Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
While looking for some cell phone goodies to go with my ngage, I noticed a bluetooth earpiece that happened to come with a usb adapter. It made me think of this project. Many of the bluetooth adapters have a single button used on cell phones for voice dialing and answer/hangup functions. Doesn't this sound a lot like a good tie in with a gnophone or other iax client. It also sounds like a good idea as the hardware is already around and functional. While bluetooth is already being supported in linux, I'm not impressed yet with the glue software. I bought a bluetooth adapter so I could try and sync wirelessly the contacts on my phone. Also even with the crap you have to go through it is the best way to transfer apps to my phone. Well that should plug the hardware hole for temporary, go dig into the software. -- Steven Critchfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
ACES - Asterisk Communications Endpoint System
{the following could be used by any IP-PBX but the name pays homage to Mark Spencer
and friends who
cannot be lauded enough for their fine work}
As you read this it will be obvious I am not a professional engineer but I do have
enough knowledge
to be fairly certain what I'm proposing is feasible from not only an engineering, but
production
cost and perhaps most importantly, marketing standpoint.
An open phone is a great idea but as soon as you get physical you add a quantity
issue that
doesn't exist in software. Multiply this for keypads, handsets, bells, etc. etc. etc.
and you have
a lot of work but more importantly NO ONE has built a phone that can simultaneously be
brain-dead
simple to operate for one person yet offer the advanced user whatever functionality
they might
want. You will never solve that issue as long as you have a keypad of any kind.
So you end up with what started this open-phone thread in the first place... a
plethora of IP,
analog or digital phones with a dizzying array (or lack thereof) of bells and whistles
all trying
to achieve a balance between quality, ease of use and functionality which will sell
enough units to
make their manufacturing and distribution profitable. In this environment you will
always have at
the low end manufacturers competing on price and inevitably that results in quality
issues. Right
now it's Grandstream but next year it'll be someone else at a $30 price point and the
same issues
will apply all over again.
I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of IP
phones are
sitting next to a PC and the additional expense has been incurred because people want
a phone that
looks and works like a phone. That's certainly been my experience far outweighing
any technical
issues with quality or reliability of a PC-softphone. In every market I can think of
with the
possible exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a
substantial number of
times even though it does not look like a phone because it affords a much better way
to resolve
the conflict between ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more
elaborate version
could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I would submit that the
ability to
pick up a handset and place a call by saying call Pat alone would sell most
potential customers
on learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't have a
conventional
keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need to know that position A is used
to hangup and
dial by saying dial 1-800-555-1212 (or whatever number you want called) and position
b is used to
talk.
ACES has three components and for simplicity of description I won't go into VERY cool
extensions to
these components for conferencing and/or duplication of the typical 2,3 or 4 line
analog phone
features. It also assumes a LAN environment again only for simplicity of initial
description.
There's no reason that an ACES Call control server couldn't support multiple,
geographically
dispersed Asterisk servers.
The heart of this concept is use of text-to-speech to replace keypad functions. I
cannot emphasize
enough how acutely aware I am of the HUGE resistance users will have to buying
something without a
keypad but bear with me and I hope you'll agree that this has enough sex appeal to
overcome this
historically undefeated resistance. Each phone is two complete analog/IP circuits
defined as:
Talk - a subset of what Asterisk uses now not requiring any of the control functions
TTSControl - moving control functions currently handled by DTMF over to a
text-to-speech engine
located on ACES component 3 described below. The TTS engine would be capable of
translating most
peoples voices when they speak the word call and the ten digits required to place a
call. The
phones(ACES component 2 described below) would simultaneously be user-specific so
individual
users could train their personal library to recognize them when they are logged in
at that phone
to place calls by saying call Pat, etc. etc. etc. and of course to receive calls.
ACES Component 1
EM unit-Ear and Mouth piece, this is a headset or handset with a two position switch
and a 4
conductor jack that plugs into the IP unit(ACES component 2). FOr prototyping two
typical monaural
PC headsets into a 2.5mm switchbox would do fine. Switch position one connects the
1st mike and
earpiece to the 2 talk pins on the Talk/TTSControl port on the IP unit and Switch
position two
connects the 2nd mike and earpiece to the 2 ttsControl pins on the Talk/TTSControl
port on the IP
unit. Obviously production handsets/headsets would have only one earpiece/mike with
the switch
changing the connection from one pair of pins to the other.
ACES Component 2
IP unit - a black box containing 5 physical interfaces:
LCD for
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
Bill Schultz wrote:
ACES - Asterisk Communications Endpoint System
{the following could be used by any IP-PBX but the name pays homage to Mark Spencer and friends who
cannot be lauded enough for their fine work}
As you read this it will be obvious I am not a professional engineer but I do have enough knowledge
to be fairly certain what I'm proposing is feasible from not only an engineering, but production
cost and perhaps most importantly, marketing standpoint.
