4 ms·
DLNA is emphatically not a better solution, or even equivalent. The spec defines only a limited number of file types that are allowed to function. Why on earth
by Bud 13y ago
DLNA is emphatically not a better solution, or even equivalent. The spec defines only a limited number of file types that are allowed to function. Why on earth would I want to let multinational corporations decide which file types I want to use? For instance, MKV files, which would be in the top 2-3 file formats that most of us would want to use wireless streaming for in the first place, are not supported. All Apple products are, similarly, not supported. Noncompliant file types must be transcoded.
DLNA will die an instant and painful death the moment a truly open solution is adopted.
DLNA is the solution that TV companies and PC makers came up with to keep the lid on streaming and make the viewing of pirated content more difficult.
DLNA is widely despised for the same reasons that all DRM-crippled products are always despised.
- mootothemax 13y agoDLNA is widely despised for the same reasons that all DRM-crippled products are always despised. I question how despised DLNA really is, as I believe you might be letting your personal prejudices get in the way. Non-techies (and plenty of techies, including myself) just don't care as long as a given solution works, and the DLNA solution is pretty hard to beat: Plug in your TV, connect it to the network, and click on a video on your laptop to watch. Out of interest, what kind of open source solution do you envisage when you say that "DLNA will die an instant and painful death the moment a truly open solution is adopted"? Would it involve hardware, or something installed on the TV, or something else entirely? All Apple products are, similarly, not supported. FYI, my iPhone and iPad work just fine with it.
- highphive 13y ago"Out of interest, what kind of open source solution do you envisage when you say that "DLNA will die an instant and painful death the moment a truly open solution is adopted"? Would it involve hardware, or something installed on the TV, or something else entirely?" Did you click the link? This is an example of a truly open solution, and it involves hardware.
- mootothemax 13y agoDid you click the link? This is an example of a truly open solution, and it involves hardware. And it wouldn't lead to me replacing my DLNA-based setup, hence my question. I also question your description of "truly open," although that's me being a bit Stallman, granted.
- barista 13y agoIsn't Miracast the open solution that is open and supported by many?
- 0xndc 13y agoMiracast isn't "open" - devices require certification, and the Miracast and Wi-Fi Direct specifications cost $200 each. It's also supported by relatively few devices right now (since, you know, certification), and I seem to recall there are some compatibility issues between manufacturer implementations.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- simias 13y agoWhile I share your opposition to all things DRM I'm sure this wifi/HDMI dongle suffers from similar limitations regarding file types. Since the wifi stream can't be raw 1080p video it has to be re-encoded on the fly which will lead to some visual artifacts. If the encoding is well done it shouldn't be much of an issue however.
- Ecio78 13y agoI agree on the fact that DLNA is a messed up pseudo-standard, and we should have better. Having said so, I tell you that my 2012 Panasonic TV supports mkv streamed by minidlna (running on a 20$ ARM system, so we should all agree that it's not being transcoded)