Stream PC games to your Android device with Remotr

Stream PC games to your Android device with Remotr

This free app lets you play Shadow of Mordor, Tomb Raider and other desktop titles. But does it really work?

You can stream nearly any game from your PC to your Android device -- provided you can master the controls.Screenshot by Rick Broida/CNET

The concept of streaming games to a mobile device is nothing new. Nvidia's Grid service, for example, allows players to access PC games via the company's Shield console and tablet, while Limelight Game Streaming opens the door to Android devices -- provided you have an Nvidia GameStream-compatible PC.

Remotr opens the door even further, letting you play just about any PC game on just about any Android device. It's free, and it works -- but with some caveats.

The service consists of a Windows client and Android app (with an iPhone version in the works). I tested it using a reasonably powerful Core i7 system and Google Nexus 7 tablet.

What Remotr does, in a nutshell, is mirror your PC's screen to the mobile device, while the app provides a front-end interface for choosing the game you want to play.

Just as important, it supplies onscreen controls to take the place of whatever controller, keyboard and/or mouse setup you use on your PC.

To get started, you simply download and install the Windows client (which is compatible with Windows 7 and later), then install Remotr on your Android device. You'll need to create an account, then sign into it with both tools. That's how Remotr is able to stream not just over local Wi-Fi networks, but also over data ones.

With those steps done, you should see your PC listed within the app. Tap it to bring up a nicely tiled selection of the games you have installed, then tap any one of them to run it.

RemoteMyApp

And that's where things take a turn for the confusing, as it's not immediately clear how to set up or even access in-game controls. For example, although I was able to get Tomb Raider up and running, I had no idea how to recreate my desktop mouse and keyboard controls. And for the moment, developers RemoteMyApp offer almost zilch in the way of documentation.

With some fiddling, however (starting with tapping the magic-wand icon to bring up the control-creator options), I was able to produce onscreen WASD and mouse equivalents. And from there I was able to at least move Lara Croft around. Remotr has built-in control profiles for Counter-Strike and Team Fortress, but it would be great if it had a whole lot more.

Ultimately, I can't see myself playing games this way, as the controls -- even once they were mapped correctly -- would feel like a constant struggle. And there are so many great Android-native games, and even Android ports of desktop games, that for the most part I don't see the point.

That said, Remotr does work as advertised, and in Tomb Raider, at least, the action was surprisingly smooth. If you have even a passing interest in playing desktop games on your phone or tablet, there's certainly no downside to giving Remotr a try.

Read More

eBay sales, profit rise as PayPal expects to sail off in third quarter

eBay sales, profit rise as PayPal expects to sail off in third quarter

The e-commerce pioneer's overall results hid the differing paths of eBay's two main businesses, with PayPal growing and eBay.com floundering.

eBay

eBay's year got off to a strong start, with the company on Wednesday reporting better-than-expected sales and some lower costs, likely benefiting from previously announced job cuts.

The e-commerce pioneer also said its planned spinoff of PayPal will happen in the third quarter this year. The company previously disclosed that the split would occur sometime in the second half of the year.

Investors apparently liked the news, sending shares up more than 5 percent in after-hours trading.

The positive companywide numbers, though, masked over the different trajectories of eBay's two main businesses. While its PayPal payments unit continues to expand at a rapid clip, its marketplaces unit, mainly eBay.com, struggles to find new growth. The core marketplace business doesn't have much time now to figure out a plan forward before it loses PayPal as a growth engine.

For the first quarter, the payments unit, which includes PayPal, posted revenue of $2.11 billion, up 14 percent. Marketplaces revenue slid 4 percent, to $2.07 billion.

The different paths of the marketplace and payments businesses were on display during a conference call with analysts Wednesday afternoon. Dan Schulman, the incoming PayPal CEO, discussed huge opportunities to expand his future company in the mobile payments space and commerce. Meanwhile, Devin Wenig, the incoming eBay CEO, talked about plans to stabilize his business.

