[HN Gopher] Ending production of Chromecast
___________________________________________________________________
Ending production of Chromecast
Author : sibellavia
Score : 547 points
Date : 2024-08-06 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| Atreiden wrote:
| How much longer until we reach the logical conclusion here? -
| "Google kills off Google"
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| That's been a joke for years: https://xkcd.com/1361/
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| When we all wear AR goggles 24/7 and the traditional web is
| killed off in favor of ad infested "free" apps.
| alemanek wrote:
| They are working on it.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Seen on Hacker News yesterday:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41164240
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| I chose React Native recently over Flutter for a new bunch of
| apps that I'm making. Go seems to be the only one which
| survives the terrible management of Google.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| well, they no longer produce the "display-only" Chromecast in
| favor of their "Google TV" sticks with Remote etc.
|
| Not that much of a shock here, the market moved on from simple
| wireless display dongles.
|
| Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for
| general purpose use. Would be great to be able to run your own
| custom Receiver-device without needing a Google certificate...
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| The market didn't move on, the manufacturers found a better way
| to put ads in front of eyeballs.
| jerlam wrote:
| The "Chromecast with Google TV" main upgrade for my use case
| (watching YouTube) was to introduce longer ads. For that
| reason I've lost faith in this product line and this
| rebranding (and price increase) guarantees I won't be getting
| one of these.
| scarmig wrote:
| > Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened
| for general purpose use.
|
| Matter Cast in theory exists, though afaik Amazon's the only
| big power really pushing it.
| pydry wrote:
| miracast is a decent standard. i'm not sure why we'd need
| chromecast's proprietary equivalent as well.
|
| the fact that google dropped it from stock android kind of says
| it all - they clearly think that chromecast isn't good enough
| to compete without being coddled.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Miracast is for streaming a video feed from a device. This is
| horrible for battery life, AV sync and cannot deal with
| things like HDR content and remote input.
|
| Cast and Airplay makes the device itself fetch and play
| content, with local control and importantly much better
| display and video manage.
|
| (AirPlay and Cast both _support_ screen sharing, but that is
| not the main use case.)
| pydry wrote:
| The practical upshot is the same. Whether I get my TV to
| play a youtube video or play it on my phone and cast, it
| still plays, at least with wifi 6 (earlier versions were
| flaky).
|
| I also DGAF about battery life. If im watching TV, I have
| power nearby and im not moving anywhere. Id be charging my
| phone anyway.
| arghwhat wrote:
| The practical upshot is not the same in any way or form.
| Miracast is complete garbage for video content.
|
| With one solution, you get good quality playback
| (including anti-judder from your TV), correct color
| handling (e.g., 10-bit, HDR, Dolby Vision, whatever),
| HDMI CEC volume control from the "source" device, and
| remote control support on the TV.
|
| With the other, you get recompressed content at random
| source resolution with improper frame pacing (TV cannot
| so anti-judder of a re-compressed 3:2 pulldown source),
| poor AV sync, a color space likely crushed to 8-bit with
| incorrect gamma, no integration and a device that is
| throwing its battery out the window - even if you don't
| feel like you need your battery, Miracast still has no
| redeeming qualities for this usecase.
|
| Miracast _is_ great for presentations and other scenarios
| that strictly need screen mirroring though.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Miracast is not content-aware, it's just a standard to stream
| a video over Wi-Fi, competing with Intel Wireless Display
| (and other proprietary Wireless Display implementations)
|
| The beauty of the Google Cast protocol is that you can hand
| over meta-data as well as the actual source-URL to the
| receiver and it can initiate the stream directly.
|
| > the fact that google dropped it from stock android kind of
| says it all - they clearly think that chromecast isn't good
| enough to compete without being coddled.
|
| Google had a basic implementation in AOSP to kickstart
| things, but when being deployed to the market it turned out
| to be too cumbersome and complicated:
|
| 1. Each vendor had to certify his device for Miracast
| implementation with the Wi-Fi Alliance.
|
| 2. The Miracast receiver (sink) was buggy in many TV-sets and
| often didn't even work well with devices from the same vendor
| (i.e. Samsung Galaxy with Samsung TV)
|
| 3. Mobile Chipset vendors (Qualcomm, Mediatek) started to
| provide their own Miracast implementations to make more
| efficient use of their HW-architecture
|
| 4. Power-consumption of Miracast was too high (the device has
| to encode it's display content into a H.264 stream)
|
| In the end Google saw the potential to deliver a good
| experience with a cheap dongle and took matters in their own
| hands. Miracast on AOSP was not maintained further because it
| was anyway not used by any major device-vendor (Samsung, LG,
| Sony, Motorola)
| pydry wrote:
| Most major vendors add it themselves because google refuses
| to put it in stock. Samsung calls it smart view, for
| instance. My phone calls it screencast.
|
| I use it every day and the experience is decent. Google
| just didnt like the competition from an open standard i
| guess. but, they dont control what vendors do.
|
| I dont want a proprietary content aware equivalent. There
| is no beauty to sending metadata separately. There is
| beauty in having a dead simple way of mirroring whats on my
| phone that will play any kind of video.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > Most major vendors add it themselves because google
| refuses to put it in stock. Samsung calls it smart view,
| for instance. My phone calls it screencast.
|
| No, as said, vendors add it themselves because the core
| functionality is now provided and maintained by the
| vendor of the device-chipset. A generic AOSP ("stock")
| implementation was proven to be inferior to a custom
| Miracast component tailored for i.e. Qualcomm DSP/GPU,
| that's why AOSP didn't continue maintaining it.
| lxgr wrote:
| > the market moved on from simple wireless display dongles.
|
| Has it? Then it must have left me behind somewhere.
|
| My Chromecast does 4K, Dolby Vision, runs Android TV, has a
| usable remote. What needs to change? There's no newer A/V
| standard available anyway! I literally couldn't think of
| anything else I'd want it to do.
|
| (Google could, of course, and it's somehow "AI", even though
| that probably just runs in the cloud anyway?)
