Inside OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion GM: AirPlay Mirroring - Page 3

Out of interest I downloaded AirParrot from the home web site and tried the demo version but it doesn't seem to work on a mid 2010 MBP i7 running 10.7.4. I have both a v2 and v3 Apple TV on line and am networked via an Apple Time Capsule. The menu shows the Apple TVs but the top most item is greyed out and says 'Airplay:connection failed'. Any ideas?

UPDATE AirParrot is awesome for older Macs!

I have a conflict- no idea what. Moving on ...

Booting to an alternate drive I can report that on a MBP i7 2010 AirParrot works flawlessly driving a a 720p movie in .mkv format using VLC full screen to either of my Apple TVs, one a v2 one a v3. Audio and picture excellent, no lag no stutter.
Edited by digitalclips - 7/17/12 at 2:03pm

First, a first-gen ipad can't do it. It can do Display mirroring but not Airplay Mirroring, and so far as I know, no third-party app, even in Cydia, has enabled it yet. Second, the ARM chips in the iOS devices may well have superior hardware encoding capabilities than most Intel products prior to QuickSync being introduced. Also, the displays on the iDevices have much lower resolutions making it easier to push the mirror. My old 2007 MBP would struggle to play 1080p or flash videos, I can't imagine it encoding the entirety of tasks I do in OS X in real time, but then again it had no GPU hardware assistance for video playback.

So in short it's easy to just make these grand sweeping claims, but let's look at the actual specifics of the situation before passing judgment. We could run a test, find yourself a Mac you claim should be capable of doing the Airplay mirroring and see if it can encode at 720p or 1080p fairly decently, and in real-time. Airplay mirroring isn't as simple as Display mirroring. I'm not sure you need to encode for your regular display mirroring job, since the computer, so it seems to my naive understanding, can just send the same signal twice, to two different displays. With Airplay Mirroring your computer needs to actually encode everything into a video stream and beam that over to your Apple TV for playback. That's much more complicated and much more intensive.

Not at all, the app store would be extremely useful. Think of all of the possibilities that could be unlocked, it would certainly increase the use of the device exponentially. 

 

As to the grand plan it's pretty simple, only those that own the current generation of each hardware model can have the full feature set of the OS, everyone else will just be forced to upgrade and so they hope that sales will increase.

 

This type of behaviour is very much like Microsoft.

Fascinating : this means you can have an HDTV screen size on your desk, as a monitor, if you wish

Of course. Obviously.

Tack this up to another "apple artificially differentiates hardware via software" feature. Anybody using a mac where mirroring is not an option to appleTV can just use air parrot to send your desktop display to your TV. Just like the native feature it scales your desktop to fit the HDTV format. And it works quite well. The app is under $20 and its allowed this feature for a very long time now.

I've heard the performance is actually quite poor, and I am rather pleased with the built-in performance in ML.

Most people understand that mirroring is a linguistic derivation from the noun mirror. The 'ing' part should be the first clue that it is indicative conjugation of a verb. Many nouns eventually make their way to being used as verbs. For example if I were to say "I'm googling that right now" you would not take that to mean that I am creating a global search engine company exactly like Google. No, it means I'm using Google, just like mirroring means I'm using a mirror.  Understanding how images appear according to the properties of light has absolutely nothing to do with AirPlay Mirroring which is a product name that 'reflects' a process whereby the image on your computer can be displayed on your HDTV as a copy. I hope this clears up that quandary of why they use the term mirroring to describe an electronic application.

Edited by mstone - 7/15/12 at 5:13pm

Indeed and to drive home your point, in psychology mirroring means to imitate or copy. When a person mirrors another they are not doing it in reverse, backwards or upside down /chuckle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_(psychology)

It's a shame the folks being pedantic about the term mirroring hijacked an important thread IMHO.

What is "HDTV screen size"? Big?
And why would you want a big screen (with same or lower resolution) on your desk?

For fun, just for fun ..


Note that flat screen HDTVs are now pretty cheap, and that gives you plenty of choices for size. I also note that in most companies, meeting rooms are equipped with projectors which are expensive and poorly maintained, which could in most cases be replaced by an HDTV screen , at much lower price.

 

Well just tilt your head and try. :)

 

The full explanation goes something like this. Mirrors only reverse the axis that is perpendicular to the mirror, they completely leave alone the up-down arrow and the left-right arrows. But we treat a mirror as though we were looking at someone looking at us and thus we imagine that we have been rotated into that position in a sweep through the horizontal plane. Rotating into that position would reverse the left-right arrow as well as the forward-back arrow. So when we apply that mistaken idea to the mirror image it seems like left-right have been reversed, but it is simply that we have a mistaken expectation based on thinking of the wrong transformation.

 

I wasn't the one questioning the use of the term 'mirroring'.  I am perfectly happy with it. I was simply derailing the thread with maths, instead of the usual politics.

Oh f*** off "special hardware" my rear end. MBP 13" 2010 here. Pfft. Whatever. Mark my words, the PC is dead. iOS will lead Apple to a new glory, with Scott Forstall as CEO when the time is right.

