Related
was thinking about this possibly being a sweet setup hopefully miracast will be implemented into the device or possible being implemented into xbmc having that along the airplay option on xbmc enabled would make this a pretty sweet device
i purchased(preordered one) but I was hoping it would be more so like a media center device kinda like google tv but no hdmi out so no google tv overlay. But if I could use this to do miracast with my 4.2 sgs3 and whenever friends come over can use xbmc to allow them to do airplay that would be really cool
reason i bring up miracast support is because supposedly is supported in tegra 3
i've been trying to figure/find out how you go about setting up a miracast server but the documentation doesn't seem to exist not saying that i have the ability to implement but i wouldn't mind taking a look into it
thoughts?
This is more of a question for xbmc team. I suggest you provide that feedback on their forum. There was a talk of xbmc supporting miracast but no eta.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using xda premium
As long as it supports PLEX, I am sold!
Keland44 said:
was thinking about this possibly being a sweet setup hopefully miracast will be implemented into the device or possible being implemented into xbmc having that along the airplay option on xbmc enabled would make this a pretty sweet device
i purchased(preordered one) but I was hoping it would be more so like a media center device kinda like google tv but no hdmi out so no google tv overlay. But if I could use this to do miracast with my 4.2 sgs3 and whenever friends come over can use xbmc to allow them to do airplay that would be really cool
reason i bring up miracast support is because supposedly is supported in tegra 3
i've been trying to figure/find out how you go about setting up a miracast server but the documentation doesn't seem to exist not saying that i have the ability to implement but i wouldn't mind taking a look into it
thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard the documentation costs around $200 and that might not even be all of it. Or I might be pulling that number out of air, don't remember where I saw that, but did find this:
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=147320
I am more interested in seeing the Android Transporter Player ported to Ouya, except that they haven't released their source code on the sending side yet...
https://github.com/esrlabs/AndroidTransporterPlayer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyoZoNA8U24
~Troop
I'm not from familiar with Miracast. All I know is what the Wiki page said. It really reads like DNLA. And from my experience, this has been something that can be app dependent. Since I have no experience with Miracast, I don't know if it's full mirroring or just certain apps.
That said, Miracast may just be work versus just installing individual apps. Unless there is something in the application code for specific devices, if you side load an APK, it should run on the Ouya. Doesn't mean it will run well or look correct. Thus, you may be able to just side load XBMC. I know I'll try it with Plex, Netflix, Hulu, various sports--MLB, NHL, NBA, etc--and so on.
I couldn't figure out what the end result you were suggesting about friends coming over and their mobile devices.
lovekeiiy said:
I'm not from familiar with Miracast. All I know is what the Wiki page said. It really reads like DNLA. And from my experience, this has been something that can be app dependent. Since I have no experience with Miracast, I don't know if it's full mirroring or just certain apps.
That said, Miracast may just be work versus just installing individual apps. Unless there is something in the application code for specific devices, if you side load an APK, it should run on the Ouya. Doesn't mean it will run well or look correct. Thus, you may be able to just side load XBMC. I know I'll try it with Plex, Netflix, Hulu, various sports--MLB, NHL, NBA, etc--and so on.
I couldn't figure out what the end result you were suggesting about friends coming over and their mobile devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Miracast is primarily for screencasting - ie it just mirrors what is on the device's screen onto the TV or whatever is receiving. And I believe the previous poster was saying that it would be nice if it is easy to screencast from your phone to the TV and allow visiting friends to be able to easily screencast their content as well - so if one person has a video they want to show everyone, it's not a hassle to pull it up on the big screen. I think this is what a lot of us want.
~Troop
Trooper_Max said:
I believe Miracast is primarily for screencasting - ie it just mirrors what is on the device's screen onto the TV or whatever is receiving. And I believe the previous poster was saying that it would be nice if it is easy to screencast from your phone to the TV and allow visiting friends to be able to easily screencast their content as well - so if one person has a video they want to show everyone, it's not a hassle to pull it up on the big screen. I think this is what a lot of us want.
~Troop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea this is exactly what i'm lookin for been keeping an eye on it have google alerts set up for pretty much anytime miracast is being searched on the net to possibly find any tidbit of info that might be helpful with this. thanks Troop
video streaming
Hi all. Bit late to the party but my ouya comes tomorrow
Assuming no problems on sideloading why not just use
twonky. Been using for ages bouncing files between my
nas drive, xperia s, xoom2 and Xbox. Even adhoc with
android.......jus puttin it out there..... It's spot on even with
playlists and web streams.
