Related
well, i guess my plan has failed unless someone has a different idea. so i was planning on casting to
multiple chromecasts from the same pc. i can't get this to work unfortunately. i was hoping to do this only for football so i could have different games on each tv and with a powerhouse pc i think it could handle it, but i don't get the option in tab casting. once you start casting you don't have the option to continue casting and start up on the other chromecast.
maybe i'm doing something wrong? anyone else have a solution?
i know that i could use another pc, tablet, etc but nothing is powerful enough aside from my pc to cast in 720p without stuttering.
knives of ice said:
well, i guess my plan has failed unless someone has a different idea. so i was planning on casting to
multiple chromecasts from the same pc. i can't get this to work unfortunately. i was hoping to do this only for football so i could have different games on each tv and with a powerhouse pc i think it could handle it, but i don't get the option in tab casting. once you start casting you don't have the option to continue casting and start up on the other chromecast.
maybe i'm doing something wrong? anyone else have a solution?
i know that i could use another pc, tablet, etc but nothing is powerful enough aside from my pc to cast in 720p without stuttering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really a solution, but an "HDMI Splitter" can help in your scenario. So, instead of buying multiple chromecasts, you could cast to single chromecast and then mirror the display on all TVs.
http://www.amazon.com/HD-104-Powere...qid=1378630390&sr=1-11&keywords=hdmi+splitter
Edit: Seems like you want to watch different games. Above is not going to help you.
admin856 said:
Not really a solution, but an "HDMI Splitter" can help in your scenario. So, instead of buying multiple chromecasts, you could cast to single chromecast and then mirror the display on all TVs.
http://www.amazon.com/HD-104-Powere...qid=1378630390&sr=1-11&keywords=hdmi+splitter
Edit: Seems like you want to watch different games. Above is not going to help you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah....I'm looking for different content on each tv
Ok. You basically need a work around so you can run multiple instances of chrome.
Try searching for virtual desktop software for your operating system.
http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/...tiple-virtual-desktops-in-windows-7-for-free/
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
admin856 said:
Ok. You basically need a work around so you can run multiple instances of chrome.
Try searching for virtual desktop software for your operating system.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is a workaround to stream from 2 or more browsers.
1) Create a chrome shortcut (other then your current).
2) Right click the shortcut and select Properties.
3) On the Shortcut tab, edit the target to look as follows:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --user-data-dir=D:\Chrome\ProfileName
The bold is what you will need to add, this will have this chrome shortcut use a new profile, so it will allow you to stream to a different chromecast.
My goal was to do this with NFL Sunday Ticket HOWEVER, you cannot log into the NFL Sunday Ticket from a different browser (it limits you to one login at a time...) so if you happen to be trying the same thing and find a workaround for that, I'd love to know.
Once the Google Chromecast SDK is released, is this rootable serial number and post 12840 bootloader being unrootable going to be an issue?
Here is what I think it will be.
Google has to watch their ass around these archaic studios, these studios want to own everything.
The SDK will be somewhat limited to protect the business interests at Google with Satan (I mean SONY/Hollywood et al)
If you think that Google is going to open it up to watch any video pirated or not, you are delusional. HDMI is basically owned by these studios and they can step in a company like Google and destroy it. Just like Google TV.
Google probably doesn't want another diabocle like Google TV and want some sort of success with televisions so they are going to listen to the developers but always listen to the wallet first.
Chromecast wasn't meant for the tinkering demographic.
Sent from my XT926 using Tapatalk
abuttino said:
The SDK will be somewhat limited to protect the business interests at Google with Satan (I mean SONY/Hollywood et al)
If you think that Google is going to open it up to watch any video pirated or not, you are delusional. HDMI is basically owned by these studios and they can step in a company like Google and destroy it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that's a tinfoil hat post if I've ever seen one. We already know Plex has developers working with Google to build casting into their app. Why would Google invite them to do that, knowing that function of their app is to playback any format of locally stored media?
fudsak said:
Well that's a tinfoil hat post if I've ever seen one. We already know Plex has developers working with Google to build casting into their app. Why would Google invite them to do that, knowing that function of their app is to playback any format of locally stored media?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha, that was a great first line!! :good: Not to throw out the A word but dosent appletv and an iPhone do all the things we want chromecast to do? Stream right from the phone. Local videos? all that good stuff...
If that's true, we might see it come to chromecast. The question is, does chromecast have a powerful enough CPU to do that?