My MBP 13" 2010 and ACD 27" will now be "relegated" for RetinaDesign™ work. All hail our new iOS overlords.

*Bugger http://www.retinadesign.dk/ already got the term RetinaDesign
Edited by sr2012 - 7/16/12 at 3:45am

The desktop is dead.

I'm sorry but what would your os plan be? Should we make the os so underwhelming that ... 80% of the installed hardware base can be 100% feature rich with a brand new os revision? How about 70%? 60%??

I dunno about anyone else but I want OS X to push the envelope I want it to stress older hardware... It's a good thing to me!

And getting all wound up because one single/significant feature isn't supported is just sour grapes. Each time we make a hardware purchase we're opening ourselves up to eventual obsolescence. Sometimes it takes 6 years before OS features go unsupported other times it's 6 months.

Just ask Mr. Murphy or Charles Brown ... It's always 6 months for them if your overall track record is better/longer than that you should consider yourself one of the lucky ones!

You're being absurd. I'm disappointed by the limitation, but I don't think a lot of people are going to buy a brand new machine to get AirPlay mirroring. There just might be something to this limitation, while there may be a hardware h.264 encoder in older GPU chips, I don't think all GPU features are all available in all modes of operation.

What, on the Apple TV? It's pointless. Leave the apps and storage thereof on the iDevices you use as remotes/controllers. Have the Apple TV be the vessel therefor.

Strange, though, that you can't seem to think of even one.

As a way to add video channels to the AppleTV, that might be pretty nice. It wouldn't be the same kind of apps though.

I understand it's not what you are saying here but The 'apps for Apple TV would be nice' concept oft' mentioned here puzzles me. You'd need an input device, say an iPad? However this already mirrors via AirPlay and has apps .... Are the 'apps for Apple TV' advocates suggesting some other input device so that they can duplicate the functions of an iPad? Can you explain the logic her, I must be missing something.

Oh, yeah, I've no problem with Apple reinventing television just as they have so many other industries, but the idea that absolutely everyone else is pushing–"It runs iOS, so it should have an App Store where apps JUST LIKE the ones done on iDevices can be put"–is just nonsense.

I'll quote myself: "As a way to add video channels". To clarify further: As in, simple apps that don't require much input. Maybe call them video applets or something like that. Netflix and YouTube are two examples that are built-in, but there are other services that provide video, such as Vimeo, Hulu and Amazon Prime, which would be more useful to me than the major league sports options. I'm fine with those apps being there, the current offerings are a bit limited.

Pretty awesome my 2.93 i7 2010 iMac w/ 12 GB Ram (The 2nd fastest iMac ever made- including every 2011 model except 1) won't run what a 2011 11" 2GB Ram MacBook Air can.  I love their reasoning.... it wasn't designed for H.264.... 

I understand that for a sales/company aspect they are just wanting sales, but wow... as a consumer that sucks.  At least make it run on all Mountain Lion qualified computers....

I've experimented with this using my iPhone 4S and it's rather novel--audio/visual streaming would seem to be a bit redundant in a way--but would be nice to leave my Mac Mini where it's at on my desk while I plop down on my couch w/my keyboard & trackpad.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

This looks like a configuration that would work, but I've tried a few others that I thought would work only to find that at the point the signal went from digital to analog it "broke".  The cables "fit", but the signal didn't translate.  For example, among the combinations I tried was an Apple brand mini-displayport --> DVI cable, followed by a DVI --> VGA cable and a VGA --> svideo, or a mini-displayport --> VGA, followed by a VGA --> svideo.  In these cases the VGA was able to display perfectly on an old 15" flat screen computer monitor, but the signal would never convert to either svideo or composite to feed the big-screen.  I'm open to a cabled solution, but I'm really leery at this point of going down that path after so much time spent and a whole bunch of failure/disappointment, including lots of time with SwitchResX.  I read about it enough to basically understand the problem, just never found a readily available solution. Definitely open to more input though.

 

The solution that agramonte mentioned was wireless, which especially piqued my interest as I wasn't (am not) aware of this kind of product.

What's the betting that the same people bashing the idea of adding more relevant apps to the Apple TV would do an about-turn if this was a new feature announced by Apple?

 

I can think of multiple apps I'd love to have on my Apple TV. Thing is I don't for one second believe Apple would ever allow them, as it goes against the entire business model of why they have the apple tv in the first place. I am thinking apps like Slingplayer, BBC iplayer, Sky Go, 4OD (you would have regional equivalents as well) and a media player that could play a movie from a NAS without the need to route it through airplay on a laptop. I can't see that ever happening though, Apple TV is there as a vessel for itunes / iOS content, simple as. 

Actually I can think of many, your assumption that I cannot is baseless. For example, in the UK catchup television if very popular. BBC, ITV etc would all make apps for the Apple TV, they've already done so for the other iDevices and have seen mass adoption.

To my knowledge no version of OS X to date has been released with features only available to the current generation of machines.

 

Apple has correctly limited the base of machines to only those that could cope with the upgrade and correctly jettisoned PPC hardware on Snow Leopard and Core Due machines in Lion.

 

But this stinks of the iOS strategy, I have no problem with this on a £200 iPod touch or an iPad but think it is reprehensible on a £1500 18 month old computer! 

I can report that on a MBP i7 2010 AirParrot works flawlessly driving a a 720p movie in .mkv format using VLC full screen to either of my Apple TVs, one a v2 one a v3. Audio and picture excellent, no lag no stutter. Tested on Lion and ML GM. I have yet to test 1080p.

Air Parrot...works like a charm

Yep and so far mid 2010 MBP doesn't support it running GM 10.8. AirParrot works flawlessly though. I did hit a snag where AirParrot failed but this was cured on a frsh instal of the OS. My old HD had been updated through several OS X versions and had some really old crap in the user prefs etc. that must have been conflicting.

Agreed, I was amazed when it worked with a 1080p .mkv movie running in VLC without a hitch. You do have to add the extra sound drivers too but it is simple and they work flawlessly too. I have two Apple TVs a mk 2 and 3 they both work great from AirParrot.

Apple is definitely going to open AppleTV for apps... When they launch the AppleTV HDTV.

They want to storm into the TV market: huge beautiful screen, integrated AppleTV, iTunes, Netflix, full apps, etc. 4 HDMI ports means you can do whatever the heck else yo want like connecting cable, Tivo, what nots.

AppleTV has Netflix. Not outside the US though?

Anyway, AppleTV HDTV will be big. It will triple the current AppleTV sell rate.

 

Integration with a display doesn't seem like what will drive the adoption rate. Remember, pretty much everyone already uses a set top box with their tv. Cable, satellite, fios, and dvrs nearly always require a separate box.

 

Instead, I think it is all about the content. Copyright holders have competing distribution strategies and don't want to license content to companies like apple. The TV and movie industry doesn't want Apple to take over like happened with music. Thus, for Apple to succeed, it seems like the real stumbling block is with licensing content for whatever delivery hardware they choose to offer.

 

Interestingly, airplay somewhat bypasses this hurdle. Besides offering awesome interaction for tablet and iphone owners in their home theater, it also makes available content that would otherwise be held up by licensing squabbles.

Good point. Steve in the past already stated he doesn't want to play the licensing game, outside of iTunes Store.

But, Apple feels they have the content they need to go with, ie. iTunes Store and Netflix.

Good point with the other content, and this is where Apple will blow away non-critical set top boxes... I.E. Apps. Because Airplay is great but it still doesn't fit in 1080p nicely. As such, making an AppleTV HDTV out of the box do tons of stuff like the iPhone and iPad, will be very significant.

Then of course, the sheer matter of an Apple HDTV being a TV with an Apple logo, will make people just buy it, particularly outside the US (and I'm sure in the US too).

In terms of licensing there will be some argy bargy with Apple HDTV apps but the app market itself is so lucrative there will be a gold rush of sorts to the Apple HDTV app store.

 

In the long run, I think Apps are the wrong direction and should be avoided if possible. That is, if working under the assumption that the AppleTV is primarily for getting content onto a TV screen.

 

Browsing of video libraries isn't something people want split between a billion different methods of access. Custom interaction types are less appealing when dealing with normal living room, bedroom, dorm room, and public TV usage. This is in comparison to a personal device with an infinite number of purposes. There isn't that many different ways of organizing and presenting a list of videos. What really drives this home is the limiting nature of remote controls. We don't want every company coming up with non-standard ways of using the directional pad, menu and enter buttons.

 

To really make these things appeal to the masses, content should be integrated such that it is easy to browse and search. This is similar to the music store. People don't prefer different apps just for accessing music from different bands. People are willing to adopt a handful of apps for the specialty or niche interests. But overall, a unified method of accessing content seems preferable.

 

Of course, this is a generalization. But I think it holds true for the majority of use cases. I do play video off of the web via airplay. But this tends to involve short clips, like hors d'oeuvres instead of a main course. There is an almost infinite number of video clips on the internet and he web seems preferable over apps for this type of use. There just isn't enough unique functionality that can't be accomplished via the web. But for feature length programming such as TV shows and movies, these belong in a unified interface accessible either from a phone/tablet or via a remote's directional pad.

 

Interaction with TVs is quite distinct as compared to traditional computers or touch devices. Cursors that depend on a mouse or other pointing device, are not well suited to a screen that is sitting across the room. This is precisely why people prefer user interfaces such as typically found on set top boxes. Granted, most STB interfaces are poorly implemented. But the optimal interaction technique is pretty well established. Supporting custom apps would likely be a detriment as many companies would try to do something unique despite it being sub-optimal.

 

Touch screens do provide a great auxiliary interaction option. For this reason, I hope that the AppleTV is not opened up 3rd party apps beyond those carefully coordinated with Apple. The preferable solution is airplay from touch devices.

 

 

 

I'm curious though, what do you mean by "airplay doesn't fit in 1080p nicely"? It plays 1080p pixel-for-pixel just fine. The technology is in place. All that needs to happen is for copyright holders to get off their asses and embrace rather than hinder the new distribution channel.