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

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!

[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!

[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.

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.

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? ;)

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!

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?