Wireless HDMI for Everyone(indiegogo.com)
indiegogo.com
Wireless HDMI for Everyone
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airtame-wireless-hdmi-for-everyone--2
152 comments
Firstly the public use cases are cool and could be really useful; my criticisms are with home use. My TV doesn't have USB ports for a start and the current setup I have is a 10m HDMI cable that is long enough to connect to my laptop on the sofa, it cost about $15 and is hassle-free.
This is just a first step, and I applaud the effort. Death to cables!
A 10m HDMI cable connecting your TV to your laptop on the sofa is not hassle-free---that cable is the hassle. I'm doing the same things, and I find it a hassle but haven't yet been willing to cough up the $100 for an Apple TV + AirPlay wireless solution. Unfortunately, their dongle costs nearly as much.
Is it though? I mean, it just hangs over the arm of the sofa and I plug it in when needed. Plus HDMI is one of the few ports on my MBP I don't need an adapter for.
I get that cable free would be awesome but as I understand it we need significant advances in inductive charging to make that happen.
I get that cable free would be awesome but as I understand it we need significant advances in inductive charging to make that happen.
Yea, I was excited about this until I saw that the source has to be a machine that can run their software.
My dream atm is for a low-cost wireless HDMI sender for projecting stuff like xbox to my office (would be nice to play a bit of GTA while I wait for files to copy ;), that work in a similar way to the RF SCART senders you can pick up from most electronics stores.
My dream atm is for a low-cost wireless HDMI sender for projecting stuff like xbox to my office (would be nice to play a bit of GTA while I wait for files to copy ;), that work in a similar way to the RF SCART senders you can pick up from most electronics stores.
That will be the next step, but it all has to start somewhere :-)
You don't need a USB port. It plugs into the HDMI port.
You have to plug it in the USB port too to supply it with power
If you dont have a usb port on tv(or if power is not enough to drive the device) you can always get a usb charger right ? Which is definitely less hassle than 10m HDMI cable.
Me, my laptop and my 30m ethernet cable felt the same way about Wifi for the longest time (this was pre-smartphones). Yet finally getting wifi felt like dropping a yoke.
That said, my TV has networking and DLNA and has pretty happily played any video file I've thrown at it yet, so I don't really need to hook up my computer.
That said, my TV has networking and DLNA and has pretty happily played any video file I've thrown at it yet, so I don't really need to hook up my computer.
It's only marginally cheaper than an Apple TV.
... and over 2x the cost of Chromecast ... and then there's Roku.
What strikes me is how the Apple TV is really in the "good enough" zone for iOS and recent Macbook users. After so many years there's no clearly better solutions to show some random content on the TV.
I had a guest come over to show a video recorded on their iphone via airplay; when the video was about to start the apple TV flunked out with a HDCP error. I'm sure the digital rights owner(1) of the video appreciated that.
(1) my guest who recorded the video with his own phone.
(1) my guest who recorded the video with his own phone.
Chromecast, cheaper, and no Apple universe buy-in.
I'm an Apple fanboy, but the Apple TV DRM-crippled walled garden isn't anywhere near good enough for me.
I simply want any device to send a signal to my TV. It's trivial with cables, modern wireless technology can cheaply carry high quality signals, and the only thing standing in the way is the copyright mafia.
I simply want any device to send a signal to my TV. It's trivial with cables, modern wireless technology can cheaply carry high quality signals, and the only thing standing in the way is the copyright mafia.
What? Unless the entirety of your information about the AppleTV comes from Cory Doctorow posts, you know that the only places DRM comes into the picture are when streaming pre-existing content from premium sources (iTunes Store, Netflix, Hulu).
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from loading a DRM-free h.264 file on another one of your Apple devices and streaming that over AirPlay. And HTML5 video in Mobile Safari works beautifully.
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from loading a DRM-free h.264 file on another one of your Apple devices and streaming that over AirPlay. And HTML5 video in Mobile Safari works beautifully.
> "on your Apple devices"
That's the problem. Apple has DRMd the protocol so you have to be using an Apple device to send things to it.
That's the problem. Apple has DRMd the protocol so you have to be using an Apple device to send things to it.
Not (entirely) true at all! Someone reverse-engineered most of the Airplay protocol, so you could (if you wrote software to do it) do the same stuff on Windows/Linux/Etc: http://nto.github.io/AirPlay.html
For video streaming, you basically just have to send it a URL to a video file, and it'll stream and play it for you just fine.
For video streaming, you basically just have to send it a URL to a video file, and it'll stream and play it for you just fine.
The DRM on Netflix is so strange. On my parents' AppleTV and some Toshiba TV, they often get HDCP errors when viewing Netflix. Now, Netflix works on plenty of other devices without HDCP. So the addition of DRM there achieves absolutely nothing other than to delay or cause errors for legitimate users.
Does it support HDCP? I don't see any mention of it, but not supporting it would imply that you can't play your DRM-protected iTunes streams via an Airtame adapter. (I totally agree that DRM is fundamentally a broken idea, but alas, that's the current state of affairs).
