Ofcourse not man, this is the generation of free anonymous complaints and ZERO contributions. Millennials should not only be the entitlement generation but the cake and eat it too generation.
Why? This is so much better than that Ad companies dongle. No need for app support plus it has more uses and is more compatible with non Ad company programs and devices. It can even be used as a 2nd display.
Plus you aren't supporting an Ad company and giving them increased Ad revenue which is priceless.
It is better than a Chromecast? I can cast the entire screen without app support from my phone or from my PC much like Miracast. In *addition*, I can use apps that directly support the Chromecast so that I don't have to power a PC/laptop or phone. IMO, both solutions have merit which is why I've already had a Miracast dongle for nearly two years as well as a Chromecast.
It is also strikes me as odd to complain about Google being an ad company on a website that is ad supported. Not to mention that Microsoft is also an ad company.
Chromecast does a horrible job as screen mirroring I owned one which I never use as I have a dedicated Miracast device that does a much better job. I'm sorry you can't see how inconvienent Chromecast is or how its need for Apps makes it a poor choice since I don't use any of that Ad companies services which pretty much removed all the App support.
Microsoft is a product company that uses Ads to support its search engine. That other Ad offers Trojan horses under the """FREE""" banner while they whore your information for profit by tracking you and scanning emails. At least Bing gives very nice rewards for putting up with Ads.
I have everything blocked from that Ad company and Adblocker as well as noscript running. There are zero Ads here for me so not sure what you are seeing.
Doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. But I'm shopping around for this type of device and don't know what to get. Assuming it works as advertised, why choose this one over the other available miracast dongles I'm seeing for $20 + or - ...so I'm not just comparing with Chrome cast but with other Miracast dongles.
Can't see what's wrong with Microsoft naming - it's not misleading or romanticized in any way; it's straight to the point and very intentional in my opinion. Chromecast or any such type of branding sounds cool, but it's not self-explanatory, and, accessories at least, can use a bit of down-to-Earth-naming.
25 dollars is a small price to pay for my personal information to not be whored out or to be subjected to Ads. Ive been waiting for a non Ad company streaming dongle.
No ads, ey? I guess you've never used Windows Metro - or whatever they've decided to call it. I'm not sure why you've been waiting as this appears to be just a miracst dongle. You could have purchased any number of them over the past couple years.
So this is just a Miracast device? Chromecast less used feature is probably screen mirroring. Microsoft fails to propose an alternative to chromecast, which is more and more awesome every day. Being able to stream something to the TV without the gadget running out of battery or dropping frames is what makes chromecast amazing.
Miracast and Chromecast are similar, but not the same. You are going to get some lag if you try to use Chromecast for display mirroring, which is what Miracast is for (specifically presentations).
Chromecast seems pointless if you can do mirroring well. Chromcast is propriety, bad at mirroring, and for the most part relies on app support. Whereas miracast works with everything. I'd like to see battery numbers but unless their terrible I don't see it as a major factor.
Chromecast is actually pretty decent about mirroring now. And if I recall correctly Android L will have full mirroring built in as well - which I'm sure will work with Chromecast. Meanwhile the primary way Chromecast works is superior. It stresses the local network and hardware less. Saves battery on your mobile device. And allows that device to be used for other things simultaneous to running the Chromecast. Example: Mirror netflix with your tablet/laptop to the your TV. Your tablet or laptop is pulling down the netflix stream and decoding it then recoding it to transmit to the dongle. The transmission itself ads to the signal footprint. You can't use your tablet/laptop to look up something on Google or participate on twitter or check mail or anything while watching because that will all show up on the TV.
Same with Chromecast: You can use the tablet/laptop to find what you want and start it and control it. It is pulled down and decoded directly to the Chromecast. The laptop/tablet is doing nothing. A big battery savings and much less hardware needed compared to decoding then re-encoding and pushing the signal back out. The wireless footprint is not additionally impacted by transmitting additional signal. And you can surf about and do anything else you want on the tablet/laptop without impacting what you are watching. Meanwhile you can easily jump in and control what you are watching.
Better still: Roku et al. Comes with an actual remote, doesn't involve other devices in the process.
