Slashdot Mirror
Smartphones: Life's Remote Control
An anonymous reader writes "This year's Consumer Electronics Show has shown off more interconnected devices than I would know what to do with. Not only are existing devices I use getting modern, Internet-connected interfaces (cars, ovens, and security systems, for example), but companies are now putting out addons for smartphones that replace existing ones (blood pressure and glucose monitors, for instance. An article at the NY Times points out that the smartphone is quickly becoming life's remote control — a portal through with you'll soon be able to control far more of your electric devices than you might expect (or care to). 'For several years, technology companies have promised the dream of the connected home, the connected body and the connected car. Those connections have proved illusory. But in the last year app-powered accessories have provided the mechanism to actually make the connections. That is partly because smartphones have become the device people never put down. But it is also because wireless sensors have become smaller, cheaper and ubiquitous.'"
Subject says it all
Smartphone remote controls YOU!
... by that guy who just wouldn't shut up or is just obnoxiously loud, I'll just leave this here.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
when I replace my phone in a couple years, I have to replace a bunch of other shit that magically wont work anymore
great plan, if you are not a consumer
I'm pretty sure that this is the third summary today with a comma before an 'and'.
I know, I should know better than to ask for proper grammar from our editors...
Does this mean more phones will come with universal IR emmitters too?
Sounds good until you replace your phone, which if you are like a lot of people is every 2 years at minimum because phones change. On the other hand, let's see what all the devices I've got that use remotes:
1) A VCR that was purchased about 23 years ago
2) A DVD player bought in 2001
3) A PS3 bought in 2008 used for Blu-Ray (yeah, I know I can play DVDs on it, but the PS3 frequently goes between the upstairs and downstairs TV)
4) A TV bought back in 2005
5) A cable box that I think I got in 2008-ish
6) An old stereo that is about 20 years old
Assuming that tomorrow I upgrade all those things to something that I can use my Smartphone with, and assuming I keep my devices (aside from my phone) for as long as I have, how long before my phone won't have an application to communicate with them? Already we have problems with specialty applications such as remotes not working with the newest version of Android, mix that with hardware changes and you've got something that will only work for a few years before a key feature becomes obsolete. And given that there's few reasons to upgrade generic appliances unlike something like a phone, you've got an expensive featureset that won't be able to be used for most of the device's lifespan.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The stupid IBM popup ad hovers over part of the summary and it can't be dismissed in Firefox.
As far as technology has come in the last 20 years, just imagine what's around the corner. The only real thing standing in the way of greater innovation and more conveniences for modern man is corporate greed. Proprietary connectors, apps, subscriptions, etc etc. It's not enough to sell you a device, but to make sure that should you break it, or a piece of it, you pay a 2000% markup for replacement cables. It's not enough to sell you a device, but also charge you to use it while you possess it. Whatever.
I don't know of a solution to put wifi control into an appliance for less than about fifty bucks, even as a DIYer. Maybe you could do it with a pogoplug for around thirty, but if you want decent range make that thirty-five. (they have a little GPIO, you can run a relay and read the status of one or two circuits easily and cheaply enough...) But with new parts it'll cost substantially more. None of my stereo stuff supports anything other than IR or some wacky proprietary stuff none of which works together, and I'd guess that's the case for most people out there. My TV has HDMI CEC hardware but no support for it. My stereo is Sony and doesn't speak the same protocol as my VCR which is Sony (both are old enough to predate Sony's rootkits, killing Lik-Sang, etc) and neither of them will speak to my SHARP TV...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So far, Microsoft's response to everything is to try to make Win32 run on it. This has been demonstrated to present a number of problems not the least of which is the inability to run on lower-powered electronics and is still vulnerable to the same old exploits regardless of which processor it runs on.
I have been repeating the same old prediction -- that the computer in your pocket will become the computer you use everywhere, that depending on where you are, it will have different interfaces, inputs and outputs. CES is apparently showing it all to be true... at least so far. But Microsoft doesn't appear to be responding in any meaningful way.
I suppose it's possible that some skunkworks program in Microsoft's darkest R&D halls may be cooking up an answer, but it would seem to be a bit late. By the time they have any serious response to the new computing style, the market will already be dominated and owned by Google's Android, Microsoft won't get so much as a shrug.
They should have started building something new YEARS and years ago instead of recycling Win32 at every new cycle of Windows. At the very least they should have divided their resources where one part keeps Business and Win32 going while the other half moves on to the new mobile computing thing. They have LOTS of money so I have little doubt they could have done it. Why they think they have to move everything all in the same direction is beyond me. I picture a giant amoeba desperately trying to move in one direction where its own mass and inertia prevents it from making any difference.
Or at least something that can run an X server that can send multitouch back to a client
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.
I see nothing wrong with that comma, and I have a reference to back it up.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I believe my Palm IIIx had most of the functionally required. Now we have fancy smartphones that can't even change the channel on a TV.
Yeah, well I still jerk off manually.
How easy it will be to commandeer another's life by hacking their master controller (i.e., smart phone). Centralization of control invites attack.
Remember that none of this stuff will work if you have even the faintest hint of security on your home network.
Don't even think about putting your spiffy new never-patched, Internet accessing, firewall-less "smart" devices on a separate subnet from your WiFi if you want to actually use these features.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
a) Heating: Best done on schedule, and automaticlaly controlled. The savings from adjusting to your fluctuation of getting home are miniscule
b) Light? No need to remotly control it.
c) Kitchen devices: The only thing i could imagine would be turnign on the coffee machine before you wake up - and that is not remote control. All other things require manual intervention.
I mean I could imagine that filling the bathtub may be an applicaiton.
The part I have never never quite gotten is why its so rare to fine IR transmitters in modern devices. This would ensure near total compatibility with all home AV gear. I know space is at a premium in these things but surely such a handy and simple thing would be worth it for the value add. The add ons i have seen are expensive or clunky, and thebbedt ones seem to be IOS based.
So I realize that the internet, bluetooth, and 2G signals are ways of getting devices to interact with each other, but is there any centralized off-the-shelf solution for conglomerating feeds and getting things to talk with each other, or does everything require customized approaches for receiving and working with the data in any way?
Like most other technology, a connected home is a good convenience within strict limits. I feel veering towards both extremes of universal connectivity and knee-jerk rejection born from fear are both not good. Each person must think things through and decide what they desire for themselves and market forces shouldn't dictate things. There's also a certain joy in doing things manually and not sitting uselessly like a lump of flesh surrounded by a sea of robots, feeling useless. Life is there in small tasks too, not just grand flights of fancy.
Why does this not exist?
Just Google zigbee temperature sensor.
I don't even know where to start with how bad an idea this is. Going to try, though:
There's nothing stopping you from doing this already (for example using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X10_(industry_standard) ) - the fact that many people don't is primarily because it's expensive and the result isn't actually that useful. Heating controls are already sufficiently advanced to know that I want to have the house at a certain temperature when I'm likely to be around it, and I don't really want to micro-manage my heating. I can see use to having lighting turn on just before I get home, but that's about it; there's no way in hell I want to be digging through menus on my smartphone just to turn the light on/off.
Appliances tend to require manual intervention anyway; a toaster requires bread, a cooker requires food, the coffee maker coffee... I might as well set them up while I'm there.
TV/DVD player - okay, we're getting somewhere at least. However, you are going to be physically present when you want to use these devices, and they're easily controlled by well designed, purpose-specific devices of an appropriate device (remote controls). I can actually control my TV from my tablet; I believe I did this twice, once to discover I could, and a second time to show someone else.
So I can use it to control my heart beat, blood pressure, etc.?
Or someone else's?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
So you're always safe and secure. Sprint's data network is a Fisher-Price fake network that works in maybe 3 cities in America so you're always assured of complete security.
The real issue here is Money. Simple.
Vendors out there can produce a product without the expensive user-interfacing bits. A couple hundred dollar item is available for them to leverage their sale of inexpensive software. Add on the fact that consumers are in the mood to spend money quickly on smartphone-related items and bang, money maker!
Never mind how crappy these products turn out. I mean, take a look at a Radio Control car monitoring system, where a phone is used to display and interface. LIkely the phone might get dropped taking it in/out of the radio or some other damage? Nah!
Anything is possible given time and money.
I graduated university by researching why the ideals of Ubiquitous Computing (as put forth by Mark Weiser, researcher at Xerox Parc) hadn't come true. On of the many problems with the ubicomp vision is that it tries to create invisible services. As Mark Weiser himself pointed out later (1999), there is a fundamental choice: do you want simplicity or do you want control.
People like Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell (Intel) have pointed out that it is more likely that mobile phones become the controlpoint of these services. I can highly recommend this article from 2005:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~lopes/teaching/inf241W11/readings/BellDourish-YesterdaysTomorrows-PUC-1.pdf
Ask for a quantity 10,000 quote for this:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/624954111/ZigBee_wireless_Temperature_and_Humidity_sensor.html
There's another model which is available from multiple sources, which incorporates an LCD display. It goes for FOB $28 for quantity 10,000. However, ask for their pricing on quantity 100,000. If you really care, track down the OEM who is providing these guys with the unit instead, and keep the middleman unit profit as well.
This isn't rocket science; the actual answer to your question is that there's no real market for the damn things, and so they have not hit commodity pricing. No one wants something that will communicate ambient temperature changes in any room of their house wirelessly to a central monitoring station so that you can know the temperature of every room of your house.
Mostly the people who would be geeky enough to want this would also realize that it enables anyone outside your house with a parabolic antenna can track the movement of above-ambient (e.g. 98.6 degree) objects as they move between rooms within your house and know the best time to break down your front door and drag you off into the banjo-woods or whatever.
PS: No one really likes yet-another-wireless-device-for-no-reason-Zigbee either.
CES 2013 HTC Launch M7 Leaked it is a latest smartphone 2GB RAM, Android Jelly Bean, HTC Sense 5.0, 4.7-inch SoLux 1080p display with optical lamination, 32GB internal storage.....