Technology seems to be getting better and better. Your air conditioning thermostat can track your lifestyle habits and pre-cool the house before you get home from work, and your outdoor camera can recognize your friends. Yet even as many everyday electronic devices become “smart,” the majority of TV remotes appear frozen in time, much to the surprise of some users online. Hell, most TV remotes still use infrared instead of Bluetooth, even though IR technology hasn’t been cutting edge since the ’70s. So it’s only natural to wonder why your TV remote seems so cheap while everything else seems space-age in comparison.
One word: cost reduction. That infrared gadget? Besides being simple from a manufacturing standpoint, it’s also likely a way to save money on Bluetooth fees (yes, Bluetooth technology costs money). Alkaline batteries? Archaic, sure, but they get the job done because a TV remote doesn’t require a lot of power. Besides, it’s a valid question to wonder why they still have so many confusing controls when other devices get a lot of streamlining treatment and ditch the buttons like they’re serious.
Well, if manufacturers keep “sponsored” buttons to get that money from bigger streaming services, a complete overhaul would increase costs again. This may seem like no problem, but building a new remote from scratch (one that looks like something from the 21st century) requires a completely new case and circuit board. As a result, companies simply take an “if it ain’t broke” attitude when it comes to this device and reuse old designs that may be clunky, but still do the job.
Are traditional TV remotes on their way out?
Yes, your TV remote may seem cheap, but in many cases, that’s simply the result of a lack of advancement. Manufacturers themselves treat the remote control as an afterthought, so it’s no wonder these devices seem outdated. Put it all together, and it increasingly looks like bundled TV remotes are no longer necessary. Ten or twenty years ago, the death of your remote would be a tragic event that, unless you bought a universal one, would doom you to the fate of walking to the television every time you needed to change the channel. These days, if push comes to shove, you can control your TV with a smartphone app.
Of course, future demise will only destroy these bulkier remote controls. Take Apple TV as an example. Its minimalist Siri Remote costs $59, but it actually redefines what a TV remote can do. For starters, it has six buttons (not counting the directional touchpad), and while it retains IR, it also opens you up to the very convenient world of voice commands.
It is important to add that it may take a few years for this trend to accelerate. So it doesn’t make sense to expect manufacturers to start packing similar devices with their smart TVs anytime soon. A voice-activated remote requires components like processors and microphones, which cost more than a few buttons and an IR transmitter that runs on AA batteries. Until that day comes, we’ll likely continue to receive our token TV remotes that will still look cheap with a convoluted twist thrown in for good measure.
