Remote Controls On The March

faxafloi writes "SFGate has an article about how remote controls have proliferated in our world like rabbits. Even their inventor, Robert Adler, is befuddled by them. 'Universal' remotes help some, but are not interoperable with enough devices to drive everything, so we're stuck with multiple remotes. The article then describes the new top of the line models, ranging to (ahem) $1699.00." (Of course, there were remote controls of a sort long before Adler.) For another approach to universal remote control -- using a cell phone as display and controller -- read on below.

An anonymous reader writes "This whitepaper describes Intel's research into innovative and futuristic uses of camera phones. Cell phones are already much more than a communication device. In cities around the world, purchasing a soda out of a vending machine can be as easy as dialing your cell phone. Even parking and toll fees are easily paid through a cell phone, and they are used as debit/credit cards to purchase food, services, and gas. Now, the global proliferation of cell phones with cameras brings more opportunities to use mobile phone devices in different capacities -- and the best part is that these applications require no additional hardware. In Intel's research, camera phones are being used as pointing devices, authentication devices, storage devices, and even as user interfaces for systems that, because of cost and/or form factor, aren't able to accommodate a display of their own."

Comments

1,699$ Remote

[arieswind]

if I'm going to pay almost 1700$ on a remote, I better be able to drive my car with it like in that one James Bond movie :)

Re:1,699$ Remote

[Anonymous Coward]

The vibrator attachment is optional;)

Re:1,699$ Remote

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem - that thing (Philips iPronto) runs linux, just like the $700 Sony Navitus, which is also mentioned. So if you want it to control your car, just build the proper interface (the iPronto has wlan) and write the software yourself.

Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[Space cowboy]

subject says it all :-))

Simon

Re:Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[KReilly]

That is a little out of hand, but that is the very top of the line. I was using a 300 dollar remote at my girlfriends, and it definetly adds to the experience.

I had seen the remote before and thought it was rediculous to spend that much on a universal remote, but when you already have 2500 bucks in equipment you might as well splurge.

But, it has a touch screen interface, auto programming through ir, back lighting, etc. etc. All in all, if I was gonna invest in a good home theater I would say not to skip over buying a quality remote

Re:Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's ridiculous that anyone spells it 'rediculous.'

Re:Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[gmack]

Tell me about it..

At he place I graduated high school they had the ultimate remotes.. these things were capeable of turning on any TV in the school, accessing the bank of VCRs in the library and could schedual an event such as a VCR playing and a TV turning on or off up to two years in advance.

Each teacher was given one when we all moved into the newly built school.. after four months of TVs being randomly turned on and off by teachers lost in these remotes the teachers all went back to the old TV/vcr on a rolling tables that they used before we switched buildings and relegating the new high tech system to school announcements.

Re:Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[johannesg]

I was using a 300 dollar remote at my girlfriends, and it definetly adds to the experience.

So how did you get a girlfriend with a remote control option, then?

Re:Surely 'Remote Controls Out Of Control!' ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is is remotely possible that she was remotely controllable?

Can't let that happen

[ResidntGeek]

No, we can't be making any sort of changes to our remote system - not while having 5 remotes confuses the technically inept of the world, to my endless amusement. ("Whaddya mean, I have to switch the input on both the stereo AND the TV?" - my uncle)

Re:Can't let that happen

[Osty]

No, we can't be making any sort of changes to our remote system - not while having 5 remotes confuses the technically inept of the world, to my endless amusement. ("Whaddya mean, I have to switch the input on both the stereo AND the TV?" - my uncle)

I'm also pro-multiple-remotes-on-your-coffee-table. It keeps other people afraid of your kit. If they're afraid, they will be less likely to screw around. If they don't screw around, I don't have to worry about people breaking my stuff.

I personally prefer having all of the different remotes around because there's invariably something on each remote that you can't do from a universal remote. Plus, with the right setup and discipline, it's still possible to make a home theather easy to use even with an abundance of remotes. For instance, I typically use 1 remote 90% of the time -- the remote for my cable box. I have it setup to turn on the TV and the cable box at the press of a button, and the receiver stays on 24/7 and ready for TV input (when I change input to something else, I'm in the habit of changing back to TV before I finish my DVD or gaming session). I might pick up the receiver remote to adjust volume, or my TV remote to switch the screen format, or my X10 remote to turn off the lights, but that's it. The only other remote I use is my DVD player remote and while the other operations I mentioned could be consolidated onto a universal remote, I would never try to replace a DVD player's remote.

Consumer A/V devices suck!

[MisterP]

The main problem I see with complicated A/V systems is that each device stores its own state and the remote is completely unaware of what state each device is in. If one device is out of sync your 25 step macro button is worthless.

This is where that Harmony remote shines. It effectively "remembers" what state a device is in. I've had one of these remotes for about a year and it's awesome. It's the first remote that my wife can actually use. No more "we have $4000 worth of electronics and i can't use any of it" conversations. Unfortunately, it still takes some technical prowess to get it working 100%.

So many of these remote problems could be solved by a simple common serial protocol that all a/v components (of any brand) talk. Ideally, you add device to your system and it autonegotiates with the recevier and the TV so the TV knows what input it's on and the receiver knows what input it is on. It blows me a away that something like this hasn't been done. Infact, there has been ZERO progress in this area since I've started playing with stereos 20 years ago. It's sad.

The other problem I see with newer devices is the incredibly bad UI in most of the menu screens. In the last 2 years, I've bought 2 Toshiba TV's (one HDTV, one analog set) a Toshiba VCR and a Toshiba DVD player. All the menus on all those devices are completely different. Different "widgets", different methods of accessing sub-menus, different everything.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[Anonymous Coward]

>So many of these remote problems could be solved by a simple common serial protocol that all a/v components (of any brand) talk.

Like JVC AV link, perhaps ?

That still doesn't solve the issue that your remote is transmit only, so even if it guesses at the state of your devices, it doesn't know that the devices might missed the code.

May be you wired the remote to this serial interface ?

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[Amiga Lover]

The main problem I see with complicated A/V systems is that each device stores its own state and the remote is completely unaware of what state each device is in. If one device is out of sync your 25 step macro button is worthless.

I see the problem as not only the remote->device setup sucking, but almost every electronic device's UI sucks too. There's little in the way of standards, and there's too much in the way of trying to compress all 150 functions of say, a VCR, into 5 buttons and one 2-line display, or similar.

Occasionally a device comes out that stuns the world, like the iPod seems to. How curious that what it takes to be so well regarded in its interface is for it to do little more than a cassette player did more than 30 years ago. The iPod may be easy to use, but its reputation is strengthened all the more by the panoply of horrific interfaces on most other gadgets.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[NineNine]

Why is this necessary? Can't you use your eyeballs to know what state each device is in? If you can't tell whether or not your TV is turned on, then I think that you've got bigger problems than a remote control.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[pipingguy]

The main problem I see with complicated A/V systems is that each device stores its own state and the remote is completely unaware of what state each device is in

That's pretty much a correct evaluation.