State of affairs on itunes. How about not using iTunes for video?
Sadly, any compliant player for HD-Content will do the same. I'd be surprised if you're more successful with netflix, but I can't test since I'm not a netflix customer. There's enough people reporting problems with netflix and not HDCP compliant setups though.
Open source players are fine, but there's still the problem of finding a streaming service that supports open-source players or even just HD content without DRM. Now, you can go and torrent all your videos you'd like to watch but some of use prefer the ease of use and the legality of using an existing streaming service.
Open source players are fine, but there's still the problem of finding a streaming service that supports open-source players or even just HD content without DRM. Now, you can go and torrent all your videos you'd like to watch but some of use prefer the ease of use and the legality of using an existing streaming service.
I sympathise, but isn't that really the point: if you can't re-stream it how you want, is the existing streaming service really easy to use?
As I said in my previous post: I think DRM is crappy and stupid, but that's how things currently are. And since there are devices that support HDCP over the air (apple tv, HP Wireless Connect, DLNA) the "ease of use" factor is given. I doubt consumers will be all-pleased if they buy an Airtame and netflix doesn't work.
(BTW: I don't think that Streaming Services just implement DRM because they think it's fun and I don't expect right holders will be enlightened any time soon)
(BTW: I don't think that Streaming Services just implement DRM because they think it's fun and I don't expect right holders will be enlightened any time soon)
Their software is open source, that means if funding goes success and they release their software we could use any mini pc running ubuntu (or raspberry pi) as the dongle for tv.
Actually, the dongle (according to the pic) has an Allwinner A10 processor, which is the one that came on the first Android TV dongles that popped up more than a year ago.
Even though a bit old and single-core, it's more than enough to stream some H.264, and back then it was a quite awesome processor for 7$/ea approx. Now they will be even cheaper.
Even though a bit old and single-core, it's more than enough to stream some H.264, and back then it was a quite awesome processor for 7$/ea approx. Now they will be even cheaper.
And I hope their software would eventually support Android , which is really awesome for cheap android phones without WiDi. Even if they dont officially support some one would eventually port it to Android devices. Which makes it out of box solution for any Android tv stick.
Why not use miracast/WiDi? We really don't need another solution, we need devices that work with the existing standard. All new intel laptops and android phones can transmit, but there are hardly any affordable receivers.
We strive for the "clouds", and Miracast/WiDi with it's WiFi-Direct dependence isn't really future proof...
Sadly a better solution already exists: my 2012 Panasonic TV connects wirelessly to my network, and my laptop can stream videos to it without having to install anything, all via DLNA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance
Here's Panasonic's page outlining such features in their TVs:
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/VIERA+TV/VIER...
It's a lovely idea for retrofitting to older TVs, and sharing between laptops is really neat. For anyone who's bought a TV in the last couple of years, though, the device is redundant.
(it's also apparently very easy to share content from smartphones, tablets and so on, but I haven't had the need (or a chance) to independently play with this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Living_Network_Alliance
Here's Panasonic's page outlining such features in their TVs:
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/VIERA+TV/VIER...
It's a lovely idea for retrofitting to older TVs, and sharing between laptops is really neat. For anyone who's bought a TV in the last couple of years, though, the device is redundant.
(it's also apparently very easy to share content from smartphones, tablets and so on, but I haven't had the need (or a chance) to independently play with this)
Can someone suggest a dnla server to use? I have intel macs with movies on them. Ideally it would be a commandline program I could start to serve any ofthe files in a directory or in a simple to create with the output of find playlist file.
MiniDLNA works extremely well on linux, and a quick Google search shows links for how to get it working (albeit hackily) on a Mac. It might be worthwhile to run a VM on your Mac with an easy linux distro like Ubuntu to run MiniDLNA.
I use it daily on an Arch Linux server as well as occasionally threw an Ubuntu VM on Windows 7. Works seamlessly in either case, and better than most other DLNA servers I've tried in terms of file format support and reliability.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/
I use it daily on an Arch Linux server as well as occasionally threw an Ubuntu VM on Windows 7. Works seamlessly in either case, and better than most other DLNA servers I've tried in terms of file format support and reliability.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/minidlna/
Thanks:
http://reliablybroken.com/b/2010/12/running-minidlna-on-mac/
minidlna -d -f ~/minidlna.conf
with media_dir=..., this exactly what I was looking for, thanks again.
http://reliablybroken.com/b/2010/12/running-minidlna-on-mac/
minidlna -d -f ~/minidlna.conf
with media_dir=..., this exactly what I was looking for, thanks again.
Glad to help! (also I meant "through*" in the original post, but you got the point...haha)
How can you call it a better solution? I totally don't get it.
You don't need to install anything, it's plug&play and open source. And can you stream to multiple tv's with that panasonic setup? And if you have multiple tv's from diferent models? A nice solution is something that doesn't rely on specific models or brands.