An open phone is a great idea but as soon as you get physical you add a quantity issue that
doesn't exist in software. Multiply this for keypads, handsets, bells, etc. etc. etc. and you have
a lot of work but more importantly NO ONE has built a phone that can simultaneously be brain-dead
simple to operate for one person yet offer the advanced user whatever functionality they might
want. You will never solve that issue as long as you have a keypad of any kind.
An open phone is open. It does specify any type of I/O device, only how
to interface to them.
We just start with something like a light weight netbsd/* code base.
Folks can add whatever from there.
So you end up with what started this open-phone thread in the first place... a plethora of IP,
analog or digital phones with a dizzying array (or lack thereof) of bells and whistles all trying
to achieve a balance between quality, ease of use and functionality which will sell enough units to
make their manufacturing and distribution profitable. In this environment you will always have at
the low end manufacturers competing on price and inevitably that results in quality issues. Right
now it's Grandstream but next year it'll be someone else at a $30 price point and the same issues
will apply all over again.
I have no interest in trying to make money by manufacturing widgets.
I only want control of my own destiny.
I don't care what the phones cost. I just want control of the code.
I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of IP phones are
sitting next to a PC and the additional expense has been incurred because people want a phone that
looks and works like a phone. That's certainly been my experience far outweighing any technical
issues with quality or reliability of a PC-softphone. In every market I can think of with the
possible exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a substantial number of
times even though it does not look like a phone because it affords a much better way to resolve
the conflict between ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more elaborate version
could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I would submit that the ability to
pick up a handset and place a call by saying call Pat alone would sell most potential customers
on learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't have a conventional
keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need to know that position A is used to hangup and
dial by saying dial 1-800-555-1212 (or whatever number you want called) and position b is used to
talk.
The markets I work in not only do not want to use pc's as phones.
They do not want voice on their data networks.
Some of my customers, including my office have no pc's at all.
Just unix work stations.
Of course, I could always be wrong :-)
I would not say you are wrong.
You are just looking for something different than I am.
--
Bob Knight
[-w] the work option
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
925-449-9163
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
On Fri, 2003-12-26 at 13:26, Bill Schultz wrote: I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of IP phones are sitting next to a PC and the additional expense has been incurred because people want a phone that looks and works like a phone. That's certainly been my experience far outweighing any technical issues with quality or reliability of a PC-softphone. In every market I can think of with the possible exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a substantial number of times even though it does not look like a phone because it affords a much better way to resolve the conflict between ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more elaborate version could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I would submit that the ability to pick up a handset and place a call by saying call Pat alone would sell most potential customers on learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't have a conventional keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need to know that position A is used to hangup and dial by saying dial 1-800-555-1212 (or whatever number you want called) and position b is used to talk. Soft phones are only as reliable as the host OS. It would be extremely hard to explain to a user that they need to upgrade their PC or close apps so their call quality can stay at the expected level. This is especially true if you are wanting to do Speech Recognition. Which by the way, you make that mistake many times in this post, you are wanting speech recognition to determine what the person on the phone says, not text to speech where the computer could read to the user. Speech recognition uses significant resources to be accurate. In the long run you only shift cost from your add on to the PC. Then you have to support whatever OS is on the desktop, not a good idea. The reason for people wanting a real hardware phone on the desk next to the PC is that they understand that computers crash, have virus problems, have upgrade incompatibilities and any number of other instabilities that can render their workstation down for a day or more. These people must still be able to use the phone no matter the condition of the machine on the desk. Many peoples jobs can still be preformed when the PC is either non functional or not functioning optimally. Take my mothers job for a option, she routes freight for her company. If her computer was to become inoperable for a period of time, she usually has a hour or more of paperwork she can complete on the phone with her customers and freight companies. She could probably use a VoIP phone, but not one tied to the stability of her computer. I'm sure this is true with many other jobs. I can also tell you that my mothers windows computer crashes several times a day, and some of the calls she makes requires her to be on hold for 10-20 minutes. If she was to experience a crash in that wait period, it would basically waste the time she had been on hold. So try to remember that we wish to bring efficiencies to the worker/person using our devices not new roadblocks. The heart of this concept is use of text-to-speech to replace keypad functions. I cannot emphasize enough how acutely aware I am of the HUGE resistance users will have to buying something without a keypad but bear with me and I hope you'll agree that this has enough sex appeal to overcome this historically undefeated resistance. Each phone is two complete analog/IP circuits defined as: Talk - a subset of what Asterisk uses now not requiring any of the control functions TTSControl - moving control functions currently handled by DTMF over to a text-to-speech engine located on ACES component 3 described below. The TTS engine would be capable of translating most peoples voices when they speak the word call and the ten digits required to place a call. The phones(ACES component 2 described below) would simultaneously be user-specific so individual users could train their personal library to recognize them when they are logged in at that phone to place calls by saying call Pat, etc. etc. etc. and of course to receive calls. Speech recognition would be less helpful than a computerized rollodex with click to call functionality. A home user may have a short enough list of people on speed dial to make it easy for the speech recognition. I think in the case of the example of my mother above, she would have way too many similar sounding entries to be accurate enough times. ACES Component 1 EM unit-Ear and Mouth piece, this is a headset or handset with a two position switch and a 4 conductor jack that plugs into the IP unit(ACES component 2). FOr prototyping two typical monaural PC headsets into a 2.5mm switchbox would do fine. Switch position one connects the 1st mike and earpiece to the 2 talk pins on the Talk/TTSControl
[Asterisk-Users] Re: time to build an open phone?