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > My Chromecast does 4K, Dolby Vision, runs Android TV, has a
| usable remote
|
| That's what Google calls "Google TV" now, a product which
| still exists. During the transition they called the dongles
| "Chromecast with Google TV". Now the "Chromecast" part of it
| is discontinued and its all "Google TV".
| lxgr wrote:
| It still seems to be called that:
| https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv
|
| So that's not going away? I really can't tell from TFA. The
| entire thing seems like a hot mess - the link I was hoping
| would explain why I'd want AI in my Chromecast successor is
| dead/404 as well in the "Google TV streamer" announcement
| (https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-
| streamer/).
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > It still seems to be called that:
| https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv
|
| From what I understand, this is the product they mean
| with _" we're ending production of Chromecast, which will
| now only be available while supplies last."_
|
| They kept using the "Chromecast" brand just for dongles,
| and are now discontinuing all dongles in favor of a
| single new product.
|
| My guess is that they reached a point where it's more
| economic to merge the GoogleTV reference design (ADT-3,
| ADT-4) with their Dongle-line and create a single box
| which serves both purposes...
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _runs Android TV, has a usable remote_
|
| You haven't been left behind. You've already made the
| transition.
|
| In the old paradigm, the Chromecast was not the starting
| point for TV watching. Some other device, typically a
| smartphone, was. That's why the old Chromecasts did not
| include a remote control or have a home screen.
|
| In the new paradigm, the Chromecast is the starting point. It
| has a remote. You can install apps on it, and it has a home
| screen to launch them from.
|
| The first device of the new paradigm was still called a
| Chromecast, even though casting was no longer the core
| functionality. Now the brand is being made more consistent
| with what the devices in the new paradigm actually do.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Fun fact: There was a guy who managed to extract the keys out
| of one of the earlier Chromecasts. He eventually stopped
| working on (or at least posting on XDA about) it because he was
| hired by Google.
|
| There isn't really any decent open casting protocol with
| adoption. DLNA (UPnP) is pretty well implemented in proprietary
| devices (besides uncontrollable latency up to 10s on Samsung
| TVs), but there are neither decent free receiver
| implementations nor many control options (other than that the
| concept isn't bad).
|
| Google Cast is smart (with its ,,we'll just give you a whole
| browser" concept) and AirPlay works excellently well. Both are
| proprietary (guess I'm lucky to have both a Macbook and a
| Samsung TV).
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Yeah, I was following that activity, but as it's key-based
| Google simply revoked the keys and devices would no longer
| stream to it.
|
| There used to be a solution to extract the key from your own
| Chromecast to simply use it for your own purposes.
|
| But then they evolved the protocol to Cast_v2 which IIRC had
| more hardened security, so it's just a matter of time until
| they stopped supporting v1 and simply lock out all devices.
|
| It's a pity, because it would be great to push content to
| custom receivers in your house (i.e. send a YouTube link to a
| Squeezebox server)
| mijoharas wrote:
| miracast is open isn't it, and has reasonable adoption from
| smart-TVs? (I think everyone has their own slightly
| incompatible versions of it though.)
|
| [EDIT] I've just seen discussion on why it's not equivalent
| in response to this comment here
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41171297
| aidenn0 wrote:
| DLNA is an okay concept, but codec support is all over the
| place. I've yet to run into a device that doesn't support
| MPEG-2 MP/ML, and all devices support _something_ above that,
| but there 's not a single codec and profile that has
| sufficiently widespread support for HD video.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| > _Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened
| for general purpose use._
|
| Open Screen Protocol exists and is very similar. It works and
| you can use it today (via the one and only reference
| implementation in the Chromium source tree)!
|
| It's even pretty good & makes sense!
|
| This was kind of part of the bargain for adding Presentation
| API to the web back in 2014/2015. Your site can itself trigger
| Chromecast! If that's true, then it seemed clear there should
| be a standardized way to talk to devices too, otherwise this
| wasn't really much of a standard. The same front-side/back-side
| happened with Web Push API for web sites which lead to the
| creation of a Web Push Protocol backend for actually sending
| push messages to the browser. It's not perfect but so far the
| web has somewhat stayed honest with APIs for the page having
| implementable backend protocols too. Presentation API sample
| (which oddly cant find my Chromecasts?):
| https://googlechrome.github.io/samples/presentation-api/
|
| I really really wish there was some hardware support for this!
| I've been meaning to set it up locally & start using it some.
| Writing a native client seems not too absurdly hard.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Open Screen Protocol exists and is very similar._
|
| Like any client-server protocol, it's useless if the devices
| and apps you use don't support it. Exactly zero of the apps I
| use to cast to my Chromecast supports Open Screen Protocol.
| And this isn't a case where I can just switch to a new client
| app. Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, Jellyfin, etc. would have to
| all support it.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| It's still in draft (but seemingly has stabilized a lot in
| the past 2 years). And there's such a a chicken & egg
| between software & devices neither supporting
| OpenScreenProtocol. I get your skepticism but what do you
| want? The same could be said about any other option than
| Chromecast: it doesn't exist on devices or software.
|
| The really good news is that At least for many many apps,
| the effort to port to OpenScreemCast should be reasonably
| minimal. Chromecast for much of it's life has - under the
| covers - been web o ly, and rejiggering for the mild
| differences between Cast and OSP shouldn't be that wild.
|
| Where-as Matter Cast requires native apps on the target
| device, and the app has to be pre installed to work.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| I've opened an issue on Killed By Google:
| https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/1544
| ghaff wrote:
| Not really a surprise. I'd have been more unhappy a number of
| years back but mostly use an Apple TV these days. Not quite a 1:1
| replacement for everything though.
| christkv wrote:
| I found that using infuse I got what i needed for streaming
| from the NAS and the kids enjoy apple arcade so it does the job
| at a decent price.
| ghaff wrote:
| Thanks for the tip. For streaming from the web I mostly find
| that just connecting a laptop to HDMI works pretty well but
| you obviously have to be near the TV. At one point, I bought
| a second Apple TV for another TV and I confess I haven't
| really used Chromecast--which at one point I considered
| pretty essential--in a while.
| aestetix wrote:
| So they are ending Chromecast, and also just launched the "Google
| TV Streamer" which seems to do the same thing, but "faster, more
| premium" whatever that means.
|
| Seems to be a reason to charge people more for the same thing but
| slap the AI label all over it. But that's just first impressions.
|
| Edit: and apparently the TV Streamer thing is twice the price of
| the Chromecast.
