Android app for Emerald Driver Configuration

[FadeToGray]

that's a good idea, but you'd either have to have an on/off switch for the wireless, or face the prospect of the battery drain that it would cause. I'm more software based, but I think a wireless transmitter opperating constantly with a reasonable signal strength would take a fair bit of your battery life. plus, I don't want someone else chaging my blade colour, so you'd probably need some security too.

[Krace]

This is a very interesting thread.  

Ultimately, you will eventually find mobile solutions for configuration made by the mobile industry itself. There will be no need for us to create our own app for that with how fast technology is progressing.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I think it would be a very bad PR decision to work on an app for Android while ignoring iOS  

While iOS support would be nice, I'm not sure how easy it would be.  The first problem is that right now the Obsidian launcher isn't even on Mac, so I don't know how hard it would be to program for the mobile iOS.  Also, Apple tends to be rather uptight it seems about apps it lets into its market and I don't know what the approval process is or how hard it is to design for iOS due to restrictions in the hardware/software.  Android on the other hand is rather open about apps created on the market and their devices have less restrictions on them.  Android would definitely be the better one to start with I would think, then try and move the idea to iOS and see how it goes.

ULTRA that is why I suggested wireless connection built in to saber. This way the saber will need to be setup once in the rom on the obsidian soundboard. Attatch it to a wifi spot and give it an IP address. After that point any device can connect to the saber via WEB BROWSER and configure there. NO NEED FOR A STAND ALONE APP. Any device with a browser can connect and modify configuration file in the rom.

This technology is small and with a small increase in the price of the saber could be useful. I also agree ULTRA that the IOS vrs Android would alienate one or the other. By doing the way I suggested will allow even MAC's, Linux, UNIX, BeOS, Windows, and Chrome OS to make changes as long as they can be on the same network and use an internet browser. It is worth thinking about.

The Wi-Fi idea is good, but it brings about a whole slew of problems.

Putting Wi-Fi into a saber requires yet another chip and more wires to connect and be an antenna.  I don't know if the metal casing would help or hinder a signal.  Then of course you have to deal with how do you control the on/off nature of the Wi-Fi and also its power draw.  Also, my phone doesn't do Ad-Hoc networks, which means you'd need to connect both to a hot spot like you said.  Problem with that is that most public hot spots I try and get on are either locked require you to authenticate by opening a browser and clicking "I agree".  Neither of these would work with a saber since you have no interface. Even if the network was completely open and you could your saber onto it, how would you get to it?  You wouldn't know the saber's IP.  Unless you had a generic web address that you could go to and it was able to look for saber devices on the same network and IP range as you so you could tap into your saber, you couldn't access it.

[Vyk]

While iOS support would be nice, I'm not sure how easy it would be.  The first problem is that right now the Obsidian launcher isn't even on Mac, so I don't know how hard it would be to program for the mobile iOS.  Also, Apple tends to be rather uptight it seems about apps it lets into its market and I don't know what the approval process is or how hard it is to design for iOS due to restrictions in the hardware/software.  Android on the other hand is rather open about apps created on the market and their devices have less restrictions on them.  Android would definitely be the better one to start with I would think, then try and move the idea to iOS and see how it goes.

Programming would be no more difficult for iOS than for Android.  An app of this type probably wouldn't have difficulty getting into the App Store, either, from what I've seen.  The biggest problem with iOS would be if you wanted to use a wired connection, since iOS doesn't really support being the host for USB connections.  Maybe there's an API there that just isn't widely used, but to be honest, I doubt it.

The Wi-Fi idea is good, but it brings about a whole slew of problems.