I can't find it now, but some design firm in Canada did a study on remote useability.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[mad_dog3283]

Yes, but your remote doesn't have eyeballs. If you create a macro on your remote that, for example, turns your TV on, VCR on, switches your TV to the VCR input, and plays the videocassette, it is assuming that your TV and VCR are both Off at the time the macro is run. However, if someone manually turned the TV on before the macro was run, then running the macro would cause the TV to turn Off and the VCR on, which is useless. This is because, when you push "Power" on your remote control, the remote simply tells the TV "Change your state," rather than explicitly telling it to "Turn on" or "Turn off". If the latter was the case, then whenever the TV was already on and it received a command to "Turn on," it would just ignore the command.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[afidel]

So what we need is a low speed standard for communications between consumer A/V devices. Something along the lines of MIDI with a standardized vocabulary would be very cool. If your TV could tell your stereo to switch to the same input as the tv is tuned to then most of the problems with advanced setups would go away.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[TheGavster]

You can solve the inputs issue by running everything through a common box that has 1 remote; ie, your cable tuner, dish reciever, VCR, DVD, LD, hifi, etc, all send their audio and video to inputs on the one box, which then outputs to your monitors (your TV, your amp, etc) so that you only have to set the where each device sends its signal to and gets its input from once, after that you're just switching modes on the selector. Obviously, you've still got channel selection and power state on the various devices, but the issue of syncing up audio, video, volume, etc on all your devices is gone.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[fisternipply]

The HAVI inter-operability protocol includes what you're talking about regarding state. It's supported by multiple manufacturers, but still questionable whether it will take off...in fact, it looks to be stagnating at the very least.

I'm a professional A/V control systems programmer, and one-way IR-controlled devices are the bane of our existence. If you investigate pro gear intended for permanent installation, even if it's just a VCR, you'll often find a serial port because the manufacturers know it'll be hanging off a control system like Crestron or AMX. But serial protocols are all different, even within the same manufacturer's line. Some are a bitch, some are very, very simple. It's hard to forsee any sort of standardization though, if only because of the wide variety of device functions and the entrenched-ness of manufacturers with their own often long-standing protocols.

So don't look for a common serial protocol. The future of A/V is getting on the network, and efforts are being made on interoperability on this "new" frontier in both corporate and academic worlds.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[qqtortqq]

I still haven't figured out why the car stereo I bought a few weeks ago came with a remote control... There isn't one spot from in my car that you can't reach the buttons from.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[mmortal03]

Yeah, this is exactly right. I set up a universal remote for my parents, but sometimes they don't aim it correctly, or the battery is low, and it will miss one of the devices. This confuses the heck out of them, because either the sound doesn't turn off, but the picture does, or the next time they try turning the TV on, one device goes on, and the other goes off, and they come running my way, completely befuddled. What really needs to be done is make each device have a seperate off and on button. That would fix all the problems.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[WuphonsReach]

I still haven't figured out why the car stereo I bought a few weeks ago came with a remote control... There isn't one spot from in my car that you can't reach the buttons from.

My JVC MP3 CD player came with one as well.

I guess it's for the folks who are using it in a van / RV, or who are into the "sound scene" where they fill the car with speakers and need to stand a bit away.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[pokwaa]

A major problem with remotes is that they are only a one-way device. Your integrated remote doesn't know what your TV, or your amp, or your DVD player is actually doing, and therefore may get things muddled. I've seen more and more products coming out with RS232 control, and this is definetly a Good Thing. Once you get your home computer not only controlling, but also monitoring your equipment, things get a lot easier. Your equipment works together, at the right time when you want it to. And it's a lot easier than trying to get the Companies to agree on a standard.

Re:Consumer A/V devices suck!

[plover]

What really needs to be done is make each device have a seperate off and on button. That would fix all the problems.

Ahh, but they do already have separate on and off buttons. You just don't know it yet.

Many of the brands have discrete "power on" vs "power off" codes. Note the annoying difference between "codes" and "buttons". The remote doesn't support separate switches because adding a second button adds to the cost, while not adding to usability as far as the humans are concerned.

This guy's page for example, shows Sony TV set codes. Note how code 21 is "power", but code 46 is "power on" and code 47 is "power off". The trick is to getting these codes into your learning remote without having the source to teach them from. Try Remote Central for the most complete set of device codes on the net. You'll need a way to get these codes into your remote, though. Try searching for JP1 to learn how to make a cable to talk to an All In One remote.

I believe the Harmony remotes make heavy use of this function to make sure all devices are sync'd with the remote control at every power-on opportunity.

It's not as bad as it seems

[Rude Turnip]

Most universal remotes will handle multiple devices for you. A co-worker of mine has a $700 remote with virtual screens, etc. that takes care of his living room. However, when I asked him if his remote can access each device's special menus for things like brightness, contrast and other settings, he said he still needs the original remote controls for such purposes. However, how often do you need to fiddle with such minute settings? Stick the originals in a drawer and forget about them until you need them for very rare, specific purposes.

Keep in mind that the alternative would be having a control panel of knobs and buttons on all your devices, which only provide more points of failure.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[tzanger]

A co-worker of mine has a $700 remote with virtual screens, etc. that takes care of his living room. However, when I asked him if his remote can access each device's special menus for things like brightness, contrast and other settings, he said he still needs the original remote controls for such purposes. However, how often do you need to fiddle with such minute settings?

If I'm gonna blow $700 on a remote it better be able to access every feature my equipment has. Spending that much on a remote that can't handle "shift states" in the remote it's replacing is insanity.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[eclectro]

I use Philips universal remote

I was able to program all my devices onto it, and it learned the commands for a daewoo 5800 dvd player. I haven't found a need to touch any of my original remotes. Also, you can have it "learn" the special menus. A neat thing you can do is program any key for any device. So if you want to control the amp with the cd player selected, you can program it to. It fits really well in the hand, costs under 20 dollars, and its available at shopko.

I did a considerable amount of shopping for a low-cost universal remote, and this has the best price/performance ratio of them all. Why spend $700. I highly recommend this one.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[Lumpy]

your co-workers remote in a word sucks.

Phillips pronto.

I can access ALL functions on ALL devices and SCRIPT commands.

I have one butting that says movietime that will turn on everything and set the inputs right for watching DVD's.

I suggest your co-worker return his overpriced junk remote and get a phillips pronto. 100% programmable and compatable with every device...

that one remote made my wife love the home theatre and the home automation system (I have commands for house modes in it!)

and I only paid $199.00 for mine. the older Black and white screen pronto remotes can be still bought for cheap... if you want flashy look at my remote props from your homies, then spend $599.00 for the full color one.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[shumway]

I definitely agree...I love the 8-function version....only $25 and it has Tivo and ReplayTV buttons. Plus it is incredibly light and thin. The only flaw is that the buttons are not backlit or glow-in-the-dark (which should be a minimum requirement for all remotes).

I used to geek out on my Philips NeoPronto, their $200 "low end" progammable remote, until my toddler introduced it to the floor. It was more fun to program than it was to use, though...you don't really care about having 20-step macros and custom logo bitmaps for all your favorite channels when you keep hitting the wrong fsckin' numbers on the touch screen.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[Lershac]

I was a real fan of prontos too... then we got ceramic tile flooring. 3 prontos later, I decided to look elsewhere, and the harmony remotes are durable and dont sacrifice functionality. They need to make the prontos more durable! My wife flung the harmony at me from across the room (she missed of course and it went crashing into the wall,wall,floor and bounced around. It didnt even hiccup, while it was tumbling around it muted the system, so durability of these units is a big plus.

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[laird]

That BestBuy link doesn't work. Could you re-post?

Re:It's not as bad as it seems

[shumway]

Sorry, it tested fine when I posted. The model number is PMDVR8, and following those links, amazon has it for only $15.

Salling Clicker

[aclarke]

It may not be a UNIVERSAL remote, but for those of us with Apple computers and bluetooth phones, Salling Clicker lets us use our phones as a display and a remote. Works great!

Re:Salling Clicker

[Anonymous Coward]

Or get the free, open-source, and almost-as-feature-complete Romeo. I think it was released after Clicker, but the author claims development started pre-clicker...

Programmable Remotes

[Anonymous Coward]

There was an app for the PocketPC that would read an IR signal sent to it, then you could assign it to a specific button. You could have multiple remotes with multiple buttons that would do different things. The only problem was it used the touchscreen, so it didn't work 'like a remote': you couldn't use it without looking at it.

Why not make a physical remote like that, that allows you to assign different buttons to a different signal? Then we could customize our remotes for the systems as we see fit.

Re:Programmable Remotes

[elucubra]

I've got one of those, a Memorex programmable remote from the early 90's. Big sucker, but can be programmed to drive most IR capable stuff.

Re:Programmable Remotes

[Thomas Shaddack]

We have the LIRC project. The software is open, there are large sets of existing remote commands there, a way to acquire more of them. Either you can use a PC (which tends to be a bit bulky, though), or write a program for a microcontroller using the sequences, and build your own universal remote, configurable by a PC.

For better effect, it could be built on an open breadboard, protected and insulated with thick layer of protective varnish. Or the breadboard could be put into a transparent plexiglas case, in the Apple style.

Too many remotes:

[chickens]

In my day, we'd change channel with a long pointy stick. Problem solved

Re:Too many remotes:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmph. In my day, we didn't have TV. We had to read, off of stone tablets! And we didn't have electric lights, we had to read by the fireplace. And it wasn't any fancy gas fireplace either, we had to chop wood!

Re:Too many remotes:

[TykeClone]

Or better yet, ask a child or younger sibling to do it for you.

Re:Too many remotes:

[Anonymous Coward]

In my day, the stick wouldn't work, you had to TURN things, not press buttons.

I also remember our VCR that had a tethered remote. Great to trip over. But hey at least you didn't have to get up.

I feel old.

Re:Too many remotes:

[netsharc]

Wow, that sort of technology must be from a million years in the future!

Re:Too many remotes:

[wkitchen]

You must be a young'un. In my day, most equipment was operated by knobs and toggle switches. Long pointy sticks would not become practical for many years.

Re:Too many remotes:

[Shai-kun]

I was just about to reply mentioning the Finglonger, but you beat me to it.

Remote Central

[Flaken2000]

See Remote Central for in-depth info on remotes.

http://www.remotecentral.com

Universal

[Ms.XingTianCai]

Universal, to me, would mean controlling everything right? I haven't seen a remote control yet that can shut up the neighbor's dog, without, of course, one of those anti-bark collars. THAT, I would pay money for.

its true

[ErichTheWebGuy]

I have remotes for my: cable box, dvd player, tivo, vcr, tv, cd player, amp, tape deck, and eq.

If that weren't enough, my fan (yea, fan) has a remote. And, I almost bought a car stereo the other day that has a, you guess it, remote control.

Re:its true

[wideBlueSkies]

I bought a Panasonic boom box for my wife the other day. I take it out of the box and guess what it has. Yup, at tiny little remote.

I'm ready to throw the little sucker out(the remote), but I first need to ensure that the radio has full functionality without it. I got burned like that once on a Sony receiver/amp. It had features only accessable from the remote....

wbs.

Re:its true

[Matt Perry]

I don't mind having remotes as long as I can control all of the device from the device itself. I have an old VCR that I can't do much of anything with unless I have the remote. I ended up losing the remote after I moved and now all I can do is play, stop, rewind, and fast forward. I can't configure it or change to the line inputs at all.

Re:its true

[Feztaa]

It had features only accessable from the remote....

My VCR is like that. The Tv/Video button exists only on the remote, which means if the remote ever breaks, the VCR will be entirely useless. There will be no way for me to get picture from the VCR to appear on the TV without that remote.

Re:its true

[zackeller]

You *do* know you can buy another remote?

Re:its true

[Feztaa]

Where? The only places I know of either sell universal remotes that don't work worth crap, or they don't let you buy the remote without the whole VCR that comes with it.

Re:its true

[ErichTheWebGuy]

I feel your pain. I have Adelphia digital cable, and their boxes arent good for anything without the remote. It doesn't even have a volume control!! My VCR only has play, ff, and rew. Not even pause (and yes I tried hitting play again).

Re:its true

[wideBlueSkies]

A replacement remote may or may not be available from the vendor. Depending on any number of things.... When my product is working perfectly 5 years down the road, but I need a replacement remote will I be able to find one? Maybe... but likely not.

From a feature perspective the product shouldn't be crippled without the remote. End of story.

wbs.

Mobile phone is a great remote for laptop

[Uninen]

I've been using Nokia 6600 with Salling Clicker for a while now and it works great.

It can control just about every program and SC ships with ready scripts for the most used, like iTunes, Keynote and Powerpoint.

solution

[the_2nd_coming]

get them all to talk Java. then one device can have the right programming and be able to talk to the device over Wifi and download the interface specs from it and from there it can control the unit.

Re:solution

[rolocroz]

Oh, blow me.

Re:solution

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Congratulations, you've just been promoted to management/marketing.

I have a better idea, let's have them use the 802.11 to download new firmware from the web! The websites that host new firmware will never be down! And we can code the software to not allow you to override or ignore the "can't reach firmware host" error message! And we can put big ornate 11" color LCDs on them, so that consumers have to buy new batteries every 30 minutes! And java really is too weak here, maybe we can go with .NET.

Re:solution

[foidulus]

get them all to talk Java
' Eh? I'm not sure what you mean by "talk Java"...Java is a programming language, not an inter-device interface. I think what would be preferred we be some type of open communications standard.
Yes, Java runs on a lot of devices, but that doesn't mean that 2 devices running Java will be able to understand eachother....

Re:solution

[pyrrhonist]

It's really funny when someone with no clue goes on a rant.

Check this out before you embarass yourself.

