Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Are There Any USB-C Wireless Video Solutions?

jez9999 writes: Sometimes it feels like we're on the cusp of a technology but not quite there yet, and that's the way it feels for me after searching around for USB-C wireless video solutions. There are several wireless video solutions that use HDMI on the receiver end, of course, but these aren't ideal because HDMI can't provide power. This means you need a separate receiver box and power cable going into the box, but cables are what you're trying to get away from with wireless video!

So the answer to this would seem to be USB-C. It supports HDMI video as well as power, so in theory you could create a receiver dongle that just plugged into a TV (or monitor with speakers) and required no external power cable. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything like this on the market.

There is Airtame, but that doesn't work with a 'dumb' TV -- it needs to plug in to a computer that you can install software on to stream the video. What I'd like is to be able to wall-mount a new TV and just plug in a wireless dongle to stream the video with no extra setup required on the receiver end.

Does anyone know of a solution like this that exists right now, or one that's being developed?

127 comments

  1. Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hi. I want to develop a new hardware solution, but I'm too lazy to do due diligence. Can you do my work for me?

    1. Re: Idea... by Rampage_Rick · · Score: 2

      I'm not aware of any TVs that have a USB-C input, so the whole premise is flawed from the start. HDMI can optionally provide power, just not a lot of it (50 mA) Many TVs have USB ports for one reason or another, so there's 500 mA or more. The biggest issue here is that it seems like this guy wants to send raw HD video streams wirelessly. There's a difference between streaming 20 mbps compressed video à la Netflix vs raw 1080P video at 4.46 gbps. Buy a Chromecast...

    2. Re: Idea... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      Chromecast seconded.

      I wish they would implement some security whatsoever on them though. I gave my 4 year old an old phone with YouTube Kids on it. Since he's learned to cast though, it's difficult to watch anything but YouTube Kids.

    3. Re: Idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take away his phone when its adult tv time. Comon be a parent, Youtube is not a babysitter.

    4. Re: Idea... by Curtman · · Score: 2

      If you take the phone away during adult tv time, then adult tv time is over.

    5. Re: Idea... by viniisiggs · · Score: 1

      Remove google home and that will kill the casting ability. Then make sure that the google account prompts you for a password for installing new Apps. No more casting for the 4-year-old.

    6. Re: Idea... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I don't have a Google Home. I have a nexus player, and a ForgeTV. Anyone connected to the same network they are can take over them at any time. If the tv is off, it will turn on.

  2. Powerless power? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    No... Just no.

    1. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the question at all?

    2. Re:Powerless power? by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      Yeah, he wanted wireless power via a wireless USB-C.

    3. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He wants to plug a USB-c dongle into his TV to receive the video from a wireless camera. Most of these dongles are HDMI-only and require a separate power source. USB-c doesn't require a separate power source since it can carry power and video. This is all on the receiver end - there's no mention of how he plans to power the camera.

    4. Re:Powerless power? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The question is poorly stated. There's no "here's what I'm looking for: [description of what he's looking for]" section.

      Wireless video with wire standards like HDMI and USB-C, with power? It doesn't make sense unless you guess the part he's leaving out of the question.

    5. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      MiraCast
      WiDi
      Wireless Display solutions exist already for a while now
      next thing you know people will want compressionless wireless video, no lag between input and output. no restrictions on life, morality, and no responsability.
      I for one, hail our matrix incarcerating monsters of our own creation.

      Hallowed are the Ori !

    6. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a WiFi Cam and just connect USB-C for power only = one cable instead of 2.

    7. Re: Powerless power? by hecksagon · · Score: 1

      Seek not the wickedness amongst your neighbors, lest it find purchase in your own house.

    8. Re:Powerless power? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      I think he's saying he doesn't want to run a power cord to whatever he plugs into his TV to receive the video signal.

      I don't understand why a power cord is a problem since the television needs one. Most people just connect a small computer. I have an Intel NUC at home, at work we use Apple TV's and just got an Intel Compute Stick. All of which require a separate power connection.

      I think the Amazon Fire Stick and the Chromecast devices can be powered from the USB port on a television.

    9. Re:Powerless power? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Then he's a retard. Most modern TVs already have a USB port or two you can tap into for power. Even more TVs have a fat power cable running to them.
      Worst case? You end up with a Y power cable feeding the TV and a small power adapter for the shitty dongle. If you're wall mounting it it'll all be invisible anyway.

      But why do that when you can use the DLNA shit built in to every modern TV? If you're claiming you only buy dumb TVs, I applaud you for your dedication to security/privacy/control. But I also laugh at you for not caring one shit about image quality and not knowing how to use a firewall.

    10. Re:Powerless power? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I went out of my way to buy a dumb TV, (even had to add my own headphone jack, they assume it is a business wall screen not a real TV these days) and interestingly it supports the same resolutions as other TVs that were for sale.

      Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie. If you're staring at pixels, you need better content. Or a better filter to ensure that if you don't have interesting content, you also don't have the screen turned on. But that said, having wifi and a bunch of insecure, unsecure, vapid, malicious apps doesn't actually increase display resolution. *boggle*

      And, are you really sure that DLNA is popular with people who are good at firewalls? Because I'm used to using my firewall skills to make sure it can't live on my network! Maybe other people use it to let that stuff in. Maybe.

    11. Re: Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tv can receive wireless broadcast . No need for a 'dongle', much less any power supply. Available since ... 1950 or so?

    12. Re:Powerless power? by burnetd · · Score: 1

      Why the power chord is a problem ? I'd guess that like me he's already got far more things to plug in than sockets.

    13. Re: Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really! Good old Channel 3 works for me... shit, now I hear you need a set top box to do analog. Fucking FCC!

    14. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie.

      Without glasses I would say 240p is indistinguishable from 1080p.
      Saying that 720p and 1080p are indistinguishable for everyone else is a bold claim.

    15. Re:Powerless power? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      A lot of new smart TVs support miracast out of the box and if you want a dongle just search for miracast on amazon... there is a bunch of them that can be plugged into the usb port on your TV for power.

      https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=n...

