|
In principle, maybe yes. In terms of practicality that seems to involve a lot of extra steps for setting up the Chromecast, whereas with miracast the receiver offers a wifi direct connection without any need for additional setup. I'm not sure about that, but it might be that WiFi direct also draws a bit less power than creating a full hotspot on the device (admittedly, this I may misremember).
Miracast also won't interrupt any regular WiFi connectivity on the casting device, so if internet access is needed, the casting device, eg the Max2, can remain connected to whatever WiFi it is registered on.
On the other hand, my understanding is that by forming a hotspot from the casting device, eg the Max2, the whole shebang won't have internet access because it cannot simultaneously form a hotspot and be connected to some other network, which would provide internet access. Further, Chromecast also can't seem to be connected to enterprise networks like eduroam which is what most universities I'm concerned with use. So connecting both the casting device and the Chromecast to that possibly available network is a no starter as well (I think Chromecast simply doesn't support the relevant encryptions - even if it did, inputting all the relevant connection data on every use would be a pain in the back).
This is why Chromecast support would be nice and all, but doesn't really seem that practical for use cases where the infrastructure is more complex than a simple home network. Miracast is independent from these considerations. I really don't understand why support is declining for that.
|