In any given home the smoke detectors are in a fixed location. Based on the home layout there are certain places in which a detector is going to be found (such as near the stove). Yet, in most cases, smoke detectors are dinky plastic things screwed to the ceiling. They seem to be built under the assumption that people are going to be wanting to move their smoke detectors around from place to place.
This is a problem. The most common reason smoke detectors fail is because their batteries are low. The reason they have batteries in the first place is because they are non permanent fixtures in the home.
There is an easy fix for this. Smoke detectors can be built into the ceiling of homes and apartments. They can draw power directly from the electrical grid. There would be no need to have batteries. There would never be a question of "is there a smoke detector there?"
The easiest thing would be to install them while the home is being constructed. However, if there were electrical lines in the ceiling installing it after the fact would be no harder than installing a ceiling fan (easier in fact). As far as costs go, such a device would not run much more expensive than a regular smoke detector. However, the companies who manufacture smoke detectors would likely want to jack up the price because they would not sell as many in the lifetime of a home.
Similar systems already exist in commercial establishments. There is no reason they should not exist in homes. They could save lives.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Integrating Social Networks with Television
I would like to preface todays idea with a disclaimer. I am not a fan of social networking. I have never used Twitter and I maintain my Facebook account only out of a sense of obligation. However, I do try to keep track of the trends so that I can understand the online social climate. I am well aware that many people are fans of social networks. I am also aware that for savvy businesses, social networking can prove to be profitable.
If people are talking on social networks about a television show, its essentially free advertising for that show. It's in the interest of television networks to allow fans to talk about their shows. Every delay between a person watching a show and then posting about it online will reduce the number of people actually post. Today's idea is to break down some of the barriers between the television and the 'cloud.'
Imagine a cable box with an extra button on the controller. Pressing this new button would bring up an on-screen keyboard allowing the viewer to enter text. While not the best input method, it could work for short messages (a few sentences long) much like most 'tweets.' A person could easily update their twitter account while watching TV.
If the box was compatible with social networks that support tags, the cable box could automatically label the update with the name of the show being watched. A Facebook button on the remote could automatically update a person's facebook status to let people know what show they are watching. Another button could list the show as an interest on their profile.
This could even allow for a "I'm bored button" in which the TV would change to a random program currently playing that you might like based on other TV shows that you have listed as liking.
Now this is pretty much all doable just using a computer. However, the point is that removing the necessity of a computer will increase the amount of people who will network about any given show.
Integration would not need to simply be with existing systems. There could be a button to allow the viewer to punch in a number of stars. Such a simple act (presumably it could be done with a single button press) would likely see frequent use.
A large drive with technology in the past years is to make social networking more seamless. A focus of many phones is to allow people to network no matter what situation they are in.
TV networks win. If this idea where to come to fruition they would get greater exposure. Cable networks win. If they offered this system its something they could use to negotiate better deals with networks and could also attract new subscribers. Viewers win, at least those that like social networking. The only people who don't 'win' are those who don't care for social networking, but they never have to setup their box for it (entering in their Facebook and Twitter username and passwords for example).
Rather than issuing new cable boxes, this idea could also be realized through an 'add on' box. Most cable boxes that I have seen have a USB port. Presumably I/O information could be sent through this port (perhaps with a firmware update) to allow a 'Social Networking Box' to find out what show is currently being watched. The Social Networking Box could have wifi to connect to the internet and come with a special remote control designed with its unique purpose in mind while still allowing regular TV watching.
The only real problem I could imagine is when there are multiple people in the same family. However, ultimately this is not a real problem. This is not the first time I have suggested having multiple profiles on one device (see my Roku/Netflix suggestion). When taking any social network actions a menu could pop up asking which profile to take the action under. These could even be password protected if the user desired. There could also be profile buttons on the remote. There are any number of other ways this problem could be solved as well. Ultimately a creator of such a device would want to experiment with various techniques of allowing profile selection to find which works best.
If people are talking on social networks about a television show, its essentially free advertising for that show. It's in the interest of television networks to allow fans to talk about their shows. Every delay between a person watching a show and then posting about it online will reduce the number of people actually post. Today's idea is to break down some of the barriers between the television and the 'cloud.'
