Airtame is a new HDMI dongle that promises to allow you to display anything from your devices...
Details here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airtame-wireless-hdmi-for-everyone--2
I was one of the early Chromecast buyers, successfully able to root and now running a number of the utilities found in this forum. But I still want to be able to simply cast anything I see on my pc or android phone to my TV. This new crowd-sourced device promises to do that, and more. Take a look at the link to see all the cool things they've planned. They started out requesting $160k, but have raised nearly $1M. With each successive goal completion, they've added a stretch goal and have achieved nearly every one. I think the key to its success is the ability to display just about any content you want.
Is there a way to do the same with our Chromecasts? I see the only thing holding it back at the moment is content. The devs here have been doing wondrous work bringing in content and more will be made available. Can we make Chromecast open to all content?
Oh, and they won the Engadget award for the "Best Startup of CES 2014"!
Admins - Please feel free to move/delete if you feel this is inappropriate.
Android screen mirroring seems to be on the way but it will require either Google or an OEM (not third party developer) to implement it, probably because of security concerns (not to mention DRM/copyright concerns).
https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/ch57ZKvqpYb
Meanwhile Koush is continuing to work on his own alternative for other targets.
Meh!
Only supports PC's etc. DOES NOT and by the sound of it WILL NOT support Android other than as a remote.
Miracast already does this and all this seems to do is remove the proprietary Miracast Wireless part of it...
CCast could do this already if someone just made an app for it and got it added to the whitelist.
I'm actually working on getting the Airtame software running on the Chromecast. The software, its library and the protocol will be open source, so don't worry so much about hardware support just yet. Just stick around and see what the community will come up with. Disclosure: I'm working at the same office as the Airtame team.
Right now my problem is getting the Chromecast to a hackable state. The ones I have are all updated past the fixed boot loader, so I need to find a new vector. Last night I tried to solder probes to the I/O pins of the NAND chip itself to dump the flash using an Arduino and its super slow serial connection -- better than nothing at least. I need to find some thinner wire though; the stuff I used was 20-something AWG. Will give it another go next weekend.
Looking forward to it jchillerup
jchillerup said:
I need to find some thinner wire though; the stuff I used was 20-something AWG. Will give it another go next weekend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wire-wrapping wire (Kynar, 30+AWG) is your friend, though that stuff will break if you sneeze. Forceps and magnifying glass are also your friend.
And if you haven't already, sign up to be a developer so you can get your Chromecast whitelisted. That's the "proper" way to do mainstream Chromecast development.
MadBob said:
Meh!
Only supports PC's etc. DOES NOT and by the sound of it WILL NOT support Android other than as a remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read the fundraising targets? It hit a million, so there will be android and iOS support.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda app-developers app
Sound awesome
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Looks interesting. But in the faq it states that the ability to stream from an Android or iOS device is technically possible but access to specialized hardware is restricted by the vendors, thereby needing root or jailbreak to work. Which they also say they will not support. That's their words, so it looks like the road map is only for a remote or possibly casting a screen to the mobile device.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
I like the way Airtame is heading but the price is overkill. Chromecast + Avia ($2.99)=$38 is already have and can do what airtame can except the optional ethernet port.
SPH-L720_!
ntajlis said:
I like the way Airtame is heading but the price is overkill. Chromecast + Avia ($2.99)=$38 is already have and can do what airtame can except the optional ethernet port.
SPH-L720_!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hard to get the price down to Chromecast level when you can't order millions at once, and there is not a big search engine with ad revenue backing the financial losses on a 35$ device....
siratfus said:
Did you read the fundraising targets? It hit a million, so there will be android and iOS support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well they have raised the Funds now the hard part starts...Actually manufacturing them! LOL
atiti said:
Hard to get the price down to Chromecast level when you can't order millions at once, and there is not a big search engine with ad revenue backing the financial losses on a 35$ device....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google probably isn't even making a penny off the CCast sales either....
This device is all about the DIAL protocol whose patents are co-owned by Google and Netflix.
It is meant mostly as a way of expanding the customer base for their content products to those who do not have a Smart TV or other streambox connected to their TVs.
It is far simpler to create a standard method for streaming to remote devices and creating a device to do that than it is to get the 5-10 TV Manufacturers to adopt a protocol standard that has not already been established in the Market.
