I'm somewhat intrigued about the idea of using bluetooth as an audio system interconnect, but I don't understand the comment, "But with a Bluetooth low-energy remote, your remote will live 'for life,' ..."
Even IR remotes could "live for life," in principle, if the vendors wanted them to. I'm not sure why CE vendors would change their tune when/if they provide bluetooth remotes. Different functions still have to be built into the remote, e.g. buttons for specific features, vs features selected from an on-screen menu. Not sure that bluetooth or IR make a lick of difference.
The easiest thing to do for vendors is to remain incompatible with all other systems. This avoids compatibility testing, and encourages consumers to stick with only their products.
And unfortunately, that would also be my prediction for any ideas of bluetooth loudspeakers, for instance, or any other system interconnect. Watch for this becoming an excuse for incompatible components among different companies.
I agree with your comment Frank! I could see a number of Super Bowl commercials being accessed online after being shown. This could represent an interesting marketing opportunity for advertisers and internet providers alike. Perhaps, there could be a revenue opportunity?
BTW, those of you who will attend a Super Bowl party next month, pay attention to people's behavior with their smart phones during the game and especially during commercials and the halftime show.
I think there is a huge opportunity there for advertisers and also the NFL to more effectively tap into and benefit from that mobile device activity, especially since a large percentage of it will be related to either the game or to one or more of the ads.
I just want to clarify my comments about apps on the big screen TV. It's not so much an issue of privacy as it is of screen clutter and the nature of the big screen being a shared experience.
A recent study found that 80% of mobile device owners multitask on a mobile device while watching TV -- either browsing the web, exchanging email, sending IMs, texting, talking or social networking. For live TV events or in non-DVR households, this activity spikes during commercial breaks, as one might expect.
The big screen simply isn't big enough to accommodate multiple users' tweets, IMs, chats, Facebook pages, etc., and still show the shared program that everyone is at least partially watching -- those other functions are best served by each person's own mobile device.
I agree that our mobile devices, TVs, PCs set-top boxes, cars, etc. need, as Junko said, "better connectivity and interplay." But that is a far different proposition than providing the same types of apps and communications capabilities on the big, shared screen as we have on the small, individualized screen.
I didn't knew that Microsoft Corp.’s is pulling out of CES after 2012, am curious to know what is the motive behind this ? What is their problem to participate in such shows which gives insight into the future of the industry.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.