This might sound crazy but what if we can eventually hack the Chromecast to cast the actual phone/tablet screen (such as you can currently with the desktop of a computer) and play Android games on an HDTV. Yes, we can just get the Ouya but this would be awesome. Now I have no idea if hacking something like this will make it possible, but this would be pretty cool down the road.
Edit: Something like this actually would be perfect. Had no idea this existed:
Miracast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYx9YNoD014
tanw42 said:
This might sound crazy but what if we can eventually hack the Chromecast to cast the actual phone/tablet screen (such as you can currently with the desktop of a computer) and play Android games on an HDTV. Yes, we can just get the Ouya but this would be awesome. Now I have no idea if hacking something like this will make it possible, but this would be pretty cool down the road.
Edit: Something like this actually would be perfect. Had no idea this existed:
Miracast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYx9YNoD014
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that the accessibility of this device and it's price are 2 things what will greatly help the community develop on this. Just like Samsung's All-Share Dongle, i do think it's only a matter of time before we can mirror our screen
I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.
larryvand said:
I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the most likely avenue for this would be to write an app that turns the phone (or laptop) into a "local cloud" that is streaming just like Netflix or Play Music. It would obviously take some development but I don't think it's too outlandish.
The problem with screen mirroring is lag. From what I have seen 250ms lag is the norm with Miracast. There is just no way around it with current tech. I think that is part of the reason for chromecast. It partially eliminates the need for screen mirroring. Chromecast gives the same ability of using your phone/tablet to browse and select content as does Miracast, but you get a full-screen experience with the best possible resolution depending on internet bandwidth. It is also not depending on your device to be the streamer as is the case with Miracast.
I expect to see another Google TV type device with the new Jellybean update and Chromecast that will be more geared towards gaming on the big screen. I predict we will see it in Q4 or Q1 of next year.
Lag might be there on some level, but it definitely doesnt have any impact the probability of chromecast and screen mirroring. Its not about how well it does it, it's about if i can. Its a 35$ gadget, lets not overthink this. If it's at all possible, 250ms lag would still be more than acceptable. Of course, thins would never be a gaming device where real time information in crucial
larryvand said:
I don't think you will be able to play local games from your table or phone in the near future for the simple reason that everything is being streamed from the cloud. Even Chromecasting the current tab or the full desktop, what happens is google sends your full desktop or tab to their cloud and then streams it back up. That adds the 1 second delay between what you see on your screen and what appears on your TV. Trying to play a real time game with a 1 sec delay will be nearly impossible. Maybe in the future when everyone will have a fiberoptic connections, if they can cut that delay down to 10ms, then I would say yes/maybe. But that much fast bandwidth is still out in the future.
The thing though about Chromecast is that Google has the right idea on where things are headed. This is by far the best innovation out there for your TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I'm unsure of how it exactly works, I don't think everything is necessarily streamed through the cloud. Using your phone or tablet to play netflix or youtube videos from the cloud - yes...
...but I was able to stream a local mkv video in a chrome tab on my desktop to the chromecast. I doubt it makes the round trip through google since I know my upload speeds are pretty bad. My guess is that google just executes the handshake and the video streams through your intranet directly.
pjsnyc said:
While I'm unsure of how it exactly works, I don't think everything is necessarily streamed through the cloud. Using your phone or tablet to play netflix or youtube videos from the cloud - yes...
...but I was able to stream a local mkv video in a chrome tab on my desktop to the chromecast. I doubt it makes the round trip through google since I know my upload speeds are pretty bad. My guess is that google just executes the handshake and the video streams through your intranet directly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct about chrome tab mirroring. It goes straight over your local network, but the native codec support of the current Chromecast device is lacking which may be improved by savvy developers found right here. However, since tab mirroring only works from PCs, I think it is a step backwards.
