It may seem counter-intuitive to have to connect a hardware transmitter to the PC in order to enable wireless screen sharing, but at the time, it seemed to be the most expeditious path to a solution. The transmitter would gather the video signal, then send it to the receiver, over its own radio signal. One of the first attempts at a wireless screen sharing system required a “transmitter” device to connect physically to the PC, and a corresponding “receiver” device to connect to the TV display.
The degree to which they have addressed the needs of these pro users has been driven as much by their engineering choices and technological platforms as it has by a clear understanding of the verticals that are aiming at. In doing so, they have taken three different technical paths.
These manufacturers understood the professional and commercial environment, and also how to best address the needs of specific vertical markets, even though they represented a small fraction the size of the consumer market. Professional solutions started to surface from manufacturers that were already serving AV markets with video projectors, signal distribution components and other AV/IT products. Real time applications require low latency, so what happens on the big screen is in sync with what happens on the presenter’s device. Imagine pressing “next” to change slides, then waiting 5 seconds for it to change.
That’s fine when the content viewer doesn’t see the video at its source, but a problem for a live presentation. By buffering the video content, they were able to dramatically improve video quality, and the stability of video playback.
What they didn’t appreciate was that content streamed from the Internet-which is what those devices were designed for-had the benefit of buffering.
The same outcome has confronted schools that use Chromebooks and saw Chromecast as an inexpensive HDMI dongle that could be used as a wireless display adapter.Ī second issue that surfaced stemmed from an expectation that consumer display adapters would stream full HD 1080p video flawlessly. As early adopters of Apple TV and iPads into the classroom soon discovered, allowing anyone to stream video to the screen without restriction was a disaster. First, while consumer systems allowed you to share your screen, there was no moderation mechanism built in. Even the Intel wireless display protocol, Wi-Fi Direct, and Miracast, a protocol adopted by the Wi-Fi Alliance, which were to bring an end to “walled gardens” failed to create the standardized Wi-Fi display so many envisioned.Īs manufacturers have sought to address the need for wireless screen sharing in schools, offices and meeting spaces, they have encountered several requirements that all of the consumer solutions seemed to miss. Designed foremost for the purpose of streaming video from their own subscription services to consumers, each have added a form of wireless screen sharing, albeit with limited to no interoperability. Google Chromecast, Amazon’s Fire TV, and others have come to market with their own concept of a streaming media player. Since these early efforts, several other brands and protocols have launched their own versions of wireless streaming and screen sharing device. Likewise, another well-known media streaming brand, Roku, offered their version of screen mirroring, built on the Miracast streaming video protocol.
But Apple also included screen mirroring in its Airplay protocol, which allowed for wireless screen sharing from Mac OS and iOS devices. Introduction of the Apple TV introduced consumers to the idea of video streaming over the Internet, primarily allowing users to stream movies. The fact that there is no cable required between the devices and the screen adds the “wireless” element to wireless screen sharing. Wireless screen sharing came about when manufacturers created products that would allow screen sharing between local devices and a display screen.