Is the writing on the wall? Folks have been preaching convergence for years and it is becoming a reality day by day. Why would one pay $1k for a MX-6000, $1.8k for an RTi ST-7 with limited functionality. More AV equipment suppliers are starting to include IP functionality. Netbooks can be had for a couple of hundred bucks, iPhones are part of a lot of people's aresenal already, the Nexus One has just been released. Gone will be the bulky remotes with limited functionality. Do I care that the browser on my MX-6000 is rubbish - no. Its useless as a computer. However, my computer will be brilliant as a remote. Here's to 2010 and beyond!

It's easy to mistake "being capable of performing a task" with "being designed to perform a task".

As is, iPhones and netbooks just aren't viable enough to be seriously considered as alternatives. I can see tablets and other small touchscreen-based handheld computers being more practical, however for the most part that's what today's remotes already are - but with a lot of purpose-designed supporting software and hardware.

For those folks who enjoy sitting on their sofa with their computers, I can easily see the appeal of convergence when it comes to system control. It's a perfectly valid way to control a theater. It would be foolish to pretend that URC doesn't keep a constant eye on possibilities like iPhone-based or PC-based system control as accessories to tradition dedicated control systems.

But convergence without traditional control turns into a problem when the owner of that laptop, iPhone, or netbook is in the bathroom and you can't mute the ghastly loud rap video your teenager turned on to impress his friends. It's a problem if a downed Wi-Fi router means your spouse can't turn on their favorite show for a week when you're away on a business trip. At times like those, dedicated control is a lot more valuable than the ability to run a word processor on your remote control.

But most importantly, convergence is a problem for the large majority of people who are not tech savvy. Most regular people desire their control system to be feature-rich, but as simple to operate as humanly possible, not infinitely powerful or flexible. Because techies are usually intelligent and eager to embrace new technologies, they tend to dismiss this simple market reality.

For decades I've listened to techies tell the world that Unix (then Linux) was poised to take over the computing world due to its superior open architecture and powerful reconfigurability. But it never happened, and I don't think it ever will; the reality of the market is that everyday people consider value to be something different than techies do. Everyday consumers want reliable features that are transparent to use. For them value isn't measured on the spec sheets of the components in their system, it's measured by how well the product (or products) deliver the experience they chose to pay for. Cutting edge tech, which I love for all its coolness, rarely delivers on that basic value proposition.

So I say bring on the convergence. I'm a geek too, and I love it! But when I'm designing URC products, my first focus will still be delivering a seamless experience in home theater and control. I don't see consumer behavior shifting from its current definition of value anytime in the near future. In fact, I'm betting my livelihood on it!

Best regards,
Dale

One architecture for future home theaters which is gathering momentum uses a PC-like intelligent controller which supports all devices in the system. This allows use of a simple remote which merely issues commands to the PC. A two-way communication protocol between the PC and remote with the intelligence offloaded from the remote to the PC seems to mark the end of this evolutionary track.

It is very expensive to build intelligence into the remote compared to building it into a PC. Besides the PC can support on-screen programming with all the Internet access bells and whistles.

I would like you to teach my parents to use a computer as a remote.

If you read my post you would have seen that the remote required is simpler than the ones in use at the high end today. Also, you do not operate the system at the PC. It is buried in a wall. The system configuration guru programs the PC by plugging in a keyboard to an accessible socket. The users do what they want with the system with a remote that is similar to a satellite TV remote. They can select channels with on-screen logos or channel numbers, watch DVDs, listen to music, etc. from on-screen menus.

You are saying that all the new highend remotes are too complicated?

The nice thing about a touchscreen is need be I could put 1 huge on button. Then put only the buttons needed to use whatever source they are using. Not too complicated.

An MSC-400 takes place of the PC in the wall. Stores macros, IR routing, 232, all in 1 box. A PC would require an external IR device, 232 device.

Linux/Unix may just prevail in the end. The Mac OS is based on exactly that and has continued to gain momentum and market share. Just look at any US University campus. We use Linux extensively in our seismic clusters and highend geophysics workstations. Nothing else fills that space and there is no way Windows can perform at the same level. Mainstream no, niche yes. On the netbook, should have mentioned tablet - especially something like the Freescale one. Not sure they'll get to their $199 price point, but may not be far off. Difficult to compete with $200 tablet, and IP controller (ala MSC-500) that provides the intelligence and a piece of software. URC know that well, after all, the MX-6000 is simple running a small program on a Windows CE platform. I'm with Mr Bond - PC software is a lot cheaper than building intelligent remotes. Time to start dusting off my old programming manuals, me thinks

So when this PC crashes.... and it will. Then what? Just thinking worse case scenario here.

