Digital Home DesignLine Blog
RF4CE vs IR: the next remote-control "battle"?
Bill Schweber
6/6/2009 12:00 PM EDT
And hopefully, manufacturers will agree on a standard set of commands, to the extent possible, and avoid the Tower of Babel situation we have now, with the different formats and protocol sets used for no clear reason other than to lock you into buying and using "their" remote (yes, you can get so-called universal remotes, but they are a pain to set up and have other issues).
What does this mean for the future of IR? It's not clear. RF4CE offers much more functionality, communication beyond the line-of-sight, and two-way links. No more hunting for that remote control, as you'll be able to signal it from the product it controls to have beep at you and say "here I am." And let's not forget what a potential business opportunity it is for component vendors, as well.
The IR remote has its virtues: it's very cheap, takes little space and power, and fulfills its basic purpose fairly well. It's become truly ubiquitous: you can find it embedded into inexpensive home appliances such as coffee machines, heating pads, fireplaces, curtain controls, and ceiling fans, just to name a few uses. But it has drawbacks, too, with its limited, direct-line range; simplex connectivity; and problems in applications in areas of bright ambient light or sunlight.
It will be interesting to see what traction RF4CE gets over the next few years. Will it push IR out of the way? Will it stumble? Will it be a peaceful IR-to-RF evolution, or a revolution? Will RF4CE brings us closer to the "universal" remote control we keep dreaming about?
Or will peacefully RF4CE coexist with IR in lower-end appliances, and RF4CE in higher-end ones? Let's see what happens.♦.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Adams
6/8/2009 5:47 PM EDT
I tend to think your "IR-to-RF evolution" is a likely path. As you point out, IR is really cheap and has just enough functionality for the basic purpose (the cheapest IR remote BOM cost is about US$0.85 total). RF4CE certainly solves the technical problem of IR self-interference for big screens, but really enables the new paradigm of multiroom devices, whether that's streaming audio that follows you, or settop box or multi-room DVR control. The consumer can use RF4CE to control that content over typical distances within the home, unimpeded by walls, people, the family dog, etc. While priced aggressively right now, it's just a matter of volume to drive even lower prices for RF4CE systems. RF4CE is significantly simpler than Bluetooth, and the same-volume silicon cost is lower. The first RF4CE products have already been announced, establishing the beachhead in the home. Service providers are looking at the RF4CE interface as a path to new services that increase ARPU, like home monitoring and personal wellness monitoring. As well, since RF4CE is part of the ZigBee family, it's straightforward to take advantage of the ZigBee home control tie-in to expand the ecosystem.
Sign in to Reply
Sujatha
6/10/2009 8:51 AM EDT
No comments at this point of time
Sign in to Reply
daleinaz
6/10/2009 7:44 PM EDT
I assume there is some sort of "pairing" designed in, otherwise "unimpeded by walls" would be a drawback, not an advantage. I don't want my neighbor to change the channels on my TV or vice versa.
Sign in to Reply
LarryM99
7/6/2010 11:56 AM EDT
I have hated RF for years. Last night I spent ten minutes trying to find the RF receiver for the media center that I have in a closet so that I can stick the emitter to it and operate the device. This morning I spent 20 minutes programming the universal remote for the devices in my living room. I would love to have at least an alternative control technology, if not an outright replacement for RF. I understand that change is painful, but at some point it just has to happen.
Larry M.
Sign in to Reply