| gclawes wrote:
| "faster, more premium" == can't fit in a dongle form-factor
| anymore I guess
| PhasmaFelis wrote:
| "Premium" in general means "more expensive," right?
| jsheard wrote:
| It's $100, compared to $50 for the last 4K Chromecast dongle
| or $30 for the 1080p version.
| kobalsky wrote:
| For reference, an Apple TV 4K costs $129.
| jsheard wrote:
| That premium gets you a pretty beefy processor at least,
| the same one found on the iPhone 13. I doubt the SoC
| Google is using will be even close to that.
| lxgr wrote:
| Supposedly Google's new thing uses a Mediatek MT8696 from
| 2021. If https://fr.gadgetversus.com/processeur/mediatek-
| mt8696-vs-me... is to believed, that would be 20 GFLOPs -
| Apple's does over 1000...
| lxgr wrote:
| And that can run games on par with last-gen consoles
| (below PS4, but significantly above Switch level in terms
| of raw GFLOPs)!
|
| At their original price point, Chromecasts were pretty
| great, but why on earth would I pay the same as an Apple
| TV for something containing an SoC from 2021? I wasn't
| able to find reliable numbers, but performance seems to
| be lower by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
| stavros wrote:
| Does the Apple TV work well without an iPhone? I worry
| it'll be missing half the features. With the Chromecast I
| can use my phone as a remote, whether that's iOS or
| Android, for example.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| The Apple TV comes with a great remote, and an iPhone not
| only isn't necessary, the backup "if you lost your
| remote" interface on the iPhone is kind of bad.
|
| Though if you lose your remote in the cushions or
| whatever note that your iPhone can be used as a "hotter
| hotter colder colder" method to find the remote. Was
| surprised to find this feature.
| https://support.apple.com/en-ca/108371
| stavros wrote:
| Oh yes, Apple has been adding UWB location to all their
| devices, it's great. Thanks for the info, I'll get an
| Apple TV next!
| mikestew wrote:
| The only feature I can think of that you would miss is
| using the phone to type passwords on the Apple TV
| (instead of using the keyboard-less remote). Set that up
| once, and you should otherwise not know the difference.
| Otherwise, my iPhone needs no interaction with the ATV.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Especially when everyone's tv now does all this pretty
| much? I cannot imagine successfully getting my gf to
| switch to this from the Roku integrated in her tv.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > And that can run games on par with last-gen consoles
| (below PS4, but significantly above Switch level in terms
| of raw GFLOPs)!
|
| It also supports a wide variety of wireless gaming
| controllers (including PS and xbox ones). The games
| aren't as good as a Switch or PS4, though.
| slowmotiony wrote:
| It's precisely $50 premiumer than chromecast.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| I think this can actually compete with, and might be better
| than, the nvidia shield pro. Since 2019, I don't think we've
| had such a device (last I checked).
|
| The "best devices" lineup has been the nvidia shield pro, Roku
| ultra, and Apple tv 4k, with Roku being the cheapest at $99.
|
| If you don't care about decoding support for all the different
| video formats, HDR10, dolby xy and z, etc., then these sorts of
| devices might not be for you.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| The oen thing no device currently has that the shield does
| that I'd need to see to replace mine is support for HD audio
| codecs. I play blu-ray rips on my shield through my Jellyfin
| server and it supports bitstreaming DTS-HD Master Audio and
| Dolby TrueHD without any decoding on the streaming device.
|
| The Shield is literally the only streaming device on the
| market that I'm aware of that does this. Without it, I
| wouldn't get the Atmos/DTS:X information passed on to my
| receiver when watching blu-ray rips.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| I'm in a similar boat.
|
| For audio it says it supports "Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital
| Plus, Dolby Atmos", so I guess we can only assume that
| means DTS-X is missing.
|
| But supporting HDR10+ a nice win over the shield, and it
| also does support the necessities like HLG, H.265, H.264,
| VP9, and AV1.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Dolby Atmos support without Dolby TrueHD means TrueHD
| tracks with Atmos will play without it. If those are the
| codecs it supports that means it'll only stream Atmos
| when it's Atmos encoded over Dolby Digital Plus, which to
| be fair is what e.g. Prime, Netflix, and Disney will
| stream to you anyhow, but it doesn't help with watching
| my rips.
| skiman10 wrote:
| Twice the price with a chip from 2021.
|
| https://www.androidauthority.com/google-tv-streamer-processo...
| Yeri wrote:
| whereas the 2024 Google device only supports Wi-Fi 5.
|
| heh...
| cubefox wrote:
| > many reviewers praised the Amazon devices for having good
| performance, so the new Google TV Streamer likely won't be a
| slouch when it comes to loading apps or scrolling through the
| homescreen.
| skiman10 wrote:
| In 2021 they praised the device as having good performance
| at a price point that is ~$30-40 less than what Google is
| launching their device at. The second gen of that Fire
| stick is selling for $40 right now on sale with Wi-Fi 6E. I
| saw some benchmarks posted of this chip and some others
| (with a Pixel 6 thrown in arguing that using a bunch of
| older Tensor chips might have also been a good idea.) And
| also a Shield TV which is 5 years old at this point.
|
| Single core:
|
| Fire Stick - 140
|
| Shield TV - 279 (99% faster, twice as fast).
|
| Tensor G1 (Pixel 6 Pro) - 1007 (619% faster, seven times
| faster)
|
| A15 (Apple TV) - 1684 (1103% faster, 12 times as fast).
|
| Multi-core:
|
| Fire Stick - 491
|
| Shield TV - 971 (98% faster, twice as fast).
|
| Tensor G1 (Pixel 6 Pro) - 2541 (418% faster, five times
| faster)
|
| A15 (Apple TV) - 4489 (814% faster, nine times as fast).
