Database Develop

controlling HDMI

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.

May I ask a non-nook Question?

I want to set up my PC as a TV and DVR, what's the best way to do this? I have a cable outlet right beside the PC, I know I could get a TV Tuner card but I know nothing about them at all and there are so many it's confusing. Hauppage(sp?) seems to be the most popular but are they any good? Are there any questions I should be asking myself before I chose? Any help would be much appreciated. Is there a better option altogether? I've searched the internet but it's basically an information overload, no good guides can be found for all the 5 year old junk

tuner you get depends on what software (dvr software) you want to run, what you want to do, and how fast your computer is.
things to know:
some with one tuner and some with 2
some with only OTA and some with QAM (unencrypted cable), some do both
hauppauge has pci/pci-e cards as well as usb
HDhomerun has several models, 2 tuner OTA/QAM, 4* tuner cable card, etc
Ceton has a 4, and a 6?, tuner card
some of these have hardware encoders, some dont (slower computers will need encoding otherwise it will be choppy, audio dropouts)

You should first figure out exactly what type of signal is coming in on that cable. Does your area still have analog cable service (my area does, but I think that's getting more scarce), or is it digital only? Are there any clear-QAM channels (which are usually just the local networks) or is it all encrypted? If it's only digital and encrypted channels that you're interested in, then you need something that can take a CableCARD.
After that, it's all about what software you want to run and how many tuners you require.

You may be better off just using a combo of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Instant Video and Bittorrent.
Otherwise you haven't given us any of your specs to be able you help you out. What type of PC do you have? Windows/Linux/Mac... Processor/RAM/HD, also like others have noted are you going for Over the Air signal, analog or Digital Cable, standard def or HD. Are you going to be using a set top box or going for a cable card(very expensive option). Give us as much detail as possible if you want competent answers.

As for using your PC as a TV and PVR, I'd recommend using XBMC to turn it into a Home Theater PC (HTPC). The site, LifeHacker, does an XBMC/HTPC guide every few months. You would still need to buy hardware like a TV tuner but XBMC does a lot on the software end.
Also, if you use XBMC, you can use your Nook Color (assuming you at least have rooted it and have access to the Andoid Market) to control the XBMC software via the XBMC remote app.
Here is a guide that lifehacker did. It's a little old but the basics are still relevant and correct. http*://lifehacker.*com/5536963/the-ultimate-start-to-finish-guide-to-your-xbmc-media-center (remove the asterisks)

What everyone else has said -- need more info on what you have, also what budget, and what cable setup.
I have an HTPC set up but it's for media streaming, not dvr recording.
One forum I found very helpful is the AVS forum (search in google), they have a sub-forum dedicated entirely to HTPCs.

Sorry for the lack on info didn't know that my PC specs mattered all that much. I am running:
Vista Home Premium, 64bit
Intel Core2 Quad CPU (Q9300 @2.5ghz)
4GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce GT240
Appx. 600gb ofhard-drive space plus a 500gb permanent external USB. I can add more HD space if it becomes a problem.
Not sure if there is any other system info you guys need.
As for my cable I dunno for sure what signal I have, I have COMCAST if that helps anyone. Mainly I want this for recording sports. I can't always watch them live and it'd be nice to DVR them for later. I'd also use it for shows, but those I can always watch online later. Can't really watch sports later though. And I'd also like to be able to just normally watch TV on my computer. I'd like to be able to do something on monitor one while the other plays live TV. Sports or whatever.
Also, to this:
Are you going to be using a set top box or going for a cable card(very expensive option).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not sure what you mean. I was thinking you get the TV Tuner, install it in your PCIE slot, and watch TV on the PC. Do you need another device?

Landara said:
I am not sure what you mean. I was thinking you get the TV Tuner, install it in your PCIE slot, and watch TV on the PC. Do you need another device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A basic TV tuner will only be able to pick up Over The Air signals and basic cable(very limited channel selection). If you want to be able to watch digital cable you'll need either a set top box or a cable card and cable card reader(like this one).
some nice basic tv tuners
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815116028
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815100049
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815116015
I believe you have Windows Media Center included with your Windows version, it's probably going to be your best option for software.

