New EL Touchscreen Remote Control 234
raminf writes "Stumbled across the Kameleon -- a new remote control device from Univeral Electronics. The interface is a blank electro-luminescent touch-screen. The 'buttons' are animated graphics drawn to match any device you choose . You can update new device interfaces via a modem (specs aren't clear how exactly). You can also define 'macro' buttons to do multiple tasks with one button. Apparently it also has a built-in motion-sensor and turns itself on when you pick it up. You can't buy it directly in the U.S. yet. Here's a British web-site that carries it and has some specs and a picture. Here's the company press release. RadioShack has announced they'll be carrying it retail pretty soon."
Strange (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds nice. (Score:2, Interesting)
70 pounds in the UK (Score:2, Informative)
$60 at RadioShack (Score:3, Informative)
Electronics are usually more espensive in the UK, so Pounds usually match US dollars pretty closely for electronics.
Re:$60 at RadioShack (Score:3, Interesting)
<OT> I used to work for Radio Shack and I can vouch that at $60 for that remote RS is likly making over $20 profit. Also remember that Radio Shack sales associates are under commision and spiffs, so never trust them on opinions and note that the price is probably lower somewhere else with some exceptions. Second hint: always ask about discontinued merchandise for expensive items. Most of the time the older model is just as good and sold under cost. Once a former coworker got a $270 scanner for $30. </OT>
Don't know about now... (Score:2)
Despite the major difference in the value of each currency, prices for food (never looked at electronics) in the UK were the same in pounds and pence as they were in the US in dollars and cents. (i.e. if a McDonalds meal cost $3.99 US, it would be 3.99 UKP in Britain, despite the fact that 3.99 UKP was approx. $7.98 US - Food was on average TWICE as expensive in the UK because of the exchange rate)
Re:Sounds nice. (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, it was also ideal for pranks. I'd put the palm on top of the cupboard, so it was difficult to see, and then programmed it to switch TV channels at prime time ... lots o' fun.
But can it withstand.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But can it withstand....Killer Couch. (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot the "Eaten by the couch" test.
Very few remotes come out of that.
Re:But can it withstand.... (Score:2)
And you have to think about... (Score:4, Funny)
"Honey, the remote Blue Screened again..."
Umm (Score:2, Informative)
Also, Philips just released a similar remote, except some keys are not on an LCD. Its called the Pronto. More at http://www.pronto.philips.com.
Yeah (Score:1, Informative)
They sell it on amazon here [amazon.com] and review here [techtv.com]
Sweet stuff
Re:Umm (Score:5, Informative)
And the Sony device is totally different. This device and the Pronto use a true LCD display, a la Palm Pilot. The Sony device just uses a backlit template with buttons drawn on it. Depending on your device selection, some buttons are lit and some aren't. Your CD player will have a "play" button, but your TV won't, for instance. But you can't really change the labels of the buttons or anything about their arrangement.
Re:Ah sorry (Score:2)
Re:Umm (Score:2)
(I have one of the original Sony Remote Commanders here someplace. I don't remember unpacking it after I moved into the new house this past summer. Strange that I never thought of it until now. I guess that's a sign that I never really needed it. What a waste of money that was.)
Re:Umm (Score:3, Informative)
My housemate has one of the Sony devices... it's incredibly difficult to program, but usable once you've managed it.
did you update the firmware? (Score:2)
There's firmware updates [remotecentral.com] for the Pronto models that solve the problems you describe.
it's not any faster than picking up a regular remote and hitting the button
I've had my ProntoPro [remotecentral.com] for a few weeks now and can say it's much faster than using the regular remotes. My setup includes HDTV, surround sound receiver, cable, DVD, Laser disk, PS2, and SVHS deck. What makes it faster than normal remotes is the macros you can program - you can set up a single button to control all your equipment.
For example, I have mine set up so that hitting the HDTV button will power on the TV, receiver & cable box, switch the TV & receiver to the HD inputs, and finally change the display to show 9 channel logos for the HD stations I receive. Pressing a single logo and the 3 digit channel code is sent to the cable box. - So to watch any HD show I only have to grab a single remote and press 2 buttons.
Prior to that I had to dig the TV remote out of the stack, turn it on, swith it's input, dig the receiver remote out of the stack, turn it on, switch it's input, and finally dig the cable remote out, turn it on and enter the channel number.