This device seems to be a hybrid CCast/Miracast. The Main difference is that it doesn't use Player Apps as much as it does Mirroring. WHich is good in cases where Mirroring is desirable but it depends on the streaming device to do most of the work (aka BATTERY KILLER!)
CCast should be able to do everything this device claims to do if only Google would open up the Whitelist or create the apps for Mirroring.
Mirroring makes sense in some situations but not all. And unless this device adds some of the DIAL capability Chromecast has to play content without requiring the initiating device to do most of the work this seems a bit like a Miracast killer but still won't be as useful as the Chromecast is, Knowing what we know it is capable of doing if only Google would let it!
Just to add I would describe the three methods like this...
Miracast - Mirror via Wireless Radio ONLY!
Airtame - MIrror via IP
Chromecast - Mirror via Wired or Wireless (such as the way GoogleCast works), PLUS the ability to play remote content without killing your battery.
All Google really needs to do to beat the other two contenders is to more fully support Mirroring on more Platforms than just the desktop or add the capability to add the CCast as a display device for PC, Tablets and Phone.
If it does that then the others will be forced to act more like Chromecasts to sell.
Asphyx said:
All Google really needs to do to beat the other two contenders is to more fully support Mirroring on more Platforms than just the desktop or add the capability to add the CCast as a display device for PC, Tablets and Phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now, I'm obviously biased but I just want to make one point clear: There is a difference between Airtame and the Chromecast in that one is completely open source and hackable while the other one isn't. Want root? You got it. Moreover, the Airtame protocol can be implemented by whoever wants to move imagery and metadata from one device to another with low latency.
The Airtame team acknowledges the fact that they're not just selling a commodity device; they're selling a tiny computer to people and they're encouraging the community to hack around with it. If we're just looking at differences in current offerings we're completely disregarding a (potential) community around this thing.
jchillerup said:
Now, I'm obviously biased but I just want to make one point clear: There is a difference between Airtame and the Chromecast in that one is completely open source and hackable while the other one isn't. Want root? You got it. Moreover, the Airtame protocol can be implemented by whoever wants to move imagery and metadata from one device to another with low latency.
The Airtame team acknowledges the fact that they're not just selling a commodity device; they're selling a tiny computer to people and they're encouraging the community to hack around with it. If we're just looking at differences in current offerings we're completely disregarding a (potential) community around this thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand but the fact it can be rooted will not make it play content without requiring a device to stay connected to it.
If they add DIAL support so you can launch a content and then go play a game on the device that launched it they have a shot...
But from what I have seen and heard of from this device, it is merely a Mirroring Dongle that doesn't require some proprietary wireless protocol to do it's Mirroring like Miracast does!
So it will Mirror in a similar way that the CCast does, but not do the other stuff CCast does.
And if Mirroring is all you want it's much better than Miracast!
Not Knocking the product at all just pointing out it is a different beast that CCast and not even trying to do some of what the CCast can do...
This Airtame sounds just like Ouya when they promise the device to be hackable and rooted. Then it happens. Look what happens to the Ouya.
SPH-L720_!
What's annoying with all these devices is that they require your tablet or phone to use a certain OS number. Is the Airtame any different?
I've been searching for a mirroring device for the Sony Tablet S, and nothing is compatible with the OS version I currently have. The damn thing doesn't even allow micro usb to HDMI cables. Miracast, tronsmart, etc.. "S" stands for SUCK in Sony Tablet S. It has the latest updates too. So there is nothing more I can do other than wait for Sony, and I don't think they'll support this tablet anymore. It has a stupid "throwing" feature for DLNA, but I need to mirror streaming apps and sites.
siratfus said:
What's annoying with all these devices is that they require your tablet or phone to use a certain OS number. Is the Airtame any different?
I've been searching for a mirroring device for the Sony Tablet S, and nothing is compatible with the OS version I currently have. The damn thing doesn't even allow micro usb to HDMI cables. Miracast, tronsmart, etc.. "S" stands for SUCK in Sony Tablet S. It has the latest updates too. So there is nothing more I can do other than wait for Sony, and I don't think they'll support this tablet anymore. It has a stupid "throwing" feature for DLNA, but I need to mirror streaming apps and sites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it requires certain OS' because it requires a WiFi implementation that is relatively new and not supported by older OS'.
But for the Record I don't believe the Airtame suffers from that problem at all. I believe it works closer to the CCast in that it connects to the Wireless Router and you stream over IP which does not require any specialized WiFi support.
