5 ms·

I wish Google would open up the ability for open source software to act like a Chromecast device, so that all the Chromecast-enabled apps could cast to it. The

I wish Google would open up the ability for open source software to act like a Chromecast device, so that all the Chromecast-enabled apps could cast to it. The basic UX of casting video from an app on my phone is the way I want to control my screens, and every application you care about supports it. But only Chromecast devices are allowed to be the server. And Chromecast devices don't do the things I want them to. I want to attach a PC to my screen instead, but still be able to cast videos to it from all the apps that support Chromecast. Unfortunately it's locked down with certificates and such, so it's impossible to create a Chomecast-compatible device without Google's blessing (or someone leaking the keys). Is this because of piracy concerns? But almost all of these apps have in-browser versions that do work on regular PCs. And there is HDCP and whatnot. I don't care about being able to access the video stream itself, I just care about being able to customize the UX around it...

surajrmal 2y ago
I'm going to guess it's about ensuring a good experience. Miracast (and a number of other technologies) have shown how varied the user experience can be if there are many different implementations. It's easier to compete on quality with apple's airplay this way. This isn't to say it's not possible to achieve this via other means, but that's probably more costly with little upside.
- patmorgan23 2y ago
  Chromecast don't use Miracast 99% of the time. The content provider builds and publishes a client app for the chromecast that gets downloaded and will download and play the content directly, it does not bounce through your phone first. The expectation being if you're casting local content/screens, then it's probably Miracast.
hawski 2y ago
I had Chromecast 2 for a couple of years. For some time now when you cast YouTube it shows this TV "app" (instead of a static image) that urges you to log in. But you can't, because Chromecast 2 is not supported. I pay for YouTube Premium and if I would use the interface as they present they will show me ads and pester to log in, when they know it doesn't work. I bought a 4k projector a few months ago and bought Chromecast 4k thinking it is just a Chromecast for UHD, but the Google TV thing in it is something I don't like. The remote is also silly, because it is too symmetrical. It often happens that one grabs it upside down and wonder why it doesn't work. The remote doesn't support my soundbar, so the volume buttons do nothing instead of just doing software volume as before. If it could at least learn the codes. Now I start to feel that the best experience for me would be to use a ChromeOS device (i.e. a Chromebox) and create an Android app that would appear in share menus for URLs and Chrome extension, that would open sent URLs. There could be a bit more goodies to that. ChromeOS supports Android apps, but also Linux apps and services so it can run emulators, Syncthing and different media servers. At the same time you can watch Netflix on full quality. The only thing it doesn't support is optical media. ChromeOS devices can be cheap and good enough, so the EoL dates (which they prolong quite often) are not scary. ChromeOS so far is one of the things from Google which keeps getting better.
mrandish 2y ago
It's amazing to me that there's no simple, built-in way to wirelessly display my Windows laptop to my TV so it just looks like I've connected an HDMI cable (minus some slight lag and compression artifacts). Instead every built-in casting method I've tried (chromecast, miracast, etc) looks like hell, the whites are blown out, the colors are inaccurate and the aspect ratio is off. And this is on a 4K HDR10 TV with 100% of a >1GBps, low latency 5 GHz connection. It's bad enough that I don't use wireless and instead keep a long HDMI cable coiled up behind the TV for when I need to connect the laptop. I assume there must be some Windows program + side-loadable app that's high-quality, low-latency and actually looks like the laptop screen connected via HDMI. Would appreciate any recommendations...
- kevincox 2y ago
  I wonder this a lot. Often times I am taking a break from my computer to cook or whatever and feel like in 2023 I should be able to just move the video I was watching to my TV, or the audio to the networked speaker in the kitchen. There are solutions to this, but all proprietary with limited support across different devices.
  - mrandish 2y ago
    Currently, I don't connect the laptop and instead view the content via a side-loaded app on the streaming stick connected to the TV (either Fire TV or Google TV depending on the room). * If it's content on my local server I use Kodi local. * If it's streaming content I use a Kodi plug-in for the streaming service. * If it's YouTube I use the SmartTube app (which is fantastic and actually makes YouTube usable again). It's easy to just go to History in SmartTube and pick up wherever I was on laptop/desktop.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Google has to promise to do some kind of service-providing API when they landed Presentation API (2015) to let the web talk to Chromecast devices. There's Open Screen Protocol doing just that. https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol Worth mentioning, Netflix+YouTube's DIAL protocol (2013) also wasn't bad. I haven't given it much of a look but Matter Cast protocol is out there. It seems far more limited, and only can run specific apps on specific devices? Glowing review recently but seems like junk to me; platform agnostic actually seems to mean devices hosting only specific apps. https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/10/24153556/fire-tv-amazon-matter-casting-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/10/24153556/fire-tv-amazon-m...

