No. You just have a high tolorance for unreliability and fidgetyness. There is no smartphone on the market that has the battery reliability of a regular remote control. Any claim that there is is clearly a lie. Unless you can explain what phone you have that lets you change the volume and turn on/off the power on the TV, you are clearly just ignoring the fidgetyness of your setup. This is under the premise that you keep a tablet always unlocked and sitting next to the couch with the remote software locked as the phone/tablets UI so that guests can just pick it up and use it without you needing to explain it to them.
I think it is safe to assume that you are just convincing yourself that you fidgety, unreliable setup isn't fidgety and unreliable because you think it is cool.
People are not necessarily plugging them into a charger next to where they are watching TV. This means that their remote is frequently not with them when they are watching TV. Then add on top of that the fact that they need the TV remote anyway since the phone does not control volume or power on the TV. Whereas something like the RaspBMC hooked to a smartTV means that everything can be controlled with one remote that is always near where the TV is being used, never runs out of power (for years at a time), no special remotes are needed, just the remote that came with your TV.
A smart phone is just dandy as a 'I happen to have it on me at the moment.' remote, and works great for when you need advanced functions like when you want to adjust skins or configure new video sources, but any system that cant be easily and convenently controlled with a regualar remote is broken. Preferably with the TV's remote via CEC. Because smartphones are too unreliable and fidgety to be considered good for day to day use.
The only think that I didn't know was that it didn't stream from the device itself. I took your word for it that it did, since you said "or smartphone to use as the source".
Of course, I never specifically said "Chromecast". I was calling out the stupidity of recommending the use of a smartphone as a remote or source. You didn't say anything that refutes how inferior a smartphone is to a standard remote control. Seriously, you are suggesting that people replace remote controls that run for years of off the crap factory AA that come with a standard remote with a remote that has to be plugged into the wall regularly.
I hear this line of logic all the time on Slashdot. It screams, "I live alone!" Advising that you can use your smartphone as a remote, or worse yet, as the source for the media you play on your TV makes about as much sense as "Just watch TV on your computer monitor."
Using your smartphone as a remote control converts a reliable multi-user device into a locked down single-user unreliable device. The batteries on my TV remote literally last for years. Smartphones barely last a day. That alone is a reason to skip using a phone as a remote. But then you have the situation where every person that would want to change the channel on your TV needs to have a phone and have it specifically set up to work with that specific television. The very idea is a complete non-starter for just about anyone that has more than one TV watcher in the house.
The worst part of your idea is that anyone would want to subject their loved ones to the rudeness of shutting their movie off halfway through because they were running down to the grociery store and they didn't want to spend $99 ( or as little as $35 for a RaspberryPi ) on a device that just stays connected to the TV.
I agree. The iPhone UI has been behind Android since the second version of Android. As for why people would think iPhones are better, there are 2 1/2 reasons that I can think of on why some people think they are better.
1) Appeal to authority. Steve Jobs successfully convince people that he was great a UI design, and if he says something is the right way to do it, it is the right way to do it. It is the fabled Jobs RDF.
2) Apple products are good products. I think there are better products out there, but they are good. I did a couple of month experiment where replaced my PC and phone with Apple products. There were most definitly some things that were brain dead in the Apple products, and I was happy when I switched back to Windows 7/Android, but I can say that if Windows/Android disappeared tomorrow, we would all be just fine. And, other than the amazement that an OS somehow just up and dissappered, we wouldn't be thinking too hard about having to use OSX/iOS after relatively short breaking period. This is the 1/2 reason. Because OSX/iOS are just fine, it makes it reinforces #1.
3) Third party support. iPhone third party support simply crushes Android third party support. I'm not talking about apps. I am talking about hardware accessories. If someone sells cases, they sell iPhone cases. Then maybe they will sell cases for a limited selection of Android devices. There are toys for iPhone. There are alarm clocks that plug into iPhones. There are speakers that plug into iPhones. For the kinds of people that like to buy accessories, the iPhone has something that is just not available to Android. The fact that places like Toys R Us and Target have large sections dedicated to the iPhone accessories also helps with #1.