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Same thing + "AI"
|
| We're going to be seeing a lot of this in the next year or two.
| com wrote:
| Then the AI marketing term is going to be cursed like 3D TV
| is, yet the tech itself more useful.
| realce wrote:
| How long until a Coca-Cola ends up in the Star Trek episode
| you're streaming?
| nextos wrote:
| Or their internal fights / incentives to release new things
| instead of maintaining them.
|
| The chat mess with Google Talk, Hangouts, Meet, Duo, etc. was
| quite sad to watch because Talk was a great product.
| thriftwy wrote:
| They've basically lost the market to Zoom due to their
| failure to have a single stable offering when COVID hit.
|
| I hope they're happy with the zoo they have.
| rob74 wrote:
| Still wondering how Zoom managed to pull that off -
| granted, they have a single offering, but describing it as
| "stable" is a stretch. And the UI is such a mess, don't get
| me started...
| tonypace wrote:
| The audio was acceptable over a bad line. For the
| competition, it too often wasn't.
| tracker1 wrote:
| When hangouts was a singular app for all chat/sms (and google
| voice even), etc was peak power user to me... loved it.
| Downhill since.
|
| The sale of Domains was also massive imo. No reason for half
| of this and their internal incentivization needs dramatic
| revision.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Dont forget Allo. Goes to show how much role luck plays in
| these companies' success and it is so strange that others
| still copy what Google, Amazon and these companies are doing
| thinking that they have some sort of management hack or
| routine which makes them successful but in fact they become
| successful despite of their bad practices not because of it.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| It's such a shame that so many bright minds waste their talents
| in what now is essentially an ad business.
| prmoustache wrote:
| To be fair, isn't any new TV in the market being sold with
| chromecast support?
| jtwaleson wrote:
| My 2019 Philips android tv got incredibly slow after years of
| updates. I didn't notice it because it was so incremental but
| after some years the chromecast functionality started failing
| consistently. I did a factory reset, disconnected from the
| internet and added a Google TV dongle. TV is super fast
| again. Point of the story: it's very nice to be able to buy a
| $ 50-100 dongle every 5 years and keep your old tv.
| donalhunt wrote:
| This is exactly the approach I've taken. Current TV is 14
| years old and survived numerous house moves. Still as good
| as new.
|
| Most usage is via a Chromecast Ultra. I have a Chromecast
| 4K with TV (i.e. newer device) but it was a backwards step
| from an experience perspective (covered by others
| elsewhere).
| ajross wrote:
| For clarity: the discussion here is about the Chromecast
| hardware product, the little HDMI stick. Chromecast the
| protocol remains supported pervasively via Google and third
| party products (many/most TVs take it natively, for instance).
| It just didn't have a home, no one wants to buy something
| that's already pre-installed. Ours comes out once every few
| months on vacation, for example.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _also just launched the "Google TV Streamer"_
|
| If Apple were run like Google, the iPhone would have been
| cancelled half a dozen times only to be resurrected as Apple
| Phone++ and Pocket AI, repeatedly investing in and torching
| brand awareness while distracting resources from product
| development to internal promotion and marketing the newest
| brand at the top of the escalator.
| paxys wrote:
| More than twice. Chromecast is $30. The new TV streamer is
| $100.
| buH39Pq4Ss wrote:
| This seems like an unnecessarily cynical take. As a Chromecast
| user, both the price increase and the name change make sense to
| me.
|
| The current generation Chromecast (Chromecast with Google TV
| (4K)) was fast and responsive when it launched, but software
| updates have made it almost unusually laggy over time.
| Obviously the best solution here would be "just make the
| software fast again", but not all the relevant software is
| written by Google, and the third party apps need to be fast
| even if they are not well-optimized. The previous hardware
| wasn't up to the task, and the dongle form factor makes
| thermals a challenge regardless of what chip you put in. A set
| top box format + more capable chip + the general trend in
| higher component costs = a higher BOM cost. I think Google has
| correctly judged that many consumers are willing to pay a
| higher cost for a more responsive device.
|
| The name change just makes sense, because the previous name was
| terrible. "Google Chromecast with Google TV (4K)" is... a
| mouthful. The "Google Chromecast" branding is also associated
| with the "casting" UX flow that was the only way to interact
| with the first 3 generations of Chromecast devices. The
| majority of interaction with the current generation devices is
| probably through the remote (including the voice search feature
| on the remote). "Google TV Streamer" conveys the use case much
| more clearly.
|
| I get as frustrated as anyone else when Google kills products I
| use, but this clearly isn't a case of that. They're just
| releasing a new generation with some changes that plausibly
| meet consumer demand a bit better than the old version.
| cubefox wrote:
| I wouldn't expect much performance difference here:
|
| > Although the specifications for the MT8696 haven't been
| published by MediaTek anywhere online, Amazon [which also
| used it in the past] says that the MT8696(T) variant of the
| chipset in the 2nd Gen model features a quad-core CPU clocked
| at up to 2.0GHz. The core design is ARM's Cortex-A55
|
| > The 2020 Chromecast with Google TV (4K) utilized Amlogic's
| S905X3 SoC with four ARM Cortex-A55 cores clocked at up to
| 1.9GHz
|
| Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41171393
|
| So both use 4 x Cortex-A55. The alleged "22% faster CPU
| performance" does sound strange, as the maximum clock speed
| is merely ~5% higher. Though it does have more RAM (4 GB
| instead of 2 GB).
|
| They could have used a more recent SoC instead of the
| Mediatek from 2021, which would have been more efficient, but
| also more expensive. Making it a box instead of a dongle
| could also be motivated by better audio recording ability
| (for AI assistants), perhaps.
| buH39Pq4Ss wrote:
| I would expect thermals to be significantly better in a set
| top box form factor compared to a dongle. My Chromecast
| with Google TV is often hot to the touch, so I would expect
| that it spends a lot of time thermally-limited, and not
| operating at peak frequency. A larger heat sink could make
| a big difference there.
|
| At the same time, the current generation Apple TV will
| absolutely smoke this thing in performance, even though the
| Apple TV is at the end of its refresh cycle.
| gclawes wrote:
| > Google TV Streamer (4K)
|
| Oh, so they're just rebranding and not making it a dongle
| anymore....
| lxgr wrote:
| I suspect that being a dongle is part of the appeal of
| Chromecast for many people.
|
| At least I definitely don't want more visible external boxes
| behind/next to my TV, especially if they don't even need line-
| of-sight to the remote since that's all Bluetooth anyway these
| days.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| > I suspect that being a dongle is part of the appeal of
| Chromecast for many people.
|
| Exactly. Also: I just want to watch stuff. I don't want AI or
| smart-home features.