surajrmal 2y ago

I'm going to guess it's about ensuring a good experience. Miracast (and a number of other technologies) have shown how varied the user experience can be if there are many different implementations. It's easier to compete on quality with apple's airplay this way. This isn't to say it's not possible to achieve this via other means, but that's probably more costly with little upside.

patmorgan23 2y ago
Chromecast don't use Miracast 99% of the time. The content provider builds and publishes a client app for the chromecast that gets downloaded and will download and play the content directly, it does not bounce through your phone first. The expectation being if you're casting local content/screens, then it's probably Miracast.

hawski 2y ago

I had Chromecast 2 for a couple of years. For some time now when you cast YouTube it shows this TV "app" (instead of a static image) that urges you to log in. But you can't, because Chromecast 2 is not supported. I pay for YouTube Premium and if I would use the interface as they present they will show me ads and pester to log in, when they know it doesn't work. I bought a 4k projector a few months ago and bought Chromecast 4k thinking it is just a Chromecast for UHD, but the Google TV thing in it is something I don't like. The remote is also silly, because it is too symmetrical. It often happens that one grabs it upside down and wonder why it doesn't work. The remote doesn't support my soundbar, so the volume buttons do nothing instead of just doing software volume as before. If it could at least learn the codes. Now I start to feel that the best experience for me would be to use a ChromeOS device (i.e. a Chromebox) and create an Android app that would appear in share menus for URLs and Chrome extension, that would open sent URLs. There could be a bit more goodies to that. ChromeOS supports Android apps, but also Linux apps and services so it can run emulators, Syncthing and different media servers. At the same time you can watch Netflix on full quality. The only thing it doesn't support is optical media. ChromeOS devices can be cheap and good enough, so the EoL dates (which they prolong quite often) are not scary. ChromeOS so far is one of the things from Google which keeps getting better.

mrandish 2y ago

It's amazing to me that there's no simple, built-in way to wirelessly display my Windows laptop to my TV so it just looks like I've connected an HDMI cable (minus some slight lag and compression artifacts). Instead every built-in casting method I've tried (chromecast, miracast, etc) looks like hell, the whites are blown out, the colors are inaccurate and the aspect ratio is off. And this is on a 4K HDR10 TV with 100% of a >1GBps, low latency 5 GHz connection. It's bad enough that I don't use wireless and instead keep a long HDMI cable coiled up behind the TV for when I need to connect the laptop. I assume there must be some Windows program + side-loadable app that's high-quality, low-latency and actually looks like the laptop screen connected via HDMI. Would appreciate any recommendations...

kevincox 2y ago
I wonder this a lot. Often times I am taking a break from my computer to cook or whatever and feel like in 2023 I should be able to just move the video I was watching to my TV, or the audio to the networked speaker in the kitchen. There are solutions to this, but all proprietary with limited support across different devices.
- mrandish 2y ago
  Currently, I don't connect the laptop and instead view the content via a side-loaded app on the streaming stick connected to the TV (either Fire TV or Google TV depending on the room). * If it's content on my local server I use Kodi local. * If it's streaming content I use a Kodi plug-in for the streaming service. * If it's YouTube I use the SmartTube app (which is fantastic and actually makes YouTube usable again). It's easy to just go to History in SmartTube and pick up wherever I was on laptop/desktop.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

Google has to promise to do some kind of service-providing API when they landed Presentation API (2015) to let the web talk to Chromecast devices. There's Open Screen Protocol doing just that. https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol https://github.com/w3c/openscreenprotocol Worth mentioning, Netflix+YouTube's DIAL protocol (2013) also wasn't bad. I haven't given it much of a look but Matter Cast protocol is out there. It seems far more limited, and only can run specific apps on specific devices? Glowing review recently but seems like junk to me; platform agnostic actually seems to mean devices hosting only specific apps. https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/10/24153556/fire-tv-amazon-matter-casting-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/10/24153556/fire-tv-amazon-m...