Both my TV and my HTC One have Miracast support so i had this working a couple of months ago, making the connection is very unreliable though, so i hope the Chromecast can improve this.
A general thing is that as more and more devices become "smart" in terms of features and protocols etc, it becomes more and more apparent to me how bad the software is on many of these devices. My TV and my router are just some recent examples of buggy firmwares on top of very good hardware. The router supports lots of features like DLNA and VPN which can hardly be called stable and the interface and usability is really dated. Hardware and performance (Netgear R7000 Gigabit Wifi Router) is pretty awesome though.
I think there's a huge startup opportunity somewhere in building reliable, stable router software with a slick webinterface built in Bootstrap (without framesets).
Of course, there's the Apple Airports that have excellent stability and UI, and while I have one and far better than any router I've owned, it doesn't do stuff like VPN.
Depends on which Apple Airport you're utilising. In my experience the Airport Express line (wall socket mounted range extender/WiFi AP) is pretty bad. Seems to get quite hot under medium loads and needs to be reset a lot. Seems like a design trade-off in the sense that Apple went with something small and easy to conceal, but in doing so kind of ignored the heat dissipation.
The Airport Extreme base stations seem pretty solid. But are 100% more expensive than a comparable Asus offering. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if they offer 100% more value to you.
I would also like to say that in this day and age having to use an app/application to configure your router just feels wrong to me. Every router on the market has had a web-server/webUI since the Linksys WRT54G became popular. It is obvious Apple does it as an ecosystem lock-in technique, just to stop Windows/Linux/etc clients from trivially configuring the devices.
AirPort Express is not in wall-socket format anymore. I own the latest one - I only use it for AirPlay streaming/WiFi bridge, but it has been 100% stable (as long as you connect it to another AirPort - other routers will cause random disconnects). Yes it gets hot - any fanless device gets hot - but hot enough to damage anything. Only bad thing is it doesn't have 802.11ac.
Also, sure, you're probably right about the vendor-lock in thing. But I also think Apple wants to make sure the user gets a good experience. With a Web app it's harder to do that. But the apps are really nice and simple to use, and after I set up a device I don't mess with it besides opening up ports. That's just the tradeoffs you live with when you get Apple devices.
That's why I think there's a huge opportunity in creating well designed, good-looking, user friendly network equipment.
Ubiquity's EdgeMax is a reliable, stable, and inexpensive router that I have started to roll out all customers. EdgeOS is a fork and port of Vyatta 6.3 (think Junos) and is under constant development with a great beta program. Their devs are active on their corporate forum and are open to suggestions and support.
Some features that I have used and like:
- Solid hardware
- Debian based base OS
- Nice Web Admin for common tasks like port forwarding, FW, routes, etc.
- Stable VPN
- Advanced VLAN configs
- Class-based QoS with shaping
- DHCP snooping
- Port mirroring
I have a MikroTik router (http://www.mikrotik.com/) and it's amazing. They expose configuration knobs through three almost-equal interfaces: a custom shell over SSH, a web interface and a Windows application.
That thing never stops, once it's set up you forget its there and only have to reboot it to update the software (which happens around once a month and it's an event you can skip if it contains no security patches).
I love my MikroTik also but quick word of warning: MikroTik devices are NOT consumer devices, RouterOS doesn't hide anything from you so the interfaces can seem quite complicated to the uninitiated.
It is super powerful and I've never had to reset mine due to a lockup (although plenty of times due to misconfiguration on my part), but they're really competing with SMB network equipment at less than 1/4th the price (and require technical knowledge to really take advantage/utilise of).
If you're a network admin or have a lot of time to play (and are willing to read up on stuff you don't understand) then by all means grab a MikroTik router for your home or small business. If you're just some consumer who wants it to "just work" I definitely don't think RouterOS is for you, maybe grab an Asus and install DD-WRT.
We have always been using AShot successfully till now, though the name is misleading, it basically streams the Android screen to your laptop, try it http://sourceforge.net/projects/ashot/
Hmm - this is basically transmitting screenshots via the Android SDK, right? If so, then yeah, I've been using a similar library called droidAtScreen. I just wish there was a simple way to broadcast Android to a PC at full framerate, a la iOS' Airplay...
I've tried ChromeCast with my Ubuntu. It works perfectly. Even screen mirroring, while friends on OS X had problems with it. Just check for Chrome extension.
My Chromecast doesn't work too great due to my router, but I'm hopeful that it will once they release the feature that removes the need for the Chromecast and casting device to be on the same network.
