Database Develop

Chromecast vs the Tronsmart T1000 wireless display adapter

Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html

For me, "casting a tab" is why I choose chromecast. With "casting a tab", I could continue use my computer while my son watching his favorite cartoon on TV.

Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.

GeekEric said:
Original post is here:
http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Google’s Chromecast provides one of the cheapest and easiest ways to stream internet audio and video to your TV. Just plug the $35 stick into your TV, run a setup utility to connect to your WiFi network, and you can stream content from Netflix, YouTube, HBO, Hulu and other sites while using your phone, tablet or PC as a remote control.
But the Chromecast isn’t the only game in town — you can sort of do the same thing with a cheap Miracast wireless display adapter like the $30 Tronsmart T1000 — and as an added bonus, you can mirror your display, which means games, videos, web browsers, and other content will show up on your big screen.
So which is the better value, the Chromecast or the T1000? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.
Read more at http://liliputing.com/2013/12/chromecast-vs-the-tronsmart-t1000-wireless-display-adapter.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there are some limitations with Miracast..bhiga mentioned one but to me the most important is the fact that the device you want to stream from MUST support Miracast. Not all do!
I have a Miracast Dongle (that also has a DLNA mode I can switch it to) and I could not get it to work with any of my devices or PCs.
Currently only Higher versions of Android and Win8 supports Miracast natively (although t might work with Win7 if you have a WiFi card).
If your device supports it and your only interested in streaming ON DEVICE content then Miracast might be the better option for those who want to stream to Hotel TVs since it does not require AP access to stream to it as it is a direct connection.
One thing is for certain...The DIAL Miracast wars have begun! LOL

bhiga said:
Another small, but nice thing about Chromecast that I didn't see (or missed) in the review - because (for normal apps) Chromecast is pulling content on its own, rather than from the phone/tablet/computer, I can control it from any device and even move control over. So I can start something from my tablet, then use my phone to pause or change content. It's very convenient as you're not "tied" to a single source or remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.

GeekEric said:
From what i read, the T1000 also can do that in Ezcast Mode, Miracast means mirror everything to TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.

Asphyx said:
I have a device that seems similar...It has two modes, a Miracast mode and a DLNA mode.
Miracast mode requires direct connect via a device with Miracast support.
The other mode connects to the AP (after setup) and acts as a DLNA player target you can send content to play on.
Haven't played with it much but it does sound like the device your talking about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the information.

GeekEric said:
Thanks for the information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .

Xperia-Ray said:
I have just received this Ezcast dongle from geekbuying. the T1000 is really great product and plays good even from extra cheap android phone- HTM M1 (~70$).
But ther is 1 problem: Deep sleep crushes the ezcast! - you maust download an app that disables deep sleep mode while using this so you can play videos and turn mobile phone screen off to save buttery while playing full movie .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it is like aVia in that the stream is completely dependent on the device that starts the stream.
It has to have a DLNA mode to get around that (My Dongle does) In that case you can send content to it in some cases without having to rely on the Device you used to send it.
This is the big innovation of CCast. It is sort of a happy balance between the Miracast model (direct stream) and Target based streaming methods (like DLNA).
Unfortunately for now Google has not seen fit to incorporate a pure DLNA player into the ROM.
If they ever do and have the CCast identify itself as a DLNA target when idle, it would complete the unit IMO.
Then you wouldn't be limited to playing content from apps that have specifically added CCast support, You could remote DLNA servers to send content directly as well.

But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

siratfus said:
But with the tronsmart, isn't still dependent on what type of tablet you have? We have a Sony Tablet S that has no miracast or allshare cast option in the setting. Without this, isn't the dongle useless? Well, maybe not useless, but limited. Here's a reviewer that touched upon it on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R21BJI...e=UTF8&ASIN=B00H2D3N0M&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes Miracast is not fully supported by all units and Operating systems....
You need Windows8 to use it on a PC....
You need 4.2+ to use it on Android and even then it still needs to be baked into the ROm to work. I have 4.2 on my Xoom and no Miracast support.
This is why I say the CCast is better. Will work with any device provided the software you run supports it.
Changes the whole environment from a Hardware requirement to a Software requirement.