But taking the dedicated Roku, Apple, Amazon, etc devices out of the equation? If the only choice was between proprietary Googleware or standard-based Miracast devices, I'll take Miracast every time.
How long can your device stay on with a constant wifi signal, downloading and decoding video content (e.g. Netflix) and then continually encoding and streaming 1080p content to this dongle?
Chromecast battery life is effectively infinite. You basically send a URL from your phone to the chromecast and that's it. Even for local content, you are effectively just a file share. The dongle does all the decode work.
Who honestly WANTS mirroring outside of workplace presentations? I want an easy interface to tell my TV what content to play. Any device in my household should work. I don't want to leave the device constantly running to do this (unless its local content obviously). Sadly the chromecast protocol is proprietary but the app argument is pretty much covered. Anything remotely popular already just works.
I agree with you overall, but I can come up with tons of valid usage cases for dumb mirroring, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. I own two Chromecast and a Miracast device from Netgear...
The latter is actually useful when I travel or wanna put on a photo slideshow at a friend's place, the Chromecast isn't. Ignoring the technical details that's really the biggest difference.
Chromecast is great for permanent installations on a known network, Miracast is much better for traveling and on the fly connections.
Although I haven't personally tried it... doesn't the chromecast serve its own wifi hotspot by default. There are apps to send local content (video/photos). Can you not send content in that mode or do you have to reconnect the Chromecast to wifi first?
What other use cases have you found for mirroring? Personally my #1 would be for gaming on a small/portable display. The WiiU has proven that wireless display with low latency is possible. However Miracast latency is no where near comparable.
AFAIK Chromecast has never acted as a hotspot, it needs a network and you can't even use your phone as hotspot and simultaneously cast to a connected Chromecast. So despite it's size, it really isn't a portable solution.
Using a different app than my regular gallery or video playing for casting is also meh, tho cast mirroring has addressed that to extent, at least for non demanding scenarios.
Wi-Fi/broadband might seem ubiquitous for many but there's lots of situations where one could wanna mirror without that while using a mobile LTE connection. There's probably workarounds for a Chromecast but it's not how it's meant to work.
Yes, you are correct about it initiating as its own network but that is only for setup. So you can use a setup app on your device to connect to it and feed it your normal network credentials. Then it comes up on your normal wi-fi. It would probably be trivial for Google to modify it to continue to offer its own connection for actual use. It would make it more useful as a portable device, which wasn't the initial intent of it really. It would be a nice power-user feature though. However I'm not sure Google would do it as it would add complexity.
I've been waiting for someone to make one of these without a stupid store attached. I figured it would be Belkin or someone. Price is too high, but when it drops it will be a useful little tool.
There's cheaper Miracast dongles out there, I bought my Netgear one for less than this over a year ago... It's more of a little deck of cards shaped box than a dongle but whatever.
Miracast doesn't connect to your network... It's a point to point Wi-Fi connection between the dongle or box and your mobile device or laptop. Not sure what Ethernet would get you...
Will this allow casting from a Silverlight based video? (Looking at Amazon Instant Video) Last I checked Silverlight does not support miracast (otherwise people would use their own chromecast stick and there be no reason to buy this). So will microsoft be introducing something propriety to allow casting from silverlight?
I think it's actually their default for Prime streaming... Only reason I know this is that when you wanted to stream Prime on Android using Dolphin/Flash and a desktop user agent (before the app offered official support recently) you had to go into Amazon settings and switch from Silvercrap to Flash.
I haven't used Miracast before, but I am guessing that the Miracast display just shows up as another display in Windows that you can either duplicate or extend to. So if you can play it on your computer (Flash, HTML5, Silverlight, video, whatever) then it should work.
My bad this may be a Chromecast limitation as opposed to Silverlight, but trying to cast a chrome tab with a silverlight content returns an error about incompatible plugin. https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/32283...
Yep. I was shopping for a Miracast dongle recently, and its actually quite difficult to find one that isn't cheap crap with lots of reports of poor performance. Even ones from major companies like Belkin.
So, assuming MS's is of good quality and well-supported, I'm quite glad its out there. I'm sure MS's angle is to raise awareness of Miracast as a feature of Win8.
