Related
I love this OS. Can you list any features exclusive to WP7 or that WP does better than its competitors that you think MS should focus on in its ads?
1. Microsoft Office with SkyDrive – I have a SkyDrive folder on my pc where I store my company files. It is in constant sync with the phone which is AWESOME! Office Mobile is beautiful forWP7
2. Xbox Live - Easy
3. Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIN info & feeds all baked into the people hub with the ability to interact and instant post
4. Friends Facebook albums baked into the pictures hub
5. Facebook chat integration in messaging hub
6. Bing – Local Scout, Bing Vision and Bing Music are all baked in to search. Each of these would be great apps individually.
7. Dedicated camera button accessible even from lock screen
8. Not here yet but Skype baked in will be incredible
There are areas for improvement no doubt (Bing maps is awful); but this OS does many things much better than other OS’s and is certainly a far superior user experience to Android; I almost never have to re-boot. I love this OS and am very pleased with where it is right now but if MS doesn't pitch it right, I think it'll fail. Your thoughts?
Quite honestly, I think Microsoft has forgotten HOW to advertise, especially new products. They have been able to rest on their laurels for so long with Windows, it seems that they just assume that everything they release will sell itself. WP7 has some awesome features, and lots of potential, but I'm one of the few in my circle of friends that even knows it exists.
bluedragon1971 said:
Quite honestly, I think Microsoft has forgotten HOW to advertise, especially new products. They have been able to rest on their laurels for so long with Windows, it seems that they just assume that everything they release will sell itself. WP7 has some awesome features, and lots of potential, but I'm one of the few in my circle of friends that even knows it exists.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
absolutely.
the ones who has that also doesnt totally understand the things that are packed in the windows phone!
lets see if MS comes with guides and HOW to with RTM version official release
How many of you think in such a way. I mean the freedom we get in Windows RT is actually what an average user want with security. Heard WP Blue will share winRT APIs and other codes. So does that mean we will see freedom and app like file explorer limited to personal files, ability to have 3rd party audio and video players with full media api access ?? In short the sandbox model if Windows RT in WP...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Vishwal said:
How many of you think in such a way. I mean the freedom we get in Windows RT is actually what an average user want with security. Heard WP Blue will share winRT APIs and other codes. So does that mean we will see freedom and app like file explorer limited to personal files, ability to have 3rd party audio and video players with full media api access ?? In short the sandbox model if Windows RT in WP...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might be possible.
The plan is to get it there, I am not sure if Blue will bridge the platforms completely or just some APIs.
mcosmin222 said:
It might be possible.
The plan is to get it there, I am not sure if Blue will bridge the platforms completely or just some APIs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope it's former part of your last sentence. I want to operate my smart phone, not vise versa...
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
It would be nice. I don't wholly agree with Microsoft's approach to RT, either, mind you. I think that restricting things like Testsigning mode and kernel debugging and third-party drivers is harmful to the platform from a developer standpoint without providing any benefit to either Microsoft or the users. I think the restriction around desktop apps is silly and should be optional, even if the option is well hidden and/or contains dire warnings. I'll put up with those restrictions in return for Microsoft's current laissez-faire attitude about the "jailbreak", but even then I find the "secure boot" lockdown insulting; we bought the hardware and the software it comes with, and should be able to run whatever other software we want to on it.
With all that said, the RT world is miles ahead of the WP world. I'm not suggesting they should bring the desktop to WP - it's actually possible, and while it would be hard to click things the specs and resolution on the higher-end phones are more than sufficient - but some kind of file manager (or even the ability to write our own), some kind of scripting environment (closer to powershell than TouchDevelop), and some of the core utilities and features of Windows (ability to back up any and all files automatically, or to set per-app and per-sound device volume controls, or to create symbolic links in the filesystem) would be really nice, and full access to the registry would be fantastic.
The issue of security does become relevant here - I don't want any arbitrary app to have such registry access, for example - but I wish they would put in some way to do such things, even if only through a built-in special-privileges settings app. Besides, eventually we will find a way into the OS, and there's a decent chance that the exploit used will be something that *any* app could use. At that point, we might very well find malware exploiting those holes. Historically, the biggest breaks in device lockdown have come neither from malicious attackers nor from those who wish to pirate apps/games/whatever, but from those who simply want to use their own devices without BS restrictions getting in the way. The most famous example in recent histroy is probably the PS3, which was broken wide open after Sony seriously (and foolishly) pissed off some people by retroactively removing device features such as the ability to boot Linux. However, the same act plays out regularly on iOS (where the goal is control, but once the hacks are demonstrated they get used for both malware and piracy) and has also already been seen on RT.
If you want to make something secure, don't give the most talented people (who only rarely work for the blackhats or the pirates) an excellent reason to break its security wide open. This means the security has to stay out of those users' way, instead of constantly impeding them.
I actually would like to have the desktop available on WP as well but not necessarily if you are using it as a phone. But imagine connecting it via HDMI and having RT Applications + Desktop available. The hardware power is there, given that current WP8 devices run the same Qualcomm SoC that Dell uses in the XPS10.
API-wise I expect them to bring a lot more of WinRT over to WinPRT (especially on the managed side). I'm not sure if they will extend it to system-level concepts like a shared file-system - my feeling is that they won't do that but we'll have to wait and see how the APIs to access the SD card are progressing.
While I agree, the downside of doing that is that it greatly increases the install footprint. Windows RT has a much larger install footprint than other "mobile" OSes, and it has hurt platform adoption somewhat as well as increasing the manufacturing price of the tablets it runs on (because they need more storage; 16GB wouldn't really cut it). WP8 is even more space-sensitive; there are already WP8 devices with very little internal storage, and many phone lack any kind of expansion port. Adding the desktop and all of the desktop utilities (management console and all its snap-ins, all the little utilities like paint and wordpad and so on, plus all the libraries needed to support them) would add up to probably at least another few hundred megs; trivial on a PC, acceptable on a tablet, problematic on a phone.
Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...
p.nightmare said:
Since chromecast simply get an url or data to play content already "on the cloud", it will be possibile to emulate its behaviour with a chrome extension or something like that?
I'd love to use a chromecast-like interface on my desktop pc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...
htcsens2 said:
I'd second that. I'd love to see the ability to chrome cast TO a (widows) chrome browser.
I have a number of MCE PC's connected to HD TV's and computer with monitors throughout the house that would be great as the recipients of "casting".
At work I'd like to be able to look something up on my phone and then sent it to my nearest PC browser...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.
Jason_V said:
You mean like this? - http://goo.gl/NOoel
You won't be able to push Netflix to the browser the same way, but you can certainly do so with web content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah kind of like that but completely integrated into he chrome cast infrastructure and APIs so that it is compatible across all apps and is just one click on the new "cast" buttons that are cropping up at the top of all my Android apps now .... (Netflix, Youtube, Google music etc.)
There has been talk of 3rd party hardware makers being encouraged to support the standard so shouldn't be too hard to do proper chrome browser integration as a target.
I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:
here
p.nightmare said:
I can't believe no one has thought of it yet :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast
dz0ny said:
Here you go github.com/dz0ny/leapcast
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:
Nodecast is also an option
p.nightmare said:
awesome! I will definitely keep an eye on that :good: :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beside Leapcast (which is implemented in python), there is a JavaScript-/Node.js-Port in Git-Hub available. The port was made by Sebastian Mauer, the guy who wrote Cheapcast.
I spend the last weekend exeperimenting with both Nodecast and Cheapcast. Now Nodecast runs here in a Windows 8.1 virtual machine - and I'm able to stream from other Windows and Android-devices.
I wrote a few tutorials, how to setup Nodecast on Windows (it also possible to use similar steps in Mac OS X or Linux). The tutorial is currently only in German - but Google translate shall do the job.
Nodecast setup for Windows-tutorial: http://goo.gl/2ZU5Mm
Maybe it helps
Leapcast 2.0?
Anyone still working on Leapcast now that the 2.0 SDK came out? Lots of changes like going from DIAL to mDNS for one. Leapcast was very handy for running on a PC that was already connected to the TV. Sadly, all the apps compiled against the newer SDK won't work with it. They won't even discover it as a Chromecast now.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/...oakcolegkcddbk?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher
This was an attempt to do this but I never got it to work on my side.
Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calculate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.
Johny_G said:
Unfortunately, SDK 2.0 requires the Chromecast to calcate key using certificate issued by Google. We will probably wait a long time to see leapcast, CheapCast and NodeCast working again. It might not be even possible at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.
Averix said:
Not the best news, but thanks Johny for the insight.