You don't need to install anything, it's plug&play and open source
Yes you do, on their page it says "Install our AIRTAME application on your computer..." under step 2.
And can you stream to multiple tv's with that panasonic setup. And if you have multiple tv's from diferent models?
You have the choice of which screen to stream to.
If you mean "can you stream 1 video from 1 laptop to multiple screens as the same time," then I honestly have no first-hand experience so couldn't say.
DLNA has many members, so I would presume different models and brands would work.
From the Wikipedia page I linked, the members include:
ACCESS, AT&T Labs, Awox,[12] Broadcom, CableLabs, Cisco Systems, Comcast, DIRECTV, Dolby Laboratories, DTS, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HTC, Huawei, Intel, LG Electronics, Microsoft, Nokia, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Sony Electronics, Technicolor, and Verizon.
Yes you do, on their page it says "Install our AIRTAME application on your computer..." under step 2.
And can you stream to multiple tv's with that panasonic setup. And if you have multiple tv's from diferent models?
You have the choice of which screen to stream to.
If you mean "can you stream 1 video from 1 laptop to multiple screens as the same time," then I honestly have no first-hand experience so couldn't say.
DLNA has many members, so I would presume different models and brands would work.
From the Wikipedia page I linked, the members include:
ACCESS, AT&T Labs, Awox,[12] Broadcom, CableLabs, Cisco Systems, Comcast, DIRECTV, Dolby Laboratories, DTS, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HTC, Huawei, Intel, LG Electronics, Microsoft, Nokia, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Samsung Electronics, Sony Electronics, Technicolor, and Verizon.
Not sure on multiple TVs, but I thought DLNA was gaining wider adoption. My brother's got a TV that's not Panasonic and it has DLNA as well, and he can stream to it.
Would be nicer to simply have a wireless standard that devices - DVD players, boxes, etc - would bundle so that we didn't needs cables to the TV box. Or... hey - maybe just wireless audio from a TV to external speakers (bluetooth 4?) to cut down on wires.
Would be nicer to simply have a wireless standard that devices - DVD players, boxes, etc - would bundle so that we didn't needs cables to the TV box. Or... hey - maybe just wireless audio from a TV to external speakers (bluetooth 4?) to cut down on wires.
Downside of wireless audio is you still need to power the speaker.
but you can often position the speakers where you want closer to power too.
I just want a fast way to mirror my computer screen onto the TV (wirelessly). Does DLNA support this? From the description it's not clear.
On the other hand I can clearly see that this project supports it, "Duplicate your screen" is the first feature listed there.
On the other hand I can clearly see that this project supports it, "Duplicate your screen" is the first feature listed there.
It doesn't appear to. Everything I've seen focuses on pictures audio and videos
Does DLNA support this? From the description it's not clear.
Honestly, I've no idea; if you like I can have a play tonight when I get home and let you know?
I can clearly see that this project supports it, "Duplicate your screen" is the first feature listed there.
Hah, that's quite funny; if you skip to the "Use Cases" section, it's all about consuming media, whereas the screen mirroring is highlighted as an extra feature. I guess the page neatly segmented you and I into our respective markets!
Honestly, I've no idea; if you like I can have a play tonight when I get home and let you know?
I can clearly see that this project supports it, "Duplicate your screen" is the first feature listed there.
Hah, that's quite funny; if you skip to the "Use Cases" section, it's all about consuming media, whereas the screen mirroring is highlighted as an extra feature. I guess the page neatly segmented you and I into our respective markets!
I came up with a hack to do this. Basically I streamed my screen into a file, and then served that file with a DNLA server (which transcoded it into something the TV would eat).
The result was pretty because source -> youtube -> my screen -> mp4 -> mpeg.
Although it won't be so bad, I really see re-encoding artefacts being the problem here. Although Wireless N can have enough bandwidth to send video at a good quality.
The result was pretty because source -> youtube -> my screen -> mp4 -> mpeg.
Although it won't be so bad, I really see re-encoding artefacts being the problem here. Although Wireless N can have enough bandwidth to send video at a good quality.
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.
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.
DLNA 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.
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.
"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.
Did you click the link? This is an example of a truly open solution, and it involves hardware.
Did 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.
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.
Isn't Miracast the open solution that is open and supported by many?
Miracast isn't "open" - devices require certification, and the Miracast and Wi-Fi Direct specifications cost $200 each. It's also supported by relatively few devices right now (since, you know, certification), and I seem to recall there are some compatibility issues between manufacturer implementations.
[deleted]
While I share your opposition to all things DRM I'm sure this wifi/HDMI dongle suffers from similar limitations regarding file types.
Since the wifi stream can't be raw 1080p video it has to be re-encoded on the fly which will lead to some visual artifacts. If the encoding is well done it shouldn't be much of an issue however.
Since the wifi stream can't be raw 1080p video it has to be re-encoded on the fly which will lead to some visual artifacts. If the encoding is well done it shouldn't be much of an issue however.
I agree on the fact that DLNA is a messed up pseudo-standard, and we should have better.
