The Un-Remote
June 22nd, 2010
One of the iPad apps that most people think is inevitable is some kind of remote control for home entertainment systems, but I think the conventional wisdom on this isn’t thinking big enough because we just can’t shake the idea of a “remote controller”.
The basic idea is that you’d throw away all your remote controls and have the most fabulous remote control of all time, with the ability to manipulate multiple hardware devices and systems, of all kinds and from different manufacturers, even some devices that enable viewing internet videos such as from YouTube or Netflix, all using a single awesome iPad graphical UI. You could preview what’s on other channels while watching a show on the big screen, scroll through TV schedules on the little screen without changing what’s on the big one, finger-tap on show titles to add them to your DVR queue, etc.
To do all this, there would need to be some additional device to translate the iPad’s output — which is basically WiFi — to what most set-top devices need for input — infrared light (IR). This “Universal Remote” iPad app would also need to be programmed to know the IR codes for most set-top devices, just like thousands of other so-called “universal remotes” do.
Here’s what this system might look like:
Of course, some more visionary people predict the death of these multiple devices and envision them all being replaced with a single multi-purpose device for streaming video from the internet, recording cable programming, playing discs, browsing a personal media collection, and more. Devices like Apple TV and Boxee. In fact, many Apple observers already suspect that the iPad will become the killer remote control for the next version of Apple TV.
This is obviously a much simpler configuration, and looks something like this:
But what if we take this just one step further, and take the expensive devices out of the loop completely? Imagine a system like this:
The iPad uses WiFi to pull content off the Internet (or from its own library), and then uses WiFi to push video to the big ass display, possibly with the help of a cheap WiFi video “receiver” unit (which, come to think of it would be trivial to build directly into monitors).
In this model, the iPad itself replaces all of the set-top devices. While the iPad cannot play Blu-ray disks, it can certainly do everything else in this list. Why should Apple bother making another version of Apple TV when they could build all of the functionality of Apple TV into the iPad itself? All the storage, all the video, audio, and picture playback, all the online video browsing, all of it built into the iPad.
All the games, too. So long Xbox, Playstation, and Wii.
In this model, your “home entertainment center” is all contained in software. The only hardware you need is that big screen. Or select from multiple screens around the house, using only software to determine which screen you want to “project” on to.
Obviously there are technology constraints here, but they are all the usual constraints that inevitably fall aside faster than we generally imagine: network speed, processing power, and memory. HD digital video is a lot of bits to go over a wireless connection. But if you imagine all of these technologies being even only a little better than they are now, we’re basically there.
By george - i think you’ve cracked it!
At sometime in the not too distant future everyone will carry a device with either iPhone or iPad dimensions (I’m thinking iPad for a ladies handbag, iPhone for the man-on-the-go). Your personal device will have everything you need plus access to all your cloud-based media. Huge screens will be everywhere and will have built-in receivers to accept the personal device display output. So when you get to work you just connect to your huge desktop monitor (and keyboard) and away you go. nice!
by felix June 22nd, 2010 | 1:19 pmI love this idea, but I would hate it if my wife took her iPad to the office and I couldn’t watch something as a result. As a result, I think having an AppleTV that could talk to your iDevice makes more sense. Ideally, it’d be two-way so you could watch a movie stored on your iPad on your TV.
by Matt Jacobs June 23rd, 2010 | 4:29 pm@Matt: By the time this idea becomes possible (I give it two years, tops) iPads, or something like it, will be $200. And, again, you won’t have to buy DVD players, Xboxes, etc. What I mean is, your household will have several iDevices at hand, all of which are capable of shooting video straight to the Big Ass Display.
by Christopher Fahey June 23rd, 2010 | 4:38 pmMatt’s idea is already possible, if you don’t use Apple products. It’s possible for XBMC to stream video from a wifi-enabled Android phone.
The big issue is having a portable device (especially one with an non-accessible internal battery) constantly discharging because of wifi usage whenever you stream a movie. Granted, you could plug it into a power source, but that sort of defeats the dual purpose of using it as a remote.
by James June 27th, 2010 | 4:07 pmInteresting concept, Christopher. I guess that’s where we’re heading…
by Alexander July 22nd, 2010 | 6:50 amNice concept – fine article about mobile device and information hierarchy. For better iPad prototyping check out my iPad Axure Widget http://www.kreativr.de/ipad-axure-widget-library/
by Raph August 19th, 2010 | 2:54 amThe only problem with getting rid of the xbox, PS3, etc., is that the ipad will never exceed the processing capabilities of larger systems.
I think it’ll continue to be ‘larger components = better’ because they offer more processing, hence higher graphic/potentially longer gameplay/playability games.
Right now, the market is leaning towards the above. So I think a better idea would be to use the ipad as a simple remote and then have the consoles (PS3/PC/whatever) provide the raw processing power for games/movies/content etc.
Having the ipad do everything (including replacing the xbox) would replace the desktop too - which would be nuts and apple would become the largest corporation in the world with monopolistic market share.
I hope that never happens, personally.
Also, realistically - desk tops will probably be necessary until we can replicate other universes identical to reality via processing alone - AND THEN miniaturize it even more (say, down into an ipad format). That’ll take at least 100 years.
So yeah, not gonna happen. Steve Jobs’ll be dead. Apple may or may not be out of business.
I don’t hate apple, but I’m just trying to think realistically rather then just ‘differently’.
by Someguy October 25th, 2010 | 10:17 pmReally interesting stuff! What’s funny is I’m just getting into UX, so I stumbled onto this blog and I was really surprised to see this article pop up first, mostly because I actually wrote a similar piece for my tiny little blog a while back.
I think this type of prophesying is well and dandy, I certainly enjoy doing it myself, but until someone besides Apple steps up and gets motivated to make fundamental changes to the way TV operates, we’re going to be stuck with the current generation of connected TVs. Apple can’t innovate around the unmovable mass that is cable companies, not until they start pitching in and allowing the experts in UX to change the way cable viewers access their content.
As for a control scheme, I completely agree that the iPad is the end all and be all controller, your thoughts line up so clearly with mine that it’s quite amusing. :) I can’t wait to use my iPad for such a purpose; as interesting as all of these “second screen” concepts for the tablet-TV relationship are, I just want to use it as a big, badass controller.
-Jonathan
My article is here, btw. It’s a big longer and more focused on the content delivery, but I’d love it if you’d give it a read!
by Jaybee February 28th, 2011 | 6:28 pmhttp://jurassicnotion.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-will-natural-user-interfaces-bring.html
Your diagrams don’t illustrate how you’d handle audio. That is just as important as the big ass display component. This is as big an issue if not bigger since sending high quality wireless audio that is perfectly in sync with the wireless HD video is a nut that hasn’t exactly been cracked as of yet.
Let’s see your extended diagram with audio components included!
by Travis March 8th, 2011 | 3:02 pmI agree with a few other commentators re: hi-def audio synching, raw processing potential.
One other consideration this diagram doesn’t address is that more and more devices are coming with integrated WiFi. My blu-ray player is WiFi connected. Wii / Xbox / PS3 - all WiFi. My TV is WiFi. All you’d really need to do is make small modifications to existing smart components to accept commands via WiFi rather than IR. At that point, an app on any device - Android, iOS, Laptop, etc. could control everything in your house via WiFi. This could include A/C units (think WiFi enabled thermostats), Appliances, etc. Your wireless router becomes the “magic WiFi thingy” - no need to limit it strictly to video.
This approach is already achievable with today’s technology. I think the biggest inhibitor is likely security.
The main flaw in a single-device-system like the one illustrated above is that you are now permanently tethered to that one device - so what happens when it needs repair? What happens when the hardware they integrate fails to adequately handle the through-put required as new technology becomes main stream? It brings to mind the old adage: “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”.
Still sound advice in my book.
by David Young May 9th, 2011 | 10:54 amAwesomeness! I got one tiny little con though:
As the guy from Ironman 2 says: “Sovtwere is sheit.” Basically although software takes up no physical space it is quite often less reliable than hardware is, and is prone to glitching, freezing, etc. But this is insignificant compared to the awesomeness of this idea.
by Matthew N. May 31st, 2011 | 8:30 pmWhat about DLNA? If the iPad had DLNA integration, we’d already be able to step past even step four in the proposed evolution - just pulling down content from WiFi and streaming directly both the audio and video components to DLNA enabled sets.
Granted, DLNA hasn’t been widely adopted at this point, but I’ve essentially been doing this already with my Sony XPERIA Arc, which is DLNA enabled, and my Toshiba DLNA enabled set. HD content on-device, or streaming from YouTube is quick!
- Stefan
by Stefan July 8th, 2011 | 1:16 pmYour idea for simplifying the whole entertainment system mess through a tablet is compelling–but I think you’re not taking it far enough.
With the advances to motion detection (think the Wii and Kinect) as well voice-recognition (Dragon Technology, SIRI), why have a remote at all? It’s one more thing for people to lose, it’s a distraction to be looking down at an iPad then back-up at the TV to make sure your selection was registered, and it means that you’ll need one near the TV any time you want to watch anything.
Make your TV the central controler for all your other home theater elements (look at the integration Sony has done: turn on your blu-ray player, and your Sony TV automatically turns on and switches to the correct input) and get rid of the remotes all together.
What we need is a highly usable set of controls built into TVs along with motion-sensors. No more batteries. No more Trying to figure out what the obscure buttons mean. Swipe to change the channel, expand your hands to see menus, speak the name of the show or network to change the channel.
THAT, my friends, is the future of TV.
by Ehren November 7th, 2011 | 11:29 amWell i guess Comcast read your article because the ipad Xfinity app is pretty flippin sweet and connects to your comcast account over wifi, and kind of oneups the whole remote thing by being so much more.
I think entertainment centers need to get a whole lot more streamlined too and they are. We’re finally seeing more connected devices. It used to be that the audio was connected, but you still had to enable that audio input to make it work, these days they have signal detection and know when to power down or power up depending on where the signal is coming from.
Cool article though, only a year old but feels outdated. i guess that’s a good thing.
by Edward November 16th, 2011 | 2:14 pm