I do think that the accessory market is starting to change. By going with bluetooth, device makers can support iPhone, and all of the Android devices in one fell swoop. They also don't have to license the iphone propietary connector and get greater freedom in the shape of their device. The consistant form factor for iPhone will keep it as a favorite for those who want to sell cases for a long time though.
Why would anyone do that? Actually, why would you even respond with that comment, since no one has suggested anything even close to that being done. Your comment makes about as much sense as someone dismissing mice because it takes to long to type out a letter with one.
No, a touch screen on a PC is a solution that is WAY overdue. A touch screen that replaces a mouse and keyboard is a solution looking for a problem. On laptop/desktop, a touch screen should be a third input device.
I'm not one to normally jump on the paid shill conspiracy theory, as I think there are plenty of fanboys out their to make crazy biased statements, but your's is something like the 4th or 5th post I have seen that makes that exact same claim. Literally stating that the only Apple product shown is someone working on a Macbook, and that there are is no iPhone being shown. This is obviously patently (get it???) false. See 3:02 in the video, where they are discussing what is patentable and they show a full screen shot of the iPhone specifically.
I am going to have to believe that Apple does in fact have people posting on Slashdot today.
They most certainly do. They literally show an iPhone. at 3:02. Not to mention that numerous times that Apple logos are promenently displayed on the screen.
A recall does not mean that you take the car back. It means that you notify the registered owners of those cars that they need to take the car into a dealership where the part will be replaced.
They were right that it wasn't good at the time. They were wrong that it wouldn't get good enough to replace professional 'Desktop Publishing' in a very short period of time.
Actually, the storage cost is a good point. People keep talking about how big these printers are, but I think that people underestimate how much space they use storing stuff that they "Might need later". We have been purging our 2400sq ft home and 800sq ft garage of all the stuff we really don't need. If I was an apartment dweller and had to pay for a storage unit to store this stuff, I would easily have been spending several hundred dollars a month storing stuff on the off chance I might need it later.
I wouldn't print my own tires either, but I did sell a car once because the foam rubber whether strips that kept the rain from leaking into the car were wearing out. The car ran like a champ, but the rubber strips would have cost in the range of $800 dollars for a car that was only worth about $1200. A 3D printer could have easily made those parts for $10.
but frankly I suspect there are relatively few situations where such things will truly be necessary.
That is what the 3D printer ney sayers don't get. 3D printers may never print some of our things, but they are likely to print enough stuff that the world will change as radically from 3D printing as it has from computers.
There were plenty of arguments against doing your own desktop publishing in the C64/Apple II days. Today, desktop publishing is so ubiquitous that we don't even use the term 'desktop publishing' anymore. We just print.
It might cost less for Lego to do injection molding than it would be for us to print our own bricks, but if you have looked at the price of Lego bricks, you might be far less convinced that it would be cheaper for us to buy injection molded bricks from the Lego corporation than to print them ourselves.
Likely they wouldn't. Doing the statistics properly would be extremely expensive. It could easily cost more than what they would make back with those tactics. You are also confused about what the selling points for insurance companies. The cost of the most expensive policy can be more than 3 times the cost of the cheapest policy. This is for the exact same person/vehicle. Most of the insurance companies are not selling primarily on cost. Those that are trying to undersell the big boys don't have to get the absolute lowest price to sell their policies. Then you have to add on top of all this that you are talking about billion dollar busniesses. You would need to make a case of increasing profits by a very large amount before anyone was going to take your suggestion of increasing work load massively and hiring lots of extra people before anyone would even start to listen you your idea.
It's kind of like my current activity over the last few months where I have been going through the attic, garage and the rest of the house and gathering up everything that I don't really want to keep anymore. Sure, I could try to sell it all in a garage sale. I don't because the effort and time involved in doing that is not worth the money I would make on it. It would also distract me from more valuable pursuits. So instead, I put all of the stuff out at the end of my driveway with a few "FREE" signs, post that the stuff is free on craigslist, and move on to better things.
Which is why every woman should be getting pregnant every time she ovulates. Because that unborn human would be better off than if it was allowed to die of neglect.
Slashdot Mirror
What software are you using to turn your TV on and off, and what software are you using to control the volume?
