Google to Take on Apple with Open AirPlay Alternative

DeathChill · Nov 21, 2012

I think some of the confusion stems from the way I interpreted his post. I assumed the poster meant that Eric Schmidt used his knowledge of the iPhone to change Android, rather then to start it. I obviously think he's wrong, but I thought that is what he was saying.

Renzatic said:
The core question here is why does it matter who started first?

It doesn't, but the discussion went towards it so I just pointed out that Apple had started the iPhone project before Google had bought Android. However, Android the company predates the iPhone project, like Knight said.

thekev · Nov 21, 2012

KnightWRX said:
I can definately see Eric dressed in black with a ski mask, tasing a couple of Apple security goons and going to the "Mainframe room" to download "iOS onto a USB stick". The progress bar was probably moving at roughly the same pace as the incoming heavily armed security and finished just in time for Eric to make a quick getaway which Steve came in the room only to see a screen that said "Download 100% complete".

He also probably injected a virus into the core Apple mainframe, disrupting their entire operation for a couple of minutes to help him make his espace.

He used a Liquid Metal Sandisk Cruzer Titanium stick btw.

That was extremely funny.

duervo · Nov 21, 2012

0dev said:
I've said this many times but I really do feel bad for Yanks when it comes to phone plans.

I pay £25 a month for 2000 minutes, 5000 texts, and unlimited data with unlimited tethering and no fair use on a 30 day rolling contract. I can literally use 100GB of data in a month without any problems.

It's just as bad in Canada, and in some cases, depending on when you're in the market for a new phone/plan, it can be much worse. However, even with things as bad as they are, it's still a vast improvement on what was available for plans 7-8 years ago.

LagunaSol · Nov 21, 2012

0dev said:
I've said this many times but I really do feel bad for Yanks when it comes to phone plans.

But we don't pay $8 for a gallon of gas.

(But we're getting there.)

throAU · Nov 21, 2012

steve119 said:
Why would apple open up their airplay system to allow other devices to work on it?

That would mean they would lose money by allowing so, they don't make as much profit on Apple TV as they do on other devices so not going to happen.

Not necessarily.

If it "just works" with ANY device, people won't be attempting to conjure up an alternative solution. They already have plenty of airplay hardware out there, no one else does yet.

Apple don't directly make money out of airplay, they make money out of the content that is streamed with it.

If you can stream content out of say, itunes on your mac to your new TV directly, you might not bother to use some competing standard that skips the itunes store.

Prodo123 · Nov 21, 2012

Oletros said:
Does any device apart of Apple's have Airplay?

Yes.
http://airparrot.com
http://www.knowyourmobile.com/features/1536216/best_airplay_apps_for_android.html
http://tech.nocr.at/tech/airplay-on-linux/

Oletros · Nov 22, 2012

Prodo123 said:
Yes.
http://airparrot.com
http://www.knowyourmobile.com/features/1536216/best_airplay_apps_for_android.html
http://tech.nocr.at/tech/airplay-on-linux/

Let me rephrase it, is there any Airplay video licensee?

steve119 · Nov 22, 2012

throAU said:
Not necessarily.

If it "just works" with ANY device, people won't be attempting to conjure up an alternative solution. They already have plenty of airplay hardware out there, no one else does yet.

Apple don't directly make money out of airplay, they make money out of the content that is streamed with it.

If you can stream content out of say, itunes on your mac to your new TV directly, you might not bother to use some competing standard that skips the itunes store.

Correct, airplay third party manufacturers are making speakers, etc, but they can only be used with apple devices. This would mean that if they opened up this standard, then they would not make money on their own devices, i.e iPhones, touches etc. If you can use other mobile devices outside apple on airplay devices, would everyone therefore still buy apple devices?

They also make their profits on these idevices(apart from Atv), so opening the standard would in fact lose them money.

resmypc · Nov 22, 2012

Excellent

We need this type of competition. Google go for it!

Prodo123 · Nov 22, 2012

Oletros said:
Let me rephrase it, is there any Airplay video licensee?

The better question is, do you even need a license?
All of the above solutions have been reverse engineering AirPlay to achieve streaming.

Oletros · Nov 22, 2012

Prodo123 said:
The better question is, do you even need a license?
All of the above solutions have been reverse engineering AirPlay to achieve streaming.

If you don't want a broken product because Apple changes the protocol, yes, you need a license

KnightWRX · Nov 22, 2012

Prodo123 said:
The better question is, do you even need a license?
All of the above solutions have been reverse engineering AirPlay to achieve streaming.

I'd be guessing a license would be required in order not to be targetted with patent infringement lawsuits... and to get a legitimate key for encryption for Airplay Mirroring.

More details here :

http://www.aorensoftware.com/blog/2011/08/20/exploring-airplay-mirroring-internals/

The plain fact is : Airplay is not an open standard. Only Apple devices support it and vendors can implement receivers for video/audio under license, but no one can get a license for transmission as far as I know. That's the protocol's only flaw, it's not interoperatable.