007shark said:
You are correct about chrome tab mirroring. It goes straight over your local network, but the native codec support of the current Chromecast device is lacking which may be improved by savvy developers found right here. However, since tab mirroring only works from PCs, I think it is a step backwards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My understanding is that if you have the correct codecs installed on your desktop/laptop with chrome, you should theoretically be able to play any file type. I saw a video of it working with plex or simply navigating your local drives with chrome. Whether or not native codec support is lacking on the chromecast is moot imho. Tab mirroring on a phone or tablet should eventually come, I just think the devices need more horsepower so to speak.
polish_pat said:
Lag might be there on some level, but it definitely doesnt have any impact the probability of chromecast and screen mirroring. Its not about how well it does it, it's about if i can. Its a 35$ gadget, lets not overthink this. If it's at all possible, 250ms lag would still be more than acceptable. Of course, thins would never be a gaming device where real time information in crucial
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am with you. I think this little device will be one of the more popular developer projects on xda.
---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
pjsnyc said:
My understanding is that if you have the correct codecs installed on your desktop/laptop with chrome, you should theoretically be able to play any file type. I saw a video of it working with plex or simply navigating your local drives with chrome. Whether or not native codec support is lacking on the chromecast is moot imho. Tab mirroring on a phone or tablet should eventually come, I just think the devices need more horsepower so to speak.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, so it is transcoding on the fly. I agree with you on not yet on the phones because of lack of processing power. Miracast is still the better option with portable devices even with the minor lag.
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.
007shark said:
...
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.
pjsnyc said:
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the DLNA for getting photos, videos, and music from my device to the TV. Samsung's AllCast from their phones/tablets work great this way even with non-Samsung DLNA devices. If Google implemented DLNA with Chromecast then a phone/tablet's native gallery and video apps could seamlessly work as the Netflix and YouTube apps do without a normal consumer understanding how it works. And also without having to sync everything to the cloud.
007shark said:
I like the DLNA for getting photos, videos, and music from my device to the TV. Samsung's AllCast from their phones/tablets work great this way even with non-Samsung DLNA devices. If Google implemented DLNA with Chromecast then a phone/tablet's native gallery and video apps could seamlessly work as the Netflix and YouTube apps do without a normal consumer understanding how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess this is where you and I disagree. The 'understanding how it works' part. For example - once you get chromecast set up with your laptop on your couch, sharing photos and videos with other people in your livingroom from facebook is easy to understand for anyone. 'Native' for the masses is what is currently showing in the browser tab.
pjsnyc said:
I guess this is where you and I disagree. The 'understanding how it works' part. For example - once you get chromecast set up with your laptop on your couch, sharing photos and videos with other people in your livingroom from facebook is easy to understand for anyone. 'Native' for the masses is what is currently showing in the browser tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is exactly the difference. I don't use a laptop in my living room. I use my tablet and/or phone. I think that is also the growing trend at least from my circle of friends and family.
EDIT: I use to watch TV with a laptop in my lap, but haven't done that in a couple years since I got a tablet.
For games we could see some games go to cloud based solution. This could work by your phone/controller sending information to the server that in turn sends back appropriate results to the Chromecast. So games aren't played on the phone but on the server the phone just sends commands.
Yeah miracast is sick
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium
pjsnyc said:
I kinda like it the way it is. While DLNA has been around for a while, I honestly havent seen a simple implementation of it yet (unless you lock yourself into one brand/ecosystem). I am excited that the hacking community is already tearing this thing apart, but the simplicity of setting it up and just getting it to work for the masses is ridiculous at this price.
I lucked out in getting mine - my coworker was able to arrange a pickup at bestbuy and sold it to me at price when he realized he couldn't mirror a mobile chrome tab.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://elinux.org/DLNA_Open_Source_Projects ?
007shark said:
I am with you. I think this little device will be one of the more popular developer projects on xda.
---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------
Okay, so it is transcoding on the fly. I agree with you on not yet on the phones because of lack of processing power. Miracast is still the better option with portable devices even with the minor lag.
I guess I am dreaming for, because Google surprised me with this gadget and I was unable to get one before they were all sold out, an all encompassing gadget that has DLNA, Miracast, and Chromecast in the same form factor. I think the DLNA might be able to be added to this. I doubt Miracast would be able to, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see any hardware limitations for Mircacast at this moment, still digging through the tech specs and kernel though
Has anyone found a way to send videos from XBMC addons such as mash up or 1channel to chromecast? It uses online streams usually just regular mp4 files. I know Google updated the Chromecast and that broke some apps but I also has read sometime else might have found a way to do it using WebRTC some how. Anyways I look forward to the day I can have XBMC on my laptop or tablet and send videos to the Chromecast like I can with Netflix and YouTube. Any info I'm this would be great.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Link_of_Hyrule said:
Has anyone found a way to send videos from XBMC addons such as mash up or 1channel to chromecast? It uses online streams usually just regular mp4 files. I know Google updated the Chromecast and that broke some apps but I also has read sometime else might have found a way to do it using WebRTC some how. Anyways I look forward to the day I can have XBMC on my laptop or tablet and send videos to the Chromecast like I can with Netflix and YouTube. Any info I'm this would be great.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like to know more about this too. Allcast has a time bomb.
