13 ms·

I love my Chromecast and use it extensively. This is what Miracast should have been, something that "just worked" and seamlessly interconnected devices. But in

I love my Chromecast and use it extensively. This is what Miracast should have been, something that "just worked" and seamlessly interconnected devices. But instead Miracast is yet another classic example of "death of committee" where tons of big media and hardware companies wanted to get their features and DRM in, and as a direct result we now have dozens of completely incompatible Miracast devices. I think this table accurately sums of the Miracast issue: http://i.imgur.com/I2QmeZe.jpeg http://i.imgur.com/I2QmeZe.jpeg And that is my experience too. Samsung works only with other Samsung "allshare" devices, Sony works only with other Sony "Xperia" devices, and so on. Ironically my Samsung TV has a YouTube app which can almost act like a Chromecast built in, and that is the only reliable way to stream content to the thing. I've never been able to get Miracast on either the Samsung or Sony to work reliably (both 2013 models). My only slight complaint right now about Chromecast is that I cannot stream from VLC but hopefully with the release of this SDK that might change in time. PS - If Chromecast becomes popular this really will isolate Apple's iTunes video. Most other video providers/renters work with Chromecast (Hulu, Netflix, Play Store, et al), or with apps on your TV already. Apple is the only large digital content provider which wants to force us to buy their proprietary device ("Apple TV") to watch their proprietary content. It really does decrease the value for Apple's content. In fact I'm just not going to buy Apple's DRM-ed video anymore, as I have to plug in a HDMI cable to watch it on my TV.

xur17 13y ago
I also use mine extensively. The interface for Netflix alone makes it worth it, even if you already have another device that works with netflix. I'm really excited to see what new apps, etc come out, now that my biggest complaint has been solved (no public api).
mmanfrin 13y ago
Apple is the only large digital content provider which wants to force us to buy their proprietary device ("Apple TV") to watch their proprietary content. It really does decrease the value for Apple's content. In fact I'm just not going to buy Apple's DRM-ed video anymore, as I have to plug in a HDMI cable to watch it on my TV. People said that about iTunes, no?
- untog 13y ago
  I'd argue that the long term future of iTunes isn't fantastic. Individual music companies (Spotify, Rdio) are providing better experiences than Apple can.
  - __david__ 13y ago
    Really? I don't like spotify compared to iTunes. I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music. Once I buy it from iTunes, it's mine to use as I please, it's not locked up in some stupid custom DRM-laden app (which is fairly ironic).
    - untog 13y ago
      I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music. But Spotify doesn't lock you into anything.
      - __david__ 13y ago
        If I don't pay the monthly fee then I can't listen to albums on my phone. That's pretty much the definition of lock-in.
    - saltysugar 13y ago
      iTunes videos are DRM-ed
      - __david__ 13y ago
        Yes, we're discussing music not video.
isomorphic 13y ago
Out of curiosity, what have you been using your Chromecast for? I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid: I have iOS devices, AppleTVs, and a home server running iTunes. Admittedly, the iTunes server is serving video and music that is ripped from legitimately-acquired spinning-discs, so perhaps I haven't tasted the iTunes Store Kool-Aid. I purchased a Chromecast right at launch. As far as I could tell, the only things it did well was Netflix and stream YouTube. However, for my purposes, the AppleTV was better at both, so I literally put the Chromecast in a drawer. When someone announced a jailbreak for it, I took it out of the drawer, rooted it, fiddled with it some more, then put it back in the drawer when I realized I was just wasting my time. I'm not trolling, here; I really want to know how you use it. Is it that is works better with Android devices? Is it providing a better, open, AirPlay alternative? I just don't understand how it is in any way more useful than existing STBs--if not the AppleTV then, e.g., a Roku.
- skelsey 13y ago
  Your friends with Android phones can't cast to Airplay, but they can cast to Chromecast.
  - untog 13y ago
    Cast what though, beyond YouTube and Netflix?
    - spankalee 13y ago
      Play Music & Movies, Pandora, Hulu, Chrome tabs, HBO Go, Plex... See http://chromecast.com/apps http://chromecast.com/apps for the current list. I really only use Google Play, Netflix, YouTube and tab casting though.
      - untog 13y ago
        I know what's available- I have one myself, I just don't ever use it. I don't have a Hulu Plus subscription, nor do I buy music/video through the Play Store. Chrome tab performance is weak at best. I guess I'm just hoping for a lot more than what I have right now.