Prodo123 · Nov 22, 2012

Oletros said:
If you don't want a broken product because Apple changes the protocol, yes, you need a license

Seriously, I don't get what you're trying to get at.
A protocol is meant NOT to change. It's a CONSTANT standard, so that all devices capable of using it can still use it. A computer running Win95 can probably open modern websites, albeit with only HTTP rendering abilities. Why? Because the HTTP protocol, although it has experienced some changes, is at the core the same thing it has been since its in 1995.
That being said, AirPlay is also a protocol; it does not change, and if it does, it defeats the purpose of a communications protocol. And even if you have a license, if Apple changes the protocol, the fact still stands that you have to reprogram your app to work with it, so you end up SOL with a broken product with a license anyway.

KnightWRX said:
I'd be guessing a license would be required in order not to be targetted with patent infringement lawsuits... and to get a legitimate key for encryption for Airplay Mirroring.

More details here :

http://www.aorensoftware.com/blog/2011/08/20/exploring-airplay-mirroring-internals/

The plain fact is : Airplay is not an open standard. Only Apple devices support it and vendors can implement receivers for video/audio under license, but no one can get a license for transmission as far as I know. That's the protocol's only flaw, it's not interoperatable.

It seems that, since AirTunes has long been reverse engineered and AirPlay video is unencrypted and easily hackable, the only issue product manufacturers would have is cracking AirPlay mirroring. I imagine this can be bypassed by having the sender do a screen recording of some sort and route it to the video receiver. Or we could crack it like AirTunes.

One way or another, if people want things badly enough, they will use whatever methods necessary to gain it.

Oletros · Nov 22, 2012

Prodo123 said:
Seriously, I don't get what you're trying to get at.
A protocol is meant NOT to change. It's a CONSTANT standard, so that all devices capable of using it can still use it. A computer running Win95 can probably open modern websites, albeit with only HTTP rendering abilities. Why? Because the HTTP protocol, although it has experienced some changes, is at the core the same thing it has been since its in 1995.
That being said, AirPlay is also a protocol; it does not change, and if it does, it defeats the purpose of a communications protocol. And even if you have a license, if Apple changes the protocol, the fact still stands that you have to reprogram your app to work with it, so you end up SOL with a broken product with a license anyway.

Airplay is not an standard, is a closed a proprietary protocol. Apple can change it when they want or when they think it is necessary.

KnightWRX · Nov 22, 2012

Prodo123 said:
It seems that, since AirTunes has long been reverse engineered and AirPlay video is unencrypted and easily hackable, the only issue product manufacturers would have is cracking AirPlay mirroring. I imagine this can be bypassed by having the sender do a screen recording of some sort and route it to the video receiver. Or we could crack it like AirTunes.

One way or another, if people want things badly enough, they will use whatever methods necessary to gain it.

Hacking doesn't provide vendor interoperability though. Selling "hacked" products will get you in trouble with the IP holders. Hacking a box in your basement will go unnoticed.

The issue with Airplay is that it's non-open, not that it can't be hacked.

0dev · Nov 22, 2012

Sandstorm said:
Yeah, I'm always amazed how insane American plans for mobile and internet are.

Here in Latvia we have one of the lowest population densities in the EU, but we are served by three fiercely competing operators (LMT, Tele2 and Bite) that all have excellent countrywide coverage (3G almost everywhere, 4G being tested at largest cities). I subscribe to a plan "freedom" from LMT for 10 a month, that includes unlimited domestic calls, unlimited texts, unlimited MMSs and 50MB of data. For extra 7 you get 2GB data or for 14 you get 10GB data. Tele2 and Bite offer even cheaper plans.

But at home for less than 20 a month you get absolutely unrestricted 10-20 Mbit/s DSL or, where available, 100-200 Mbit/s optical broadband.

I remember about 10 years ago we only had 2 mobile operators and 1 large fixed line monopoly. We had very high prices, one of the highest in Europe. But after the 3rd real competitor (Bite) was allowed to enter the market and the government also ended the monopoly of fixed phone lines/internet, everything changed so much for the better. Not only prices, but service quality, coverage and availability.

So in essence I believe REAL competition is THE ONLY remedy for all the poor service and high price problems, anywhere in the world. And governments have to actively create and guard competition, not just sit by and watch "unregulated market" (or, as most likely, secretly help some specific mega corporation business interests and semi-monopolies).

You've hit the nail on the head there: it's all about competition. The UK has OFCOM to make sure everyone plays fair and the market stays competitive, and there are around 10 mobile operators if you include the virtual networks, so there's fierce competition and it only gets better every year.

We still have problems with broadband though - fibre optic connections are still rare outside of central London and most of the lines run off BT so they're able to charge a fortune and provide crappy service.

Still, I'm happy using 3 as my broadband

----------

duervo said:
It's just as bad in Canada, and in some cases, depending on when you're in the market for a new phone/plan, it can be much worse. However, even with things as bad as they are, it's still a vast improvement on what was available for plans 7-8 years ago.

