Your Next TV Interface Will Be a Tablet 210
waderoush writes "You can forget all the talk about 'smart' and 'connected' TVs: nobody, not even Apple, has come up with an interface that's easy to use from 10 feet away. And you can drastically curtail your hopes that Roku, Boxee, Netflix, and other providers of free or cheap 'over the top' Internet TV service will take over the world: the cable and satellite companies and the content owners have mounted savvy and effective counterstrikes. But there's another technology that really will disrupt the TV industry: tablet computing. The iPad, in particular, is the first 'second screen' device that's good enough to be the first screen. This Xconomy column argues that in the near future, the big-screen TV will turn into a dumb terminal, and your tablet — with its easy-to-use touch interface and its 'appified' approach to organizing content — will literally be running the show in your living room." Using a tablet as a giant remote seems like a good idea, and a natural extension of iPhone and Android apps that already provide media-center control. Maybe I'm too easily satisfied, but the 10-foot interface doesn't seem as hopeless as presented here; TiVo, Apple, and others been doing a pretty good job of that for the past decade.
So you need a remote for everyone in the household (Score:2)
Or do you just have a dedicated tablet that never leaves the viewing area? What about multiple TVs? Gets expensive really quick.
Re: (Score:2)
Why even have a TV? Since I had my tablet I noticed that I watched the big tv much less. My wife and daughter do the same with their tablets. When we moved to our new house last month we never bothered getting a new tv. The nice thing about a tablet is that it is the same as a 50" TV 8ft from the sofa when it is within reach plus the added benefit that you can take it everywhere you go. Now the living room is much cleaner and quieter.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you all huddle 20" away from your 10" tablet (recommended viewing distance)?
Who holds the tablet?
Sounds very cozy for the three of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Or do you just have a dedicated tablet that never leaves the viewing area? What about multiple TVs? Gets expensive really quick.
Uhm, this has already happened in some high dollar home theatre installs. Crestron [crestron.com] and other whole home media solutions have touch screen tablets that dock into the wall near the TV, have a lock mechanism so kids can't take it off the wall, and allow you to control the volume and TV channel / music & lighting in every room of the house already. They have had iPad and iPhone apps for this too that lets you administer the system remotely and even view security cams via Internet for at least the past 2
Re:So you need a remote for everyone in the househ (Score:5, Insightful)
Within that timeframe, everyone will already have one; a smart phone.
Think of the "smart TV" as having a web api: you see a second screen icon on your 'phone, drag a video onto it, the TV (in reality a computer) starts displaying that: pulling content directly not necessarily "X forwarded"
(it would be insane wasting wireless bandwidth in the house supplying a heavy bandwidth SuperHD device that-sits-in-one-place. Control it by wifi, but its main content over a wire.
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
> Within that time frame, everyone will already have one; a smart phone.
Finally, I can call my remote to find the darn thing.
iPad control of AV system (Score:5, Informative)
We're already using iPads for this, and more. Our AV system is based around a Marantz AV7005 pre-pro, which has an extensive web interface hosted on its own web server that allows control over pretty much everything it does, including selecting av sources, room eq, etc. Very nice interface, actually. Because it's a web interface, there's no "app" required other than a web browser.
I also have the room lighting remote controlled with a web interface using a Synaccess network AC power controller, basically we can do almost anything we want from anywhere -- as our home is basically a large open loft design, that means controlling the AV system from the bedroom, too. The AV7005 brings up my MA700 power amplifier array as part of the power-on sequence, also puts them in standby when shut down.
We use a smallish secondary LCD monitor rather than burn hours off the projector for things like streaming audio, also controlled by IR. You can select between them using the AV7005 web interface, and they power up and down based upon having valid input or not, so it all works together very nicely.
This stuff isn't ultra high-end, it's more mid- to mid-high, but these capabilities are trickling down to the broad consumer price ranges just as everything does. Pioneer has some nice remote iPad AV control stuff too, implemented as an actual app.
The iPad itself makes for an awesome control surface.
Re:So you need a remote for everyone in the househ (Score:5, Informative)
But it incorrectly assumes that no one, including Apple, isn't working on exactly this.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/apple-patents-new-touchscreen-remote-control-for-a-future-apple-tv/5610 [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another example of how fucked up the patent system is. LCD-centric universal remotes have been around for over a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are IR remotes which automatically configure themselves with devices.