    16. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surge protecting power strip slugger. Even better if you use a UPC of some sort to condition the power.

    17. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know what else requires a separate power source? The TV that the dongle is being plugged into! This really feels like a non-problem and I am struggling to understand the use case here.

    18. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're staring at pixels, you need better content.

      Or a high resolution TV, like 4K, or maybe you're just sitting too darned close.

    19. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more TVs have a fat power cable running to them.

      I think literally every TV has that. Unless battery-powered TVs exist.

      Do battery-powered TVs exist?

    20. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do battery-powered TVs exist?

      Coming up on the next "Ask Slashdot because you're too lazy to Google"...

    21. Re:Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the power chord is a problem ? I'd guess that like me he's already got far more things to plug in than sockets.

      My power chord is definitely a problem. It's C#.

    22. Re:Powerless power? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie. If you're staring at pixels, you need better content.

      You need better eyes. The difference between my high-end (at the time of purchase) 1080p LCD to my 4K OLED is fucking amazing.

      But that said, having wifi and a bunch of insecure, unsecure, vapid, malicious apps doesn't actually increase display resolution. *boggle*

      Of course not, but tapping in to my (wired) network lets me access shit easily and conveniently, in full 4K HDR glory. I also have a dedicated PC connected to it via HDMI. And I reserve the right to remove the thing from the network entirely if I stop trusting it or the apps become outdated and useless.

      Yes, people "who are good at firewalls" can enjoy DLNA.

    23. Re:Powerless power? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      That's the joke.

      Also, they used to, back in the NTSC days.

    24. Re: Powerless power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah man, there's a big difference between the two. You should look into getting your eye prescription rechecked (I assume you already have poor vision)

    25. Re:Powerless power? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Don't derp on yourself, I have way way better than 20/20 vision.

      Maybe you didn't comprehend a very very simple point, that was clearly made, because you did a knee-jerk "DERP!" like you always do? Fuck an A, how are you so stupid. How do you not understand such a simple point and yet blather on about 4k as if it is relevant to what I was saying?

      And then at the end when you say "of course not," OK just stop there. Don't type more on that subject, because you already admitted it isn't relevant.

      For your next trick, maybe you can measure the font size of a book and tell me how much better the resolution is if you have a finer dot pitch font. Because it isn't a different story, and if the experience is different that implies the reader actually missed the experience and talked about something else. If there is so little fucking story that I'm staring at pixels, why would even permit that crap on my screen? Why wouldn't I turn it off and do something else? Notice I said "good" movie, not whatever random shit you watch that doesn't even get your own interest.

    26. Re:Powerless power? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Although truly, 720p and 1080p are already indistinguishable when watching a good movie. If you're staring at pixels, you need better content.

      Don't derp on yourself, I have way way better than 20/20 vision.

      Maybe you didn't comprehend a very very simple point, that was clearly made, because you did a knee-jerk "DERP!" like you always do? Fuck an A, how are you so stupid. How do you not understand such a simple point and yet blather on about 4k as if it is relevant to what I was saying?

      And then at the end when you say "of course not," OK just stop there. Don't type more on that subject, because you already admitted it isn't relevant.

      For your next trick, maybe you can measure the font size of a book and tell me how much better the resolution is if you have a finer dot pitch font. Because it isn't a different story, and if the experience is different that implies the reader actually missed the experience and talked about something else. If there is so little fucking story that I'm staring at pixels, why would even permit that crap on my screen? Why wouldn't I turn it off and do something else? Notice I said "good" movie, not whatever random shit you watch that doesn't even get your own interest.

      Pro tip: When you're trying to troll, never go full retard.

    27. Re:Powerless power? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      compressionless wireless video, no lag between input and output

      Years ago i worked with an analog L-Band wireless transmitter for NTSC video. The quality wasn't HD, but it was wireless video with very little latency and no compression...

  3. USB on TV by b0bby · · Score: 1

    Most TVs come with a USB port, so you can power some of those HDMI devices right from the TV, albeit with an extra cable on the back.

    I did this for a while with a Fire Stick, but it would complain that it wasn't getting enough power sometimes so I ended up using an external USB charger with it. Newer devices should have lower power requirements though, and better TVs might have more powerful USB ports.

    1. Re:USB on TV by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Most TVs come with a USB port, so you can power some of those HDMI devices right from the TV, albeit with an extra cable on the back.

      I did this for a while with a Fire Stick, but it would complain that it wasn't getting enough power sometimes so I ended up using an external USB charger with it. Newer devices should have lower power requirements though, and better TVs might have more powerful USB ports.

      If you just want power over HDMI, why not just use the MHL standard? To have both power and HDMI over a USB-C cable you would need the non-standardd MHL mode anyway, and MHL also has a non-standard MHL mode for HDMI, that provides 5W .

    2. Re:USB on TV by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't come with a USB port, just install an outlet with built-in USB power behind the TV if you want to keep things clean.

    3. Re:USB on TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same happened to me. My TV also has a PCMCIA port and I always wondered if is possible to extract some power from there.

  4. Yeah there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your mom!!!

    1. Re:Yeah there is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u r ghey

  5. Chromecast? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't a chromecast do what you're looking for? Just plug your device into power and stream from wherever. You can plug the chromecast itself into a USB port on the TV for it's power if you need to.

    --
    -SaNo
    1. Re:Chromecast? by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      Doesn't that lock you into streaming video from Chrome though, rather than just sending the graphics card output?

    2. Re:Chromecast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might be interested in Mkchromecast, which aims to let you cast audio and video from Mac or Linux to any Chromecast

    3. Re: Chromecast? by hecksagon · · Score: 1

      Nah you can cast anything on the screen. There is some latency involved though.

    4. Re:Chromecast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This!

      I do this now around my house, I have a Chromecast dongle on each of my various TVs (which are all 5 years old) and it works great. Chromecast is HDMI output, but you will need to use one of the USB ports on the TV to power the Chromecast.

      Next issue is find an iPad (best) or an Android pad, or a dedicated box/pad/whatever to provide the Chromecast source cast. I have an older Android pad that I use for my base Chromecast source. Chromecast isn't as embedded in various player apps as I'd like, but there are a number of apps that will allow you to cast to a Chromecast target.