| mrweasel wrote:
| The rebranding makes sense, because I don't think people see it
| as "Google Chromecast", but simply "Chromecast" and not
| associating it with Google.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Google has a really horrible brand reputation though. Would
| be bizarre if someone at Google thought tacking "Google" on a
| product would improve the product's reputation.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Does it have a horrible brand reputation? The tech savy
| people complaining about the account review procedures are
| not the mainstream consumer.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Yes, I do think it does have a horrible rep for the
| layman.
| ncr100 wrote:
| This feels more like they're actually killing this product,
| because the replacement is far too expensive.
|
| So it will no longer appeal to market in the same way.
|
| So I think this means that Google sees that there's not enough
| profit in the low end Internet Smart features for HDMI anymore.
| danesparza wrote:
| I slowed my Google use after they killed off Google Reader.
|
| Yeah, that's right. I showed up here to mention I'm still bitter
| over Google Reader.
|
| No, I'm NOT "getting over it" (contrary to the cease and desist
| letter I got from Google recently).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm incredibly anxious about this.
|
| Chromecast is core to how my family's television usage works. I
| got a free Chromecast recently and it's a much worse UX than the
| ones I got many years ago.
|
| What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found
| everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole
| market of devices that'll work. It feels frustrating and kind of
| ugly that there's an Apple version and a Google version, etc.
| exe34 wrote:
| my next step after my chrome cast stops working is going to be
| a raspberry pi connected directly to the projector.
| petepete wrote:
| > What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found
| everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole
| market of devices that'll work
|
| Sonos, take note.
| paradox460 wrote:
| Why, so they can patent it and sue everyone?
| petepete wrote:
| Oh so that's why I can't cast to my Sonos speakers?
|
| I thought they just couldn't work out how to make casting
| work, like how they still haven't figured out RSTP.
| deedub wrote:
| I am taking a look at the Nvidia shield, which also uses the
| cast button. I have 3 Chromecasts that need to be replaced, but
| the cheapest Shield is $150!!
|
| I guess each time Google kills something and I remove one more
| part of my life from their ecosystem they are doing me the real
| favor.
| EricE wrote:
| Tivo Stream is $40 and works a treat - it's Android TV based
| https://www.tivo.com/products/stream-4k
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Being only $40 I'm highly suspect that I'm the product, not
| the customer.
| EricE wrote:
| They are hoping you will subscribe to their streaming
| service, but it works just fine without subscribing to
| theirs. It also aggregates multiple streaming services
| into a consolidated guide rather nicely.
|
| Not as nice as Channels DVR (which also lets you record
| streams and will strip commercials), but one of the nicer
| streaming boxes for the money.
| swamp_donkey wrote:
| Is there any substitute for chrome cast audio? I love being able
| to play in sync audio to the group of receivers I choose
| throughout the property, using any amplifier. I'm not even using
| the digital optical input and I love them
| mgaunard wrote:
| You can buy any of the google-enabled speakers, or you can just
| get some raspberry pi and run your own solution.
| physicsguy wrote:
| The point was that you could have an optical out connection
| to a Hi-Fi system and things would just work from Spotify,
| etc... The google speakers don't even have an aux out. A
| Rasperry Pi isn't at all equivalent as it's not plug and
| play.
| mgaunard wrote:
| If you're posting on hacker news surely you would be able
| to install raspotify on a debian raspberry pi or just load
| the moode audio image.
| iicc wrote:
| Snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| Check out wiim for hardware.
|
| And also https://roon.app/en/ for music streaming software that
| can group up devices from a bunch of different manufacturers.
| solardev wrote:
| I think Sonos sued the heck out of Google for those, and it
| caused those devices to disappear for a few years. Sonos lost
| that case late last year though, so hopefully we'll see a
| resurgence?
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-wins-repriev...
|
| Otherwise, you can DIY it with a bunch of old devices or
| Raspberry Pis and https://github.com/geekuillaume/soundsync
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I think Sonos sued the heck out of Google for those, and it
| caused those devices to disappear for a few years.
|
| Oh so _that_ was why they disappeared? Seriously, it 's time
| to rework the entire patents system. You should only get a
| patent granted when you attach a reasonable (!) price tag and
| agree to non-discriminatory licensing.
| solardev wrote:
| I _think_ that 's the reason, but I can't be sure. It
| probably didn't help, that's for sure...
|
| Had I known Sonos would be like that, I wouldn't have
| bought their products. Their latest app also totally broke
| the speakers. Stay far far away from Sonos.
| westurner wrote:
| I am fairly certain that the academic open source community
| had already published prior art for delay correction and
| volume control of speaker groups (which are obvious problems
| when you add multiple speakers to a system with transmission
| delay). IIRC there was a microsoft research blog post with a
| list of open source references for distributed audio from
| prior to 2006 for certain. (Which further invalidates the
| patent claims in question).
|
| Before they locked Chromecast protocol down, it was easy to
| push audio from a linux pulseaudio sound server to Chromecast
| device(s).
|
| The patchbay interface in soundsync looks neat. Also patch
| bay interfaces: BespokeSynth, HoustonPatchBay, RaySession,
| patchance, org.pipewire.helvum (GTK), easyeffects (GTK4 +
| GStreamer), https://github.com/BespokeSynth/BespokeSynth/issu
| es/1614#iss...
|
| pipewire handles audio and video streams. soundsync with
| video would be cool too.
|
| FWIU Matter Cast _ing_ is an open protocol which device
| vendors could implement.
| ink_13 wrote:
| The awkwardly-named "WiiM Pro" is a device that claims to
| support Chromecast Audio (and a bunch of other stuff like
| Airplay and Spotify Connect). It's been getting good reviews
| but I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
| mbreese wrote:
| How much of this is an "end" to Chromecast and a rebranding of
| Chromecast to "Google TV Streamer"? It seems like the bare-bones
| experience of a Chromecast being tied to a phone (or browser) is
| getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. If this is the
| case, it might be a (rare) example of a good branding shift from
| Google.
|
| I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel
| like both were hampered by the phone requirement. Part of this is
| my house having kids without phone who would have liked to have
| access to Netflix, and part is due to my Apple TV use, which I
| use far more often.
