Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Toys

Interoperable Remote Controls 191

Posted by Hemos from the please-please-make-it-happen dept.
Lord Prox writes "From the HAVi website: "Ever dreamed of how your ideal home could function in the new millennium? A TV with voice recognition capability? Or connected to a video telephone link so that the TV is muted and calls are answered automatically by a voice command? How about a video camera that automatically displays a picture on the TV screen when a visitor arrives; or starts a recording if the same thing happens unexpectedly during the night?" Apparently 8 of the leading consumer electronics companies are trying to get rid of all those remotes and do some cooperation over IEEE 1394. Whitepapers and FAQ available."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interoperable Remote Controls More

Interoperable Remote Controls

Comments Filter:
  • How about a video camera that automatically displays a picture on the TV screen when a visitor arrives
    Why not just look out the window?

  • The future is now! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WigginX ( 104107 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:47AM (#6549842)
    It'll be just like all those sci-fi movies, only we'll probably end up with standards wars anyway.
    • Yeah but standards wars usually finish eventually. Beta vs VHS has an obvious winner, the 56k modem wars eventually ended up with a dominant power, dvd and burnable dvd's are still up in the air a bit but as recent articles [slashdot.org] show us, things appear to be moving towards a winner too..

      So, while it may take a while, a standards war will eventually resolve, or at least settle into a number of camps large enough that the user base for each will be significant ...

      plus, what's wrong with a bit of friendly (hah) co

  • Fighting (Score:3, Funny)

    by FluffyG ( 692458 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:48AM (#6549851)
    great, instead of fighting for the remote we will be fighting the other people in the room until they shutup and done say anything.

    The number of gaggings will be at an all time high. Just imagine having that in a bar full of drunks!

  • Why Firewire? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wheel Of Fish ( 305792 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:49AM (#6549859) Homepage
    Why use a physically wired connection for this "system of the future"? Why not WiFi or some other wireless protocol?

    Running FireWire between components in the same room is feasable (though messy), but connecting to cameras at the front door and devices in other rooms is gonna be a pain.

    • Re:Why Firewire? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I for one will not touch any wireless connection system for consumer electronics unless there is an open source IPSec stack involved and the user has full control over accepting new nodes into the network (key-fingerprints). Especially cameras and home automation systems require more security than most manufacturers are willing to build into the devices right now. When (not if) there is a highly publicized hack of a home automation system, consumers will shy away from these systems.

    • Re:Why Firewire? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by femto ( 459605 )
      Encryption? It wouldn't do to have all that unguarded audio and video whizzing about the air waves would it now?

    • Why not WiFi or some other wireless protocol?

      I'd say, because they want it to work. Anyone in an urban area doesn't want to accidentally watch what is comming from the neighbor's DVD player, nor does your neighbor want you to be able to do so.

      WiFi doesn't have as much bandwidth, and it would require a LOAD of processing power for you devices to form the packets, and deal with all the other things a computer has to. With high bandwidth video and audio streams, that would require a lot more processing pow

      • Not really. People have coax cable running through their houses already. Using firewire instead of coax wouldn't be difficult.

        Except that there is a 4.5 metre limit [1394ta.org] to the length of Firewire cable.

        • Re:Why Firewire? (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The 4.5 metre limit was for 1394a. 1394b allows up to 100meters using different physical media (POF ?) and also allows repeaters. Go check 1394ta.org again.

        • Except that there is a 4.5 metre limit to the length of Firewire cable.

          I believe the length is somewhat longer... The 4.5m seems to be with 28AWG, so it wouldn't take a rocket-scientist to figure out how to make it longer.

          I have seen cables quite a bit longer than 4.5m available from stores. I'd like to read the info straight from the link (to see if there's something I don't know), but the site seems to be down right now.
    • Subject [philips.com] says [eetimes.com] it [1394ta.org] all [intel.com].

    • Re:Why Firewire? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otterley ( 29945 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @12:26PM (#6552107)
      Because FireWire carries device-pertinent information over it, and it automatically assigns address information on the bus, just like USB. In a FireWire topology, every device in the network knows what every other device is and can figure out what it does. Auto-configuration is really nice, and consumers want that.

      802.11b is merely a link-layer protocol -- it doesn't do enough. You'd still need a transport-layer protocol (IP?). Assuming IP, then you'd need address assignment, then an application layer protocol on top of that. How are devices on the network going to identify one another and their capabilities? 802.11b offers no help in that department.

  • Use of firewire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leerpm ( 570963 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:50AM (#6549862)
    It is interesting that they chose FireWire over other technologies. But what about the use of Ethernet? I believe FireWire is limited to a range of around 30 feet, unless you have a repeater.