I don't really understand why there isn't more interest in getting XBMC to work with Chromecast. It would basically let you watch anything you could possibly want to.
Off of a pi there's a good kit on eBay for 80 I believe it was...
I would love to do this!!!
would love it
I don't even use my Chromcast but this feature would change that.
A few problems with this, first SDK is still in preview mode and they haven't opened it up so everyone can add support for their apps willynilly. This means even if someone had a solution that works the way google wants their system to work they couldn't widely release it since it'd work on only devices that have been whitelisted for development.
You could possible treat whatever you want to view as a webpage and make it possible to watch something from XBMC using the tab casting feature, but this isn't as optimal as the just send a link and have the chromecast pull up the content itself. So this method doesn't really work on low powered devices meaning you definitely couldn't do it from the chromecast.
Another issue with running xbmc on a pi and using chromecast for the video feeds is you'd need a either a way to send the main menu to the chromecast so you could see it as you navigate it, or you'd need a second display just to navigate through the menus on the Pi. Not horribly efficient that second option.
GabrialDestruir said:
A few problems with this, first SDK is still in preview mode and they haven't opened it up so everyone can add support for their apps willynilly. This means even if someone had a solution that works the way google wants their system to work they couldn't widely release it since it'd work on only devices that have been whitelisted for development.
You could possible treat whatever you want to view as a webpage and make it possible to watch something from XBMC using the tab casting feature, but this isn't as optimal as the just send a link and have the chromecast pull up the content itself. So this method doesn't really work on low powered devices meaning you definitely couldn't do it from the chromecast.
Another issue with running xbmc on a pi and using chromecast for the video feeds is you'd need a either a way to send the main menu to the chromecast so you could see it as you navigate it, or you'd need a second display just to navigate through the menus on the Pi. Not horribly efficient that second option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the pi guy just meant setup a pi for XBMC and connect it to your TV without chrome cast. I want to use XBMC on my laptop or tablet and cast the videos to my chromecast.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Link_of_Hyrule said:
I think the pi guy just meant setup a pi for XBMC and connect it to your TV without chrome cast. I want to use XBMC on my laptop or tablet and cast the videos to my chromecast.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah well in that case, setting up a pi with xbmc is completely irrelevant to the chromecast, and has already been done http://www.raspbmc.com/
Edit: I realize the pi guy was saying this was possible with a Pi. But if someone is here they've most likely already bought a Chromecast as opposed to a Pi
It would be nice to see XBMC support in some way. Though I have currently switched to plex since you can pull up the interface via web and watch movies that way you can tab cast it rather nicely with a decent enough computer.
We probably won't see official support for plex or xbmc until the sdk comes out of preview release and you're not required to get your device whitelisted for the features to work, unless either group gets the preferential partner treatment like netflix, hulu, and pandora.
Well if everything I have read on this thread is correct I will not be buying a Chromecast soon.
I don't regret getting the chrome cast is totally worth it just for YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
XBMC over Chromecast through Avia
Using Smartphone - XMBC can be watched over Chromecast through Avia Player which costs $2.99. YouTube Video shows how.
http://youtu.be/vS-7hwYe4nw
Using Computer - XMBC can be watched over Chromecast through Avia Player which costs $2.99. YouTube Video shows how.
http://youtu.be/NCgP0r5Dvp8
Good Luck
Chromecast streaming could happen easily. You do not need to physically have a menu on chromecast...look at all the other apps like Netflix hulu. You pick what you want on your phone and throw it to chromecast. They just need to work in a casting button for XBMC and then all will be good since most videos are mp4 anyway
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I would love this as I just want a all in one solution that works perfect that dont cost me a arm and a leg and yet to find it.. this is close.. I got netflix hulu. I want amazin instant and xbmc.
(I have a ouya and a rasp pi but I just like how this works a lot better)
Hey im new to this chromecast. I can see my chrome browser on the pc but not on android, how can I do that? Sijce here are very experienced users oj chromecast can someone describe the full working potentials this device has?
