Slashdot Mirror
Your Next TV Interface Will Be a Tablet
waderoush writes "You can forget all the talk about 'smart' and 'connected' TVs: nobody, not even Apple, has come up with an interface that's easy to use from 10 feet away. And you can drastically curtail your hopes that Roku, Boxee, Netflix, and other providers of free or cheap 'over the top' Internet TV service will take over the world: the cable and satellite companies and the content owners have mounted savvy and effective counterstrikes. But there's another technology that really will disrupt the TV industry: tablet computing. The iPad, in particular, is the first 'second screen' device that's good enough to be the first screen. This Xconomy column argues that in the near future, the big-screen TV will turn into a dumb terminal, and your tablet — with its easy-to-use touch interface and its 'appified' approach to organizing content — will literally be running the show in your living room." Using a tablet as a giant remote seems like a good idea, and a natural extension of iPhone and Android apps that already provide media-center control. Maybe I'm too easily satisfied, but the 10-foot interface doesn't seem as hopeless as presented here; TiVo, Apple, and others been doing a pretty good job of that for the past decade.
Or do you just have a dedicated tablet that never leaves the viewing area? What about multiple TVs? Gets expensive really quick.
Has been for decades, without external network access it does nothing, I have to plug it in to cable, radio or computers for it to be useful.
I think the author of the article summarises the state of the industry quite nicely. We're in the middle of a massively muddled migration from broadcasting toward video on demand (or whatever you want to call it) and delivered over IP. The "connected TV" apps in development in agency labs everywhere are going to fail spectacularly unless they are looking to make apps for iOS, Amazon (not "generic" Android) and perhaps Windows that stream video content.
I already use my iPhone and iPad as remotes with AirPlay it's absurdly simple to flip video onto any screen in my house or office.
But will broadcasters like Sky and Comcast go for this? And will this fly in non-American/European countries where state and local satellite broadcasters will fight like hell not to be disintermediated?
What do we think?
Relabel some of the controls for channel and volume up and down and source select, and you're sorted.
Seriously. It's so intuitive to use as an on-screen pointing device for more complex selections, but it's about the size of the remote that came with my last TV. You could mount the IR LEDs for the "sensor bar" somewhere in the bezel, without having to have extra stuck-on bits.
presumpyuous... damned fat figners!
Free Martian Whores!
vodafone just launched a Android tablet and smartphone multiscreen extension ofr their cheap dvbt set top box and telecom as well as wind are well on their way to extend their offering with similar tablet centric apps
I already control my media with my phone. I have a DLNA/UPNP server and a DLNA/UPNP BluRay player. My phone can watch the movies or send them from the server to the player.
I bought the HDD with the server off of woot.com over a year ago, and I've found that XBMC makes my dedicated drive look crappy (but the dedicated drive takes less power and space).
I started this back in my iProduct days with iTunes. I just wanted something a little less iWalledGarden so I went with UPNP as much as possible (due to it being totally open) with DLNA as a sort of "make it work smoother with products that don't like open" patch.
To top it all off my Bluray player has a remote control application for my phone that doesn't say anything about being DLNA.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The whole point of TV is to veg out and channel surf. It's called an "idiot box" for reason. Anything that takes your eyes off the screen ruins the experience. This is why a pad remote will never work in a million years on the market. You simply must have physical tactile buttons on a remote. Some virtual interface on a sheet of glass will not do.
This idea is an epic fail!
Life is not for the lazy.
...now everyone can have their own tablet and fight over control of the boob tube.
And do people really feel the need for an "'appified' approach to organizing content" on their TV? Sheesh, get a life.
We'll probably see a generation of remotes that look more like a e-reader, with a nonvolatile display. Most tablet devices require charging daily, if not more often. TV remotes today only need batteries once every few years.
I've not seen a 10 foot interface done well. Most are too much like the giant accessibility font versions of GUIs. They all look like I have a 420i display on a 19" TV that's 10' away. If I have a big screen with 1080p, please put more stuff on it! Paging down through a channel guide five lines at a time when I could easily be viewing 20 or more at a time is frustrating.
And navigating with a 4-way button isn't the greatest, either. I'm thinking that using the iPhone as a Wacom pad-like device operating as a remote mouse would be a lot easier than click-up-up-up-over-over-oops-too-far-back-OK.
IR remotes aren't the greatest, either. Without feedback, they have no way of ensuring the button pressed by the user makes it to the device.
Kinect has an interesting concept: reach to the widget and hold steady until it activates. Not sure I like it, but at least they're trying something new. Of course, it's not nearly "ready enough" to be a general purpose remote, at least not yet. It can't identify the average couch potato if they're not standing up.
The Sonos application on the iPhone is probably the kind of interface that works best. Use the local pad to browse and navigate, then once the selection is made, command the big screen to do it. Which is what the TFA is no doubt saying.
John
FWIW, the Kindle Fire, the Nook Color, and the iPad are all available in contract-free form. You don't like those?