Re:solution

[pyrrhonist]

He's referring to Jini

Using Jini, two devices running Java will be able to understand each other. The idea is that devices that need to be controlled expose not only their API, but their user interface. Thus, if you had a Jini-enabled remote, and it found a stereo on your bluetooth network, it would download the UI for the stereo from the stereo and display it on the remote. Since the UI would be made by the stereo manufacturer, it would allow you to control all its features. Java's security model allows this to be done in a secure fashion.

Re:solution

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

And that solves any of our problems, how exactly? If companies just bothered to spend a little more time on the remotes, rather than skimping on them in favor of the tv/stereo, we'd have no need of jini. Matter of fact, we still have no need of it, even now.

More generic buttons, a learning feature, or hell, maybe industry standard IR codes. Or, we could just overengineer it, put little arm7 cpu's in everything, and release new software versions every 3 weeks, so that nothing you have ever quite interoperates. I think I know where your vote is.

Re:solution

[pyrrhonist]

You obviously didn't read the link.

And that solves any of our problems, how exactly?

Because the device being crontrolled exposes not only its API, but its user interface. Therefore, your universal remote control is really universal, because the UI is being provided by the device being controlled.

If companies just bothered to spend a little more time on the remotes, rather than skimping on them in favor of the tv/stereo, we'd have no need of jini.

That isn't the problem. I have no issues with any of the remotes that I have for any of my devices. The trouble arises when you want one remote to control several devices. The upshot of Jini is that it can be used to control *any* device that is Jini enabled, because the controller doesn't need to know how to control the specific device (i.e. the interface is provided by the device being controlled).

More generic buttons, a learning feature, or hell, maybe industry standard IR codes.

Which doesn't help you control the special features of a device. With Jini, this isn't an issue, because the device provides the interface.

Or, we could just overengineer it, put little arm7 cpu's in everything, and release new software versions every 3 weeks, so that nothing you have ever quite interoperates.

I don't understand where this came from. There's NO standard now, and nothing interoperates. How is this better than a standard where everything is made to interoperate?

PARENT IS A KARMA WHORE

[Anonymous Coward]

and its obvious. mod parent down.

Old School Remotes

[MyNameIsFred]

When I was a child, TV remotes were uncommon and worked very differently -- they used sound. I vividly remember our remote. It had four metal bars visible thru the grating. Pushing the on/off button caused a hammer to hit one of the bars. The TV reacted to the sound. Very basic functionality: On/Off, volume in steps, and up/down channel changing.

Oh the hours of fun. Learning how to change channels by jiggling my Mom's car keys. Or the dog perking up when we hit certain buttons.

Although it beat by Dad's previous remote. Hey son, go change the channels. Kids today don't know what they're missing.

Re:Old School Remotes

[WindBourne]

I remember those. They were fun to find things that would change the channel. And yeah, we had a tv that the keys could change if shaken correctly.

Re:Old School Remotes

[ediron2]

The one I remember: there was this pachinko-like game we got for christmas that had round slugs/tokens. The tokens all had this 4-loop (think 4-leaf clover) hole cut out of them, and when they rattled together, the channel changed.

Christmas afternoon, my cousins and I drove the grown-ups crazy. We'd figured this out already, and we discreetly sat off to the side and played our game while they tried to watch football. Every time the channel changed in the middle of a play, someone would let out a shriek or a cuss.

Once they figured out (we were about ten, and us kids laughing until we were falling over might have clued them in), they banned us and the game from the room. After the game, we were given center court to demonstrate our find. Very cool, they all agreed.

Less than a month later, something bad (I forget what) happened to the remote. Lost or destroyed it. For the next couple years, we changed channels by rattling several tokens in a cup. Thank god there were only 3 channels! I still have a couple of the tokens, even.

Every time I think back to something like this, I kind of chuckle at the thought that *IT* might be the first indicator of my being an avid hacker. But then I remember something earlier...

Re:Old School Remotes

[NateTech]

We still only have three channels... with anything worth watching, anyway. ;-) Plus hour long commercials (so-called "infomercials", the 24 hour animal sex channel, CNN, and ESPN.

(No MTV doesn't count as a channel anymore. They're just a longer informercial interrupted by boring RV-trip documentaries.)

Re:Old School Remotes

[Malor]

We had a similar television, though I have no idea what brand/make it was. We found out that the lights in the room could change the channel.

The lights were floorstanders with a lampshade. The lampshade connected via two prongs that fit into receptables on the base. There were little metal dome covers to sort of lock it into place. We discovered, by accident, that flipping the little metal cover up would change the channel when it hit the base again.

The light ended up completely replacing the remote for us. It worked 99% of the time, so it was actually more convenient than trying to find that stupid remote. (you have to realize, at the time there were only 13 channels, and we changed round-robin.... 2 to 3 to 4, and then back to 2 after 13. We couldn't go directly to channel 8, we had to flip through everything in between.) And back then, changing channels was 99% of what we did with a remote... we'd turn the TV on when we walked into the room, and once the volume was adjusted, we hardly ever touched it. All we did was change channels, and we never spent any time finding the lamp. Although I bet we looked pretty weird reaching up and flinging that little cover over and over and over (12 or 13 times) when we wanted to change from channel 5 to channel 4. :-)

I was thinking about suggesting a modern version of this... a remote-control lamp would be kind of neat. Unfortunately, you do so much more with a remote now that it's probably not practical. Bummer. Changing the channels with the light was cool. :-)

Re:Old School Remotes

[Stone2065]

I fully concur with Fred. When I was a kid, I WAS the remote. "Change it to channel 8, and adjust the rabbit ears, that channel is horrible..." etc. The idea of a truly universal remote would be great, but I'm waiting for one that is a true universal... and preferably RF instead of that wonderfully sporraticly working IR. I have had IR remotes that you could just about use AS a RF remote... and others that needed a set of sights on it like a rifle to get it to work properly. All in all, I will believe it when I can get it on Newegg. www.newegg.com

Terminfo

[Hatta]

Heh, this reminds me of the situation with dumb terminals, where every piece of hardware has it's own control codes and today we're stuck with a mindbogglingly complex terminfo database.

It would be nice if manufacturers could agree on some sort of standard protocol. Especially if this standard would work over a LAN as well as a remote control. Then I could replace all my remote controls with a very small shell script.

Re:Terminfo

[NoMaster]

It would be nice if manufacturers could agree on some sort of standard protocol.

They have. Unfortunately, there's about 5 of them...

IIRC, one of them (RC5?) has about 4 different volume up/down codes too...

Sure I'll buy a can of soda

[MisterSarcastic]

"In cities around the world, purchasing a soda out of a vending machine can be as easy as dialing your cell phone."

Because buying soda from a vending amchine is -so- much more difficult than dialing a cellphone. All that heavy change you have to lug around, when instead you could be reading the number off of the vending machine, entering it into your phone, paying an extra 50 cents or so for the minutes it takes to call, navigate through the menu to choose your soda and Voila! Its all taken care of transparently through the miracle of technology.

I'm going to try this out the next chance I get.

Re:Sure I'll buy a can of soda

[AndroidCat]

"In cities around the world, purchasing a soda out of a vending machine can be as easy as dialing your cell phone."

In some cases, it's the same thing. Paranoia Goes Better With Coke

Re:Sure I'll buy a can of soda

[Animats]

I'm surprised the Coca-Cola Company tried that. Back in the 1980s, they tried a similar promotion with lower tech. When you opened selected Coke cans, money, instead of a soft drink, popped out. The cans looked like regular drink cans until opened.

Many complaints. Litigation. Suspicion of product tampering. Worst case was when one was opened on an aircraft, a bomb was suspected, and an emergency landing was made. The annoyed airline switched from Coke to Pepsi.

Re:Sure I'll buy a can of soda

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a dumb idea. What happens when 4 people call the Coke machine at the same time? Who gets the first coke that pops out? That situation may sound silly, but do you really want to turn the soda machine into a sort of 4-way stop with silly rules (let the person on the left go first / let the lady in the high heels get the first coke, etc.)

RadioShack 15-1994

[mdwebster]

The Radio Shack 15-1994 remote can be had, on sale, for $30.00. If it doesn't have the code for a device, you can have it 'read' the signal from the remote for that device. It will hold up to 20 of those, I believe.

If you want more, you can build a serial-interface cable and upload new signatures into the main memory to leave more room for dynamic buttons and macros.

Re:RadioShack 15-1994

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Reading the signal isn't good enough, this remote doesn't have any generic buttons. So if RS hasn't thought of the button, too bad, nothing to assign it to. Unless, perhaps, you want to sacrifice the volume buttons for it...

Re:RadioShack 15-1994

[fermion]

Many years ago Radio shack had the perfect remote control. It was programmable for 6 or 8 devices, it had a LCD screen to indicate device selection and status, had a clock, and was scriptable. The scripts could be set to execute at certain times.

It was a little hard to set up because all the commands had to programmed in from an existing remote. This was bad because this unit would not replace a lost remote, but good because it was expandle to work with all devices. Unfortunately, it broke and I have seen nothing like it, at least for the price(less than $100) and with the level of simplicity that characterized the remote. I wish they would bring it back.

One reason they may not is becuase the remote had no planned obsolescence. It was built to last, and you did not have to buy a replacement when the manufacturers changed thier codes.

Re:RadioShack 15-1994

[mdwebster]

It has 4 generic buttons right across the top below the mode switches and 7 mode switches. You can also cross-map volume, say from your stereo system, to overlap the volume controls when in Cable/Sat mode. There are also numerous buttons that a given mode would rarely use that you could map on top of like picture-in-picutre or surround mode or move.

BTW, After a bit of reading, I believe you can do 50+ custom mappings depending on the signals.

Old School Remotes-Tie died.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. I remember when remotes had a cable coming out of the end of them.

Re:Old School Remotes-Tie died.

[MyNameIsFred]

I remember when remotes had a cable coming out of the end of them.

I remember those too. Saw my first one years AFTER the sound-powered one I mentioned previously. My roommate in college got one with her VCR. I thought what a step backwards.

Get a JP1 remote, much cheaper

[spideyct]

Find a JP1 capable remote. You can get many great universal remotes for MUCH cheaper ($15), that have better features/compatibility than the expensive (>$100) remotes out there. JP1 capable remotes have a pin connection that lets you program them from your computer using free software developed by an avid community.

Since I bought my JP1-enabled One For All Cinema 7 two years ago, it is the only remote I've needed in my living room (with TV, DVD, VCR, Stereo, CD Player, Satellite). I'm serious, all of the other remotes are sitting in a drawer somewhere collecting dust. I think it cost me less than $20.

Re:Get a JP1 remote, much cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, my JP1 remote controls every device I own .. even xbox and proprietory digital cable STB. And the software runs under WINE.

Consumer A/V devices suck!-Tech "talk"

[Anonymous Coward]

XML to the rescue! Oh wait, that was a couple stories back.

Phomote!!!

[Goalie_Ca]

It's not just a remote, its a wireless phone!!!

Well, that was my groups idea for engineering business class. I seriously wonder how well that would actually sell.

Devices SHOULD have front-panel controls

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying that having a proper set of the controls on the device itself - which cannot be lost or run out of batteries, and are generally harder to break or wear out than those awful membrane remote buttons - is LESS robust than the current solution of REQUIRING the remote control for most advanced functions?

Are you the crack pusher who got the VCR designers hooked in the first place? ;)

Re:Devices SHOULD have front-panel controls

[cheezit]

It's simple economics--- for $400 you can have $375 worth of guts and a $25 UI based on three buttons and a one-line LCD plus a remote, or you can have $250 worth of guts and $150 worth of buttons and knobs.

Anybody who has worked on these systems knows that usually the components that fail most often are either not on the main PCB board (knobs, connectors, etc) or are directly connected to a component not on the board. Warranty work is of course built into the cost of the unit...

Re:Devices SHOULD have front-panel controls

[Thomas Shaddack]

The components that fail most often are usually switched power supplies.

I personally prefer things that have controls on the front panel. Remotes are kludgy, tend to fail, tend to get misplaced or run out of batteries. Is the couple pushbuttons really that much expensive? Material cost is about a dozen cents a piece, and that's the more expensive kind.

Or if the vendors are THAT MUCH cheap, they could at least offer a set of solder pads on the board and a downloadable schematics for a do-it-yourself panel controller.

Programmable Remotes-HP 48

[Anonymous Coward]

The HP 48 could be turned into a (sort of) universal remote.

I've had some luck...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Details: Tivo, Sony Universal remote that doesn't do Tivo.

I have the packard bell IR remote reciever connected to my linux server with about 25' of cat5. Custom shell script recieves the input (Sony thinks it is talking to a VCR) and pumps it back out to the Tivo via another serial. Also works for a RCA directv reciever, which the sony remote only partially implements (some menu buttons are gone, etc). Dishnet is a problem, they don't have external serial ports, and even hacking inside doesn't work, seems to be nothing for it in firmware.

Now I just need a 4way (or better) svideo switch, that speaks serial (since we damn well know that even if I got that $70 remote controlled one, my universal remote can't speak that). Think if I got one of those manual button ones, that I could use a PIC or atmel and a few transistors?

PS. The trouble with even the learning remotes, is that they don't have enough generic buttons. Waiting for one that has a "tivo" button isn't the solution, put a few "A", "B", "C" buttons on it, for godsake.

Re:I've had some luck...

[Thomas Shaddack]

Now I just need a 4way (or better) svideo switch, that speaks serial (since we damn well know that even if I got that $70 remote controlled one, my universal remote can't speak that).

Or build it from scratch. It's a few connectors and a handful of small relays. They typically have smaller crosstalk than solid-state chips.

Remotely Controlled Apparatus

[dignome]

The Teleautomaton - Another first for Tesla.

Who else likes alternating current?

universal remote

[darkain]

Laptop: $500
ATI RemoteWonder: $50
IR-Blaster: $50

ability to use an RF remote to control virutally *any* IR device? priceless.

Re:universal remote

[AndroidCat]

ability to use an RF remote to control virutally *any* IR device? priceless.

Don't mess around with an IR-Blaster. Get an IR laser diode and reprogram the neighbourhood.

Why not a wand remote instead?

[AltaMannen]

I'm getting enough of button pressing when I'm at work so why not change the user interface of the remote to a gesture with a wand?

It couldn't be that hard to make something like a ps2 eye-toy that interprets motions made using a black stick with a white tip, and voice recognition for the device choice. Just say 'TV' and draw the channel number in the air. Move the stick sideways to increase/decrease volume and juggle the stick for hilarious results!

Slap a Harry Potter logo on the box and it's bound to sell millions as well!

Consumer A/V devices suck!-Braille.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you can't tell whether or not your TV is turned on, then I think that you've got bigger problems than a remote control."

A remote for the blind.

You had stone tablets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah! In my day, we didnt even have tools to make stone tablets, or anything to chop wood. We couldn't even talk. We just shambled about all day. Luckily a kind being with big eyes who came down on this shiny object helped us out.

There is a remote for the dog problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Smith & Wesson, the original 'point and click' interface.

JINI + bluetooth + phone/pda ideal solution

[MCRocker]

Surely his is the perfect place for JINI technology to really shine.

All you need is a bluetooth or WiFi enabled Java/JINI phone/pda or some such gadget. As you walk into the room, your device gets updated with the appropriate GUI control software for all of your entertainment boxes and you just select the ones you want to use and interact with them via the user interface provided via JINI.

No more searching for the correct controller. The too many buttons syndrome could also be overcome because these apps will be able to use rich client interfaces to simplify the huge number of options and even provide help documentation!

I doubt it'll happen any time soon though.

Tesla

[barakn]

The swearing is unnecessary, but I'd also prefer a definition of remote control that didn't allow a physical connection, like shutter cables or dwarves hiding in cabinets, to the device being controlled. In that case, the first true remote control I can think of is for the submersible that Nikola Tesla demonstrated at the 1898 Electrical Exhibition at Madison Square Garden.

Remote Control Design

[maggeth]

I'm not going to get into all this camera phone business, but I once saw one of those "smart" living room setups where you basically have a PDA to control everything. I can't imagine sitting there fumbling with a stylus to change the channel. If I can't operate it when I'm drunk/tired/etc. it's not simple enough!

Remember, these are Americans you are designing for!

Could have changed the industry years ago

[TrickFred]

...Oh, if only I had invented the Finglonger...

Don't buy the $1699 iPronto

[Rufosx]

Piece of crap, really. Lots of defective units from the factory. Not as easy to use as the earlier Pronto remotes (which I really do like a lot). Surfing the net is slow and hard to use a touchscreen for.

Lots of promise in this unit, as it does run Linux and does a lot of cool stuff, but it just didn't turn out that well.

My recomendation : get a Harmony or a Pronto. If you have a Tivo, get a Pronto (because you don't need the guide in the Harmony).

Remote Controls On The March

[AndroidCat]

From the title, I thought maybe the army was equiping units with them for all those gadgets. A saboteur with universal remote could do a lot of damage in that case. "Sarge, the tank is flashing 12:00 again!"

$1699

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be $1000, but it uses SCO code.

It's the remotes that suck!

[Black Perl]

The main problem I see with complicated A/V systems is that each device stores its own state and the remote is completely unaware of what state each device is in.

Actually, most devices accept "discrete codes" which are separate non-toggle (i.e. ON-only and OFF-only) codes. The problem is that most manufacturer remotes only have toggle buttons, I guess to save space on the remote.

However, many of the sophisticated remotes allow you to download discrete codes for your equipment. Read a recent post of mine where I outline my solution using a Pronto Neo.

Cellphones cause gas stations to explode

[Drakino]

Cool, didn't know cell phones were being used to even allow people to buy gas. That should finally put that damn urban legend to rest.

The Muthbusters even visited the myth twice, the second time addressing everyones concerns that wrote in about the first attempt. They went to the extreme of trying to short out the battery after killing the short protection, and still couldn't generate a spark to set off a gas filled chamber, one a human would probably not survive in due to the air mixture.

Standardized Controls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if every computer keyboard you bought had a different key layout. I don't think it's the number of keys, but the fact that they are in different places on every remote. Can't there be a standard layout and types of keys for at least three types, simple, regular, and advanced?

Ultrasound

[farnerup]

Old remote controls used ultrasound.
Reportedly, you could use them to torture your dog.

Let's see...

[myov]

TV, VCR, CD, DVD, Receiver, Digital cable box... and that's in just one room! Other rooms have TV and DVD/VCR, and one is a Receiver/VCR/LCD combination.

Universal remotes don't work (yes, I have one). Why? Too much context switching - [TV] - power - input - input - [DVD] - power - [Receiver] - Power - Input DVD - [DVD] - Play. Adjust volume? Receiver - Volume. Pause movie? DVD - pause. Not much of an improvement over separate units. Macros won't work either because the remote doesn't know the state of devices (how many times do I send the "change input source" button to cycle to video 2?). And, the remote isn't intelligent enough to know what mode I'm in (should the pause button pause the DVD? CD? VCR? Does it mute the TV or receiver?)

I thought I read somewhere that the industry was starting to come together to standardize basic remote functionality. About #%*! time!

Basic functions should be standardized across all companies - both IR codes as well as UI. For common functions, I shouldn't need to program my remote (ex: volume up should always be volume up!). Eliminate multiple-state buttons. One of the other reasons why universal remotes fail is the differences in UI - my Panasonic TV and Sony VCR remotes didn't get along because both companies had completely different ways of controlling their devices and the remotes lacked the appropriate buttons/functionality.

If you want to get more advanced (I doubt it, since we haven't seen the basic stuff yet), interconnect the devices with a firewire/serial/etc cable. Basically, a more advanced verson of the camcorder/vcr "remote" cable functionality.
Bang & Olfsun had a great system - press play on the vcr and the other components adjust their input/mode/etc automatically. One remote for the entire system. Even the phone could be tied into the system to pause/mute when in use.

Multiple devices? Sony had a great system with one line of VCR's - a "device id" switch on the remote and VCR.

The average person doesn't understand how this stuff works. Make it simple.

We Already Know the Answer

[Beardydog]

Universal Remonster

Oldest TV remote??

[swordfishBob]

You must have had a modern TV. My Grandpa's old TV (b&w, ~12 channels in VHF only) was the old turn-the-knob-and-it-clunks type. It had a remote! It was wired, did volume (actually contained a speaker in the remote), and had a channel button. You configured the channels by setting pegs on a wheel inside the TV. Push the [channel] button, and a motor would start turning/clunking through the channels until it hit the next one with a peg.

That's my memory from ~30 years ago, not sure when he first got the thing...

