Samsung Galaxy S III and LG Optimus G named as first Miracast smartphones

Samsung Galaxy S III and LG Optimus G named as first Miracast smartphonesIf you haven't heard of Miracast, it's the Wi-Fi Alliance's answer to Apple's AirPlay wireless streaming standard, which uses Wi-Fi Direct to shunt around your content.

More to the point, it you haven't heard of Miracast, it's probably because there haven't been any devices actually certified to use it. Until today – step forward the Samsung Galaxy S III and LG's Optimus G.

The duo have been named the first Miracast-compatible devices, which might not mean a whole lot right now (especially since the Optimus G isn't actually out yet).

But with most of the tech heavyweights bar Apple predictably lining up across the digital divide from the Cupertino giant, expect the list of Miracast-friendly gadgets to grow quickly to include a wide range of TVs, set-top boxes, laptops, smartphones, tablets and other devices used for home entertainment purposes.

In the short term, Samsung's next-gen TVs and Realtek network cards will soon feature Miracast certification directly, while components from Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, MediaTek and Ralink will soon be finding their way into other technology gear. The standard is expected to be supported by around 1.5 billion devices by 2016, which you'll be able to identify by their “Wi-Fi Certified” logos.

In the meantime, kudos to LG for getting the newly announced Optimus G in on the action from the very start. We're getting moderately excited about the G in ways we're not used to for an LG device, to be honest. Hopefully we won't be disappointed.

As for the Galaxy S III, it's not much of a suprise to see it first on the list for any new tech to hit the Android ecosystem. It's what took the Galaxy S II to the front of the pack last year, and its successor seems to have followed seamlessly in its footsteps.

Via Slashgear

Read more about: LG Optimus GSamsung Galaxy S3

Add a comment
15 comments

Pondlife  Sep. 19, 2012 at 20:24

So there's nothing for it to actually throw the video at yet? hmm

Doug000  Sep. 19, 2012 at 23:09

Actually, my TV takes the video, audio, images... from my S III just fine. Faster than Apple's AirPlay platform too... no buffering... just send and there it is in Hi Def :) Stellar performance!

matt101101 / MOD  Sep. 20, 2012 at 01:22

What's the difference between this an DLNA?

Doug000  Sep. 20, 2012 at 01:31

The WiFi Direct is much faster and smoother than DLNA. If I understand correctly, DLNA uses a local network (subject to the traffic and characteristics of that network) while the WiFi Direct is... well... direct from one device to another without any dependence on a network. It's like plugging your device into the other and playing it directly... without the wires :)

matt101101 / MOD  Sep. 20, 2012 at 01:34

The WiFi Direct is much faster and smoother than DLNA. If I understand correctly, DLNA uses a local network (subject to the traffic and characteristics of that network) while the WiFi Direct is... well... direct from one device to another without any dependence on a network. It's like plugging your device into the other and playing it directly... without the wires :)
Thanks :). I've never really understood DLNA (or wireless streaming in general). The Wi-Fi direct way of doing it looks much better, kind of like a super-fast Bluetooth?

Doug000  Sep. 20, 2012 at 02:33

Thanks :). I've never really understood DLNA (or wireless streaming in general). The Wi-Fi direct way of doing it looks much better, kind of like a super-fast Bluetooth?

Well, after doing a little more looking, it turns out there's much more to learn about these technologies. Here are a couple links for your info: http://goo.gl/jlyte - Android A to Z: DLNA & http://goo.gl/snrBO - Miracast. I should have researched my answer before sending instead of telling you what I thought I knew :) Best, Doug

CTPAHHIK  Sep. 20, 2012 at 07:47

The WiFi Direct is much faster and smoother than DLNA. If I understand correctly, DLNA uses a local network (subject to the traffic and characteristics of that network) while the WiFi Direct is... well... direct from one device to another without any dependence on a network. It's like plugging your device into the other and playing it directly... without the wires :)

Are you saying that for DLNA you need a router to create a network, while WiFi direct is adhoc connection between two WiFi devices?

CTPAHHIK  Sep. 20, 2012 at 07:55

Have not tried DLNA ever, but AirPlay is not for me. Too much Apple way of doing things. I prefer NAS where everything get backed up and easily accessing by any of my devices from any part of the world.

Pondlife  Sep. 20, 2012 at 08:39

Actually, my TV takes the video, audio, images... from my S III just fine. Faster than Apple's AirPlay platform too... no buffering... just send and there it is in Hi Def :) Stellar performance!

Which tv is it assuming you are saying that you are using miracast already, which is how it reads?

Pondlife  Sep. 20, 2012 at 08:51

The WiFi Direct is much faster and smoother than DLNA. If I understand correctly, DLNA uses a local network (subject to the traffic and characteristics of that network) while the WiFi Direct is... well... direct from one device to another without any dependence on a network. It's like plugging your device into the other and playing it directly... without the wires :)
Thanks :). I've never really understood DLNA (or wireless streaming in general). The Wi-Fi direct way of doing it looks much better, kind of like a super-fast Bluetooth?


Yeah sounds a solid step towards getting rid of the rats nest of cabling behind my TV, need it in blu ray players and next gen consoles and amplifier with similar hq option for speakers.

CTPAHHIK  Sep. 20, 2012 at 09:06

The WiFi Direct is much faster and smoother than DLNA. If I understand correctly, DLNA uses a local network (subject to the traffic and characteristics of that network) while the WiFi Direct is... well... direct from one device to another without any dependence on a network. It's like plugging your device into the other and playing it directly... without the wires :)
Thanks :). I've never really understood DLNA (or wireless streaming in general). The Wi-Fi direct way of doing it looks much better, kind of like a super-fast Bluetooth?


Yeah sounds a solid step towards getting rid of the rats nest of cabling behind my TV, need it in blu ray players and next gen consoles and amplifier with similar hq option for speakers.


Don't get your hopes up yet. Even Ethernet is unable to deliver bandwidth requirements of HDMI. You will be able to stream music and non-HD video via WiFi, but not 3D 1080p streams. Cables are here to stay.

Pondlife  Sep. 20, 2012 at 09:18

Couldn't give two hoots about 3d but it shows 1080p being thrown in video clip on linked article at slashgear. Or they say it does, impossible to show that on tiny vid on article of the course

Doug000  Sep. 20, 2012 at 16:31

Actually, my TV takes the video, audio, images... from my S III just fine. Faster than Apple's AirPlay platform too... no buffering... just send and there it is in Hi Def :) Stellar performance!

Which tv is it assuming you are saying that you are using miracast already, which is how it reads?


I have a Samsung 7000 series TV. I can push 1080p video directly from my Galaxy S III without any buffering or delay in playback. It works like a charm.

Doug000  Sep. 20, 2012 at 16:47

Looking into this further, I guess I'm not using the miracast... at least I'm not sure I am. It seems that I'm using Samsung's AllShare Play to push media from my GS3 to TV. http://www.samsung.com/us/2012-allshare-play/

Pondlife  Sep. 20, 2012 at 16:55

Though it might be something similar but that the concept works is main thing and that they are standardizing it should be a good thing.

Next years 60ghz wifi should make things speedier too

Email:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

Comment: