Database Develop

so... whats the point of chromecast vs HDMI out?

So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?

codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Codecobalt,
The main benefit is convenience. There's something just very natural about selecting content from your phone and then having it play on the TV - with how the chromecast connects it's actually the device that creates the connection to the provider and as such there shouldn't be any increased bandwidth usage (only control information is sent via your phone in most cases - excepting applications that pass your data via external services).
If you wish to use a VPN you may have to mod your router however you can normally just add a route or some mechanism to stop it's connection to google DNS servers which will force the device to fall back to locally defined DNS servers if that helps. If you require assistance with the whole router thing let me know (as I've done many of them in many different ways).
Again as I said, the main reason for the device is convienience - I personally although being a tech head don't like the idea of having to launch movies with a mouse and keyboard off a laptop and all the rigmarole that comes with it (since purchasing chromecasts I haven't used my local movie stash in around 3 months).
Well that's my speel about it, if you have any specific requests please do not hesitate to ask and I hope you grow to love the device as much as I do.

I have no real gripes about it, I just don't see the real benefit to me, but I'm a laptop user who always has my laptop in front of me. I can understand though how you like the ability to use your android phone to launch videos wirelessly. I love to use my phone to launch youtube videos on my PS3.
It just seems like so long as you already have an HDMI out connection (and a laptop infront of you at all times) it's more universal to just dual monitor. for instance while casting "Watch ESPN" on my PC to TV, I can't fullscreen the video in the tab so that the video on my TV is fullscreen and still use the PC.. which kind of defeats the purpose. but with dual monitor I can have the video fullscreened on my TV while still using my laptop screen for everything else.
If it were a wireless option to dual monitor I would LOVE IT! but that's not what it was intended to be. I like it being wireless, but since I already have a 15' ethernet cable (just prefer it to wifi when available), usb to mini usb cable to charge my ps3 controller, and a wired headset for my ps3, one extra cable (the hdmi) running across the floor doesn't really bother me too much.
It's cool tech and very affordable for what it is, but it just left me wanting much more... thought I had to be missing the point.
For people without a ps3 or xbox or multiple TV's/chromecasts I can see the advantage.. just not for me I suppose.
I mostly wanted it so that I could watch my comcast xfinity online account (watch espn/2/u, FX, FXX, etc to stream live TV as an alternative to my netflix while I'm away from home and have a real screen. the ps3 doesn't have an xfinity app and I liked the idea of being able to stream only 1 specific tab. but then I have to use the zoom function on the tv to make it fullscreen and still use the laptop.

codecobalt said:
So, I finally bought a chromecast and after 30 minutes was left wondering "why did I buy this instead of just getting a 15' HDMI cable to dual monitor my laptop on my TV.
It seems like casting from a tab uses more resources, uses double the bandwidth, and has limited features compared to just dual-monitoring.
In order to continue using a VPN and chromecast I have to mod the firmware on the router. chromecast uses a fair amount of resources when casting video. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit (besides it being wireless) compared to HDMI out dual monitoring... am I missing something or is it really just nothing that special?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Casting from a tab (or the entire desktop) is not Chromecast's core use case. If that's all you're doing, then you are better off using HDMI or WiDi.
Chromecast's advantage, in addition to the sheer browsing/usage/convenience factor that @Kyonz mentioned, is "offloading" the playback duties. Chromecast's power usage is far less than your laptop, and you're free to take your laptop/phone/tablet and run if you need to while Chromecast continues to play. Someone else in the household can easily take over control of Chromecast from another device as well (there's some annoyance/bad to this too, but it's good as long as everyone plays nicely).
Likewise, I can move where media is being played back in most apps by pausing the playback, and resuming it on another Chromecast. Sadly, it won't turn off the TV though.
The previous paragraph deals solely with Chromecast-native applications, ie, not tab-casting or desktop-casting with the Cast extension from Chrome. Like I said in the beginning, if you're mainly trying to cast your computer's tab or screen, Chromecast is not the ideal solution.

I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

rans0m00 said:
I find the chromecast handy in my TV room... No hdmi cables everywhere. Just pull out my phone or tablet and pull up whatever I want to watch then send it to the chromecast and put the phone down.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
also a nice way to upgrade an older non-smart TV to semi smart......

I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.

codecobalt said:
I never got it to work with my jellybean android phone. installed the app but never saw a chromecast feature in anything... chrome browser, watch espn, gallery nothing... but again didn't really try too hard.. hdmi for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all apps have the casting feature. Avia does YouTube does. ESPN and gallery do not
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

One of the Advantages is to be able to stream content to TVs in other rooms for Family and Friends without having to tie up your Laptop.
Truth is a Laptop has the fewest options available for using the CCast. None of the CCast compatible Apps will run on a Laptop and the only real benefit is you can launch a Netflix, Hulu and YouTube movie to the CCast from their Webpages.
So you can watch a movie on your TV while you do other things with the Laptop.

In the OP's case a secondary out from the computer doesn't "tie it up" much except for CPU and network usage. Well, launching a full screen game or something would likely jam things up.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.

When using the hdmi out wont the graphics card be stressed also? Using the chromecast eliminates that altogether i thought...i use plex mostly for my entertainment system and debated getting a dedicated graphics card...in the end i chose casting between my devices because i have the bandwidth to support it and no desire to push my graphics card too hard if i chose to watch a 1080 trilogy....hows my logic?

That's reasonable logic too. Chromecast had hardware processing for the (limited) formats it supports, so it uses far less power than a laptop, perhaps even less power than a tablet because it's not also powering a screen. Personally I like the "start it up and let it go" aspect - no worries about what I do on my phone/tablet/computer once it's playing.

Chromecast and CAT5/6

I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?

Landmine said:
I hate WiFi when it comes to media. Is there any possible way to run some CAT6 to my Chromecast and wire it in?
If not anything other device that works similar that I can hard wire?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I ever heard of, honestly, the CC does not have any issues with regard to wifi speeds for me, I too would prefer ethernet over wifi for everything, but never have any issues using wifi with this.
You can always hook up a roku with ethernet, though it won't have some applications like AllCast and the like, but it might be all you need, though I'm not sure what your exact needs are.
You can also buy a slimport adapter and run a hdmi cable from your device to your TV directly.
There are some TV's and devices (Netgear PTV 3000 IIRC) which support Miracast that I think you can get working, ooops nm that's wireless too.

Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.

Landmine said:
Just looking to keep the wifi dependency limited. I'd like to see less buffering and less loading bars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never get buffering that's caused by the wifi...ever.

An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.

Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app

Richieboy67 said:
Kind of defeats the purpose of Chromecast.
If you are going to use a cable why don't you just run an hdmi from your PC.
No need for any of this unless you have a horrible wi fi connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.

bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.

Richieboy67 said:
I must have misread the op. I thought he wanted to use a cable instead of wifi. Extending the chromecast away from the tv is different then running a network connection directly to your Chromecast.
My point was just that the CC is meant to be portable and simple..no need for a network cable, etc.
As for the extension cable, this is not really to separate your cc from the tv. It is an antenna to increase reception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.

bhiga said:
No, you're right - the OP wanted to use a wired network connection rather than a wireless network connection.
Do you have a reference for the use of the HDMI extender as an antenna? I'm curious to know how they've pulled that off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not able to look that up right now but I could have sworn it said something about that right in the CC website in the description. I could be wrong though.
##I think I was wrong on that extender thing. I think you are right as it just being an extender mainly to use if you do not have room to plug in your CC. I am not sure how much reception it will really increase though which is part of the reason I thought it acted as an antenna. lol It seems to me they could figure out how to use the cable that way fairly easily but even if it was an antenna I am not sure how much it would help for the extra money it would have cost.
Fortunately for me I do not have many wifi issues at all. I can get a decent wifi connection at my mail box even but I could see people possible having issues in a big city where there are thousands of wifi signals all around. Here there are only 3 or 4 others I see.