|
| I'm sure there will be some loss of functionality here, but
| hopefully it's with the benefit of a much better user experience.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| The decent solution to the remote-less Chromecast is to buy a
| super cheap android tablet to use as a remote.
| woodrowbarlow wrote:
| the phone/browser lock-in is largely due to lack of a
| standardized and open protocol to stream content in this
| manner. in the wireless-display-sharing ecosystem the
| chromecast is unique in that, when possible, it streams content
| from the original provider on a local client rather than
| relying on mirroring your device's display. this gives a better
| user experience but required participation from each service
| provider.
|
| i'm surprised netflix or amazon hasn't tried to create a
| standardized protocol for asking another client to initiate a
| stream from a provider on your behalf, including passing
| account credentials and allowing for widevine and other drm. if
| this was successful, it would open the market for chromecast-
| like-devices from other vendors.
| ghaff wrote:
| I was at my brother's on vacation and we were sharing some
| vacation pics. The mirroring worked pretty well but I do wish
| there were a straightforward way to just cast a browser to a
| TV in a standard way.
| vel0city wrote:
| In Windows, you can press Win+K to pull up the Cast menu.
| Lots of smart TVs and streaming devices will work with it.
| You can mirror or extend your display to it.
|
| This is through standardized protocols.
| ghaff wrote:
| I admittedly don't use Windows.
| scarmig wrote:
| > amazon hasn't tried to create a standardized protocol
|
| Amazon is pushing Matter Cast, which is in many ways superior
| to Google Cast, most of all by being open. Its biggest
| downside is that it's not supported by anyone else.
| mbreese wrote:
| The new (Google TV Streamer) device seems to support Matter
| as a protocol, so maybe there is more hope here...
| vel0city wrote:
| > most of all by being open
|
| Didn't Chromecasts work with DIAL which was an open
| protocol?
|
| https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-
| specification
| scarmig wrote:
| Google Cast was originally built on top of DIAL, but DIAL
| itself is mostly about device discovery IIRC. Nowadays
| it's all mDNS instead.
| vel0city wrote:
| DIAL is literally discovery _and launch_. The discovery
| part is just SSDP. The rest of DIAL is entirely state
| tracking the stream, sending playback commands, requests
| to launch content, etc. through REST endpoints. It seems
| entirely possible to me for a revision of the spec based
| off mDNS for discovery rather than UPnP, and most of the
| document would be the same.
|
| The DIAL spec documents spend three pages talking about
| discovery and sixteen pages talking about state tracking,
| launching, HDMI-CEC, etc.
|
| It's a pretty basic protocol spec since it mostly relies
| on things like UPnP for discovery and HTTP REST so a lot
| of complications are already defined in other specs.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Well, better than Doesn't Matter Cast.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| There's a lot of Matter Cast that feels fairly reasonable
| as a protocol, but the flaws here are so wildly absurd. I
| want this effort to sink so bad. As a protocol I vastly
| prefer Open Screen Protocol, which was begat to support W3c
| Secondary Screen wg's Presentstion API.
| https://w3c.github.io/openscreenprotocol/
| https://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/
|
| Matter Cast has what to me are grevious limitations:
|
| 1. Connecting clients can only talk to existing Endpoints
| running on the target device. If I use Tidal for example,
| the smart speaker or smart TV needs to already be setup
| with that app, and needs to be willing to let a background
| service run & register itself with the platform.
| https://github.com/project-
| chip/connectedhomeip/blob/master/...
|
| 2. Only native apps are supported. There's no protocol to
| say open a webpage & control that. As a solo dev I can
| throw together a universal Presentation API multi-display
| experience in hours. Shipping even one native app would
| take many weekends & lots of legal hoops. Getting on the
| apps store for even 50% of TV's or speakers seems daunting
| beyond imagining.
|
| 3. No support for multi-party sessions. Only one user can
| interact at a time.
|
| 4. No support for the Web's Presentation API. Since it's
| not based around urls & web pages, it would require lots of
| additional work to make it support the standard web pages
| have to spawn a remote display.
|
| By compare, Open Screen Protocol lets any target device
| open any web page, which is very similar to how Chromecast
| development works today (and how DIAL worked before).
| Whether the target device is Android, Apple, WebOS,
| Windows, Tizen, or other, the expectation that I could Open
| Screen Protocol cast to it remains the same. Where-as
| Matter Cast requires a native app on the device & the app
| has to be installed & potentially even greenlit by the
| target device platform itself.
|
| OpenScreenProtocol really looks to have it all, & the model
| is so much more universal. Really wish we saw some device
| makers pushing for it these days.
| glenstein wrote:
| >the phone/browser lock-in is largely due to lack of a
| standardized and open protocol to stream content in this
| manner.
|
| I feel like the thing you are describing as lock-in is, in a
| critical sense, quite the opposite. It gave you the power to
| make a dumb TV into a versatile streaming system that's not
| locked down and beholden to Smart TV software.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| I wouldn't say opposite. You're still choosing one
| company's platform.
| realityking wrote:
| > in the wireless-display-sharing ecosystem the chromecast is
| unique in that, when possible, it streams content from the
| original provider on a local client rather than relying on
| mirroring your device's display.
|
| AirPlay has the same capabilities, I believe even in the
| original v1 version - back then only for Audio as it didn't
| support video at all.
| xerox13ster wrote:
| The standardized protocol already exists and it's called DLNA
| which Chromecast initially cannibalized in its first release
| and then basically killed off every single other DLNA
| provider and app because they Sherlocked the feature into the
| Android operating system and to the Chrome browser.
|
| Now that they are at risk of being split up for their
| monopoly, and as they lose an Antitrust case for their search
| monopoly, they are probably looking to kill off the Chrome
| brand because Chrome is how they entirely dominated the web,
| warping it to their standards and killing more open standards
| in favor of their Proprietary technology.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| DLNA is meant to play media from a media server on a home
| network. It doesn't make sense for Internet services to
| implement DMS. The relevant standard for casting using web
| protocols is DIAL.
| Shog9 wrote:
| I vaguely remember DLNA... Which is to say, I remember it
| barely working at best and mostly just wasting a lot of
| time debugging configuration and network nonsense.
|
| Arguably the biggest advantage of Chromecast was just not
| having to deal with all that.