A major benefit is that my mom(currently visiting) can work my TV without calling me at work
anyone notice a custome feature? (Score:1)
I may want stereo volume, dvd menus, and tv power all on one screen.
Re:anyone notice a custome feature? (Score:1)
Re:anyone notice a custome feature? (Score:2)
Re:anyone notice a custome feature? (Score:2)
Are you new here? Slashdot is often all yippie about things for no good reason.
Or, to put it another way, "slow news day."
X-10? (Score:1)
Update via modem (Score:3, Funny)
buttons drawn? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does look cool, and the auto-on motion detection is a nice touch.
A.
Hmm... (Score:1)
Mo-dem? (Score:5, Funny)
Mo-dem? What's a mo-dem?... I think I remember Mo-dems...those were those slow things with the blinkylights that we all had before we got residential DSL and cable...right? And you could type +++ATH0 and it e(6`|:fK6@(^*&#~~~NO CARRIER
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:3, Interesting)
The land of USB peripherals seems to be the land of "rolling your own" protocols. For that (and possibly other) reasons, USB support in Linux is pretty sparse. Heck, I have some USB mice (!!!) that refuse to work (namely, the nice, cheap, $6 (but surprisingly high-quality) Kensington Mouse-in-a-Box USB (with scrolly wheel) even as of 2.4.19.
I'm not quite sure why, but some sorts of ports seem to invite "roll your own protocol"-itis. Parallel ports spawned much of this sort of behavior-- remember all the parallel port scanners, digital cameras, and electric tweezers that came out in the mid-90s? Ditto USB; everything seems to do things its own way.
Then there's serial. Serial is serial is serial, by and by, it's easy to reverse engineer things (since the tools to do so have been around for decades-- heck, you can just plug a serial device into a dumb terminal and watch the data flow by-- or more likely watch the device try to handshake with a non-existant desktop
But step into the world of USB and the picture gets a bit murkier... unless you're running Windows, of course, where all the drivers are available since the hardware manufacturers themselves make it.
Case in point: I lack a SCSI card in my box at the moment. And I needed a scanner, and didn't want to do any weird diddling with parport scanners. So I decided to go USB. It took me a whole 15 minutes of scanning through dozens, and dozens, and dozens of USB scanner listings on eBay to find one that was supported "stably" (not listed as "experimental" on the SANE page) under Linux/Unix...
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Ack. I tried to parse this as a date. Had me really stumped for a minute there.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
I call bullshit. I have that same mouse, and it works fine. Has since 2.3.99prewhatever.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
And would anybody in his right mind vote for a text-file format for the control and configuration files? No, thanks. I get enough of that crap at work; I wouldn't want to pay for the privilege of coming home and tweaking config files just to get my damned CD player to skip tracks.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
A friend was over the other day, and I took some pictures with her digital camera. She didn't have the cable with her (which I know works), but she had a Compact Flash adapter. I gave her a funny look, and said, well might as well give it a try, popped it into a USB port and said, here goes nothing. Much to my suprise, SuSE mounted it as a drive, put it right on my desktop, I copied the pictures off and that was it.
SWEET!
-Spyky
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Which raises the question of why compact flash would be a good option for this application. If everybody's going to be using a USB-compact flash adapter anyway (modulo the people who use PCMCIA-compact flash adapters), why not just drop the middleman and use plain old USB with a serial communication protocol?
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Every computer produced for the past umpty-bump years has at least one USB port. No adapters necessary at all. Just plug it in and go. They could even, if they so desired, implement the remote control as a USB mass storage device, and have the configuration software read from and write to it like it was a disk. That implementation would be functionally identical to your compact flash idea, only without all the compact flash mess.
(Not that I think that would be a good or suitable way to do it; I'm just pointing out that compact flash is, at best, unnecessary in this instance.)
So explain again, please, why compact flash would be a good way to go at all?
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2, Insightful)
(plugs a very common brand of USB scanner into her computer. It won't work, and SANE lists its driver as not being available at all, or as being "experimental") "Here's another reason."
Shall I go on? USB is potentially really bad since, as I've mentioned quite a few times here, USB devices (with a few exceptions) seem to use non-standardized, proprietary, roll-your-own protocols which are difficult (and potentially ILLEGAL, under the DMCA) to reverse-engineer-- so that nice new USB mouse/scanner/can-opener that you bought might not work under anything but Windows.