No. You just have a high tolorance for unreliability and fidgetyness. There is no smartphone on the market that has the battery reliability of a regular remote control. Any claim that there is is clearly a lie. Unless you can explain what phone you have that lets you change the volume and turn on/off the power on the TV, you are clearly just ignoring the fidgetyness of your setup. This is under the premise that you keep a tablet always unlocked and sitting next to the couch with the remote software locked as the phone/tablets UI so that guests can just pick it up and use it without you needing to explain it to them.
I think it is safe to assume that you are just convincing yourself that you fidgety, unreliable setup isn't fidgety and unreliable because you think it is cool.
People are not necessarily plugging them into a charger next to where they are watching TV. This means that their remote is frequently not with them when they are watching TV. Then add on top of that the fact that they need the TV remote anyway since the phone does not control volume or power on the TV. Whereas something like the RaspBMC hooked to a smartTV means that everything can be controlled with one remote that is always near where the TV is being used, never runs out of power (for years at a time), no special remotes are needed, just the remote that came with your TV.
A smart phone is just dandy as a 'I happen to have it on me at the moment.' remote, and works great for when you need advanced functions like when you want to adjust skins or configure new video sources, but any system that cant be easily and convenently controlled with a regualar remote is broken. Preferably with the TV's remote via CEC. Because smartphones are too unreliable and fidgety to be considered good for day to day use.
The only think that I didn't know was that it didn't stream from the device itself. I took your word for it that it did, since you said "or smartphone to use as the source".
Of course, I never specifically said "Chromecast". I was calling out the stupidity of recommending the use of a smartphone as a remote or source. You didn't say anything that refutes how inferior a smartphone is to a standard remote control. Seriously, you are suggesting that people replace remote controls that run for years of off the crap factory AA that come with a standard remote with a remote that has to be plugged into the wall regularly.
I hear this line of logic all the time on Slashdot. It screams, "I live alone!" Advising that you can use your smartphone as a remote, or worse yet, as the source for the media you play on your TV makes about as much sense as "Just watch TV on your computer monitor."
Using your smartphone as a remote control converts a reliable multi-user device into a locked down single-user unreliable device. The batteries on my TV remote literally last for years. Smartphones barely last a day. That alone is a reason to skip using a phone as a remote. But then you have the situation where every person that would want to change the channel on your TV needs to have a phone and have it specifically set up to work with that specific television. The very idea is a complete non-starter for just about anyone that has more than one TV watcher in the house.
The worst part of your idea is that anyone would want to subject their loved ones to the rudeness of shutting their movie off halfway through because they were running down to the grociery store and they didn't want to spend $99 ( or as little as $35 for a RaspberryPi ) on a device that just stays connected to the TV.
I agree. The iPhone UI has been behind Android since the second version of Android. As for why people would think iPhones are better, there are 2 1/2 reasons that I can think of on why some people think they are better.
1) Appeal to authority. Steve Jobs successfully convince people that he was great a UI design, and if he says something is the right way to do it, it is the right way to do it. It is the fabled Jobs RDF.
2) Apple products are good products. I think there are better products out there, but they are good. I did a couple of month experiment where replaced my PC and phone with Apple products. There were most definitly some things that were brain dead in the Apple products, and I was happy when I switched back to Windows 7/Android, but I can say that if Windows/Android disappeared tomorrow, we would all be just fine. And, other than the amazement that an OS somehow just up and dissappered, we wouldn't be thinking too hard about having to use OSX/iOS after relatively short breaking period. This is the 1/2 reason. Because OSX/iOS are just fine, it makes it reinforces #1.
3) Third party support. iPhone third party support simply crushes Android third party support. I'm not talking about apps. I am talking about hardware accessories. If someone sells cases, they sell iPhone cases. Then maybe they will sell cases for a limited selection of Android devices. There are toys for iPhone. There are alarm clocks that plug into iPhones. There are speakers that plug into iPhones. For the kinds of people that like to buy accessories, the iPhone has something that is just not available to Android. The fact that places like Toys R Us and Target have large sections dedicated to the iPhone accessories also helps with #1.
I do think that the accessory market is starting to change. By going with bluetooth, device makers can support iPhone, and all of the Android devices in one fell swoop. They also don't have to license the iphone propietary connector and get greater freedom in the shape of their device. The consistant form factor for iPhone will keep it as a favorite for those who want to sell cases for a long time though.