Imagine a cable box with an extra button on the controller. Pressing this new button would bring up an on-screen keyboard allowing the viewer to enter text. While not the best input method, it could work for short messages (a few sentences long) much like most 'tweets.' A person could easily update their twitter account while watching TV.
If the box was compatible with social networks that support tags, the cable box could automatically label the update with the name of the show being watched. A Facebook button on the remote could automatically update a person's facebook status to let people know what show they are watching. Another button could list the show as an interest on their profile.
This could even allow for a "I'm bored button" in which the TV would change to a random program currently playing that you might like based on other TV shows that you have listed as liking.
Now this is pretty much all doable just using a computer. However, the point is that removing the necessity of a computer will increase the amount of people who will network about any given show.
Integration would not need to simply be with existing systems. There could be a button to allow the viewer to punch in a number of stars. Such a simple act (presumably it could be done with a single button press) would likely see frequent use.
A large drive with technology in the past years is to make social networking more seamless. A focus of many phones is to allow people to network no matter what situation they are in.
TV networks win. If this idea where to come to fruition they would get greater exposure. Cable networks win. If they offered this system its something they could use to negotiate better deals with networks and could also attract new subscribers. Viewers win, at least those that like social networking. The only people who don't 'win' are those who don't care for social networking, but they never have to setup their box for it (entering in their Facebook and Twitter username and passwords for example).
Rather than issuing new cable boxes, this idea could also be realized through an 'add on' box. Most cable boxes that I have seen have a USB port. Presumably I/O information could be sent through this port (perhaps with a firmware update) to allow a 'Social Networking Box' to find out what show is currently being watched. The Social Networking Box could have wifi to connect to the internet and come with a special remote control designed with its unique purpose in mind while still allowing regular TV watching.
The only real problem I could imagine is when there are multiple people in the same family. However, ultimately this is not a real problem. This is not the first time I have suggested having multiple profiles on one device (see my Roku/Netflix suggestion). When taking any social network actions a menu could pop up asking which profile to take the action under. These could even be password protected if the user desired. There could also be profile buttons on the remote. There are any number of other ways this problem could be solved as well. Ultimately a creator of such a device would want to experiment with various techniques of allowing profile selection to find which works best.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
DC Providing Surge Protectors
Laptops, external hard drives, and desktop PCs have something in common. They all internally run on DC power. In desktop computer AC power is converted into DC for the computer to use by its power supply. In laptops and external hard drives this conversion takes place in the power cord. In particular it happens in the 'power brick' part of the cord.
There is another thing to note about their power sources. The specification of their DC power (the voltage and amperes) are all very similar from device to device. This is because, inside, their hardware is all more or less the same. For example, if you own an external hard drive, you can easily crack the case open and install the drive itself into a desktop or laptop computer (depending on the size). The similarities in power sources are why some companies can sell 'universal' adapters. Really the only big difference between them is the shape of the plug.
Yet all of these devices have their own methods of transforming AC into DC. If two or three family (or more) members have laptops, that can create a large amount of 'cord mess.' However, at any given time, perhaps only one laptop needs to be plugged in. But if another laptop does need power, one can not simply switch cords.
I would like to see a surge protector that has a built in 'power brick.' It would be able to provide the necessary Direct Current to power a laptop for example (this is more than what could be provided through USB).
To plug a computer into the surge protector, a lightweight cord with a compatible plug would be all that would be required. If laptop manufactures could get their act together, their could even be a 'universal power plug' form. After all people 'agreed' on the three pronged outlet.
The surge protector could then easily be used to power a different laptop, or a external hard drive, or any other DC powered device.
Something to keep in mind is that this is also a 'green' option. Rather than having dozens of power adapters around the house, if a single power inverter could serve for many of your devices, there will be less electronic waste when devices are thrown out.