Well I see no reason why it would not be possible to create a network dongle that could plug into the CCast to provide wired Network other than the software (aka OS) not supporting the drivers for the Dongle.
If Google was willing it would be easy for them to create a small dongle (like the HDMI Extender) that could provide power and also add a port for Ethernet. The USB seems to have a full wiring to accommodate external peripherals like a Network Dongle.
As to why you would want this it's to increase the available bandwidth for streaming and I agree with @bhiga that it hardly defeats the purpose of the CCast. I personally think the only reason the CCast doesn't have a wired connection at this point was to keep the price down below $45 where a Roku would be competitively priced option.
I sure expect if Google releases a NextGen CCast it will have Wired network capability...And hopefully more Codec and Container support than the current model does.

bhiga said:
An HDMI extension cable and moving Chromecast away from the TV (out from behind, especially) can do wonders for WiFi reception and overall usability.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
I'm only going to half-agree here...
A good number of people have experienced much-improved streaming by moving their Chromecast away from the TV. Even with a powerful router, the TV itself is a pretty big obstruction for the signal.
There's a reason why Google includes an HDMI extender, beyond just stupid recessed HDMI ports.
Chromecast doesn't really give you a good indication when its WiFi signal is poor or unstable. So even if your other WiFi devices have great connectivity, that doesn't mean squat for the one WiFi device that is sitting right next to the giant EM-radiating/blocking TV, the Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.

EarlyMon said:
This is tangential, hopefully not too far off topic.
To see if your signal behind the TV is terrible, check out "Wifi Analyzer" and watch the signal strength -
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.farproc.wifi.analyzer
The TV blocking a wifi signal really depends on the geometry of the whole house, as well as the TV design and construction I would think.
Anyway, until there's a wired solution, that may prove helpful to some.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's usually because the TV itself has a ton of shielding to protect it from outside interference and RF from the many devices that are usually located near it.
The quick and best solution is probably to add an AP range extender on the wall the TV is located.
Most people forget that Router placement is still important even despite the advances of the N Standard...
The new AC standard is supposed to solve that even better than N if I'm not mistaken.

htc media link vs chromecast?

Looking for something to stream my content wirelessly. I know htc has their own media link device but the chrome cast is way cheaper. Would I be missing out on anything if I went with the chrome cast vs the media link?
Really I just want to show off videos and photos. I could care less about streaming games.
Does anyone have experience with either device? Thank you

chivamex10 said:
Looking for something to stream my content wirelessly. I know htc has their own media link device but the chrome cast is way cheaper. Would I be missing out on anything if I went with the chrome cast vs the media link?
Really I just want to show off videos and photos. I could care less about streaming games.
Does anyone have experience with either device? Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They appear to be basically the same other than physical appearance. I don't know how much the HTC Media Link costs but unless it's $35 or less I doubt it makes sense to buy it over chrome cast. Plus the chromecast is just a stick you plug in. No extra wires or nonsense. Just plug and play. Whereas the Media Link has more of an Apple TV feel to it in the way it connects to the tv and requires a power cable.
All that being said, it is a device made by htc for htc devices while the chromecast has to cater to all android, or at least majority of them.
At the end of the I don't think you can go wring with either choice. But are sub $100 and won't break the bank. Both of them do the job they say they'll do. Just your preference as to which to get I suppose.

pretty sure the chromecast, even though it would probably be lower speced, it will be much more sold and therefore, more support with apps and stuff...

Get the chromecast, I've got one and is pretty slick. There will be a ton more compatible apps soon. It does need a hdmi port and a 5v micro usb supply. But your t.v.should have a usb spare. I use it in the bedroom to stream movies etc via plex app.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

if your tv is a smart tv and has dlna you wont need either. The m8 will broadcast to dlna enabled tv's on the same wifi network. I have the media link hd i used for my m7 and my m8. i honestly dont use it anymore because all my tv's have dlna.