eclipxe 13y ago
As someone who works day-in and day-out with Miracast devices, you're a little bit off. The problem isn't really with features and DRM leading to incompatibility. The HDCP portion of Miracast is pretty straightforward and isn't often the problem. The problem (as seen with the charts) is manufacturers that are sorta-kinda-using Miracast but not really. For example the Samsung AllShare devices were never advertised as Miracast capable, but they happen to work (sometimes). Same with the HTC Media Link. Customers get these dongles or TVs and expect it to work with other Miracast devices, even though they aren't really Miracast. Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are. The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast, but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming. For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now). Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are. People said exactly the same thing about Miracast in 2013 and 2012. We still aren't anywhere with it. It is more broken than it is working, it is a giant mess. > The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast You can fullscreen cast. > but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming. Except for the tab casting and full screen casting..? > For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now). You're strangely contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge that tab casting is a thing,then you pretend that tab casting isn't something it does and use that as justification for Miracast's superiority? Very confusing. Also "only have a single sink device" is total gibberish. Even assuming the word "sync" it is still nonsense, both Miracast and Chromecast only support a single device on either end (sender and receiver). PS - Chromecast works with other devices. It isn't just desktops. People already made apps that could send a full Android "desktop" to the Chromecast back in the early days before Google killed it with an update. I'm sure it will return with the release of this SDK. > Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better. It is an identical surface area between the two.
sciurus 13y ago
So you're saying that the chromecast (created by google) works well with android (created by google) and chrome (created by google)? And you love this, because it's so much better than Miracast where Samsung only works with Samsung, Sony only works with Sony, etc? I agree it's a shame that a standard like Miracast has incompatible implementations. However, creating another protocol just makes that situation even worse.
- Johnie 13y ago
  Netflix on iOS works well with the Chromecast.
  - oaktowner 13y ago
    Johnle - Indeed. It works better with Chromecast than Netflix on Android in my experience!
  - avtar 13y ago
    I wish I could be in this club. Instead Netflix/Chromecast will complain, more often than not, about not being able to stream content. The only workaround seems to be to perform a factory reset and even that is temporary. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromebook-central/oYVmhIvZASI/ZtNwPlhctNYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromebook-central/oYV... http://www.ibtimes.com/chromecast-update-refreshes-google-dongles-home-screen-owners-complain-about-problems-1505698 http://www.ibtimes.com/chromecast-update-refreshes-google-do...
talonstriker 13y ago
It's a lot easier for things to "just work" when one company controls the entire stack. That being said, as others have pointed out, ChromeCast and Miracast solve different problems. One is something more of a Wireless DLNA solution while the other is real-time streaming.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I'm trying to figure out why my Chromecast's video sucks so badly. On my 1080p HDMI TV the pictures it uses look great but if I try to cast something to it, it looks like badly scaled crap. I selected "hyper high res" mode or what ever they called it which helped but many it still looks pretty crappy.
lnanek2 13y ago
I've had the entirely opposite experience here. Miracast just works for me. I have the Netgear receiver and I've used it with several different phones - Samsung, HTC, and LG. In fact, I know your chart is wrong because my LG Nexus 4 works fine with it. Meanwhile Chromecast is a joke. It doesn't work at work because our employee network requires a username and password and our guest network requires a click through agreement. It doesn't work at the hotels I stay at because again, they have a click through agreement. It works about half the time on personal WiFI APs where the person wasn't security conscience enough to turn on client isolation. The thing is nearly useless for me. Miracast uses WiFi Direct so works trouble free and lag free. Chromecast is some bizarre crappy second computer that has to connect to the network, but has very little capability to actually connect in the real world.