Having said so, I tell you that my 2012 Panasonic TV supports mkv streamed by minidlna (running on a 20$ ARM system, so we should all agree that it's not being transcoded)
Sadly DLNA is only for sharing and streaming files. If all you want is playing movies from your laptop, it should work. If you want to play e.g. something from youtube, it will work only if you find a player that supports DLNA. If you want to play a game, it just won't work because it's not intended for it.
Second, while it looks good on paper, last time I've tried even playing movies sucked:
* it's buggy and "almost, but not really" compatible. Getting a Sony TV to see anything non-Sony took an entire evening. There were no error messages, the only feedback was "it works" vs "it hangs up for 30 seconds and then timeouts".
* Because it's build around sharing files, if you want to play a movie you need to make sure it's using a codec supported by your TV or it'll need to be transcoded it on the fly. Only some DLNA servers support transcoding, user-friendly ones and the servers built into devices often don't. Then the only video codec that works reliably with all/most devices is MPEG2 with limited bitrate. There was a small but perceptible loss in quality when playing high bit-rate x264 video.
* There's a difference between a DLNA "server" and a DLNA "controller", the "server" serves files, the "controller" is the user interface you use to select a movie to play, play/pause/stop, change volume etc. Many apps support one but not the other. If the app you put on your phone is a "dumb" DLNA server without a controller, then you can select the movies/music/pictures only by navigating the menus on your TV (which hopefully has a controller built in).
* All problems have workarounds, but these cause more problems. E.g. in the server i settled on the, transcoding data was saved to disk to a separate video file that grew and grew until i ran out of disk space. Would you know that before playing a movie you need to make sure you have 100GB of free disk space? Yes, in theory the software could hide all this from me, but it isn't there yet and it doesn't look like it ever will be.
Second, while it looks good on paper, last time I've tried even playing movies sucked:
* it's buggy and "almost, but not really" compatible. Getting a Sony TV to see anything non-Sony took an entire evening. There were no error messages, the only feedback was "it works" vs "it hangs up for 30 seconds and then timeouts".
* Because it's build around sharing files, if you want to play a movie you need to make sure it's using a codec supported by your TV or it'll need to be transcoded it on the fly. Only some DLNA servers support transcoding, user-friendly ones and the servers built into devices often don't. Then the only video codec that works reliably with all/most devices is MPEG2 with limited bitrate. There was a small but perceptible loss in quality when playing high bit-rate x264 video.
* There's a difference between a DLNA "server" and a DLNA "controller", the "server" serves files, the "controller" is the user interface you use to select a movie to play, play/pause/stop, change volume etc. Many apps support one but not the other. If the app you put on your phone is a "dumb" DLNA server without a controller, then you can select the movies/music/pictures only by navigating the menus on your TV (which hopefully has a controller built in).
* All problems have workarounds, but these cause more problems. E.g. in the server i settled on the, transcoding data was saved to disk to a separate video file that grew and grew until i ran out of disk space. Would you know that before playing a movie you need to make sure you have 100GB of free disk space? Yes, in theory the software could hide all this from me, but it isn't there yet and it doesn't look like it ever will be.
[deleted]
DLNA doesn't work for a lot of use cases. What I want is chromecast, but without the cloud BS. TVs at this point should really just be wireless monitors. From there, I could walk into the room with my wifi device and display whatever I want on my TV. This would be especially great for tablets where both the tablet and the TV are "lean back" experiences.
I want bluetooth for displays (and high def audio and devices, etc...). I just want to walk into a room and have my phone, computer, tablet, etc. find my printer, display, mouse, and all other useful devices.
I want bluetooth for displays (and high def audio and devices, etc...). I just want to walk into a room and have my phone, computer, tablet, etc. find my printer, display, mouse, and all other useful devices.
I want bluetooth for displays (and high def audio and devices, etc...). I just want to walk into a room and have my phone, computer, tablet, etc. find my printer, display, mouse, and all other useful devices.
This level of convenience requires either an up-front pairing process with each individual device, or a gaping security hole that anybody with a high-gain antenna can exploit (imagine mischievous teenagers driving around neighborhoods with small kids and beaming illicit videos onto unprotected wireless TVs).
This level of convenience requires either an up-front pairing process with each individual device, or a gaping security hole that anybody with a high-gain antenna can exploit (imagine mischievous teenagers driving around neighborhoods with small kids and beaming illicit videos onto unprotected wireless TVs).
> This level of convenience requires either an up-front pairing process with each individual device
I see no issue with this. Everything I mentioned already works with bluetooth (for the most part) except for display.
I see no issue with this. Everything I mentioned already works with bluetooth (for the most part) except for display.
Chromecast? I have several and they are pretty much this.
Yes, really cool for youtube videos and chrome tabs (tab casting has a crazy lag) But in the end you can't share screen and basically any kind of content. It's a nice device indeed, but so limited and pointless!
I think they're actually quite different (disclaimer, my first Chromecast is sitting in its just delivered box on my desk as I type this).