Sent from my XT926 using Tapatalk
cdrshm said:
Ha, that was a great first line!! :good: Not to throw out the A word but dosent appletv and an iPhone do all the things we want chromecast to do? Stream right from the phone. Local videos? all that good stuff...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chromecast works differently from (at least how I understand it) how AirPlay on AppleTV + iPhone work...
According to my understanding (and HowStuffWorks), AirPlay actually streams from the iPhone or other AirPlay source. The iPhone or other AirPlay source has to be on the same network, powered up and have the content, or be able to get the content.
In the Chromecast world, this is equivalent to how Chrome tab casting from a computer and AllCast/AirCast/KoushCast with rooted a Chromecast work, but those two are more exceptions than the rule.
Chromecast's native behavior, on the other hand, simply accepts a request "hand-off" and goes to retrieve the content itself.
There's a subtle but significant difference there. In the Chromecast model, once the cast request is made, the requesting device (phone, tablet) is no longer necessary for playback (of course, you can't control playback). The phone/tablet/computer can be disconnected from the network or powered off, and the Chromecast will continue to play like nothing happened.
The requesting device simply controls the playback from there. It's much like how you use your remote control to change channels on your TV. Once the TV changes to the selected channel, you see what's on and you don't need the remote unless you want to change channels or adjust the volume.
This also allows playback to controlled from a different device, at least for most applications. That's pretty cool for me, as I might start something for the family to watch, then leave for work and my wife can just take over control, just like passing the remote.
---------- Post added at 08:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------
abuttino said:
If that's true, we might see it come to chromecast. The question is, does chromecast have a powerful enough CPU to do that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chromecast would just be a Plex client like any other mobile device so Chromecast's CPU would only be involved in decoding the video stream from the Plex server.
The Plex server would be responsible for and burdened with any necessary transcoding duties.
^ Exactly.
C$39 on amazon.ca, free shipping. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00IT92PR0
I guess that world release was even closer than Google predicted at SXSW.
But notice that this is the "New Canada Compatible" version! (i.e., package printed in French as well as English )
DJames1 said:
C$39 on amazon.ca, free shipping. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00IT92PR0
I guess that world release was even closer than Google predicted at SXSW.
But notice that this is the "New Canada Compatible" version! (i.e., package printed in French as well as English )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ordered one this morning. I've already got two rooted 'casts but I figured I'd get an "official" one to see just what it supports without the rooting. I suspect that the answer will be "not much".
Croptop said:
Ordered one this morning. I've already got two rooted 'casts but I figured I'd get an "official" one to see just what it supports without the rooting. I suspect that the answer will be "not much".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Geo-blocked U.S. services are still geo-blocked, but you don't need a rooted version to work around that.
I just got one as well from Amazon.ca. Wondering if it gives the possibility to live stream TV channels like something from Russia. I saw several sites that offer subscriptions but none offers Chromecast compatibilities.
Reading now about Plex, some say it cost something, some don't, trying to figure out what is the main purpose of Plex and if its a monthly fee and if so why.
TurboTronix said:
Reading now about Plex, some say it cost something, some don't, trying to figure out what is the main purpose of Plex and if its a monthly fee and if so why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Plex is useful for...
Streaming locally-stored content
Transcoding (converting on-the-fly) content for streaming content in formats that the device does not support
Extra Premium features such as offline sync
Support for Chromecast used to be available to premium users only (as part of early access), but it is now available to all.
To use Plex on Android, you need the Plex app.
If you subscribe to PlexPass (the premium features), you can use Plex for PlexPass which is free.
If not, the Plex for Android app is $4.99
So...
Plex Media Server software - free
Hardware to run Plex Media Server on - you provide
PlexPass (Premium) features - monthly, yearly or lifetime subscription
Plex Android app - free for PlexPass subscribers, $4.99 (one-time) without PlexPass subscription
Plex (and on-the-fly transcoding in general) is especially useful if you have multiple playback clients that don't necessarily support the same formats. Otherwise an alternative is to simply convert your media library to a format that your player supports.
The main reason that many of us end up using Plex is that it's useful in several different ways, and although there are equally good alternatives in each area, it just seems sensible to consolidate on Plex.
I don't really need to index all the media on my network and add metadata - but as long as the capability is there with Plex, why not?
I can get by without transcoding, at least for one or two devices, as long as I'm willing to do some quick conversions when I need to - but as long as Plex is there and it will do transcoding, I guess I don't need to bother. And I keep adding more devices...
There are other ways to browse my media on my iPod Touch or Android tablet, but I bought those Plex apps some time ago when they were on sale for $1.99, so I might as well use them now that they support the Chromecast.
My old Samsung TV happens to have a Plex client app, and so does my Roku media player, so it supports my devices in addition to the Chromecast.