Putting Wi-Fi into a saber requires yet another chip and more wires to connect and be an antenna.  I don't know if the metal casing would help or hinder a signal.  Then of course you have to deal with how do you control the on/off nature of the Wi-Fi and also its power draw.  Also, my phone doesn't do Ad-Hoc networks, which means you'd need to connect both to a hot spot like you said.  Problem with that is that most public hot spots I try and get on are either locked require you to authenticate by opening a browser and clicking "I agree".  Neither of these would work with a saber since you have no interface. Even if the network was completely open and you could your saber onto it, how would you get to it?  You wouldn't know the saber's IP.  Unless you had a generic web address that you could go to and it was able to look for saber devices on the same network and IP range as you so you could tap into your saber, you couldn't access it.

Bluetooth would be better than Wi-Fi IMO.  The metal casing, however, would be a huge problem; it's basically a Faraday cage, and it's too big to be useful as an antenna in anything close to Bluetooth's or Wi-Fi's frequencies (based on my limited knowledge of antenna theory).

that's a good idea, but you'd either have to have an on/off switch for the wireless, or face the prospect of the battery drain that it would cause. I'm more software based, but I think a wireless transmitter opperating constantly with a reasonable signal strength would take a fair bit of your battery life. plus, I don't want someone else chaging my blade colour, so you'd probably need some security too.

The battery drain could be a big issue.  Security is a relatively small one; a simple passcode system would suffice, since all you're really trying to do is deter what's essentially vandalism.  (As far as my security concerns go, the color of my lightsaber blade would be somewhat below my stock of paper clips in terms of priorities.)

[realmoe]

My intention is to provide a alternative to a usb connection via a cell phone. One that has a possibility to work with any OS. Sure there are technical challenges but more so than programming a android and IOS app and then keeping them updated with os upgrades and maintain compatibility with the device?

Bluetooth is an option also but does not allow you to tap a web interface. Not to mention that you can use the hilt itself as an antenna. Sure wifi hotspots are iffy, my phone I can turn on a wifi spot for use, some providers do not allow it unless you pay. I also carry an external wifi spot for my kids to use with their ipods and laptops. It is an idea only, concept for further exploration to do with sabers.

We know that MAC computers don't offer compatibility with the software. In fact average mac owner buys a very expensive macintosh only to load windows on it. Kinda defeats the purpose to go mac....... not to mention Linux, chrome, beos, unix, etc... Most wireless routers have a web interface to program the routers and it is generic and not limited to any one operating system. I was merely trying to suggest we can work towards a common solution that will allow everyone to do what the app alone will do for only android.

I am sure there are electrical and computer engineers that can offer some input on overcoming weakness's. Don't just shoot it down... explore the possibility and strength and weakness's. Security can be hard set in the ROM. A person can carry with their equipment a programmed hotspot for personal use. Some can turn on phone or tablet wifi spot. Some could do ad-hoc with hard set IP address. It is worth a discussion.

[Krace]

Bluetooth would be better than Wi-Fi IMO.  The metal casing, however, would be a huge problem; it's basically a Faraday cage, and it's too big to be useful as an antenna in anything close to Bluetooth's or Wi-Fi's frequencies (based on my limited knowledge of antenna theory).

The battery drain could be a big issue.  Security is a relatively small one; a simple passcode system would suffice, since all you're really trying to do is deter what's essentially vandalism.  (As far as my security concerns go, the color of my lightsaber blade would be somewhat below my stock of paper clips in terms of priorities.)

Bluetooth would seem like a better idea than Wi-Fi for sure.  Range/signal dampening shouldn't be too bad if your device is right next to your saber.  It would be like any other BT device and would bypass the cable issue.  You'd need to a way to power on the bluetooth connection and tell it to start broadcasting.  Then you'd tell your mobile device to look for it and input some default code(0000, 1234, 9999, etc.) then you could be connected, do what you need, and shut off the BT again.  This would help with the battery issue and also anybody trying to play with your saber.

[FadeToGray]

Don't just shoot it down...

It is worth a discussion.

I can't speak for others, but I personally am not trying to shoot these ideas down. I agree that overall they're good ideas, and I agree they're worth discussion, I just prefer to outline the issue that we'd need to overcome to realize these ideas. after all, identifying a problem is the first step in fixing it.

[ilkeraktuna]

well, wifi and bluetooth are all good ideas. But we are losing the focus point here. The idea is not to access the device wireless, it is to be able to connect while on the go.

adding a wireless or bluetooth module would increase:
1. hardware cost
2. battery  usage
3. space used
4. weight

we would not want that.
besides, access to IP network from any point is not  that easy. Most suitable way would be using Android's wifi network sharing if wifi is the case.
With that you wouldn'thave the access issue (captive portal etc.)  and you would have your saber on your own network, closed to public.
But in any case, accessing this network would still mean entering ssid and password information tothe board.

well, a wired (usb) connection is costless and easier to implement. (if we talk about Android)

For IOS, I don'thave much to say. I don't know the OS but I'm sure USB host mode is not easily achievable.

[Vyk]

My intention is to provide a alternative to a usb connection via a cell phone. One that has a possibility to work with any OS. Sure there are technical challenges but more so than programming a android and IOS app and then keeping them updated with os upgrades and maintain compatibility with the device?

Yes, much more so.  See below.

Bluetooth is an option also but does not allow you to tap a web interface. Not to mention that you can use the hilt itself as an antenna. Sure wifi hotspots are iffy, my phone I can turn on a wifi spot for use, some providers do not allow it unless you pay. I also carry an external wifi spot for my kids to use with their ipods and laptops. It is an idea only, concept for further exploration to do with sabers.

Can you actually use the hilt itself as an antenna?  Perhaps you know something about antennas I don't, but I find it hard to believe a 12" tube with considerable mass could be used effectively to capture a 5"-wavelength signal at anything approaching a usable bit rate (let alone WiFi speeds).

We know that MAC computers don't offer compatibility with the software. In fact average mac owner buys a very expensive macintosh only to load windows on it. Kinda defeats the purpose to go mac.......

The "average" Mac owner?  Really?  Of the Mac owners I support, I'm the only one who routinely uses VM software (nobody I know uses Boot Camp), and that's because I support both Mac OS and Windows and can that way carry both in one laptop.  At any rate, from a technical standpoint, developing Obsidian Launcher for Mac OS would be easier than doing it for Android or iOS; there's no Mac version of Obsidian Launcher simply because US didn't choose to write it for that platform.  (A decision I wholeheartedly agree with; developing for a single OS that covers 90% of the computing market is by far the wisest choice for a small company which is not primarily focused on writing software.)  Developing for Android or/and iOS runs into the same problem--it only covers part of the market--which is of course why you suggested a Web-based interface.  However...

not to mention Linux, chrome, beos, unix, etc... Most wireless routers have a web interface to program the routers and it is generic and not limited to any one operating system. I was merely trying to suggest we can work towards a common solution that will allow everyone to do what the app alone will do for only android.

You're also suggesting needing a full-fledged embedded computer to run an LED driver.  Wireless routers can have a web interface because they already have hardware in place to handle significant processing and data throughput, and enough of an OS to handle a TCP/IP stack.  I doubt either Emerald or Obsidian have hardware of that type, since they don't need it for what they do.  What you'd need would be a small computer like a Raspberry Pi, but then you're talking about something 3.3"x2.2" and probably $50 (once you include the WiFi connection), with considerable power drain.  (Probably around 700mA at 5V; in other words, 3.5W, which is close to the 4W draw of the LED itself.)  You could probably make something similar but small enough to fit in a hilt (since you don't really need all the Pi's interfaces), but the power draw isn't going to change, and the cost would skyrocket.

I am sure there are electrical and computer engineers that can offer some input on overcoming weakness's. Don't just shoot it down... explore the possibility and strength and weakness's. Security can be hard set in the ROM. A person can carry with their equipment a programmed hotspot for personal use. Some can turn on phone or tablet wifi spot. Some could do ad-hoc with hard set IP address. It is worth a discussion.

