Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wireless HDMI for Everyone

indiegogo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#71

Post by mootothemax »

highphive wrote: post #60
mootothemax wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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.

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.

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#73

Post by simias »

Bud wrote: post #46
mootothemax wrote: post #23

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…

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…

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.

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#75

Post by ZeroGravitas »

josefresco wrote: post #26

Chromecast? I have several and they are pretty much this.

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.

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#76

Post by wil421 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #62
wil421 wrote: post #47

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.

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 :-)

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#77

Post by bloopletech »

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.

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#79

Post by chunkiestbacon »

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.

Re: Wireless HDMI for Everyone

#80

Post by ZoF »

wil421 wrote: post #47

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.

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.

Post reply on HN