Samsung WachON is an underrated feature.

[Shuri]

It's easier to incorporate a sensor that cost less than $1 than trying to change a multi-billion dollar industry. No one including Apple will be able to do this.

Samsung could easily!

I'm not asking what is easy to do, I'm saying what I'd prefer. The amount of Don't-change-anything-because-my-phone-is-da-best in this thread is baffling

On more time: IR blasters in phones are cool stuff, but I want something even better! Can't argue that, can you?

----------

BT and Wifi requires a constant connection.

IR doesn't, which is why a pair of double or triple A batteries can last over a year.

And how would you manage multi device integrated remotes with BT? Can you even have 3 or more connections at the same time? Too many people have it set up that the volume button controls the TV or Home theater receiver, while the channels buttons control the cable or multimedia box. I just see BT as more of an inconvenience, even if it's implemented in TVs and etc.

Another problem with WiFi and BT is how do you turn on stuff when your TV and other devices are off? It's simpler to just use a WiFi or RC controller with ir sensors attached to each device if you want that type of control it from anywhere connection. Sort of like how those Logitech Harmony remotes work.

I don't know for sure, but I think Bluetooth 4.0 specification could solve this. Might dig into, if I get some spare time. The TV Set being logged in into wifi is also not that much of a problem. Apple TV is already.

I don't see any inconvenience in being possible to control everything from your phone without needing to aim at the right device. The amount of data being able to be sent could be used for so much more than changing a channel. It's right there, but TV makers won't use it.
Let's say you're running a Music channel loudly and you went to the next room: Just turn the music off when a call comes in. Inconvenient very much? With wifi even in you whole home.

How do you turn on stuff when using IR? do you think IR uses some magic, so the sensor on the TV can be turned off?

 

[Klyster]

Smart remote is awesome, worth the money, works with most devices and if if doesn't, email a request to them and they usually have it sorted in days.

 

[Klyster]

Samsung could easily!

I'm not asking what is easy to do, I'm saying what I'd prefer. The amount of Don't-change-anything-because-my-phone-is-da-best in this thread is baffling

On more time: IR blasters in phones are cool stuff, but I want something even better! Can't argue that, can you?

----------



I don't know for sure, but I think Bluetooth 4.0 specification could solve this. Might dig into, if I get some spare time. The TV Set being logged in into wifi is also not that much of a problem. Apple TV is already.

I don't see any inconvenience in being possible to control everything from your phone without needing to aim at the right device. The amount of data being able to be sent could be used for so much more than changing a channel. It's right there, but TV makers won't use it.
Let's say you're running a Music channel loudly and you went to the next room: Just turn the music off when a call comes in. Inconvenient very much? With wifi even in you whole home.

How do you turn on stuff when using IR? do you think IR uses some magic, so the sensor on the TV can be turned off?

Heatpumps, set top boxes/pvrs, satellite boxes, DVD/BR players, digital cameras, amplifiers, appliances, selectors, anything basically with an IR sensor, you can control.

Much more scope than wifi or bt.

Sure, you could replace all your appliances with late model wifi/bt connected counterparts but that's kinda wasteful and expensive.

A seven dollar app in a ir equipped smartphone does it all, and you have the bonus of being able to use wifi or bt if your appliance supports it, so if the phone rings while you are listening to loud music, you can still use wifi to magically turn it off, best of both worlds, imo.

 

[MRU]

They finally updated it for their tablets. It's now AWESOME on the Note 12.2

 

[Shuri]

Heatpumps, set top boxes/pvrs, satellite boxes, DVD/BR players, digital cameras, amplifiers, appliances, selectors, anything basically with an IR sensor, you can control.

Much more scope than wifi or bt.

Sure, you could replace all your appliances with late model wifi/bt connected counterparts but that's kinda wasteful and expensive.

A seven dollar app in a ir equipped smartphone does it all, and you have the bonus of being able to use wifi or bt if your appliance supports it, so if the phone rings while you are listening to loud music, you can still use wifi to magically turn it off, best of both worlds, imo.

Sigh... Again: I'm not blaming any phone maker for implementing IR blasters into their phone. I blame TV, BR player and so on makers for forcing phone makers into the use of a technology that is inferior.
I'm not even saying that they shouldn't use both, IR and a newer one, parallely for transition.