    5. Re:Chromecast? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that lock you into streaming video from Chrome though, rather than just sending the graphics card output?

      It's possible to send it through VLC to Comcast https://vlc-media-player.en.so... this is a VLC download and linked only for it's text, It's best to get VLC from it's source https://www.videolan.org/vlc/i...

    6. Re:Chromecast? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A chrome what? My 5 year old Samsung acts as a wireless DNLA receiver just fine no additional device required on either the laptop or the TV

    7. Re:Chromecast? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but he wants to work with a "dumb" TV that doesn't have smart-tv features like built in apps and stuff.

      --
      -SaNo
    8. Re:Chromecast? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      Nah, most android apps (I'm assuming android because of his desire to use USB-C but I might be mistaken) support sending video to a chromecast but as another said I think you can cast your entire screen, too.

      --
      -SaNo
    9. Re:Chromecast? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      Oh that's nice; I'll have to look into that, too.

      --
      -SaNo
    10. Re:Chromecast? by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Don't most new smart TVs already support wireless display? The roku and roku TV does.

    11. Re:Chromecast? by deesine · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize dumb TV's came with USB-C ports.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    12. Re:Chromecast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the Chrome browser, you can cast your full desktop from Windows, Mac, and Linux. On Windows and Mac, it will also cast audio, but not from Linux. Come to think of it, Android can cast the whole screen too... not sure if that includes audio.

    13. Re:Chromecast? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What dumb TV comes with USB ports?

      Side note, as I mentioned in another thread there's a very good reason he won't find a product he's looking for: Why would someone bother developing a product which is potentially expensive, and where 99.99% of your potential users would just ignore it and either use their existing Smart TV features or buy a Chromecast, or FireTV, or AppleTV, or any of the other devices that serve as a DNLA endpoint.

      Seriously right now on my network I have 5 possible ways to push content to my TV. My TV, Bluray player, and media centre both act as a DNLA endpoint, the Chromecast can be casted too, and I also have the ability to Miracast to two of the devices.

      There is a rounding error close to zero market for this.

    14. Re:Chromecast? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      What dumb TV comes with USB ports?

      My 10 or 11 y/o Sharp Aquos dumb TV has a USB port for firmware upgrades (which have never happened). It's a dumb TV. I've mostly used it to power a Wii sensor bar, which tells you how old it is.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    15. Re: Chromecast? by Rampage_Rick · · Score: 1

      I believe that the latest version of VLC supports Chromecast

    16. Re: Chromecast? by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      I believe that in 1978, God changed his mind about black people!

    17. Re:Chromecast? by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      <quote><p>Wouldn't a chromecast do what you're looking for? Just plug your device into power and stream from wherever. You can plug the chromecast itself into a USB port on the TV for it's power if you need to.</p></quote>

      Chrome cast would require WiFiand also USB power.

      OP is looking for a two item solution that he/she can

      1) plug into their USB Port on their laptop or desktop
      2) plug the other device into a Stupid TV with only HDMI or VGA Input
      3) work without external power input (in the case of no USB power, and not having to use a usb power bank)

      This is the situation in which it would be immensely useful:

      A) Presentations where you walk up to a conference room at a customer site
      -and-
      B) Keynotes at a convention center and are only given

      1) HDMI
      -or-
      2) VGA

      to work with.

    18. Re:Chromecast? by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      no, but the laptop does.  hdmi still goes into the dumb tv.

    19. Re:Chromecast? by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      Dumb TV is a slight misnomer.  Think about a Keynote Address or a Presentation in a conference room where all the wall mounted displays are commercial digital signage units rated for 24/7 use in VTC.

    20. Re:Chromecast? by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      Only through wifi or network connection.  If you land at a convention hall like blackhat and have to do a presentation, you're basically given an hdmi or vga plug to put into your computer.  That's not flexible when you need to show practicals and move around a bit.

  6. Doubt it, for reasons by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    I've been chasing various wired solutions for a decade, and they just aren't coming. The various copyright industries have been sitting on standards for a long time - they generally dislike anything that could give the remotest chance you could, say, jack a phone or a homemade DVR to a TV, or anything to a DVR without massive restrictions and monitoring. They like Chromecast, because Chromecast forces your activities to be logged by Google. WiFi Direct (Miracast) is almost dead, Slimport is dead.

    It's possible there are professional solutions, expensive and bound to licenses and remote logging an monitoring, that can sing and dance they way we'd like. But as you note, no dumb TVs. Even dumb antennas are being phased out for encrypted antenna feeds that require internet based authentification to watch (next broadcast standard).

    1. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So why don't they crack down on Airtame then?

    2. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      The various copyright industries have been sitting on standards for a long time -

      I was thinking from my experience with video is either composite like in the old days or SDI like what the pros use. Everything else seems to have baggage like it either doesn't connect or need to do various software configurations. I've worked with some USB video, it either works or it does not. Composite video works (unless your source or TV set goes bad, or break in cable). Same with SDI, the video is either there or something crapped out, HDMI is ok (but it has DRM baggage), not many if any TV sets have SDI inputs.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright is effectively at this point a tool for suppressing knowledge and political dissent.

      The governments support copyright because they get to use it as justification for why "your" computer, phone, device, whatever has hardware in it that effectively locks you out of it, and has the power to spy on you constantly. The media cartels love it because it props up their obsolete business model that hasn't been justified since the early 2000s at the latest, and it gives them veto power over human technological advancement. Regular corps love it because they can use it to smack down any potential competitor before they even get an IPO, and set the bar to market entry so artificially high that only the incumbents can afford to participate after paying off each other. Researchers love it because along with patents, they can tie up entire concepts in a web of uncertainty in such a way that only they can truly benefit from it, and smack down any one who dares try to take the concept in a direction they don't approve of. The general public on the other hand, gets minor improvements to existing tech, inferior products and services when compared to the illicit versions, constant accusations of being criminals by companies even when the public does exactly what they want, artificially inflated prices, loss of natural and legal rights post point of sale, lack of interoperability, constant rehashes of the same cookie cutter content, loss of privacy, freedom of expression, and association, extreme risk of politically motivated targeting, the list goes on.

