Oh boy, he’s back!
      Seriously, give it a rest, man. No functioning member of society cares THIS much about what they perceive as proper grammar. Perhaps try adding to the discussion by actually talking about the topics in the article? You can say whatever you want of course, but seriously, lighten up.

        1. I’m an illiterate fanboy because I disagree with you? Ah yes, very cool. 😎 Only a true wordsmith such as yourself could weave such an insult. Seriously, what kind of life can someone lead that cares THIS MUCH about grammatical errors?

          As a response to your other comment; I can tell you respond to the substance of posts frequently. That’s what I find mind-boggling! I seriously don’t understand how one could have such a strong desire to do so. What goal are you accomplishing by doing so? I feel like you’re just alienating yourself from normal human interaction by constantly complaining about something so trivial. Especially when something, such as the use of the word “performant” is simply being used as a method to enhance the headline rather than something being looked at by some stiffs. “…from prototype to performant” likely uses that term “protoype” as a way to describe an app that has elements of a prototype, rather than referring to a prototype as a literal thing. Granted, that can be viewed as “incorrect”, but it simply doesn’t matter. The “issue” you take with it isn’t really valid as it doesn’t affect readability for anyone but the most heavy-handed of grammar savants. I’m certain the demographic it was intended for (including myself) understood the point they were trying to make and didn’t pick it apart.

      1. If you read comments here, you’d know that I respond to the substance of posts frequently. It’s certainly appropriate to call out Google for coining words inappropriately in response to a post containing one of its worthless neologisms — I’m sure there are more where that one came from !