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
If you get a phone contract on your non 3G tablet, I have a bridge I'll sell you real cheap like.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
So the author is a fan of Apple TV even though he doesn't seem to be familiar with the concept. My nephew "sends movies" from his iPod to the TV now. I for one don't want to keep charging batteries in my "remote". TV is fine just the way it is. In fact, it's time for me to unplug cable and go back to real HD with the antenna.
You seem to be treating the iPad as a dedicated TV remote that never gets used for anything else.
The iPad is already next to me whenever I am watching TV. I check texts, emails, look up actors that are in the movies we are watching, etc etc.
When I am done watching TV, I don't leave the iPad on the couch, it goes with me, unlike the remote that is normally dedicated to the TV.
So why wouldn't I charge it every day?
I like microcars
Batteries. It's already annoying when the batteries in your remote run out every couple years. Now what: change them 3 times a week? Have a big ugly extension cable running across the floor to the coffee table for a recharging dock?
My Windows Media Center setup was very plug-and-play and is easy to use from 10 feet away. The only issue are website that's use Flash for layout and consequently don't respect the browsers zoom setting.
Just what I need. A two-handed remote.
Please pass the chips.
Was there actually anything he predicted that can't be done with a iPad and an AirPlay-compatible device, like a receiver or Apple TV 2?
Within that timeframe, everyone will already have one; a smart phone.
Think of the "smart TV" as having a web api: you see a second screen icon on your 'phone, drag a video onto it, the TV (in reality a computer) starts displaying that: pulling content directly not necessarily "X forwarded"
(it would be insane wasting wireless bandwidth in the house supplying a heavy bandwidth SuperHD device that-sits-in-one-place. Control it by wifi, but its main content over a wire.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
no I dont believe it. there's been a curse for remotes for years. none of the universal remote software ever has your telly or the device u get doesn't have IR. if things change in a decade I will be suprised. think about how long it too to standardise a plug socket for powering a tv or lately the new microusb for smart phones. grimbles grumbles cynicism maybe. but I bet u it takes forever.
-- David
This sounds a lot like overkill, considering the amount of processing power in a tablet (and their beavy battery demands - the TV tablet will spend most of it's time on charge - which is even more inconvenient). Since all new TVs already contain a fair amount of "intelligence" the obvious choice is to increment what's already in the box, rather than needing to get a tablet computer for every member of the family - or one that can be used by everyone: from age 2 to age 100.
Ideally, the need for controlling a TV should be on the decrease very soon. Hopefully it's not too long a wait until they are able to learn who wants to watch what and come up with their own plan to record, play and manage the various viewers' schedule.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Ah, you've gotta be kidding me. The cable/satellite companies and content owners are stumbling around liberally applying ineffective protectionism and half-assed policies. Eventually our $100 tv and $50 internet bills will turn into a $150 internet bill with the cable and satellite companies providing the bandwidth.
Most every TV out there has an iPhone app to control it over ethernet/WiFi already.
And DirecTV already has an app to control your satellite box.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The iphone/android makes a better remote, in that it's always in your pocket or nearby to start with, but it's basically the same idea as a tablet remote. I've actually started watching more TV in the last few years despite not having a TV, because it's so easy to find a show I'd like to watch and then watch it, when I want to watch it. The Mobile Mouse app on my phone lets me use the laptop/projector combo in our living room from anywhere, and anyone with a phone can do it to. It's too bad that it's still fairly difficult to get specific content on a computer these days though - it's still much easier to just pirate shows than it is to find a legitimate site to download or stream it - THAT is the epic fail in my opinion.
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
Today's your lucky day! Pretty well every tablet can be bought without a contract. The ones that can are the exception, not the rule.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
But it incorrectly assumes that no one, including Apple, isn't working on exactly this.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/apple-patents-new-touchscreen-remote-control-for-a-future-apple-tv/5610
This is not about creating a new remote for your TV. This is saying your TV is the "big remote display" of your phone (or iPad).
People already surf around with the iPad, they find a funny video of some guy feeding vegetables to his cat or whatever, then saying "Oh, watch this" and hand it to their friend. Now they'll just send it to the big screen.
The advantage is that the iPhone/iPad/Android interface is the one you're already very comfortable with. It's in your pocket 24x7. You already know how to use it and find things with it. The ugly 10-foot interface isn't important, because you look at the handheld to do everything.
The disadvantage is that the iPad isn't a great remote control device. It's made to be interacted with, not to be grabbed and clicked. When you're watching a show and the phone rings, you don't want to study the device to find the mute icon - you want to slide your thumb to the mute button and click. And it's fragile, you can't casually toss it to your friend.
So for everything up to the time when you start watching the show, the iPad is great. For everything after the show has started, current remotes are great.
John
I have been doing this for quite some time now with my Android tablet, my phone as well. Why is it that whenever people write stupid articles like this they act like the iPad is some how leading the charge?? The only thing the iPad really has going for it is market share, otherwise this is nothing new.