"Cash is digitizing, the world of money is digitizing," Schulman said, describing that trend as a huge growth opportunity for PayPal.

eBay, which started 20 years ago as an auction site for collectibles and other items, has grown into a broad marketplace for goods through third-party sellers, similar to Amazon's third-party marketplace. It also offers the PayPal payment service and a business that helps merchants sell products over the Web, known as the Enterprise unit.

eBay said in September that it's spinning off the faster-growing PayPal, which will run as its own publicly traded company. Even after the separation, though, the two companies agreed to continue working together, with PayPal expecting to handle about 80 percent of eBay.com's merchandise sales.

"I feel very good about the performance of our teams at eBay and PayPal," eBay CEO John Donahoe, who plans to step down after the split, said in a statement. "Each business is executing well with greater focus and operating discipline as we prepare to separate eBay and PayPal into independent publicly traded companies."

In January, eBay said it would trim about 7 percent of its workforce, or 2,400 jobs, during the first quarter, primarily in its core marketplaces business, as it prepares for the separation. The company had 34,600 employees at the end of 2014. Also in January, it disclosed plans to sell or spin off the Enterprise unit because it didn't fit with the rest of the business. eBay formed its Enterprise unit after purchasing GSI Commerce four years ago for $2.4 billion. Enterprise revenue in the first quarter was $288 million, up 7 percent.

These breakups will return eBay to its origin as strictly a seller of goods. Also, the split should give PayPal more freedom to work with other companies, such as Amazon.

To make that new eBay.com more desirable, Wenig said the site will focus on improving how it categorizes its products on its site so they are easier to find on eBay.com and on search engines, and also work on making it easier for people to sell items, hopefully tapping into the tens of billions of dollars in unneeded items sitting in consumers' closets and garages.

For the first quarter, eBay reported net income of $626 million, or 51 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier loss of $2.33 billion, or $1.82 a share. Excluding tax-related costs from a year ago and other items, adjusted earnings were 77 cents a share, up from 70 cents a share.

Revenue rose 4 percent, to $4.45 billion.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected per-share earnings of 70 cents and revenue of $4.42 billion.

Updated, 3:28 p.m. PT: Added information from analyst call and more details.

Read More

Intel Core M systems compared: Benchmarking the 12-inch MacBook and its Windows competition

Intel Core M systems compared: Benchmarking the 12-inch MacBook and its Windows competition

CNET Labs puts four computers with Intel's much-hyped Core M processor to the test, including Apple's new 12-inch MacBook.

Sarah Tew/CNET

No computer component in recent years has been as tough to pin down as Intel's Core M processor. First seen in late 2014 and turning up in more systems in early 2015, this energy-efficient chip came with an appealing pitch.

According to Intel, Core M would power laptops, tablets and hybrids designed to be thin and light, and even computers that could run without noisy fans, which could lead to quieter systems with longer battery life. These PCs would be priced at a premium, perhaps $700 US and up, but the combination of long battery life, good performance, and smaller bodies would make these desirable machines.

CORE M SYSTEMS: PRICES AND STORAGE

System	Price as reviewed; RAM/Storage
Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)	$1,299; 8GB/256GB
Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi	$899; 8GB/128GB
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro	$1,299; 8GB/256GB
Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)	$1,199; 4GB/128GB

Except that actual real-world performance from the first wave of Core M systems we've tested in the CNET Labs has been all over the place. The first PC we tested with a Core M CPU, the Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro hybrid, felt sluggish -- even during everyday tasks.

Its battery life, under six hours in our video-playback battery-drain test, felt more appropriate for a budget midsize laptop than a premium $1,000-plus system designed to be highly portable. The Yoga 3 Pro remains one of the best physical laptop/hybrid designs in years, but it did not make a compelling first impression for the Core M CPU.

The Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro.Sarah Tew/CNET

The next Core M system we tested was the Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi, a pull-apart hybrid with a removable keyboard base. It actually scored the fastest of any of the Core M computers we've tested in two of our single-app tests, albeit not by a wide margin, and just slightly behind first place in a multitasking test. In everyday use, it felt faster than Yoga 3 Pro, but its at-times-awkward keyboard and even shorter battery life than the Yoga meant it was still not the best-case scenario for a Core M showpiece. Working to its advantage, however, was a lower price at $899 US (AU$1,299; not available in the UK).