Hopefully this patent is a specific mechanism, and not just "+ on a touchscreen LCD." I want to strangle the patent officials who approve the latter type of patent for any company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except remotes like this totally suck to use. I've tried several, including using the iPhone as a remote. Ignoring the 1-time setup pain, actually using it is annoying. At the very least, you have to keep looking up and down, between the remote and the device to do anything that takes more than one press to accomplish.
Re: (Score:2)
My next TV interface (Score:2)
Ideally, the interface for my next TV would have an on/off function, an input select function, and maybe a volume control. Optionally, it could have a function for toggling how it handles inputs of different aspect ratios. I see nothing wrong with having a separate controller for a TV, provided it restricts itself to these few functions (and the input select function is of limited worth, to me).
All other media interface functions (whatever device they are presented on) would relate to the media source de
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's what I want out of a TV too, right down to volume control being optional.
Having an adjustable backlight can be useful sometimes too.
Everything else is a waste of programming and hardware engineering time which could be put to better use elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Americans surf while watching TV. [adweek.com] For those that have "cut the cord" and stream or download all of their media it's only natural that they use a laptop or tablet to find new content and display it on the larger screen.
We cut the cord several years ago, and since streaming media offers few commercials we're not well informed when it comes to new movies or TV series. We'll often use our laptops or tablet (HP Touchpad) while watching TV and come across a movie or new se
Re:So you need a remote for everyone in the househ (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the contention is that if you chose not to have a tablet, you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized, just as if you chose not to have a Pet Rock, Chia Pet, Billy the Big Mouth Bass, computer, a cell phone, or some form of transportation. If you will be a luddite or intelligent enough not to buy into the hype, that is your right, but it comes with some costs and many benefits.
Increasingly in other areas such as automobiles, useless features are appearing that are only accessible to those with iPhones or iPads, they are really cool the first three times you use them, they cost almost nothing to the manufacturer, but add to both the purchase price and maintenance costs of the product and they will only be supported for a few years. It's like not having a PC in the 1990s: sure, you don't have to have one, but there is a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't care about and won't be able to do as a result. It's your choice how to make that tradeoff. Stay in the past, if you'd prefer, but don't bitch about the things you can't do as society moves on, or you can keep up with the Joneses / modern life, which is increasingly mobile-centric, and that's only going to accelerate paralleling the decline of modern society / education / freedom over the next decade.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By full extent, I can only assume that you mean not only jail-broken, but also with a custom OS? It's great hardware after all. So why don't you divulge these "profoundly useful" tasks, because the ones I have read about - I think that they are super cool, but not really much more useful than a good programmable remote or something I've done with my laptop and/or server for years.
Who says I hate marketing? Actually my disdain is primarily directed at the consumer who is constantly compelled to buy the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> I wouldnt take a mercedes and try to make it a street racing car either.
I just love it when posers try to make bad analogies by referencing "luxury brands" they clearly know nothing about.
Re: (Score:2)
We already do this at my house, so perhaps the prediction is just for his audience and not for everybody. This is tantalizing close, but it's not quite there. Once there's a true Android Dongle for the HDTV I imagine that there will be an app to make the TV an additional display over wireless, like docking your laptop. You're right - the $100 tablets will do this too if you get the right one because the video hardware decode is typically the last thing they compromise on.
Since I got my transformer, abou
My big screen already is a dumb terminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Has been for decades, without external network access it does nothing, I have to plug it in to cable, radio or computers for it to be useful.
It's called an idiot box for a reason ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the author of the article summarises the state of the industry quite nicely. We're in the middle of a massively muddled migration from broadcasting toward video on demand (or whatever you want to call it) and delivered over IP. The "connected TV" apps in development in agency labs everywhere are going to fail spectacularly unless they are looking to make apps for iOS, Amazon (not "generic" Android) and perhaps Windows that stream video content.
I already use my iPhone and iPad as remotes with AirPlay it's absurdly simple to flip video onto any screen in my house or office.
But will broadcasters like Sky and Comcast go for this? And will this fly in non-American/European countries where state and local satellite broadcasters will fight like hell not to be disintermediated?