It is not making a direct Radio to Radio connection.
Miracast does.
My biggest desire is straight-up mirroring. Whatever I display on my PC to a tv/projector. I like the idea of CCast having competition. Maybe this will entice Google to open it up a bit more if people have alternatives.
For those that commented the cost was too high, just think about what you're getting: dual core cpu, b/g/n wireless, I/O, ram... and open. pretty sweet for the cost.
But it will not compare to the CCast as G is playing the long game - they'll know anything you're looking at/casting and target you with promotions and use your aggregated data. Now, couple that with what's going to happen with the Nest thermostat/smoke detector. They'll know when you're home, where you live, your daily home/away habits, when you rise, when you sleep... I want options that aren't tied into G. Just wait until they offer a Google 'Fridge that inventories what you purchase and makes a shopping list for you and a Google ODB-II dongle that plugs into your car and maps out your gas mileage, frequent trips, etc and projects it to your Android Phone, while they collect the data.
Yes, they are out to know everything... and it starts at home. Like I said, I want options.
So this still won't support Android? I think on the airtame website the lead mentioned this is because "we need Google or Apple to open up". But couldn't they support an airtime android app to use only rooted, and with CyanogenMod (or other aftermarket ROM)?
Also, plain mirroring is boring (though still useful), I'd prefer an app that lets me stream from my phone to TV a local video file, while letting me still use the phone for other things. I like movies, but get bored and would want to multitask like browse Reddit while watching said movie.
Related
As stated in the (www .blogtalkradio .com/motodev) Q&A session yesterday with Motorola about the Droid X, in answer to the question asked at the 29:00 mark,
"The only time that we are enabling the HDMI driver on the device is when you are in the gallery mode. [...] The HDMI driver is not active any time outside the gallery," where the "gallery mode" is their included photo/video viewer.
I'm wondering how true that is...
(www .pcmag .com/article2/0,2817,2365630,00.asp ) PCMag's review stated that the youtube player and blockbuster player were not able to use the hdmi out at all.
As seen in (forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=703111 ) this thread the evo 4g, which also has hdmi out, is capable of allowing any app that uses VideoView to utilize that output, but that's supported by the phone maker.
Will that usability be true on the droid x?
Could we figure out a way to bypass any limitations Motorola includes, and maybe even send (an upscaled version of) the main screen through the hdmi (not just video but anything we could put on the phone's screen)?
I was just at a motorola event and we were able to run nfl mobile through the hdmi.
Yes the tv was in an ice sculpture and yes it was connected to a droid x via the hdmi cable
Sent from my ADR6300 using XDA App
That's great news, thanks for letting us know!
The more apps with handshakes to the hdmi-out we have, the better for us to get it working completely openly
The whole media-center-and-phone-in-my-pocket is just a great idea imho...
With the hdmi out we could:
put any videos and pictures from any source up on your home tv
connect it to the projector at work and give presentations
go with a few bluetooth controllers to your friend's house and play multiplayer (even online) games on their tv with minimal cords to deal with
maybe even video-chat would be possible if you set up the phone with the camera facing out in front of the tv
... ok, that last one sounds like a pretty lame way to get video-chat, but it would save on having to have a computer/monitor/webcam when you wanted to
Of course this is all far into the future stages of development on the phone, but I'd rather create buzz and excitement to build up a developer and user base
Talked to a moto rep, said it might have been a beta device as licensing is what will prevent this thing from being turned on when it hits consumers hands. At least we know it can be done.
Sent from my DROIDX using XDA App
no fun, i'm not much of a C programmer, but if it's just enabling or disabling the driver, I guess it comes down to the security on the phone. If you go into root, I suppose we should be able to start the driver. The only thing I fear is if the driver is signed and only a signed application can access it, then I think we might be SOL
I'm not particularly worried... if we get access to enough apps that use the hdmi driver, we should be able to document enough of the method.
I believe while the hardware can reject unsigned versions of the OS (roms), most apps are self-signed (see developer. android. com/guide/publishing/app-signing.html) so that shouldn't be a problem. We just have to figure out which hoops to jump through (following the programs that use hdmi) to get it to work. They'd have to leave the hoops pretty wide open or else risk the need of updating the thing every time a new app is released that needs to get through.
This is a mixed bag here. The reason why Motorola limited the hdmi driver is likely so they didn't have to put a fps cap on the droid x like htc put on the evo.