I already do that. I have a Mac Mini attached to my TV running XBMC as a media server, and I use my iPad using rowmote as the controller. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Apple - but it Just Works. In fact, I like the setup so much I made the mac mini my dedicated media server and got an Airbook for development and everyday computing.
Only thing I don't like is the Mac Mini doesn't have BluRay. Other than that, everything I could want.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
The tablets themselves as first screens should be the most disruptive of all. The ability to stream TV shows live onto your tablet while you relax outside on the porch would be tantamount to having your cake and eating it too. No more having to plan a living room around a TV: except for those larger events like the superbowl, or for the movie freaks who like to have a home theater setup for a "movie experience". However, those are "specialized applications" of the television signal - for the "base application" of the tv signal, display on a tablet would be good enough for most use cases methinks.
This is extremely short-sighted. First: It's bizarre to think people who have a smart phone that does what they need and also a remote would want to "upgrade" to a smart phone and also an ipad they have to look at and fiddle with to get their TV to do something. Phone as a remote I can see but making the remote larger and more complicated at the cost of the viewer's experience.... no. Second: It's hard to look forward to a time when everything has as much power as it needs but that's what we must do. What do people want in a TV viewing experience? Immersion, simplicity, intuitive interfaces, and programming that pleases them. Think of what provides these things: That's the future of television. Imagine a television that knows you have a date at 7, that you're into science fiction but already saw the latest sf show and don't like watching the same one twice, and that you will get up to fix a snack in about an hour. It makes a very accurate guess. If you don't like it you won't have to flip through channel guides or pages of various shows. you'll be able to say (yes, out loud) "television, some comedy tonight" and get a show you probably want to see. Or push a button on a simple remote for the same effect. Technology is moving away from difficult and unintuitive interfaces not toward them.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
until you punch in the air as your team is close to scoring a goal and find yourselt automatically switched to the cooking channel...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Remotes today all miss the big feature we want: two-way communication. If the state of the devices can be reported back to the controls, it opens the door for better interfaces. Until that happens across the industry, we'll be stuck with cluttered and confusing designs. Apple AirPlay is promising, but it requires a compatible device and expensive hardware (Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, etc).
I dropped TV about 9 years ago, due to unbearable stupidity and zero entertainment value.
And even if it were, is there any news here?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I think we're already there.
Most Americans surf while watching TV. For those that have "cut the cord" and stream or download all of their media it's only natural that they use a laptop or tablet to find new content and display it on the larger screen.
We cut the cord several years ago, and since streaming media offers few commercials we're not well informed when it comes to new movies or TV series. We'll often use our laptops or tablet (HP Touchpad) while watching TV and come across a movie or new series that looks interesting and start streaming it to the TV through a HTPC. It makes sense that eventually we won't need a HTPC and everything will be sent through the tablet.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
There certainly are interfaces that are easy to use from 10'+ away: quality wireless keyboards with an integrated cursor control. My screen is over ten feet away and has been for some time. Honestly, it's not advanced wizardry to set one's menu and input font sizes to something readable from a distance.
I currently use a high end wireless keyboard with an integrated mousepad, a Logitech DiNovo Edge. (Cheaper wireless keyboards with an integrated trackballs can do, but I've yet to find one that lasts.) Applications are set to escaped function keys, online streaming sources are prominently bookmarked, and the touch-activated lighted volume slider is an impressive stylistic touch. There is very little need to see and respond to a visual onscreen interface when watching or listening to media, only media selection.
Yes it's a big, thin remote, but I find it far less a PITA than four differently-sized remotes tied to various devices, with overlapping and inconsistent functions.
I can only assume this guy is living ten or fifteen years in the past. Between cable TV (UK televisions have never had cable decoders built-in), Freeview and a PVR, I think I've used the internal tuner on a TV for a total of about 6 months since 1999.
The TV remote might not go away, just like the buttons on the TV didn't go away. It's just that nobody (except maybe you) will use it anymore.
I've already got four remotes that are gathering dust and a tablet that actually controls what's on the TV screen.
And you live alone. Yaaay you.
That would be right now then, since you can buy all the major tablets without a phone contract.
I got rid of Tee-Vee eight years ago and I'll happily brick-interface with any TV set someone brings to my place.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Of course Apple is working on exactly this. Why else would it keep coming up on Slashdot?
We already do this at my house, so perhaps the prediction is just for his audience and not for everybody. This is tantalizing close, but it's not quite there. Once there's a true Android Dongle for the HDTV I imagine that there will be an app to make the TV an additional display over wireless, like docking your laptop. You're right - the $100 tablets will do this too if you get the right one because the video hardware decode is typically the last thing they compromise on.
Since I got my transformer, about 90% of my video watching has switched to that - mostly Netflix streaming and streaming from the share. I've watched three full movies on my phone though too.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Sony Tablet S - it's an Android tablet that can do DLNA, Sony Media Remote over IP, AND has an IR blaster built in with an awesome multi-device interface. Good looking tablet, controls everything, can "throw" and "catch" media to my network connected TV.