| scarmig wrote:
| Chromecast also allowed you to stream Netflix... I'm not
| sure DLNA ever got to that point.
| brnt wrote:
| I use DLNA every day. It just werx. But yes, it's
| designed to stream local files, so no Netlix et all.
| lbourdages wrote:
| Newer Chromecasts ship with a remote and do not require a
| phone. Multiple people can be logged in too.
| mbreese wrote:
| True, but at that point, what does the "Chrome" part of
| Chromecast mean? It made much more sense when the device was
| tied to a browser, and then (kinda) apps on a phone. Once
| they added a remote, I think the writing was on the wall for
| the name "Chromecast".
|
| Google TV is a better "brand", IMO.
| systems wrote:
| but the new brand is actually "Google TV Streamer" (3
| words)
|
| why didnt they just go for "Google TV" (2 words)
|
| they also could have played a bit "Google TOP" (because its
| a table top device) , "Google S" (S for Streamer) , i think
| the 3 word "Google TV Streamer" , is function over form
| gone wrong
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| There's an entire app called Google TV already.
| https://tv.google
| mbreese wrote:
| Probably because they saw what happened with Apple TV
| (the device), Apple TV+ (the service) and TV (the app).
|
| That's a whole headache I think Google is (wisely) trying
| to avoid here...
| ink_13 wrote:
| The 4K Chromecast "with Google TV" basically was that already,
| since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and remote.
| It seems a bit silly to me that they're tossing the brand aside
| but maybe they're doing that for exactly this reason.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| I own the 4K Chromecast and it's pretty good. But in my
| opinion "Chromecast" was always a bad brand name. I guess it
| originated in the browser, but it's so far removed from that
| now; "Chrome" no longer makes sense.
| paxys wrote:
| Probably true, but it's not like "Google TV Streamer" is
| any better.
| dwighttk wrote:
| There's gonna be about 12 more names/products before they
| settle on something.
| wmf wrote:
| Nest TV, Gemini TV...
| scarmig wrote:
| Gemini Ultra Nest TV with Chrome Cast Ultra(tm)
| afandian wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
| RankingMember wrote:
| Yeah that's just an awful name, could've just gone with a
| streamlined version of what they have, e.g. "Google
| Cast".
| cubefox wrote:
| "Google TV Streamer" pretty exactly describes what this
| thing does. It's from Google, and it streams things to
| your TV.
|
| "Chromecast" was more puzzling. What's "Chrome"? Isn't
| that a browser? What does this have to do with anything?
| And what is "cast"? Does it broadcast something? Etc.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| On the other hand, "Google TV Streamer" also describes
| Chromecasts and is immensely less memorable or
| distinctive.
|
| It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be
| "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap.
| bsimpson wrote:
| Google TV was also the name of their failed settop box
| strategy like a dozen years ago.
|
| I think they gave out one from Logitech (with a
| keyboard!) at an I/O one year.
| pimlottc wrote:
| To be fair, "MacBook" is basically a portmanteau of
| "Macintosh Notebook", so it's really not that far removed
| from "Apple Laptop".
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| But the point is that they're giving up distinctive,
| widely-recognized branding for a bland, flavorless
| alternative
| TheKarateKid wrote:
| You could say the same about "Chromebooks" -- but that
| doesn't matter anymore. Thanks to Chromebooks dominating
| schools and Google's general ubiquity, almost everyone
| knows what Chrome is if you've used a computer in the
| past decade.
|
| The only market who wouldn't know is the same crowd that
| would never use a smart TV anyway.
| tjoff wrote:
| Wait til you hear about Play Store. Been over a decade
| and I still cringe.
| softfalcon wrote:
| Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end.
| Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure.
|
| Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you
| likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple
| TV? Yes.
| vanshg wrote:
| Google TV is already the name of their software platform
| (based on the Android TV OS) that TVs run
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes but that's really the same as this just in a separate
| box. Makes total sense to bring it under the same naming
| tree.
|
| I'd call it "Google TV Box" though. Streaming is too
| contrived and not everyone knows what it means. Xiaomi
| use the Box naming too and that seems to go down well.
| zeven7 wrote:
| Agreed. My initial guess was that the Google TV Streaming
| name had something to do with a Twitch-like streaming
| platform.
| mikelward wrote:
| Or maybe Google TV Hub if it has Matter and/or smart home
| functionality.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the
| end.
|
| The reason Google TV didn't win (and the reason why it
| kind of _did_ ) is that Google TV already won for
| something _else_ closely related, which this is being
| associated with:
|
| https://tv.google/
| healsdata wrote:
| I agree, but they're not just rebranding. They also doubled
| the price, ostensibly because they changed the form factor
| and added "AI". I don't need a visible device or AI just to
| stream YouTube or other video apps.
| raydev wrote:
| They explicitly call it "premium" in the launch page.
| Time to move upmarket in the hopes of actually making a
| profit.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Roku sells dongles at the same price point, without many
| other services with which to subsidize the hardware. I am
| sure Roku monetizes the users in the same ways as Google
| can, so I do not understand how Google cannot make a
| profit from them.
| eric-hu wrote:
| > Google cannot make a profit from them
|
| *enough profit
|
| Remember that Google has sunset many products because
| those profits pale in comparison to search and
| advertising.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Sure, but I do not see how that improves by focusing on
| the "premium" hardware. Unless the box is actually
| cheaper, I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more
| (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance
| chips). Worsening their margin per unit.
|
| People just want to watch Netflix or Disney with minimum
| friction. A box that is twice the price of the
| competition, with questionably useful AI features does
| not seem a winning play.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How does search make them money? They are paying everyone
| to be their default search. Isn't search just an input of
| data to push ads based on the search as well as taking
| the user with more metrics based on the search query?
| sitkack wrote:
| It can, but it has to support all the ads infrastructure
| that is about to collapse.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| About to collapse? How so?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >I am sure Roku monetizes the users in the same ways as
| Google can, so I do not understand how Google cannot make
| a profit from them.
|
| The same way Roku does not make a profit from them.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ROKU/roku/profi
| t-m...
| NohatCoder wrote:
| That doesn't really matter, everyone know what a Chromecast
| is, that is worth far more than a descriptive name.
| farco12 wrote:
| It was a good brand name when it launched, but not for how
| it evolved.
|
| It was a device that made it possible to cast video from
| your Chrome browser. When it was released in 2013 it
| reinforced the superior utility of Chrome which had just
| began to dominate browser market share.
|
| Embedding the Google Cast protocol directly into video
| streaming apps and having the Chromecast brand name coexist
| alongside the Android TV and Google TV brand names made
| things confusing.
| kps wrote:
| The earlier Chromecasts did run a cut down Chrome on cut
| down ChromeOS. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromiu
| m/src/+/main:chr...
| nerdix wrote:
| Exactly. They already killed the OG Chromecast with the "with
| Google TV" Chromecast.
|
| Now they are just killing the Chromecast branding for now.
| But they've been known to kill a brand only to resurrect it a
| few years later.
| consp wrote:
| > since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and
| remote
|
| Most impotantly, it has ads!