Why would anyone do that? Actually, why would you even respond with that comment, since no one has suggested anything even close to that being done. Your comment makes about as much sense as someone dismissing mice because it takes to long to type out a letter with one.
That is a flaw with virtually all weight related studies.
Do you really have that much trouble lifting your arm and extending it to arms length? I guess that is what the 'accessability features' are for.
No, a touch screen on a PC is a solution that is WAY overdue. A touch screen that replaces a mouse and keyboard is a solution looking for a problem. On laptop/desktop, a touch screen should be a third input device.
I'm not one to normally jump on the paid shill conspiracy theory, as I think there are plenty of fanboys out their to make crazy biased statements, but your's is something like the 4th or 5th post I have seen that makes that exact same claim. Literally stating that the only Apple product shown is someone working on a Macbook, and that there are is no iPhone being shown. This is obviously patently (get it???) false. See 3:02 in the video, where they are discussing what is patentable and they show a full screen shot of the iPhone specifically.
I am going to have to believe that Apple does in fact have people posting on Slashdot today.
This isn't what was happening at 3:02 where there was a full screen shot of an iPhone.
They most certainly do. They literally show an iPhone. at 3:02. Not to mention that numerous times that Apple logos are promenently displayed on the screen.
A recall does not mean that you take the car back. It means that you notify the registered owners of those cars that they need to take the car into a dealership where the part will be replaced.
Leased from, and no it is not illegal to break into a house you have leased from someone.
They were right that it wasn't good at the time. They were wrong that it wouldn't get good enough to replace professional 'Desktop Publishing' in a very short period of time.
Actually, the storage cost is a good point. People keep talking about how big these printers are, but I think that people underestimate how much space they use storing stuff that they "Might need later". We have been purging our 2400sq ft home and 800sq ft garage of all the stuff we really don't need. If I was an apartment dweller and had to pay for a storage unit to store this stuff, I would easily have been spending several hundred dollars a month storing stuff on the off chance I might need it later.
I wouldn't print my own tires either, but I did sell a car once because the foam rubber whether strips that kept the rain from leaking into the car were wearing out. The car ran like a champ, but the rubber strips would have cost in the range of $800 dollars for a car that was only worth about $1200. A 3D printer could have easily made those parts for $10.
but frankly I suspect there are relatively few situations where such things will truly be necessary.
That is what the 3D printer ney sayers don't get. 3D printers may never print some of our things, but they are likely to print enough stuff that the world will change as radically from 3D printing as it has from computers.
Just like desktop publishing with those fancy laser printers.
There were plenty of arguments against doing your own desktop publishing in the C64/Apple II days. Today, desktop publishing is so ubiquitous that we don't even use the term 'desktop publishing' anymore. We just print.
It might cost less for Lego to do injection molding than it would be for us to print our own bricks, but if you have looked at the price of Lego bricks, you might be far less convinced that it would be cheaper for us to buy injection molded bricks from the Lego corporation than to print them ourselves.
Likely they wouldn't. Doing the statistics properly would be extremely expensive. It could easily cost more than what they would make back with those tactics. You are also confused about what the selling points for insurance companies. The cost of the most expensive policy can be more than 3 times the cost of the cheapest policy. This is for the exact same person/vehicle. Most of the insurance companies are not selling primarily on cost. Those that are trying to undersell the big boys don't have to get the absolute lowest price to sell their policies. Then you have to add on top of all this that you are talking about billion dollar busniesses. You would need to make a case of increasing profits by a very large amount before anyone was going to take your suggestion of increasing work load massively and hiring lots of extra people before anyone would even start to listen you your idea.
It's kind of like my current activity over the last few months where I have been going through the attic, garage and the rest of the house and gathering up everything that I don't really want to keep anymore. Sure, I could try to sell it all in a garage sale. I don't because the effort and time involved in doing that is not worth the money I would make on it. It would also distract me from more valuable pursuits. So instead, I put all of the stuff out at the end of my driveway with a few "FREE" signs, post that the stuff is free on craigslist, and move on to better things.
Which is why every woman should be getting pregnant every time she ovulates. Because that unborn human would be better off than if it was allowed to die of neglect.
http://video.adultswim.com/the...