So it's quite likely that my next TV interface will be a tablet... because my CURRENT TV interface is a tablet
Do any of the people advocating using a $500 tablet as a remote to my $800 TV have any kids? The remote has been dropped more times than I can count (and that's just from me, not including the kids). It's regularly coated with chocolate, popcorn butter, and other food residue, and has survived more than one bath in coke.
When my wife wants the remote, I just toss it to her across the room, something I'm not likely to do when it's a heavy tablet (even if I wasn't worried about her missing it and having it crash to the floor).
I don't want a tablet to control my TV, I want a rugged remote and I don't want to add 50% (or even 10%) to the cost of the TV by having to purchase a tablet to control it.
Yet another example of how fucked up the patent system is. LCD-centric universal remotes have been around for over a decade.
Yes, it is cool.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Except remotes like this totally suck to use. I've tried several, including using the iPhone as a remote. Ignoring the 1-time setup pain, actually using it is annoying. At the very least, you have to keep looking up and down, between the remote and the device to do anything that takes more than one press to accomplish.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
10' interface works exceptionally well. Ask any TiVo user. Simple, intuitive, complete. Thing is, for $170 a year, most consumers expect more content than guide data and software updates, or at least access to your shows and recorded data. The industry hated the concept of TiVo and killed the real content (no cable or sat for you!), the users hated the restrictions that kept them from the content they'd recorded and limitations on what could be played from their own network. TiVo puts everything else to shame when it comes to controls and useful simplicity. Really, any TV control box that I can plug in, hand my wife the remote and manual, and walk away is an absolute winner.
The interface already exists, but it will be under patent lock and key for another decade.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why even have a TV? Since I had my tablet I noticed that I watched the big tv much less. My wife and daughter do the same with their tablets. When we moved to our new house last month we never bothered getting a new tv. The nice thing about a tablet is that it is the same as a 50" TV 8ft from the sofa when it is within reach plus the added benefit that you can take it everywhere you go. Now the living room is much cleaner and quieter.
No, the contention is that if you chose not to have a tablet, you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized, just as if you chose not to have a Pet Rock, Chia Pet, Billy the Big Mouth Bass, computer, a cell phone, or some form of transportation. If you will be a luddite or intelligent enough not to buy into the hype, that is your right, but it comes with some costs and many benefits.
Increasingly in other areas such as automobiles, useless features are appearing that are only accessible to those with iPhones or iPads, they are really cool the first three times you use them, they cost almost nothing to the manufacturer, but add to both the purchase price and maintenance costs of the product and they will only be supported for a few years. It's like not having a PC in the 1990s: sure, you don't have to have one, but there is a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't care about and won't be able to do as a result. It's your choice how to make that tradeoff. Stay in the past, if you'd prefer, but don't bitch about the things you can't do as society moves on, or you can keep up with the Joneses / modern life, which is increasingly mobile-centric, and that's only going to accelerate paralleling the decline of modern society / education / freedom over the next decade.
FTFY
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
> Within that time frame, everyone will already have one; a smart phone.
Finally, I can call my remote to find the darn thing.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
It doesnt suck. Sure its not ideal, but it works well and its over wifi so it eliminates line-of-sight. Just like everything else compromise is the key. I find the iphone remote app a fair compromise.
Good-bye
This whole argument falls flat on its face by anyone saavy enough to actually use the iphone to its full extent. Regardless of your hatred of marketing, Apple makes a PROFOUNDLY useful tool.
Good-bye
I have actually been looking for some kind of bluetooth-IR bridge to control my home theater with my phone. After all that's always in my pocket and all them remotes could be where-ever the kids have left them. Noticed some solution for iPhone a while back, but of course that's as closed as every iThing. Might just have to build one myself one of these days.
you are awesome. you troll so much better than I do!
I've got a fossilised Phillips universal remote I picked up 5 years ago for 10 bucks. Controls my tv, DVD player, cable service. Only had to change the batteries twice, changed tvs once, easy to program, and it'll hunt out the codes just fine. Unless I sit on it and break it, I'll probably keep on using it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
People already watch TV on the iPad, at least in the country I live in. See http://www.meo.pt/conhecer/tv/Pages/online.aspx
But the trend isn't using iWhatever as a remote - it's using it as a viewing screen. In the country I live, there is at least one major triple-play operator that offers broadcast for iPhone/iPad, Windows 7 and Android, so you can actually watch TV without being at home looking at the screen.
It's not a "tablet for remote control." It's changing your thinking so that your TV set is just a big-screen extension of your personal device.
John
At least, not until tablets have haptic interfaces so I can use it while looking at the TV instead of at the damn remote^W tablet -- and is small enough to do so while holding it in one hand while pressing the virtual buttons (or gesturing) with my thumb.
-- Alastair
Good for you. That's going to suck when channels go away and you're wading through a list of shows instead. I'm sure you can do it, it's just a lot more pleasant with a smartphone or tablet.