xur17 13y ago

I also use mine extensively. The interface for Netflix alone makes it worth it, even if you already have another device that works with netflix. I'm really excited to see what new apps, etc come out, now that my biggest complaint has been solved (no public api).

mmanfrin 13y ago

Apple is the only large digital content provider which wants to force us to buy their proprietary device ("Apple TV") to watch their proprietary content. It really does decrease the value for Apple's content. In fact I'm just not going to buy Apple's DRM-ed video anymore, as I have to plug in a HDMI cable to watch it on my TV. People said that about iTunes, no?

untog 13y ago
I'd argue that the long term future of iTunes isn't fantastic. Individual music companies (Spotify, Rdio) are providing better experiences than Apple can.
- __david__ 13y ago
  Really? I don't like spotify compared to iTunes. I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music. Once I buy it from iTunes, it's mine to use as I please, it's not locked up in some stupid custom DRM-laden app (which is fairly ironic).
  - untog 13y ago
    I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music. But Spotify doesn't lock you into anything.
    - __david__ 13y ago
      If I don't pay the monthly fee then I can't listen to albums on my phone. That's pretty much the definition of lock-in.
  - saltysugar 13y ago
    iTunes videos are DRM-ed
    - __david__ 13y ago
      Yes, we're discussing music not video.

isomorphic 13y ago

Out of curiosity, what have you been using your Chromecast for? I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid: I have iOS devices, AppleTVs, and a home server running iTunes. Admittedly, the iTunes server is serving video and music that is ripped from legitimately-acquired spinning-discs, so perhaps I haven't tasted the iTunes Store Kool-Aid. I purchased a Chromecast right at launch. As far as I could tell, the only things it did well was Netflix and stream YouTube. However, for my purposes, the AppleTV was better at both, so I literally put the Chromecast in a drawer. When someone announced a jailbreak for it, I took it out of the drawer, rooted it, fiddled with it some more, then put it back in the drawer when I realized I was just wasting my time. I'm not trolling, here; I really want to know how you use it. Is it that is works better with Android devices? Is it providing a better, open, AirPlay alternative? I just don't understand how it is in any way more useful than existing STBs--if not the AppleTV then, e.g., a Roku.

skelsey 13y ago
Your friends with Android phones can't cast to Airplay, but they can cast to Chromecast.
- untog 13y ago
  Cast what though, beyond YouTube and Netflix?
  - spankalee 13y ago
    Play Music & Movies, Pandora, Hulu, Chrome tabs, HBO Go, Plex... See http://chromecast.com/apps http://chromecast.com/apps for the current list. I really only use Google Play, Netflix, YouTube and tab casting though.
    - untog 13y ago
      I know what's available- I have one myself, I just don't ever use it. I don't have a Hulu Plus subscription, nor do I buy music/video through the Play Store. Chrome tab performance is weak at best. I guess I'm just hoping for a lot more than what I have right now.

eclipxe 13y ago

As someone who works day-in and day-out with Miracast devices, you're a little bit off. The problem isn't really with features and DRM leading to incompatibility. The HDCP portion of Miracast is pretty straightforward and isn't often the problem. The problem (as seen with the charts) is manufacturers that are sorta-kinda-using Miracast but not really. For example the Samsung AllShare devices were never advertised as Miracast capable, but they happen to work (sometimes). Same with the HTC Media Link. Customers get these dongles or TVs and expect it to work with other Miracast devices, even though they aren't really Miracast. Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are. The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast, but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming. For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now). Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
> Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are. People said exactly the same thing about Miracast in 2013 and 2012. We still aren't anywhere with it. It is more broken than it is working, it is a giant mess. > The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast You can fullscreen cast. > but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming. Except for the tab casting and full screen casting..? > For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now). You're strangely contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge that tab casting is a thing,then you pretend that tab casting isn't something it does and use that as justification for Miracast's superiority? Very confusing. Also "only have a single sink device" is total gibberish. Even assuming the word "sync" it is still nonsense, both Miracast and Chromecast only support a single device on either end (sender and receiver). PS - Chromecast works with other devices. It isn't just desktops. People already made apps that could send a full Android "desktop" to the Chromecast back in the early days before Google killed it with an update. I'm sure it will return with the release of this SDK. > Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better. It is an identical surface area between the two.

sciurus 13y ago

So you're saying that the chromecast (created by google) works well with android (created by google) and chrome (created by google)? And you love this, because it's so much better than Miracast where Samsung only works with Samsung, Sony only works with Sony, etc? I agree it's a shame that a standard like Miracast has incompatible implementations. However, creating another protocol just makes that situation even worse.

Johnie 13y ago
Netflix on iOS works well with the Chromecast.
- oaktowner 13y ago
  Johnle - Indeed. It works better with Chromecast than Netflix on Android in my experience!
- avtar 13y ago
  I wish I could be in this club. Instead Netflix/Chromecast will complain, more often than not, about not being able to stream content. The only workaround seems to be to perform a factory reset and even that is temporary. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromebook-central/oYVmhIvZASI/ZtNwPlhctNYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromebook-central/oYV... http://www.ibtimes.com/chromecast-update-refreshes-google-dongles-home-screen-owners-complain-about-problems-1505698 http://www.ibtimes.com/chromecast-update-refreshes-google-do...

talonstriker 13y ago

It's a lot easier for things to "just work" when one company controls the entire stack. That being said, as others have pointed out, ChromeCast and Miracast solve different problems. One is something more of a Wireless DLNA solution while the other is real-time streaming.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I'm trying to figure out why my Chromecast's video sucks so badly. On my 1080p HDMI TV the pictures it uses look great but if I try to cast something to it, it looks like badly scaled crap. I selected "hyper high res" mode or what ever they called it which helped but many it still looks pretty crappy.

lnanek2 13y ago

I've had the entirely opposite experience here. Miracast just works for me. I have the Netgear receiver and I've used it with several different phones - Samsung, HTC, and LG. In fact, I know your chart is wrong because my LG Nexus 4 works fine with it. Meanwhile Chromecast is a joke. It doesn't work at work because our employee network requires a username and password and our guest network requires a click through agreement. It doesn't work at the hotels I stay at because again, they have a click through agreement. It works about half the time on personal WiFI APs where the person wasn't security conscience enough to turn on client isolation. The thing is nearly useless for me. Miracast uses WiFi Direct so works trouble free and lag free. Chromecast is some bizarre crappy second computer that has to connect to the network, but has very little capability to actually connect in the real world.