Since I don't run Windows, but I still think I have the right to new hardware... well, that's why I dislike USB. Something about it seems to bring out the worst in hardware developers-- at least, in terms of protocols/drivers/support. Most of the nice new whiz-bang USB gizmos in stores do not work under Linux. There's no reason for this to be so, but it is so. You don't have the same problem with serial/SCSI/CompactFlash/PCMCIA devices so much... but support for USB geegaws is VERY iffy and spotty.
Right now, I'm using a PS/2 (not USB) mouse on my system, PRECISELY because my shiny new USB mice didn't work under 2.4.19...
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
I don't want to sound like an asshole, but these problems are due to your choice of operating system or software. They don't justify making things kludgey for the end-user with compact flash.
You're damning the entire USB world just because you can't get your mouse to work on your (in my opinion, perverse) choice of operating system. That seems wacky to me.
In short, universal programmable remote control with USB connection to the computer: good. Vast majority of potential customers happy. Universal programmable remote control with compact flash card that requires adapter for your computer (sold separately): bad. Vast majority of potential customers unhappy, even though one girl (to use your term) happy. Vast majority of potential customers either don't buy, or buy and return upon discovery of the kludgey compact flash thing. Company goes out of business. CEO snaps main spring, goes on rampage. Blood everywhere. Even in the grouting.
Just my opinion, of course.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
God, I hope not. I'm no fan of Microsoft's, exactly, but some of the opinions voiced around here about that particular entity give me chills. Some threads get eerily close to torches and pitchforks and a march on Redmond, and I don't care for that. If Slashdot were an anti-Microsoft club only, I'd have to find someplace else to hang out.
See, my thing is this: I do not care about computer politics. I've taken a good, hard look around and concluded that all the issues that get some computer aficionados up in arms-- the DMCA, DRM, Microsoft, the FSF-- just aren't very important at all, in comparison to the other stuff that's going on in the world. I just don't care about those issues most of the time.
Consequently, I choose things like what software or operating system I'm going to use based on different criteria from the average (pardon me) zealot. I pick what works best for a given job. My personal, none-of-your-business-so-shut-up-about-it opinion is that Linux is rarely the operating system that's going to work best for a given job. Most stuff that you could do with Linux I prefer to do with Windows, FreeBSD, or Mac OS X. Not for any reason other than that those are the tools that have worked best for me in the past.
For sake of perspective-- and as a little aside-- let me give you an example of an issue that I do think is worth concerning myself with. It's not earth-shattering, but it qualifies, in my book. I'm a chef, and one of the most prized ingredients in French cooking is foie gras: the hypertrophied liver of a duck or a goose. It's delicious. Scrumptious. Insanely expensive, and worth it. Love the stuff.
The thing is, though, that there are two ways to produce foie gras: an easy way, and a hard way. The easy way to produce foie gras is to shove a steel tube down a duck's or a goose's throat and force-feed it a mush made primarily of corn three or four times a day. After a month of this, the duck or goose is slaughtered and the liver-- up to a pound and a half of it-- is harvested. When producing foie gras by the easy way, up to one duck or goose in ten is lost to feeding accidents; the birds are over-fed until their stomachs literally burst. A loss of 10% is considered acceptable when using the "easy" method of production.
The hard method of production is to treat the birds humanely, feeding them a diet primarily made of corn but omitting the force-feedings, and stretching the production cycle for a single liver out over months instead of weeks. I call this "hard" because it makes it very difficult for the farmer to produce foie gras profitably, but there are farms that do it. They charge a premium, too, for humanely raised foie gras.
So there's my quandary. It's possible to produce foie gras humanely, but it's not easy, and most farms don't do it that way. Instead, most farms do it the easy way to maximize profits at the expense of the birds' welfare.
As a chef, it's pretty much impossible for me to be an animal rights activist. I believe that eating animals is right and good, and that there's nothing wrong with raising animals just for their meat. But unnecessary cruelty... that gives me pause.
The net result is that I no longer cook with foie gras. That's a challenge, because I have had to eliminate some recipes from my menu that were really selling well. But to me, it seems that this is the right thing to do.
That big, long digression served to demonstrate what I consider to be an issue that is fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things, but that I consider to be important enough to act on. This is in contrast to issues like whether or not I use Windows; I consider that to be an issue that's so trivial it's practically non-existent, and therefore I do not consider it to be important enough to act on.
regardless of OS, I think it only fair for hardware manufacturers to disclose their APIs/protocols to everyone (not just MS)-- so we can all use their products
Yup. That would be fair. Unfortunately, commerce has nothing to do with fairness. If you would prefer companies to make their APIs public, then I'd encourage you to act on that. Just like me with the liver thing, you should follow your conscience when you think the issue is important enough. But don't jump to the conclusion that companies that use closed APIs are somehow doing something bad or wrong. What they're doing is perfectly okay, even if it's not what you'd prefer.
I do respect capitalism when properly executed-- but forcing me to use Windows in order to use a simple mouse (e.g. my aforementioned Win-Only Kensington Mouse-in-a-Box USB) is just short of insane.
First, nobody's forcing you to use Windows for anything. There's no law that says you have to use Windows. You don't have to use a computer at all if you don't want to. You might want to think about being more careful with the word "forcing," because it carries a weight and a connotation that's disproportionate, I think, to the context in this situation.
With that said, though, making a mouse that only works under Windows is anything but insane. If I were making mice, and it were for some reason easier or more cost-effective for me to make my mice work only with Windows as opposed to with any operating system, then I would make my mice work with Windows only. Because something like 93% of my potential customers-- people with computers-- use Windows. If I can sell to 93% of my market for $X, but it would cost me $X+Y to sell to 6 of the remaining 7%-- for some nontrivial value of Y-- you bet I would make my product Windows-only. That's just smart business.
Now, the bit about it being "highly irritating," I can't argue with. But if you're going to take the road less traveled, you have to expect that you're going to encounter a few bumps.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
You're trying to use what you call a "but-for" argument. "But for Microsoft's monopolies on key areas of technology, things would be better than they are right now." That's a fundamentally specious argument. The whole point basically equates to, "If it weren't for Union Carbide, we'd all have pet unicorns. Since we don't have pet unicorns, Union Carbide is a bad company!"
It's true that IE hasn't changed much in the last umpty-bump months. But browsers in general haven't changed much since Netscape Navigator 1.0. It's been incremental ever since. In fact, in my opinion, browsers have gotten considerably worse since those days: slower, less compatible, more buggy. So that's probably a bad example.
Browsers aside, though, I think your point about Microsoft sitting on their laurels is worse than flawed; I think it's just plain broken. See, if we lived in a world where there were 30 different operating systems-- or even just 3-- Microsoft's primary goal would be to sell the one that's just slightly better than everybody else's. Why? Because that's where the profits are. Spend as little on R&D as possible, but capture as much of the market as possible. That's the way all the successful software companies would be doing things. Compete for customers by convincing them to abandon product X for your product, but don't spend a fortune to do it.
But that's not how things are done. Microsoft basically doesn't compete with anybody... except themselves. Every time Microsoft releases a new OS, they're depending on a bunch of people abandoning Windows N to use Windows N+1, and in order to do that, they have to produce a Windows N+1 that's demonstrably better, to the users, than Windows N was. Microsoft succeeded like gangbusters in doing this with Windows 2000; Windows 2000 basically kicked both NT's and 98's ass, and millions of people-- literally!-- spent good money to upgrade.
Then, as you point out, came XP. I can't talk about XP. Never seen it. Never used it. But it seems clear that the mass appeal of XP doesn't really match the mass appeal that 2000 had. People who bought new computers with XP are using it, and a bunch of people have upgraded, but virtually everybody I've talked to who was using 2000 before and who didn't buy a new computer are still using 2000. Windows XP just isn't innovative-- yeah, there's that word again-- enough for them to upgrade to it.
So Microsoft's not selling XP like they hoped they would. They kinda dropped the ball there, similarly to the way they kinda dropped the ball with Windows ME. What if we threw an OS and nobody came?
I think this demonstrates that Microsoft is under more pressure to innovate than you give them credit for. It may be true that they're not under any particular pressure to innovate in the ways that you'd like; Microsoft's idea of innovation is giving the customer what they want, which is typically easier, simpler, prettier, more fun. But that's the only kind of innovation that really counts: market-based innovation. Everything else is just masturbation.
Now, I want to address something specifically. It's a small thing, but I think it's worth talking about:
Computers are the new pencil and paper. They are a part of everyday life, and our development as an advanced technological civilization (or so we think ourselves) depends directly, in very large part, upon computers.
I think you're overestimating the importance of personal computers. They're just not that big a deal, Jess. Seriously. If every personal computer in the world were to disappear tomorrow, life wouldn't change all that much. The phone company would have to come up with a new excuse to replace, "Our computers are down right now," but I'm sure they're up to the challenge.
The places where computers have become truly critical to our way of life are in large-scale areas like banking and air traffic control, and small-scale areas like embedded systems for cell phones and TVs. These are the things we would miss if we lost them, and they are not effected at all by whether you use Windows or Linux on your PC. The medium-scale stuff-- desktops, laptops, and so on-- are really incidental. Parenthetical. Superfluous.
At my last job-- the failing software company where I worked before getting laid off and going into the whole restaurant thing-- we had a policy. I guess it's more accurate to say that I had a policy, but since I was the policy-making guy, it amounts to the same thing. You've heard of "casual Friday?" We had what I called "analog Friday." The use of computers was strictly prohibited on Fridays, except for situations in which it was unavoidable. We didn't send our programmers home, but I did make our sales guys get off the email and the IM and make phone calls instead. If you were using a computer for something that you could have done without one on an analog Friday, you were subject to ridicule and mockery by your peers, and particularly by me.
Know what? Our productivity skyrocketed. We started actually talking to each other and to our customers, instead of emailing everybody all the time. Our phone bill rose a bit, but it was a small price to pay for the improved relationships with our customers and between employees and groups inside the company.
Consider spending a day away from your computer. No email, no surfing, no word processor. Get reacquainted with what really is the new pencil and paper: a pencil, and some paper.
Why do you think we don't have an AIDS cure yet? Simple... the drug companies researching HIV have snapped up quick-n-easy US patents on key technologies, genes, compounds, and the like.
There goes that but-for argument again. We don't have an AIDS cure yet because HIV is a complex and aggressive Lentivirus-type retrovirus, and we don't know how to treat retroviruses yet. Heck, retroviruses were completely unknown only 30 years ago. HIV, human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV), human spumavirus (HSRV)... none of these viruses can be treated medically right now.
But it's quite certain that we would not have an AIDS cure if there were no biomedical industry, so your "but-for" argument kinda falls flat.
Incidentally, it always amuses or depresses me-- depending on the context-- when people hold up a cure for AIDS as the next big medical milestone to shoot for. AIDS is horrible, a tragedy. But in terms of the number of people it affects, it's not even on the radar. Heart disease, cancer (technically, "malignant neoplasms"), stroke, respiratory disease, trauma, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, Alzheimer's, kidney disease, and sepsis are the most common causes of death in the United States. Worldwide the list isn't terribly different; malaria and other diarrheal diseases rank high, and lung and respiratory diseases take the #1 spot. (Smoking kills.) But AIDS doesn't even crack the top 10. Measles kills more people every year than AIDS, but you don't see protests in the streets calling for a cure to measles that often. It's just funny-- or sad-- to see people's lack of a sense of proportion.
To sum it all up, you can't say with any shred of accuracy what things would be like without Microsoft, so saying that Microsoft stifles innovation is an unfounded and absurd accusation. Personal computers are an interesting novelty and a nice luxury, but they don't make the world go around. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what operating system you use, so Microsoft isn't really helping or hurting anybody either way. And finally, if you really want to affect change in the world in some meaningful way, go give a pint of blood.
I admire you for wanting to take a stand. I wish you were taking a stand on an issue that mattered to your family, or your friends, or to the world at large, but what you're doing is better than nothing. "The unexamined life," and all that.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Yeah, that's originally what I did. But in so doing, I was helping to increase the size of the market for foie gras, which in turn will increase the size of the market for inhumanely produced foie gras. Most people don't know what foie gras is, or how it's produced, so if they come to the restaurant and enjoy a dish with foie gras in it, they're likely to go out and have foie gras again, possibly at a restaurant that buys theirs from less humane farms. I felt like I was doing more harm than good in the long run.
Again, I'm not a big moralist on this sort of thing. I just feel like it's a person's responsibility to follow his conscience. And my conscience is telling me to drop the pan-seared foie gras appetizer and replace it with a black truffle flan. Nobody complains about the inhumane treatment of the truffle.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
Please do. We could use the business.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a girl.
> How many people have CompactFlash devices on their computers?
Everyone who owns a laptop. CompactFlash + $10 cheapy adaptor = PCMCIA.
