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.'"

Comments

so in other words

[Osgeld]

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

Re:so in other words

[Trepidity]

And even if you don't, software incompatibilities may lead to the same result. It's starting to appear in digital cameras now. For example, the Sony NEX-5R and NEX-6 cameras add an ability to be remote-controlled by a smartphone: you can get a remote view through the viewfinder and trigger the shutter remotely. Kind of cool idea in principle. But the Android app doesn't work on the newest version of Android, and Sony hasn't given an indication of when they plan to release an update.

Re:so in other words

[gaiageek]

They'll release an update. It'll work with the newest camera and not yours. That's what you should expect when buying Sony.

Re:so in other words

[Jane Q. Public]

"great plan, if you are not a consumer"

Not only that, but a lot of these things are silly ideas or worse. Sure, some might be good but others are not.

Do you REALLY want to give Mary Jo the ability to control her oven from some remote place? Who will pay to put out all the fires? And why the hell anybody would want their refrigerator connected to the Internet is beyond me, but if I recall correctly, Bill Gates suggested it about 15 years ago. Why???

I don't need my thermostat controlled by a smartphone. It does just fine on its own, thanks very much.

Re:so in other words

[TheGratefulNet]

let me correct you just a bit; you don't need WAN reachability (inbound, probably even outbound) from embedded networked systems.

but inside your home LAN? its not too bad to have remote control over things. ob disc: I design and build audio things that have networked back-ends and allow ip-based clients to manage them.

I have always emphasized that firewalling and security SHOULD be part of all embedded systems that are network-reachable. with cheap things like the rasp-pi, you could glue on an ip-stack with security and have that front-end your embedded system. no reason not to, anymore.

if you do at least reasonable security, having remote control over physical things is cool and useful. but never 'just throw things on the network' without knowing how to secure them, internally and externally.

Re:Grammar Nazi Attack

[rHBa]

I'm pretty sure that this is the third summary in the last few days with a comma before an 'and'.

FTFM

Re:Grammar Nazi Attack

[p0p0]

"Two specific situations call for the use of a comma before "and." The first is created when we have three or more items in a series."
Well that is embarrassing for you. Please try to learn the language before you claim to be a master of it.

http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204whencommabfand.htm

Now since the English language is quite a flexible one and an overused comma is very common, most people tend to let that kind of thing go.
Unfortunately you chose to dwell on it, incorrectly it seems, and it lead to my great amusement.

Don't be an elitist, or an idiot.

Sounds good until..

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Sounds good until..

[crow]

This is an argument for open protocols. As long as the protocols are open, there's hope of a good solution long after the vendor has gone out of business, and the brand has been licensed to three other companies (e.g., RCA).

Of course, you're still dependent on having hardware that will do the communications protocol, but Bluetooth and WiFi will be around for a long time with backwards compatibility (much like USB).

Still, I would love to have an IR transmitter on my phone so that I could use it as a remote for older devices, particularly TVs in restaurants.

Re:Sounds good until..

[davester666]

1. touchscreen remotes SUCK if you use them more than every once in a while. Primarily because you have to switch focus between looking at the touchscreen and the device you are controlling
2. how much control of your home do you want to give to 'random person who finds/steals your phone'

Re:Sounds good until..

[tompaulco]

This is an argument for open protocols.
My vote for first protocol is a separate ON versus OFF command. No more of this toggle ON/OFF. If you use a smart remote and it thinks the ON/OFF is toggled differently then it is, then it is frustrating as heck. Simply let your ON be ON and your OFF be OFF and you will have no problems.

Re:Sounds good until..

[TheGratefulNet]

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.

such people should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES.

keeping electronics *only* two years is a sin. you think landfills need our help to fill up? they're not filling fast enough so we should throw *more* away?