    Would it be possible to build a Firewire-to-Ethernet adaptor product that allows 2 firewire enabled devices to talk to each other over Ethernet, with two adaptors on each ?
    • It is interesting that they chose FireWire over other technologies

      Nice point... if I remember Bruce Perens right, FireWire is muddled with proprietary drivers/ interface s/w - considering that Linux has been adopted by major Electronics giants, FireWire is a bad choice.

      And secondly, considering interactive Ecommerce is still not a reality, I doubt home eqpt will start interacting anytime soon.

      -

      • Re:Use of firewire (Score:2, Informative)

        by 91degrees ( 207121 )
        Firewire is an IEEE standard. It should therefore be quite easy to licence it at a reasonable cost.I think it's actually something like $1 per port anyway.

        • Actually... (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          ...the cost is now $0.25 per device.

    • Re:Use of firewire (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ups ( 32461 )
      Two words: isochronous transmission.

      With firewire, bandwidth can be reliably reserved so that audio and video can be transmitted real-time without risking choppy video / holes in the sound. It also handles some latency issues, although I don't remember the details...

      You could use a bridge to transmit the data over ethenet, but you'd loose the ability to do isochronous transmission.

    • Re:Use of firewire (Score:5, Informative)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:41AM (#6550174) Journal
      It is interesting that they chose FireWire over other technologies.

      No, Firewire is pretty much the only option, unless you want your TV and VCR communicating over Serial SCSI or Fibre Channel (the two serial SCSI interfaces other than Firewire).

      But what about the use of Ethernet?

      Yikes! First, you'd need a very smart device to be able to form ethernet and TCP/IP packets, deal with error checking, addressing, and everything else ethernet and TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) have to do. So, Firewire has a tiny fraction of the overhead, while not requiring you to wory about addressing and more.

      Firewire devices usually have pass-through, so you can daisy-chain them... Never see that with ethernet.

      Can you imagine how much computing power it would require to send raw video and audio data over ethernet? Sure, it would be possible with a computer, but your VCR and DVD player doesn't have a 3GHz processor, nor would you want it to require one...

      I believe FireWire is limited to a range of around 30 feet, unless you have a repeater.

      It's more than 30 feet, and you can use numerous repeaters if you need to... Not really a problem.

      • Re:Use of firewire (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jeffmock ( 188913 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @11:29AM (#6551568)
        The thing I really hate about this HAVI stuff is that the CE companies are ignoring what the rest of the world knows about abstraction and layering network protocols.

        You're missing the point to argue the merits of ethernet or 1394. The point is that this is a layer-4 protocol and should have nothing to do woth the physical or link layers. HAVI should be orthogonal to the physical layer.

        Can you imagine the dark cave we would still be living in if TCP was somehow specifically bound to ethernet?

        I think these HAVI guys are hung up on DRM, and feel that they might let the genie out of the bottle if they abstract the physical and link layers out of their protocols to run on any link layer.

        As a result, this will wind up like previous CE standards effort and fail to provide a consistent interoperable system.

        jeff
      • Yikes! First, you'd need a very smart device to be able to form ethernet and TCP/IP packets, deal with error checking, addressing, and everything else ethernet and TCP/IP (or UDP/IP) have to do.

        Implimenting TCP is pretty trivial really, you can get everything you need on one chip, or just dump the commonly available code onto a microprocessor.

        I'd rather see it set up on ethernet because it makes it easier to integrate with my home network and I can make it wireless with common equipment, but if it works

    • FireWire is by far the best choice (Score:5, Informative)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @09:05AM (#6550337)
      Ethernet? No. FireWire is designed for hubless, daisy-chainable, high speed, peer-to-peer device communications and control from the ground up. And you are incorrect about the distance limitations. Feel like you need TCP/IP specifically? No problem.

      Additionally, FireWire is already widely used on almost all digital video cameras, decks, and equipment, is emerging on DVD-A devices, and is the standard interconnect for OpenCable set-top boxes [cablelabs.com] specified by CableLabs.

      This was what FireWire was made for. Unfortunately, its adoption and use has been crippled by an entertainment industry deathly afraid of the prospect of 100% digital transport, copies, recording, and manipulation by the end customer. What a shame.

      IEEE-1394b, the current iteration of the standard, supports speeds from 100 to 3200 Mbps at distances up to 100 m, and supports its "native" 9-conductor shielded twisted-pair copper, ordinary CAT-5, and various flavors of optical cabling.

      See the informative IEEE-1394b Technical Brief [apple.com] and What is 1394? [1394ta.org] for more information.