Yeah if it's good quality and performs well it might very well encourage other companies to get their acts together and boost Miracast adoption. I'd really like to see it become a standard built-in feature on more TV sets. Screw "Smart" TVs, I just want more connection options. The devices I connect TO the display have all I need.
Besides there's really no need for the TV to compete with external hardware I already possess. Especially because when new standards come along, I can replace the external hardware without tossing the display. How many existing smart TVs can handle H.265 HEVC content at 4K? :P
"From the photos Microsoft has provided, the USB connector seems to be wired directly into the adapter which could pose a problem depending on your television's arrangement of ports as the cord does not look very lengthy. "
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
Back to Article
batongxue - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Dat stupid naming just shows, once again, how not creative Microsoft is.inighthawki - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Who cares? Who seriously purchases a product based on how creatively they named it?rave123 - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Apple enthusiasts probably do.steven75 - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Apple enthusiasts purchase things *despite* it's naming.Homeles - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I can't think of a more classic example of groupthink than the anti-Apple circlejerk.B3an - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Funny, i can't think of a better example than Apple customers.mkozakewich - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
But can you think up a clever and original name for it?TheSlamma - Monday, September 29, 2014 - link
Ofcourse not man, this is the generation of free anonymous complaints and ZERO contributions. Millennials should not only be the entitlement generation but the cake and eat it too generation.Mark_gb - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link
Yet Another Expensive Microsoft Video Gadget. Or the great YAEMVG. LOLEraser85 - Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - link
Apple enthusiasts put their phones in microwaves and in the water just because they read it on facebook.designerfx - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I can't honestly see anyone purchasing this regardless of naming conventions.SpartanJet - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Why? This is so much better than that Ad companies dongle. No need for app support plus it has more uses and is more compatible with non Ad company programs and devices. It can even be used as a 2nd display.Plus you aren't supporting an Ad company and giving them increased Ad revenue which is priceless.
dalingrin - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
It is better than a Chromecast? I can cast the entire screen without app support from my phone or from my PC much like Miracast. In *addition*, I can use apps that directly support the Chromecast so that I don't have to power a PC/laptop or phone. IMO, both solutions have merit which is why I've already had a Miracast dongle for nearly two years as well as a Chromecast.It is also strikes me as odd to complain about Google being an ad company on a website that is ad supported. Not to mention that Microsoft is also an ad company.
SpartanJet - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Chromecast does a horrible job as screen mirroring I owned one which I never use as I have a dedicated Miracast device that does a much better job. I'm sorry you can't see how inconvienent Chromecast is or how its need for Apps makes it a poor choice since I don't use any of that Ad companies services which pretty much removed all the App support.Microsoft is a product company that uses Ads to support its search engine. That other Ad offers Trojan horses under the """FREE""" banner while they whore your information for profit by tracking you and scanning emails. At least Bing gives very nice rewards for putting up with Ads.
I have everything blocked from that Ad company and Adblocker as well as noscript running. There are zero Ads here for me so not sure what you are seeing.
sprockkets - Thursday, September 25, 2014 - link
Judging by how much you hate Google, I'm inclined to just call BS on you.BMNify - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
98% of Google's revenue comes from Ad's, Google is an Ad company unlike Microsoft and Apple.Ratman6161 - Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - link
Doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. But I'm shopping around for this type of device and don't know what to get. Assuming it works as advertised, why choose this one over the other available miracast dongles I'm seeing for $20 + or - ...so I'm not just comparing with Chrome cast but with other Miracast dongles.edgebert - Thursday, September 25, 2014 - link
SpartanJet, why don't you chg. your Ad name to WolfByte. Do it for me.krazyderek - Sunday, September 28, 2014 - link
what kind of company is it again?flyingpants1 - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
Everybody? This is the real world, not your personal nerd fantasy-land.Mark_gb - Wednesday, October 1, 2014 - link
Are you old enough to remember the Pet Rocks?'nuf said.
