3 ms·
There's three common methods for wireless screen local sharing: • Miracast, from the Wi-Fi Alliance, an open and free standard that works reliably, without a n
by dlcarrier 5mo ago
There's three common methods for wireless screen local sharing:
• Miracast, from the Wi-Fi Alliance, an open and free standard that works reliably, without a need to even have a local Wi-Fi network, despite being developed by an organization who's entire purpose is to promote Wi-Fi equipment
• Google Cast, a proprietary protocol from Google, requires a common access point connection to share a screen, and it often takes multiple attempts, for it to load a shared screen before it times out
• AirPlay, a proprietary protocol from Apple, also requires a common access point connection to share a screen, but at least it loads reliably
Miracast is probably the most supported by TVs, but Apple doesn't include it on their phones, and while many Android phone manufacturers do include support, Google doesn't on their Pixel phones. Because of that, it's likely the least used of the three, despite being the best.
- mmmlinux 5mo agoIve never used Miracast. Does it not monopolize your WiFi card? Which would be fine if you want to show a keynote or something, but if you want to stream a video or anything requiring network access...
- dlcarrier 5mo agoThere's no technical reason it should. When I've used it on my phone, it's indicated that it's still connected to the WiFi network, but I've never specifically tested to verify that it was.
- CharlesW 5mo agoIt's a bummer that Wi-Fi Alliance completely fumbled basics like standards for naming (Miracast has 30+ names) and UX consistency. It's not much of a mystery why Apple is throwing its weight behind Matter Casting and even Google Cast.
- theturtletalks 5mo agoI had heard about FCast and it looked promising but many apps don’t support it https://fcast.org https://fcast.org