I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.

jsdecker10 said:
But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but downside is you're tied to the device being mirrored and you're using a bunch of network bandwidth because the video is going to your device then from there to the dongle. However, if the implementation is good then it can adapt by adjusting quality and/or framerate.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.

jsdecker10 said:
I don't have a MiraCast dongle, so I don't actually have any experience using one. But from everything that I've read/heard about MiraCast and Android TV dongles is you can pretty much mirror anything that's displayed on your device's screen, directly to the tv. By having this ability, one also has much more flexibility in what can be seen on their tv. For example, the Chromecast currently doesn't have any native support for WatchESPN, but with these other dongles, one could just open up the WatchESPN app on their phone/tablet or whatever, and then that could be easily displayed on their TV. Is this correct? If so, that's one big-time advantage that I see over the Chromecast...partly because I'm a sports fanatic and as of right now the Chromecast has NO support for any sports apps such as WatchESPN. That's the one app that I'm crossing my fingers on that eventually will make its way to the Chromecast in the (near) future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!

I can only imagine how bad that ESPN feed would be when you have Miracast sucking down all that wireless bandwidth.

siratfus said:
Still, as my previous post mentioned. Not all device fully support miracast. I would like to plug in the tronsmart dongle and mirror my Sony Tablet S, but it ain't gonna happen. The advertisements for these products really skimp over the important details. Almost misleading actually.
And in terms advantages... there are disadvantages as well. Mirroring should only be a last resort, especially for viewing unsupported streaming sites. When your device is mirroring, it can't do anything else. Your device is also doing all the processing work and battery draining. With Chromecast, your smartphone is not processing and is not wasting battery. You are free to play games, make phone calls, etc. But like I said, there are times when mirroring is necessary, like for unsupported streaming sites. Once Chromecast allows the option to mirror, it will truly be the one dongle to rule them all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything you said is very true and it's just the "nature of the beast," that of Miracast mirroring, that is. It would be a very nice feature to have in some circumstances, but at the same time, I understand that in order to have such a luxury as "screen-mirroring," such that is available with the Miracast technology, one must also understand that there will be those drawbacks that you mentioned. Unfortunately, in this world that we live in, it's hard "to have your cake and eat it (too)." I sooooooo wish that there was such a fairly efficient way to effectively and natively(built into Android) mirror an Android device's screen to any "Chromecast-enabled" TV. Thank goodness for all the "super-brilliant" minds out there and especially for those with the present & future of Android development in mind because all of our "hopes and dreams" of such an efficient(Errrrrrrr...maybe I should say "more efficient?") screen-mirroring technology may not necessarily be all for naught. This future Chromecast potential that could one day "...truly be the one dongle to rule them all!" isn't even really all that far from coming to fruition because according to Koushik Dutta's findings just a few weeks ago, quoting directly from his Google+ stream, he said...
"From the patches I see in 4.4.1, they'll[Google] be adding Android mirroring to Chromecast very soon.
Unfortunately that API is not available to anyone but Google and the OEM. Similar solutions to different hardware can't be built (Apple TV, etc). Kinda bull****."
-Koushik Dutta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Also, Richard Lawler from the long-standing & well-known tech news, reviews, and opinion outlet "Engadget" also elaborated on Mr. Dutta's findings in his column at the following link.... "Android 4.4.1 shows signs that mirroring to Chromecast is coming soon"
...Sooooooo, with that in mind, I trust Koushik's findings and I'm going to try to be somewhat optimistic about the future of this device...aside from the fact that it WILL add compatibility with more apps in the future, I'm specifically being hopeful of Chromecast gaining more types of functionality, aside from what we're used to seeing from its normal everyday usage. Who knows when that will be though? Hopefully, it'll be much sooner than later, but being that this is a Google product, I'm crossing my fingers, but I'm definitely not holding my breath! lol :good::good:

Well we already know the device will do Mirroring as it does that with the Chrome Ext.
Just a matter of making an App to do it and getting it added to the Whitelist which is probably the only thing stopping Koush from implementing his CCast support back into All Cast.

[Q] Cast Xbox 360 with a Chromecast to another chromecast on TV

Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:

tonyperez0 said:
Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No!
It's not meant to take input only output signal through HDMI.
besides it would never work for playing games anyway with the inherent delay and lag of the video.