What do we think?
Re: (Score:2)
Wiimote. (Score:2)
Relabel some of the controls for channel and volume up and down and source select, and you're sorted.
Seriously. It's so intuitive to use as an on-screen pointing device for more complex selections, but it's about the size of the remote that came with my last TV. You could mount the IR LEDs for the "sensor bar" somewhere in the bezel, without having to have extra stuck-on bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, LG included this in their 2011 high end TVs, and I believe they are expanding to even more models this year.
It's pretty cool for apps designed for it (like the Wii or iPad interface is great for apps designed for them) but because of that, it does require rethinking UIs to really take advantage of it (which is ok for apps built to run on the TV itself, but not much of an option for separate boxes like DVRs, BD players, game consoles, etc)
Old news is old. (Score:4, Informative)
I already control my media with my phone. I have a DLNA/UPNP server and a DLNA/UPNP BluRay player. My phone can watch the movies or send them from the server to the player.
I bought the HDD with the server off of woot.com over a year ago, and I've found that XBMC makes my dedicated drive look crappy (but the dedicated drive takes less power and space).
I started this back in my iProduct days with iTunes. I just wanted something a little less iWalledGarden so I went with UPNP as much as possible (due to it being totally open) with DLNA as a sort of "make it work smoother with products that don't like open" patch.
To top it all off my Bluray player has a remote control application for my phone that doesn't say anything about being DLNA.
Older news is even older. (Score:2)
Sony Tablet S - it's an Android tablet that can do DLNA, Sony Media Remote over IP, AND has an IR blaster built in with an awesome multi-device interface. Good looking tablet, controls everything, can "throw" and "catch" media to my network connected TV.
So it's quite likely that my next TV interface will be a tablet... because my CURRENT TV interface is a tablet
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to my Bluray player the TV I'm piping this to is an SD 36" Mitsubishi Diamatron tube....
At least the Bluray player is HD.
(I'm going to get an LG HDTV eventually)
Re: (Score:2)
LG, I'm somewhat on the anti-Sony bandwagon, it's for their own good, if I and everyone else stops buying their products maybe they'll stop trying to force "memory stick", root kits, proprietary connectors on their portable game consoles on us and open up their tech a little.
I actually got into quite a bit of detail on my review [amazon.com] of the LG player. I've also got some advice for using the Samsung player [amazon.com]. Don't.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buttons required (Score:4, Interesting)
Not everybody flat lines when they are watching TV.
I see people using iPhones / iPads / Androids who appear to be routinely operating with less than a dozen functional neurons, so the bar here isn't very high.
Re:Buttons required (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of TV is to veg out and channel surf. It's called an "idiot box" for reason.
I disagree. One way of using a TV is to channel surf through lots of crap. Another way is to pull up a queue of shows you're interested in and watch one of the ones on top. Another way is to pull up a specific show or movie via search o by inserting a disc. Yet another way is to watch a genre specific channel of shows.
You're making the mistake of thinking one use case (maybe one you prefer) is and will remain the dominant use case. Current TV remotes are optimized for that use case and they really, really, really suck for most of the others. Navigating a list of shows for on demand TV, for example, is painfully bad.
Anything that takes your eyes off the screen ruins the experience.
For channel surfing one could have a modal interface with two huge buttons to prevent one having to take their eyes off the screen, but it is not clear this will remain a common use case when televisions are networked and more capable. For things like selecting a Netflix show (for example), I'd rather have a handy tablet to select from a list where I can type in search terms and touch the titles directly. trying to use a keyboard or remote where I need to type letters, while looking up at a big screen is no fun at all.
Inconsistencies in your thinking (Score:2)
The whole point of TV is to veg out and channel surf. It's called an "idiot box" for reason. Anything that takes your eyes off the screen ruins the experience.
That doesn't make any sense.
The "experience" is when you are watching something. When you are actually switching through channels trying to find something to watch, there is no "experience".
In fact the tablet is far superior for what you are describing. Instead of flipping channels one at a time, wading through commercials to get to see what is on,
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of TV is to veg out and channel surf.
You missed that whole bit about Video on Demand and how a tablet interface would improve this. We're not talking about people who put it on a channel and leave it on, a trickle of drool dripping from the corner of their mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
No more fighting over the remote... (Score:3)
...now everyone can have their own tablet and fight over control of the boob tube.