It would raise the cost of the surge protector. There is no way around this. However proprietary power adapters tend to run around $60-$75 dollars. The generic inverter that could be used in the surge protector would likely run cheaper. In the long run this may even save the consumer money. If they are not needing to purchase replacement adapters, it could be worth the cost (In my lifetime I have needed to personally purchase at least 4 replacement adapters because of shorts that developed in their cords. They where shoddily designed, but because of the propitiatory nature of the devices I was using, I had no choice).
However, there is an important thing to keep in mind. Surge protector manufactures could likely make more money by following this. Consumers could save money and gain convenience if this was possible. Device manufactures could even eventually cut manufacturing costs (if such a surge protector was likely to be in every consumer's home and they no longer needed to package devices with power adapters). But I could imagine that device manufactures would see a drop in profits. They obviously make some amount of money by selling power adapters (I do not mean to say that manufactures conspiring to force consumers to purchase an overpriced adapter. They are simply businesses, and business strive to make a profit). For a manufacture it could perhaps be a loosing proposition if adapter plugs became 'universal.'
Like many other things, I suspect that this idea will not become a reality until money begins to talk. Either consumers would need to make a desire for simpler power management clear, or some company would need to broker an agreement in hopes to strike something big. However, in the meantime I can still imagine how nice it would be to have a surge protector that I could simply plug things into without worrying which cords go to which things.
There is another thing to note about their power sources. The specification of their DC power (the voltage and amperes) are all very similar from device to device. This is because, inside, their hardware is all more or less the same. For example, if you own an external hard drive, you can easily crack the case open and install the drive itself into a desktop or laptop computer (depending on the size). The similarities in power sources are why some companies can sell 'universal' adapters. Really the only big difference between them is the shape of the plug.
Yet all of these devices have their own methods of transforming AC into DC. If two or three family (or more) members have laptops, that can create a large amount of 'cord mess.' However, at any given time, perhaps only one laptop needs to be plugged in. But if another laptop does need power, one can not simply switch cords.
I would like to see a surge protector that has a built in 'power brick.' It would be able to provide the necessary Direct Current to power a laptop for example (this is more than what could be provided through USB).
To plug a computer into the surge protector, a lightweight cord with a compatible plug would be all that would be required. If laptop manufactures could get their act together, their could even be a 'universal power plug' form. After all people 'agreed' on the three pronged outlet.
The surge protector could then easily be used to power a different laptop, or a external hard drive, or any other DC powered device.
Something to keep in mind is that this is also a 'green' option. Rather than having dozens of power adapters around the house, if a single power inverter could serve for many of your devices, there will be less electronic waste when devices are thrown out.
It would raise the cost of the surge protector. There is no way around this. However proprietary power adapters tend to run around $60-$75 dollars. The generic inverter that could be used in the surge protector would likely run cheaper. In the long run this may even save the consumer money. If they are not needing to purchase replacement adapters, it could be worth the cost (In my lifetime I have needed to personally purchase at least 4 replacement adapters because of shorts that developed in their cords. They where shoddily designed, but because of the propitiatory nature of the devices I was using, I had no choice).
However, there is an important thing to keep in mind. Surge protector manufactures could likely make more money by following this. Consumers could save money and gain convenience if this was possible. Device manufactures could even eventually cut manufacturing costs (if such a surge protector was likely to be in every consumer's home and they no longer needed to package devices with power adapters). But I could imagine that device manufactures would see a drop in profits. They obviously make some amount of money by selling power adapters (I do not mean to say that manufactures conspiring to force consumers to purchase an overpriced adapter. They are simply businesses, and business strive to make a profit). For a manufacture it could perhaps be a loosing proposition if adapter plugs became 'universal.'
Like many other things, I suspect that this idea will not become a reality until money begins to talk. Either consumers would need to make a desire for simpler power management clear, or some company would need to broker an agreement in hopes to strike something big. However, in the meantime I can still imagine how nice it would be to have a surge protector that I could simply plug things into without worrying which cords go to which things.
Monday, August 30, 2010
USB Surge Protector
There is a huge plethora of devices that can be charged through USB ports. Enough that when I am at the airport I notice USB outlets for people to use for charging. Despite this, in our homes we still need to use 'bulky' adapters.
