Database Develop

Do you think Chromecast will eventually be able to...

This might sound crazy but what if we can eventually hack the Chromecast to cast the actual phone/tablet screen (such as you can currently with the desktop of a computer) and play Android games on an HDTV. Yes, we can just get the Ouya but this would be awesome. Now I have no idea if hacking something like this will make it possible, but this would be pretty cool down the road.
Edit: Something like this actually would be perfect. Had no idea this existed:
Miracast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYx9YNoD014

tanw42 said:
This might sound crazy but what if we can eventually hack the Chromecast to cast the actual phone/tablet screen (such as you can currently with the desktop of a computer) and play Android games on an HDTV. Yes, we can just get the Ouya but this would be awesome. Now I have no idea if hacking something like this will make it possible, but this would be pretty cool down the road.
Edit: Something like this actually would be perfect. Had no idea this existed:
Miracast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYx9YNoD014
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that the accessibility of this device and it's price are 2 things what will greatly help the community develop on this. Just like Samsung's All-Share Dongle, i do think it's only a matter of time before we can mirror our screen

I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.

larryvand said:
I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the most likely avenue for this would be to write an app that turns the phone (or laptop) into a "local cloud" that is streaming just like Netflix or Play Music. It would obviously take some development but I don't think it's too outlandish.

The problem with screen mirroring is lag. From what I have seen 250ms lag is the norm with Miracast. There is just no way around it with current tech. I think that is part of the reason for chromecast. It partially eliminates the need for screen mirroring. Chromecast gives the same ability of using your phone/tablet to browse and select content as does Miracast, but you get a full-screen experience with the best possible resolution depending on internet bandwidth. It is also not depending on your device to be the streamer as is the case with Miracast.
I expect to see another Google TV type device with the new Jellybean update and Chromecast that will be more geared towards gaming on the big screen. I predict we will see it in Q4 or Q1 of next year.

Lag might be there on some level, but it definitely doesnt have any impact the probability of chromecast and screen mirroring. Its not about how well it does it, it's about if i can. Its a 35$ gadget, lets not overthink this. If it's at all possible, 250ms lag would still be more than acceptable. Of course, thins would never be a gaming device where real time information in crucial

larryvand said:
I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I'm unsure of how it exactly works, I don't think everything is necessarily streamed through the cloud. Using your phone or tablet to play netflix or youtube videos from the cloud - yes...
...but I was able to stream a local mkv video in a chrome tab on my desktop to the chromecast. I doubt it makes the round trip through google since I know my upload speeds are pretty bad. My guess is that google just executes the handshake and the video streams through your intranet directly.

pjsnyc said:
While I'm unsure of how it exactly works, I don't think everything is necessarily streamed through the cloud. Using your phone or tablet to play netflix or youtube videos from the cloud - yes...
...but I was able to stream a local mkv video in a chrome tab on my desktop to the chromecast. I doubt it makes the round trip through google since I know my upload speeds are pretty bad. My guess is that google just executes the handshake and the video streams through your intranet directly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct about chrome tab mirroring. It goes straight over your local network, but the native codec support of the current Chromecast device is lacking which may be improved by savvy developers found right here. However, since tab mirroring only works from PCs, I think it is a step backwards.

007shark said:
You are correct about chrome tab mirroring. It goes straight over your local network, but the native codec support of the current Chromecast device is lacking which may be improved by savvy developers found right here. However, since tab mirroring only works from PCs, I think it is a step backwards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My understanding is that if you have the correct codecs installed on your desktop/laptop with chrome, you should theoretically be able to play any file type. I saw a video of it working with plex or simply navigating your local drives with chrome. Whether or not native codec support is lacking on the chromecast is moot imho. Tab mirroring on a phone or tablet should eventually come, I just think the devices need more horsepower so to speak.

polish_pat said:
Lag might be there on some level, but it definitely doesnt have any impact the probability of chromecast and screen mirroring. Its not about how well it does it, it's about if i can. Its a 35$ gadget, lets not overthink this. If it's at all possible, 250ms lag would still be more than acceptable. Of course, thins would never be a gaming device where real time information in crucial
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am with you. I think this little device will be one of the more popular developer projects on xda.
---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
pjsnyc said:
My understanding is that if you have the correct codecs installed on your desktop/laptop with chrome, you should theoretically be able to play any file type. I saw a video of it working with plex or simply navigating your local drives with chrome. Whether or not native codec support is lacking on the chromecast is moot imho. Tab mirroring on a phone or tablet should eventually come, I just think the devices need more horsepower so to speak.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, so it is transcoding on the fly. I agree with you on not yet on the phones because of lack of processing power. Miracast is still the better option with portable devices even with the minor lag.
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.

007shark said:
...
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.

pjsnyc said:
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the DLNA for getting photos, videos, and music from my device to the TV. Samsung's AllCast from their phones/tablets work great this way even with non-Samsung DLNA devices. If Google implemented DLNA with Chromecast then a phone/tablet's native gallery and video apps could seamlessly work as the Netflix and YouTube apps do without a normal consumer understanding how it works. And also without having to sync everything to the cloud.

007shark said:
I like the DLNA for getting photos, videos, and music from my device to the TV. Samsung's AllCast from their phones/tablets work great this way even with non-Samsung DLNA devices. If Google implemented DLNA with Chromecast then a phone/tablet's native gallery and video apps could seamlessly work as the Netflix and YouTube apps do without a normal consumer understanding how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess this is where you and I disagree. The 'understanding how it works' part. For example - once you get chromecast set up with your laptop on your couch, sharing photos and videos with other people in your livingroom from facebook is easy to understand for anyone. 'Native' for the masses is what is currently showing in the browser tab.

pjsnyc said:
I guess this is where you and I disagree. The 'understanding how it works' part. For example - once you get chromecast set up with your laptop on your couch, sharing photos and videos with other people in your livingroom from facebook is easy to understand for anyone. 'Native' for the masses is what is currently showing in the browser tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is exactly the difference. I don't use a laptop in my living room. I use my tablet and/or phone. I think that is also the growing trend at least from my circle of friends and family.
EDIT: I use to watch TV with a laptop in my lap, but haven't done that in a couple years since I got a tablet.

For games we could see some games go to cloud based solution. This could work by your phone/controller sending information to the server that in turn sends back appropriate results to the Chromecast. So games aren't played on the phone but on the server the phone just sends commands.

Yeah miracast is sick
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium

pjsnyc said:
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://elinux.org/DLNA_Open_Source_Projects ?
007shark said:
I am with you. I think this little device will be one of the more popular developer projects on xda.
---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
Okay, so it is transcoding on the fly. I agree with you on not yet on the phones because of lack of processing power. Miracast is still the better option with portable devices even with the minor lag.
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see any hardware limitations for Mircacast at this moment, still digging through the tech specs and kernel though

Whats your BIG Chromecast idea? More potential than a "traditional" A/V streamer?

Whats your BIG Chromecast idea? More potential than a "traditional" A/V streamer?
So I've seen many people, developers and users alike, swarming the ideas of the expected basic usages of this wonderful device.
Examples: Out-of-Box expected usage (streaming from qualified providers), mirrored A/V from PC/Phone/Tablet, other connectivity proof of concepts (IE: emulators), ect…
So my question is: What's your big idea to extend the usage of this device beyond "traditional" implementation?
I’ll start by sharing mine (actually 2 product idea’s, that could become 1 at some point in time).
1. All-in-one media station. Taking the concept of a HTPC/XBMC build, and extending it to have the Chromcast as the “presenter”, and the PC/Phone/Tablet as the “remote”. The software package would include a “media server” run on a compatible PC on the same network, accompanied by the “remote” app on the Phone/Tablet (web-based control for PC remote).
I intend to also include the ability to queue/control presentation files such as PPT, PDF, ect… I’d like to have the package useful to both home and business clients/users.
One of my favorite parts of this idea resides in the remote app. Upon selection of the media you intend to cast, use a 2-finger up gesture to begin casting (makes me think of the scene in IronMan2 when he takes over the monitors in the courtroom by using a similar gesture on his “phone”, lol) It’s the little things that get me excited haha.
2. A home automation/security media point. On demand or automated view of automation/security enabled objects in your environment. Example: You have a security system with camera’s in your home, specifically, one is mounted at your front door. Someone appears at your door (motion-trigger), and/or rings the doorbell (another available trigger). HDMI-CEC enabled TV’s would switch the input to the Chromcast and display the camera at your front door.
My brain begins to hurt as all the possibilities for automation and security integration pile up. But hopefully, you get the point.
I’d love to hear from some of the other inventive people on this forum, and interested in the Chromcast. Again, what’s your idea?

Android stick with a BT android remote with cheapcast

Low power consumption httpd, ircd, VPN, or ssh.
Sent from my One true love.