Yeah I went on holiday in Canada and tried to get a local SIM, the prices were insane and unlimited data seemed impossible to get even on the most expensive plans.

VoR · Nov 23, 2012

Great news!
I just hope it really is an open protocol (an improved dlna/airplay) that manufacturers don't feel the need to re-brand and tweak.

I also don't understand the defence (and some of the over-the-top love) for airplay. It's an apple-only protocol that works as advertised... It does something that all mobile devices should do but is still nothing amazingly special. A decent, open standard that all devices support would be so much better for everyone.

zhenya · Nov 23, 2012

VoR said:
Great news!
I just hope it really is an open protocol (an improved dlna/airplay) that manufacturers don't feel the need to re-brand and tweak.

I also don't understand the defence (and some of the over-the-top love) for airplay. It's an apple-only protocol that works as advertised... It does something that all mobile devices should do but is still nothing amazingly special. A decent, open standard that all devices support would be so much better for everyone.

I think it stems from the fact that it's a complex thing that is implemented very well by Apple. There is high likelihood that opening it up and supporting virtually every device will cause it to lose much of that reliability and ease of use (see dlna).

djphat2000 · Dec 5, 2012

Oletros said:
Miracast

I haven't seen "Miracast" on anything recently. I just bought a Yamaha RX-V773. Doesn't have anything to say about Miracast. I'm sure it may work fine. But, I've only heard of it on this forum. I will look into it more to see what it does. But, without it being used and familiar. I'm not expecting it to go very far.

djphat2000 · Dec 5, 2012

VoR said:
Great news!
I just hope it really is an open protocol (an improved dlna/airplay) that manufacturers don't feel the need to re-brand and tweak.

I also don't understand the defence (and some of the over-the-top love) for airplay. It's an apple-only protocol that works as advertised... It does something that all mobile devices should do but is still nothing amazingly special. A decent, open standard that all devices support would be so much better for everyone.

After having used Airplay (recently for the first time). It is to me, amazing and special. It works, just like its supposed to.

I currently use Serviio to transcode my media to my BD (Sony) player. It sucked badly running on a Windows Box. Was very inconsistent in working, lets put it that way. I recently got an older Mac Pro (2006), and running the Mac version of Serviio. Its been VERY consistent in working well with the BD Player. Now, this could be a coincidence or just the app works better on the Mac then the PC. Who knows. But, that inconsistency is why Apple wants to control the experience. It simply has to work the way the intended it to work. If it doesn't everyone will complain. It's better to work RIGHT, and be limited (not licensed to everyone and everything and open). Then to work (claim to) on everything by everyone. Cause DLNA is a joke. Nice idea, but not a real answer to the problem. I have a DLNA NAS device. My BD player see's it fine. Just can't stream any movies from it, because it needs to be Transcoded. They don't tell you that part. You find that out the hard way when it doesn't work. So a feature that sounds great, does't do what thought it would do (completely). Just because all these devices can see each other. If they can't actually DO anything right, or are limited and or inconsistently working with each other. What's the point?

toke lahti · Dec 22, 2012

BlueParadox said:
But seriously, how about a better desktop mirroring app to get around Apple's restrictions within 10.8 of mid-last Macs and onwards. Third party app 'Parrot' ain't so good.

Or even better than mirroring, how about TV as second screen?
:apple:

TV exists because there are no app that could add any DLNA device as second screen to your mac.
If there would be an app like that, no mac owner with any modern tv or stb would need :apple:

TV...

G51989 · Dec 22, 2012

landroverz7 said:
Google first update your youtube app and make it a universal app with support for iPhone 5 widescreen and ipad retina screens also fix the airplay and add background audio. After that you can think about your google devices.

Why should google put extra effort into Apple devices? It won't help them at a,, why waste the time and money?

SlCKB0Y · Dec 23, 2012

Prodo123 said:
A computer running Win95 can probably open modern websites, albeit with only HTTP rendering abilities. Why? Because the HTTP protocol, although it has experienced some changes, is at the core the same thing it has been since its in 1995.

It kind of looks like you are merging HTTP and HTML?

Regardless of what the HTTP protocol looks like now as compared to 1995, you're completely neglecting to consider how much HTML has been revised.

Your idea only works in two scenarios:

1. The website is viewed using a browser from 95 and the website is HTML 2 compliant and contains no flash, java, no modern CSS, no modern media etc

2. You somehow get a recent browser working on Windows 95.

Neither of these are practical.

----------

Prodo123 said:
That being said, AirPlay is also a protocol; it does not change, and if it does, it defeats the purpose of a communications protocol.

Not when for the most part Apple controls all portions of it, from the protocol itself to the sending and receiving devices.

Google to Take on Apple with Open AirPlay Alternative

macrumors 68000

macrumors 604

macrumors 68020

macrumors 601

macrumors G3

macrumors 68020

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68020

macrumors 603

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68020

macrumors 603

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 604

macrumors 65816

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68040

Our Staff