It would depend on what you are trying to watch. I don't remember if the medialink does full mirroring by default (it did on my evo 4g lte), but if you don't need to mirror due to a non-chromecast supported streaming app like crunchyroll or xfinityTV, I would recommend the chromecast over the medialink, which in my personal experience had tons of compression and didn't look very good on even a 32 inch 1080 screen. The chromecast, on the other hand, when paired with the Allcast app, can steam pretty much anything you can play locally on your phone to the TV flawlessly. If you're gonna watch netflix/youtube/hulu or any of the officially supported apps, then its a no brainer. I wish i had cancelled my order on my original medialink HD when they told me it was on backorder and asked me what i wanted to do. I used it for a week and then went straight back to MHL because of the compression. When the chromecast came and Allcast was released, I forgot i even had the medialink.

wranglerray said:
if your tv is a smart tv and has dlna you wont need either. The m8 will broadcast to dlna enabled tv's on the same wifi network. I have the media link hd i used for my m7 and my m8. i honestly dont use it anymore because all my tv's have dlna.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I want to buy the HTC Media link for my M8
wanna install it on my car to stream videos and music. curious on what model your media link is?
I want to buy this one is this the correct one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-HTC..._Internet_Media_Streamers&hash=item43c59cff0b

Z51 said:
I want to buy the HTC Media link for my M8
wanna install it on my car to stream videos and music. curious on what model your media link is?
I want to buy this one is this the correct one?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Genuine-HTC..._Internet_Media_Streamers&hash=item43c59cff0b
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Media Link & Chromecast are NOT the same. They use different protocols. Media Link uses WiFi Direct. It is what used to be called WiFi p2p networking. It is great for certain things, HD video is not really one of them. The CVhromecast makes its own connection to the internet via WiFi & is only controlled by the device for most uses right now. Wifi Direct is supported in a rudimentary fashion, which will likely improve, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
Media link is better suited for presentations. Chromecast is better suited for entertainment.
Also, if all you want to do is get content to a TV, MHL may work better. It handles 1080p & audio flawlessly & if you are patient, as soon as a real MHL 3.0 device is available, it will support 4K video & 8 audio channels.

GSLEON3 said:
Media Link & Chromecast are NOT the same. They use different protocols. Media Link uses WiFi Direct. It is what used to be called WiFi p2p networking. It is great for certain things, HD video is not really one of them. The CVhromecast makes its own connection to the internet via WiFi & is only controlled by the device for most uses right now. Wifi Direct is supported in a rudimentary fashion, which will likely improve, but they are most definitely not the same thing.
Media link is better suited for presentations. Chromecast is better suited for entertainment.
Also, if all you want to do is get content to a TV, MHL may work better. It handles 1080p & audio flawlessly & if you are patient, as soon as a real MHL 3.0 device is available, it will support 4K video & 8 audio channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont need it for my home TV
I need it for my car. I wanna be able to stream music (spotify) to my car. it has the RCA connectors and I have a RCA to HDMI cable so I would use it like so. would it work?

Z51 said:
I dont need it for my home TV
I need it for my car. I wanna be able to stream music (spotify) to my car. it has the RCA connectors and I have a RCA to HDMI cable so I would use it like so. would it work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there has to be a wifi network for the media link to work. HTC does have a Bluetooth stereo adapter you can use to stream music wireless to anything with a aux input jack.
http://www.htc.com/us/accessories/htc-bluetooth-stereoclip/
you can find a rca to aux input cable for 3$ at any Walmart or radio shack

wranglerray said:
there has to be a wifi network for the media link to work. HTC does have a Bluetooth stereo adapter you can use to stream music wireless to anything with a aux input jack.
http://www.htc.com/us/accessories/htc-bluetooth-stereoclip/
you can find a rca to aux input cable for 3$ at any Walmart or radio shack
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THERE DOES NOT have to be WiFi for Media Link to work. It is the same thing as the Push2TV from Netgear. It uses WIFi Direct, aka WiFi p2p, it creates it's own network between two devices. Chromecast on the other hand communicates via WiFi, needing a wireless network to get content, the handset acting only as a controller.
MHL will play video, or audio, but I don't know about HDMI to RCA conversion. It does have the least amount of lag, aside from Chromecast, which doesn't really count because it is using it's own seperate Wifi & app interface. With MHL or WiFi Direct, you are literally streaming, screen casting, from your device to your 2nd display. With chromecast, the CC device actually connects to the network & content is played directly on it.
The downside to CC is you need to have a wifi AP. The downside to MHL or WiFi Direct is that you have to have you phone screen on or content will not play.

connect to car's head unit?
Hi,
i am trying to find a solution to get my M8 content mirrorlink to my Honda City 2014.
i don't really intend to stream video on it but all i want is to display the GPS on the 7" screen.
had tried the MHL to HDMI cable but somehow it will just connect audio and nothing else.
would it be better for me to just get a media link or chromecast in this case?
p/s: Honda Malaysia (where i'm from) doesn't supply GPS integrated HU in their vehicles..
p/s: i had also done wire bypass so i'm able to use the HU visuals even when driving.
please help

I love my ChromeCast. If you have the power on a separate source, it turns on your tv automatically with whatever you're casting.

Chromecast takes care of just about every bit of media streaming I do. Definitely recommended.

HTC Media link feature to chromecast
I apologize if I should post this elsewhere, new member, I'm trying to find out if I could use the HTC One M7 three finger swipe feature, which automatically goes to dual screen mode to duplicate screen via a HTC media link HD on TV, with the chromecast instead? I know I can use chromecast with it normally, just would be nice to have three finger swipe feature, cheers in advance

Help - jerky playback

Hi guys,
I have received a US version of chromecast and it set up all fine on my network.
The problem is, no matter if the video is online or on my phone, no matter if I use localcast or Allcast, I am still getting the same problem... jerky playback.
It will play for around 8 seconds and then freeze for around 5 Seconds. It is really doing my head in.
The router is right next to my TV (inches away from the chrome cast dongle) and I have a 60mbs connection (42mbs using speedtest.net)
I even tested my connection by streaming the same 720p video to my phone at the same time as to my chromecast, my phone played it fine where as the chromecast jerked as I explained above.
I have checked my wifi traffic and my router is using totally a clear channel range (9-13)
my router is a virgin media branded netgear superhub 2 (vmdg485)
I'm not sure what software version my chromecast has but it updated when I was setting it up.
Can someone please shed some light onto the situation?
I'm willing to do anything to get it working right! (My dad has 2 of them and has the same type of router as me and doesn't have a single problem with his although his are the UK versions of chromecast)

Definitely sounds like an issue with Chromecast's network accessibility.
First off, move Chromecast farther away from your router. Having two wireless devices too close to each other will also cause interference. Use the HDMI extender if you aren't already using it so Chromecast is also farther from the frame of your TV, especially if you have ports that plug parallel to the TV (running against the chassis), rather than perpendicular (sticking out).
Just checking, are you using a VPN or DNS redirector (Unotelly, Unlocator, etc)?
I believe Netflix works in the UK? If so, you can try the Netflix diagnostic video to see what Chromecast's bitrate is.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/har...or-video-check-chromecast-throughput-t2820546
Most likely your issue is simply that Chromecast is getting very poor WiFi reception.
I bet a savvy developer could make a few $ by writing a Chromecast network throughput test app...

