|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Help need to build this page. It's been a long time since I created/edited a wikipedia page. Tool and process looks unfamiliar.
Some recent stories to cite:
- http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3569244/android-4-2-new-features-miracast-gesture-keyboard-multiple-users-photo-sphere/in/3335719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Both devices (the sender and the receiver) need to be Miracast certified for the technology to work -- this seems like a weird thing to say: A Miracast compatible device will work just as well with or without a certification stamp. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Is name Miracast some kind of tribute to ill-fated Microsoft Mira from 2002.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Mira ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calimero (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The Wii U uses Miracast to stream video to the GamePad controller. http://www.slashgear.com/wii-u-teardown-reveals-dedicated-miracast-for-smooth-gamepad-action-19257509/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The following whitepaper describes NVIDIA's implementation of Miracast: http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/tegra_white_papers/tegra-miracast-whitepaper-final.pdf. As the only known working example of Miracast, I could analyse the architecture of NVIDIA Tegra-optimised Miracast in a section on this page, though I may have to brush up on Wikipedia language/layout and I'm not sure what we can offer by analysing this implementation. Thoughts? By the way, don't forget to sign your writing on the talk page with four tildes. Nitwon (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Towards the bottom of the article there is a part that is questionable, it says something about mirroring being a killer app. That is not encyclopaedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, this is one of the most shamelessly biased and promotional articles I've ever read. I've flagged it as a POV violator—which is pretty obvious. It's full of ridiculous quotes about how it "solves all the nerdy problems." Even the criticism section ends with an unsourced sentence claiming, in effect "these problems will all go away." It actually cites the press release from the industry group that is promoting it. Someone should find some time to do a 100% rewrite of this article. Gerweck (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
NPOV and Copyright violation
The article reads too much like a press release. A more neutral point-of-view is needed overall and especially in the Advantages section. The opening paragraph in that section is a direct copy-paste from the Wi-Fi Alliance's Miracast page (which, oddly enough, is not cited). This needs to be changed to summarize the advantages, not copy-paste the Wi-Fi Alliance's content. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Miracast do require Wi-Fi network!
Miracast does not require access to a Wi-Fi network, as connections are formed via Wi-Fi Direct
This is bad phrasing. In fact any Wi-Fi device needs access to the network. The thing is that the networks may be different. In case of Miracast one of the station become Group Owner which manages infrastructure network type. See Wi-Fi Direct specification:
P2P Group Operation resembles infrastructure BSS operation as defined 4 in IEEE Std 802.11-2007 , and provides additions for a P2P Group 5 operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing "requires access to a network" is ambiguous. The true statement is that Miracast operates on a peer-to-peer Wi-Fi connection (Wi-Fi Direct), independently of the local infrastructure. For example, a visitor to a conference center who does not have credentials to access the local Wi-Fi network will still be able to project slides on a Miracast enabled display.
I added the section titled 'miracast failure'. Perhaps this title is too provocative, but this was certainly my impression even before c't magazine (highly respected German IT magazine) gave it weight with their investigation of miracast - the results of which seem to show pretty clearly that consumers should be warned before buying a miracast device. And that is my purpose in giving the information its own section. It appears that the only safe course for consumers is to buy a set of products from the same manufacturer, but consumers who do that (e.g. buy the HTC One and HTC's media link) are not the ones who will look at the wikipedia miracast article before purchasing.
Returning to the title 'miracast failure'. I think the conclusions of the article (and the experience of users) really are a failure of miracast: miracast certification does not guarantee interoperability and that is what the miracast certification is supposed to mean.Qwavel (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm changing the section title to "Criticism", which is the standard title for such a section. "Miracast Failure" is too provocative and moreover won't stand up well if the standard takes off. Microsoft has been working with Miracast vendors on compatibility to relieve the issues with first generation products, since Windows 8.1 supports streaming to Miracast. I'm a dev on Miracast at Microsoft. Zhuman (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes and the explanation - that does make more sense. And I'm glad to hear that you guys are going to make it better. My only issue is the line "Firmware updates have solved many of these issues since then...". That is not my understanding and there is no reference for that, so I would propose to remove that, but leave the 2nd half of that line: "and support for the standard has been picking up". Or it could be "support is expected to improve as the standard matures".Qwavel (talk)
- Ok, I've removed that bit, at least until I can find confirmation from the press (hopefully it will arrive, haha). I can say from personal experience that the latest firmware updates for most Miracast adapters greatly improve on most of the issues, but you're right that I can't reference myself. Zhuman (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is Miracast delivered over TCP/IP?
There's some ambiguity in the opening description of this article, and also in the Disadvantages section, that would be cleared up by documenting where in the network stack Miracast sits. In other words, does it go:
- Wi-Fi Direct -> Miracast -> H.264
- Wi-Fi Direct -> TCP/IP (or UDP/IP?) -> Miracast -> H.264
From reading the spec, the stack is actually:
- Wi-Fi Direct -> IP -> TCP -> RTSP (negotiation of media, etc)
... -> UDP -> RTP (transmission of audio and video) ... -> TCP -> UIBC (UI back control, e.g. mouse or keyboard data)
The "Miracast" spec specifies how WFD channel is set up, and how RTSP, RTP, UIBC are used.
Sender or Receiver?
I haven't seen anything explaining whether all Miracast-certified devices are both senders and receivers or one but not the other, and if so which one. I don't see an option in Windows 10 to receive, and even to get the information that you have to press Win+P to get sending options was a hard slog. Hackwrench (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)