      All devices will have some kind of monitoring, phoning home, and control built right into the silicon, and it won't be optional. You shouldn't expect anything less at this point or the near future. Until copyright is reigned in, consumer demand is not a concern.

    4. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's a nice conspiracy but reality is far more practical. What is the market? And who are your competitors? Firstly every damn TV acts as it's own DNLA endpoint these days. For those that don't Chromecast is incredibly cheap and so is a fireTV and the countless of devices that act as a wireless device as well as an endpoint renderer.

      Chromecast isn't popular because it's approved by some mythical God, is popular because it's cheap and it works for nearly everyone. You're delusional if you think Google share viewing data with anyone other than Google. The reason it has no competitors is that no one in their right mind would try and compete with a device that cheap, in market where they are sold as a loss leader by entertainment providers and where DNLA and Miracast are already supported by every man and their dog. There's no reason to do this via USB dongles.

    5. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI is ok (but it has DRM baggage),

      If you're thinking of HDCP, then a $15 HDMI splitter from Amazon takes care of that.

    6. Re:Doubt it, for reasons by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      airtame pushes a black screen where the video is because it doesn't have hdcp, so nobody cares because it's not violating anything.

  7. Miracast by orev · · Score: 2

    Miracast seems to be taking over this space. Almost everything has WiFi already, and old stuff that doesn't is old. Companies would rather you buy new stuff, so making something for older systems isn't worth it and sort of a niche market, so very small market with low returns. For anything else you can easily by a dongle like the MS display adapter and convert the receiving device.

    1. Re:Miracast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Miracast.. Which is not supported by Apple's computers or mobile products, and has had it's support dropped from mainline Android.

      It's only supported by Windows really, and only as a screen sharing scheme for wireless projectors and monitors/TVs via dongle. It's a software-only solution and cannot be used as a primary monitor.

      I've been looking at wireless display tech for a while now and I don't think the technology is there yet. HDMI pushes a LOT of data and consumer wifi, or wifi-like devices can't pass it raw. This means expensive hardware based compression. Lossy compression with squished color space and compression artifacts.

      There are hardware wireless HDMI extenders, but they're really expensive, look awful, have short range, and disconnect a lot. Also a single pair saturates whatever channels they sit on and you can't have many near eachother without swamping available spectrum. (As a bonus they sit in the same bands that wifi use and kill your wifi)

      Intel tried with something called WiDi - Not a bad plan really. Chipset video in a laptop could be passed directly to a compatible wifi adapter. With all components in the path cooperating it could pass compressed video to a compatible receiver pretty cleanly (GPU based video compression).. But spectrum swamping was a problem. Can't have an office full of them. Widi was canned years ago and is not supported in win10d.

    2. Re:Miracast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it does not work most of the time!

    3. Re:Miracast by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      WiDi is still used on ASUS Zenfone Max 3 and 4, and the slightly aged Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter I use can see it fine. I did a lot of work finding that solution - very hard to ferret out WiFi Direct compatible phones. *ASUS still supports Slimport and MHL as well.* I checked. All good.

      Bugger is, Neflix and Hulu BOTH actively refuse to support screen mirroring via Wifi Direct or Slimport or Miracast. The sound gets through. So does the subtitles. But they refuse to accomodate the video transport standard anymore, calling it antiquidated and demanding we switch to Chromecast, which I *cannot use* because there is no network to attach it to - and Google is the Creepy White Van that watches everything you do with Chromecast, anyway. Distasteful.
      Good news: Youtube and Amazon Video DO support the screen mirroring standards without exception.

    4. Re:Miracast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put in a router that is not connected to the internet. Connect chromecast to router, connect pc to router. Stream videos from PC to Chromecast w/o any chance of them spying.

    5. Re:Miracast by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. Hope it works. Been a while since I had a home router. I've also heard the trick of hooking it up once, then disconnecting from the internet. Does Chromecast require *any* need to phone home? I'd assumed it did. Had it once and took it back.

  8. Unclear request is unclear by jevvim · · Score: 2

    jez9999, first of all do you know of a TV that has a USB-C port on it? I haven't seen any of those beasts yet, but it will happen someday.

    Second, not all USB-C ports are the same. Some USB-C ports only support USB protocols, while others can support Thunderbolt and/or video. So you'd need video support on both sides of the connection; the computer side is likely to be common either as raw video or a USB video device, but again it's about finding the TV with the support for video over USB-C...

    HDMI can't supply power, but MHL can. Mobile High-Definition Link (MHL) can (but is not required to) provide power back to the video source from the TV, and a lot of TVs already support MHL. MHL can use either a USB Micro B connector or an HDMI connector, so maybe you should be looking for a solution with an MHL-enabled TV adapter?

    1. Re:Unclear request is unclear by jofas · · Score: 1

      Your obstacle isn't data bandwidth nor power, it's licensing. The powers that be don't _want_ you to vary from the current standards because they want to control licensing.

  9. Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    What I'd like is to be able to wall-mount a new TV and just plug in a wireless dongle to stream the video with no extra setup required on the receiver end.

    Sounds like what you need is the TV equivalent of those ultra-low-power "FCC Part 15" FM transmitters people used to "broadcast" their portable CD player's music to their car stereo systems 20 years ago.

    As far as I know, they don't exist, but it sounds like there is a market for them.

    The more common application for something like this would be at weddings or other parties, where a big-screen TV tuned to an unused channel could show a live feed from a camera that is walking around the party.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out: https://www.datv-express.com/ not exactly USB dongle sized and they seem to be on a bit of a hiatus waiting for new hardware components.

  10. USB-C TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I understand the question. It seems you're asking for a USB-C dongle that plugs directly into the TV, but I don't know of a single TV that supports this (maybe they do?). There are quite a few TVs out there already that supports power over HDMI via MHL.