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
You cant do squat with Chrome on Android yet for some odd reason.
Tab casting from Chrome uses the host CPU to re-encode the video and stream it to the Chromecast on-the-fly. Tablet and phone CPUs don't have enough processing power. That's why there's no Chromecast extension for Chrome on your portable device.
Well that sucks bc there is possibilities with this chromecast. I downloaded the allcast and obviously updated my google services. I cast a picture and it doesnt show normal, shows rotated to the left. Can you cast from the gallery vids and photos?
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
The man problem is the fact that Android Chrome does not support Chrome Apps and Extensions.
Something I'm told Google is working on...
Asphyx said:
The man problem is the fact that Android Chrome does not support Chrome Apps and Extensions.
Something I'm told Google is working on...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea they better be working on it, this has been out couple months now they need to update more
Sent from my GT-N8013 using xda app-developers app
Google is working on a way to mirror your android screen to the chromecast and we know this because on kitkat roms theres an option to cast screen but isn't quite working yet. Its only been coded in but thats it.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
tooblackforjack said:
Google is working on a way to mirror your android screen to the chromecast and we know this because on kitkat roms theres an option to cast screen but isn't quite working yet. Its only been coded in but thats it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Supported by HTC and Samsung since 2012 with their private dongles.
Not new, sorry.
EarlyMon said:
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Supported by HTC and Samsung since 2012 with their private dongles.
Not new, sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah ik, i was just informing in case he didn't know sorry.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
EarlyMon said:
KitKat roms have Miracast, a different protocol.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but Google has renamed it to Cast Screen. Clearly, they will be adding support for casting to Chromecasts directly inside of Android. Otherwise, renaming it to match the Chromecast nomenclature makes no sense.
bozzykid said:
Yes, but Google has renamed it to Cast Screen. Clearly, they will be adding support for casting to Chromecasts directly inside of Android. Otherwise, renaming it to match the Chromecast nomenclature makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because MiraCAST isn't confusing enough?
I'm aware that a number of blogs not familiar with Miracast are spreading that rumor. I think it's wishful thinking but we'll see, won't we?
http://www.howtogeek.com/177145/wir...ed-airplay-miracast-widi-chromecast-and-dlna/
http://readwrite.com/2013/11/07/android-kitkat-developers-users
A side note, Android 4.4 KitKat devices can now be certified by the Wi-Fi alliance as being Miracast compatible. That is a big step for Android in being able to stream content from a device to a television by supporting more streaming standards. Now only if the Chromecast supported Miracast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.androidpolice.com/tags/miracast/
So, you believe that WiFi Direct is coming to the existing Chromecast?
Or that in addition to Miracast, they'll be providing a second protocol for phones, with a server (like Koush did)? And people will be able to figure out the two casting options on their devices?
I think that it's far more likely that rather than put both protocols on a phone or into the existing Chromecast, it's more likely that DIAL support plus Miracast *might* appear in a Chromecast 2.
Miracast dongles already exist, it's February and the SDK libraries still aren't out, and in July, Chromecast will be a year old.
Apple TV costs $100 with this feature, a Belkin Miracast dongle is $80, an HTC Media Link HD is $100, the Samsung Allshare Cast Hub was a hundred, is $65 on Amazon now.
It's possible that Google is going to pump this in to the existing Chromecast for the faithful for free, but I'm just not feeling it.
Either way, so far KitKat includes Miracast, not DIAL.
EarlyMon said:
Or that in addition to Miracast, they'll be providing a second protocol for phones, with a server (like Koush did)? And people will be able to figure out the two casting options on their devices?
I think that it's far more likely that rather than put both protocols on a phone or into the existing Chromecast, it's more likely that DIAL support plus Miracast *might* appear in a Chromecast 2.
...
It's possible that Google is going to pump this in to the existing Chromecast for the faithful for free, but I'm just not feeling it.
Either way, so far KitKat includes Miracast, not DIAL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First part:
Since it's (Android) device mirroring functions appear to be in the SDK, but are limited only to OEM developers, my best-guess is that what we'll see is any Chromecast device mirroring will have to be "cooked" into a ROM rather than a loose bit (makes sense - that's how Samsung's AllShare Cast works too).
Hopefully the UX engineers win and make it so the Screen Mirroring option at least combines Google Cast and Miracast device options together, rather than having separate options for Screen Mirroring (Miracast) and Screen Mirroring (Google Cast).
Second part:
Yeah, not going to hold my breath. As I keep saying, screen mirroring is not the core competency of Chromecast.
bhiga said:
First part:
Since it's (Android) device mirroring functions appear to be in the SDK, but are limited only to OEM developers, my best-guess is that what we'll see is any Chromecast device mirroring will have to be "cooked" into a ROM rather than a loose bit (makes sense - that's how Samsung's AllShare Cast works too).
Hopefully the UX engineers win and make it so the Screen Mirroring option at least combines Google Cast and Miracast device options together, rather than having separate options for Screen Mirroring (Miracast) and Screen Mirroring (Google Cast).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both together sounds like a bit much, but it's possible.
Samsung is likely going their own way.
http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-an...ultiscreen-and-overlay-capabilities-28303309/
Second part:
Yeah, not going to hold my breath. As I keep saying, screen mirroring is not the core competency of Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree.
If you ask me any attempt to make CCast work like a Miracast would be a big waste, Even a downgrade!
No need for Direct Connection for Mirroring as Mirror over IP is far more flexible and less problematical. Not to mention requires no special software support like Miracast does. If they really wanted Miracast type direct mirroring all it would take is some additions to the rom cause hardware wise, the CCast has everything it needs
It may not be part of why the CCast was developed but I don't see Google being as smart as they are leaving that market open to Miracast dongles when they know full well the only thing inhibiting CCast from doing it (and better) is their lack of developing an App that does it for Mobile...
As for the Casting support in the SDK for OEM use I suspect that is more generic in nature and just an exposure of the display system to support Miracast, Perhaps CCast Mirroring and any other 2nd screen tech that comes down the pipe.
I think mirroring feature is a bit overrated myself, it's good for an audience but not for an operator's use.
It's easier to do than what CCast is trying to do because there is no need for a control protocol...Just a simple transcoder for Video and Audio the rest is all done on the Master Display device.
As for that Samsung option I don't expect it to take off due to proprietary concerns. It's meant for Samsung SmartTVs and I bet LG and Sony won't support it. Samsung would be better off building that capability directly into the TV itself.
DIAL is still in its infancy and I expect the protocol to expand as support and adoption of it grows...
Whatever lessons they learned from Chromecast I expect to be addressed whenever they get around to making the second gen CCast.
Wired Networking or at minimum 5Ghz Wireless support is to be expected as would a more robust Video playback Compatibility.
It's not likely that any app that adds CCast support is going to remove it in the future which means as the Apps list grows so too does the chance we have of seeing this supported without the need for a dongle at all.
TV over the Web will work the way it was supposed to and remove the biggest hurdle to achieving full IPTV to date...
The Navigation and Channel Guide no one could figure out how to do....
And who knew the Web Browser was the answer all along.
Samsung is still the largest supplier of flat screen TVs in North America, is it not?
Besides, they've never been shy about adding interfaces to support the future. I have a Samsung TV with a specialized iPod interface as proof. (And I believe that the article did say clearly that Samsung was going to build the new casting into their TVs.)
And none of the TV makers think twice about adding fragmenting features, and Samsung certainly doesn't for their mobile devices.
As for the claim that it's just about making a mobile app and declaring victory for screen casting, you might want to review the API changes that have been evolving for months.
Doing that without library support and not differentiating DRM vs non-DRM cast calls may seem simple to you but it doesn't to me.
Last published, Netflix and YouTube accounted for over 50% of North American broadband traffic.
Screen casting may be an emerging market, or it could just be a flash in the pan.
EarlyMon said:
Samsung is still the largest supplier of flat screen TVs in North America, is it not?
Besides, they've never been shy about adding interfaces to support the future. I have a Samsung TV with a specialized iPod interface as proof. (And I believe that the article did say clearly that Samsung was going to build the new casting into their TVs.)
And none of the TV makers think twice about adding fragmenting features, and Samsung certainly doesn't for their mobile devices.
As for the claim that it's just about making a mobile app and declaring victory for screen casting, you might want to review the API changes that have been evolving for months.
Doing that without library support and not differentiating DRM vs non-DRM cast calls may seem simple to you but it doesn't to me.
Last published, Netflix and YouTube accounted for over 50% of North American broadband traffic.
Screen casting may be an emerging market, or it could just be a flash in the pan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I guess Samsung is the largest supplier of Flat Screens in NA just like Apple is the biggest supplier of Smart Phones in NA...