yhselp - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Can't see what's wrong with Microsoft naming - it's not misleading or romanticized in any way; it's straight to the point and very intentional in my opinion. Chromecast or any such type of branding sounds cool, but it's not self-explanatory, and, accessories at least, can use a bit of down-to-Earth-naming.Gigaplex - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
It's extremely generic and poorly optimised for search engines.inighthawki - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
It's verbose at best. Just did a search and it was the first result.Lord of the Bored - Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - link
What's wrong with a device that does exactly what it says on the box?ZelphX - Thursday, September 25, 2014 - link
From a former Apple drone... I would name it the iDON'TGIVEASHITWHATITISCALLEDASLONGASITWORKS.SpartanJet - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
25 dollars is a small price to pay for my personal information to not be whored out or to be subjected to Ads. Ive been waiting for a non Ad company streaming dongle.savagemike - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
No ads, ey? I guess you've never used Windows Metro - or whatever they've decided to call it.I'm not sure why you've been waiting as this appears to be just a miracst dongle. You could have purchased any number of them over the past couple years.
SirPerro - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
So this is just a Miracast device? Chromecast less used feature is probably screen mirroring. Microsoft fails to propose an alternative to chromecast, which is more and more awesome every day.Being able to stream something to the TV without the gadget running out of battery or dropping frames is what makes chromecast amazing.
jeffkibuule - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Miracast and Chromecast are similar, but not the same. You are going to get some lag if you try to use Chromecast for display mirroring, which is what Miracast is for (specifically presentations).s1aver - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Chromecast seems pointless if you can do mirroring well. Chromcast is propriety, bad at mirroring, and for the most part relies on app support. Whereas miracast works with everything. I'd like to see battery numbers but unless their terrible I don't see it as a major factor.savagemike - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Chromecast is actually pretty decent about mirroring now. And if I recall correctly Android L will have full mirroring built in as well - which I'm sure will work with Chromecast.Meanwhile the primary way Chromecast works is superior. It stresses the local network and hardware less. Saves battery on your mobile device. And allows that device to be used for other things simultaneous to running the Chromecast.
Example: Mirror netflix with your tablet/laptop to the your TV.
Your tablet or laptop is pulling down the netflix stream and decoding it then recoding it to transmit to the dongle. The transmission itself ads to the signal footprint. You can't use your tablet/laptop to look up something on Google or participate on twitter or check mail or anything while watching because that will all show up on the TV.
Same with Chromecast:
You can use the tablet/laptop to find what you want and start it and control it. It is pulled down and decoded directly to the Chromecast. The laptop/tablet is doing nothing. A big battery savings and much less hardware needed compared to decoding then re-encoding and pushing the signal back out. The wireless footprint is not additionally impacted by transmitting additional signal.
And you can surf about and do anything else you want on the tablet/laptop without impacting what you are watching. Meanwhile you can easily jump in and control what you are watching.
Alexvrb - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Better still: Roku et al. Comes with an actual remote, doesn't involve other devices in the process.But taking the dedicated Roku, Apple, Amazon, etc devices out of the equation? If the only choice was between proprietary Googleware or standard-based Miracast devices, I'll take Miracast every time.
mabellon - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
How long can your device stay on with a constant wifi signal, downloading and decoding video content (e.g. Netflix) and then continually encoding and streaming 1080p content to this dongle?Chromecast battery life is effectively infinite. You basically send a URL from your phone to the chromecast and that's it. Even for local content, you are effectively just a file share. The dongle does all the decode work.
Who honestly WANTS mirroring outside of workplace presentations? I want an easy interface to tell my TV what content to play. Any device in my household should work. I don't want to leave the device constantly running to do this (unless its local content obviously). Sadly the chromecast protocol is proprietary but the app argument is pretty much covered. Anything remotely popular already just works.
Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I agree with you overall, but I can come up with tons of valid usage cases for dumb mirroring, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. I own two Chromecast and a Miracast device from Netgear...The latter is actually useful when I travel or wanna put on a photo slideshow at a friend's place, the Chromecast isn't. Ignoring the technical details that's really the biggest difference.
Chromecast is great for permanent installations on a known network, Miracast is much better for traveling and on the fly connections.
mabellon - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Although I haven't personally tried it... doesn't the chromecast serve its own wifi hotspot by default. There are apps to send local content (video/photos). Can you not send content in that mode or do you have to reconnect the Chromecast to wifi first?What other use cases have you found for mirroring? Personally my #1 would be for gaming on a small/portable display. The WiiU has proven that wireless display with low latency is possible. However Miracast latency is no where near comparable.
Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
AFAIK Chromecast has never acted as a hotspot, it needs a network and you can't even use your phone as hotspot and simultaneously cast to a connected Chromecast. So despite it's size, it really isn't a portable solution.Using a different app than my regular gallery or video playing for casting is also meh, tho cast mirroring has addressed that to extent, at least for non demanding scenarios.
None is ideal for gaming which is unfortunate.
Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Wi-Fi/broadband might seem ubiquitous for many but there's lots of situations where one could wanna mirror without that while using a mobile LTE connection. There's probably workarounds for a Chromecast but it's not how it's meant to work.savagemike - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Yes, you are correct about it initiating as its own network but that is only for setup. So you can use a setup app on your device to connect to it and feed it your normal network credentials. Then it comes up on your normal wi-fi.It would probably be trivial for Google to modify it to continue to offer its own connection for actual use. It would make it more useful as a portable device, which wasn't the initial intent of it really.
It would be a nice power-user feature though. However I'm not sure Google would do it as it would add complexity.
coburn_c - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I've been waiting for someone to make one of these without a stupid store attached. I figured it would be Belkin or someone. Price is too high, but when it drops it will be a useful little tool.coburn_c - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Ah, I just checked and Belkin does make one. At the same price.Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
There's cheaper Miracast dongles out there, I bought my Netgear one for less than this over a year ago... It's more of a little deck of cards shaped box than a dongle but whatever.phoenix_rizzen - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Know of any that include an Ethernet port instead of (or in addition to) wireless?My TV doesn't move. And there's Ethernet right there.
Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Miracast doesn't connect to your network... It's a point to point Wi-Fi connection between the dongle or box and your mobile device or laptop. Not sure what Ethernet would get you...bkiserx7 - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
A little late to the game and overpriced at that, gonna need to bring more to the table...K_Space - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Will this allow casting from a Silverlight based video? (Looking at Amazon Instant Video)Last I checked Silverlight does not support miracast (otherwise people would use their own chromecast stick and there be no reason to buy this). So will microsoft be introducing something propriety to allow casting from silverlight?
Thermogenic - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Microsoft doesn't even support Silverlight anymore. I'm surprised to hear Amazon is still using it.Impulses - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I think it's actually their default for Prime streaming... Only reason I know this is that when you wanted to stream Prime on Android using Dolphin/Flash and a desktop user agent (before the app offered official support recently) you had to go into Amazon settings and switch from Silvercrap to Flash.eddman - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
What silverlight has to do with miracast?Miracast is done on the OS leverl. It's a wireless display standard.
It mirrors your devices screen and anything that is being shown on it.
LarsBars - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
I haven't used Miracast before, but I am guessing that the Miracast display just shows up as another display in Windows that you can either duplicate or extend to. So if you can play it on your computer (Flash, HTML5, Silverlight, video, whatever) then it should work.jhoff80 - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Your guess is correct. Windows treats it no different from a wired display.K_Space - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
My bad this may be a Chromecast limitation as opposed to Silverlight, but trying to cast a chrome tab with a silverlight content returns an error about incompatible plugin.https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/32283...
savagemike - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
So - this is just another Miracast dongle?kyuu - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Yep. I was shopping for a Miracast dongle recently, and its actually quite difficult to find one that isn't cheap crap with lots of reports of poor performance. Even ones from major companies like Belkin.So, assuming MS's is of good quality and well-supported, I'm quite glad its out there. I'm sure MS's angle is to raise awareness of Miracast as a feature of Win8.
Alexvrb - Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - link
Yeah if it's good quality and performs well it might very well encourage other companies to get their acts together and boost Miracast adoption. I'd really like to see it become a standard built-in feature on more TV sets. Screw "Smart" TVs, I just want more connection options. The devices I connect TO the display have all I need.Besides there's really no need for the TV to compete with external hardware I already possess. Especially because when new standards come along, I can replace the external hardware without tossing the display. How many existing smart TVs can handle H.265 HEVC content at 4K? :P
flyingpants1 - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link
"From the photos Microsoft has provided, the USB connector seems to be wired directly into the adapter which could pose a problem depending on your television's arrangement of ports as the cord does not look very lengthy. "Right. USB extension cables are $1.