  11. Doesn't the TV require power wiring? by RickRussellTX · · Score: 1

    The TV or monitor, and often separate speakers, already require AC power. What benefit are you getting from a video that gets power from the television's USB-C connector? Couldn't it just get power from the same AC plug?

    1. Re:Doesn't the TV require power wiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benefit is less cords cluttering your space.

    2. Re:Doesn't the TV require power wiring? by Strider- · · Score: 1

      So just Martha Stewart your cables... Tie them up in a bow behind the TV with some velcro straps (or zip ties if you're a heathen), and voila... a clean installation. I've got all sorts of shit going on behind my TV (Raspberri Pi to do philips ambi-light style backlighting, the backlighting itself, HDMI, Ethernet, multiple power bricks, etc...) and from the couch you can't see any of it, the TV just hangs on its mount on the wall.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  12. Maybe by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    First you simply can not stick to dumb TV sets. You need a smart TV and they are not expensive these day unless you buy a huge one. i have Netflix that is sent by wifi in my home. It can appear with no problem on three TVs in my home. You simply need the Netflix plug in on each TV. With a smart phone all you need is my password and user name and you can watch movies anywhere you want. A TV has to plug in anyway. Plugging in a wall wart is no problem and the wires are quite tiny so you should be able to make it pleasant to the eye. With computer tech advancing the way it is i think we could have strong computers inside our TV sets much like the all in one desktops we see these days. It would be just an extension of what we already have going from mild all in one units based on acomputer console to a tV with really strong and fast PCs behind the screens.

    1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) Yes, yes you can stick to dumb tvs
      B) Price is not the issue here, its privacy and security, and not being remotely disabled.
      C) you need the "Netflix plug in" What?
      D) Paragraphs and line breaks, use them.
      E) He doesnt want to watch netflix per se, he wants to watch videos streamed from his computer, thats a different ball of wax.
      F) What are you doing here Jim. Your village called.

  13. Where's the Tylenol? by phaserbanks · · Score: 1

    This is clear as mud. My best guess is subby wants a TV equipped with USB-C ports that accept AV input and provide power output. Otherwise I'm lost.

    1. Re:Where's the Tylenol? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Subby is requesting to deliver both power and video via USB-C to a TV. What isn't sure is to what extent the power is being used for; to power the USB-C decoder box, or to power both the decoder box and TV? It's possible what he' really looking for is some sort of PoE solution where you can use CAT5e as a single power/data transport media and break out the encoding and decoding at both ends.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Where's the Tylenol? by kqs · · Score: 1

      Can't be, because "wireless" is mentioned many times. The only reason I can think to deliver power to a TV would be to power the TV, and USB-c seems unlikely to work for this. Plus, if you can get power to the USB-c then you can get power to the TV. Unless you think that wireless USB-c would also transmit power wirelessly?

      No, "clear as mud" is understating the issue.

  14. MPAA/RIAA by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't this run afoul of the recording industry mafia?

    My understanding was that the lightning-fast adoption of HDMI had everything to do with the ability to use it to hardware-validate copyprotection from device to device.

    Does (or could) USB-C have the same capability? If not, I can't see any mainstream hardware mfg adopting it for their products.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:MPAA/RIAA by fred133 · · Score: 1

      Yes, HDMI isn't better, its just all about DRM!
      Per their spec:
      "HDMI can carry high quality multi-channel audio data and can carry all standard and high-definition consumer electronics video formats.

      Content protection technology is available."
      I'm getting real tired of this whole encryption deal...
      Its OK for THEM to encrypt, but not US ... and send us to jail if we DO decrypt...
      " do as I say, not as I do."

  15. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not recommending any particular Apple based solution. In fact I'm unaware of any, though they might have one.

    No, that's not it. The reason I recommend Apple is that you want a dongle-based solution. And when you want a dongle-based solution, Apple is your company! Ask them; even if they don't have one now they might be willing to create such a product. Make sure you play up the dongle aspect though.

    Dongle, dongle, dongle!

  16. Why? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    This means you need a separate receiver box and power cable going into the box, but cables are what you're trying to get away from with wireless video!

    So you want to go from two cables down to one? That's fine though a litlle silly for a wall mounted TV.

    So the answer to this would seem to be USB-C. It supports HDMI video as well as power, so in theory you could create a receiver dongle that just plugged into a TV (or monitor with speakers) and required no external power cable. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything like this on the market.

    There are some cables being worked on. Unclear if this solves the problem you are working on.

    What I'd like is to be able to wall-mount a new TV and just plug in a wireless dongle to stream the video with no extra setup required on the receiver end.

    If you are wall mounting the TV already, why the need to worry about having a separate power cable? I don't understand why you can't just use a receiver with wires since you'll need them anyway. Sounds to me like you are making perfect the enemy of good. I'm not aware of any TV that can be powered by USB-C so it's kind of a moot issue anyway.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about telling people what you actually want to do?

      Can't speak for the OP, but I do know what I was trying to do.

      So, my desktop PC at home is a 4-monitor machine. Why? Why the fuck not? :-P

      My desktop PC is a fair distance from my large screen TV, well beyond what an HDMI cable would be a viable thing for. It is in the same room., however.

      What I want to do is mirror one of the HDMI outputs from my computer to my TV, so I can sit in my recliner with a wireless keyboard and mouse for some limited stuff. But what I want is the Windows desktop, not something built to stream movies, I've got Netflix for that.

      So I went looking for how I'd get an HDMI signal to my TV from my PC. Sadly, short of buying some costly HDMI over IP solutions (which are cool but too expensive for this application), there doesn't seem to be anything which readily does that .. or at least, I didn't find it (which granted, it wasn't critical enough to keep looking after the first few things were ruled out).

      Again, my TV is a dumb display, and I'd prefer just to feed another HDMI into to my receiver.

      At the end of the day, getting an HDMI signal from point A to point B, over a distance either too long or too inconvenient to string an HDMI cable, and without several other pieces of technology I don't want or need.

      Me, I'd like to be able to plug something in on either end of this, and have the two ends not need to know or care anything about the stuff in the middle. I've yet to see that short of spendy gear which would let you use ethernet cables to carry the data.