bhiga said:
Definitely sounds like an issue with Chromecast's network accessibility.
First off, move Chromecast farther away from your router. Having two wireless devices too close to each other will also cause interference. Use the HDMI extender if you aren't already using it so Chromecast is also farther from the frame of your TV, especially if you have ports that plug parallel to the TV (running against the chassis), rather than perpendicular (sticking out).
Just checking, are you using a VPN or DNS redirector (Unotelly, Unlocator, etc)?
I believe Netflix works in the UK? If so, you can try the Netflix diagnostic video to see what Chromecast's bitrate is.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/har...or-video-check-chromecast-throughput-t2820546
Most likely your issue is simply that Chromecast is getting very poor WiFi reception.
I bet a savvy developer could make a few $ by writing a Chromecast network throughput test app...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have found what the issue is, the chromecast is overheating.
I have been carefully taking note on what happens.
It will play fine for around 1:30 hours, then the lip sync starts to go off a little, and then the playback becomes unwatchable due to it jerking so much.
I have checked the chromecast and the outer case must be around 45°c (the same temperature as one of them baths you have to slowly lower yourself in to, in fear of scalding your manhood) lol.
Can anything be done for a chromecast which overheats?

Chillerhippie said:
I have checked the chromecast and the outer case must be around 45°c (the same temperature as one of them baths you have to slowly lower yourself in to, in fear of scalding your manhood) lol.
Can anything be done for a chromecast which overheats?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it's meant to run a little hot, the Chromecast chassis is half heatsink, so it's made to transfer heat to the outside.
My units run around 54C (I assume it's internal temperature).
The biggest and best thing to do is to use the HDMI extender or a longer HDMI extension cable to get Chromecast farther from the television (which is quite the heat source itself).
It'll also improve Chromecast's WiFi reception so it's a win-win.

I was thinking about doing this:
(minus the bit with the antenna.) I have a few heat syncs lying around I could do it with.
Do you think it's worth the effort or a bit of an overkill?

Chillerhippie said:
I was thinking about doing this:
(minus the bit with the antenna.) I have a few heat syncs lying around I could do it with.
Do you think it's worth the effort or a bit of an overkill?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting and fun, but definitely overkill. I would go through the troubleshooting and get a replacement from Google before going to this (warranty voiding) extreme.
At least in the US Chromecast RMA was quick and zero cost, Google paid shipping both ways.

Chromecast : worst experience ever !

Hi guys,
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
It does not only need a Wi-Fi connection (which is normal : the wireless signal has to come from somewhere) but it also needs an internet connection.
I would like to cast the screen of my smartphone when I'm not at home.
So I got me a wireless router.
I activate it.
The Chromecast can connect to it.
The Smartphone can connect to it.
And so the smartphone can connect to the Chromecast.
But that's it...
I can't cast anything because I have no internet connection.
OK.
So I turned on my phone as an access point.
I then configured the travel router to get the internet connection from the phone.
Cool... now the Chromecast says it's ready to cast.
But now I'm stuck because as soon as I want to cast something from my phone to the Chromecast, I have to turn Wi-Fi on...
But turning on Wi-Fi on my phone disables the AP.
And so the Chromecast refuses to display anything because it's not connected to the internet anymore !
Isn't that about the most stupid thing ever designed ?
Frankly, I then see only really little use to it...
And I think I am not the only one : there are about 10 apps that are Cast capable...
And that after more than a year the dongle has been released !
Will look for something that is able to cast without an internet connection.
Will probably be much easier... and maybe even cheaper !
If you have an advice on how to get this POS to work without an internet connection, I'll gladly take your advice.
If that is not easily achieved, if you have an alternative, I'll gladly consider it...
regards.

What are you trying to send to your Chromecast? Netflix, YouTube, and other services that have the cast button basically act as remote controls for the Chromecast, but it needs its own Internet connection to stream the content as your phone is just inputting commands for it.
You could try (albeit I've never done this) connecting the Chromecast to your hotspot access point, and then just using the built-in screen mirroring feature of the Chromecast app. Granted, that would mean you'd have to leave your phone's screen on...but it would show the same thing that's on the phone, on the TV. And I'm not sure if that would even work since you still don't have WiFi on and your phone is acting as the modem and not as a device on the same network.
The only other things I could suggest, would be to buy additional hardware. You could go through your carrier to purchase one of those hotspot devices, then connect your phone and your Chromecast to that, and that will work. Though with that option you'll most likely have to pay an extra fee for the data line for the hotspot device. The other route you could take, would be to buy a cheap tablet or another phone and use it as the controller when your primary phone is in hotspot mode. The latter option is what my friend does as he uses his phone's unlimited data plan to provide Internet through his entire house when he's at home...and just uses his tablet to stream Netflix to the Chromecast.

If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.

You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.

I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.

I like my chromecast, but my android stick gets about 10x more usage. Chromecast seriously needs some more streaming services. If you don't have Netflix, in the UK it has about two widely used apps (youtube and iplayer), and that's it, not great this far on.

Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app

NexusPenguin said:
Is it just me, or is the Chromecast about the most ridiculous device ever made ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just you... Everyone else have internet connection at home, which is normal these days...

Hi Srandista,
Yes, everyboby has an internet connection at home.
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
So we're saying the same thing :
- at home everyone has an internet connection AND connected devices => the Chromecast is useless ;
- when you're not at home, the Chromecast is useless until you're somewhere where you can get an internet connection...
And even then : if I want to cast a Video to my Chromecast, I have to upload my video to the cloud BEFORE I start to stream...
Isn't that ridiculous ? Especially as using other software allows to stream directly ?
Just for your information : there are other devices like the Chromecast (they even look like the Chromecast) that can be used without an internet connection.
Sorry, but despite your answer, I persist saying that the Chromecast conception lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs.
Regards.

DJames1 said:
If you have no internet connection, you'll be streaming everything over your mobile data connection anyway. That's going to get expensive, but whatever...
So why are you using the router if you can't get a wired or WiFi internet connection? Just turn on the WiFi access point mode on your phone, and have the Chromecast connect to it. Then both your phone and the Chromecast will be on the same LAN.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks for your answer.
But that won't work. As I wrote in my post : if I turn on my phone as an AP, that disables the Wi-Fi. So I can't stream to my Chromecast that way.
Regards.

xFuGiToiDx said:
Ridiculous device ever made? Get yourself an internet connection for your house and then try the showbox app and allcast app to send the media to the Chromecast. I have 2 Chromecast in my house and I use it daily. If you simply want to cast your screen without internet. Get a slimport to HDMI cable.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi
Many thanks for your kind reply.
I would recommend you read posts before flaming people.
If you would have, you would have noticed that I was saying I was trying to use it WHEN I AM NOT at home.
I have a 100Mbps line at home. But also a networked TV, a networked Blu-Ray player and a networked Media player /streamer.
So I don't really have the use of a Chromecast at home...
Regards.

alton987 said:
I recommend you do basic research on a product before purchasing it next time. You should look into cheap miracast dongles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
That is what I usually do.
BUT : honestly :
1°) the need for an active internet connection for the thing to even work does not appear clearly ;
2°) I don't spend 5 hours researching for a 35 bucks device... my time is somewhat more precious than that.
I'll look into cheap Miracast devices. I only need to mirror my screen, so I guess that more than enough.
Regards.

primetechv2 said:
You even need an Internet connection when streaming local media because (1) the device has to constantly authenticate with Google, which I swear Google isn't going to be logging or abusing, and (b) the Chromecast is relatively stupid by streaming and spec standards, and you can't just give it a file and expect it to work.
That's why so many apps will take forever to load large pictures (slower than a picture CD) or even to unpause media... it throws its buffer away on pause.
Why not just try an HDMI cable? No WiFi needed, all local codecs are supported, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Thanks...
Yes, that's what I am doing right now. Phone with a MHL adpator and HDMI plugged into the projector.
But that implies that I have a cable lying around my class and me or my student are likely to stumble on it...
That is why I wanted to use the Chromecast...
Regards.

Hi,
OK, to make things clear, here's what I would like to do.
I am a teacher.
During my class I pass .ppt slides on a VP.
During my class, I don't sit behind my desk : I walk among the students.
So what I would like to do is following :
- 1°) connect my phone to the VP with the Chromecast ;
- 2°) have my phone displaying the slides => a simple mirror of the screen will do ;
- 3°) use a tablet in "Presentation mode" as a remote for the phone so I can go the next slide when I want to.
I can achieve everything using a MHL adaptor to connect the phone to the VP.
But I would like to be able to make that wirelessly...
Chromecast is a no go... unless of course I add another device in the whole bunch : smartphone + 2 tablets. Phone as access point, tablet 1 as caster ; tablet 2 as remote. then of course, I will need some chargers, an external battery pack... Not really the simplification I was looking for.
Regards.