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
I didn't know that, but it wouldn't have made a difference. Where I live, "dude" is a gender-neutral second-person pronoun of address.
Everyone who owns a laptop. CompactFlash + $10 cheapy adaptor = PCMCIA.
Your laptop already has USB on it. (Probably.) So, as I asked the other poster in this thread, why not cut out the middle-man? Everybody and his sister will have to adapt compact flash to PCMCIA or to USB anyway, so why make things harder for the customers? Just use USB and one serial communication protocol or another to talk to the device, like you would any similar piece of gear.
I stand by my call of "terrible idea."
Re:Mo-dem? (Score:2)
"excuse me, can i borrow your dialtone?"
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Funny)
What do you call a person who doesn't want to have to *look* at the remote?
Re:Bah (Score:2)
What do you call a person who doesn't want to have to *look* at the remote?
A geek?
Re:Bah (Score:2)
What is: "CmdrTaco", Alec. I'll take Slashdot trivia for 400.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
So, what do you think of gear shifts in cars? Gas/brake/clutch pedals? Steering wheel? Turn signal? Radio knobs? Are you saying that I should have to look at them to use them, when my attention is focused on the road?
Why, then, do you think that an interface that distracts me from the tv is good?
Just curious. (I do own the omniremote software for my Clie, however still use the regular remotes for simple channel flipping/etc for the tactile feedback).
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, the only decent way I found to do it was to map various buttons to the hardware keys of the Palm Pilot, but this over-priced gadget doesn't even have buttons you can map functions to! The really crazy thing is this - if you bought a Palm and a licence for omni-remote (or similar software) then you wouldn't be paying much more than the 70 pounds this thing costs, and you'd get all the advantages of a Palm Pilot (and all the advantages of having buttons you can use with a remote control, too :)
I mean, you kind of wonder who's going to buy something like this ...
Re:Bah (Score:2, Informative)
you're absolutely right - touch screens are not very useful when it comes to remotes because you want to be looking at the TV instead, not looking down at the silly remote to check that you didn't accidentally press "record" instead of "play"
Why don't you READ the article before you start making incorrect claims about it? According to the article:
The Electro-Luminous Display combines the flexibility of a touch-screen with the push button feel of a traditional remote control, so you get the best of both worlds!
The Kameleon doesn't use a touchscreen, it lights the buttons that you need. And I bet they're mappable too!
-Aron
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Take a good, close look at the animation of this remote. It's not an LCD remote. It's got buttons, albeit chicklet-style buttons. Only the buttons that can be used in the current mode are lit up. The animations are a lot like the animations on those crappy LCD video games you can buy for $10 at your local toy store.
Unless you lost all of the nerve endings on your fingers, this thing can be used without looking at it, just like any other remote with buttons.
Now, if you want a programmable remote with buttons and an LCD, check out The Harmony Remote [harmonyremote.com]. Much better than a Pronto and the like, and much more advanced than this one.
tactile? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem I have with these programmable touch-screen remotes is that I can't feel the buttons.
I hate looking at a remote when I want to use it.
Re:tactile? (Score:3, Interesting)
The gist is that piezo "thumper" or a stock tiny portable speaker can be programmed to emit low-frequency vibrations when a key is pressed. Not only does this provide very nifty positive feedback from a touchscreen surface, but the feel itself is programmable. E.g. the demo hardware was an all-LCD desk calculator where the buttons were done as soft keys. The clear button had a tactile sensation distinct from the feedback given by the other buttons. I'm eagerly awaiting this tech to propagate into production devices...
Re:tactile? (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch out for the upcoming lawsuits... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure that there is going to be a number of patent infringements in there somewhere. Numerous lawsuits will be underway before the thing hits the shelves.
- 20 -
Re:Watch out for the upcoming lawsuits... (Score:2)
woo! (Score:1, Funny)
Radio? Bluetooth? (Score:1)
That being said, this looks like a good, inexpensive (Comparatively) option.
Missing Feature (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Missing Feature (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Missing Feature (Score:2)
Pause and Frame-by-Frame advance for the good bits and Fast Forward for the cheesy diaologue sections?
Why do they ruin good pr0n by pretending they can act?
It would have been cooler ... (Score:1)
It's a little boring only having a template for the buttons.
But I guess that's not very far away, soon some company will put out something similar on the market.
In my opinion... (Score:1)
Also, I know when when I use a remote, I'm usually not looking at it. I tell what button to press by the feel of it, which obviously won't work with this.
I can see the geekiness factor, but unless it's hackable in some way, I wouldn't buy one.
Re:In my opinion... (Score:2)
okaaaaaay.
Home Theater Master MX-1000 (Score:2)
I can fast-forward and rewind and pause and change the volume or channel without ever looking away from the TV because the physical buttons can be located by (get this) touch.
A review of the MX-1000 [remotecentral.com]
Not so good: no "touch zapping" (Score:3, Interesting)
With this new device, that wouldn't be possible. Ok, you can have several remote controls integrated into one. But we already have that with normal remote controls...
So, really, apart from the geek fractor, this thing just sounds like a pain to use. Imagine a keyboard without keys! Oh, but wait [fingerworks.com]...
Already done... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are also available in the United States.
Re:Already done... (Score:2)
Philips Pronto (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Philips Pronto (Score:2)
Wow for that price I could hire someone to just stand there and change the channel for me. Certainly one of the neighborhood kids would do that for a few bucks a day.
On a side note, the remote in the article would sell well if it could switch between two modes quickly: the naughty button mode and then the mode your mom sees when she comes to visit.
Philips Universal Remotes (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike this new device, I have complete control over the display. No turning on or hiding a limited choice. I can create buttons on my computer. None of this using a modem to download stuff either! I run an editor and emulator on my computer, or download firmware updates via my DSL. When I'm ready, it's just a serial connection. The device even has some hard buttons for things like volume and channel changing. For the price though, I'm wondering whether a Palm Pilot is a better choice.
Re:Philips Universal Remotes (Score:3, Insightful)
This new unit has more the shape for a 'real' remote control. But indeed, the main drawback is that it is not fully programmable. I hope soon we get a mixture of the pronto and this one: the shape and screen of this 'kameleon', but fully programmable like the pronto.
A Palm is no good choice, since those screens were made to be touched by a stylus, not by your thumb. Using a Palm intensively as a remote, I don't think it would last long. and the 'buttons' are too small on its small screen (or too few).
Tivo "Peanut" is the best. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of my friends have these nifty (and expensive) LCD remotes, but you just can't beat the feel of the peanut.
Re:Tivo "Peanut" is the best. (Score:2)
Long live the peanut!!!
Radio Shack ALREADY has it (Score:2, Informative)
Go to Radio Shack's [radioshack.com] pages, they've had it at least since Yahoo broke this story Monday.
$59.99 isn't that outrageous for a multi-remote, and it's configurable via modem (modem? not USB?)
Where's the API?
Reminds me of the Handspring TREOs.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of the Handspring TREOs.. (Score:2)
Pronto Perspective... (Score:3, Informative)
There are two things that are an advantage here. First is eInk [eink.com] type of buttons, and second is a good distribution channel, RadioShack. Radio Shack does have some cool gadgets still.
There is a very big sort of "grass roots" following of the Pronto. There is a lot of third party development of buttons and the like that makes the Pronto really rule, plus the advanced GUI editing of Pronto Edit.
Also, if you really want to understand the complex world of remotes, check out RemoteCentral [remotecentral.com] for all the information on every universal remote in existance.
To the guy who says "Palm has been doing this for years." I don't really think you would use your Palm to replace your remote control. I have both, and my remote stays next to me TV. My Palm stays near my desk. I would not waste a Palm being the remote. I want something specific that is easy to configure as my remote.
For the guy who asked about X10, if it isn't answered, there are plenty of IR bridges to X10 which you would be able to use with this remote.
This is a good thing? (Score:2)
Tactile feedback (Score:3, Redundant)
Now, if it had multiple buttons that were lcd's (or some other display device) and the remote could change functions with buttons changing labels accordingly, then I might like it. I could memorize the feel of the different buttons for the different remote configurations.
Personalized TV Guide + Universal Remote for Palm (Score:2, Interesting)
ConnectedTV is much quicker and easier to use than an old-fashioned "unguided" universal remote, because you can easily browse just the shows you like, and quickly "touch tune" the channel by simply touching the name of a show, like speed dialing a phone.
Satellite TV and digital cable have hundreds of channels, however their on-screen scrolling guides are slow, full of unwanted shows and obnoxious advertisements, and difficult to use. But ConnectedTV saves time and effort, because you never have to think about or enter hundreds of channel numbers, and it filters out all the junk you're not interested in watching. And you can take your Palm with you anywhere, and browse the guide any time you like!
If you already have a Palm, it's much cheaper to subscribe to ConnectedTV than to buy yet another specialized remote control device. If you don't already have a Palm, ConnectedTV is a great reason to get one!
ConnectedTV Features and Benefits:
Touch Tuning: tune any show by stroking its name
My Favorites page for shows/movies you want to see
Details for thousands of movies and episodes
Handy Palm buttons for instant mute, volume, browsing
One-handed operation - stylus optional!
Organize Channels: you can say what stations are in your guide, including order and categories
HotSync up to 2 weeks of guide into your handheld for any U.S. TV lineup - broadcast, cable, or satellite
Find the shows you want and see them instantly
No channel numbers to remember or press
Browse dozens of shows in seconds
No slow scrolling screen guides or annoying ads
Doesn't block your TV screen with guide choices
Replaces several remote controls with one Palm
Cheaper than any TV guide subscription
Seems too much for the less techincally inclined (Score:2, Insightful)
My parents and in-laws all have the same preference too. I would probably avoid this thing just to avoid having to give a ten minute class on how to use it every time the family visited.
PalmOS + OmniRemote (Score:2)
And, I can play SimCity during the commercials
It's just a matter of time... (Score:2)
One For All (Score:5, Informative)
They made the crappy universal remotes they sold at the Blockbuster I used to rent from. I remember they broke down incredibly fast, and the buttons sucked.
Basically, the number pad was grey rubber buttons shaped exactly like the numbers they show on the screen in the picture, so for the 3 button, you'd have this squiggly line of rubber to push, which, being so thin, would bend all over the place and never work right. The 7 was the worst, since you'd push in the middle, but because of the shape of the 7 you wouldn't hit enough button to push it down. Was it really so bad having square buttons that worked? And the channel up/downs were these little +/- signs. At least the volume buttons were triagles, so you got some surface area to push on. I guess the idea was to make them kinda like braile, so you can find buttons without looking, but it just annoyed me.
And it was only universal enough to work on my cable box and one VCR. The TV and CD player just ignored it.
I hope they've gotten better, or at least put more work into this one. I don't think people are gonna be happy if they have to replace this one every 2 months too.
Re:One For All (Score:2)
The problem is that it is more or less exactly like the Radio Shack 15-1994 universal remote which tended to be much better removing the irritating button design and including an excellent backlight (compared here [hifi-remote.com]). Sadly the Radio Shack remote is no longer being made and has been "upgraded" to the 15-2104 that is more expensive and not as good. Trying to find one on eBay tends to be a bit hard due to the demand, but I'm told it's possible from time to time.
Re:One For All (Score:2)
You're describing a "learning" remote; they've been around for 10 years or more. Most universal remote controls over $20 have at least some learning capabilities (the Kameleon appears to be an exception).
This is not at all new... (Score:2)
There should be a prize (Score:2)
Get a life (Score:2)
Look at the reality
IT'S *NOT* WORTH IT.
People buying such something really needs to get a life. If you have too much money, buy better vacations, better houses, better studies, give it too the poor, but don't buy a stupid remote with it. Are American geeks not already fat enough ? Do they really need a boring toy to prevent them from standing up ?
Wow... they're selling my Clie (Score:2)
Ob-link [sonystyle.com]
Yawn. (Score:2)
JP1 programmable remotes (Score:3, Informative)
There are a number of remotes out there with a six-pin connector that allows you to reprogram them from a computer. This connector is typically accessible from the battery compartment. While most universal remotes have codes for hundreds of devices, with the JP1 connector, you can add new devices that didn't exist when the remote was built. You can also do things that the remote doesn't normally allow (like assigning macros to non-macro buttons). You finally have full control of your remote--you can program every button to do exactly what you want it to do. And you can back it up to a file on your computer.
Zaurus as an IR remote control? (Score:2)
Any hints?
Bye egghat
Heck, forget buttons (Score:2, Interesting)
"Channel Thirty Seven"
"Louder"
"Mode Dolby Digital"
"DVD On"
"DVD Play"
You can't lose your voice under the sofa cushion.
Re:Tactile Feedback (Score:2)
Re:No macros = useless (Score:2)