Sony's $700 Linux-based Remote Control

SlashdotMeNow points out a remote control to consider if money is no object: "The NAVITUS from Sony has a 64k colour touch-screen with tactile response, 32MB of RAM and a 200MHz processor. Looking at the photos it looks like a sexy little beast! It uses Linux as an OS and you can customise just about everything about it by linking it up to your PC. Hell, this thing is more powerful than my iPAQ. Useful for replacing your TV, DVD, sound system and other home entertainment system remotes, it can also control your lights and air conditioner. ... Just be careful using the Memory Stick slot - you don't want to get a virus on a device that controls your whole house!" Of course, that would have to be a Linux virus ...

Comments

Way to pricey...

[chrispyman]

While that sure does seem like the ultimate remote, who in their right mind would put $700 down for something as simple as a remote? Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't lowering the price quite a bit make 'em sell like hotcakes?

Re:Way to pricey...

[idlemind]

The same type of people who would buy that remote might also buy B&W Nautilus speakers for about $50,000

Re:Way to pricey...

[shaitand]

How is that different than any other touchscreen remote you pick up for $150 or less?

Afaik there is nothing special about how this control things, any universal remote can do it, you just don't have suitable buttons and with a programmable touchscreen universal of any kind you eliminate the button problem...

Re:Way to pricey...

[NexusTw1n]

The same kind of people who go to AMX for wired home solutions.

There are only 2 main players in the millionare home and lecture theatre/boardroom setup - AMX and Crestron . Both charge an arm and a leg for solutions.

AMX even have their own unique programming language which means lucrative engineer visits every time you add a new piece of kit. It is very Visual Basic like but the only way to learn the language and acquire the compilier is spend a fortune on an AMX programming course. A user programmable remote control for $700 is easily a better solution for homes and small offices.

This could be Sony's attempt to break into the market, there is a huge gap between the millionare home theatre system, and the consumer level home theatre setup, Sony could well be planning to target this untapped market.

Jacking in from the "Big Fucking Deal" port

[multiplexo]

OK, it's a Philips Pronto that runs Linux. Who cares? Just because something runs Linux doesn't make it interesting or significant, perhaps it did in the late 1990s, but it's 2004, everyone knows that Linux is cool, especially device manufacturers who can use it for free and get an operating system much better than Windows CE (Is the abbreviation for Windows CE, WinCE, is one of the worst ever in the history of computer product names or what?) and not end up having to pay the Microsoft tax.

Here's a cheaper idea

[psetzer]

I think that it would be cheaper to take advantage of the fact that just about every PDA out there has a built in IR transmittor. Just program it to act like a universal remote and you can save yourself several hundred dollars. Heck, if I were bored enough, I'd do it myself. I do know that it's possible to do it with a Lego Mindstorms Control Brick, so this should be doable, if not easy.

where is the limit?

[simonharvey]

I see his stuff and I think who in their right mind would want any of this?

You are going to have the materialistic mega rich who after buying this stuff are gonna confirm the fact that they are just out there to pump their lives full of materialistic crap pefore they die. May be priding them selves on how sophisticated and character filled they are by the amount of technological crap hey own.

This is a gross generalisation and I know that it is going to come back full circle one day but $1400NZD for a remote?

isnt their some otherway to spend your money on a more worthy cause???

Re:where is the limit?

[egomaniac]

I see his stuff and I think who in their right mind would want any of this?

You are going to have the materialistic mega rich who after buying this stuff are gonna confirm the fact that they are just out there to pump their lives full of materialistic crap pefore they die. May be priding them selves on how sophisticated and character filled they are by the amount of technological crap hey own.

Ah, yes. If you can't afford it, then it's by definition a waste of money. See Aesop's parable of the sour grapes.

I make a lot of money, and consequently have a lot of "materialistic crap", including two $1,000 remote controls (one for the living room, one for the home theater). While I'm sure that that seems like a terrible waste of money to you, keep in mind that the only reason you can afford a lot of the technology you can today (computers, televisions, etc.) is that the "materialist mega rich", a.k.a. early adopters, bought the stuff when it was ridiculously expensive and therefore helped to finance the R&D that made it affordable to the masses.

In ten years, when plasma TVs are a commodity item, I'm sure you'll still look down your nose at the idiots who spend $20,000 on them today. And I'm sure the thought "Hey, if they hadn't done that, the technology would have stagnated and I wouldn't have been able to afford mine" won't even cross your mind.