The one thing I'd love to see the chromecast do is be able to connect directly to my phone and use it's 4g for streaming. I would figure something like this should be possible since it's basically what it does during initial setup.
Due to the layout of where I work (big concrete building), I get great signal with my phone in the window, but no signal anywhere else. i'd love to be able to plug the chromecast into the tv during breaks and stream from the phone.

evelbug said:
The one thing I'd love to see the chromecast do is be able to connect directly to my phone and use it's 4g for streaming. I would figure something like this should be possible since it's basically what it does during initial setup.
Due to the layout of where I work (big concrete building), I get great signal with my phone in the window, but no signal anywhere else. i'd love to be able to plug the chromecast into the tv during breaks and stream from the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No during initial setup the chromecast generates its own wifi hostpost. Ofcourse this hotspot has no internet access and so would be useless for anything but setting up.
But why not make a hotspot with your phone? That would do the same thing.

I just want miracast support

Chromecast ideas
Chromecast supports multiple connections so could do things like a card game where player cards need to be private. The screen shows the playing field and each player sees just their cards on phone/tablet/computer. Is a simple example but there may be other uses to have multiple game play or interaction to same screen.
Chromecast and DIAL protocol are free to license so could be put into any consumer electronics device - SmartTV, refrigerators, home thermostat, etc.

xenokc said:
Chromecast supports multiple connections so could do things like a card game where player cards need to be private. The screen shows the playing field and each player sees just their cards on phone/tablet/computer. Is a simple example but there may be other uses to have multiple game play or interaction to same screen.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is quite an awesome idea! Granted, I see it as a similar setup that the WiiU has tried to do with some of their games. And MS also with the "second screen" for xbox and such.
But why shouln't google get in on this tech as well? I'm very interested to start investigating this idea myself. Mind if I borrow your idea xenokc? lol

Unholyfire said:
That is quite an awesome idea! Granted, I see it as a similar setup that the WiiU has tried to do with some of their games. And MS also with the "second screen" for xbox and such.
But why shouln't google get in on this tech as well? I'm very interested to start investigating this idea myself. Mind if I borrow your idea xenokc? lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go for it!

Unholyfire said:
So I've seen many people, developers and users alike, swarming the ideas of the expected basic usages of this wonderful device.
Examples: Out-of-Box expected usage (streaming from qualified providers), mirrored A/V from PC/Phone/Tablet, other connectivity proof of concepts (IE: emulators), ect…
So my question is: What's your big idea to extend the usage of this device beyond "traditional" implementation?
I’ll start by sharing mine (actually 2 product idea’s, that could become 1 at some point in time).
1. All-in-one media station. Taking the concept of a HTPC/XBMC build, and extending it to have the Chromcast as the “presenter”, and the PC/Phone/Tablet as the “remote”. The software package would include a “media server” run on a compatible PC on the same network, accompanied by the “remote” app on the Phone/Tablet (web-based control for PC remote).
I intend to also include the ability to queue/control presentation files such as PPT, PDF, ect… I’d like to have the package useful to both home and business clients/users.
One of my favorite parts of this idea resides in the remote app. Upon selection of the media you intend to cast, use a 2-finger up gesture to begin casting (makes me think of the scene in IronMan2 when he takes over the monitors in the courtroom by using a similar gesture on his “phone”, lol) It’s the little things that get me excited haha.
2. A home automation/security media point. On demand or automated view of automation/security enabled objects in your environment. Example: You have a security system with camera’s in your home, specifically, one is mounted at your front door. Someone appears at your door (motion-trigger), and/or rings the doorbell (another available trigger). HDMI-CEC enabled TV’s would switch the input to the Chromcast and display the camera at your front door.
My brain begins to hurt as all the possibilities for automation and security integration pile up. But hopefully, you get the point.
I’d love to hear from some of the other inventive people on this forum, and interested in the Chromcast. Again, what’s your idea?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
#1 will be done when Plex enables Chromecast functionality.

Does Chromecast play back Google Play movies in HD or SD?

Was thinking about picking up some sale movies from the Google Play store now that we have the ability to show on the big screen via Chromecast. In the store, it says that HD is available for Android devices, and SD is available for the web. Does anyone know what format Chromecast will play back? Thanks
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app

YouTube forces the highest quality possible if you cast from a phone, however, through the chrome browser on a desktop you can adjust the quality. I imagine it works the same way. Netflix pushes HD if available.
Sent from my CM10.2 Galaxy S 4 w/ Albinoman887 kernel using Tapatalk 4

Google Play Movies plays in HD when cast from a Android device. I've never tried casting it from the web.

playback messages
When I use Youtube to send a playlist of trailers to my "TV" (it's actually a front projector), I get an onscreen message at the head of every trailer that contains a Youtube logo, the name of the trailer as well as download count info. I really don't want this extraneous info appearing on the screen at all. Don't know if it's being generated by the app or by the Chromecast hardware. Can anyone guess as to how this crap can be turned off. Believe it or not, this "feature" is a deal breaker for me. I'm using this in a home theater ... and I want to have as close to a cinema experience as is possible. I just want the trailers to play one after another like they do in a theater ... with out all the notices..