Until you realize combine all the NOT Samsung Models into an US vs THEM and they are not the Majority by any means...Same with Apple vs Android as opposed to Apple vs Samsung itself.
As for the DRM you forget that DIAL doesn't care and leaves using or not using up to the content provider. It's there if you want it and if not you only have to support the DIscover and Launch capabilities.
Is Sony (who owns a majority of content compared to Samsung) going to cut out DIAL for Samsung's proprietary system?
Doubtful!
And since the CCast and DIAL supports ANY TV with HDMI input it has a far better chance of being adopted as a standard than Samsung's device is.
IMO most of the current desire for screencasting is really a "backup plan" for content that is currently not supported via DIAL. "___ isn't supported so I want to mirror my screen/tab."
So the mainstream correct solution would be to get the desired content providers on-board with Google Cast.
That would leave non-"canned" content for screen mirroring (games in a second screen model, general browsing, presentations, Skype, etc).
I'd love to see a native Skype for Chromecast using the microphone and controls on my tablet/phone with video on the TV but keeping it in sync might be nontrivial engineering on the Skype end.
Asphyx said:
As for the DRM you forget that DIAL doesn't care and leaves using or not using up to the content provider. It's there if you want it and if not you only have to support the DIscover and Launch capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can only invite you, again, to look at the actual casting API rather than rely on assumptions.
It's NOT the same as that last July and it absolutely, positively does recognize casting DRM content.
Start here -
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/apps-dev/emlKA4C-c90
And then Google for what's happened since, along with Koush's commentaries.
Is Sony (who owns a majority of content compared to Samsung) going to cut out DIAL for Samsung's proprietary system?
Doubtful!
And since the CCast and DIAL supports ANY TV with HDMI input it has a far better chance of being adopted as a standard than Samsung's device is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you even read the article to discover that Samsung is using a superset of DIAL and support by Sony, LG, and Panasonic TV sets is expected?
---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------
bhiga said:
IMO most of the current desire for screencasting is really a "backup plan" for content that is currently not supported via DIAL. "___ isn't supported so I want to mirror my screen/tab."
So the mainstream correct solution would be to get the desired content providers on-board with Google Cast.
That would leave non-"canned" content for screen mirroring (games in a second screen model, general browsing, presentations, Skype, etc).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you checked out what Vbukit is planning on supporting with Chromecast?
Pretty interesting, I think.
Not sure about getting Skype sorted out.
It seems like every time Skype updates, it's a step backwards, but that's just my off-topic opinion.
EarlyMon said:
Have you checked out what Vbukit is planning on supporting with Chromecast?
Pretty interesting, I think.
Not sure about getting Skype sorted out.
It seems like every time Skype updates, it's a step backwards, but that's just my off-topic opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, Vbukit is a little rough around the edges, but I can definitely see it being useful for presenters and educators especially.
Agree with you on Skype...
Back on-topic, there isn't a lot of technical copyright/DRM concern regarding casting anything you see on the screen - after all, if you can see it on the screen, you've seen it already. It's just that the legal types are not technical, highly likely to make crazy conclusions and assumptions, and get paid no matter what they do - so it's in their best interest to make issue of little things. I've personally seen warnings from the copyright hunters complete with ISP traces down to the router endpoint too, so they are watching and waiting to pounce.
I still hope an optimized device mirroring comes as something deeper within the Android OS itself.
Something akin to RemoteX in the Windows space, which is a "remote render" or offload of the graphic drawing functions. Anything that's not reliant upon a local bitmap could be rendered on Chromecast, rather than sent as large/inefficient bitmap data or CPU-intensive compressed data. That would make some "twitchy" games playable, especially if Chromecast has enough memory/storage to cache bitmaps that it does end up needing. Full-screen video, of course, doesn't benefit, nor does typical FPS games since the entirety of the screen is being updated with bitmaps.
For fun, I played a video on my phone and watched it on my computer (no audio) via TeamViewer. It took me back to the early 90's.
We've waited for apps and other optimized content this long, let's see what Google delivers.
Content providers have been successfully inhibiting HDMI and MHL output from their apps running on Android devices.
I believe that the casting API changes may have them in mind, but that's pure conjecture on my part.
I think it's ridiculous but so long as people check the boxes and agree to the terms of service, they're free to enforce it.
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...