And Plex has a bunch of channels of its own to supplement what I get from other sources, and some of those channels are killer!
So while Plex is far from perfect - there are bugs and the indexing and meta-data sometimes goes wrong - it's hard to find another tool that does so much.
Hmmm, as other people have noticed, the Chromecast now has a new internal data field for Country Code, set by IP address. You may need to update your Chromecast app to see it (under the firmware settings for 16041). In Canada it reads CA. In Spain it apparently reads ES.
If they have a country code, it's probably exposed to apps loading on the Chromecast. How long will it be before new versions of those apps start checking Country Code for geoblocking. I have a feeling that the Chromecast is about to become a whole lot less useful to international users.
DJames1 said:
Hmmm, as other people have noticed, the Chromecast now has a new internal data field for Country Code, set by IP address. You may need to update your Chromecast app to see it (under the firmware settings for 16041). In Canada it reads CA. In Spain it apparently reads ES.
If they have a country code, it's probably exposed to apps loading on the Chromecast. How long will it be before new versions of those apps start checking Country Code for geoblocking. I have a feeling that the Chromecast is about to become a whole lot less useful to international users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If we're lucky it'll only be used for localization of apps, but probably not... If that's the case, DNS bypass may stop working and VPN may become the only way to bypass regional restrictions.
DJames1 said:
If they have a country code, it's probably exposed to apps loading on the Chromecast. How long will it be before new versions of those apps start checking Country Code for geoblocking. I have a feeling that the Chromecast is about to become a whole lot less useful to international users.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will be a problem for anyone who uses an App that comes directly from a content provider (Netflix, HBOGo, Hulu, BBC) but it shouldn't affect things like Plex, Playon and Bubble. (I call them content referrers because they simply pass on content from other content providers as a sort of middleman).
The question is does the unit you buy come country code locked (ie a UK CCast is locked to UK available content only) or does it determine where it is based on IP and then set the country code?
If Hardlocked then we will need to find a way to root and change this at will
If softlocked then it should be easy to fool the device via use of a VPN and Proxy. (I'm guessing this is what is happening)
Netflix would appear to be the toughest nut to crack and I'm not sure exactly how they go about geolocating and determining what you should see.
If you subscribe from the UK (or Canada) you get one set of content available but if you are in the US you get a different set of content.
What happens if your usually in the UK (UK Sub) but then go to the US do you see US content? Probably...So just a matter of fooling the device. VPN some router trick or via Root.
If they do try and mess this all up with geolocation then I'm betting it won't be long before someone creates a service that will fetch geolocatated/restricted content and pass it onto another geolocation in the same way Plex does with it's channels. Think of it as VPN Plus service.
Apparently it is a soft value determined dynamically from IP address, because I've seen a few people mention that it changed for them when using a VPN.
In theory the DNS proxy services could determine what new Google site is doing the location check and add it to their redirection list, but that may take some time. They haven't been in a big hurry to test and support the Chromecast so far, but maybe that will change now that it's released internationally.
Netflix always goes by your current IP address to set its content filter. They don't care what country your account is based in, or what country you were in 10 minutes ago. If your IP address is now in Mexico, you can watch that new movie that's only licensed for streaming in Mexico.
Services that are U.S.-only like Pandora and Hulu+ tend to be much more diligent and strict about enforcing geoblocking. Unlike Netflix they don't want your steenking international business. That's why Netflix is a stock market superstar and Pandora and Hulu are perpetually struggling to survive.
I can verify it's a soft value, I bought both my chromecasts from the US and I'm from Israel, the latest patch added localization, meaning half of my chromecast is in hebrew and everything is godamn at the wrong side, I hate it but not enough to start messing around with VPN's.
kishke said:
I can verify it's a soft value, I bought both my chromecasts from the US and I'm from Israel, the latest patch added localization, meaning half of my chromecast is in hebrew and everything is godamn at the wrong side, I hate it but not enough to start messing around with VPN's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This jives with the Chromecast setup application being "available in 50 languages"
Thanks for the confirmation!
bhiga said:
This jives with the Chromecast setup application being "available in 50 languages"
Thanks for the confirmation!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google changed something from yesterday, the hebrew is gone, but I think its still different, the cloak suppose to be on the right side?
Hello folks,
I got my Chromecast, it works, I like it.
But I find it unnerving that the system is so closed.
Some guy has, months ago, released something he called "PiCast" as an open alternative on the Raspberry Pi.
I wonder: Why aren't there more devs bringing an open, extensible alternative, installable on a Raspberry Pi or other small computer, to life? I really don't understand it, since. like I see it, it doesn't seem particularly complicated! The following features would at least have to be implemented:
***********************************************
- media player software which can play a broad palette of formats and stream from different sources (VLC, Mplayer etc. come to mind an can surely be used as a part of the project)
- web interface which accepts URLs (web or LAN) of files that are to be played and passes them to the media player; and which accepts control commands for the now playing file like pause, forward etc.
Most convenient would be if these URLs could not only be http ones, but also SMB, streaming protocols etc.
Don't we all want a device where we NOT are confined to certain formats?
- apps for computers and mobile devices which let the user choose files he wants to watch / listen to and pass the URL to the web interface and which pass control commands like pause, forward to the web interface
- a customized, lean OS with a Chromecast-like, very simple UI
*************************************************
Any thoughts?
Best wishes,
Hasenbein
The entire reason for the CCast (which essentially replaced the GoogleTV fiasco) was to keep the system closed enough to get Content providers to support it due to the ability to use DRM and control the players being used.
Why do you think other projects like XBMC still to this day do NOT (and will NEVER) have access to Netflix for any sustainable time because Netflix will change their encryption and break any player app they do not have complete control over.
GoogleTV was actually blacklisted by the network websites to prevent it from playing content. All because it was just a little too open for their liking.
What @Asphyx said, plus Android TV sticks have been around for quite some time and already do similar. The key difference is market share. History is littered with proposed "standards" that never won. In the end it's not what is better, sometimes not even what's cheaper, but what picks up.
Iomega's Zip drive was inferior to SyQuest EZ drive, but Iomega won by marketing and hence adoption. Developers had more incentive to support Zip drives (not that much was specifically required but still) because there was a wider audience and market for them.
Adobe's changing the design market the same way. I still have CS6, but more and more I'm getting files from people on CC. And it's annoying. Essentially I'm being forced into CC if I want to work with anybody outside of my four walls.
Even though it's only available in select retail channels, Google is pushing Chromecast with TV ads. The fact that they've sold (or at least shipped) millions is a strong testament to its adoption rate. Even at my local stores, I can say just by the serial numbers they've cycled through, at least 500 have left the shelf since August 2013.
The market share attracts content providers, and the closed nature gives their lawyers ease regarding theft. Sure, there will always be people supporting TV sticks with clever solutions that are free or near-free, though they sometimes require jumping through numerous hoops (even moreso than Chromecast of today), and if something doesn't work as required, it involved researching. It's not like you can put in a support ticket or call support. Granted, Chromecast support isn't outstanding... but many of my non-techy friends have adopted Chromecast, even without hearing from me, and these are not people who visit XDA, nor are they people who would ever have run across or even considered an Android TV stick, nor are they people who have any idea of what an Arduino or Raspberry Pi is.
The draw is the consumer, and the consumer needs content to consume. Which means longevity of the product/concept/standard depends on support from the content providers.
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
And similarly, it's cheap enough that if Chromecast alone does not suit your needs, you can say, well hey, all I spent on the Chromecast was $35, so I don't see why that should stop me from also buying that other media box that does more things.
cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm definitely in this boat.
I have a semi-Smart TV that supports YouTube, Amazon, and a about 12 other "channels" - but its interface is slow and clunky. It also doesn't support DLNA video (sadly, one model year too early).
I have a HTPC that I use to play DVDs and Blu-rays from my media server, and even though I have a BT keyboard remote for it, navigating between Windows Media Center and browser-sourced video is fiddly.
Chromecast didn't replace my HTPC, it's just giving me a much easier way to view those browser-sourced videos.
However, if/when Chromecast gets DVD and BD playback, it very well might replace my HTPC...
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.
cmstlist said:
At the price point of Chromecast it seems to be designed to draw in not just first timers, but also customers who may already have a media to TV solution but it's lacking in simplicity or quality. E.g. maybe you have a powerful HTPC that suits all your needs but Netflix is in low-def for DRM reasons. And YouTube stutters on 1080p because Windows keeps trying to do other things in the background while you play it. OK then you put $35 down on a Chromecast and now your Netflix & YouTube videos look better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. I really care about picture quality, so Chromecast offers the cheapest way to get SuperHD Netflix on my TV. If I wasn't bothered about the quality, I'd just connect my tablet with a cable whenever I wanted to watch something.
EarlyMon said:
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711
https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.php?112941-UltraViolet-FAQ-s
Vudu ultraviolet on Chromecast will displace the need for a disc player or home video server for a number of people. Not sure yet but I'll probably be one of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting service and a good idea....
