I always keep wondering why the IR stuff was never standardized. If it had been, we'd never need a Pronto in the first place... :-)

I would like each device to have a user-settable "device-ID" (0-255), a fixed "class ID" (VCR, TV, DVD, etc.), and a "support level" ID that gives a remote some idea of how many of the class buttons are supported. Then, designing a generic universal remote becomes a simple thing -- no library of IR codes required!.

Is it the distance from the computer industry that caused the current situation? Is anyone working on a standard?

Bob

Standards are not always good, some people here are having problems because they have two pieces from the same manufacturer, how do you end up controlling one and not the other.

Whos standard? there are standards right now, Sony, Nec, RC5 (philips).... these manufacturers sell their chips and other tools to other manufacturers, who's standard will be used. who will decide the "device ID" that should be used .....

Although there can be difficulties in reaching a common standard, in general, standardization is a very good thing (Like the PCI bus for example...)

The entire point of the device ID is to allow each device to have a unique ID within a given system. For this to work properly, the ID must be user-programmable or user-settable (like an X-10 device).

If an industry-wide standard were to be adopted, think of how simple a "universal remote" could be. You just tell it the DeviceId, ClassId, and SupportLevel for each of your devices, and you are done.

The current need for a completely programmable Pronto-like device costing hundreds of dollars should be ample testimony for the need and benefits of standardization. What an utterly insane tower of babel has been constructed in the IR remote area!!!!

Bob

You guy's are missing the real reason. A standard while making it easier for everyone gives no one manufacturer a competitive advantage. There will allways be proprietary extensions to any standard as there are on almost everything in the computer industry...

However, the benefit of a standard is when ALL manufacturers gain. Besides, what would be the competitive advantage for a wierd remote control interface?

The codes are already so close, and everyone's using a handful of similar interface chips anyway.

Here's the advantage: make it easier to put together components and use them, and people will buy more components. Or how about this: with a good IR standard, I could buy two identical VCRs (from the SAME manufacturer, *gasp*), set them to different device IDs, and actually use them together. Currently, I have to make sure that there are no identical components so that the IR codes don't collide!

I agree that there will be proprietary extensions, and a good standard is written to accomodate this. But surely we can come up with a common way to increase volume, set channels, and select transport functions!

Bob

Bob,
1) How many people read the manuals, cannot fix the time on the VCR, post here Pronto cannot learn because they are not pointing the remote in the right direction...., Now imagine getting a piece of equipment and having to decide on a device code, or having to learn how to use it.

2) "make it easier to put together components and use them, and people will buy more components" I doubt it is the first thought in anyone's mind how easy it is to use and will it interfere with other equipment. I have not heard anyone say " I would have ten TVs in the room but they would all use the same IR keys.

3) "I could buy two identical VCRs (from the SAME manufacturer, *gasp*), set them to different device IDs, and actually use them together. ", I don't know about VCRs, but some manufacturers on some of their higher up equipment already have such a feature, and it is easier to implement when you have a button on the equipment and remote with a few choices (One of my equipment has three choices).

4) "Besides, what would be the competitive advantage for a wierd remote control interface?" Monopoly. Bose has an RF remote, they used to make an IR->RF gadget, but they have stopped. Why? easy, have you ever bought a replacement remote for any of your equipment? they are never worth the price. No manufacturer wants you to buy universals (except the ones the ones that make them, and even then try getting help from them on the IR sequence, they guard them as if it was the most valuable thing on the planet.

5) "The codes are already so close, and everyone's using a handful of similar interface chips anyway." exactly, a handful of interfaces. the companies who produce these chips would lose control and possibly customers.

About the only time you get standards is when it is dictated by the market (beta vs vhs) or the government. Otherwise, most companies do their own thing. Don't get me wrong, I think it is the right thing to do. I have a Toshiba DVD and a Kenwood CD player that have quite a few non-discrete functions. If there were standards imposed, then maybe all devices would have discretes for every function. Wouldn't that be nice! ;-)

I believe the FCC does impose standards on IR devices, but the standards only relate to the level of interference etc. :-(

I think that Mr. Moore has it correct. One needs only look at the computer industry to see a great current example. Bill Gates and Windows. Because IBM selected MS-DOS as its OS in 1981, and because of the open architecture of the IBM PC, MS-DOS and the IBM PC quickly became the standards around which all the "IBM clones". As a result, the PC quickly became very standardized in terms of bus architecture, BIOS commands, interface standards, etc. Windows forced further standardization as it built on a widely accepted standard and became more and more easy for the non-computer literate to manage successfully and achieved greater and greater popularity. Thanks to all the standardization that has occurred we now have computers that are 6 logs greater in capability and one-fifth to one-tenth the cost as in 1981. And no one has to deal with the command-line interface of MS-DOS.

Compare that to the Apple MacIntosh (who, contrary to popular opinion, did not invent the GUI. Xerox did at the PARC). Apple brought out a very popular, easy-to-use GUI but a closed system architecture. Very profitable at first, but in the end, because of proprietary issues, Apple loses by not yielding (until too late) to an open architecture, standardization and lower prices. Where is Apple today. Where will it be in 5 years. On the margins, at best.

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Steve Jobs is the smartest computer nerd in the world, but in second place. Bill Gates has arguably done more to popularize and democratize PCs than any person in the World.

Yes to standardization. And it was not a government driven phenomenon. The government isn't that smart, especially Judge Jackson. It was all market driven.

I definitely think standards are good, but not necessarily everywhere and especially here (I don't think there are any benefits to users like me, and I don't know about UR manufacturers - Pronto bought its code DB from the makers of OFA remotes, If the codes where standardized there would be no buyers.)

Rodney: (I hope I am not insulting you by using your first name, we tend to be more informal here)
As for PCs:
---1) IBMs intention was not to create an open architecture, and originally was bringing the clone manufacturers to court.
---2) IBM PC's used IBM-DOS made by MS, MS-DOS was created by MS for clones - Bill saw a market $$$$$$
---3) Most of the problems with PCs are caused by the lack of hard standards, every manufacturer has his own drivers.......
---4) I agree that computers improve fast, but most is due to competition than standardization
---5) Actually Apple is way more standardized then PCs, they decide on the manufacturer of each part of the PC and you have no say in it.

1. Yes, I know that IBM at first challenged the clones, but they never actually carried out a challenge to any substantive end. Of course, no one ever starts out to have an "open" architecture. That's what patents are all about. In truth, IBM probably underestimated the end-value of the PC to its overall revenue stream. But the fact is they didn't take active measures to keep users out of their boxes, and they didn't ever really, substantively challenge the clones. As a result, open architecture, intended or not, did foster standardization.

2. Yes, IBM used PC-DOS. But they were interchangeable, at least at first. And the interchangeability of gross and fine similarities combined with an essentially open architecture again fostered standardization of bus and BIOS.

3. Drivers are not hardware. Yes there are still software standards that are dissimilar, But they can all coexist on the same platform, or more and more, across platforms.

4. What standardization did was to allow the hardware components, easily the cheapest part of a PC today be manufactured on larger and larger scales and used by many manufacturers, not just a one or two. Scale reduces costs and allows price competition ever more aggressively.

5. No argument, but, that's the point, Apple has managed to control it's own internal standards only by not allowing competition, which in the PC world has brought about the greatest innovation, the largest market and, again, the true democratization of PCs. Apple has managed, over the years, to price itself out of the market. It's left with proselytizing elementary and middle school students to derive a user-base.

I didn't think my questions would cause such debate.

Hardware standards are good -- this allows you to buy a PCI board and it will not only fit in your computer, it will also work properly. Software standards are also good -- this allows C code to be portable across many compilers and platforms. These are just two simple examples.

Even with standardized IR codes, I think that there would be a market for the Pronto -- it does the job so much better because it is completely customizable to the job at hand.

Also -- yes, I have seen some equipment with user-settable Device IDs. I even had an RCA VCR from the '80s with a switch for device 1 or device 2 on the back. You can have a configurable device ID on the machine, but granny doesn't have to even know about it, just make sure that the device and the matching remote are both set to the same default out of the box.

Perhaps as the computer industry gets more involved in the IR/RF/wireless area, IR command standards will become a reality.

Bob

Bob: I think you have started one of the most interesting (fun) threads that is active at the moment.

I never meant that UR (Pronto) would be useless, One is interface the other is working. I keep on trying to convince my sister to buy a Pronto, I find there system could benefit by the ease of use. And thi is true no matter what the IR is.

Rodney:
1 + 2)I think IBM tried to stop it more then you make it sound, (and that is one of the reasons of the two DOS)

3)I did not mean Hardware standards but standards that are more fixed - that no one can play with / individualize. As for drivers they are the software that compensates for the hardware differences.

4) Yes there is some standardization (especially on locally made PCs) but if you buy some of the Brand name PCs, you end up having to buy the manufacturers add-ons

5)I am not an Apple fan (actually I have some friends who are Mac fans and we constantly debate about what is better), but sometimes decisions and advertisement have more to do with who wins then what is better. Look at VHS/Beta, was VHS better? Definitely not in any real way.

Actually the Pronto has created (I don't know if it is in the way of Apple and GUY) an IR standard. The RTI T2 has a hidden function that can translate Pronto HEX. I heard Xantech has made the same for their remote and I think I read here that someone has done the same for the palm UR software. (I tend to look at all the forums, you don't know where that good information will appear)

A few times here, someone has hit the proverbial nail right on the head. No standards gives Marantz a distinct advantage here -- I purchased Pioneer Elite components, but seriously considered Marantz's high-end line. Why? Because the remote would already be able to control the stuff right out of the box.
Pioneer sells a great lcd based universal remote, but it does about a tenth of what the RC5000 and Pronto can do. Regardless, having this remote and their receivers makes it likely customers will buy more Pioneer stuff. Standards would make it easier for us but harder for them. They ain't gonna happen.