The whole point of TV is to veg out and channel surf. It's called an "idiot box" for reason. Anything that takes your eyes off the screen ruins the experience.
That doesn't make any sense.
The "experience" is when you are watching something. When you are actually switching through channels trying to find something to watch, there is no "experience".
In fact the tablet is far superior for what you are describing. Instead of flipping channels one at a time, wading through commercials to get to see what is on, you flick through a list of EVERY possible show and just start playing one. If you hate it, you go back to the list and try another.
It doesn't alter the "experience" at all, as long as you can watch the main show on the big screen. In fact the "experience" is on par with the highest end sets that have PIP, because the tablet is just like the small secondary screen you can review channel selections while something else is playing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So... you all huddle 20" away from your 10" tablet (recommended viewing distance)?
Who holds the tablet?
Sounds very cozy for the three of you.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Ideally, the interface for my next TV would have an on/off function, an input select function, and maybe a volume control. Optionally, it could have a function for toggling how it handles inputs of different aspect ratios. I see nothing wrong with having a separate controller for a TV, provided it restricts itself to these few functions (and the input select function is of limited worth, to me).
All other media interface functions (whatever device they are presented on) would relate to the media source device, and would therefore not operate on the TV. This is where the real functionality would reside, and it has little to do with the TV.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
We're already using iPads for this, and more. Our AV system is based around a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro, which has an extensive web interface hosted on its own web server that allows control over pretty much everything it does, including selecting av sources, room eq, etc. Very nice interface, actually. Because it's a web interface, there's no "app" required other than a web browser.
I also have the room lighting remote controlled with a web interface using a Synaccess network AC power controller, basically we can do almost anything we want from anywhere -- as our home is basically a large open loft design, that means controlling the AV system from the bedroom, too. The AV7005 brings up my MA700 power amplifier array as part of the power-on sequence, also puts them in standby when shut down.
We use a smallish secondary LCD monitor rather than burn hours off the projector for things like streaming audio, also controlled by IR. You can select between them using the AV7005 web interface, and they power up and down based upon having valid input or not, so it all works together very nicely.
This stuff isn't ultra high-end, it's more mid- to mid-high, but these capabilities are trickling down to the broad consumer price ranges just as everything does. Pioneer has some nice remote iPad AV control stuff too, implemented as an actual app.
The iPad itself makes for an awesome control surface.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
damned fat figners!
Another reason not to get a tablet ;)
Anyway, I generally agree tablets are not the answer (though that's about it with your post - most tablets are not tied to a phone contract and never were; and if you are happy with a $200 TV and $15 remote you are not a consumer in the target market anyway).
I have an iPad and a Harmony remote (which was a lot more than $15, I'll admit). If I wanted to I could get the Harmony iPad app and receiver and it would in theory do everything my remote can and more. The problem is, there are a handful things I use my remote for 90% of the time (set input, volume +/-, mute, pause/play and arrows/select are the vast majority). And a small remote with dedicated buttons that fits ergonomically in one hand does those things SO much faster and more easily than an annoying touchscreen tablet ever will.
Or do you just have a dedicated tablet that never leaves the viewing area? What about multiple TVs? Gets expensive really quick.
Uhm, this has already happened in some high dollar home theatre installs. Crestron and other whole home media solutions have touch screen tablets that dock into the wall near the TV, have a lock mechanism so kids can't take it off the wall, and allow you to control the volume and TV channel / music & lighting in every room of the house already. They have had iPad and iPhone apps for this too that lets you administer the system remotely and even view security cams via Internet for at least the past 2 years anyhow.
For other rooms you can get touch screen interfaces about the size of a light switch that detach, and use customisable flash based interfaces, which allow you to control the home AV gear in any room as well. When docked into the wall it's "screen saver" returns it to the "light switch" state so it just acts as your light switch.
These things will get cheaper... but this article is very old news, that or someone is severely out of touch with the state of the art in home theatre systems.
Further, not everyone in a family (think 2 year-olds to grandparents) has a tablet or would be able to read/use the interface.
The idea only works for people who live alone or who are always within reach of a tablet - which sounds like an incredibly sad way to live
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I've been doing exactly this for about a year now. I don't have cable and don't do physical media. Everything on my tv is streamed from my TV, the iPhone/Pad or for rentals we do grab it straight from the appleTV (though using the iPad as a remote for the keyboard)
not quite, but Philips had the pronto controller, and it was even available as a PalmOs app.
I have a touchpad running android with an xbmc control app hooking into it, works great for watching any files I have on hand, way less awkward than the keyboard/mouse I have hooked to it. Only real annoyances are it's a bit of a pain for youtube/etc/
The XBMC team has already (IMHO) conquered the issue of providing intuitive access to all its features with a very simple remote. Really, you can do everything in XBMC with four cursor-keys plus four control keys (Space, Return, Backspace and a key for the context menu). Map these onto virtually any remote control (I even did it with a Wiimote once) and you have yourself an unbelievably intuitive system with tactile buttons you can use without looking.