I fully hate that attitude.

if you are throwing a good phone (not dead, not broken) away after 2 years, you should reevaluate what you really are and why you have this compulsion.

go off contract, buy your phone and own it for 5 yrs. there's nothing wrong with that. buy a real phone (not some nonsupported 'freebie' that they want you to rebuy over and over again) and you won't find the NEED to dispose of it. believe me, if you pay for it (and not 'get it free') you won't be so eager to landfill it after 2 yrs.

the whole attitude makes me sick. I cry for those who think its OK to chuck stuff that works and will continue to work just because you has to haz the new shiney.

then again, YOU guys will live in the world of landfills. I'm getting old, but you guys will have to live in the world of trash that you are slowly but surely creating.

Re:IR

[Nerdfest]

Some of the Samsung tablets already do, and I'm quite surprised that more Android phones don't have them. It's an extremely handy thing in a tablet at least, where space isn't at quite such a premium.

Re:What do you expect to happen?

[penix1]

I don't own a smartphone and never will. Hell, I got my first cell phone only last year when I was forced to have a way to communicate when on the road and there are no pay phones anymore. I just don't see the draw in these expensive toys. I got the most stupid phone on the planet (and the cheapest non-contract prepaid one to boot) and I use it *GASP* as a phone! Nothing more. I may rarely send a text but all-in-all I can even do without that. Everything I've been reading about those phones leads me to believe they are too invasive to my privacy for my likes. Most of the time my phone is off (not that it is really off without removing the battery). Everything from geolocation for targeted advertising to the phone provider themselves profiting off the phone's always on monitoring is disturbing to me.

Then the stories like this comes along. Anything that can be remotely controlled by you can also be remotely controlled by someone else. Whether that someone else is good or bad is irrelevant. The fact that they can control it is bad enough for me. So now my crotchety ass will have to check to ensure my other household appliances are just as stupid as my phone is.

Re:Link doesn't work

[smallfries]

The link is still broken so here are some semi-random thoughts on what kind of remote control I was looking for a few days ago. I want a reasonably accurate temperature sensor, not +- 1 or even 2 degrees C. I want +-0.1 degrees with a update frequency of about once a minute. Wireless with a 50-100m range to a base-station that can then log the data. I don't want some kind of "cloud service" where the base-station uploads my data to the maker's server. I don't want a closed proprietary interface. I want the battery in the sensor to last at least a year, and the sensors should be dirt cheap (less than $20) so that I can put one in every room in the house and map heat flow through the rooms.

Why does this not exist? We were building these kinds of devices in a lab ten years ago, I assumed they would have been commercialised by now. Instead the home automation products that I found were outrageously expensive and limited (proprietary interface to a private server, all access via web). There are no technical limitations, and the parts are cheap enough to make a decent margin on $20 for a PIC microchip, a Zigbee controller and an IC for temperature. It does seem weird that the market that exists for home automation is so distorted.

Re:Grammar Nazi Attack

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You obviously didn't check the summaries from the last 24hrs then. There are MANY examples of series of two or less where there is a comma before the 'and'.

Yet you decided to complain about the one where the oxford comma was used correctly. Next time go post your grammar complaint as a response to the story that you are actually complaining about.

Re:Can't read TFS

[the_Bionic_lemming]

The stupid IBM popup ad hovers over part of the summary and it can't be dismissed in Firefox.

I'm running firefox, and I do not see any pop up ad. Of course, I am on 3.6 with ab+, no script, and a few other goodies.

Forget Security

[eyegone]

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.

What should i control remotly in my home?

[drolli]

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.

Re:What should i control remotly in my home?

[maxwell demon]

Security systems

If there is one thing you definitely don't want to be remotely controllable, it's security systems.

package delivery or grocery delivery

This is done by the delivery services; what would you remote-control there?

heating/cooling systems that work out for themselves when your on holiday or out for weekend

That doesn't need remote control. Put sensors in each room which detect if someone is there.

home phone that diverts when nobody is in

See above.

It's good within limits

[santosh.k83]

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.

Going the way of 3D

[Xugumad]

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.

Re:Grammar Nazi Attack

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm sorry, we seem to have mistaken you for someone who has a life (and a knowledge of grammar).