I've never seen stats, but it's probably a safe assumption that the majority of IP phones are sitting next to a PC and the additional expense has been incurred because people want a phone that looks and works like a phone. That's certainly been my experience far outweighing any technical issues with quality or reliability of a PC-softphone. In every market I can think of with the possible exception of hospitality I think ACES could be successfully sold a substantial number of times even though it does not look like a phone because it affords a much better way to resolve the conflict between ease of use and functionality. For the unconvinced, a more elaborate version could include the obligatory keypad and cosmetic plastic but I would submit that the ability to pick up a handset and place a call by saying call Pat alone would sell most potential customers on learning how to operate a two position switch on a device that doesn't have a conventional keypad. At it's simplest, to use the phone you need to know that position A is used to hangup and dial by saying dial 1-800-555-1212 (or whatever number you want called) and position b is used to talk. Soft phones are only as reliable as the host OS. It would be extremely hard to explain to a user that they need to upgrade their PC or close apps so their call quality can stay at the expected level. This is especially true if you are wanting to do Speech Recognition. Which by the way, you make that mistake many times in this post, you are wanting speech recognition to determine what the person on the phone says, not text to speech where the computer could read to the user. Speech recognition uses significant resources to be accurate. In the long run you only shift cost from your add on to the PC. Then you have to support whatever OS is on the desktop, not a good idea. The reason for people wanting a real hardware phone on the desk next to the PC is that they understand that computers crash, have virus problems, have upgrade incompatibilities and any number of other instabilities that can render their workstation down for a day or more. These people must still be able to use the phone no matter the condition of the machine on the desk. Many peoples jobs can still be preformed when the PC is either non functional or not functioning optimally. Take my mothers job for a option, she routes freight for her company. If her computer was to become inoperable for a period of time, she usually has a hour or more of paperwork she can complete on the phone with her customers and freight companies. She could probably use a VoIP phone, but not one tied to the stability of her computer. I'm sure this is true with many other jobs. I can also tell you that my mothers windows computer crashes several times a day, and some of the calls she makes requires her to be on hold for 10-20 minutes. If she was to experience a crash in that wait period, it would basically waste the time she had been on hold. Sounds like we're arguing the same thing for different reasons. For whatever reason PC-softphones are not a viable option. I totally agree with that statement. So try to remember that we wish to bring efficiencies to the worker/person using our devices not new roadblocks. It probably doesn't look like it, but I tried to keep the initial comments low so I didn't go into detail on exactly how it would work but I am certain that the standard phone functions will all be at least as easy and as fast as any analog, digital or IP system I've seen so far and a dramatic improvement over most. The heart of this concept is use of text-to-speech to replace keypad functions. I cannot emphasize enough how acutely aware I am of the HUGE resistance users will have to buying something without a keypad but bear with me and I hope you'll agree that this has enough sex appeal to overcome this historically undefeated resistance. Each phone is two complete analog/IP circuits defined as: Talk - a subset of what Asterisk uses now not requiring any of the control functions TTSControl - moving control functions currently handled by DTMF over to a text-to-speech engine located on ACES component 3 described below. The TTS engine would be capable of translating most peoples voices when they speak the word call and the ten digits required to place a call. The phones(ACES component 2 described below) would simultaneously be user-specific so individual users could train their personal library to recognize them when they are logged in at that phone to place calls by saying call Pat, etc. etc. etc. and of course to receive calls. Speech recognition would be less helpful than a computerized rollodex with click to call functionality. A home user may have a short enough list of people on speed dial to make it easy for the speech recognition. I think in the case of the example of my mother above,