If all the rooted ROMs can handle SDK 2.0 and Google's new authentication, there's probably a way to get the emulators up and running with it. Just a matter of time and determination I hope. I wish Google was a bit more open on the software side for the Chromecast. Having the new SDK for sender/receiver apps is great, but allowing companie/people to recreate the piece in the middle would also benefit them I would think. It would be tough for people to beat the Chromecast's price tag, but having other options would be good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't hold my breath. The ROMs get the upgrade essentially "for free" as it's part of the stock ROM code. Maybe the desktop players can take advantage of that, probably not, especially if it's a binary or relying on some kind of TPM or other function in the Chromecast hardware itself.
Having options is good for the consumer, but for a manufacturer, more options = more competition = more mouths to feed = lower margins = more work to keep competitive. One of the reasons Apple is so aggressive about protecting the exclusivity of its platform.
Warning! TL;DR below!
The point is, that every single Chromecast device has its unique ID, its unique MAC Address, and its (unique?) signed certificate. Also, it might have some kind of ID generated when you set the device up (similar to Push ID used in Google Cloud Messaging). Some of those (maybe all of them) have to play together to calculate the key. As soon as you pull the certificate out and put it in different environment, the result of the calculation won't match the SDK's expectations. So there is pretty good chance, that bypassing the key might be completely impossible without modifying the SDK itself (and it would require the developers to actually invest some effort to support these alternatives) and maybe the Chromecast device software as well. But who knows, the guys involved in those "emulators" are way smarter than most of us and might figure something out .
This is the biggest issue. The other one is, that everything has changed in the new SDK/API, and all of the methods used in those emulators are now deprecated and need to be implemented all over again in a different fashion to work with 2.0. This might actually be a good thing, since developers involved in testing of the way-too-rushed 1.0 seemed not to have a lot of kind words to say about it. I have attended one Chromcast block on a local conference, and it was basically 2 hours of swearing.
I've stumbled upon these issues today (and a bit of yesterday), trying to get my app working in the office (I forgot my Chromecast at home - again), and here are some sources if you are more interested in the topic:
https://plus.google.com/+SebastianMauer/posts/83hTniKEDwN
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/29#issuecomment-37288608
https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast/issues/96
As a developer, I have to say, that Google is making things awfully difficult lately, and the "don't be evil" policy seems to slowly fade away. They put way too much effort into marketing decisions, and have no time to properly test APIs and SDKs before they spit them out . Mostly, when trying some new Android-related technology (to be honest, its mostly Google Play Services technology these days, so AOSP starts to be completely useless), I spend most of the time working around things that nobody thought of (i.e. the Translucency API in KitKat was obviously tailored for Google Now Launcher, and is a huge PITA tu be used elsewhere) and fixing the broken samples that come with them. It might seem weird, but sometimes (say hello to Play Games Services and in-app billing v1+v2!) the sample is inseparable part of the final implementation, so you have to fix their rushed code anyway. I shouldn't be complaining, since things like that raise the value of developers willing to go through all of this in their spare time, but the change of philosophy still bugs me a lot. Google and Android used to be strongly community-oriented, and now the marketing is pulling it all away.
Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
Other companies like Roku are planning some DIAL support and I doubt highly they will have a CCast ID and Certificate.
In the end I think we will get something similar to this functionality from a player app like VLC on PC and MAC, or perhaps in Chrome itself.
Cause I think (and I may be totally wrong here) that it isn't the Apps we use that checks the Whitelist and IDs it is the CCast itself that when invoked to load a player app to stream it also checks the whitelist and tests security before it plays.
SO if someone created a program for PC that made the PC announce itself as a DIAL capable device that when connected to loads the app into Chrome, I bet most of it would work.
Might not work with any of the DRM sites like Netflix and Hulu but for things like local content and unprotected streams I see no reason why it wouldn't.
In fact I bet the trouble some are having with Channels in Plex and others would go away because a PC Chrome instance would be able to play many more Transport types than a CCast can currently.
Asphyx said:
Should the goal really be to emulate a Chromecast or should the effort be geared toward supporting DIAL protocol?
I would think the latter is the better option because you could support whatever the hardware supports without the limitations imposed on us from CCast Hardware.
Maybe I'm wrong but I always looked at DIAL as an extension of UPnP and separate from the CCast itself and the Chromecast SDK as not much more than a kit to add DIAL support to Android (and iOS) not meant to build anything on the CCast side at all.
.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you. I could actually care less about emulating the specifics of what's in the Chromecast hardware. What I do want is the ability for those unrestricted apps (ie not Netflix) to be able to use their Cast button to find, connect to, and use whatever the emulator is. The new CC SDK doesn't use DIAL to do the initial search any longer. It now uses mDNS. All of the previous apps (YouTube, Pandora, etc.) are still using the old API and DIAL discovery which appears to be backward compatible with the new Chromecast stick software. If you look at the debug logs of the stick, both the v1 and v2 APIs are accounted for. As for Roku, my guess (I haven't started digging in on what they're up to yet) is that they have an app that is using DIAL for discovering the Roku and then just acting as a remote control for all the box functions. Chromecast was a bit more unique since it could basically load up anything from the web as a receiver/playback client since the software is just basically a Chrome browser with some wrappers around it. That's what made it much more dynamic without having to load "channels" in the box within a custom framework like Roku does.
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.
Averix said:
And Bhiga, as for economics on Google providing the software to other hardware makers, I think it it would actually be in their best interest. The Chromecast right now has to be either close to at cost for them or a loss leader. If they can get the Cast API to become a default standard on new consumer devices, that would help them take over that space. To me, that is such a better proposition for them than trying to get the complexities of something like GoogleTV into TVs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mDNS actually makes discovery a lot easier - mDNS = Bonjour = what Apple and TiVo use for discovery already.
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal. At this stage an Android emulator probably would help adoption, but my point was that a desktop emulator doesn't necessarily add to the rate. If someone starts looking to using a desktop because they think they don't need a Google Cast device, they'll likely runs across Plex and Miracast and may decide they don't need Google Cast at all.
bhiga said:
I agree with you that adoption of the API and protocols is the goal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish Google agreed with us.
Averix said:
I wish Google agreed with us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bet anything there are some at Google who do agree with us but when your as BIG a company as Google is it takes forever to get everyone on board and thinking along the same lines enough to manifest it into an end product.
In the end what all if this really tells us is how much DLNA Consortium has failed to standardize Media Distribution by not going far enough and thinking of it from the end user ergonomic experience.
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...
Asphyx said:
If this discovery and launch capability was more fleshed out in the DLNA specs we might not be talking about DIAL and mDNS right now.
At some point all these protocols (DLNA, UPnP, DIAL) should be merged into one standardized protocol that any platform can use.
Probably years away though...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My concern is that unless Google is willing to push this as a standard rather than just apps for one dongle, it will only be a matter of time before the giant (un)friendly fruit company swoops in and AirPlay becomes the defacto standard that all TV makers, set top makers, and anyone else are forced to build in. It's not quite the same as how DLNA and UPnP have become sort of irrelevant, but it could pan out that way for the Google Cast API without more hardware devices having the capability built in. Time and market pressure will tell I guess.
Dears,
My name is Thomas and I bought a Google mini for my home few weeks ago.
I know that Google released a new device called Google home hub, that is a home smart control. It's a beautiful idea, but in Italy is not already released.
My idea is to create with another tablet a smart home control with Google home like Google home hub.
Do you think it is possible to do? Which kind of apk can I download to release it?
Thank you for your help
I've got 2 Nexus 7 2013's that would do this role perfectly. I imagine the "Hub" app is a launcher of sorts, perhaps it will be ripped soon
maysa said:
I've got 2 Nexus 7 2013's that would do this role perfectly. I imagine the "Hub" app is a launcher of sorts, perhaps it will be ripped soon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hi,
yes, better mic and external speaker is needed, but old tabled is maybe even better than new google hub...you can use Camera for surveillance too...
hope we found the way how to install it on old tablet...
by
kikanx
I've been thinking the same thing since the announcement of the Google Home Hub.
I have the original Nexus 7 with charging dock/stand that will be ideal.
Anyone extracted the app?
I would like some easy to use home control screen
Afaik on a Google hub it is not Android, it is good wear os.
Pisley1989 said:
Dears,
My name is Thomas and I bought a Google mini for my home few weeks ago.
I know that Google released a new device called Google home hub, that is a home smart control. It's a beautiful idea, but in Italy is not already released.
My idea is to create with another tablet a smart home control with Google home like Google home hub.
Do you think it is possible to do? Which kind of apk can I download to release it?
Thank you for your help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It’s not Android OS exactly, it’s “Android Things” powered by Google Assistant, so you can’t install APKs etc... it’s very basic and was made to be this way.
