Arthur Fuller
artful at rogers.com
Mon Aug 1 16:06:23 CDT 2005
As the marketing types always like to say, every problem is an opportunity. So why can't someone build a universal remote that can communicate with the net and download the instruction sets to all machines available within your household? It's obviously not going to pick up my 1969-era Bose amplifier or the turntable, but it should be able to find the TV, VCR, DVD and the two microwaves. Why not? The microwave might be a little more difficult. But the DVD and VCR and TV ought to be brain-dead simple. On the TV, next = next channel. On the DVD, next = next track. On the VCR it's a little more complicated, admittedly, but there remains the valid concept that any movie is comprised of scenes with scene separators. On a DVD it's almost instant; on a VCR it would take a while, but what has that do with the interface? I imagine a world in which one single remote operates my TV, DVD, VCR, microwave oven and so on. Do you have some ethical/fiscal problem with this? All I want is SIMPLER! I have four computers in this room, one running Linux, one running w2k, one running winServer2003 and one running xpPro. They all seem to be able to communicate, within reason (Linux does the print server stuff and everybody can see the printers, and also the file-shares -- I still don't have the ftp server working right but I am working on it). In addition, I use Kaboodle, which is a way cool program. So I can do all this with winX + Linux etc. but still I have 3 damn remotes on my coffee table and I hate it! If this is your definition of the free market, I want to go beyond it. -----Original Message----- From: dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-tech-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Peter Brawley Sent: July 31, 2005 11:11 PM To: Discussion of Hardware and Software issues Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Remotes />Look at your living room table and count the number of remotes >positioned thereupon. Include those that fell between the sofa cushions >while you drifted off switching between Conan and Craig Ferguson. >Why is this? / Might it be a bit of the 'free' market that's actually free? P. ----- Arthur Fuller wrote: >Before I launch into this, let me ask this question. Look at your living >room table and count the number of remotes positioned thereupon. Include >those that fell between the sofa cushions while you drifted off switching >between Conan and Craig Ferguson. > > > >Why is this? > > > >I can go to Tokyo or London or Albequerque and rent a car and it works >identically, no matter the brand, no matter the left/right rules. The car >works identically. Very occasionally I have to grope to figure out how to >dim the headlights, but most of the time I know exactly where everything is. > > > >Borrow someone's cell phone for a moment (said cell from a different >manufacturer than yours). Suddenly you're in the world of "grope". > > > >TV is IMO the WORST offender. One remote for the TV, another for the DVD, >another for the VHS. (By now I think BetaMaxes are all in the dustbin.) >Click one wrong button on one remote and you spend 5 minutes figuring out >the problem and you just missed the beginning of the most recent Law & >Order. > > > >I think I hate software, but I hate hardware an order of magnitude more. Why >o why cannot these manufacturers go to IEEE and settle on a spec, such that >one single remote can work everything (including, incidentally, my sound >system, microwave and so on)? > > > >I have seen allegedly universal remotes in the local stores, ranging from >$19 to $99, and they are laughable. The $19 ones assume that you have the >remote to machine X and that you will point them to each other and thus >absorb the signals. Sheep manure! I should be able to point the allegedly >universal remote at any receiving device and inhale its instruction set - >and if there is a problem then automatically visit the manufacturer's site >and download said instruction set and map it to the buttons on said >allegedly universal remote. All of these devices have ops in common - >loudness for example. Some have unique functions (i.e. dvd and cd can jump >to next track), and some have functions shared with one or two devices (i.e. >fast-forward within the selected track). > > > >Being a dinosaur, I have lots of equipment incapable of such intelligent >responses (Oracle 3-pin turntable, lots of stuff made by Bose, etc.), but >the modern stuff I would expect capable of IEEE-like responses to a common >set of signals. But it seems not to be the case. At the moment I have 3 >remotes on my coffee table, one for each device (cable tv input, dvd player >and vhs player). Aside from the physical clutter there is the intellectual >clutter. Why o why can't I have one device that works everything, including >setting the microwave to start defrosting the object therein at exactly 5:11 >pm? > > > >I don't get it. This seems SO obvious to me, as obvious as renting a car in >another country and knowing how it operates. I must be missing something >major here. or perhaps detecting an opportunity, as the marketing folks >would phrase it. But I have been bitching and whining about this for years, >and no one has leapt into the gap with a product that can do it. Is this >because all the vendors keep secrets? > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >dba-Tech mailing list >dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > >