New 2-way mods for Denon, B&K, Yamaha, Integra, Onyko and MX6000 Web Browser!

This is a HUGE update. Lots of IR and RS-232 updates too.

The list:

1. MX-6000 Web-browsing is here! Finally—a touch screen browser that doesn’t need a stylus. Users can set their own home pages and favorites, no service calls required. You can create one touch buttons on any page that jump to specific web sites as a macro step!

2. Adds 444 2-Way modules for the MX-5000 and 444 2-Way modules for the MX-6000. The modules support IP controlled Audio Video receivers from the following popular brands: Denon, Integra, Onkyo, B&K and Yamaha.

· AM/FM/HD tuner modules display frequencies, station names, HD metadata, all presets stored in the AVR and the unique new Favorite Stations stored on the remote for each zone. Favorite Stations are stored with a simple press-and-hold, just like a car radio.

· XM and Sirius modules display all the song, artist and title metadata that XM and Sirius provide, plus the channel artwork that’s missing from the AVR’s TV GUI.

· Status modules provide the end user with a snap shot of the current zone status, with a display of input, mode and volume.

· Tuner modules have an integrated pop-up display of volume, so that whenever the AVR volume is adjusted, the end user sees real time feedback on the remote that’s specific to the zone they are controlling.

(Note: not all models support HD, XM and Sirius.)

3. Adds 11 new models to the IP-controllable Audio/Video devices for Volume Pop-Up.

4. Adds IR Database Update including new Marantz A/V receivers, and Onkyo receivers.

5. Adds more than 300 new models to the RS-232 serial database.

6. Adds a new and improved method of adding 2-Way modules to the MX-5000 and MX-6000—it’s now much easier to find and add modules.

7. User Guides have been added to the Help section of CCP for the AVR 2-Way modules and the Web Browser.

Mike

What about the MX-5000 for browser support?

We looked closely at making a browser for MX-5000, but the size of the screen pretty much rules it out. At 480x272, the MX-6000 screen is barely acceptable for a browser without multitouch scaling (the MX-6000 and MX-5000 use resistive screens, so multitouch is out of the question). The MX-5000 screen is 240x320. After including the necessary parts of the UI, there's not enough screen left over to do anything useful. So alas, browser support is one of those benefits to going with the MX-6000 over the MX-5000.

Best regards,
Dale

I can certainly understand keeping this as a premium MX-6000 feature, although I do use Opera Mobile on a Windows Mobile phone with 240x320 resolution and no multi-touch, and it is fairly usable... certainly less ideal than a native landscape screen, though.

The big issue here is that an MX-5000 browser would need to be usable without a stylus. In our development tests, adding touchable buttons to build the necessary UI on a 240x320 screen caused the browsable space to be effectively useless. And while it's possible to have the browser take over the screen until you need the UI, at URC we try not to allow for situations where one user gets the remote into a state, then walks off, leaving the next user clueless as to how to get back to controlling the system.

Opera has some very good features to make use of the smaller screen, but there were technical issues preventing us from adapting it for use on the remote. (And again, Opera is intended for use with a stylus.) When you consider that the guys at Opera spent the last four years doing nothing but polishing their browser for small screens, it starts to make sense why we can't dedicate the resources necessary to duplicate the feat on the MX-5000, where the feature would be only very rarely used.

This is my single most problem with URC. They can't seem to ever innovate across the products. The MX-5000 is perfectly capable of browser. If everyone and their mother can use an iphone app, why is the MX-5000 not big enough for broswer. It's always followed by "people won't use it anyway". What market research supports that? And why would you develop it for the 6000 if it were going to be a "useless" feature?

That is what makes RTI much better than URC. RTI would never come out with a $1800 and a $1200 remote, then develop something for the higher priced remote without at least trying to implement it for the %1200 one. It just makes no sense. So all the CI's who sold their customer an MX-5000 over the 6000 citing it does the same things because the customer likes the handheld has to tell them that URC feels they would not want to use a browswer on the remote. It's absolutely crazy. This message is not directed at anyone who works at URC and is posting here. I am simply stating that the 5000 deserves these upgrades. It's insane.

So aren't they allowed to market what they want, how they want, at whatever price they want? Isn't that considered free market?



So don't ever consider URC ever again, and move on to the RTI forum.

|So all the CI's who sold their customer an MX-5000 over the 6000 citing it does the same things because the customer likes the handheld has to tell them that URC feels they would not want to use a browswer on the remote. |

There was never a "Same as" pitch. Browser was always disclaimed.

|It's absolutely crazy. This message is not directed at anyone who works at URC and is posting here. I am simply stating that the 5000 deserves these upgrades. It's insane. |


Call them, buy a private label deal as others do, and tweak to your hearts content!

Actually I read a post last week as a response from URC claiming that the browser for the MX-5000 was coming. I can't remember where I saw it, and I can't seem to find it again, however. Maybe URC had the thread removed. I don't remember what forum it was on, but I definitely read that as a response from URC. I don't care myself, as if I want to browse, I'm going to pick up my laptop.

So an Authorized URC message (Dale's out) said the MX5000 would have browser capabilities, in no less than an week ago? Doubt it.

The technology to make a browser on the 5000 is identical to what it takes to make the 6000 browser. The only differences are the screen size and the UI graphics. Take a look at the MX-6000 browser, then basically remove the left 2/3 of the screen. That's more or less what's left of the screen if you make a stylus-free browser on the 5000. I know, because I made the mock ups for the thing.

CAN the 5000 run a browser? Yes. Is it practical? No. The MX-5000 lacks the hardware scaling and capacitive multitouch screen that makes the iPhone browser practical. It's a remote, after all, not a pocket computer. We looked at the possibility seriously, folks—at length. We're not making a rediculous, uninformed decision based on arms-length speculation about what we think we know but haven't researched. This was a decision made out of respect to our dealers and their clients: we're not going to purposefully deliver a browser that would either require a stylus on a device that doesn't have one or provide a browser that's usable with your fingertip, but provides so little usable display space that you can't even see an entire thumbnail of the movie you're trying to queue up on Netflix.

Now you can call that bullheadedness or lack of concern for customers if you want, but before you do, I recommend you actually use the competition's browser as well as designing web browsers for multiple devices over the years. Once you've done that, please come back and report your findings. I'm confident that on that day, you'll be here telling us all that releasing a finger-controlled browser on a resistive 240x320 touch screen would be both a disservice and disrespectful to your client base.

Best regards,
Dale

Oh... And for what it's worth: unless something fails during development, the KP-4000 will have a browser. Its screen resolution is 320x240, but the physical size of the screen is over twice as large. Because the screen is so much larger and the orientation of that screen is horizontal rather than vertical, the same number of pixels can be made to do more work.

My personal opinion is that the browsable area is still too small, but I agreed that it's at least usable, so we're planning on shipping the module when it's ready.

Best regards,
Dale

Maybe I should go on the RTI forum and bash them for their problems, then say URC is better.
If you don't like what URC is doing, then don't use them.
I don't sell clients remotes and tell them what it it will do in the future. I sell them the features it has now.

Honestly, I think the portion of this quote that I put in bold is the important factor here. I thought I had been pretty clear that we did try it, and that the results were something we considered to be unacceptable. But clearly that message didn't come across.

No company will ever continue development on a project if they feel more or less certain that the project will produce results that their customers won't be happy with. That would be outright stupid. Sure, we may all have different values as to what's acceptable, but each of us has to adhere to those values, or we have no values at all.


I never said URC feels that way. I said that the browsable space left over from making a touch-controlled browser is effectively unusable.

And as for anything I've said on this forum, it's what *I* say, not what URC says. My signature line makes that clear. We have a PR department that speaks for URC. I speak for me (though I admit that basically every time I do, I end up regretting it because of the unwarranted, over-the-top, treat-every-issue-like-it's-Armageddon backlash I get when I try to come in here and share some good news).

Good day