It DOES NOT however not work on bad wifis and networks. Verify you your router configuration (there's tons of routers that block multicast over Wifi by default which doesn't work well with Chromecast) and wifi network quality.
It doesn't work well on good WiFi either. My work WiFi requires a username and password, so it isn't possible. My home WiFi isolates all clients. Any hotel WiFi I ever saw requires a click through agreement.
You bought a smartphone of 130 $, so you have a low-end phone.
Want a smartphone, buy whatever you want. Want a decent one, spend more then 299 $ ( current situation / most cases ).
I come accross enough discussions, where someone bought the cheapest smartphone and always wants the latest features. Just didn't think it would be here also...
[1] says that support for other devices is coming soon. Given that Motorola is at the moment still Google, runs nearly vanilla Android, and is usually quick to get new features, I wouldn't be surprised if at least the Moto G and X get this soon as well.
The Moto E is really a low-end device, with a relatively weak CPU, so I wouldn't expect too much at all. Of course, having a Chromecast is still great for apps that support Chromecast.
Does it bring up a phone and display apps as they would appear on a phone? Or do you just get a fullscreen, list of apps etc? I just basically want a bigger, 1 to 1 direct display of my phone on the screen for demonstrating and testing apps. Anyone know if this is possible with Chromecast?
I'm still not sure which side you're on. I think the Chromecast is a slightly more polished product, like many computer bits, you can get better value if you're prepared to have to work a bit or not care about how things look.
The use cases they list (images and google maps) are great for static or slow loading sources. Does this work for video? Can I stream video that's playing on my phone to the Chromecast and have it look decent? Because that'd be amazing and I would be extremely happy!
I've not yet seen a consumer device were video rendering is done on one device then displayed wirelessly on another that works well at all. (Note, most Chromcast apps - Netflix etc) just tell the Chromecast what to play and it does the rendering.
Eh? I can run XBMC on my MacBook Pro, mirror to AppleTV using the feature built in to OS X, and watch video on my TV without dragging my laptop to the living room.
Personally I get a fair amount of stuttering when I mirror any device (iPad mini retina, iPhone 5s, MBP retina early 2013). Its not alot and some people would not notice/care, but it bugs me. Is yours running as smooth as with AirPlay streaming (e.g. what the youtube app does)?
I have tried looking into my wireless network, with no result. I am just not sure if it is as good as it can be but some people don't care, or I should keep looking.
Video streaming, but the Chromecast can do that perfectly fine as well. Screen streaming of video is terribly laggy and has an ugly quality, at least on our home network (with an Airport extreme).
KitKat really should have been released for the device before official support was discontinued. I kind of feel fleeced given it was a flagship Nexus device (for Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich!)
I believe there were a couple problems; the SoC manufacturer getting out of the SoC business (TI) made driver development difficult, and the fact that the image didn't fit in the Galaxy Nexus's flash anyway.
Though it does appear that CynaogenMod eventually ported ICS, so I could be wrong.
On the second point, KitKat is supposed to run reasonably well on very weak cheaper mobile hardware with 512mb RAM, which is popular in developing countries.
Galaxy Nexus has fairly high specifications with 1gb RAM, and at least 16gb of storage (which presumably is where the operating system is on this device), so I doubt the image size was the issue.
There is indeed a Cyanogen Mod ROM available (but I'm not sure how much trust CM). I wonder if Chromecast Android screencasting would work with the CM ROM..
Reminds me of www.tinystic.com ,Tinystic promises to deliver the same thing and allow you to use your phone as a computer, video game, movie playing device, etc.
Well that kinda takes the wind out of the sails of the cyanogenmod peeps. I wonder what the quality is. Anyone know if it will have decent frame rates?
I'm confused... this feature has been available in CM11 nightlies for at least a month now (Nexus 4 here).
Frame rate seems good enough for YouTube, though audio stopped working (didn't get sent to the ChromeCast, and wouldn't play on the device either) while the video was playing.
There is a slight lag with Chromecast mirroring. A HDMI adapter (MHL/Slimport/etc) with a wireless controller (I use a PS3 controller) is still going to be a better option.
Android has had it for quite some time also if you have a smart tv with dlna support(most of the newer ones). What's new is the support in chromecast. Does the ios solution work with any smart tv or do you need an airplay?
Android has had Miracast support (with display mirroring) for a while now...just nobody used it. Chromecast is/has the potential to be a much more widely used and supported protocol.
Edit: Yep, restarting did the trick. Have media apps without Chromecast support suddenly become Chromecast capable? This is pretty awesome.
Edit 2: Why yes, yes they have! Now if only I could stream audio only ...