Goodness, the supporters of Google Cast are rather quick to throw down the gauntlet today. =( As somebody who is constantly critiquing devices, I can say with certainty that there are many things that even reading reviews will not disclose, and even if the information is available, it might be hard to find.
Telling somebody they should get internet access in the snobbish manner seen here really doesn't help matters at all either.... less bile equals a greater percentage of useful content, right? Talking about MHL or Miracast or discussing manufacturer specific options or suggesting different CC compatible devices (Matchstick anyone? It's coming in 2015) might be more helpful.
For example, as it stands, I can't believe using a phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot would knock out its data functionality... or at least that it would make it impossible to connect to a CC. That seems like a fundamental problem there.

Here is the best possible solution for you nexus....
You will have to give up on the Phone showing the slides because you are attempting to stream to two devices which doesn't work.
You really shouldn't need the phone to display...
Plug the CCast into the Projector....
Turn on the Hotspot feature of your phone, It will still get it's data and email and tweets ect ect ....
Set up the CCast to get it's internet from the Phone WiFi Hotspot and then connect the tablet to the Hotspot as well.
You should then be able to cast the screen of the tablet to the Projector and run your slideshow.
You might even be able to use some other powerpoint viewer app that supports CCast (I think VBU kit does that) but you can just as easily screen cast the tablet to the projector if your tablet supports it.
You should be good to go the only thing that you will be missing is the display of the slides on the phone and since you are manipulating the slides on the tablet there really is no reason to see them on the phone as well.

I was pretty much going to recommend a similar fix. I have an old crap phone with no data plan that I play movies on while traveling. I just setup my actual phone as the hotspot and have my crap phone and CC connect to it. I have heard :? that the app that shall remain nameless thing works pretty good. I use Avia to throw those shows to my CC.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

hell yeah!

NexusPenguin said:
Hi Srandista,
But then again, everybody probably also has :
- a Blu-Ray player with Wi-Fi and/or Ethernet ;
- a television that is Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Ethernet enabled ;
- a media player/streamer that is Ethernet and Wi-Fi enabled...
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love my Chromecast. Prior to buying it, I had:
- A Blu-Ray player with internet connectivity... with a slow, horrible interface, and poor streaming services support.... that also didn't stream from local devices.
- An HDTV with no network support
- A "media player" that didn't work with most/any of the pay-for streaming services, that I had to constantly troubleshoot, with a low Wife Acceptance Factor.
With the Chromecast I can stream locally (from a Plex Server), watch most of the pay-for streaming services I want (so I can "cut the cord"), and it "just works" as far as the Wife is concerned, so she's happy. Even my kiddos can use it. Given that the Chromecast remains the top seller in the Electronics category at Amazon, I think Google hit the nail on the head with this one. Far from a "stupid", "useless", "ridiculous", concept that "lacks some common sense and some analysis of the customer needs" that results in the "worst experience ever".
Just because you're pissed that the square peg you bought won't fit in a round hole doesn't mean the device is stupid or useless. It's like the saying goes that "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Go get yourself a screwdriver, because you have the wrong tool for your particular job. I mentioned Plex once already: If you're looking for a simple, offline streaming experience with that works like the Chromecast does get yourself a Raspberry Pi, and install RaspPlex on it. If you're trying to playback from a local disk, put XBMC on it instead. I plan on putting a media center in my kid-hauler, and one of these two will probably end up being what I use. There are many options out there for offline playback, but the Chromecast it not one of them.

Well said. I have two chromecast and they are exactly what I need. Very useful.
Sent from my SM-N910V using XDA Free mobile app