The Asus T300 Chi.Sarah Tew/CNET

The two most-recent Core M systems to be tested in the CNET Labs are virtually mirror images of each other. The Apple MacBook and Samsung Ativ Book 9 are both 12-inch clamshell laptops with better-than-HD resolutions and non-touch displays. Both are very slim, light, premium systems, each weighing just a hair over two pounds. Where Apple goes minimalist, including just a single USB-C port for connectivity and power, Samsung manages to fit in two full-size USB ports, plus a Micro-HDMI output.

With the previous results from the earlier two Core M systems, there was much concern that these two new models would suffer from performance and battery-life issues, especially as the MacBook started at $1,299 (£1,049, AU$1,799), while the Samsung Book 9 started at $1,199 (£1,199 in the UK), and went up to $1,399 to match the MacBook's configuration.

The Apple MacBook.Sarah Tew/CNET

In benchmark testing, the MacBook scored the best in our challenging multitasking test, but only by a small margin over the Asus T300. The Samsung Book 9 placed in the middle of the pack in most of our tests, although the above average keyboard and touchpad helped it feel generally quite usable. The MacBook greatly benefitted from Apple's OS X optimization and multitouch gestures, which means navigation is smooth and easy, and the overall feel was much closer to a standard Core i5 laptop than any of the other Core M systems we tested.

(Note that only the comparative Core M system benchmarks are displayed herein. Click through to the individual reviews to see how each of these compared to Intel Core i5 and Atom-based systems.)

HANDBRAKE MULTIMEDIA MULTITASKING TEST

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)

465

Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi

468

Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)

563

Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro

682

NOTE:

 Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS5 (64-BIT) IMAGE-PROCESSING TEST

Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi

238

Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro

294

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)

307

Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)

311

NOTE:

 Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

APPLE ITUNES ENCODING TEST

Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi

109

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)

130

Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)

130

Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro

142

NOTE:

 Shorter bars indicate better performance (in seconds)

VIDEO-PLAYBACK BATTERY-DRAIN TEST

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)

747

Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)

457

Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro

346

Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi

314

NOTE:

 Longer bars indicate better performance (in minutes)

The MacBook also stood out with the best battery life of the bunch, and by a wide margin. While Apple is known for building power-efficient laptops that run a lot longer than their Windows-powered counterparts, this is also attributable to the large battery inside the 12-inch MacBook. Aside from a compact motherboard with the RAM and flash storage soldered right on, the interior of the chassis is practically all battery, with the the custom power cell layered to fit every possible empty space.

The Samsung Ativ Book 9.Sarah Tew/CNET

While the MacBook still feels like the most "usable" of these systems in hands-on anecdotal testing, when looking at the performance numbers from all four, one thing stands out. The least-expensive, the Asus T300 Chi, was the fastest performer in the majority of tests, and virtually tied in our multitasking test, thanks in part to a slightly faster 1.2GHz version of the Core M chip (which is also available as part of a $300 upgrade to the MacBook).

SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS

Apple MacBook (12-inch, 2015)	OSX 10.10.2 Yosemite; 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y31; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 1,536MB Intel HD Graphics 5300; 256GB Flash memory
Asus Transformer Book T300 Chi	Windows 8.1 (64.bit); 1.2GHz Intel Core M-5Y71; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 3,839MB (shared) Intel HD 5300 Graphics; 128GB SSD
Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro	Windows 8.1 (64-bit); 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y70; 8GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 3,839MB (shared) Intel HD Graphics 5300; 256GB SSD
Samsung Ativ Book 9 (2015)	Windows 8.1 (64.bit); 1.1GHz Intel Core M-5Y31; 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1,600MHz; 2,005MB (shared) Intel HD 5300 Graphics; 128GB SSD

But before we declare this a rare case of the least-expensive product being the best overall performer, note that the Asus T300 Chi also had the absolute worst battery life of the bunch. At barely over five hours of battery life, it ran for a full 30 minutes less than even the Yoga 3 Pro.

Read More