Security Cameras

Ok so I am looking for a the cheapest and best Surviellance system that comes with 4 cameras and dvr. i found some on newegg for around 200 dollars, which is a great price, but want to see if anyone has any experience or recommendations for any. Thank you and leave feedback.

I do a little work for a security company. I prefer the pc based units instead of dedicated units. If you have a hardware problem you are back up and running with standardized parts as opposed to shipping them off.

Not helping much, but see if you can find the one that has a camera that detects movement, and is wirelessly connected to a receiver that can most likely connect to current channels. Also, if you install a movement detecting light, then you'll have a better picture, and you'll dazzle a thief, and also you'll light your own way. The receiver has a noise to alert you if someone is there. Also you can remotely view the image if you've hooked the video box (contains access points and hard drive) to your network, and, in some cases, set the system to record. Sorry I don't know the name, but now you have an idea of what to look for. You should find a good price of you look hard.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using XDA

Wilife is definitely the way to go, because you can set the destination folder for recorded video to a public drop box account. In the event that your HD or computer is stolen, the video of the theft will still be saved in your drop box account. Also, with the Wilife system you don't have to wire the cameras. It uses your house's electrical system to modulate video signals. (this technology has actually been around since the 1960's and works quite well)
http://www.logitech.com/en-us/video-security-systems
The older less expensive system is still available for sale, and works great. One drawback is that you have to have a Windows mobile phone for remote viewing of cameras, but for $175, it's still a very capable system.
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-WiLife-Digital-Security--Indoor-Master/dp/B0017U8FVI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336500655&sr=8-1

After 3 weeks my pros and cons

It's been almost 3 weeks since I purchased 4 Chromecasts. I have some Pros and Cons about my experience. I encourage you to add your own Pro/Con list.
Pros:
- Cheap. At $35 it's an impulse buy. I expect to see it at the checkout aisle of the supermarket next to the gift cards.
- Cheap will make it ubiquitous. Every app developer will rush to make their app Chromecastable.
- Extremely easy to set up. Some have had troubles as we've seen on this forum but my daughter set hers up without a single phone call to me. And she has absolutely no tech skills.
- I absolutely, positively love the ability to queue YouTube videos. I wish Netflix had that and I hope other app developers pick up on that. I wish there was one central queue where I could queue up Netflix, YouTube, Google Music, et all in one big queue. I could plan a whole night's viewing and then just sit back and watch.
- Shared control. It's nice that I can start a video and leave the room and my wife can take over control of it on her device. Very clever.
- Doesn't tie up my device. I can do other things while watching a video. Multitasking as it were.
- I can start a video on my phone then cast it to my family room TV, then pause it and start playing it on my bedroom PC, then pause it and finish it on my tablet. Very versitile.
- Video quality is superb. 1080p is very nice from the Chromecast. As good as cable TV.
- Audio is also superb. 5.1 is a nice surprise.
- If you have multiple wifi routers with multiple SSIDs you can control a Chromecast across SSIDs. And you see all the Chromecasts no matter which SSID you're currently using.
CONS
- Using the phone/tablet as a remote is not as convenient as a real remote. We have an unwritten rule in our house that when someone starts a conversation we pause the TV. With a real remote I can do this in a split second without looking at the remote. Using Chromecast I can't. Not only do I have to look at the phone, thus ignoring the person that is talking to me, I have to find the app that cast the video and start it up again to be able to pause it. This has made for an awkward situation more than once.
- It's not a perfect device, lots of app tweaking needs to be done.
- Sometimes I get spinning circle on my phone and it never casts.
- Sometimes I get spinning circle on my phone but the cast actually starts. This is not good at all as I have no way of pausing or stopping it from my phone. Same thing happens to my tablet so it's not a device specific issue.
- There's no ability to reduce picture quality. If I'm in a hotel using my phone's hot spot capability I could easily eat up 5gb of data watching a 1080p movie when 480p, or even less, would have been satisfactory.
- It has connectivity issues with some routers, especially Verizon FIOS' Actiontec router. There's not much in the way of documentation to help with this. The help information refers to turning off a feature that the router doesn't have.
BOTTOM LINE
The Chromecast is not a perfect device, like all devices, but the low cost and ease use make up for a lot of its misgivings. Almost all of the Cons I have listed can be corrected by software updates. I only see this product as getting better and better. The only fear is that it becomes another Google castoff like Google TV or Google Reader or Google Q or Buzz. But at $35 there's not much risk.
This product is a sign of the future and the future is bright. With many devices battling for this space, Apple TV, Roku, etc. we will all be the winners. Just as many people have multiple game consoles so will many people have multiple streaming devices. This is going to be a fun ride.

TabGuy said:
There's no ability to reduce picture quality. If I'm in a hotel using my phone's hot spot capability I could easily eat up 5gb of data watching a 1080p movie when 480p, or even less, would have been satisfactory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, what? Have you been able to get it to work using a hotspot? Everything I've read says it's not currently possible.

We need more app's....

TabGuy said:
- Extremely easy to set up. Some have had troubles as we've seen on this forum but my daughter set hers up without a single phone call to me. And she has absolutely no tech skills.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I was setting it up, I had no idea I needed a WiFi device for first time set up. I was using my desktop connected to my router with the WiFi turned off. So quickly I assumed it was because of that. (I have a WAP broadcasting another SSID so i turned off my router) After I turned on my router, I was still getting the same problem stating my WiFi was off. Then I feared that my desktop needed to be a WiFi device to work with the Chromecast. After some quick searches I found that the WiFi device was just for setup which I did on my phone and got it up and running smoothly.
TabGuy said:
- If you have multiple wifi routers with multiple SSIDs you can control a Chromecast across SSIDs. And you see all the Chromecasts no matter which SSID you're currently using.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So my setup was kind of like this, and i feared that it would not work. After the setup, I just installed the extension on Chrome for all my computers in the family and it showed up on all of them. Relieved and happy that it was simpler than I was dreading.

andrewhchiu said:
As I was setting it up, I had no idea I needed a WiFi device for first time set up. I was using my desktop connected to my router with the WiFi turned off. So quickly I assumed it was because of that. (I have a WAP broadcasting another SSID so i turned off my router) After I turned on my router, I was still getting the same problem stating my WiFi was off. Then I feared that my desktop needed to be a WiFi device to work with the Chromecast. After some quick searches I found that the WiFi device was just for setup which I did on my phone and got it up and running smoothly.
So my setup was kind of like this, and i feared that it would not work. After the setup, I just installed the extension on Chrome for all my computers in the family and it showed up on all of them. Relieved and happy that it was simpler than I was dreading.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common sense should tell you that you can't connect to the Chromecast through your wireless network before it get connected to your wireless network. Assuming it's protected with a password how do you suppose Chromecast would connect to it? And for open networks I think it's illegal to just auto connect to open networks. I would think that most people buying a Chromecast would have a smartphone or tablet.

rkirmeier said:
Common sense should tell you that you can't connect to the Chromecast through your wireless network before it get connected to your wireless network. Assuming it's protected with a password how do you suppose Chromecast would connect to it? And for open networks I think it's illegal to just auto connect to open networks. I would think that most people buying a Chromecast would have a smartphone or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I figured it was going to be something like connecting a bluetooth device where it would broadcast its own signal and then you can connect to it. but i guess i wasn't thinking.

Echo the majority of the above comments, still too early to be overly concerned that Google hasn't yet released their chrome cast API.
I'm in UK so had to wait slightly longer than others for my US bought one (first day purchase) to arrive here in the UK, but its here I love Google play , Google movies and YouTube integration
Waiting for CM casting to go live and hopefully be implemented into aokp.
Not tried casting chrome tabs from my laptop yet or my hard wired pc workstation, is it true that sounds cabled PC's can have issues connecting to chromecast
Am I meant to be able to cast from chrome browser tabs on my N4 ?

Airtame - I'd like this from my Chromecast!

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.