The only reasonable option would be to have the saber itself act as an access point; I've seen some devices, e.g. projectors, that do that.  Anything else and you run into problems with getting the saber associated to a network.  Devices of that type do function in infrastructure mode, so a tablet or phone would be willing to connect even if it doesn't like ad hoc networks.  You're still talking about a lot of complexity for not a lot of gain IMO.

[Vyk]

I can't speak for others, but I personally am not trying to shoot these ideas down. I agree that overall they're good ideas, and I agree they're worth discussion, I just prefer to outline the issue that we'd need to overcome to realize these ideas. after all, identifying a problem is the first step in fixing it.

Ditto.  It's one thing to say "wouldn't it be nice if we could..."  It's another to analyze the problems and devise solutions.  Whether researching or engineering, the idea is to take an idea and try to find out what's wrong with it, not to propose an idea and stick with it against all arguments.  In other words, shooting it down is the whole point; it's when you have an idea that can't be shot down that you're on to something.

[Vyk]

well, wifi and bluetooth are all good ideas. But we are losing the focus point here. The idea is not to access the device wireless, it is to be able to connect while on the go.

adding a wireless or bluetooth module would increase:
1. hardware cost
2. battery  usage
3. space used
4. weight

we would not want that.
besides, access to IP network from any point is not  that easy. Most suitable way would be using Android's wifi network sharing if wifi is the case.
With that you wouldn'thave the access issue (captive portal etc.)  and you would have your saber on your own network, closed to public.
But in any case, accessing this network would still mean entering ssid and password information tothe board.

well, a wired (usb) connection is costless and easier to implement. (if we talk about Android)

Exactly.  WiFi is not the right way to go.  Bluetooth is a neat idea, but really USB gets you 90% of what you want for 50% of the effort.

For IOS, I don'thave much to say. I don't know the OS but I'm sure USB host mode is not easily achievable.

Unfortunately, this is also correct.  I agree with Ultra that developing for Android while ignoring iOS is, to put it mildly, not ideal; however, actually interfacing the phone to the saber is more of a challenge with iOS.  That's the biggest advantage to Bluetooth versus USB; the wireless aspect is neat, but the ability to support both iOS and Android with one interface is perhaps the most important.  Too bad it spikes the price and complexity.

I continue to maintain that, fundamentally, a mobile Obsidian/Emerald configuration tool is both unnecessary and fraught with complexity.  However, if you were going to make one, by far the easiest is (as ilkeraktuna initially proposed) an Android app communicating over USB.  You already have a USB device interface on the saber, and a USB host interface on the tablet/phone/whatever.

Here's one other crazy idea.  An interface that used to be popular on iDevices was to plug into the headphone jack and use sound modulation to communicate.  You could do that; it would take a little extra capability on the Emerald/Obsidian, but nothing that took real processing power.  (It's basically a modem.  Obsidian's chip might already have this functionality, actually, used for a different purpose.)  US would need to sell cables that were wired differently from each other, because Androids and iDevices have two of the connectors swapped (mic and ground, IIRC), but otherwise there's no hardware interface challenge.  Then you're just developing an app to play and record sounds, and that's an easy target to hit in terms of platform; it probably wouldn't even be hard to port between Android and iOS at that point.  I don't know how much data needs to be transferred, but I would expect it to be small enough that this method's limited transfer rate wouldn't be a deal-killer.

A variation of the last idea would be to build an interface board to convert from audio link to USB, and use that for an iOS interface.  This adds cost and complexity over Android and USB OTG, but could be useful to keep the iOS fanboy mobs off the doorstep.  (Point me at the first person with a $400 iPhone and a $500 saber who complains about spending an extra $50 on the iPhone adaptor, and give me an alibi.)  You could let Android use this interface as well, for devices that don't support USB OTG, although supporting both would make the software more complex.