For a long time now surge protectors have had a place to plug in phone cords. They had grown with the times and provided a way for people to protect their modems from electrical surges. However, I would like to see them grow with the times again and offer USB ports for people to charge their mobile devices.
I did a Google search after thinking about this and the closest thing I could find was the following: http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Mini-Surge-Protector-Charger/dp/B0015DYMVO
I don't really consider that a 'full' surge protector. It was designed with travel in mind so people don't need to take their adapters with them. However, why should I have to worry about the adapters while at home. I would like to seem something like this, but in the form of a full strip surge protector for use at home.
There are two large benefits to this. One, you no longer need to worry about the power adapter for any device that can charge through USB. Two, you no longer need to deal with adapter plugs potentially blocking outlets.
I recently saw an article about how to install USB charging ports into wall outlets. Why in the world are they not part of full feature surge protectors? The convenience should be obvious.
It would increase the cost of the surge protector a bit. The protector would need to convert AC power (the type that comes from the mains) into DC power (the type delivered through USB). However, I think this cost would be well worth the additional functionality and would not be hard to market. Virtually everyone has a cellphone. Virtually every cellphone can charge via USB. People would have a use for this feature.
Ultimately, I think it is only a matter of time before we start seeing this become a standard feature in surge protectors.
Tomorrow's idea is going to directly pick up where this one left off. Personally, there is a lot more I think surge protectors could be doing to make life more convenient. So if you want to play a little game, try to guess what feature I am going to suggest be added into surge protectors tomorrow.
For a long time now surge protectors have had a place to plug in phone cords. They had grown with the times and provided a way for people to protect their modems from electrical surges. However, I would like to see them grow with the times again and offer USB ports for people to charge their mobile devices.
I did a Google search after thinking about this and the closest thing I could find was the following: http://www.amazon.com/Belkin-Mini-Surge-Protector-Charger/dp/B0015DYMVO
I don't really consider that a 'full' surge protector. It was designed with travel in mind so people don't need to take their adapters with them. However, why should I have to worry about the adapters while at home. I would like to seem something like this, but in the form of a full strip surge protector for use at home.
There are two large benefits to this. One, you no longer need to worry about the power adapter for any device that can charge through USB. Two, you no longer need to deal with adapter plugs potentially blocking outlets.
I recently saw an article about how to install USB charging ports into wall outlets. Why in the world are they not part of full feature surge protectors? The convenience should be obvious.
It would increase the cost of the surge protector a bit. The protector would need to convert AC power (the type that comes from the mains) into DC power (the type delivered through USB). However, I think this cost would be well worth the additional functionality and would not be hard to market. Virtually everyone has a cellphone. Virtually every cellphone can charge via USB. People would have a use for this feature.
Ultimately, I think it is only a matter of time before we start seeing this become a standard feature in surge protectors.
Tomorrow's idea is going to directly pick up where this one left off. Personally, there is a lot more I think surge protectors could be doing to make life more convenient. So if you want to play a little game, try to guess what feature I am going to suggest be added into surge protectors tomorrow.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
More Entertaining Exercise Machines
Today's idea directly follows from yesterdays.
Many exercise machines at gyms are equipped with lcd screens to watch television and headphone jacks to listen to the TV programs. Using this only to watch TV is a rather limited use of the hardware in the machines.
Rather than needing to take my e-book reader, or an mp3 player to the gym, why can't the exercise machine fill this roll for me. They are already trying to serve other entertainment jobs.
With a little extra computer hardware much more could be done with the displays and headphone jacks. For example why not let the exercise machine be able to play mp3s. It could support flash cards with mp3s. Or perhaps there could be an online service that could be registered for in which users could upload their music and access it from the machines.
Likewise, a person could easily read their e-books on the machines without need for an extra device. Most people likely wouldn't take advantage of this, but some probably would. It could even be marketed to parents as something that encourages their children to read.
If we want to get really fancy, it could have a limited web browser. This use would have additional challenges, but they are nothing that could not be solved with a little thought.
