TV Remote with a Button for every Channel

“There was fifty seven channels and nothing on” – Bruce Springsteen

Nowadays 57 seems like a ridiculous number unless you refer to Heinz. How could we even manage with only that many? Now with cable and satellite TV, we have hundreds of channels. How about if our remote had a button for each Television channel separately…would that be useful, or complex?

Artlebedev’s new concept does just that. The Pultius is a TV remote that has an individual button for each channel number up to 100, then combinations are allowed for higher numbered channels (up to 399). Some may argue that this is confusing or defeats the purpose, but does it? It could also have a few advantages.

To begin with, it is a very colorful and attractive television remote. The color spread throughout is beautiful and comfortable to the eyes. In addition, each channel is marked with its number, so now you have a ‘jump back’, or ‘return to previous channel’ for ALL the channels. If there are 5 favorite television channels you have, they are all only ONE click away (or two – for those above 100)…seems a little useful. Lastly, it is a really tall remote. How tall is it? Half a meter tall (almost 20 inches). This will be a lot harder to lose. I really cannot see myself looking under the sofa seat for this one. Oh yeah, it could also be a great back scratcher while watching the tele.

So what do you think? Would you like to have one of these? Would it be practical or a nuisance?

12 thoughts on “TV Remote with a Button for every Channel

  1. Pingback: Computer Mouse Design: Mouse Cursor Reinvented | Walyou

  2. Pingback: Optimus Maximus Keyboard of ArtLebedev is Available | Walyou

  3. Pingback: A Giant Volume Meter May Be Society's Only Hope | Walyou

  4. Eran Abramson.

    Hello Neece, GuitarBizarre, JD and Jim, thank you all for you visit.

    @ Neece: So true. It is wonderful that people are at least trying to design new, strange things. It is truly part of the brainstorming session.

    @GuitarBizarre: The waiting is always the hardest part. For now it is art, but like Art Lebedev told me when I asked about it: “For now it is a concept, but who knows…”

    @JD: too bad you didn’t like it. It is only a concept.

    @Jim: I missed to add that additional feature you mentioned. With that, building on top of your idea, you could also turn off the lights and the TV without leaving the couch.

    Reply
  5. JD.

    um….

    stupid. utterly stupid. spend your time and effort elsewhere.

    as for comedy, fail there as well.

    /usually optimistic
    //seriously…. WHAT?

    Reply
  6. GuitarBizarre.

    Now, all we have to do is wait for it to be delayed over a year, then cancelled, then a new version will be announced for a ridiculous price that only has 2 buttons total, then they’ll make one that costs twice as much as the original estimate but with a flashing light on it, that will ship at about 3 per year.

    Art lebedev, we do so love your ideas, but why do you do this to us?

    Reply
  7. Neece.

    Hi again,
    I agree that it may be a novelty and that it has some design flaws, but I also agree that it’s awesome that people are still reaching and trying new things. This might lead the people who created it to refine or design something novel and truly useful, or in the same light, someone else might see this remote and think… wow, I never thought of that.. but This would make it better.
    I see it in the same light as brainstorming. All ideas take us further, even if we can’t see how right away. 🙂

    Reply
  8. Eran Abramson.

    Hello Neece and Kate thank you for the comments.
    I saw this and simply appreciated the fact someone has actually thought of and created it. It may seem like a novelty item, but that may be what people are actually seeking these days – anything that is different the norm.

    Reply
  9. Kate.

    I think this falls into the novelty item category. Neece makes a good point above – my channels go into the 1000s now (though there isn’t much in between 300-999), so there are some flaws due to regional differences with this idea.

    Plus, I watch TV in the dark a lot – there’s no way I’d be able to find the number by touch alone…

    Interesting find though – thanks for sharing!

    Reply
  10. Neece.

    It’s pretty, and true, it would be hard to lose. And think about the workout I’d get each time I had to change the channel!
    I have channels that are much higher than 399 though, so that’s a definite problem.
    Thanks for sharing it though, at least someone is thinking outside the box! 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *