From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I dont believe this is an apple protocol.

See USPTO Patent 7,734,256 . Also see Prior Art This most likely licensed at best


I added the advert tag because a lot of the text looks like it was just copied directly from Apple's own site. The article should be rewritten to remove all of that. --Pyro|3d 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

AirPort Express info[edit]

The following text belongs on the AirPort Express article, so I removed it from the article:

The AirPort Express's streaming media capabilities use Apple's Remote Audio Output Protocol (RAOP), a proprietary variant of RTSP/RTP. Using WDS-bridging,[1] the AirPort Express can allow AirPlay functionality (as well as Internet access and print sharing, etc.) across a larger distance in a mixed environment of wired and up to ten wireless clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianprime0509 (talkcontribs) 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AirPort Express Private Key discovered[edit]

I added a subsection about the release of the AirPort Express private key on April 8, 2011. --Edifyyo (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs a table[edit]

--Chicknfood (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC) This section needs a table listing all the receivers and transmitters and whether they transmit audio or not. Now that the AppleTV and new OS will include AirPlay, this will be a handy way to organize it all.


Would be great if in the comparison chart there was an indication for each piece of software if it's free, or if not, how much it costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alewin99 (talkcontribs) 18:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Playing files, or playing sounds?[edit]

Hey guys,

Just a question regarding the way this product works. Does it only play music files, or does it simply play all 'sounds' which come out of the computer? As in, if I were to watch something on Youtube, would that sound also be streamed wirelessly? Or if I were to play a game, would those sounds be streamed too?

Thank for the answer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAUBO (talkcontribs) 12:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you use Airplay on your phone to play back music on your stereo, the music is streamed directly to the stereo over the internet. If you play a game on your TV, the game is downloaded to the TV and your phone is just used as a remote, to control the game. If you watch a YouTube video, it is streamed directly from the YouTube servers to your TV, not via your phone.
The same applies to any other controlling device, eg, PC, iPad. Only with mirroring does your device directly send video to your TV, as that is a low bandwidth operation. 51kwad (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Split the "Third-party software implementations" table?[edit]

It seems to me that with the sorting fields and all, this table would be best split into two separate ones; one for senders and one for receivers. Any opinions?
LP-mn (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus that either of the suggested options will be clearer. As noted, hat notes are already present to distinguish these two articles. Cúchullain t/c 15:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

AirPlayApple AirPlay – There are currently Airplay and AirPlay articles. These different articles have very similar names, so I suggest adding "Apple" to avoid confusion. 1292simon (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. Hatnotes are fine for this, though they could stand to be less ambiguous than they are now. I think I'll go ahead and WP:BOLDly edit them. Ignatzmicetalk Today, 23:13 (UTC−4) Comment moved here from WP:RM. Silly me. Ignatzmicetalk 03:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – we usually try to avoid disambig by caps alone. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and talk:airplay -- (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems logical to use WP:NATURAL disambiguation to supplement the capitalization-based disambiguation. Red Slash 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Titles should not be changed for disambiguation purposes, unless it includes adding something in parenthesis. Article titles need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. Apple refers to the product simply as "AirPlay" on its site and most other sources refer to it as such or call it "Apple's Airplay" (implying that it is made by Apple, but Apple's name is not actually part of the title). This is unlike products such as Apple TV, which actually have Apple's name in the title. If this needs to be changed for disambiguation purposes, it should be something like AirPlay (Apple Inc.) or AirPlay (software). –Dream out loud (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • How is that any different from various car articles where it is "Company Model" as the title? That would be natural disambiguation, whereas the parenthetical disambiguation is a Wikipedia construct. -- (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • One possibility could be that the company names may be part of the title of the product which would not be the case here. Obvisouly if the reason that we inlcude company names for cars is due to that reason it would be irrelevant to this discussion since the reason for inclusion would have nothing to do with natural disambiguation.-- (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per WP:COMMONNAME as argued by User:Dream out loud. The title proposed above is Apple AirPlay but WP:NATURAL recommends that we don't use made-up names. The phrase 'Apple AirPlay' doesn't appear to be in general use. Like Dream out loud I agree that AirPlay (software) is a better option. Per Dicklyon I dislike using caps for disambiguation; it seems like a last resort when there is nothing better. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC). Updated my comment. The name AirPlay (software) is an example of partial disambiguation and that topic risks getting into unneeded controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks for the suggestions of AirPlay (Apple Inc.) and AirPlay (software). I am also happy with either of these. 1292simon (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Obviously, common or not, a mere spelling distinction is not enough, especially for computer keyboard users. Also, anybody would presume any other company besides Apple. Unlike GameCube, "AirPlay" is still... ambiguous to me. --George Ho (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • By support do you mean the original suggestion of Apple AirPlay or the new suggestion of AirPlay (software). If it is the first, it won't work since WP:NATURAL does not permit creating names and there is no evidence that Apple is part of the product name (Several people have in fact said that it is not).- (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I guess either one is fine... *sigh* --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: It seems there is consensus for AirPlay (software). How do we get this renamed now? (I assume I am unable, due to conflict of interest?) 1292simon (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • At best you might argue that if you ignore policy/guidelines there appears to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this move, but since it's contrary to community consensus as reflected in policy/guidelines, I strongly disagree with the claim there is WP:CONSENSUS for such a move that would result in the plain name AirPlay redirecting to the disambiguated AirPlay (software). --B2C 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The current title meets WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CRITERIA and requires no disambiguation (a move to AirPlay (software) would be unnecessary disambiguation). The topic of this article is the only use of this term with the P capitalized. Distinction by capitalization might be non-optimal in some or even most cases, but here it works quite well. The hatnote at Airplay gets users to this article regardless of what this article's title is. Once you're here, regardless of how you get here, the capital P in the title makes the topic easily identifiable. --B2C 17:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Support disambiguation by camel-case seems rather insufficient.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
Is appale actually part of the name becuse if not it can't be used since that would be a case of Wikipedia creating a name? If Apple is not part of the name it will need to be AirPlay (insert something here).-- (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Apple WDS Setup