Sony AV2100

[sbaker]

We have the Sony AV2100 - it was once considered up-market for a 'learning remote' but not in the thousands of dollars range. I paid a little over $100 - but nowadays you can pick one up on eBay for around $30.

Ours has replaced every single remote we have in our family room (EIGHT of them!!). It even successfully learned Lego Mindstorms commands.

It's better than just a regular record/replay learning remote because it can chain together bunches of commands from different remotes and knows things like "when you are controlling the TV, you should still send volume control messages to the home-theatre amplifier". With the chained commands, I can press a single touch-screen button to tell my TV to listen to the DVD player, the DVD player to eject so I can put a disk in, the Amplifier to go to 'Action Movie' mode, the TV to accept wide-format video and the dimmer on the room lighting to go to 10% brightness. Now if I can just get the Lego robot to fetch me a beer, I'll be in business!

The AV2100 has regular mechanical buttons for common things like channel changing, volume control and switching major modes - but it also has a large LCD panel with a touch screen for everything else. The blue back-light on the LCD is worth having so you can see what you are doing in a darkened room.

The best thing of all - it's too big to lose between two sofa cushions. Trust me - that's far-and-away it's best feature!

THIS Sounds Like A Job For....

[Anonymous Coward]

...a standards body!!!

Uh, how about you just get your fat ass...

[gkuz]

up off the damn couch?

The Ultimate Programmable Remote is...

[SirTreveyan]

CHILDREN!!!!

Yea, they might cost more that $1699...but you can control just about anything by telling a rugrat what to do! Also, their capabilities improve with age. By the time they hit 10-11 years old, if you programmed them well, they'll be cleaning house, doing laundry, and cooking dinner, and retreiving beer from the frig in addition to changing channels and adjusting the volume on the TV.

Parents have been programming children in this manner since before radio and TV ever came out. Its just the way the human race trains their offspring.

Everything Old Is New Again

[Coupons]

Steve Wozniak championed the universal remote 20 years ago and the American public went, "Huh?". GE had their own flavor.

Have you ever seen a can grabber? A stick with a clamp on one end for grabbing cans off the top shelf? Been around since general stores. Back in the '50s you could buy one that would grab the TV's barrel switch channel selector. Give it a twist.

I'm tired of all these expensive gizmos that inevitably need to be replaced when you buy new equipment. Just let me network my A/V equipment and dl open source control software off the net. A wireless keyboard wouldn't take up any more space than half a dozen remotes.

I want one...

[a.ferrier]

This is easily worth $1699

He should have thanks, not criticism!

[Futurepower(R)]

Slashdot is a weird place. Do something nice for the community, and you are called nasty names.

Re:He should have thanks, not criticism!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey listen here pal... the OP is a karma whore, and it's painfully obvious. A google search for 'remote controls':

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie =utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=remote+controls quickly yields the mentioned website as the number one result.

OK sure its a cool place to learn more about remote controls. That does not take aay from the obvious fact that a karma whore just got a +2 mod, and for what? Being the first to search Google on the article subject? Here, let me demonstrate: Do a google search on a variation of your username: futurepower. The number 1 result is futurepower.org.

" See futurepower.org for in-depth info on futurepower:

http://www.futurepower.org"

Get it now?

Smith and Wesson

[Anonymous Coward]

makes too much noise.

A pan full of antifreeze works much better.

Re:Smith and Wesson

[HermanAB]

Hmm, or a few fish hooks inside a meat ball...

Actually, the humane way to make a dog shut up without killing it, is to spray it with lemon juice.

The lemon juice confuses its sense of smell and then it stops barking. This works, because dogs actually cannot see well at all and rely mostly on smell to detect danger/unknown things.

So, next time just grab a spray bottle of kitchen cleaner - psst - silence...

Shit...

[Anonymous Coward]

For $1700 i could pay some mexican to change my channels for me.

Float's Mobile Agent

[Anonymous Coward]

float's mobile agent makes remote controlling one's Windows computer with your mobile phone pretty well.

It's covered by the GPL so anyone is open to porting it to other platforms/languages.

PS: I use it with my Bluetooth enabled Sony Ericsson T610.

I don't

[Johnnienumlock5]

have a remote you insensitive claude
Honestly, I don't have a remote. I dont mind getting up and wlking the 2 meters to change the channel.

Re:I don't

[NateTech]

Have a dictionary you illiterate Stephen.

(The word is "clod".)

As a kid, I was my Dad's remote...

[bergeron76]

... so yes, they did exist (of sorts) before they evolved into what they are today.

Boy were my legs happy when our Betmax player came with a wired remote!

Ahh, the memories.

Automotive Remotes

[Mr. Droopy Drawers]

I wondered this too until I realized that the IR remote is a perfect method for connecting up these OEM steering wheel mounted controls to aftermarket radios.

I've been looking for a replacement radio for my Honda Odessey Minivan. The IR remote adapter from PAC SWIX

Features added to equipment don't have to be used for their original purpose.

Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

My name is "Claude", you insensitive...

True Universal

[DMUTPeregrine]

The best universal remote is: A palm pilot, witht the omni remote program. Aim the remote at the IR sensor on the palm. Record the IR pulse sequence. Output it back. Supports everything, custom buttons, etc. I think that specialised universal remotes will be coming out like this sometime. It's quite effective, and doesn't need a library of devices to function.

Pointy stick?

[epepke]

Our televisions had knobs, so we used to have to file a groove in one end of a broomstick.

(No shit--I actually did this.)

A, B, C buttons

[Darthnice]

I absolutely love my MX-500. It has every button of every one of my 6 devices programmed in, and they all have reasonable labels thanks to the renameable buttons up top. Runs about $100.

wow!

[MasTRE]

From the article: Royal Philips Electronics' top-of-the-line $1,699 iPronto universal remote can wirelessly connect to the Internet to display news or e-mail, as well as a TV programming guide on its LCD screen.

Wow - now that's-a remote-a control-a!

I was a teenage remote control

[dbIII]

10!, 2!, 7!, more volume!

My solution to Remote Hell

[Blue_Wombat]

I have a learning unit (a rebadged UC515 I think) that makes life a bit easier.

However, my elegant solution has been the "Lazy Wombat Box". It is a mounted box beside my chair with a number of little compartments (4 wide & 3 deep, making 12 slots, with adjustable spacers). At last count it was up to 8 main remotes (Universal, Stereo, DVD player, DVD recorder, TV, VHS VCR, Cable Box, and heating control) and two seldom used remotes (PC & Beta VCR). Keeps them all in one place and organised. I use the universal most of the time, but only have main settings loaded, so resort to the individual ones as well from time to time.

Mine was store bought, but it could just as easily be a simple (and practical!) construction project as well.

Re:My solution to Remote Hell

[Kiryat Malachi]

Dear god.

Do yourself a favor - copy the Beta tapes over to some other format and sell the Beta as a collector's item. It's just ridiculous.

Re:soviet russia . . .