      For even more information, including information about Wireless FireWire, see Intel's 1394 Technology site [intel.com].
    • From the article:

      "1394 has more than enough capacity to simultaneously carry multiple digital audio and video streams around the house, and provides support for digital copy protection.

      The RIAA/MPAA have not only convinced these manufacturers that P2P is evil, but now they want to control how we use media between rooms in our own homes. Maybe they will call it R2R(room to room) piracy.

  • Only european and asian companies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:50AM (#6549866) Homepage
    Anyone notice that the companies participating in HAVi are all either European or Asian? If this standard survives, it'll probably take a while to get to the states ...

    On a related note: philips already makes a programmable remote that you can program by pointing it at an other remote. You then press the button on the first remote and you can assign it to a button on the philips remote. Very handy.

    • Re:Only european and asian companies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:53AM (#6549884)
      Anyone notice that the companies participating in HAVi are all either European or Asian?
      I hate to break your spirit, but I think most consumer electronics giants nowadays are Asian or European. Most of the American consumer electronic giants exited the market years ago.
    • and VividLogic is based in California. It appears that 25 percent of them are American companies. Although I agree with the other poster who noted most American companies have exited the field. It is area with low profit margins, that tends to rely on cheap labor in third world countries.
    • On a related note: philips already makes a programmable remote that you can program by pointing it at an other remote. You then press the button on the first remote and you can assign it to a button on the philips remote. Very handy.

      Err...so do about 2 dozen other companies. Take a look at Remote Central [remotecentral.com].
    • Where is your TV from? Your DVD? Your computer? Your home theater system? etc..

  • I'm not holding my breath... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slusich ( 684826 ) <slusich@gmRASPail.com minus berry> on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:50AM (#6549871)
    I have serious doubts that these companies can actually cooperate on anything long enough to produce a viable standard. I'd be happy just to see a universal remote that actually did replace all the other remotes, instead of just giving partial functionality.
    • Spend the money on a Philips Pronto. It really does replace them all, and my home theater is fairly complex. The programming software sucks, but it pretty much does it all.
      • The problem with the Pronto, and all other remotes like that, is that they are mostly touch screen. It's nice that the newer ones have more hard buttions, but I want ALL hard buttons. I don't want to have to look at the remote to use it for most things.
        • I like some hard buttons..things like Channel UP/Down and Volume. But with ALL hard buttons you hit a wall on redoing the remote. The idea is to set up the remote for how you use it, not just to merge all 85 buttons from the normal remotes to 1. That's hard to do with all hard buttons.

          Touch screen isn't too bad. After a while you learn what to hit you can do it without looking.
        • The big problem with hard buttons in a universal remote control are the special functions. The text labeling never suffices, and it's a pain to remember that a certain button does something totally unrelated to it's label for device x.

          Ideally, you would have hard buttons with a big LCD in the background (or tiny LCDs embedded in each button). That way, when you switched devices, the text labeling would change as well.

          I personally prefer my 8" AMX touchpanel & hardwired IR. Works perfectly every time,
    • Well, as someone who used to work for one of them, and chaired one of the tehcnical working groups, I can tell you that that the HAVi standards are already written and available.

      Insightful, huh?

      Jon.


      • "I can tell you that that the HAVi standards are already written and available." Well, whoop te do.

        I don't know what's going on. You can put any brand of gas in your car and it will go, you can put any brand of analog audio cassette in your cassette player and it will play, but when it comes to digital electronics, suddenly standards mean nothing.

        You can't even buy plain old CD-R media and have more than about 80% confidence that you can burn it in drive A and then read it in CD player B. For DVD recorda

  • I thought copyright holders were the holdouts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:51AM (#6549872)
    Connecting all your home electronics by FireWire has been anticipated since Apple first introduced the technology on their PowerMacs. But I always thought that it was the MPAA, RIAA, et.al. who were keeping this from becoming a reality -- those business interests who didn't want it to be easy to move perfect digital copies from your DVD player or TiVo to your PC. (Not that this is difficult with PC DVD-ROM drives, but then they could at least try to control the software which could make the copies.)

    So is this for real? Or just another pipe dream for us geeks?
    • It is a pipe dream. First, the data sent over firewire is typically 5C encrypted. Second, current HAVi licenses prohibit the use of computer to store unencrypted data. There is a PCI card supposedly in development that acts as a HAVi slave device.
    • What I want is for all these companies to quit making these stupid fixed-function boxes that I have to stack up and connect together. I have a 3Ghz processor, a gig of RAM and 300Gb of storage for god's sake! Give me a PCI card to interface with your media (cable, dish input, internet broadcast, whatever) and provide some software to control it. I do NOT need yet another fixed-function box to generate heat and tangle cables in my AV corral!

