Firstly the public use cases are cool and could be really useful; my criticisms are with home use. My TV doesn't have USB ports for a start and the current setup I have is a 10m HDMI cable that is long enough to connect to my laptop on the sofa, it cost about $15 and is hassle-free.
A 10m HDMI cable connecting your TV to your laptop on the sofa is not hassle-free---that cable is the hassle. I'm doing the same things, and I find it a hassle but haven't yet been willing to cough up the $100 for an Apple TV + AirPlay wireless solution. Unfortunately, their dongle costs nearly as much.
Is it though? I mean, it just hangs over the arm of the sofa and I plug it in when needed. Plus HDMI is one of the few ports on my MBP I don't need an adapter for.
I get that cable free would be awesome but as I understand it we need significant advances in inductive charging to make that happen.
Me, my laptop and my 30m ethernet cable felt the same way about Wifi for the longest time (this was pre-smartphones). Yet finally getting wifi felt like dropping a yoke.
That said, my TV has networking and DLNA and has pretty happily played any video file I've thrown at it yet, so I don't really need to hook up my computer.
If you dont have a usb port on tv(or if power is not enough to drive the device) you can always get a usb charger right ? Which is definitely less hassle than 10m HDMI cable.
Yea, I was excited about this until I saw that the source has to be a machine that can run their software.
My dream atm is for a low-cost wireless HDMI sender for projecting stuff like xbox to my office (would be nice to play a bit of GTA while I wait for files to copy ;), that work in a similar way to the RF SCART senders you can pick up from most electronics stores.