Win.
Trying to have more complexity in the remote is a move in the wrong direction.
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.
iPads are not tied to a contract, ever. You can opt to buy 3G connectivity on a month-by-month basis, so even that has no contract. For use in the home, that is obviously not required.
By full extent, I can only assume that you mean not only jail-broken, but also with a custom OS? It's great hardware after all. So why don't you divulge these "profoundly useful" tasks, because the ones I have read about - I think that they are super cool, but not really much more useful than a good programmable remote or something I've done with my laptop and/or server for years.
Who says I hate marketing? Actually my disdain is primarily directed at the consumer who is constantly compelled to buy the newest shiny toy, and then goes on to preach its gospel. Note that I said. "you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized", not, "marketing types will attempt to make you to feel increasingly marginalized." I'm looking at you/me as the problem (resources consumed/pollution/landfills/trade balance), not the marketing people.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
No actually I work within the framework provided for me. I have no interest in hacking iOS devices, but I run a Nook color with Cyanogen mod 7. I wouldnt take a mercedes and try to make it a street racing car either. Right tool for the right job, remember? THe profoundly useful part is where the same device that i use as a phone is also media center with the ability to toss video on any properly equipped screen i own, take pictures, remote control, etc etc. Its the sum of all the parts and in one device. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2692439&cid=39159819#
Good-bye
The disadvantage is that the iPad isn't a great remote control device. It's made to be interacted with, not to be grabbed and clicked. When you're watching a show and the phone rings, you don't want to study the device to find the mute icon - you want to slide your thumb to the mute button and click. And it's fragile, you can't casually toss it to your friend.
When the phone rings I want the TV to automatically pause or mute either when the call comes in or when I answer, based upon my user settings. That is one of the nice things about tying these devices together. It would also be nice, if I decide to keep watching, for the phone to be aware of the audio going out of the stereo and scrub it from the background noise picked up by the phone's mic.
Holding a tablet all day will make wonders for the health of the typical couch potato that just see tv,
It's going to be dictated by the publishers, editors, filmmakers, and content. On the one hand, the types of displays are starting to look like different brands of paper. On the other hand, the content providers are competing with good content produced years ago, which they can't monetize (e.g. Monty Python), as well as Youtube. But whoever makes or distributes something watchable will dictate the fate of the devices, and their remotes. They might choose to distribute for a hardware reason like the article says. Or they might not and the "better" device may go pound sand.
Gently reply
I want a remote that I can continuously hold easily in my hand and that I can learn to use common functions on (e.g., volume up) without looking at. This requires real physical buttons at this point. I would never ever buy a TV that could be controlled only with a relative large and heavy control that I had to look at every time I wanted to even bump the volume up or down a touch. I would consider such a control to have hideously poor usability.
DirectTv offers a nice free app for the iPad that has all the functionality of the remote, plus a bunch of other great features. you can stream some content to the ipad itself, you can use the ipad to control the contents of your DVR and recording schedule, you can set it up to know your favorite teams and show scores and game times/channels, etc. the ipad is actually much faster for switching channels than the remote, since you can use your finger to fling through the guide, as opposed to using directtv's super slow on-screen ui.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Sure, fine, the system can auto-mute/pause, or whatever, but that's not the point. The point is that the iPhone/iPad doesn't have tactile operational buttons, which is really useful when watching. I have a Harmony 1100, with a combination of touch screen and hard buttons, and as a result it's a pretty useful operational remote. But it's still just a remote, and not coordinated with my media in any way. It's not like surfing on the iPad.
Good phones with good interfaces already exist. A good operational remote will have tactile buttons for the most common operational features: volume up/down, play/pause, skip 30 seconds, rewind 10 seconds. No iPhone has these, of course, and I'm not aware of any Android phones that have these kinds of buttons. Some older Motorola devices had hard buttons for music playback, those would work well for this application.
Usability, usability, usability. Jobs understood this (although he liked to stuff "clean design" somewhere in this set, occasionally to the detriment of the usability of the device.)
John
There are IR remotes which automatically configure themselves with devices.
Hopefully this patent is a specific mechanism, and not just "+ on a touchscreen LCD." I want to strangle the patent officials who approve the latter type of patent for any company.
Even 10 years ago most universal remotes came with directional buttons and an enter/select button. I don't think I have a remote, universal or not, which doesn't have directional control and selection functions. Sometimes they're dual-function channel/volume buttons, sometimes not, but they're there, and they're dead simple to use for both lists and matrices.
Damn, I wish I hadn't posted already so I could mod this thing up.
I think we may be getting soon is essentially an 7" touchscreen tablet that functions like an all-touchscreen version of the Logitech Harmony 1100 universal remote, except with even more functionality than what Logitech puts in their remotes. Essentially, the touchscreen functions for each device being controlled by the remote will be highly customized depending on the device being controlled. And unlike an iPad, this tablet remote controller uses both RF and IR signaling for maximum device compatibility.
Speech recognition on the kinect with netflix integration already gives me remoteless 10 foot away control of my tv experience. Then there's the fact that I fucking hate remotes of any type. And the fact that i'm not too into tablets. If I need a tablet to control my computer I have to get up and go get it. With a kinect I just address it in a stern, Picard - esqe voice and tell it what to do. I already find it more convenient. Speech recognition and general biometrics are the future. Touch screens are so last decade. My xbox knows when I enter the room and brightens the screen, and does so for other people that have a profile on it. With kinects getting cheaper microsoft has done a nice end run on apple and google by actually bringing us into the world of minority report today. A kinect equipped billboard could today provide custom advertisements to me and call me by name.
yeah I'm going to stick with my pushbutton set-top box and its wired remote. Now get off my lawn.
A TV remote cost $5-$15. A tablet costs as much as some TVs. So I'll have to buy a $250 tablet to change channels on a $200 TV? I don't think so.
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
Most tablets have wifi-only options that aren't attached to a contract, and there are a handful of 3g devices available contract free.
Personally, if I'm going to search through every program every made by man, I'd like to have a nice fast search and a keyboard to type the first few letters of the program name. If you like your buttons and lists, have at it though.
For surfing, I much prefer the simplicity. For searching, it's no more trouble to type it into a keyboard on a machine already running at home. Only time the tablet is used is if it's a spur-of-the-moment thing that comes up in conversation or for actually watching video on the tablet.
To each their own though...
> I wouldnt take a mercedes and try to make it a street racing car either.
I just love it when posers try to make bad analogies by referencing "luxury brands" they clearly know nothing about.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Alright, so I've begun with a overgeneralized sweeping heading but during a discussion with other amateur (ham radio) television on what DTV format should be used, I said ATV will probably become a very small niche because of two reasons (lead by trends on broadcast television). One, vast majority watch TV either by cable or satellite. Watching TV using an antenna like in the 20th century is mysterious to most people (including older ham radio guys), when I say we transmit video over the air from our hilltop repeater to non-ATV people, I get this deer-in-the-headlights look.
Then there is the iPhone and this is the OTA TV killer. In fact one of our ardent ATV guys said, "we can do it all with the iphone so we don't need to set a camera, transmitter, and antenna" (really, I was shocked to hear this person say that). Of course predictions are tough especially the future, however, but one advantage of OTA TV is you don't have to log on with a account and password (which is acquired by paying with credit card that requires name, address, SSN). And don't have to deal with data drops and bit stream freezes.
mfwright@batnet.com
The tablet only replaces one of those remotes.
Some people are so busying trying to pretend they are in 2022 or 2383 that they don't bother to pay any attention to where they are now.
Most tablets just pick up the slack for TV setups that were already behind the curve to begin with.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sounds like what I was doing with a Tivo in 1999.
Dealing with a list of shows isn't so bad really if you've got more than 4 buttons on your remote. A tablet is a much less compelling replacement for a remote that doesn't totally suck.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your concept of the future has already failed.
If you need to search for "every program ever made by man" then the company that you bought your device from simply did it wrong. Once again, you seem to be pushing a solution that's primarily fixing it's own lack of design and poor execution.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Not to mention the idea of the big screen as a dumb terminal, ludicrous. The big screen is perfect as the family file and media server, which it can quite readily do in the background and of course server up games direct.
The tablet, will get squeezed right down in capability, cost being the prime driver, certainly not some apple marketdroid delusion of being the centre of the family living room experience.
Reality when it comes to a family of four, TV number 1 device, next four device's mobile phones, next 4 device's computer desktop or notebooks, then tablets.
Let's be honest tablets are pretty much computer for dummies or pets. Other than as a remote for big screen (although a smart phone could do that job) TV or form filling and reading substitutes (smart phone could do that as well).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You want me to pay more for the remote than I paid for the television? Nuts to that.
When the Wii U launches later in 2012, and comes with a tablet/touchscreen controller able to stream content from the console. So you can play video games or watch Netflix or Hulu on your tablet controller, allowing your elderly grandpa to 'veg out and channel surf' on the TV.
Born to Play
Agreed. I have been using media center for several years, and for most things, it's a great interface. I am not a big fan of how it handles music, but is great with video files, TV/DVR, and watching DVDs. Hulu has one of the worst 10 ft interfaces I have seen. Fonts are too small, it's difficult to navigate, and control meanings are not consistent.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
There are some pretty low cost tablets around that don't have contracts with them.
But you did get me thinking about how I might be able to get some computer functionality to my tv without spending a load of cash.
I can hook up my archos 101 g9 via hdmi to my tv (it was bought originally for a monitor but has an analogue tunenr, dvi vga scart and composite inputs) but it means having a hdmi cable connected to my tablet and the damn drm insists I have to have a crappy screen resolution (on a tv with a 'compliant' hdmi port it is hi-res).
I have a few PC's around one next to the tv in fact that I haven't turned on for a few months because it is still a pain to use since I have to also setup a keyboard and mouse for it. However android devices are quite good at controlling other android devices and there is an x86 version of ics around in fact i already have a copy installed on a usb stick.