hconeell said:
When I use Youtube to send a playlist of trailers to my "TV" (it's actually a front projector), I get an onscreen message at the head of every trailer that contains a Youtube logo, the name of the trailer as well as download count info. I really don't want this extraneous info appearing on the screen at all. Don't know if it's being generated by the app or by the Chromecast hardware. Can anyone guess as to how this crap can be turned off. Believe it or not, this "feature" is a deal breaker for me. I'm using this in a home theater ... and I want to have as close to a cinema experience as is possible. I just want the trailers to play one after another like they do in a theater ... with out all the notices..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no way to change this yet at all. Maybe after Google releases the sdk but doubtful this will be something they will allow us to change...I understand what you're trying to do but a "deal breaker" really?
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

That was my concern too. Needless to say it was hd. I got this tv show free when i got my chromecast. (just appeared in my play movies app.
https://play.google.com/store/tv/sh...season-XfXahgRu6i4&gdid=tvepisode-7yIwxH0EIoI
The picture quality on my chromecast was just awesome. My tv stayed at 1080p. I like the chromecast because i can buy movies and tv shows and bill them to my phone. until now i would hookup my laptop via hdmi but it was just 420p.
I think you'll be happy.

Why not just this simple open Chromecast alternative?

Hello folks,
I got my Chromecast, it works, I like it.
But I find it unnerving that the system is so closed.
Some guy has, months ago, released something he called "PiCast" as an open alternative on the Raspberry Pi.
I wonder: Why aren't there more devs bringing an open, extensible alternative, installable on a Raspberry Pi or other small computer, to life? I really don't understand it, since. like I see it, it doesn't seem particularly complicated! The following features would at least have to be implemented:
***********************************************
- media player software which can play a broad palette of formats and stream from different sources (VLC, Mplayer etc. come to mind an can surely be used as a part of the project)
- web interface which accepts URLs (web or LAN) of files that are to be played and passes them to the media player; and which accepts control commands for the now playing file like pause, forward etc.
Most convenient would be if these URLs could not only be http ones, but also SMB, streaming protocols etc.
Don't we all want a device where we NOT are confined to certain formats?
- apps for computers and mobile devices which let the user choose files he wants to watch / listen to and pass the URL to the web interface and which pass control commands like pause, forward to the web interface
- a customized, lean OS with a Chromecast-like, very simple UI
*************************************************
Any thoughts?
Best wishes,
Hasenbein

The entire reason for the CCast (which essentially replaced the GoogleTV fiasco) was to keep the system closed enough to get Content providers to support it due to the ability to use DRM and control the players being used.
Why do you think other projects like XBMC still to this day do NOT (and will NEVER) have access to Netflix for any sustainable time because Netflix will change their encryption and break any player app they do not have complete control over.
GoogleTV was actually blacklisted by the network websites to prevent it from playing content. All because it was just a little too open for their liking.

What @Asphyx said, plus Android TV sticks have been around for quite some time and already do similar. The key difference is market share. History is littered with proposed "standards" that never won. In the end it's not what is better, sometimes not even what's cheaper, but what picks up.
Iomega's Zip drive was inferior to SyQuest EZ drive, but Iomega won by marketing and hence adoption. Developers had more incentive to support Zip drives (not that much was specifically required but still) because there was a wider audience and market for them.
Adobe's changing the design market the same way. I still have CS6, but more and more I'm getting files from people on CC. And it's annoying. Essentially I'm being forced into CC if I want to work with anybody outside of my four walls.
Even though it's only available in select retail channels, Google is pushing Chromecast with TV ads. The fact that they've sold (or at least shipped) millions is a strong testament to its adoption rate. Even at my local stores, I can say just by the serial numbers they've cycled through, at least 500 have left the shelf since August 2013.
The market share attracts content providers, and the closed nature gives their lawyers ease regarding theft. Sure, there will always be people supporting TV sticks with clever solutions that are free or near-free, though they sometimes require jumping through numerous hoops (even moreso than Chromecast of today), and if something doesn't work as required, it involved researching. It's not like you can put in a support ticket or call support. Granted, Chromecast support isn't outstanding... but many of my non-techy friends have adopted Chromecast, even without hearing from me, and these are not people who visit XDA, nor are they people who would ever have run across or even considered an Android TV stick, nor are they people who have any idea of what an Arduino or Raspberry Pi is.
The draw is the consumer, and the consumer needs content to consume. Which means longevity of the product/concept/standard depends on support from the content providers.

