RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Cue-Cat (was net-enabled microcontrollers for appliances, VCRs, stereos)

["Ross, Matt" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

The CueCat is a bad example, they outright lied to people about what the cat
did.  On the upside, you can use the CueCat hardware under linux to keep a
MySQL barcode database.  If you felt like programming it, you could easily
make the equivalent of Wal-Mart's inventory/register system with cheap linux
boxes, instead of rather expensive Sun UNIX boxes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spurling, Shannon [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 7:42 PM
> To: EMAIL:PROTECTED
> Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] net-enabled microcontrollers for
> appliances, VCRs, stereos
> 
> 
>  Okay, I think I know what you are talking about, and it's not $1.00,
> it's around $8 (I think) in quantitys of 1000. I believe it is made by
> NEC, and it requires a MCU in order to work... A $10 PIC MCU is listed
> in the datasheet. When I first read the marketing blurb, I thought it
> was stand alone. All it does is create TCP packets from the data you
> send it. Now, I could be off on the manufacturer and price, I'm going
> off memory here, but I clearly remember the application note. It
> involved three other descrete components for the sample 
> application, in
> addition to the resistor capacitors and diodes needed. The three parts
> were the PIC, the TCP encoder/serial UART, and theMAX232 to 
> provide the
> 56K uplink. First off, no chip company makes a one chip ethernet
> encoder, because there are two seperate tasks to be done, and 
> depending
> on the application, they might be different. If a chip company makes a
> single chip ethernet solution, it's for a specific contracted 
> short run
> application. And it would probably be something based on 
> combining masks
> from their two comercial components that were used to prototype the
> application.
> So, first off, I'm not paying an increase of $20 a jug more for milk.
> And second, I'm not going to run a fiber pair or Cat5 to my groceries.
> The web enabled VCR would be fine, but isn't that a TVIO type
> appliance/service? Remember, who ever makes the web enabled
> entertainment components is going to fight furiously to make you use
> their data service. Remember the CueCat? If I buy Prairie Farms Milk,
> will it be compatable with the central dairy interface I got with my
> fridge? Something to think about. Besides, I don't want Evil Angelica
> hacking my fridge and spoiling my milk because they installed WINCE on
> it. It's just not needed!
> 
> Shannon 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael
> To: EMAIL:PROTECTED
> Sent: 12/2/01 3:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] net-enabled microcontrollers for
> appliances, VCRs, stereos
> 
> > And where are they?  Who manufactures them?  I haven't seen any,
> > personally.  Show me a link to a datasheet, and maybe I'll believe
> > you.  And by the way, a network card is far less complex than an
> > embedded web server thing.  A NIC hooks right into the PCI 
> bus, which
> > already does most of the work for it.  A VCR neither has a 
> PCI bus nor
> > a CPU which can control the NIC.  You would have to put in an extra
> > microcontroller, program it
> 
> If I feel energetic I'll try to find my bookmark to the site 
> that sells
> them. I looked breifly but couldn't find it. Bookmarks are such a pain
> when you get hundreds or thousands. And the web servers are cheap
> because
> they only do what they have to.. essentially providing an 
> http interface
> to whatever data your gadget already provides. They are made only for
> embedded use. You couldn't run like Google off one. A couple different
> companies make flavors of these ultra-lite webservers now. Again if I
> feel
> motivated I'll look for them. I'm feeling lazy right now.
> 
> > Where have you seen those chips?  I really want to order a 
> few if they
> are 
> > that cheap.
> 
> The printed circuits on paper? They don't yet have a printed 
> web server
> that I know of but I think they would be pretty easy to do 
> and are bound
> to show up. Other circuits printed on paper get used in disposable
> places
> already though so we do know it works.
> 
> > Then why aren't there VCRs with network interfaces? The closest I've
> seen is 
> > a cable modem with a webserver.  But those things cost 
> about two times
> as 
> > much as a VCR, for "cheap" electronics.
> 
> VCR's suck and so do VCR makers? There might be a web-enabled VCR for
> all
> I know but I don't have one. Shouldn't be to hard to make 
> though. Price
> something is sold for has almost nothing to do with how much 
> it cost to
> make. Manufacturers often breif sales people that a given product is
> exactly the same between the cheap model and the expensive 
> model except
> the expensive model has a feature turned on. My favorite was a digital
> camera I usda sale.. hooking power to the cameras main IC at the right
> spot would let the camera double the resolution. Probably 
> cost less than
> a
> penny to activate per camera but they charged $100 more.
> 
> > I haven't seen a wired VCR yet - probably due to two reasons:
> > 1. The technology is not mainstream yet
> The technology is mainstream, products that use the technology are not
> mainstream yet. Companies don't release products the second a 
> technology
> is available.. they have to convince mgmt it's a good idea, do user
> studies, design, make, test, market, etc.
> 
> > 2. It's not cost-effective.
> *shrugs* It doesn't cost much. The cardboard box the units are shipped
> in
> probably cost as much.
> 
> > 3. Nobody wants them
> > I can't say that reason #3 is valid, since there would be 
> at least one
> model 
> > of a VCR that had it built in.  There isn't a single thing that does
> it and 
> > is mainstream.
> 
> Could be a reason. It isn't the type of feature that is likely to be
> well
> understood in most user studies. Anyway the VCR idea was just an
> example. Most people geeky enough for a web enabled VCR would probably
> want a TiVo or something. On the other hand multipurpose remotes are
> popular.. if devices shared a common interface to such remotes there
> could
> be a decent business in it.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php
> 
> Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/
> --
> To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php
> 
> Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/
> 
--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/