And do people really feel the need for an "'appified' approach to organizing content" on their TV? Sheesh, get a life.
Maybe, but it won't be an iPad (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll probably see a generation of remotes that look more like a e-reader, with a nonvolatile display. Most tablet devices require charging daily, if not more often. TV remotes today only need batteries once every few years.
Re:Maybe, but it won't be an iPad - Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be treating the iPad as a dedicated TV remote that never gets used for anything else.
The iPad is already next to me whenever I am watching TV. I check texts, emails, look up actors that are in the movies we are watching, etc etc.
When I am done watching TV, I don't leave the iPad on the couch, it goes with me, unlike the remote that is normally dedicated to the TV.
So why wouldn't I charge it every day?
The 10 foot interface blows (Score:5, Interesting)
I've not seen a 10 foot interface done well. Most are too much like the giant accessibility font versions of GUIs. They all look like I have a 420i display on a 19" TV that's 10' away. If I have a big screen with 1080p, please put more stuff on it! Paging down through a channel guide five lines at a time when I could easily be viewing 20 or more at a time is frustrating.
And navigating with a 4-way button isn't the greatest, either. I'm thinking that using the iPhone as a Wacom pad-like device operating as a remote mouse would be a lot easier than click-up-up-up-over-over-oops-too-far-back-OK.
IR remotes aren't the greatest, either. Without feedback, they have no way of ensuring the button pressed by the user makes it to the device.
Kinect has an interesting concept: reach to the widget and hold steady until it activates. Not sure I like it, but at least they're trying something new. Of course, it's not nearly "ready enough" to be a general purpose remote, at least not yet. It can't identify the average couch potato if they're not standing up.
The Sonos application on the iPhone is probably the kind of interface that works best. Use the local pad to browse and navigate, then once the selection is made, command the big screen to do it. Which is what the TFA is no doubt saying.
Kinect has an interesting concept... (Score:4, Funny)
Apple TV (Score:2)
The Achilles Heel (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's so hard to put your phone or tablet on the charger each night. NOBODY will ever do that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please. Rechargeable battery memory hasn't been a serious problem since the days of nickel cadmium. If you actually have a NiCad battery in your phone, you are in a very, very, very small minority, and you'd probably be better off with a remote than that phone for controlling your TV anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the AC called this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the posts, you might learn something.
Windows Media Center is easy to use from 10 feet (Score:2)
Two hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what I need. A two-handed remote.
Please pass the chips.
What a crystal ball! (Score:3)
Was there actually anything he predicted that can't be done with a iPad and an AirPlay-compatible device, like a receiver or Apple TV 2?
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say basically the same think, then I searched in TFA for Airplay just in case...
Turns out to be a misleading summary again...
The summary of the article should be : Nobody could do a (good/intuitive/whatever) Interactive TV interface, not even Apple (in Apple TV) , so the future is to have an interface à la AirPlay with iPad2.
I'm not wasting a tablet just for a remote control (Score:3)
This sounds a lot like overkill, considering the amount of processing power in a tablet (and their beavy battery demands - the TV tablet will spend most of it's time on charge - which is even more inconvenient). Since all new TVs already contain a fair amount of "intelligence" the obvious choice is to increment what's already in the box, rather than needing to get a tablet computer for every member of the family - or one that can be used by everyone: from age 2 to age 100.
Ideally, the need for controlling a TV should be on the decrease very soon. Hopefully it's not too long a wait until they are able to learn who wants to watch what and come up with their own plan to record, play and manage the various viewers' schedule.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "tablet for remote control." It's changing your thinking so that your TV set is just a big-screen extension of your personal device.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, not everyone in a family (think 2 year-olds to grandparents) has a tablet or would be able to read/use the interface.
The idea only works for people who li
It already did. (Score:2)
Most every TV out there has an iPhone app to control it over ethernet/WiFi already.
And DirecTV already has an app to control your satellite box.
Nothing new... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And I've been doing it for some time with my iPad, and even longer with my iPhone. What's your point?
I already do that. (Score:4, Interesting)
I already do that. I have a Mac Mini attached to my TV running XBMC as a media server, and I use my iPad using rowmote as the controller. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Apple - but it Just Works. In fact, I like the setup so much I made the mac mini my dedicated media server and got an Airbook for development and everyday computing.
Only thing I don't like is the Mac Mini doesn't have BluRay. Other than that, everything I could want.
Convergence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Convergence: the functions of a TV (except for the big screen) will converge with smart phones and tablets. Your phone will know what you want to watch, recommend things for you, record shows (for the short remaining time that such a concept still means anything).
the missing feature (Score:3)
No, it will not (Score:2)
I dropped TV about 9 years ago, due to unbearable stupidity and zero entertainment value.
And even if it were, is there any news here?
ten feet + away is easy (Score:3)
I currently use a high end wireless keyboard with an integrated mousepad, a Logitech DiNovo Edge. (Cheaper wireless keyboards with an integrated trackballs can do, but I've yet to find one that lasts.) Applications are set to escaped function keys, online streaming sources are prominently bookmarked, and the touch-activated lighted volume slider is an impressive stylistic touch. There is very little need to see and respond to a visual onscreen interface when watching or listening to media, only media selection.
Yes it's a big, thin remote, but I find it far less a PITA than four differently-sized remotes tied to various devices, with overlapping and inconsistent functions.
Is this guy living ten years in the past? (Score:2)
I can only assume this guy is living ten or fifteen years in the past. Between cable TV (UK televisions have never had cable decoders built-in), Freeview and a PVR, I think I've used the internal tuner on a TV for a total of about 6 months since 1999.
I guess you have no friends or family (Score:2)
And you live alone. Yaaay you.
My next TV interface will be a brick (Score:2)
Kids? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do any of the people advocating using a $500 tablet as a remote to my $800 TV have any kids? The remote has been dropped more times than I can count (and that's just from me, not including the kids). It's regularly coated with chocolate, popcorn butter, and other food residue, and has survived more than one bath in coke.
When my wife wants the remote, I just toss it to her across the room, something I'm not likely to do when it's a heavy tablet (even if I wasn't worried about her missing it and having it crash to the floor).
I don't want a tablet to control my TV, I want a rugged remote and I don't want to add 50% (or even 10%) to the cost of the TV by having to purchase a tablet to control it.
Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
10' interface works exceptionally well. Ask any TiVo user. Simple, intuitive, complete. Thing is, for $170 a year, most consumers expect more content than guide data and software updates, or at least access to your shows and recorded data. The industry hated the concept of TiVo and killed the real content (no cable or sat for you!), the users hated the restrictions that kept them from the content they'd recorded and limitations on what could be played from their own network. TiVo puts everything else to shame when it comes to controls and useful simplicity. Really, any TV control box that I can plug in, hand my wife the remote and manual, and walk away is an absolute winner.
The interface already exists, but it will be under patent lock and key for another decade.
No, it won't. (Score:2)
At least, not until tablets have haptic interfaces so I can use it while looking at the TV instead of at the damn remote^W tablet -- and is small enough to do so while holding it in one hand while pressing the virtual buttons (or gesturing) with my thumb.
AppleTV + iPhone and iPad (Score:2)
I've been doing exactly this for about a year now. I don't have cable and don't do physical media. Everything on my tv is streamed from my TV, the iPhone/Pad or for rentals we do grab it straight from the appleTV (though using the iPad as a remote for the keyboard)
Medic approves (Score:2)
Display Devices are the Paper (Score:2)
my current TV interface is a tablet. (Score:3)
DirectTv offers a nice free app for the iPad that has all the functionality of the remote, plus a bunch of other great features. you can stream some content to the ipad itself, you can use the ipad to control the contents of your DVR and recording schedule, you can set it up to know your favorite teams and show scores and game times/channels, etc. the ipad is actually much faster for switching channels than the remote, since you can use your finger to fling through the guide, as opposed to using directtv's super slow on-screen ui.
Tablet as "über-remote"? (Score:2)
I think we may be getting soon is essentially an 7" touchscreen tablet that functions like an all-touchscreen version of the Logitech Harmony 1100 universal remote, except with even more functionality than what Logitech puts in their remotes. Essentially, the touchscreen functions for each device being controlled by the remote will be highly customized depending on the device being controlled. And unlike an iPad, this tablet remote controller uses both RF and IR signaling for maximum device compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
presumpyuous... damned fat figners!
Re: (Score:2)
damned fat figners!
Another reason not to get a tablet ;)
Anyway, I generally agree tablets are not the answer (though that's about it with your post - most tablets are not tied to a phone contract and never were; and if you are happy with a $200 TV and $15 remote you are not a consumer in the target market anyway).
I have an iPad and a Harmony remote (which was a lot more than $15, I'll admit). If I wanted to I could get the Harmony iPad app and receiver and it would in theory do everything my remote can and
Re:That's pretty presumpyuous. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
If you get a phone contract on your non 3G tablet, I have a bridge I'll sell you real cheap like.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
Today's your lucky day! Pretty well every tablet can be bought without a contract. The ones that can are the exception, not the rule.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about creating a new remote for your TV. This is saying your TV is the "big remote display" of your phone (or iPad).
People already surf around with the iPad, they find a funny video of some guy feeding vegetables to his cat or whatever, then saying "Oh, watch this" and hand it to their friend. Now they'll just send it to the big screen.
The advantage is that the iPhone/iPad/Android interface is the one you're already very comfortable with. It's in your pocket 24x7. You already know how to use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The disadvantage is that the iPad isn't a great remote control device. It's made to be interacted with, not to be grabbed and clicked. When you're watching a show and the phone rings, you don't want to study the device to find the mute icon - you want to slide your thumb to the mute button and click. And it's fragile, you can't casually toss it to your friend.
When the phone rings I want the TV to automatically pause or mute either when the call comes in or when I answer, based upon my user settings. That is one of the nice things about tying these devices together. It would also be nice, if I decide to keep watching, for the phone to be aware of the audio going out of the stereo and scrub it from the background noise picked up by the phone's mic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, fine, the system can auto-mute/pause, or whatever, but that's not the point. The point is that the iPhone/iPad doesn't have tactile operational buttons, which is really useful when watching. I have a Harmony 1100, with a combination of touch screen and hard buttons, and as a result it's a pretty useful operational remote. But it's still just a remote, and not coordinated with my media in any way. It's not like surfing on the iPad.
Good phones with good interfaces already exist. A good operational
Re: (Score:2)
The TV remote might not go away, just like the buttons on the TV didn't go away. It's just that nobody (except maybe you) will use it anymore.
I've already got four remotes that are gathering dust and a tablet that actually controls what's on the TV screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you. That's going to suck when channels go away and you're wading through a list of shows instead. I'm sure you can do it, it's just a lot more pleasant with a smartphone or tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
Even 10 years ago most universal remotes came with directional buttons and an enter/select button. I don't think I have a remote, universal or not, which doesn't have directional control and selection functions. Sometimes they're dual-function channel/volume buttons, sometimes not, but they're there, and they're dead simple to use for both lists and matrices.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, if I'm going to search through every program every made by man, I'd like to have a nice fast search and a keyboard to type the first few letters of the program name. If you like your buttons and lists, have at it though.
Re: (Score:2)
For surfing, I much prefer the simplicity. For searching, it's no more trouble to type it into a keyboard on a machine already running at home. Only time the tablet is used is if it's a spur-of-the-moment thing that comes up in conversation or for actually watching video on the tablet.
To each their own though...
Re: (Score:2)
That would be right now then, since you can buy all the major tablets without a phone contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah I'm going to stick with my pushbutton set-top box and its wired remote. Now get off my lawn.
A TV remote cost $5-$15. A tablet costs as much as some TVs. So I'll have to buy a $250 tablet to change channels on a $200 TV? I don't think so.
I don't have a tablet, nor will I until I can get one that's not tied to a phone contract.
Most tablets have wifi-only options that aren't attached to a contract, and there are a handful of 3g devices available contract free.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I wish I hadn't posted already so I could mod this thing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, and I've been there and done that.
I had a Philips Pronto remote control, one of the early ones. The great thing was that you could program its touchscreen with anything you wanted, down to a pixel level if you wanted to take the time. So, it could emulate any remote. Sounds great... but in practice, it sucked. The thing had hard buttons for channel up/down, volume up/down, and mute. There were two additional programmable hard buttons. For anything else, you'd have to hit the button on the side to t