Setting aside tabcasting, Chromecast is for streaming from "the cloud" onto your big screen TV. Your other device (phone, tablet etc.) only sends instructions on what to play and the Chromecast takes over.
This is all about sending the video direct from your device. I'd say that's a much worse solution for Youtube/Netflix/HBO Go etc. but has many other uses, like sharing the screen with others as you interact with it via a mouse.
Tabcasting might evolve, but I'd say what Chromecast does particularly well is the other thing, particularly as a locked down device that Netflix etc. can trust.
But I think there's space for an "open" chromecast-like device too.
Setting aside tabcasting, Chromecast is for streaming from "the cloud" onto your big screen TV. Your other device (phone, tablet etc.) only sends instructions on what to play and the Chromecast takes over.
This is all about sending the video direct from your device. I'd say that's a much worse solution for Youtube/Netflix/HBO Go etc. but has many other uses, like sharing the screen with others as you interact with it via a mouse.
Tabcasting might evolve, but I'd say what Chromecast does particularly well is the other thing, particularly as a locked down device that Netflix etc. can trust.
But I think there's space for an "open" chromecast-like device too.
This is awesome! I really like it alot!
A couple of weeks ago I was thinking up this exact idea. I'm glad someone is doing it!
A greate usecase for use would be in our office conference room. Plug it in the projector in the ceilingand all employees can just stream the screen.
Installing custom software might be a barrier for some users.
Congratulations to the team!
Good luck!
A couple of weeks ago I was thinking up this exact idea. I'm glad someone is doing it!
A greate usecase for use would be in our office conference room. Plug it in the projector in the ceilingand all employees can just stream the screen.
Installing custom software might be a barrier for some users.
Congratulations to the team!
Good luck!
What's the difference from Chromecast?
Maybe read the description first. It even includes a convenient picture: http://images.indiegogo.com/file_attachments/213408/files/20...
Chromecast works with youtube videos and google chrome tabs only (and it lags using tab casting)
I've been using this: http://www.laptopmag.com/review/wifi/hp-wireless-tv-connect.... for more then a year now, works like a charm. It's not small and slick but get's the job done. I am using with with a stationary desktop machine though, not a laptop - this might be too much for a laptop.
I could buy a Chromecast for half the price and use a free service to mirror my desktop for meetings.
Or I could buy another Apple TV for a little more and have a lot more functionality and video outlets (HBO GO, Netflix etc.). Although this option only works if you use Macs.
Or as another poster said just use the built in wifi on my TVs in my house.
Or I could buy another Apple TV for a little more and have a lot more functionality and video outlets (HBO GO, Netflix etc.). Although this option only works if you use Macs.
Or as another poster said just use the built in wifi on my TVs in my house.
I have Chromecast, and love it for what it is. But it is very much tied to the wifi network it is on. You could not just walk into a conference room and plug it into the TV and go, it would take a little bit of time to setup. Assuming I had the software installed on my computer for wifitame, it seems like it is designed to be a little bit more mobile.
Chromecast is kind of annoying because you have to worry about what software it works with. Can I just share my 1080p screen at 60hz on a Chromecast? That's the main benefit I see with this device.
I'll take dlna over a single corp solution like appletv any day of the week.
Chromecast supports Netflix and HBO GO (as of about an hour ago, with the latest app update) so not great examples.
I wrote the post about an hour ago so how could I have known :-)
Chromecast supported netflix from the day it shipped and hbo go as of today.
Also you don't have to "use macs" to watch netflix/hbo-go/etc on Apple tv... well, you only have to use one mac at least.
Also you don't have to "use macs" to watch netflix/hbo-go/etc on Apple tv... well, you only have to use one mac at least.
NO attention to detail at all. "Works with both Windows, Linux and Mac". LOL
What baffles me is that every TV sold today already has a wireless DTV receiver built into it! You know, that one that you can hook rabbit ears to, and the one so few people actually use.
Can someone please explain to me why no one builds transmitters for these?
Can someone please explain to me why no one builds transmitters for these?
That won't help you broadcast to a projector. Working with an HDMI connector, you solve the problem for both TVs and projectors.
Because you can't broadcast in frequencies that overlap with the actual TV signals, which is what that actually pick up?
I don't think it is legal to transmit on those frequencies, thats what the stations pay big bucks for.
Radio stations pay big bucks to broadcast on the FM frequencies, and yet they make FM Transmitters for your car. Why wouldn't DTV be the same?
Thats a good point, I didn't think of that. The FCC did make some allowance for low power FM transmitters, probably because they couldn't control it anyway. I see some people selling similar low power TV transmitters, but I don't know why it isn't more common. Since it is more complex than the FM transmitters and more of a risk, I wonder if the lack of FCC regs has stopped it in the US.
Low power FM refers to a specific class of licenses[1] and not the little radio dongles.
[1] http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-broadcast-radio...
[1] http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/low-power-fm-broadcast-radio...
For all the "use chromecast/Apple TV/Miracast", this might be helpfull as to why it isn't the same http://images.indiegogo.com/file_attachments/213408/files/20...
Also, the guys chanting DLNA, does that work on other things than windows? I've never heard of it, so, have little knowledge of it. Also, I will take a stab in the dark and guess the muliple monitors part and sharing your screen on others computers isn't quite a thing of DLNA...
Also, the guys chanting DLNA, does that work on other things than windows? I've never heard of it, so, have little knowledge of it. Also, I will take a stab in the dark and guess the muliple monitors part and sharing your screen on others computers isn't quite a thing of DLNA...
That chart has a small error, Miracast certainly does support extended desktop - I use it frequently on Windows 8.1.
and isn't it open so that anybody can implement it for Linux and other platforms as well?
It is not "Wireless HDMI" until I plug something in the HDMI port of my PC and the HDMI port of my TV and it "just works".
Playing games on the output of a 1080p @ 60fps with 3-5k bitrate encoder causes massive delay.
Playing games on the output of a 1080p @ 60fps with 3-5k bitrate encoder causes massive delay.
Here you go. This is a real 'wireless HDMI' solution from an established AV company.
http://www.dvdo.com/air3/index.aspx
http://www.dvdo.com/air3/index.aspx
So does this actually work without significant lag? Would be very good to know in light of the Kickstarter here!
Great idea! Sadly, Indiegogo doesn't work for me:
An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.c756434d.1385043215.25b8f14
after POSTing my info on
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airtame-wireless-hdmi-for...
Kickstarter is the way to gogo!
An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #97.c756434d.1385043215.25b8f14
after POSTing my info on
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/airtame-wireless-hdmi-for...
Kickstarter is the way to gogo!
I'm somewhat curious to know if this could possibly be a Raspberry Pi-ish solution?
Because that hardware uses an ARM processor and has 512 MB RAM just like the Raspberry Pi model B. Also, I think the Pi is able to achieve the same thing already - Just connect your Pi to the TV (which can have a HDMI/Video In/DVI) and stream what you want from your PC. It would be interesting to see if the software they provide would run on my Pi out of the box. If it does, then I think I can somehow integrate the Pi into my 3 year old Bravio without any fuss and enjoy wireless streaming with the software these guys provide. All in all, a very good effort guys :)
Because that hardware uses an ARM processor and has 512 MB RAM just like the Raspberry Pi model B. Also, I think the Pi is able to achieve the same thing already - Just connect your Pi to the TV (which can have a HDMI/Video In/DVI) and stream what you want from your PC. It would be interesting to see if the software they provide would run on my Pi out of the box. If it does, then I think I can somehow integrate the Pi into my 3 year old Bravio without any fuss and enjoy wireless streaming with the software these guys provide. All in all, a very good effort guys :)
i know nothing about pi's except that they are cheap- how do you send raspberry pi the content from your computer?
The raspberry Pi has a Wireless module that you can attach to it, through the Pi's USB port. The wireless chip is only like $4-9 in price. After attaching the wireless module, you can connect the Pi to your TV through HDMI/Video Out (the Pi has two vide output options). Assuming your computer is in a different room, you can connect to it directly and stream Video content to your TV. I also think there's some specialized software that will help you stream videos out of the box.. Cheers!
Why are there so many reinventions of VNC?
This. Shouldn't there be an app for my SmartTV to let it connect to a VNC/X11/RDP server?
You mean connect to a VNC/RDP server, and be an X11 server? (Although where you'd get the mouse and keyboard input from, I'm not sure.)
Yes, for X11 the client/server roles are backwards so I shouldn't have included it in the list.
I want to use my TV as a VNC/RDP client, and either buy a wireless keyboard for it, or just let it act as a passive display.
I want to use my TV as a VNC/RDP client, and either buy a wireless keyboard for it, or just let it act as a passive display.
"Works with both [Mac image][Win image][Linux image]" is kind of annoying...
Back of the envelope calculation:
(1920 * 1080 * 3 * 60) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 => 355.96 MB/s
300mbps wireless n:
300 / 8.0 => 37.5 MB/s
Given that the whole point of HDMI is image quality, how are they going to shove 355MB/s through a 37.5MB/s link without lowering the quality hugely?
It all seems rather pointless to have a large, high quality display and content, and force it through a small link.
(1920 * 1080 * 3 * 60) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 => 355.96 MB/s
300mbps wireless n:
300 / 8.0 => 37.5 MB/s
Given that the whole point of HDMI is image quality, how are they going to shove 355MB/s through a 37.5MB/s link without lowering the quality hugely?
It all seems rather pointless to have a large, high quality display and content, and force it through a small link.
BlueRay in 1080p is encoded at most at 35Mbits/s. You only need a decoder on the other side and stream the video data to be decoded by the remote device.
There are a few protocols out there that manage to send high-performance video across remote devices without requiring lots of bandwith: RemoteFx is an extension of Window's RDP for instance; Citrix has stuff like HDX-3D Pro, etc.
You certainly do not need to send every pixel through.
There are a few protocols out there that manage to send high-performance video across remote devices without requiring lots of bandwith: RemoteFx is an extension of Window's RDP for instance; Citrix has stuff like HDX-3D Pro, etc.
You certainly do not need to send every pixel through.
Yet don't forget your satellite provider has achieved the same to put HD content over a satellite and through an HDMI link.
Sky HD in the UK probably encodes each channel at around 12-18 MB/s.
The key is in the compression and latency for real time applications.
Sky HD in the UK probably encodes each channel at around 12-18 MB/s.
The key is in the compression and latency for real time applications.
From what 355.96 MB/s source are you receiving that video? For some very common use cases, it's either HDTV channels or Blu-Ray, both of which give you compressed bitstreams of less than 50 Mbps. 802.11n can handle that with ease. Granted that recompressing content in real-time doesn't do great things for the quality, but it's good enough. The point of HDMI is that it's a standard connector. Nobody's going to buy a VGA dongle these days.
OnLive and Sony/Gaikai are streaming game A/V over the public Internet, and Amazon has a new platform to do it for arbitrary Windows apps. Again, a decent in-home wireless network is a far superior medium and should have no problem.
OnLive and Sony/Gaikai are streaming game A/V over the public Internet, and Amazon has a new platform to do it for arbitrary Windows apps. Again, a decent in-home wireless network is a far superior medium and should have no problem.
This is compressing the video using either H.264 or WebM (it's a bit unclear; they include both x264 and WebM logos in their "open source software used"); it's similar to Apple's AirPlay mirroring or Google's Chromecast. Unlike those, however, it's not tied into a single company's ecosystem.
Also remember that most of the time you have two hops on your wifi network: PC -> router -> TV. (Newer wifi cards can skip the router if the software on both sides supports it.)
How about a low powers ATSC transmitter?
This is great if they manage to pull it off.
Solutions like DLNA are sometimes slow and are buffered.
DLNA cannot be used to duplicate or extend your monitor.
I would buy it instantly.
I wasted so much time this year getting alternative solutions to work, like
XBMC on a raspberry pi.
There is no need for a media pc, if you can just use your laptop to quickly
watch videos on your TV.
Always plugging in a laptop is a big hassle.
EDIT: Using DLNA gets annoying. I need to start a software on my laptop and then I have to use my TV remote to select the file I want to watch in the TV menu. A solution like this is so much more quicker.
EDIT: Using DLNA gets annoying. I need to start a software on my laptop and then I have to use my TV remote to select the file I want to watch in the TV menu. A solution like this is so much more quicker.
To the inventors:
I made this "Works with" (instead of "with both") and it is available at http://i.imgur.com/8VDAlrK.png
Great idea, and good luck.
I made this "Works with" (instead of "with both") and it is available at http://i.imgur.com/8VDAlrK.png
Great idea, and good luck.
Thank you!! Will be updated shortly :-)
Doesn't this already exist?
http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transmitter-Streaming-Satellite...
http://www.amazon.com/Nyrius-Transmitter-Streaming-Satellite...
Personally I prefer the idea of only requiring software on my computer, and no need for a dongle sticking out the side.
First, I know nothing about electronics or how this device it's made or why they did it like that, this is just a humble opinion.
Please, please stop making USB dongles which are big and occupy more than one port, if I put that device in my smartTV it will block the other one.
Please, please stop making USB dongles which are big and occupy more than one port, if I put that device in my smartTV it will block the other one.
Chromecast comes with a short HDMI extender cable. Enjoy the dangly future.
I suspect TV makers will adapt before long and sprinkle HDMI connectors a bit farther apart.
I suspect TV makers will adapt before long and sprinkle HDMI connectors a bit farther apart.
Works with both three operating systems.
I'm really sad I don't have the funds to commit right now for the hacker version, however I'll definitely buy one when it comes out. I was really hoping that ChromeCast would've been what this is claiming to be. Please do show up Google on this front.
In the mean time if the people behind the AIRTAME are reading this, I'd love to see something like this with support for HDMI Ethernet Channel, since this will half the amount of wireless congestion AIRTAME would cause. I'm under no illusion that this will be added to the first version (I know what hardware dev is like), but it's something to consider for the future.
In the mean time if the people behind the AIRTAME are reading this, I'd love to see something like this with support for HDMI Ethernet Channel, since this will half the amount of wireless congestion AIRTAME would cause. I'm under no illusion that this will be added to the first version (I know what hardware dev is like), but it's something to consider for the future.
Wow. lot of negativity here. I think this is a great product and I would gladly pick it up when it becomes available. Indiegogo is a no go for me.
Here are my thoughts 1. DLNA != this and many have already outlined why so no point repeating.
2. Great features and the need for software is a minor hiccup considering how feature rich the s/w makes the solution. I would consider making the software portable for windows.
3. Not all platforms have hdmi. What about display-port compatibility (adaptor?)
4. I'm less concerned about b/w like some have pointed out here. The use case is not always high quality video as long as the quality is above SD and wifi doesn't cut out.
5. I'm guessing that with a s/w option, it should be possible to do this wired on the laptop end. But, the TV end is always wireless. I would love to see a wired option to eliminate wireless as an option. Not sure if there is a wired solution that exists today to do this.
Anyway, congrats to the team. Seems like a great product.
Here are my thoughts 1. DLNA != this and many have already outlined why so no point repeating.
2. Great features and the need for software is a minor hiccup considering how feature rich the s/w makes the solution. I would consider making the software portable for windows.
3. Not all platforms have hdmi. What about display-port compatibility (adaptor?)
4. I'm less concerned about b/w like some have pointed out here. The use case is not always high quality video as long as the quality is above SD and wifi doesn't cut out.
5. I'm guessing that with a s/w option, it should be possible to do this wired on the laptop end. But, the TV end is always wireless. I would love to see a wired option to eliminate wireless as an option. Not sure if there is a wired solution that exists today to do this.
Anyway, congrats to the team. Seems like a great product.
> 3. Not all platforms have hdmi. What about display-port compatibility (adaptor?)
I don't think there is any physical component for the computer, so the lack of HDMI ports on laptops is not a limiting factor. Almost every TV has HDMI inputs today. An HDMI -> DisplayPort dongle should work if you wanted to turn your monitor into a head for this, but you might lose the audio channel.
I might be misunderstanding the product, but to me it seems like Chromecast [1] without any DRM bullshit.
1: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromecast/
I don't think there is any physical component for the computer, so the lack of HDMI ports on laptops is not a limiting factor. Almost every TV has HDMI inputs today. An HDMI -> DisplayPort dongle should work if you wanted to turn your monitor into a head for this, but you might lose the audio channel.
I might be misunderstanding the product, but to me it seems like Chromecast [1] without any DRM bullshit.
1: http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromecast/
Interesting, but it seems like it is dropping frames all over the place. I suppose it would be good enough for presentations but not for movie or game use.
I suppose with later iterations it could improve, but I would rather just plug the HDMI directly into the laptop and use a wireless keyboard/mouse if needed.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Apple still hasn't fixed the color space issues on OS X (it only occurs if you use a different profile other than SRGB). It is clearly visible throughout the video showing the purple menu bar highlight when it should be blue.
I suppose with later iterations it could improve, but I would rather just plug the HDMI directly into the laptop and use a wireless keyboard/mouse if needed.
On another note, I find it hard to believe that Apple still hasn't fixed the color space issues on OS X (it only occurs if you use a different profile other than SRGB). It is clearly visible throughout the video showing the purple menu bar highlight when it should be blue.
I would buy this in an instant if it had Android support. Are mobile devices on the roadmap?
Take from the campaign page comments,
1.) Android / iOS “receiver” and “controller” is on the ROADMAP, having them as a “streamer” would also be awesome, but requires that people root/jailbreak their devices, which we can not officially support. (Restrictions on hardware access by vendors unfortunately)Great idea! Want!
So I have been wanting a HDMI dongle or similar solution and this sounds promising. I was hoping Chromecast would have delivered something closer to this but alas it focused too much on entertainment content (and tab casting barely works for me).
I know it is a WIP, but this would have been much more attractive/awesome if they managed to power without separate USB and add wifi AC support. That would have made it a serious competitor even if at a higher price point.
I know it is a WIP, but this would have been much more attractive/awesome if they managed to power without separate USB and add wifi AC support. That would have made it a serious competitor even if at a higher price point.
Hi fatbat,
Infact you can power it from an HDMI 1.4 + MHL port if your tv supports it!
It also comes with dual wifi cards.
Infact you can power it from an HDMI 1.4 + MHL port if your tv supports it!
It also comes with dual wifi cards.
Awesome! Did not know about MHL. Looks like that is used by the Roku Streaming Stick too.
I think you should definitely mention that in the campaign as well. Going to keep an eye on this and the stretch goals. Thank you!
Neat, but not what I was expecting.
I was hoping it'd be the type of dongle that I could plug one end into an HDMI out and one end into an HDMI in and have "wireless HDMI."
This is not that.
I was hoping it'd be the type of dongle that I could plug one end into an HDMI out and one end into an HDMI in and have "wireless HDMI."
This is not that.
I'm happy to see Vanilla Ice take up another profession. Great product.
[deleted]
What I want is two HDMI dongles that literally function like wireless cables. Plug one dongle into one device. Plug the other dongle into the other device. The result should be exactly the same as if I had an actual HDMI cable. No software configuration. No wifi setup. Maybe a light on each device to indicate if the signal is strong enough and if they are connected to each other or not.
It's not complicated. That's all I want. Someone, please make this!
For that matter, there's a huge market for all sorts of dongles of this nature. Wireless audio cables that transmit digitally, for example. Basically, I want to just do away with wires and replace them with bi-directional dongles of some sort on each end.