 

[Klyster]

Those manufacturers of those appliances are slowly adopting newer technologies but you can hardly blame them for not rushing in on implementing connectivity to appliances immediately, to please smartphone users.

It is happening slowly though.

Quite a few of the appliances I control, predate the smart era. Having the ability to control them is great.
I'm surprised more phone manufacturers haven't adopted IR blasters.
Such a simple addition, so useful and I couldn't imagine it would cost much extra.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Samsung could easily!

I'm not asking what is easy to do, I'm saying what I'd prefer. The amount of Don't-change-anything-because-my-phone-is-da-best in this thread is baffling

On more time: IR blasters in phones are cool stuff, but I want something even better! Can't argue that, can you?

----------



I don't know for sure, but I think Bluetooth 4.0 specification could solve this. Might dig into, if I get some spare time. The TV Set being logged in into wifi is also not that much of a problem. Apple TV is already.

I don't see any inconvenience in being possible to control everything from your phone without needing to aim at the right device. The amount of data being able to be sent could be used for so much more than changing a channel. It's right there, but TV makers won't use it.
Let's say you're running a Music channel loudly and you went to the next room: Just turn the music off when a call comes in. Inconvenient very much? With wifi even in you whole home.

How do you turn on stuff when using IR? do you think IR uses some magic, so the sensor on the TV can be turned off?

You fail to grasp the technology. IR sends a signal to the TV's sensor, that's why it turns on. You can't send signals with BT or Wifi unless you're already paired/connected to the TV, but if the TV is off you are not paired/connected which means you can't send any signal to turn on.

What you're asking is for TVs and other devices to have a BT and/or Wifi "always on" state, even when the device is turned off. Now that's possible manufacturers can implement that. Doesn't make any sense on BT since it has such a short range, but I can see that happening for Wifi. Not as an IR replacement though, but more as a home integration setup, which Samsung is already working on.

 

[linkgx1]

I honestly hate non physical button remotes

 

[Shuri]

You fail to grasp the technology. IR sends a signal to the TV's sensor, that's why it turns on. You can't send signals with BT or Wifi unless you're already paired/connected to the TV, but if the TV is off you are not paired/connected which means you can't send any signal to turn on.

What you're asking is for TVs and other devices to have a BT and/or Wifi "always on" state, even when the device is turned off. Now that's possible manufacturers can implement that. Doesn't make any sense on BT since it has such a short range, but I can see that happening for Wifi. Not as an IR replacement though, but more as a home integration setup, which Samsung is already working on.

Dude, this is not how it works: the TV has to ACTIVELY listen to the incoming signal.. That's why there is such a thing called "stand by"..
when it's in standby anyway it can be logged in into wifi or broadcast a Bluetooth beacon..

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Dude, this is not how it works: the TV has to ACTIVELY listen to the incoming signal.. That's why there is such a thing called "stand by"..
when it's in standby anyway it can be logged in into wifi or broadcast a Bluetooth beacon..

Your right about the TV being on standby, but it is not actively listening for incoming signal in the same matter as BT and Wifi would require. IR sensors are passive, requiring as little as next to none energy being used. It's not actively searching or waiting for signals/pairing. IR sensors are basically dormant until the right IR signal directly hits it.

 

[Shuri]

Your right about the TV being on standby, but it is not actively listening for incoming signal in the same matter as BT and Wifi would require. IR sensors are passive, requiring as little as next to none energy being used. It's not actively searching or waiting for signals/pairing. IR sensors are basically dormant until the right IR signal directly hits it.

It is actively listening, as it has to perform certain actions to obtain the information..
You're right the amount of energy is not very big and smaller than Bluetooth or Wifi, BUT Bluetooth and wifi are not the power hungry anymore!

An Apple TV being always possible to be started via wifi (from sleep mode) uses such a little amount of power, that it isn't even measurable with a common meter.
So that isn't much of a problem.
I'm not saying that this is Apples effort or anything, I'm just provided an example where wifi as a control signal is practically usable.

 

[gotluck]

That's all fine and dandy, I would like that in addition to ir blaster. There is no negative to including the blaster, except minor decrease in profit for the oem