This is a very outrageous topic tbqh
That's like asking a diesel car to accept regular gas, just because
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

tonyperez0 said:
Is it possible to Cast from a Chromecast?
Ever since I heard of the Chromecast, the first thing I thought of is "Now I have an xbox in every room in the house!" My thought is to plug in a Chromecast to the back of an Xbox (or PS3) and plug in another to whatever tv I want to play it on.
Of course I have to find out how to make the Chromecast transmit instead of receive. Not sure if its even possible though. The Idea of a truly wireless xbox where all you do is plug it in and its wireless internet and video signal?! That's too juicy to pass up.
Thoughts anyone?
:fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could do this with a SlingBox, but it would have to much latency.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

This is what you are trying to do, there's a reason these thing cost nearly 200 bucks. You aren't going to get that out of your 2 35 dollar chromecasts, and if you did it wouldn't work 1/10 as well.
There are better wireless hdmis but this is one of the smallest profile ones. FYI I do not use these as anything in my house that does not move around frequently get wired, both HDMI and Network, but if you're in need of wireless hdmi this looks like your best bet.
http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transm...9C/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1/185-5298718-8574607

gottahavit said:
This is what you are trying to do, there's a reason these thing cost nearly 200 bucks. You aren't going to get that out of your 2 35 dollar chromecasts, and if you did it wouldn't work 1/10 as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most definitely ^THIS^
A wireless connection will always have some amount of delay, and less delay requires more bandwidth and/or faster processing as using compression also introduces delay for compression at the source and decompression at the receiver.

Nyrius to Chromecast?
How about casting from your Nyrius device to a Chromecast?
Or anyone know of an equivalent Nyrius that's compatible with Chromecast? i'd love to get rid of some cables.

hannibal888 said:
How about casting from your Nyrius device to a Chromecast?
Or anyone know of an equivalent Nyrius that's compatible with Chromecast? i'd love to get rid of some cables.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're really different animals.
The paired ends are important.
The best analogy I can come up with is, unfortunately, video.
You can run "video over a Cat5 cable" primarily two ways:
video over IP, which requires digitization of the video, compression, network packetization, then transfer over the network, and decompression of the video on the other end, and output
video over a balun, which essentially just uses the Cat5 cable not as a network cable, but just as a cable. It's not a network signal on the cable, and it can't be routed, switched, etc.
Chromecast falls into the first category, which is more limited in terms of what it can do on the connection.

bhiga said:
They're really different animals.
The paired ends are important.
The best analogy I can come up with is, unfortunately, video.
You can run "video over a Cat5 cable" primarily two ways:
video over IP, which requires digitization of the video, compression, network packetization, then transfer over the network, and decompression of the video on the other end, and output
video over a balun, which essentially just uses the Cat5 cable not as a network cable, but just as a cable. It's not a network signal on the cable, and it can't be routed, switched, etc.
Chromecast falls into the first category, which is more limited in terms of what it can do on the connection.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I grasp the concept. Although, if a googlebox were to be made, compatible with chromecast, I would definitely buy it for my systems.

hannibal888 said:
I think I grasp the concept. Although, if a googlebox were to be made, compatible with chromecast, I would definitely buy it for my systems.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nothing stops them or even someone else from doing so.
It's just the HDMI input hardware and encoding horsepower (probably a hardware encoder) that would be necessary. And of course an app to tell Chromecast where to source the video stream.
Likely the most difficult part would be making it HDCP compliant, as the incoming HDMI would need to be decoded and compressed in the digital space, which is the "no-no zone" for HDCP.
With multiple encoder devices, you could even use Chromecast to switch between multiple video inputs, or as a round-robin surveillance viewer, though there would be a delay when switching between sources.

