Slashdot Mirror
Simple, Stand-Alone Internet Communication Devices?
ashitaka asks: "One month ago my father-in-law died leaving his wife to live alone for the first time in her life. She lives in a somewhat rural part of Japan, north of Tokyo, in an area with few neighbors. My wife is her only daughter and we live in Canada; her only son is an engineer for Fujitsu and spends many days on the road. We know she misses our kids and we try to get over to Japan as much as possible, however more than once every year or two is a stretch." What ashitaka is looking for is a simple device that can be used for video conferencing or instant messaging, that can be controlled with a remote and administered remotely. Assuming something like this doesn't exist, what would it take to bend a PC to this task?
"Videophone technologies up to now have required knowledge of computer operation and Instant Messaging software or having to go through the complexities of setting up the traditional video conference. Here we are talking about a 76-year old Japanese granny who has never (and probably never will) touch anything more complex than the phone or the TV remote.
I'm looking for a device which can be administered remotely, has 6-8 large 'quick-dial' buttons and an emergency button which will try to connect through a list of contacts if required. It shouldn't look like a computer but should support connecting to whatever IM clients would be appropriate. It would be nice if it could turn on the TV when a particular Universal remote button or buttons were pressed to save Obaachan an extra step but I'm not sure if current signaling standards for TVs would support that."
I'm looking for a device which can be administered remotely, has 6-8 large 'quick-dial' buttons and an emergency button which will try to connect through a list of contacts if required. It shouldn't look like a computer but should support connecting to whatever IM clients would be appropriate. It would be nice if it could turn on the TV when a particular Universal remote button or buttons were pressed to save Obaachan an extra step but I'm not sure if current signaling standards for TVs would support that."
But apart from that, you might be able to make an N800 work.
Failing that, get ready to build your own from scratch.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
They've been slowly raising their rates regularly, so we're looking to switch to another voip provider, but Packet8 has a standalone video phone.
o phones.aspx
http://www.packet8.net/equipment/residential/vide
I am beginning to see why Japanese companies put so much effort into developing home robots.
It should be possible to throw something together out of fairly standard parts. A PC running Linux, a web cam, a TV tuner and an IR remote control. But I can't see anything off the shelf doing this.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
An XBox 360 would likely fit the bill. Well two actually, one at both ends. Equip both with an Xbox Live Gold account and an XBox Live Vision Camera and you have instant, plug in and go video teleconferencing. This would be very simple, although the cost is going to be about $600 each for the first year (xbox 360, camera, gold account, rechargable battery for the controller). Then just renew the xbox live gold accounts each year for another $50.
D-Link makes a video-phone type device that seems to fit your requirements, but does require a broadband connection.
It seems like the OLPC has the right idea with respect to how to use Linux: Simple, consistent, limited scope system designed for a uniform hardware platform.
Right now one of the biggest hurdles for Linux uptake is the critical mass problem. If you take all of the technologies loosely associated with Linux right now, there is probably plenty of critical mass for Linux to take off in a meaningful way. However, it's not really about Linux adoption, it's about vertical stacks of technologies in the Linux universe.
In short, we don't have "Linux" users. We have Linux + Gnome + Firefox + Debian system managment-isms. For programmers, it gets worse: We have Linux + GNU + X11 + Cairo + GTK + Python + Gnome APIs. Now, at each level imagine somewhere between one other and 50 other competing technologies.
If you don't believe me, feel free to respond to this post and tell me what the best development environment / language to write Linux desktop apps in is. Okay, now what's the best distribution? While we're at it, what's the best text editor? With that as a context, now tell me about UI guidelines and keychain standards.
It seems to me that, for better or worse, the OLPC project the potential to create a huge, gigantic mass of individuals with a more heterogenious understanding of what Linux "looks like" than has ever existed before.
Apple has differentiated itself by creating a cohesive environment. Apple users get angry when applications don't conform to specifications. If within the "Linux community" enough people could agree to write apps to a specification, Linux's popularity would rise and we'd see broader uptake.
Sugar could be that for a certain 90% demographic of Linux users. Imagine: A uniform display canvas, UI standards, consistent technology stack?
I don't even know that Sugar's technology doesn't suck, but at least it gives some architectural direction.
Anyway, lest some overzealous moderators accuse me of drifting dangerously off topic, I see a huge need for the sort of limited-purpose system that the original poster is looking for. My parents, my wife's parents and grandparents, (Myself?!) etc. I'm sure there are more than a handful of people here who wish they could set up a system that had some basics like video conferencing (to talk to the grandkids), web surfing, and... what else?
*The* killer feature would be having a big enough body of users that you knew patch management, upgrades, and hardware compatibility would be automatic. Maybe an OLPC with a bigger screen and keyboard for grandma's eyes and arthritic fingers would fit the bill?
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Built in camera, software included, toss in Apple Remote Desktop 3 and it is remotely administrable. Very stable, not as subject to thousands of viruses, very decent power consumption, etc.
--Tomas
Looking at the D-Link videophone that was suggested I also found they have a stand-alone unit that connects to your TV to display the video and audio. It also has jacks for external audio input an external phone/answering machine to take voicemail messages even from video callers and comes in wired and 802.11b wireless models.
Control is through a TV-remote control device so it's close perfect. I would have to see how well it could be remotely controlled from outside but I'm sure some hacking possibilities are there.
Now to get Obaachan a broadband connection and we're in business.
Thanks all!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Freedom, not a lack of it is the answer to the problems you think you see.
If you don't believe me, feel free to respond to this post and tell me what the best development environment / language to write Linux desktop apps in is. Okay, now what's the best distribution? While we're at it, what's the best text editor? With that as a context, now tell me about UI guidelines and keychain standards.
I don't believe you because every useful program has been made to work with every distribution without a lot of effort. Gnome, KDE, X, etc all works together in a way non free junk never will. It's about freedom, not marketshare or "standards". When you define real standards for interoperability, the rest takes care of itself.
Others have pointed to dlink and packet8 phones. Because free software has swept up the embedded market, they both probably use some form of gnu/linux. If they don't now, they will later. All that's really needed for these devices to thrive is well regulated public networks. Without that, we will probably waste another decade while "broadband" and IM providers battle it out with incompatible crap.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.