There is obviously a demand for exercise machines at gyms that provide something to do while working out. I see people using the TVs and watching various programs. Why not give people the option of doing something other than just watching TV. Yes it will cost more to add in this functionality, but it also costs more to add in the TVs in the first place. I know I would definitely appreciate such a feature.
Many exercise machines at gyms are equipped with lcd screens to watch television and headphone jacks to listen to the TV programs. Using this only to watch TV is a rather limited use of the hardware in the machines.
Rather than needing to take my e-book reader, or an mp3 player to the gym, why can't the exercise machine fill this roll for me. They are already trying to serve other entertainment jobs.
With a little extra computer hardware much more could be done with the displays and headphone jacks. For example why not let the exercise machine be able to play mp3s. It could support flash cards with mp3s. Or perhaps there could be an online service that could be registered for in which users could upload their music and access it from the machines.
Likewise, a person could easily read their e-books on the machines without need for an extra device. Most people likely wouldn't take advantage of this, but some probably would. It could even be marketed to parents as something that encourages their children to read.
If we want to get really fancy, it could have a limited web browser. This use would have additional challenges, but they are nothing that could not be solved with a little thought.
There is obviously a demand for exercise machines at gyms that provide something to do while working out. I see people using the TVs and watching various programs. Why not give people the option of doing something other than just watching TV. Yes it will cost more to add in this functionality, but it also costs more to add in the TVs in the first place. I know I would definitely appreciate such a feature.
Friday, August 27, 2010
E-Book Reader Remote
For a long time now I have wanted to read while exercising on a treadmill. However, up until recently I have never been able to make this a reality. The issue I had with trying to read paperbooks for example was two fold. The first problem is keeping the book open. Keeping the book on my page generally requires the constant use of one of my hands which is awkward while exercising. The other issue is the font size. If the book is being rested on the treadmill's or exercycle's control panel often times its further away from my eyes than I am used to. At this longer distance the words are too small for me to read.
I found a solution recently that works amazingly well. I brought my Kindle to the gym. For those of you not aware, the Amazon Kindle is an electronic device that uses an e-paper display. It is designed to read e-books. There is no need to hold it open to a page as it displays the same page until the 'next page' button is pressed. This solved the first issue. It also allows the font size to be increased fixing the second issue. The cherry on top is that I am also able to put my music on the device and listen to it while reading and exercising.
It almost was perfect.
The problem was the 'next page' button. I was constantly needing to lean forward and press the button. It was not nearly as bad as needing to hold a book open to a page, but it was still disruptive. More than physically disruptive, it broke the mental mindset that I had while exercising.
I was thinking for awhile what a good solution would be. Putting page turning on a timer would be no good. There were a few intense points in my workout where my mind drifted and I found myself needing to reread pages.
Likewise voice activation would not work well. There is too much background noise, and people would quickly get tired of saying "next page" over and over again.
So I decided the best option would be if the device had a remote control. All it would really need to do would go forward and backwards in a book.
To be useful and not a burden or hindrance the remote would need to be small. I almost feel that working it into some sort of sports glove would work best. Clenching the hand could be the next page signal.
Ultimately all the various manufactures of e-book readers need to do is make their device capable of accepting remote signals from paired devices. The design of remotes could be left to third party companies. This could open up their devices to a whole range of new uses.
For example, there is the situation already discussed above. However, another use situation could be allowing a lecturer to discreetly keep his or her notes on the e-book device. For beach goers, the device could be safely kept in a sand/water proof transparent case while still allowing control through a cheap remote control.
I'm sure there are a number of other cases where having a remote for an e-book reader would be useful.
While it may not be intuitive, after all who ever would want a remote control for a book, e-book readers are NOT books. That is why people are willing to shell out money for the devices. However, I know that I would be willing to personally pay a decent sum for this ability in a device.
I found a solution recently that works amazingly well. I brought my Kindle to the gym. For those of you not aware, the Amazon Kindle is an electronic device that uses an e-paper display. It is designed to read e-books. There is no need to hold it open to a page as it displays the same page until the 'next page' button is pressed. This solved the first issue. It also allows the font size to be increased fixing the second issue. The cherry on top is that I am also able to put my music on the device and listen to it while reading and exercising.