Wondering how difficult it would be for someone, with the proper know how, to make an app the emulated the functions of the home hub. But as an app
---------- Post added at 02:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 AM ----------
Wondering how difficult it would be, for someone with the know how, to make an app that emulated the features of the Home Hub. I get that these companies want to make money peddling more screens, but almost everyone has an old phone or tablet laying around that would be perfect for this.
myshyak said:
Afaik on a Google hub it is not Android, it is good wear os.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a modified Cast OS.
thinking the same ... Waiting for some ideas or project....
kuri_2k said:
It’s not Android OS exactly, it’s “Android Things” powered by Google Assistant, so you can’t install APKs etc... it’s very basic and was made to be this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Home Hub is running it's own Cast OS type system but other smart displays use Android Things. Android Things in fact DOES use APKs. So we shouldn't be looking at the Home Hub for this capability - we need the other smart displays broken down to find this.
Also I'm studying how to recover an old Android tablet and turn it into a Google home hub. Using only the home application of the play store does not turn it into a hub, so you can not command with different user voices and add other family accounts.
No one have found a solution? I have an old Samsung Galaxy tab 3 sitting on my desk, it would be great.
Not suggesting it should be done, but if the home hub has a standard USB docking port, perhaps it might be possible to copy system files with an otg cable connected to a laptop... they have to install the system files somehow, and I doubt that is done via wifi.
Can anyone tell me ?hav there any alternative of google home app(apk) alternative?!
By which we can control google products(chromecast,mini etc) without a google account
Pisley1989 said:
Dears,
My name is Thomas and I bought a Google mini for my home few weeks ago.
I know that Google released a new device called Google home hub, that is a home smart control. It's a beautiful idea, but in Italy is not already released.
My idea is to create with another tablet a smart home control with Google home like Google home hub.
Do you think it is possible to do? Which kind of apk can I download to release it?
Thank you for your help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can use home assistant (hass.io) you run the server on another computer and connect it with the Google assistant. Boom
Hi,
The Google Home Hub runs Fuchsia, not Android, Cast OS, or any other operating system Google has created. Fuchsia is a completely different operating system with its own kernel, APIs, and architecture, which (afaik) carries little to no compatibility with Android apps YET. Without a lot of effort, you are unlikely to get the Hub software running on non-hub hardware, let alone non-Fuchsia software.
Best of luck,
Eric Rabil
It would be amazing. Even with a dedicated apk.
Hope to see smtg soon
https://www.lifewire.com/google-assistant-on-windows-4628292
Can this be done on a tablet?
Ambient mode is being released on some new phones and tablets, perhaps it will eventually get a wider release. And maybe someone will develop a Magisk module to make it work on other models. Here's a link to more details about Ambient mode. This could bring new life my old Nexus 7 and 10.
https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/09/05/google-assistant-ambient-mode-mobile/
my question is that How does google home communicates with devices? Please reply I'm a newbie and got stuck here. Your help will be highly appreciable and it will mean a lot to me.
Hello Manishthakur,
1) you should specify your Q more. Why do you ask?
2) to communicate with Chromecast in your TV it uses Wi-Fi network (802.11b/g/n/ac (2.4GHz/5Ghz))
3) to stream music to other (BT) speakers it uses Bluetooth 4.1
source
Hi chrnec,
My question was how does google home communicates with compatible devices? What is the process?
Can u give an example of that compatible device? I still cant get where you heading to.
Maybe you want to know if connection is direct (local) or if cloud and internet is used?
Yes my question is to know if connection is direct (local) or if cloud and internet is used?
And if a self made product is there how we can make that device communicate with google home? this is second and last question.
Unfortunately my knowledge is not sufficient for this. Mybe someone else will help us to understand this.
But read this:
At I/O, Google rolled out a developer kit similar to what C by GE uses so more companies can enable setup in the Google Home app. This Local Home kit could also make your smart home faster. Instead of communicating with the cloud of every third-party device, the kit allows your smart speaker to store cached versions of certain commands. They can then process the command locally and communicate with the device directly over Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everything You Need To Know About Google Home
Andrew Gebhart - https://www.cnet.com/how-to/everything-you-need-to-know-about-google-home/
Also you should lear smt about IFTT, if your DIY device will have web interface control page you can use IFTT to connect it with your Google Home device.