This is pure speculation here but I would imagine the way that the evo devs are going to "truly" overcome the fps cap is to mimic the droid x behavior of toggling on and off the hdmi drivers so that the evo can access up to 60 fps.
You guys are on the other end of the boat where by default your fps won't be artificially capped, but you likely won't have full access to the hdmi drivers at first.
I think the sweet spot for both phones is finding a happy medium where we can toggle the hdmi drivers at will.
Any news on this? I would really like to get rockplayer and youtube working through hdmi. In fact, I would like to get the entire OS through HDMI and possibly a bluetooth keyboard and mouse working so I can use it as a little media center pc.
2 way control
I would lime to see this pushed to.the level of controlling the phone through an hdmi touchscreen.
I thought we would be able to see pandora and other apps through the hdmi...This sucks the way it is...also does anyone think the sound is terrible through the hdmi?
There is no point int he HDMi at all if you can only use it for your pictures and your videos from the phone's camera.
They need to make it show what you see on the phone, but on the screen
I remember there was a windows mobiel program that popped up a small window on your desktop that let you see your phone's screen and interact with it on your monitor when connected through usb
anything like this for android?
sp1kez said:
There is no point int he HDMi at all if you can only use it for your pictures and your videos from the phone's camera.
They need to make it show what you see on the phone, but on the screen
I remember there was a windows mobiel program that popped up a small window on your desktop that let you see your phone's screen and interact with it on your monitor when connected through usb
anything like this for android?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NO, the hdmi dock is a half ass design. For the $, it should do everything. MOTO/VZ dropped the ball on this. Hopefully they will open this up with a sw update.
Update: "Real HDMI" in the market
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=769990&highlight=control+hdmi
Hi,
I'm pretty new to Android development. So my understanding after reading a couple threads here is that HDMI access on the stock Droid X is limited to the gallery only, is that right? And the point of the "Real HDMI" app is that it will automatically redirect all output to the phone's display through HDMI, right? So no API exists which gives programmatic control over the HDMI port? That's a shame if so.
Do any of the Android devices allow easier HDMI port control or do we need these kinds of work arounds for all of them?
Thank you very much for any information anyone can provide.
Sorry to be a pest, but can anybody answer my questions? Should I consider posting somehwere else?
Thanks again.
commie64 said:
Sorry to be a pest, but can anybody answer my questions? Should I consider posting somehwere else?
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe try posting in the Real HDMI thread over at DroidXForums.com because username GMAN (who made real hdmi) has a thread there. I'm sure his knowledge of the subject is pretty extensive.
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.
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.
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.
With all the Chromecast mirroring rumors and cases overseas that apparently actually work I hoping Google is not releasing this something now because they want to WOW us at Google I/O with Chromecast mirroring and a new Android TV box (please have HDMI pass-through!) with Chromecast built in. I would pay pretty much anything (up to reasonable amount - $250) for such a box. To have HDMI pass-through (no input switching) w/Chromecast and mirroring would be the ultimate TV box solution!
What do you think?
rkirmeier said:
With all the Chromecast mirroring rumors and cases overseas that apparently actually work I hoping Google is not releasing this something now because they want to WOW us at Google I/O with Chromecast mirroring and a new Android TV box (please have HDMI pass-through!) with Chromecast built in. I would pay pretty much anything (up to reasonable amount - $250) for such a box. To have HDMI pass-through (no input switching) w/Chromecast and mirroring would be the ultimate TV box solution!
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I Agree...A CCast capable device with HDMI Passthrough is the way to go. I don't even care about AndroidTV since I already have an HTPC which does far more and the only thing I hate about it is switching inputs to get to the CCast.
I will point out though that Android Police did an APK breakdown of the Chromecast app (the Setup app) and found references to 5Ghz networking in it.
It is possible that along with the announcement on Mirroring there could be nugget of future plans towards a CCast II.
I expect that unit at minimum to have 5Ghz Wireless capabilities to take advantage of the new AC router specs and I'm hoping while they are at it they will also add Wired networking, AndroidTV type capability (via an Android App maybe?), and HDMI Passthrough connector.
It wouldn't be odd to see them do that this quickly because if you remember back at the last Google I/O they had announced some other HOME STREAMING box which was very similar in form to what the CCast became only CCast was much smaller form factor.
Even if they announce it I wouldn't expect to see it until Q4 or just in time for the Holiday shopping season.