      I don't need gaming speeds, so I can live with some lag, but dammit, I want to sit in my comfy chair with a lapdesk for proofreading stuff and making notes.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VGA is a fairly usable and realistic solution if you just want some wired length, with very cheap HDMI to VGA adapters too. The TV needs a VGA input then but that is common. VGA on AV receiver would be perfect I guess.
      Conversion to old YCbCr? I wonder about the range for that.

  17. Use a cable-hider by ljw1004 · · Score: 3, Informative

    but cables are what you're trying to get away from with wireless video

    The reason Chromecast and Firestick use wireless is because people generally don't have ethernet outlets adjacent to their TV. But everyone in the world has a power outlet adjacent to their TV, so few people have objections to using that.

    If I understand right, your objection is that although you'll tolerate seeing the power cable go from our outlet to your TV set, you're reluctant to see a second wall-wart and cable alongside it. Your proposal (power over USB-C) is one solution to the problem, but there are several other more straightforward solutions...

    1. Replace an outlet with one that has a USB socket and a power socket e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Leviton... to eliminate the wall-wart. Or you could go for a recessed outlet to hide it further e.g. https://www.amazon.com/PowerBr...

    2. Use a "cable tidy wrap" e.g. https://www.amazon.com/uxcell-... so the two cables look visually like a single cable.

    3. Use a "wall-mounted cable concealer" e.g. https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod... so you don't even see the cables at all; you just see the thing on the wall. (Note: when I moved house and took down the cable concealers, they were so firmly attached that they took some paint with them, and I had to re-spackle and paint).

    1. Re:Use a cable-hider by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I think he is looking for something like this...

      https://www.amazon.com/Microso...?

      https://www.microsoft.com/acce...

    2. Re:Use a cable-hider by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Oh! I did find the OP quite confusing. So you think he wants a way to project from his laptop to his TV with no additional wires in the laptop?

      Option 1: use Chromecast software on your laptop/android, and a Chromecast receiver or android box connected to your TV. You can broadcast either the content of a webpage, or the content from a media-player such as VLC. (can't broadcast your entire desktop as far as I can see).

      Option 2: use apple software on your laptop/iphone, and an Apple TV receiver or android-box-with-airstream-app on on your TV. You can broadcast either the content of iTunes, or your entire desktop/mobile.

      Option 3: use Miracast software built into Windows, and a Firestick or other dongle on your TV. You can broadcast either your entire desktop or, I believe, the output of a media player.

      All three options work fine with dumb TVs (dongle required on the TV), and they don't require any hardware to be plugged into your laptop. The OP might have been asking for a dongle to achieve this on his laptop, but why look for a dongle-on-laptop solution when you can solve the problem easily without a dongle?

    3. Re:Use a cable-hider by Toshito · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to see the power cable but still have the TV flush on the wall, install one of those old "clock" outlet behind it: https://www.leviton.com/en/pro...

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
    4. Re:Use a cable-hider by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      I've been asking the same question as the OP for a couple of years. I have a nice desktop replacement laptop and would simply like to wirelessly use my TV as a second screen. I currently use HDMI but the cables are annoying and have to be replaced every few months.

      Your options are all things that I have noted, but none work for me because...

      1) Chromecast can't present itself as a secondary display on the laptop or even mirror the main display

      2) I don't have or want any Apple products because then I'd have to pay extra for everything I have and

      3) my laptop, like most, does not support Miracast which requires specific hardware. Also, I run linux and don't know that I could use Miracast even if it did.

      I understand the bandwidth problems, but hopefully we'll be getting there with the new bands above 50GHz in the future if they're not all sucked up by the 5G behemoth.

      In general, I have been disappointed in the evolution of wireless devices and protocols. For example, why can't I walk around the house with my bluetooth headphones and connect to multiple devices very dynamically with ease yet? In a shared way? It would be nice if two of us could listen to the same program on the TV while another listens to their music in the same room and when a call comes in on my smartphone it just nicely shares the headphones which should automatically put the TV to lower volume during the call. I thought we'd be there years ago. It would also be nice if room noise could be dynamically set to pass thru or be blocked. Wireless headphones should be enabling both personal and shared experiences across multiple simultaneous devices, not just personal on a single device at a time.

      In similar fashion, I should be able to use any screen with any video-capable device without wiring it up and choose to have devices appear in PIP fashion. It would be awesome to have full access to any device screen in an appropriately sized window on any computer screen or TV screen. This would also make VR headsets much more useful. For example, you wouldn't have to take the headset off to deal with phone calls. At some point, as AR headsets become more reasonable, it could make the screen on the phone optional.

  18. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What odd verb tenses, Chris.

    " If I turned the box off"

    Why "turned"? Did someone accuse you?

    "If I pulled the HDMI cable out, the chasis fan stop spinning"

    Yikes. Come on, get that brain MRI already.

  19. superMHL by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

    superMHL was something I stumbled across a while ago when looking for a compute stick that might be bus-powered. It's a standard developed for connecting mobile devices to displays.

    It doesn't address the wireless portion of the question, but it does provide power-over-HDMI (to charge mobile devices while plugged in) and supports USB-C, so a wireless receiver could in principle both transmit video and receive power over a single cable.

    It doesn't seem to have achieved adoption, but I don't know if that's just because it's still too new.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    http://www.mhltech.org/technol...

    1. Re:superMHL by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      I'd upvote you if I could!

  20. Why? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    How about telling people what you actually want to do?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  21. Re: I don't know, but whatever your problem is... by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

    fine, but for that to work youâ(TM)d have to give up your guns first, and that isnâ(TM)t a solution because then youâ(TM)d have nothing to shoot the disney generation with.

  22. Thoughtless naval gazing by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Chromecast.

    This is an askSlashdot?

    these aren't ideal because HDMI can't provide power. This means you need a separate receiver box and power cable going into the box, but cables are what you're trying to get away from with wireless video!