[occupied]

I lived in Russia nearly six years; therefore I guess you think you are joking. Bushist sort of wit though.
I have a SONY AV box and the remote that comes with that can "learn" 10 devices. Takes a while though to "teach" it. I think think it doesn't run Linux. There's no "Intel inside" sticker on it either :-)
In Russia I bought a SONY remote commander. Even the book confused me. Yes I have (or had) a pilot's licence. About six inches square an backlit panel. You can program it to power up and start devices in sequence, but its quicker to cross the room and punch the buttons.
It has a big brother which itself has a matchbox size remote. To find it. At that size it'd be hard to lose it, unless your dog eats them, or your spouse likes the phrase "look with your eyes, not with your mouth."
So its a contradiction. The big ones don't get lost, the little ones don't have a finder.

Remote locator

[Krusty_Klown]

The new $80 Radio Shack 8-in-1 Kameleon is the first universal remote control to include a finder feature. If the remote disappears, a user could press a button on a separate finder device for up to 14 seconds to make the remote control beep loudly.

No it isn't. I had a "4 in one" brand remote in 1996ish that had a locator remote that when pressed would cause the universal remote to beep so you could find it.

Re:Remote locator

[harborpirate]

Wait, wouldn't you need a locator remote for the locator remote?

We really need to cut back on the remotes.

So ?

[da5idnetlimit.com]

buy the new set, check that the brand new remote works with yiu old kit, windex (galass cleaner fluid) the old one, put it back in the pack andf return the whole stuff....

If you are more technical and the remote is not a clip on plaqtic case, unscrew, exchange the circuits, ditto...

Apple will slam this market soon...

[Whatchamacallit]

Apple is really very good at interface design and making things that just plain work. I've used every computer since the early 80's and Apples stuff continues to amaze me.

The iPod was the first to place the new Digital Hub into the mainstream retail market. Supporting Windows helps this greatly. I just blew my friends mind with iTunes the other day. He's currently ripping hundreds of CD's on his Dell using iTunes so he can RIP/MIX/BURN his own discs. He'll probably get an iPod mini later on. The Dell came with a variety of Windows music software. WMP, MusicMatch, Dell Jukebox, etc. He never used any of it at all. Once iTunes was installed it's an explosion of usage! His next computer will probably be a Mac as well. He and his wife were deeply impressed by what they could do with iTunes and will undoubtedly look into Apple's systems when the Dell reaches EOL.

There was an interview with Steve Jobs recently when Apple released the Airport Express device where you can stream from a MAC/PC to any stereo in the house. It includes a wireless access point, ethernet, and a USB hub to control a remote printer. The device is only $129. The audio is both analog and Optical Digital. The question posed to Jobs was "What about a remote control?" The response was a stare then a slight smile and no comment.

I bet that Apple is working on a fantastic remote. In fact, the rumors of a PDA may actually be a touch screen universal remote control instead. Imagine a small thin remote control with a touch screen and it will house a lithium Ion rechargeable battery and have a small docking station to recharge it. A full color screen. Pre-programmed control codes for 10,000 devices along with a learning mode. Connect it to a Mac/PC and custom program the button layouts. Control iTunes remotely over the 802.11 network. Stream iMovies to your TV, etc. It's all part of the digital hub concept and Apple could blow everyone's mind. If you don't think that Apple is thinking about this stuff, think again. The concept of a digital hub was and is pretty original and it will take time to work out all the ideas that will follow. Apple spends a huge amount of money on R&D and they do a fantastic job.

I say they should consider buying TiVo and taking it to the next level or build their own TiVo like device. Tie the subscription into .Mac. The new Codec for HD transmission at a greatly reduced bandwidth could mean streaming of video in the home network. Think iTunes concepts being taken to Movies and TV shows.

Do it with a Pronto

[shokk]

Sorry, but my little Philips Pronto for $180 off EBay does all I need. Fully programmable, though not in color, I can control X10 devices and all my AV gear.

If you have a Palm Pilot

[redshadow01]

Then use OmniRemote. I have this program, it can learn from any remote an unlimited number of buttons, and even if your remote does not use a standard IR frequency, you can change it. Best of all, if you don't have the remote, you can download IR codes in hex format for whatever device you want. And to top it off, you can design your own interface on the Palm screen and create macros...(one button to turn on my receiver, TV, Digital Cable box and whatever else I want)...

Discrete codes

[Andy Dodd]

Some devices support discrete on/off codes. (i.e. "if it's on don't do anything, if it's off turn on")

Unfortunately such devices are typically rare and expensive. :(

$15... slightly low unless you get lucky

[Andy Dodd]

About the cheapest JP1-ready "out of the box" remote is the One For All 8810w (Same as their 8811, just with a different model number for Walmart's price guarantee purposes - Walmart can say they have the lowest price because only they carry that specific model number.) It's $18 plus tax.

I have an RS 15-2116. I love the feel of it, I love the flexibility, and lots of buttons. A bit more expensive at $30. I'm probably going to get an 8810w soon just as a second remote. (One for downstairs, one for upstairs.)

A JP1 cable will cost you $10-15 to build depending on your local electronics shops and what you have in your junkbox at home. I think they can be bought for $15-20 plus shipping.

Use JP1

[Andy Dodd]

The 15-1994 remote happens to be PC-programmable. For more info, go to http://www.hifi-remote.com/ - It is MUCH better to use a proper device "upgrade" loaded into the remote than the learning functionality. You can only learn 20-30 buttons before the remote runs out of memory, but if you program it with a complete remote upgrade, you can have ALL buttons programmed for multiple devices. (I have at least 4 upgrades loaded into my 15-2116 remote via JP1.)

No they won't.

[Andy Dodd]

At least not if it's as you describe.

For most users, tactile feedback is a necessary part of the user interface. In an optimal situation, there should be NO need to look at the remote to use it. You should be able to know exactly where to push without having to look.

Take a guess why the "ancient" IBM Model M keyboard is so popular with people who use keyboards on a regular basis - it gives excellent tactile feedback, so you KNOW that your keypress has registered without any need to look.

Apple has some excellent human interfacing people in terms of on-screen UI design, but they suck at physical ergonomics... The keyboards they released around the time of the iMac and have used since then have been the most nightmarish keyboards I have ever had the misfortune to use. Oh, don't forget the nightmare that their original hockey-puck mouse was - Entire departments at my school would buy new mice and throw every single one of the stock mice away when they ordered new Macs.

I've heard of quite a few people that thought a touchscreen remote like the Pronto was the answer to their problems, and eventually wound up "downgrading" from a $300+ Pronto to a $20 Wal-Mart 8810w or $30 RS 15-2116/2117 (which happen to be a JP1 PC-programmable units, which is why they have become so popular.)

My remotes are all bound together with duct-tape.

[cowlum]

Ugly yes...


but really masculine...

yep

Programmable Bliss: the MX700

[jhamm]

http://www.remotecentral.com/mx700/index.html $157: http://www.trendsandgadgets.com/product_info.php?p roducts_id=5551