Has this "invention" already been done?

[pkbites]

@pkbites

I believe those remotes also operated on radio waves instead of RF. This was great because you didn’t have to point the thing at the TV to change the channel or volume. Terrific if you’re lying in bed or on the couch, especially if your hands are under a blanket.

Those were actually quite nifty remotes. I wonder why they’re not used any more, or if they are why TV manufactures don’t use them as a selling point any more.

:smack: D’oh! :smack:

I meant it used radio waves instead of IR (infrared).

[njtt]

@LSLGuy

So while it could be made to work, it’d still be hit or miss. Unless the finder was a little hand-held gizmo that was normaly docked into the TV’s body. So you could try it while docked and if it didn’t find the remote, you could undock it and carry it around the house, pushing it’s “Find” button in each room.

Which would be awesome until your short attention span caused you to drop the finder the instant you heard the remote beep. Then you’ve lost the finder.

As I indicated in, like, the second reply, there used to be an actual product like this, although not TV specific, and I bought one to help my wife keep track of her keys. You got a little transmitter remote, and a little receiver that beeped and that you could attach to whatever you wnated to be able to find. It worked reasonably well until she lost the transmitter.

Unfortunately I do not remember the name of the product, and I have not seen it advertised for a long time, so I guess it was not a great commercial success.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@KellyCriterion

And if so, why isn’t it now standard on all televisions?

Because most people are not willing to pay the extra cost for it. (That’s pretty much the standard answer to questions like this.)

People won’t pay for it because:
[ul]
[li]it doesn’t work that well (short range, blocked by metal)[/li][li]it’s expensive (adding speaker, radio channel to remote & tv)[/li][li]it has workability problems (uses up remote batteries too fast)[/li][li]it isn’t that useful (many people don’t lose their remotes)[/li][/ul]

[Leo_Bloom]

@dtilque

If this were done, it still wouldn’t find the remote if you left it inside the refrigerator. I understand that this is a common place to leave the remote, although I’ve never done it myself. <snip>

Cite?

Although I must confess I once put about $500 in the freezer, and forgot about it for a year. That kinda counts then as losing it.

The banks are now putting GPS transmitters in some bundles of money to catch unknowing bad guys; should’ve used that on my money.

So, GPS on a remote? Then even an iphone could find it. I’ve thought about this when I can’t find my keys, my glasses, or my wallet. I guess if I had a GPS locator on my iphone, which I also forget to bring all the time, I’d be pretty much screwed.

[The_Seventh_Deadly_Finn]

Here’s a solution that uses a passive (small, non-powered) RFID chip on the item (the remote or whatever you’re trying to keep track of). The active, power-consuming portion of the system is contained in a separate handheld locator device. (Yeah, I know; what happens when you lose the locator. Still cool, though.)

I’ve got a soft spot for this idea because I invented it myself. Unfortunately, I turned out not to be the first to do so.

[dtilque]

@Leo_Bloom

Cite?

Link

– The most frequent places that Americans find their remotes include in and under furniture (38%), in the kitchen or bathroom (20%), and in the
refrigerator (6%).

[Rigamarole]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Because most people are not willing to pay the extra cost for it. (That’s pretty much the standard answer to questions like this.)

People won’t pay for it because:
[ul]
[li]it doesn’t work that well (short range, blocked by metal)[/li][li]it’s expensive (adding speaker, radio channel to remote & tv)[/li][li]it has workability problems (uses up remote batteries too fast)[/li][li]it isn’t that useful (many people don’t lose their remotes)[/li][/ul]

Good answer. And TVs are actually pretty low-margin items so whatever the extra cost of implementing it is, it would be noticeable.