    No? Well... not personally. All my desires for wireless video have stemmed from wanting a real-computer interface with a phone. Instead of thumbing shit into a 3 inch screen, I want to walk up to a desk and have the devices wake up and connect, simply becoming part of my computer by my proximity. Ideally. But even ideally, the screen (and even mouse and keyboard) can be plugged into wall power and I don't have to worry about batteries. Yeah, worrying about ONE battery is enough of a headache. Keyboards and mice draw so very little it's moot, but screens are going to be hungry no matter what*. What the market has to offer is a couple docking stations, all of which are niche, proprietary as hell, and you'd really have to go out of your way to make it happen.

    The only place you'd want the screen to be wireless and run on battery would be..... a tablet. Specifically splitting the processor from the front display. Meh. If both are mobile, just... carry both together.

    What I'd like to see in the future is a screen in a restaurant or bar you could direct your phone to stream to. Some sort of time-sharing or juke-box queue system. ...And then some system for dealing with assholes. ....How does chromecast handle multiple people fighting for the resource?

    (*Although I think an exception would be that low power screen that they made for the OLPC X0.)

    1. Re:Thoughtless naval gazing by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Dealing with that asshole in Chromecast and other "I'm here, cast to me" devices is a problem that is past due the obvious solution: proximity priority. I'm not talking about Bluetooth RSSI or any other interference-prone, highly implementation-dependent tech. I'm talking about blatant proximity like reset buttons on WiFi routers that provide fail-safe "privileged" powers to those with actual physical access to the teeny tiny reset button.

      But this was an analogy - the smart-device equivalent to this is obviously NFC, and it's been used so many times by Nintendo and payment systems, I find it strange that mostly nobody ever uses it for time-sensitive, EXCLUSIVE pairing. It's been in car locks, car infotainment systems and smart speakers, true, but never on video cast devices such as TVs. Heck, this could be embedded on docks or even TV remotes for the "I don't wanna get up of the couch" or the "huge tv and/or projectors" use cases. I'm hoping Android Auto Wireless ends up using this for pairing, so that finally every big tech company sees the potential it (should) have, for switching whoever is in charge, at any given point in time.

  23. HF sender/receiver by guruevi · · Score: 1

    They do exist and you can build them yourself.

    The problem is the bandwidth required to transmit your signal. You're talking about bidirectional, uninterrupted 10Gbps over wireless.

    What most HDMI dongles do is convert the signal to lower resolutions (VGA) and compress it. You need a decompressor on the other end but more than possible on 2.4GHz. There is also no bidirectional communication thus it is not "really" a wireless HDMI signal. USB-C is pure data packets, you'd have to find a USB-C to VGA converter, transmitter and then on the other end an upscaler.

    I haven't looked into the USB-C spec but I don't think the sink (receiving end) is supposed to provide any power

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  24. Wrong band Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I'd be looking for something that I could watch with my regular ATSC television, but with the transmitter in the same room or an adjacent room.

    Obviously, what I am looking for would be very very low power - any TV more than a few hundred feet away wouldn't be able to get a lock on it with just plain old rabbit ears, and anyone more than a block away would be hard-pressed to tune in with even a decent outdoor antenna.

    Unlike the "transmit your CD player to your car radio" ultra-low-power transmitters, I don't think such devices are legal in the United States for consumer use.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Wrong band Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're looking for came and went a decade ago.
      UWB HDMI Tx/Rx pairs were around in 2006.

    2. Re:Wrong band Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think such devices are legal in the United States for consumer use.

      You can buy them at walmart, target, best buy, dollar store, etc.
      They are only strong enough to transmit like 20 feet. On a rare occasion I had mine (when I used it like ten years ago) get interfered with by someone with a more powerful one passing on the highway.

      According to FCC:

      Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules. On FM frequencies, these devices are limited to an effective service range of approximately 200 feet (61 meters).

      So with a range of like 20 feet, you have nothing to worry about.

    3. Re:Wrong band Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by davidwr · · Score: 1

      I don't think such devices are legal in the United States for consumer use.

      You can buy them at walmart, target, best buy, dollar store, etc.

      According to FCC:

      Unlicensed operation on the AM and FM radio broadcast bands is permitted for some extremely low powered devices covered under Part 15 of the FCC's rules

      By "such devices" I mean for TV, not AM or FM radio.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    4. Re:Wrong band Re:Ultra-low-power TV transmitter? by davidwr · · Score: 1

      What you're looking for came and went a decade ago.
      UWB HDMI Tx/Rx pairs were around in 2006.

      Most of the UWB HDMI Tx/Rx pairs that I saw still need electricity at both ends. Unless the TV provides the electricity, it does not meet the original submitter's needs.

      In any case, I offered a completely different solution - a consumer-grade ultra-low-power "ATSC TV station." Obviously, there would need to be a power source at the transmitter, but since the receiver is the television itself, there wouldn't need to be anything there but an antenna.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. USB-C. Wireless. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    What am I missing here? One does not go with the other.

    Oh, you just want to plug the wireless gadget into USB-C.

    Oh, God. They probably sell them in Shenzhen and the Akihabara, the size of a gumstick and in white or Hello Kitty. For $8USD.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  26. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that mean you're no longer a 48 year old wirbin, Chris?

  27. VideoLink by Khyber · · Score: 1

    http://videolink.ca/

    Ask for Hugo. Tell him "Colossus" sent you. He should be able to get you set straight.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  28. Microsoft Wireless Display Adapter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.microsoft.com/accessories/en-us/products/adapters/wireless-display-adapter-2/p3q-00001

    Most TVs with HDMI have a USB port close by The HDMI Ports.
    This dongle plugs in to HDMI and USB on the TV

  29. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CROFLOL creimer that's really funny indeed!

    Don't click on his homepage link! creimer is trying to get you to subscribe automatically to his youtube channel, force you to watch his digi-feces videos and make money off you!

    CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE:
    Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on /. so make sure to go to:
    https://slashdot.org/~_sharp'r...
    https://slashdot.org/~crreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
    https://slashdot.org/~criss69
    https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
    https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
    https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
    and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!

    Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!

    creimer wrote:

    I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

    Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

    creimer wrote:

    All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

    But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

    Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
    Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses
    And all the king's men
    Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
    Together again.

    Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Creimy's real pictures:
    Before the sex change:

  30. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He creimer sock puppet, read this!

    I watched Casey Neistat videos for the first time in my life yesterday and it's really funny how the delusional creimer tries to copy his style in his own creimy digi-feces videos and how he always give Neistat as an example!

    Neistat even has one video where he says "to believe" and to "build your own brand" with your "own ideas"

    CROFLOL! The delusional creimer really belives in that shit! You don't have to search really far to find where it's coming from! creimer thinks for real that he will be the next Casey Neistat ;-)

    CROFLOL! CROFLOL! CROFLOL!
    --
    Balena!

  31. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, but it seems like Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own schemes. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.

    I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!

    I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.

    --
    Silvia Bunge
    Psychology Department
    University of California, Berkeley

  32. Half implementend standards and proprietary stuff by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    The problem you are likely to find is two fold.

    1. Most USB Type-C implementations in devices are half assed and skips a whole ton of features, including the video transmission support. Unfortunately, it's just the way it goes... for all the promises made with USB Type-C, it mostly carried all of the problems standard USB already had.
    Among USB Type-C implementations on the market right now there must be at least half a dozen ways it's implemented or more... two or 4 lane for data, HDMI support or not, 2 way power or not, daisy chaining capabilities or not, a variety of how much power it can handle and all sorts of other stuff. Not only that, but device manufacturers makes it incredibly hard, when not downright impossible, for you to find out what exactly they have in their devices. Particularly for smartphones, it's never explicited, not even in technical specifications.
    Much like USB OtG in the past, plus MHL, and several other capabilities, those were all hidden from the costumer.
    So, it highly depends on what device you have if you'll even be able to get a video signal or not. Which in turn demotivates manufacturers to develop dongles, accessories and devices with a full USB Type-C implementation in mind;

    2. Proprietary standards for video transmission. As far as I know, since before USB-C, you had Miracast (Microsoft and others), AirPlay (Apple), WiDi (Intel) and something called DIAL which is the standard Chromecast uses. Those are all for wireless video transmissions, and all of them are proprietary. And these are not the only ones, just standards tied to better known brands.
    For wired via USB you had stuff like MHL and SlimPort, the later pretty much dead now.
    As far as I know, USB Type-C potentially has wired video support (implementation depends on manufacturer) for one standard alone: HDMI Alt Mode, which is an extention of MHL. Some USB Type-C dongles designed more for laptops have it, but again, it depends if the device itself will work with it. I don't know of any smartphones that can handle it, potentially because of power limitations, but perhaps there is some out there. If you wanna go this route, look for the full featured hubs that Kensington makes - but those are wired, so I guess it's not your case.
    Then there's Thunderbolt 3, which shares the same connector of USB Type-C, which can also have support for DisplayPort Alt Mode in a similar fashion. Kensington also makes full featured hubs for those. There are several other brands, but this is the one I've seen tested and working.

    So you see, it's not only about having the connectors or not, it's also about having the hardware, firmware and software - protocols for video transmission and whatnot. And those are why it's pretty hard to find the solution you are looking for. I don't know about any dedicated protocol specific for USB Type-C devices to work with wireless video transmission, and I'm not sure if there's any real advantage to make something this specific... wireless transmission protocols are usually developed as an independent thing regardless of what standard for connector is used.

    The closest thing I can suggest for what you want is a Miracast compatible dongle. I personally have one from Actiontec model ScreenBeamMini2. It's similar to a Chromecast, it came before Chromecasts were around, you'll need to connect it to the TV's HDMI port and also power it with a regular USB cable. The difference to Chromecasts is that it's not tied to Google or Chrome, for compatible devices it'll mirror the entire screen. But you'll need to see about that compatibility... Windows tablets and laptops usually are compatible, and several brands of smartphones also are. But if it's not explicit anywhere that the device is Miracast compatible, you'll have to dig deeper to see if it is.

    The problem with development is that the tech is low selling, didn't catch a mainstream market, is spread out because of proprietary standards, and has to deal with that extreme fragmentation in standards implementation and compati

  33. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha creimer!

    Stan Wee will not appear at comic con? Is that your way "to believe" and to "build your own brand" with your "own ideas" like you've learned from Casey Neistat?

    Apart from that, why would you want us to watch you stupid digi-feces video on how to get his autograph for 200$ if you are positive that he will not be there you dumb fuck?

    Anyway, nobody cares about Stan Wee but yourself you fat retard!

    He creimer sock puppet, read this!

    I watched Casey Neistat videos for the first time in my life yesterday and it's really funny how the delusional creimer tries to copy his style in his own creimy digi-feces videos and how he always give Neistat as an example!

    Neistat even has one video where he says "to believe" and to "build your own brand" with your "own ideas"

    CROFLOL! The delusional creimer really belives in that shit! You don't have to search really far to find where it's coming from! creimer thinks for real that he will be the next Casey Neistat ;-)

    CROFLOL! CROFLOL! CROFLOL!
    --
    Balena!

  34. Re:HDMI powers my chasis fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, but it seems likely that Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own schemes. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.

    I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!

    I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.

    --
    Silvia Bunge
    Psychology Department
    University of California, Berkeley

  35. Straight Answer by joemck · · Score: 1

    Let's see if I understood the question right: You want a receiver device that plugs into a single USB C plug on a TV, draws power from it, and delivers received wireless video through it?

    For the reason you don't see these, look at some TVs. How many have USB C video inputs? Very few. How many have HDMI inputs? All of them. Most also have a USB 2.0 port that can deliver power, and if not, it isn't a big deal to run a wire to a phone charger -- the goal of wireless video isn't to have no wires attached to your stationary TV, it's to have no wires attached to the portable device sending video to it.

    USB C on the sending end (and still HDMI on the receiving end) is a more reasonable request. Many laptops have it now, and having a single plug to connect on that end is more valuable than on the TV end where you plug it in once and leave it.

  36. forebrain by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    Samsung sells at least 4 non-smart TV's with USB inputs. I wanted to add external and portable (Roku, in this case) devices for my "smart" capabilities.

    That said, I agree with the rest of your post.