Things I want to see for CCast in the future

Just a wishlist of things I would like to see for CCast in the future (Some possible some may not be)
USB port Dongle or Cable to allow wired Networking similar to the Cables we use for Flash Cast but with Network adapter (I bet the Custom Roms Devs make this happen before Google does!)
Default Idle screen running as a DLNA Target player
Ability to play MKV without need to transcode (almost impossible to do without Codec Loading support like Windows Media or full Codec incorporation like VLC), I would settle for MKV/H264/AAC Native Support but probably not going to happen with the Marvel Chipset (I should note it can actually play those files now provided something else acts as a go between to the CCast and extracts the tracks)
Expanded HDMI-CEC support (probably via Software, but would be better done if done as part of hardware without loading an app), So you can control the entire entertainment system with a Tablet/Phone (Discussed in this forum already). Sounds like a 3rd Party Project to me.
a PC/MAC/LINUX app (outside of Chrome) that can do what Googlecast for Chrome does without the Chrome (Including Screen Mirroring) AND/OR
The ability to add CCast as a Display device on a PC like you can with Miracast. This would make my XBMC life a lot easier!
A more powerful Version of CCast that has many of the above (including Wired ETH) but is beefy enough to play 1080P and 4K without breaking a sweat (It sure won't cost $35 though! lol), I would rather have the Network limiting the Video Bitrate not the unit itself.
Take a note from GoogleTV and make the Dongle be an addition to your current SetTop Box HDMI Chain. (read no more Input Switching to go from Tuner to Stream!) SetTop box plugs into CCast, CCast plugs into TV or Amp.
CCast Status return so I know when a CCast is currently streaming or Idle so as not to interrupt someone else's stream by accident.
What we all want and know it can do if only they let it....SCREEN MIRRORING!

We are just scratching the surface here with Chromecast. I'm sure Google is thinking hard about integration with all their products and recent evidence suggests screen mirroring too. I think it's just a matter of time, only so much can happen in so much time. Couldn't agree more on HDMI pass-through. I just love this feature on Google TV and even if they don't add it to the next gen Chromecast hopefully they don't drop it on the new Android TV (replacement for Google TV) and also add Chromecast support. I think the future will be really bright and I'm like everyone else and want it all now!

rkirmeier said:
We are just scratching the surface here with Chromecast. I'm sure Google is thinking hard about integration with all their products and recent evidence suggests screen mirroring too. I think it's just a matter of time, only so much can happen in so much time. Couldn't agree more on HDMI pass-through. I just love this feature on Google TV and even if they don't add it to the next gen Chromecast hopefully they don't drop it on the new Android TV (replacement for Google TV) and also add Chromecast support. I think the future will be really bright and I'm like everyone else and want it all now!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some TVs will come with CCast functionality built in...I think Samsung is working on it but don't hold me to that brand (it may be someone else)
As for Mirroring we know it does that to some degree because the Chrome Ext does it just fine.
It's just a matter of making the software to do it and get them to allow it in the Whitelist.

Asphyx said:
Some TVs will come with CCast functionality built in...I think Samsung is working on it but don't hold me to that brand (it may be someone else)
As for Mirroring we know it does that to some degree because the Chrome Ext does it just fine.
It's just a matter of making the software to do it and get them to allow it in the Whitelist.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm sure there are some TV mfgs getting on board. I would guess LG for sure and Samsung as a maybe as Sammy seems to have it's feet in a lot of different OSes and not sure they even use GTV on any current models. However myself and millions of other TV owners will not buy a new TV for the functionality of a $35 dongle. I really think they could raise the bar with a new Nexus TV device that has CCast and HDMI-passthrough in addition to standard Android so all apps are available. Personally I'd love to see 2-3 HDMI input ports so you could plug in all your HDMI devices. no more switching inputs and no matter what you are viewing you always have the ability to overlay or PiP anything from the Nexus TV or HDMI inputs.

rkirmeier said:
Yeah, I'm sure there are some TV mfgs getting on board. I would guess LG for sure and Samsung as a maybe as Sammy seems to have it's feet in a lot of different OSes and not sure they even use GTV on any current models. However myself and millions of other TV owners will not buy a new TV for the functionality of a $35 dongle. I really think they could raise the bar with a new Nexus TV device that has CCast and HDMI-passthrough in addition to standard Android so all apps are available. Personally I'd love to see 2-3 HDMI input ports so you could plug in all your HDMI devices. no more switching inputs and no matter what you are viewing you always have the ability to overlay or PiP anything from the Nexus TV or HDMI inputs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the trick is to get the Manufacturers to adopt a standard (like NexusTV, Android proper or Chromecast) for their Smart functions and get the benefit of other developers making apps for their TV.
All this proprietary crap they put on is simply not working for the consumer. Apps are Limited and non existant, Control is haphazard at best.
I just set up a LG SmartTV for a neighbor...It was almost impossible to navigate with their clunky remote so I loaded up the LG Remote App onto her iPad and she is using that to control the TV and even gets a wireless Keyboard out of the deal.
Typing an Email or Web Address via IR remote makes using those features a non starter.

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

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