Related
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.
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.
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.
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
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
JoshAraujo said:
What I Have -
HDTV + Chromecast
Windows PC
Keyboard and Mouse/X360 Controller
Is it possible to sit in my living room on my couch with a controller wirelessly hooked up to my PC, which is in the next room and play a game, running on my PC with its video streamed to my TV?
Its a simple matter of Screen Casting from Windows to Chromecast, but I cant seem to find a clear cut method of doing this
Any help would be very much appreciated
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://allaboutchromecast.com/chrom...cast-to-share-desktop-screen-and-audio-to-tv/
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
You could try vnc2cast.
primetechv2 said:
I've done it with Minecraft, but the result is incredibly... slow. Not slow enough to totally ruin many demonstrations of Windows, but slow enough to distract heavily from movies and trouble game streaming.
All you need to do is download Google Chrome, install the Google Cast extension, and then tap the Cast button like you're about to cast the current Chrome tab.
In the screen that appears, tap the arrow by Current Tab and switch it to Entire Screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That thing is terrible, Google marks it as an experimental piece of software and it has such high latency, gaming on it is hit and miss, sometimes its okay, sometimes its terrible
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesnt that only pass on Video, and no audio?
I havent tried it though, will give it a shot
JoshAraujo said:
I was hoping there was some other way? perhaps a seperate Chromecast app that hooks up with windows over wireless and directly casts its screen
Ive heard Microsoft's Wireless display adapter does a great job of this, but I dont want to buy something just for one bit of functionality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
mimepp said:
You could try vnc2cast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bhiga said:
Getting through the IP network involves some kind of compression at the very least, and compression at the source and decompression at the target results in delay. Direct connections are the way to go, but given the fact that most Chromecasts are sitting right behind the radio-blocking TV and getting poor signal, it's a poor experience.
speed4cast can help measure Chromecast connection speed. In ideal conditions both Chromecast and Miracast will still have about a half-second delay. I've tested them both as I also have a Samsung AllShare Cast Hub.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a simple solution for that. Use an HDMI extender cable and simply place it in a place that receives better WiFi signal.
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
primetechv2 said:
There are a couple of people working on alternatives; some of them request a local computer server to help steam phone media, but none are ad-hoc yet. Seriously, that's one of the things Matchstick is looking to overcome.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got a link to the media server method?
JoshAraujo said:
So seriously? No one does uncompressed video casting? It's not a big deal when all the traffic is going around locally and doesnt get added to your data cap/download limits
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
JoshAraujo said:
Got a link to the media server method?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
bhiga said:
1920x1080 at 60 fps is nearly 3 Gbps.
Even dropping down to 4:2:2 color sampling you're still well over a gigabit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
primetechv2 said:
BubbleUPNP has its server here
http://bubblesoftapps.com/bubbleupnpserver/
And this is Plex, my go-to media steamer
https://plex.tv/
Be forewarned, I might have needed to mention that neither of these are designed to stream the current computer screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, ive used both for media streaming, but neither do Screencasting
Yes, you can do it with Google desktop casting. It's am option in the Google Cast extension for Chrome. Chrome has to be running, but can be minimized in the background.
No, it won't accomplish what you want. Performance is poor, with jerky video and too much latency for action games. The performance problems may be insurmountable for games, but the video streaming problems are more due to crappy code by Google - other apps manage the job of transcoding and relaying internet video to the Chromecast in real time without as much difficulty (like Plex and PlayOn). WiFi is not the issue.
JoshAraujo said:
Thats what? 300 MB every second? Even Lossless FHD content doesnt have a bitrate THAT high
Most routers can do a 100MbPS, thats 10 MB every second, should be much more than enough for uncompressed 1080p streaming at 30 or 40fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Asphyx said:
No thats more like 3000 Megabits every second. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3000 megabits is around 300 megabytes