Society needs early adopters. Whether it's the latest and greatest $500 video card or a super-expensive remote control, if nobody buys it it will never become cheap enough for the common person to afford.

Incredibly overengineered

[lingqi]

I can't imagine what sane mind would try to market something like this! Let's see...

1) remote should be take anywhere, put anywhere device, as this thing is a huge power-hog, it needs no rest on the charging stand when not in use.

2) remote controls basically sends a relatively short sequence of bits to an infrared LED when a certain button is pressed. It does not need a 200MHz processor or a 65k colour screen to do this. In fact, this gets back to the battery / power thing - you can make a remote control that functions perfectly that can last a year on two alkaline cells.

3) if you really want customizability, the remote itself doesn't have to do all of this! it would be much wiser and cheaper and easier (more later) to simply have the remote be programmable via, say, a computer - it'd be like writing to a cheap FPGA, if you want the remote to be that powerful. as for easier - programming a remote on a well designed application on a computer monitor would be much easier than doing the same on the tiny remote display, no?

4) and it's like... twice the price of my TV! geez... fuck, i might as well write an app for my palm to control the TV via the infrared port. Heck it might be cheaper too...

Re:Incredibly overengineered

[Tyrell Hawthorne]

Fellow Slashdotters, please learn this: the fact that something doesn't suit you doesn't mean it's crap. Remember, you are not the customer. There's a market for advanced do-it-all remotes. Just to name an example, Philips made the Pronto which is a touch-screen remote. It cost a few hundred dollars, a friend of mine's dad has one. He also recently spent $5000 or more upgrading his hifi set. Philips decided there's a market for even more up-scale remotes, so they've introduced a Pronto with a color display, for someting like $1200 if my memory serves me right.

This device from Sony does a whole lot of things better than previous offerings on the market (more powerful, more legible screen, tactile feedback LCD display, and hard buttons, to name a few). People spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on home cinema sets. They can afford to spend $700 on one of these.

Aside from being really nice for the intended customers, it has a high geek coolnes factor. Stop complaining, start drooling!

Re:....a remote?

[idlemind]

I think the market for this device is for those who have custom home theaters. You can easily spend over $200,000 on a home theater; $700 would be nothing.

Am I the only one

[Machine9]

...that would like to code a virus *specifically* to make someone's house go berserk because of his remote?

surely I'm not the only one...

Re:If you want to know why it costs $700...

[Fiz Ocelot]

The Kameleon Has a "Tactile Response Display". It isn't exactly an lcd, as button location is static, but they do animate and such. They also feel like buttons, a nice remote overall with jp1 connector(JP1 allows you to program it via computer).

Anyway my point is, I don't think that will drive the price up, as a kameleon is only $60. It's pretty cool, worth a look at a local radioshack, not sure who else has them besides online.

Are going in the right direction?

[BishopBerkeley]

Does this mean that we have lost all will to demand better products? Instead of making products easier to use or more compatible, we are being offered an expensive way of wading through the clutter.

How about implementing an industry standard for remote controls similar to, say, the v.9x standards for modems? I know it's far-fetched, but it's worth a try.

On a different note, what if people manage to hack into these remotes and take control? Worse yet, what if they keep the channel fixed on Fox "News"?

Re:Why?

[dustinbarbour]

The idea is to make life easier and give you more time to enjoy life. Remember the optimism of the 50s.. (at least in America)? The idea was for there to be less time spent working and more time spent playing without sacrificing on the amount of work done. Make work faster.. make everything easier. Having one remote is far easier than having 6. Believe me.. I've got plenty and wish I had this bad-boy. Let's see.. TV, cable box, stereo receiver, DVD player, home automation.. That's five.

I understand your point, though. America is getting FAT and not having to get up from the couch to change the channel certainly isn't helping. However, keep in mind that a lot of people do still get outside and participate in physical activity. I, for instance, play hockey quite regularly, and spend my weekend hiking, going to the lake etc.. I don't need the extra workout of turning my tv on at the tv itself.

So this remote is handy and attractive to manywithout the fear of them getting fat.

why?

[shaitand]

Why pay $700 for this remote? It doesn't sound like it actually DOES anything a programmable lcd remote had for $150 can't do.

Don't get me wrong, embedded linux is always good. But this is just another example of Sony ridiculously overcharging for their products... like they always do.