Sometimes, standards efforts get overtaken by events? I would say that Chromecast allows people to transfer content from your tablet screen to your TV screen, no? From a USB port on the tablet, wirelessly to an HDMI port on the TV.
Or, you can always connect a wired HDMI interface from PC to TV. Many PCs have HDMI interfaces these days. That autoconfigures too. Or, RGB analog. Many flat panel TVs support that too, these days.
I'm not so sure that it is that easy to determine the success of DLNA at this point. A lot of the Comcast acquisition of Time-Warner is driven by positioning for a world where cable TV is shrinking and ISP business is growing. If people get their TV from a proprietary cable box it tends to drive them into a vertical and proprietary technology stack, but if it comes from a network connection then things are more complicated and there are more opportunities to put together interesting combinations. This is where DLNA can still shine, if it can put together a combination that normal people can accept and use.
@Larry, you raise a good point. Obviously, there is a lot of posturing going on on the part of cable operators in the U.S.
Still, the interoperability isn't just about physical connectivity. It's also about where the content resides (i.e. who is selling it to you) and what DRM it comes with. There are a lot of combinations of devices people connecting; but also there are a lot more scenarios in terms of which content is coming from where.
I'm a pretty tech savvy guy, and I can't get either of my Panasonic or Samsung smart TVs to display from Windows Media Center on either of my HP or Gateway PCs. They are all on WiFi, so why not? I can actually see that both TVs can actually see the Gateway on the LAN, but there is no path to getting it to actually stream content. I'd settle for just a remote display. Even UNIX machines in the 70's could redirect displays. It's not hard to do, just made hard by the players ... on purpose.
OEMs seem to really only care to be able to SAY they have it, so it doesn't become a checkoff that loses them a sale. In the mean time they are just trying to keep out their competitors and gain advantage by making it only work with their product lines, and no one elses. As long as that is their approach, they have already ceeded the market to proprietary vertical solutions (e.g., Apple, Chromecast). Recall that it was only after Fax machines stopped trying to sell you both machines at either end of the phone line and adopted interoperability as a market strategy that they won. Not only won, but exploded the total available market and won hugely. Time to do a full-court press on interoperability and get to a USB-like Plug-n-Play level -- Hardware, Software and Ecosystem.
Finally, until a week ago, I hadn't even heard of DLNA. The fact that DLNA hasn't even established AWARENESS in the consumer space, is telling. That's step one in marketing.
After 11 years? That definitely qualifies for Epic Fail.
I can't get either of my Panasonic or Samsung smart TVs to display from Windows Media Center on either of my HP or Gateway PCs.
Some Guy, I would ignore the "smarts" of supposedly "smart" TVs, and instead use a PC as a TV set-top box. Connected TVs and connected BluRay players are incomprehensibly limited. Imagine any Internet-connected device that is only capable of browsing a handful of web sites. Unbelievable.
This is what I call, at the very least, the "appearance of collusion," if not unabashedly intended collusion. This appears to be an attempt by CE companies to keep cable and satellite companies happy, by keeping these CE appliances still totally dependent on cable channels for TV content. Or at most, allowing the user only to browse a tiny number of by-subscription web sites.
No, they haven't solved the problem. It requires you to use apps from Google, it is limited to streaming, and is all about DRM. And they are clear to point out to you that it won't work for everything. Just get a Warpia wireless HDMI, and completely sidestep Google's sad attempt at a walled garden.
But again: the HW and SW stack are already there on both the Smart TV and the PC. Why does anyone need yet more hardware, and DRM headaches when both devices are already fully capable?
For $1,700 there's no reason my Smart TV isn't a wireless monitor too.
Yeah, I tried the PC as a settop box, but it kept falling off the flat panel on the wall. :)
Seriously, the PC sits across the room, 20 feet away. Sure I could go get a 30 foot DVI or VGA cable and trip over the cable in and out of the room, but why should I? They are both on a wireless network and it just doesn't pass the red-face test that they can't interoperate.
Imagine buying a car from a car designer/enthusiast. "I'll sell you a car with better performance, handling, mileage, than any other car on the market!" "I'll buy it"
"Okay, here's your car." Then he procedes to show you a kit car, full of various parts, a car frame, an engine, and a large tool kit. "Have at it!" Then when you complain, he grumbles about how non-technical newbies shouldn't even be allowed to drive.
That's how I see DLNA. Apple understands that the technical part isn't the hard part. The hard part is the user interface. Most of DLNA's efforts should be working toward a seemless unified user experience. I haven't tried DLNA recently, but I didn't see much mentioned about the user interface in this article, when it really should be the most important part of the standard.