  • Another article... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Wheel Of Fish ( 305792 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:53AM (#6549883) Homepage
    Since it seems to be slashdotted (about pages say "Temporarily Unavailable"), there's an in-depth article over at ExtremeTech [extremetech.com].

  • How about the rats nest of wires? (Score:4, Informative)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:54AM (#6549889) Journal
    The interchangeable remotes is nice, but what looks like a real killer app is that we'll have far fewer wires. Just plug everything into a hub, and it's connected to all other devices.

    Maybe we'll even be able to get rid of a few of those power cables if we can have some low power devices that can be powered through the connector.
  • I would of like to ideally of seen this as wireless. Say for example I have my HiFI and I want to wear headphone which have a built in Mic. Surely with Bluetooth or 802.11b I could of walked around/out of those host listening to my streaming music collection. Also if I'm on a mobile it ringing could cause other sounds to cut out

    Just my thoughts

    Rus
    • Wireless does make more sense, especially considering the idea is integrating more than just AV components which are physically adjacent.

      I'd even go so far as to say I wish that you could do components wireless to each other, not just for room-room. I have a dead-simple AV setup (Reciever, Power Amp, DVD player, Tivo, VCR, Digital Cable box, TV, 6 pair of speakers throughout the house), and I found it to be a PAIN IN THE ASS to hook this stuff up*.

      I wonder if there's spectrum available for such an applic

      • Re:Wireless (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Wireless does NOT make more sense, except in some future world, where we have cheap, reliable 400mbit wireless connectivity with isochronous transfer. Firewire can be daisy-chained, so your mess of a setup becomes 'hook any component into any other component with one wire, and it works'.

  • This suggests a good slashdot poll. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Prince_Ali ( 614163 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @07:55AM (#6549896) Journal

    How many remotes do you have?

    • 0
    • 1-2
    • 2-4(in grand slashdot tradition of overlapping numerical choices)
    • 4-8
    • I don't have any electronics you insensitive clod!
    • Cowboyneal changes the channel when I ask.
  • Yes but becasue of the FCC googup over specturms allocated for DTV(ie iTV) we wil not see thi until 2010..2005 is suppose to be the year that sale channels finally show up fro devlopers of apps for itv so that one can mak emoney devloping itv apps..

  • Um... X-10 anyone? It isn't just for spy cameras you know. 8)= A couple of quick references to get you started: http://www/smarthome.com http://www.x10.com

  • You see, it depends (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:00AM (#6549925)
    To go with the super-remote system (which includes a video monitor so you don't even have to look over your shoulder to see who is nagging you to get up out of the chair for once), and the Wireless Beer Glass, we'll have the Electronic Depends diapers so you can stay in that barcalounger for days at a time. Each with its own TCP/IP address, the diaper will send an alarm to the Internet when it is too wet and needs to be changed.

  • How long until it's crippled? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:05AM (#6549953)
    So, who's taking bets on how long it will be before the **AA forces manufacturers to cripple this or use it to implement DRM in some way? Like, for example, if you're watching a DVD, it will prevent you from turning on your VCR, since you might be using it to record that DVD. Or, if you're playing a CD, it prevents you from turning on your component MP3 player, because, well, you might be using it to record that CD stream and distribute it over the Internet.

    Don't get me wrong, I think this would be cool, and I welcome the day when I can dispose of the 4 remotes I have (3 of which are Sony, and they still don't interoperate well). But in this day and age of DRM, I fear that the more we automate things, the easier it will be for those in power to legislate what we can and can't do with them.

    Look at DVDs, for example. Sure, the picture quality and sound are miles ahead of VHS. But on VHS, I can fastforward through that FBI warning, and trailers. I can't do that with most DVDs. Nor can I skip chapters, or access the menu unless the disc decides I'm worthy. And I'm forced to watch the MGM splash screen, and some annoying intro that the DVD designers think looks cool. (Yes, yes, I know of the existence of mod chips and hacks for DVD players. That's not the point.) With DVD, the media (as in disc, not newspapers) controls the player, as opposed to the other way around with VHS.

    The more we relinquish control over our equipment, in the name of automation and progress, the more we hand control over to another group. Is that the way it has to be? No. Is that the way it should be? No. But that's the way it is.

    • It has already happened (Score:4, Interesting)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @09:23AM (#6550499)
      See these [1394ta.org] articles [businesswire.com] as an example.

      And even with 5C content protection, the entertainment industry is STILL deathly afraid of the idea of delivering digital content to customers with full digital interconnectivity between their devices.

      If not for them, we would have a single, clean FireWire cable, or no cable at all, connecting all of our devices, and enabling them to seamlessly communicate with and control one another. I would have thought we'd be there by now...

  • HAVi TV (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:07AM (#6549959) Homepage Journal
    I own a HAVi enabled TV (Mits WS-55511) and while its nice to know its there, there arent many other HAVi enabled devices. No HAVi DVD players, cable boxes, etc. Thats the current problem with HAVi.

  • JP1 (Score:4, Informative)

    by msheppard ( 150231 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:07AM (#6549960) Homepage Journal
    I'll push this technology again: It lets you program your remote. It's a sort of universal remote control protocol. You can reprogram any button to almost anything. Combined with a IR reciever for your X10 light controller and you can turn lights or anything off/on from the couch.

    Best spot for info on it is this Yahoo Jp1 Group [yahoo.com]

    Bottom line; You gotta build your own cable, and the tools to manage the key codes ain't that great. Better yet, write your own, but if you're reading this chances are you can get by. You only end up using the software when you get a new device, which ain't TOO often.

    I've got a radio shack 15-1995, and I can control everything from the back yard. I don't know why I would want to do that, but it's nice to get the telescope setup and then turn ALL the lites in the house off with one button.

    M@

  • YES! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <[be] [at] [eclec.tk]> on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:10AM (#6549980) Homepage Journal
    Now I can lose 1 remoted and disable up to 8 devices!!!

  • Can't do it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:14AM (#6549998) Journal
    Sorry, you can't bend the laws of physics...

    No matter how you inter-connect devices, one is going to want the up/down button to be channel up/down, while the other is going to want it to be volume up/down, while your VCR, or anything else is not going to use it for either, but rather, only use it in some menu.

    That's why people still have dozens of remotes rather than getting a universal remote. I spent $70 on a universal learning remote, but navigating the menu on my TV still leaves me using Up/Down to move forward and backwards, and using Left/Right to move up/down. In addition, even if I did re-program those buttons, it wouldn't change the fact that the labling would be contrary to the actual functions.

    There needs to be a LOT of work done to standardize remote layouts. Then, and only then, would using a single remote be useful.
    • I spent $70 on a universal learning remote, but navigating the menu on my TV still leaves me using Up/Down to move forward and backwards, and using Left/Right to move up/down. In addition, even if I did re-program those buttons, it wouldn't change the fact that the labling would be contrary to the actual functions.

      Wha.. What? On the learning remote I have, you simply press the button on the universal remote you want to learn a function for, then take the original remote and press the button you want to em
      • Well, first of all it was just an example. People without learning remotes don't even have that as an option.

        One reason I don't learn the codes in reverse is because I'd have to swap those 8 buttons (arrangement of 4 in two different places) for each device for consistency. That would make things fine for my TV menu, but it would then reverse the buttons on my VCR menu, which I use much more often... Instead, I could keep things on my VCR the same as they are, and change them for my TV, but then in VCR
    • *cough* Pronto *cough*
    • Or you just a a remote with a touchscreen LCD.

      That's what I have, and I only spent $40.

      :P
  • What is the world coming to? First, the invention of the remote control, the first sign that we humans may be a little too lazy for our own good.(don't get me wrong, I would die without my remote control). Now, voice activated televisions? This means one of two things, either the end is near and we can expect a fate much like the one you'll see while watchint T3, or we'll all die because we will all be to fat to move off of the couch.

    Lets just hope that the voice activation is a little better than a cel

  • And if you're too lazy to use a remote directly.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sonicattack ( 554038 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:17AM (#6550016) Homepage
    There's always this baby [theonion.com]

  • Tech today (Score:2, Interesting)

    by digtl88 ( 681911 )
    The technology is always changing now. We have no time to get used to the most recent tech before they start on creating something new and better.

  • Jini (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guillermito ( 187510 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:20AM (#6550030) Homepage
    Wasn't jini [sun.com] supposed to do this?

  • Great idea for the TV (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cocotoni ( 594328 )
    Ok, this is slightly OT, but it is my current peevee against cell phone manufacturers - they are producing the car handsfree sets that can mute the radio, just as it is done with TV in article, but why not implement it also for standalone walkmans?

    I already have a handsfree headphones and mic. I want to listen to the music I have on my MD player. If I listen to the music, chances are that I will not hear the phone ringing, and when I hear it I have to fumble to change the headphones.

    Why not put a simple 2
  • Ever dreamed of how your ideal home could function in the new millennium?

    Hi, I'm Troy McClure. Let me tell you about a great new product:

    Tiny Wireless Camera for Fun _and_ Safety! Camera fits anywhere... yeah, anywhere. (camera pans down woman's shirt)



    Wait, what's the safety part?

  • Universal Remote (Score:2, Informative)

    by baker_tony ( 621742 )
    Surely you geeks must have a kick ass universal remote (I have the Sony AV3000) which you can use? I've got about a billion cables running around my living room (PC, XBox, Computer, router, laptop, Freeview digital TV, Amp, playstation, etc...) any more cables would cause the floor to give way. At least with a decent remote with programmable buttons and macros I've managed to get rid of my 5+ individual remotes.

  • Don't hold your breath. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billtom ( 126004 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:25AM (#6550055)
    Don't hold your breath waiting for this. The consumer electronics (CE) companies like to talk a good game about interoperability but the truth is that they really don't want it. Each company wants you to buy all your electronics from them exclusively and seriously don't want you mixing and matching.

    Don't believe me, check out this from the HAVi website charter page:

    "The Organization is promoting the development of products based on the the HAVi 1.0 final specification, completed in December 1999."

    So there has been a standard for almost four years, but how many HAVi enabled electronics devices do you see down at your local Generic Big Box Electronics Store? Zero would be a reasonable estimate.

    Sure, the CE companies might put it on a few of their very high end items just for PR purposes. But never on the stuff that makes up the bulk of their revenue.

    • Re:Don't hold your breath. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mosch ( 204 ) *
      I hate to spoil your cynicism, but this really doesn't make sense. A/V connectors are already standardized, that's not the problem. The problem is that the back of my receiver looks like this [bkcomp.com].

      Surely I'm not the only person who thinks that current A/V setups have become close to unmanageable due to this mix of rca, xlr, coax and toslink audio, component, s-video and rca video.

      I'd pay a whole hell of a lot of money for a proper fix to this mess, and surely I'm not the only one.

      • HAVi isn't really so much about the A/V connectors (as you point out, they're somewhat standardized already). It's about signalling. That is, communications between the devices about the data streams (the audio and video). Sure, they imagine that the data streams themselves will also be sent over the same wires, but as you point out, that isn't reall necessary.

        To pick a somewhat dumb example (but playing off the one in the article post), it's about your HAVi telephone telling your HAVi audio receiver that

    • So there has been a standard for almost four years, but how many HAVi enabled electronics devices do you see down at your local Generic Big Box Electronics Store? Zero would be a reasonable estimate.

      Nope, not zero. Most of Mitsubishi's big-screen TVs have HAVi. I think their HDTV VCR is HAVi also. You can wire them together with firewire and then your TV's remote can control the VCR (as well as send and receive video) over firewire. The Mitsu TVs actually want to know all about your A/V system, incl

      • Geez, read the paragraph in the post after the one you quoted:

        Sure, the CE companies might put it on a few of their very high end items just for PR purposes. But never on the stuff that makes up the bulk of their revenue.

        I don't think that big-screen TVs and HDTV VCRs count as mainstream products yet. When HAVi is available on the 27" CRT TVs and $200 VCRs then we'll talk.

        But don't get me wrong, I think that electronics interoperability is extremely cool and actually useful. But my original post wasn't
  • I can see it now, the new wave of hacking will be to steal the unique ID of someone's uber-remote, and then to control their entire house from Uzbekistan or something. Then, you can ransom back their UID to them or else not let them out for food or anything, plus you can broadcast the whole thing directly to the media for enchanced public outcry. WOO! That's modern technology!

  • and a new line of anti-priacy ads? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:34AM (#6550116)
    when the tv is actually voice activated, whats to stop things like:

    (loudly spoken from the TV) TV Stop Recording, VCR Stop Recording, Stop Recording, DVD/VCR erase media.

    wonder how much a station would have to get paid before it started running ads that had
    "watch KPr0n, just by saying TV Switch to channel 69"

  • Also from the site... (Score:4, Informative)

    by pointwood ( 14018 ) <jramskov AT gmail DOT com> on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:35AM (#6550130) Homepage

    Licensing Information...

    Intellectual Property Rights licenses are available from the companies that contributed to the HAVi 1.0 specification.

    The seven of the eight promoter companies (Grundig, Hitachi, Matsushita including JVC as Matsushita's group member, Philips, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba) who have co-created the HAVi Specification enable smooth and easy access to their IPR, which protects the HAVi Specification, by an open Joint-License program via Philips, as Licensor, on non-discriminatory most favourable terms and conditions.

    The relevant IPR includes:
    1. the HAVi Specification;
    2. Essential Patents, which are deemed to be necessary for the manufacture of HAVi Products, that comply with the HAVi Specification;
    3. the HAVi logo, the use of which is allowed for the promotion and sales of HAVi Products and
    4. HAVi Compliance Test Suite and HAVi Test Requirements, which are prescriptions for testing certain aspects of implementation of the HAVi Specification in products.

    A really "nice and patented" standard :(

    • It's not too cheap to enter the market either. Looks like it's for big boys only:

      25. What is the license policy/fee for HAVi development?

      Licensing for the HAVi specification is handled through Royal Philips Electronics on behalf of seven of the eight Promoter companies who co-created the HAVi Specification. (more information about THOMSON Multimedia's licensing policy)
      * One-time license fee of US $5,000.
      * US $0.10 per product.

  • Steve's Law of Investment: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xtal ( 49134 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:44AM (#6550198)
    "Ever dreamed of how your ideal home could function in the new millennium? A TV with voice recognition capability? "

    No. Talking to inanimate devices in my home is something I do not what to do, and while cute, gets REALLY OLD FAST.

    Don't ever invest in anything that uses "voice recognition technology" as a selling point for a consumer product. It's all pointless and it sucks. Are you realistically going to sit there and listen to your SO talk to the TV?

    The killer app for voice recognition technology is in automating call centers. The first person to develop transparent dialog with a computer will become a multi-billionaire as you've just found a way to eliminate tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs in front line technical support.

    • I can see it now - instead of wrestling with your three brothers over who gets control of the remote, (coupled with advanced techiques of covering the remote sensor on the TV, and turning on-off the VCR, cable box, and DVD depending on which remote you have in your posession), there will be a great shouting matches. A marked improvement I must say - kind of like the UN.

      That is of course until my mom has had enough, walks into the garage, flips the circit breaker for the living room and orders us outside. (
    • I think voice recognition would be handy for some devices, but I don't want it in my tv. Commercials could get really obnoxious when they start saying things like "increase volume" to sidestep the FCC regulations and play the commerical really loud.
  • I have work in the home automation business, here are some features we have been able to offers for some years now.

    1. Door camera's, when someone rings the door bell and the TV is on, you see the person on the picture in a picture display on your TV. Also can talk with them by picking up and phone with the in home intercom system.

    2. TV remotes with script files, press power and the TV, DVD, Receiver turn ON. Press play on your remote and the lights in the room dim, blinds close.

    3. Forget to turn dow

  • no voice please (Score:4, Insightful)

    by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @08:51AM (#6550254)
    I don't want voice recognition...my PC's voice recognition system *still* doesn't recognize some very standard english words when I say them, even after several hours of training, lots of regular use, and even adding the words it misses to a custom file complete with a recording of me saying the word about every possible way I can. Voice recognition in a television would be horrible. There are already voice-recognizing phones...my experience with them is that, they are almost totally inaccurate or ineffective.

    I would, however, be very interested in the other components in the system; especially the camera bit. I have already thought about implimenting a type of laser tripwire system to alert when someone is approaching the door in my house and linking it to my computer (probably pretty easily doable) but it would be even easier to do that if the devices are already designed for that purpose.

    Smart devices = great.
    Voice recognition, anywhere = not great.

  • The difficult part is programming your preferences (Score:4, Informative)

    by Diomidis Spinellis ( 661697 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @09:03AM (#6550324) Homepage
    I have automated audio, security, internet access, and voice telephony using a central server box running FreeBSD [freebsd.org] and a couple of clients running Linux and NetBSD [netbsd.org]. I term this approach the Information Furnace [spinellis.gr]. When I presented my work [spinellis.gr] at the SANE 2002 [nluug.nl] conference a member of the audience asked me:
    What job does your wife do?

    Fortunatelly for me, my wife is an IT professional and can appreciate both the advantages of this setup (our CDs are instantly available throughout the house, we can remotely retrieve caller-id information on last calls, setup customized alarm response scenarios, and so on) and the inevitable bugs (the first friends to ring our doorbell were were greeted by an answering machine message).

    However, getting the behavior of the system just right took us more than a year, I am still being very conservative when I tweak something (I am never introducing changes to it before leaving for a vacation), and there were times where we discussed the system's interface over a graphical depiction of state machine diagram. I am sure the /. crowd thinks this is the way to go, but I also think there will be people who might find such a setup a bit bewildering.

    Diomidis Spinellis - Code Reading: The Open Source Perspective [spinellis.gr]
    #include "/dev/tty"

  • no thanks.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @09:15AM (#6550412) Homepage
    I want the ABILITY to switch to a channel to see the front door cam when I hear the doorbell (Or better yet a text crawl across the bottom of the screen. like my caller ID box does.

    The "automatic" stuff does nothing but piss off users.. Being a Home automation hobbiest and on the side installer/integrator (Yes I have designed and installed home automation systems for other people)
    I know what people hate... and they absolutely hate things that assume what they want.

    Besides, all of this is possible right now (except the text crawl I mentioned) as I have installed 3 such systems already into home automation/theatre systems....

    doorbell rings or motion detector senses motion near the front door. activate alerter (light flash, nice doortone while fading down the background music/tv sound/stereo/whatever, select my front door cable tv channel, pick up phone and dial 44 for the front door and talk with them... press # to buzz the door open.

    some of you say "get up and look" but this is not really feasable for the 6500sq foot 3 story home that 99.997% of these systems are in.

    my 1150sq foot flat? it's silly. but I still saw the kids trying to spraypaint my car last night so I could hit the all lights on button and unlock the doggie door to watch my german shepard tear the arse out of one of the punks.

  • HAVi devices are available now (Score:3, Informative)

    by nedron ( 5294 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @10:02AM (#6550833) Homepage
    HAVi devices are available now, with HD sets and Digital VHS decks from Mitsubishi to name a couple.


    Simply plug the D-VHS deck into a Mits NetCommander enabled set and your D-VHS controls and features are automatically added to the onscreen menus of the HD set AND to the TV remote.


    Many other devices that currently use proprietary IEEE1394 control interfaces are getting ready to switch to HAVi, particularly since the cable industry finally opted for Firewire connections for recording devices.

  • WOW! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Redbw6 ( 682930 )
    I can't even begin to think about what our lives would be like with this kind of technology. It sounds impressive but I have to wonder how much this would contribute to the already growing number of obese people.

  • Great concept.. may never happen. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @11:17AM (#6551467) Journal
    Like so many other things in this industry, havi is being stopped by political issues..

    What's the first device that someone buys after getting that new 65" Mitsubishi HDTV (which supports havi / firewire)?? A DVD player, of course.

    And, how many DVD players support havi?? ZERO. Our friends at the MPAA cannot allow a DVD player with a firewire output (even though it supports usage restrictions that stop any copying).

    How many DirecTV receivers have firewire ports?? ZERO. Our friends at the MPAA cannot allow this, since all the high value HD movies on the pay channels could then be time shifted, and watched at any time.

    You can buy a D-VHS VCR, which supports HD video, with a firewire port, and havi integration. But, there are only a handful of movies available in this format. And, since no cable or satellite services can be recorded via firewire, this VCR is of very limited value.

    Havi is a great concept. It could greatly simplify integration and usage of home entertainment equipment. It can even reduce costs by eliminating redundant equipment (a DVD player would not need an MPEG decoder, since that exists in the display. It only needs to read the MPEG data and send it over the firewire. Same thing for satellite receivers.) But, without support from the common devices, havi is useless.

  • I'd settle for... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mccrew ( 62494 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @11:17AM (#6551473)
    Actually, I would just settle for being able to FIND the #!@$%#$ed remote control!
  • After watching the ultramatic bed commercials. I can just envisage a couple lying there why little Johnny next door tweaks some remote and proceeds to make a person sandwich.

  • How about... (Score:2, Informative)

    by xNoLaNx ( 653172 )
    Why not just use RM-X [skin-zone.net]? This guy will have it working with all the devices in your house before these slow ass corporate companies will. Right now it's mainly focused on Winamp, but he's going to have it work with everything. I hear he's working on implementations of it in controlling a in-house automatic irrigation system, as well as a security system. He's also going to open source it. The way I see it, how can you do any better? This corporate attempt will just take years and still have an expensive syst
  • With all the DRM and IP whining and crying going on, and all the litigious vampires out there there is no way that they will allow the little people to have any form of control over thier own lives.

    And god forbid that the little people have any control over the things that they see or hear.

    Soon, like the curse word detector in Demolition Man, there will be tune detectors everywhere.

    Humm a tune while you work? Cha-ching! "John Doe, you have been fined $20 for violating the RIAA self entertainment law".

  • For the Elderly... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by reynolds_john ( 242657 ) on Monday July 28, 2003 @03:40PM (#6553565)
    My grandfather recently passed away, and my grandmother is 92 years old. Both of them are/were in sound mind, and as active as the elderly can be.
    Working with them the past few years has been enlightening as far as how remotes and items we take for granted day-to-day are giant hurdles for them.
    ON TOPIC: The engineers who develop these horrible remotes which have a thousand buttons, all which are sub-atomic size, should take into account that there is a *large* population of 70+ people who simply don't purchase and can't use these devices because they're too small to operate, and too complicated. There are *some* large-button remotes out there, but they usually must be set up, which requires even more hurdles.

    I'm not sure there's ever going to be a perfect solution for the elderly, but from the remotes I've seen, there's plenty of room for improvement. Sony, to my suprise, are the biggest offenders of tiny-button remotes.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close