My touch screen remote crashes, hangs up, requires the battery to be removed - I don't see the difference. L5 have/will be releasing their iPhone addon ($50 and free app). Air Remote already have a solution that works with AMX and Crestron (or their own GC-100). The iPhone/iTouch also controls a bunch of other stuff too. Seems to me the pipe dream is very much a reality; or at least well on its way

There are certainly valid arguments against using a PC as a home theater controller. However, with the proliferation of home computers has come improvements in performance, capabilities and reliability with reduction in cost. It would be possible to design a motherboard with hard drive, IR and serial port for less than half the cost of an MX-3000. With software supporting on-screen programming, such a device would have many advantages over current control systems.

I didn't mean to imply that the current crop of high-end remotes are too complicated. They can have as many features as you want. But with the system I described you can offload much of the complexity to the PC and have far more memory and capability there. It's kind of like replacing the MX-400 with a computer which provides on-screen programming. The PC approach also would allow you to scan DVD cover art for on-screen for movie selection. All the remote would have to support is cursor motion and a Select function.

An additional feature which PC based control would offer is searching and sorting DVDs for title, actor, director, studio, etc. Playlists could be supported for DVDs or CDs. With two way communication to the remote, the remote could even be reconfigured on the fly to handle changes in the system or user preferences.

I realize that my posts are not particularly well suited for this URC forum, however there is nothing to prevent URC from designing and marketing such a system.

I have a question, blakrj: have you EVER sat down at your keyboard and typed something that WASN'T inflammatory?

You've navigated specifically to a forum of professional system integrators, saying all kinds of stupid crap that makes it abundantly clear you've never once sat and listened to a client who wants a home theater installed, begging for everyone's attention by spouting off your market doomsday predictions, based on the same kinds of information that have caused smart-but-so-focused-they're-effectively-idiots tech geeks to predict the rise of some technology or another over the solutions that work quite well for 98% of everyone except yourself. IP-based integration is coming. We get that. We're on it.

I can't make you do a thing. I get that. But would you PLEASE put your money where your mouth is, get the hell off the EXACT specific online forum where you KNEW your words would only serve to start an argument, and go start your new development career putting installers like me out of business? PLEASE?

We get it, really: you're all pissy that your MX-6000 doesn't run Firefox or whatever, and you can't use it as a control portal from your Mac OS Look-At-Me-I've-Got-Ten-Percent-Market-Share notebook. Alright already. But guess what? These products aren't designed for whiny geeks. They're designed for system integrators like me whose clients are very happy to bring in a pro to make it all work for them. You're not that guy. We get it. But all your bitching and moaning isn't going to make URC, RTI, Crestron, or AMX abandon their established markets. You only understand the market from the perspective of what Mr. Whineypants wants. Your posts make it clear that you do NOT understand the custom installation market or the products that installers need to service it.

So please put up or shut up. Quit your day job. Dust off that notebook and start that development effort, oh genius of the system control market. Show us how we've all been doing it wrong all these years. But until you've got a solution we're all ready to jump ship for, we're begging you to go play somewhere where you're surrounded by people who give a crap about what you've got to say. Because here, all you're doing is picking fights, reveling in the sense of superiority you get from saying things online that you'd never, ever walk into a room full of custom installers and say.

Oh and... have a nice day.

HDMI Control could change the industry but I suppose they used to say the same about S-Link.

If manufacturers would just manage to standardize, or if someone entered the market that could force them to standardize then most of the reasons people own complex remote controls could be eliminated.

That is basically what C4 is. I don't use C4 but the only difference is you have to add a media box for music and movies.

Jon, you raise a very valid point. Standards, or lack thereof has been an ongoing problem across the IT & electronics industry for years. The 802.11n standard took forever to be agreed. This will probably continue to delay the reality of convergence. Even a single manufacturer (e.g. Sony) has different IR codes for different regions. Even Global forums (e.g. 802.11) have different standards as per government restrictions. I guess we may still need Douglas Adams' 'babel fish' before we get there.