Technology catch-all thread

[Y2HH]

The first time I saw anyone mess with a bar's tv was with a wristwatch universal remote circa 1990. I figured that ran it's course during the last century. But everything old is new again.

 

And what's with the cracks about "adults" and how they use their phones?

 

I'm not really taking a crack at adults and how they use their phones, since I am one...I just think there is a sect of the younger crowd that cares how much their phone can do, even if they don't actually do those things other than to show people they can. This is how CHW comes across to me...he can do remote IR, NFC, etc., but never actually uses the functions other than to brag that he can and to make fun of people with iPhones, since their phones CAN'T do those things, that means their phone sucks, and they suck for buying it...even though it does everything they actually want it for.

[chw42]

I'm not really taking a crack at adults and how they use their phones, since I am one...I just think there is a sect of the younger crowd that cares how much their phone can do, even if they don't actually do those things other than to show people they can. This is how CHW comes across to me...he can do remote IR, NFC, etc., but never actually uses the functions other than to brag that he can and to make fun of people with iPhones, since their phones CAN'T do those things, that means their phone sucks, and they suck for buying it...even though it does everything they actually want it for.

 

Well it looks like my job is done here.

 

BTW, I don't own a phone with an IR port. But if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't use my TV remote much.

[chw42]

The first time I saw anyone mess with a bar's tv was with a wristwatch universal remote circa 1990. I figured that ran it's course during the last century. But everything old is new again.

 

And what's with the cracks about "adults" and how they use their phones?

 

Just responding to shack's condescending comments.

 

Apparently, I'm not 'normal' and neither are most people in this thread.

Edited October 30, 2013 by chw42

[Y2HH]

On a serious note (I hope you've noticed that I haven't been serious for the past 20 min), almost every TV still uses IR. Nobody uses a floppy anymore.

 

Can manufacturers make a TV that uses bluetooth instead? Yeah, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them considering IR does the job just fine.

 

They won't be, though. Just because most TV manufactures are lazy and hang on to an aged technology doesn't mean we should embrace it, but rather, we should push them toward using something BETTER. BT OR WIFI could do that same job these days, only better, and with LESS power consumption.

 

How often do we have to worry about the placement of our remote devices because they require IR? I know I have to sometimes sit up and point my remote directly at something for it to work, and that's with a Logitech universal...why is this still necessary in 2013? It's a dream in comparison controlling my AppleTV with my phone, which doesn't require LOS, or me sitting in a specific position to do it. I don't even have to have my AppleTV visible to use it ... it'd be REAL nice in 2013 if I could enclose my entertainment center and only show the TV, but I can't, because a few of the devices require f***ing IR...STILL.

 

Same with controlling my Nest thermostat...it's really nice being able to remote control my AC/Heat when I'm not even home.

 

Why does seem like Apple will have to come out with a TV that uses WiFi or BT (they will), in order for other TV manufactures to do it? It's time to dump IR, BEFORE it takes newcomer Apple to show them the way and get credited with doing something "revolutionary" that they should have done a long damn time ago.

[chw42]

They won't be, though. Just because most TV manufactures are lazy and hang on to an aged technology doesn't mean we should embrace it, but rather, we should push them toward using something BETTER. BT OR WIFI could do that same job these days, only better, and with LESS power consumption.

 

How often do we have to worry about the placement of our remote devices because they require IR? I know I have to sometimes sit up and point my remote directly at something for it to work, and that's with a Logitech universal...why is this still necessary in 2013? It's a dream in comparison controlling my AppleTV with my phone, which doesn't require LOS, or me sitting in a specific position to do it. I don't even have to have my AppleTV visible to use it ... it'd be REAL nice in 2013 if I could enclose my entertainment center and only show the TV, but I can't, because a few of the devices require f***ing IR...STILL.

 

Same with controlling my Nest thermostat...it's really nice being able to remote control my AC/Heat when I'm not even home.

 

Why does seem like Apple will have to come out with a TV that uses WiFi or BT (they will), in order for other TV manufactures to do it? It's time to dump IR, BEFORE it takes newcomer Apple to show them the way and get credited with doing something "revolutionary" that they should have done a long damn time ago.

 

IR doesn't require a constant connection. It actually uses less power.

 

I'm not sure about Bluetooth LE vs. IR in terms of power draw, but I'm fairly certain WiFi will use way more power than IR.

[Y2HH]

Can manufacturers make a TV that uses bluetooth instead? Yeah, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them considering IR does the job just fine.

 

This is where we differ in opinion.

 

IR does not do the job just fine, it DID the job just fine at one point, but not anymore.

 

I'd love to be able to enclose my ENTIRE entertainment center, so it's completely hidden from view/not taking up space, without requiring any sort of line of site to use, which is something IR cannot do. A simple implementation of BT or WiFi accomplishes this.

 

BT and WiFi, unlike NFC, are already everywhere...the reason these manufactures don't want to kill IR is because they want to sell universal remotes, and they know a lot of devices don't come with IR. Once they move to WiFi/BT, they realize everyone will be able to use their phones/tablets to accomplish these tasks, in an even better way, and then they have to close down their entire s***ty remote control divisions.

[Y2HH]

IR doesn't require a constant connection. It actually uses less power.

 

I'm not sure about Bluetooth LE vs. IR in terms of power draw, but I'm fairly certain WiFi will use way more power than IR.

 

The point is, you are ALREADY connected to that WiFi network and/or have BT enabled on your phone...so this is irrelevant. And on the other end of that connection, if your TV is off, it's drawing no power anyway.

[chw42]

This is where we differ in opinion.

 

IR does not do the job just fine, it DID the job just fine at one point, but not anymore.

 

I'd love to be able to enclose my ENTIRE entertainment center, so it's completely hidden from view/not taking up space, without requiring any sort of line of site to use, which is something IR cannot do. A simple implementation of BT or WiFi accomplishes this.

 

BT and WiFi, unlike NFC, are already everywhere...the reason these manufactures don't want to kill IR is because they want to sell universal remotes, and they know a lot of devices don't come with IR. Once they move to WiFi/BT, they realize everyone will be able to use their phones/tablets to accomplish these tasks, in an even better way, and then they have to close down their entire s***ty remote control divisions.

 

You can't make a remote with NFC, it wouldn't make any sense. It's a close range technology.

 

Bluetooth can also have range issues.

 

If you want a bluetooth or WiFi enabled remote, be prepared to charge/change batteries often.

[Y2HH]

You can't make a remote with NFC, it wouldn't make any sense. It's a close range technology.

 

Bluetooth can also have range issues.

 

If you want a bluetooth or WiFi enabled remote, be prepared to charge/change batteries often.

 

That's the part you are missing.

 

I don't WANT a remote. I want the OPTION.

 

For the people that don't already have a tablet or phone that uses WiFi/BT, they can use the crappy remote the TV comes with. But for the majority of the rest of us, we could use our phones to accomplish this, without needing to set up our entertainment centers with LOS in mind.

[chw42]

The point is, you are ALREADY connected to that WiFi network and/or have BT enabled on your phone...so this is irrelevant. And on the other end of that connection, if your TV is off, it's drawing no power anyway.

 

Then you'd basically have to require people to have a smartphone or tablet to use their TV.

 

Because a remote that is constantly connected via WiFi or Bluetooth will die pretty quickly.

[chw42]

That's the part you are missing.

 

I don't WANT a remote. I want the OPTION.

 

For the people that don't already have a tablet or phone that uses WiFi/BT, they can use the crappy remote the TV comes with. But for the majority of the rest of us, we could use our phones to accomplish this, without needing to set up our entertainment centers with LOS in mind.

 

Fair point.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, he's right, most adults don't. All they care is whatever phone they have does the very few things they use it to do, which is almost primarily text. So long as it does that, they don't care.

 

Most of the people I know with iPhones or Androids (top end models), do nothing but text or make calls...all the rest of what the device is capable of they don't know, and don't care about.

 

I find this hard to believe with apps being so prevalent on phones. And does everyone know the inner workings/power of the components of their phone? No, but so what? I know little about the technology in my car. That doesn't mean I don't care about what my car has/is made of.

[Y2HH]

Fair point.

 

I understand exactly why they're hanging on to IR, it's because like I said, it allows them to make remote controls (and sell them). The proliferation of phones/tablets with WiFi/BT capabilities would render the remote control business obsolete almost overnight.

 

But this is why if Apple (or Google) enters the TV industry, they will get credited with using WiFi or BT to "invisibly control" their televisions/receivers from any device they own, even remotely, and it will get called "revolutionary", when it something Samsung could have implemented a long time ago...and given how prolific their own phones/tablets are, I'm surprised they haven't thought of this. Nope, they'll wait for Apple to do it, then do it themselves and wonder why people call them copycats.

[Y2HH]

I find this hard to believe with apps being so prevalent on phones. And does everyone know the inner workings/power of the components of their phone? No, but so what? I know little about the technology in my car. That doesn't mean I don't care about what my car has/is made of.

 

Ok, a few of them play Angry Birds, too.

[Jenksismyhero]

I understand exactly why they're hanging on to IR, it's because like I said, it allows them to make remote controls (and sell them). The proliferation of phones/tablets with WiFi/BT capabilities would render the remote control business obsolete almost overnight.

 

But this is why if Apple (or Google) enters the TV industry, they will get credited with using WiFi or BT to "invisibly control" their televisions/receivers from any device they own, even remotely, and it will get called "revolutionary", when it something Samsung could have implemented a long time ago...and given how prolific their own phones/tablets are, I'm surprised they haven't thought of this. Nope, they'll wait for Apple to do it, then do it themselves and wonder why people call them copycats.

 

I don't really want my TV remote to go away. I don't want to have to use up my phone to control my TV. I use both simultaneously. That's probably the main reason this technology hasn't been implemented yet. It's just not necessary.

[Y2HH]

I don't really want my TV remote to go away. I don't want to have to use up my phone to control my TV. I use both simultaneously. That's probably the main reason this technology hasn't been implemented yet. It's just not necessary.

 

And for you, you can still use your crappy remote.

 

But for me, I'd love to bury my entertainment center behind a slick cabinet so it's out of sight, out of mind, with as few exposed components/wires as possible...and be able to control all of it sight unseen.

 

Sounds like if you were in control of pushing TV tech, we'd still have a f***ing dial on our tv, because a remote "just isn't necessary" when you could get up and change the channel.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

Edit: and DirecTV has this technology already. Through the app you can control your tv, look through the guide, look at your DVR list and play shows, etc.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

Edit: and DirecTV has this technology already. Through the app you can control your tv, look through the guide, look at your DVR list and play shows, etc.

 

So does Comcast...but that doesn't control the receiver/tv. They all should be using something similar these days.

[RockRaines]

On a serious note (I hope you've noticed that I haven't been serious for the past 20 min), almost every TV still uses IR. Nobody uses a floppy anymore.

 

Can manufacturers make a TV that uses bluetooth instead? Yeah, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them considering IR does the job just fine.

Actually alot of TV's are using BT nowadays, its especially useful in integrations with things like soundbars and smartphones.

[RockRaines]

Then you'd basically have to require people to have a smartphone or tablet to use their TV.

 

Because a remote that is constantly connected via WiFi or Bluetooth will die pretty quickly.

DTV's new remotes use RF.

[chw42]

I understand exactly why they're hanging on to IR, it's because like I said, it allows them to make remote controls (and sell them). The proliferation of phones/tablets with WiFi/BT capabilities would render the remote control business obsolete almost overnight.

 

But this is why if Apple (or Google) enters the TV industry, they will get credited with using WiFi or BT to "invisibly control" their televisions/receivers from any device they own, even remotely, and it will get called "revolutionary", when it something Samsung could have implemented a long time ago...and given how prolific their own phones/tablets are, I'm surprised they haven't thought of this. Nope, they'll wait for Apple to do it, then do it themselves and wonder why people call them copycats.

 

Already done: http://www.samsung.com/us/article/turn-you...e-possibilities

[Y2HH]

Already done: http://www.samsung.com/us/article/turn-you...e-possibilities

 

Needs to be universal. I have two samsung tv's, including a 2013 model, and neither has the ability to do this (despite requiring a samsung tablet/phone which wouldn't' work for me, my tv still cannot do it)...if they're going to implement this, they need to do it across ALL of their devices.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

Just responding to shack's condescending comments.

 

Apparently, I'm not 'normal' and neither are most people in this thread.

Now you're taking my comments out of context.

 

I'll say this...you make a fair point about this being a technology thread. However, I come to this thread mostly to see links about various products in the marketplace. I also enjoy hearing peoples' comments and reviews about these various products.

 

At some point, this thread devolved into a pissing match between Apple and Android products, which has, in turn, devolved into a who has the biggest dick contest relative to technology know-how. I certainly respect that some of you have technology backgrounds and I never meant to disparage any of you for that.

 

However, I will say that, in general, most technology consumers don't have the slightest clue (nor do they care) about many of the nuanced discussions about technology features present here. That doesn't make your discussions worthless by any measure, however, it does drastically reduce the size of their audience to those folks who have a career in technology or to those folks who have an extensive knowledge of technology. IMHO, that was NOT what this thread was intended to be, nor why it was started.

Edited October 30, 2013 by iamshack

[Y2HH]

Now you're taking my comments out of context.

 

I'll say this...you make a fair point about this being a technology thread. However, I come to this thread mostly to see links about various products in the marketplace. I also enjoy hearing peoples' comments and reviews about these various products.

 

At some point, this thread devolved into a pissing match between Apple and Android products, which has, in turn, devolved into a who has the biggest dick contest relative to technology know-how. I certainly respect that some of you have technology backgrounds and I never meant to disparage any of you for that.

 

However, I will say that, in general, most technology consumers don't have the slightest clue (nor do they care) about many of the nuanced discussions about technology features present here. That doesn't make your discussions worthless by any measure, however, it does drastically reduce the size of their audience to those folks who have a career in technology or to those folks who have an extensive knowledge of technology. IMHO, that was NOT what this thread was intended to be, nor why it was started.

 

Well said.

[chw42]

Now you're taking my comments out of context.

 

I'll say this...you make a fair point about this being a technology thread. However, I come to this thread mostly to see links about various products in the marketplace. I also enjoy hearing peoples' comments and reviews about these various products.

 

At some point, this thread devolved into a pissing match between Apple and Android products, which has, in turn, devolved into a who has the biggest dick contest relative to technology know-how. I certainly respect that some of you have technology backgrounds and I never meant to disparage any of you for that.

 

However, I will say that, in general, most technology consumers don't have the slightest clue (nor do they care) about many of the nuanced discussions about technology features present here. That doesn't make your discussions worthless by any measure, however, it does drastically reduce the size of their audience to those folks who have a career in technology or to those folks who have an extensive knowledge of technology. IMHO, that was NOT what this thread was intended to be, nor why it was started.

 

It's quite easy to ignore the posts you don't understand or care about. I don't see anything wrong with delving deeper into the subject.

 

If you want, there's always the option of splitting this into two threads.