At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
And similarly, it's cheap enough that if Chromecast alone does not suit your needs, you can say, well hey, all I spent on the Chromecast was $35, so I don't see why that should stop me from also buying that other media box that does more things.

cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm definitely in this boat.
I have a semi-Smart TV that supports YouTube, Amazon, and a about 12 other "channels" - but its interface is slow and clunky. It also doesn't support DLNA video (sadly, one model year too early).
I have a HTPC that I use to play DVDs and Blu-rays from my media server, and even though I have a BT keyboard remote for it, navigating between Windows Media Center and browser-sourced video is fiddly.
Chromecast didn't replace my HTPC, it's just giving me a much easier way to view those browser-sourced videos.
However, if/when Chromecast gets DVD and BD playback, it very well might replace my HTPC...

http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.

cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. I really care about picture quality, so Chromecast offers the cheapest way to get SuperHD Netflix on my TV. If I wasn't bothered about the quality, I'd just connect my tablet with a cable whenever I wanted to watch something.

EarlyMon said:
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting service and a good idea....
Unfortunately $2 per SD conversion of DVD or $5 to HD is a bit too pricey considering how I have the equipment to rip my own DVD (I have more than 3000 titles in my collection), do the Upconvert and even rip the subtitles to put into an MKV.
But this service will do well because of the sheer number of people who do not have the capability to do that and the ease of use.
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?

Asphyx said:
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The second one, so far as I know.
And if you just enter your digital copy information that works too.
My son-in-law does that but I haven't asked him about the details - he's very happy with the service though.

It's a great Idea....
I have a similar validation system I use....
If I own it already on disc then I feel I have the right to download it if I choose...I paid them their cut so no Guilt involved.
LOL
Similar but I don't pay the conversion fee!

I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.

EarlyMon said:
I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah unfortunately I live in a very rural area and Cable and Internet outages are common (all the damn trees!)
So when that happens I really have no other recourse than to use whatever is on my Media server to entertain myself...
I went out and invested in a good NAS with Raid that holds 16Tb worth of drives (don't get full16Tbs with Raid though...I may even need to double that soon as I'm running out of space).
My Media Server is my HTPC so I can simply replace that unit if it craps out and just re-install the server software and map the drives.
Been checking out that Chromecast store app...a Lot of stuff in there I didn't know about...

Share experience with screen casting

I have a Nook Tablet running @amaces AOSP 7.0 and my husband has an HD running CM 11. The "cast" feature, as far as I can tell, does not seem to do anything. It doesn't see my Win 10 laptop and does not see a generic Miracast dongle I just picked up (the Win 10 PC does see the dongle...).
Does the cast feature support Chromecast? If so, what's the experience like? The main reason my husband's HD is still on CM 11 is to maintain functionality of the HDMI out. But we've run into issues with our local newspaper app (of all things) after an update and are now looking at trying the last CM 13 build to support HDMI out.
It would be simpler if the cast function worked (I.e., cast the entire screen) as well as the really simple HDMI out. I get it, people don't like wires. But for the price (now $10 online at B&N), that cable is pretty sweet.
So...what works for whole screen casting? We don't have smart TV's and don't use any streaming services. 90% of the video material is local, played with either MX player or Kodi. Occasional streams via Kodi.

I added an entry in the FAQ addressing some of these concerns.
nmyshkin said:
Does the cast feature support Chromecast? If so, what's the experience like? The main reason my husband's HD is still on CM 11 is to maintain functionality of the HDMI out. But we've run into issues with our local newspaper app (of all things) after an update and are now looking at trying the last CM 13 build to support HDMI out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, full screen casting definitely wants a Chromecast receiver. I think it works pretty well, especially for static content; highly dynamic content might have slight delays, or out of sync audio. Movies should be fine, but really, you should send video, YouTube, etc using in-app casting, so all A/V processing is done on the receiver (rather than full screen re-encoded on tablet).
nmyshkin said:
It would be simpler if the cast function worked (I.e., cast the entire screen) as well as the really simple HDMI out. I get it, people don't like wires. But for the price (now $10 online at B&N), that cable is pretty sweet.
So...what works for whole screen casting? We don't have smart TV's and don't use any streaming services. 90% of the video material is local, played with either MX player or Kodi. Occasional streams via Kodi.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While full screen casting works, for the above reasons, it's always better to use in-app casting, if available. Even with local content, finding an app that processes only the actual media (rather than capture/encode entire screen) is usually preferable. I looked at HDMI intermittently, but no idea what's broken yet.