Unfortunately $2 per SD conversion of DVD or $5 to HD is a bit too pricey considering how I have the equipment to rip my own DVD (I have more than 3000 titles in my collection), do the Upconvert and even rip the subtitles to put into an MKV.
But this service will do well because of the sheer number of people who do not have the capability to do that and the ease of use.
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?
Asphyx said:
I wonder are they actually converting your DVDs or are they doing the much smarter thing and letting you insert the disk, check it for validity and then just giving you access to the already encoded content they have stored?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The second one, so far as I know.
And if you just enter your digital copy information that works too.
My son-in-law does that but I haven't asked him about the details - he's very happy with the service though.
It's a great Idea....
I have a similar validation system I use....
If I own it already on disc then I feel I have the right to download it if I choose...I paid them their cut so no Guilt involved.
LOL
Similar but I don't pay the conversion fee!
I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.
EarlyMon said:
I have a small collection.
I got tired years ago of format changes, player upkeep and having more plastic in the house, so I've been satisfied with rentals. I keep a few favorites on my shelves just in case.
And I had one of my media servers die of old age a few months ago. I'm tired of maintaining my own cloud. Been there, done that. Still do my music and just a few movies now.
I like the ultraviolet model, it sounds simple to me.
And to the OP -
LocalCast does direct entry of http and smb addresses.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah unfortunately I live in a very rural area and Cable and Internet outages are common (all the damn trees!)
So when that happens I really have no other recourse than to use whatever is on my Media server to entertain myself...
I went out and invested in a good NAS with Raid that holds 16Tb worth of drives (don't get full16Tbs with Raid though...I may even need to double that soon as I'm running out of space).
My Media Server is my HTPC so I can simply replace that unit if it craps out and just re-install the server software and map the drives.
Been checking out that Chromecast store app...a Lot of stuff in there I didn't know about...
Hello Folks,
I am trying to find a way of keeping most of music available to me across my devices,
Android Tablet (Nexus7)
Android Phone (MotoX)
Various PC's
I have messed with Google Music and something about the interface doesn't do it for me.
MyMusicCloud is limited to 250 songs and other cloud services like Skydrive don't offer streaming services but just storage.
The idea is to stream, not really download to play, ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
Pete
I used subsonic server for over a year. Works insanely well if you are willing to run a server from your PC. they're are raspberry pi solutions as well. Also, some use Plex, instead. Both are great options. As for cloud services, you can pretty much do Google music or amazon. Google gives you 20k songs free. Amazon gives you an unprecedented 250k songs for $25 a year.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
pasta1234 said:
Hello Folks,
I am trying to find a way of keeping most of music available to me across my devices,
Android Tablet (Nexus7)
Android Phone (MotoX)
Various PC's
I have messed with Google Music and something about the interface doesn't do it for me.
MyMusicCloud is limited to 250 songs and other cloud services like Skydrive don't offer streaming services but just storage.
The idea is to stream, not really download to play, ideas and suggestions would be appreciated.
Pete
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a heads up that if you are not into the Google Music app, you can now use third party software as the interface, but still use Google Music for its free storage capacity. I saw the article somewhere on this site, I will take a look for it.
---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------
JustROLLIN said:
Just a heads up that if you are not into the Google Music app, you can now use third party software as the interface, but still use Google Music for its free storage capacity. I saw the article somewhere on this site, I will take a look for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boom!
http://www.xda-developers.com/andro...cloud-streaming-to-third-party-music-players/
This should solve all your problems.
metaljr81 said:
I used subsonic server for over a year. Works insanely well if you are willing to run a server from your PC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used Subsonic for a while too, seemed to work well. As mentioned, you need an always on computer if you want access whenever. I remember it being a little tedious to set up. Subsonic also lets you stream video files, pretty neat, worked alright. I stopped using it when I discovered that my home Comcast internet usage was over the 200GB limit one month, but I can't verify it was Subsonic or something else on my network... I'm tempted to try Subsonic again, seems silly to upload my music to Google's server when I could just stream from home, provided your upload is fast enough and you have a static IP or DDNS.
I've had good luck with Cloudaround. The free version lets you stream from dropbox, and the paid version uses Box, GoogleDrive, Skydrive and others, as well as your local files.
I have used Amazon MP3 with good luck
I appreciate everyone's suggestions...
I guess one of my large pet peeves with Google Music is its inability to sync music to a folder, unless I am not seeing it.
When i use there music manager software and direct it a folder path it just copies everything over, if a file is deleted or renamed it does nothing, its not truly a sync piece of software, any work arounds ?
Pete