Isn’t Miracast for sending video data? The thing I like about Chromecast is that the phone or remote app just tells the Chromecast where to load the media directly from, and then only sends playback control commands. That makes it a lot lighter resource wise because you don’t need to proxy the stream through a device like a phone that wants to go to sleep to save battery.
Comment on Open casting alternative (by Amazon?)
deafboy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What’s wrong with miracast? Almost every device sold these days has some kind of radio, but no way to talk to each other. Releasing a new standard every few years won’t help much.
BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 5 months ago
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 5 months ago
I don’t know the specifics of Miracast, but my impression was that it is specifically used to cast a video stream from one device to another device. That is sometimes useful, but not what I typically use my Chromecast for.
The most useful feature of my Chromecast is the ability to be logged into Plex/Netflix/HBO/Spotify/YouTube/etc on my (or my guest’s) mobile device, and effectively send a link and a (probably ephemeral) token to the Chromecast so that it can stream directly from the server to the Chromecast without my mobile device spending battery power and bandwidth being a middle-man.
And I assume the difficult part here is down to copyright reasons. Most of those streaming sites already limit the number of devices you can permit to stream content (which sucks, but is besides the point), so my impression is that they need to have some kind of under-the-table agreement with the Chromecast/Roku/Firestick/Apple TV/etc. folks to ensure that the device will correctly validate the credentials, not save any of the content, and properly dispose of everything when it’s done. And I assume Google has similar talks about when a device on the network is allowed to be listed as a casting device to apps.
Does Miracast already handle this?