It almost was perfect.
The problem was the 'next page' button. I was constantly needing to lean forward and press the button. It was not nearly as bad as needing to hold a book open to a page, but it was still disruptive. More than physically disruptive, it broke the mental mindset that I had while exercising.
I was thinking for awhile what a good solution would be. Putting page turning on a timer would be no good. There were a few intense points in my workout where my mind drifted and I found myself needing to reread pages.
Likewise voice activation would not work well. There is too much background noise, and people would quickly get tired of saying "next page" over and over again.
So I decided the best option would be if the device had a remote control. All it would really need to do would go forward and backwards in a book.
To be useful and not a burden or hindrance the remote would need to be small. I almost feel that working it into some sort of sports glove would work best. Clenching the hand could be the next page signal.
Ultimately all the various manufactures of e-book readers need to do is make their device capable of accepting remote signals from paired devices. The design of remotes could be left to third party companies. This could open up their devices to a whole range of new uses.
For example, there is the situation already discussed above. However, another use situation could be allowing a lecturer to discreetly keep his or her notes on the e-book device. For beach goers, the device could be safely kept in a sand/water proof transparent case while still allowing control through a cheap remote control.
I'm sure there are a number of other cases where having a remote for an e-book reader would be useful.
While it may not be intuitive, after all who ever would want a remote control for a book, e-book readers are NOT books. That is why people are willing to shell out money for the devices. However, I know that I would be willing to personally pay a decent sum for this ability in a device.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Snap in Light Bulbs
Screwing in light bulbs generally works just fine. You twist a bit and then the bulb stays in. The process has also given us hundreds if not thousands of "how many blank would it take to screw in a light bulb" jokes. However having to screw in light bulbs is not always ideal.
This thought came to mind while looking at a celling fixture. To change the bulbs I need to stretch out and stand on the tip of my toes. I can certainly accomplish this task. However, it is an uncomfortable pose to maintain while unscrewing the old bulb and screwing in the new one.
It occurred to me, why can't the light bulbs simply snap in? If the sockets were designed with a ridge, the bulb could just latch onto it. The bulb would be constructed with a plastic base (or one of flexible metal if melting is a problem). To remove the bulb a person would just squeeze the base. It would become 'thinner' and be able to move past the sockets ridge. At that point the bulb could slip back out.
People could be concerned that the base of the bulb would become distorted over time causing a bulb to slip out. This is only likely if a person is installing and removing the same bulb multiple times. In the vast majority of cases, light bulbs are installed once and then left until they burn out.
Where this really has potential is in light fixtures in tall ceilings that normally require a poll to change. The poll would still be needed (you have to be able to reach the fixtures after all), but there would be no twisting required.
As mentioned, modern light bulbs are no sort of terrible tragedy, but this seems like a simple redesign that could make changing them a little bit less work.
This thought came to mind while looking at a celling fixture. To change the bulbs I need to stretch out and stand on the tip of my toes. I can certainly accomplish this task. However, it is an uncomfortable pose to maintain while unscrewing the old bulb and screwing in the new one.
It occurred to me, why can't the light bulbs simply snap in? If the sockets were designed with a ridge, the bulb could just latch onto it. The bulb would be constructed with a plastic base (or one of flexible metal if melting is a problem). To remove the bulb a person would just squeeze the base. It would become 'thinner' and be able to move past the sockets ridge. At that point the bulb could slip back out.
People could be concerned that the base of the bulb would become distorted over time causing a bulb to slip out. This is only likely if a person is installing and removing the same bulb multiple times. In the vast majority of cases, light bulbs are installed once and then left until they burn out.
Where this really has potential is in light fixtures in tall ceilings that normally require a poll to change. The poll would still be needed (you have to be able to reach the fixtures after all), but there would be no twisting required.
As mentioned, modern light bulbs are no sort of terrible tragedy, but this seems like a simple redesign that could make changing them a little bit less work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)