So probably I can boot the PC with that and then use my android phone or tablet to control the pc with dlna client servers a plenty on android i should be able to push a/v from my nas or use the browser running somewhere to get net content using my tablet as an input device without having to move my arse from the couch.
probably the best pc to use would be an old 7inch netbook i have. hmm now there is an idea for a sunday morning and this is why I like slashdot since every once in a while there is a post which inspires. One of the raspberry Pi boards would probably be better than the PC being small and low powered but it may be sometime before someone gets android on that device.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Of course it makes perfect sense to use a $500 device as a remote control for a $300-400 device like a TV.
Truly this is a "killer app" to justify buying a tablet!
Alan Kay envisioned the Dynabook as a business workhorse, a literal replacement for the notepad. But no one has delivered a tablet yet that provides that basic functionality.
Apple envisioned the iPad as a media device that could surf the web, but it doesn't do Flash or a few other web content formats, so technically it fails on it's vision of being a web utility device.
Android? Time will tell. Android really wasn't made for tablets, but for mobile phones. It remains to be seen how well they'll adapt to the tablet form factor. At least it's more programmable and supports more web formats than iOS devices, provided it survives Oracle's lawsuit.
It would annoy the shit out of me to have to go this route, but maybe the only way I can get Alan Kay's basic functionality is to buy an Android device and write my own notebook app for the damned thing, if I can find one that works well with a stylus (because you don't do handwriting recognition using finger gestures, and fat fingers make LOUSY diagramming input devices.)
Did you ever notice that no one ever used a Star Trek PADD device to do any diagramming or editing? Voice recognition and dictation were used by a couple of characters to write stories and take notes, but the series never really did show how you were supposed to USE the damned things -- they were always just props that got set down or passed to another person with no details of how it would work considered. But it is interesting to note that I never saw a character "push a button" or "swipe a finger" on a PADD -- what little usage of the devices shown was always voice recognition control of an output only device that didn't seem to even have touch screen functionality.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Maybe he just wants a reason to "get cozy" with both of them at the same time?
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
If so, let me know.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I took issue with TFS's title, "YOU WILL use a tablet".
Free Martian Whores!
I have an old HP tower sitting next to the TV, using the TV as a monitor, with a wireless mouse and keyboard. I hardly ever use the keyboard with that computer, the mouse sits with the remotes.
Free Martian Whores!
On my MythTV box I use a wireless keyboard and trackpad on a single device. It turns my TV into a computer monitor, and I find the interface quite pleasing.
I know that Cable is in its death throes because statistics recorded recently that TV viewership has begun to decline sharply, for the first time since it was invented; and because the average age of the TV viewer is strongly skewed toward the Baby Boomer cohort; and because my friend, who is an insider at Starz, says that on-demand is killing everybody right now.
The TV used to deliver Cable, too, is on its way out. If you can watch what you want, when you want, with minimal or no commercials, wherever you want, on whatever device you want, then why in the heck would you choose a single-use device that sucks power like it's going out of style, occupies valuable real estate (counter top or wall), and chains you to exorbitant recurring monthly fees while treating you, your eyeballs, and your mind as a giant dumping ground for assinine advertisement while blasting out your eardrums?
Live sports, you say? This year I watched the Super Bowl on my smartphone. Yes, it's a small screen. But it was live sports on a non-TV device.
The more that reality hits home with the average Joe, which it is, the more radically marketers, content producers, hardware makers, software companies, and all the machinery between and around them that make that pipeline work, will have to rethink the nature of information and entertainment consumption. And that's not even factoring in the "new" social aspect popularized by Facebook and its ilk.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I'm assuming GP would like to allow for the possibility that others in the family might actually want to watch TV when you're not home.
For any scenario other than the bachelor scenario, the "remote" needs to stay with the TV.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Also in the smaller form factor there is the iPod touch which is essentially an iPhone without the monthly bill. It also runs a Plex client which can throw the video to an Apple TV connected big screen.
For any scenario other than the bachelor scenario, the "remote" needs to stay with the TV.
I was only addressing the "charging" issue, which I see as a "non" issue based on how some iPad owners use their devices.
My wife and I both have iPads, but we also watch TV together, not alone.
Both of us use the iPad for remotely controlling the TV, which includes not just the AppleTV, but searching for programs and adding them to the RECORD queue while never touching U-Verse remote.
Does that count as a "scenario other than the bachelor scenario"?
If not, I need to inform my wife of our new relationship status.
I like microcars
"Siri, giants football"
Or do you just have a dedicated tablet that never leaves the viewing area? What about multiple TVs? Gets expensive really quick.
That is unless the cable/satellite TV providers start offering subsidized tablets with pre-installed remote control apps. These however will most likely be underpowered as well as locked down (read: no installing your own stuff on these) and will surely become the newest hacker/cracker toys.
Failed to read the article didn't we.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.