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah that's really what kills it for me. Why do I have ads
| on a device I paid for??
| copperroof wrote:
| This drives me nuts. When I first got the original fire
| tv it was fast and had no ads. I could easily recommend
| it. Now it's stuffed to the brim with ads and is
| incredibly slow. When this one dies I'll likely not buy a
| hardware device from Amazon ever again.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| At least on a Roku you can block the ads with a PiHole
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah sadly this doesn't work on a Fire TV Stick. It
| ignores DHCP and uses its own DNS resolver. Probably DoH
| or something, I didn't dig that deep into it.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yep that's what I have now. Same story. It started with
| ever bigger ads for prime shows, then ads for shows on
| other streamers I don't subscribe to. And now half-screen
| apps for chocolates and perfumes etc. In Spain by the
| way.
|
| Also now I have to pay extra to skip ads on prime :(
|
| I'm thinking of getting an Apple TV but considering how
| expensive it is I'm waiting for the next version. I don't
| want to pay top dollar for the 2022 version.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Chromecast is a terrible brand. It immediately confuses the
| customer. Why does my Chromecast not have Chrome on it? Who
| thought of that?
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I have one of these and I am going to be blunt: I just can't
| figure out the privacy. At. All. I have kids (and their many
| friends) running through the house using TVs and streaming
| etc and I don't want them browsing through my YouTube viewing
| history or filling it up with their dumb kid shows nor
| accessing things I don't think are appropriate at random
| times.
|
| But for whatever reason when I plug in the 4K with Google
| it's the annoying nagbot that refuses to do anything unless
| I'm logged in (not to mention my password is not exactly easy
| to type using the remote) and then it drags in my whole
| YouTube history and the device is useless and nags you to
| hell when not logged in.
|
| It's so much easier and less insane to just use Roku. I can
| throw YouTube videos at the Roku without being logged in and
| the device works just fine. Google seems to be constantly
| changing things and I have no interest in playing wack-a-mole
| with whatever thing they decide to change this week.
|
| Roku's just work and they rarely change. That trust just does
| not exist with Google's products.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I feel that way about casting in general.
|
| The prompt to login whenever you cast to an arbitrary TV
| feels like a footgun. I don't want whatever community I'm
| watching with to know what the algorithm thinks I like. The
| distance between "annoying" and "embarrassing" is directly
| correlated to who is in the room to observe.
| matsemann wrote:
| Exactly! For the Chromecast at our cabin, the fact that
| people cast from their own phone is a _feature_. No shared
| logins between families staying there, no need to log in
| and out from some additional device.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Yup, I agree. They really should not have called this
| "with Google TV" thing a "Chromecast" in the first place.
| The earlier Chromecast devices were so simple and
| extremely pleasant to use. They did their thing extremely
| well. It really felt like a bait and switch when I
| unboxed this and plugged in. It doesn't even show up as a
| cast destination in YouTube when not logged in while
| every single Roku in the house is there and does what the
| old Chromecasts used to do. To be fair a remote for pause
| and volume seemed like a natural addition, because that
| had been a bit clunky with the older Chromecasts when
| doing like family watching. I also really liked the
| Chromecast Audio while it worked. After this "with Google
| TV" thing Chromecast moved from one of my regular
| recommends to family etc to never being mentioned.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Exactly -- it's not an end at all, just a rebranding.
|
| And it's about time. "Chromecast" was always a _terrible_ brand
| IMHO, because it had utterly nothing whatsoever to do with
| Chrome, except that there happened to be a "Cast..." menu item
| in Chrome. But you can cast from lots of apps that _aren 't_
| Chrome. It would have made just as much sense to call it
| "Gmailcast" -- that is to say, no sense at all.
|
| "Google TV Streamer" isn't particularly memorable, but it's
| perfectly logical and intuitive. And it doesn't introduce
| confusion with a _browser_. Google wants the brand to be
| _Google_ directly, not some sub-brand. Makes sense to me.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| From a user perspective you're right but from a technical
| sense, Chromecast got its roots as little more than a remote-
| controlled Chrome session. Alike the Netflix DIAL protocol
| that it evolved from, Chromecast was for many years merely a
| hdmi-out stick device that ran Chrome!
|
| It's not at all clear to users though, isn't a meaningful
| name. And now as well as web there are also Android Custom
| Receivers from Chromecast.
| https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/web_receiver/basic ht
| tps://developers.google.com/cast/docs/android_tv_receiver/...
|
| It would have been interesting if there was an alternate path
| where Chromecast really did expose its underlying browser-
| ness better. If I could just tell my phone to cast hacker
| news and then scroll on my phone's screen. I wonder if that
| was ever considered.
|
| Also note that ChromeOS was also a web-centered thing at the
| time, so there was some symbiosis with that. Both web powered
| tech platforms. But given the recent announcement that Google
| is killing ChromeOS & Android is the way forward for
| everyone, well, extra sensible that Chromecast has to go:
| finalizing/cementing the (imo unfortunate for all) cultural
| victory of Android-over-all at Google.
| buu700 wrote:
| I agree. The branding doesn't really matter as long as
| casting still works. It seems like an odd choice for Google
| to frame this in such dramatic terms, especially when so many
| people have already been burned by their tendency to kill
| popular products out of the blue.
|
| I get the lamentation of the final nail in the coffin of what
| was just a simple wireless HDMI dongle, and I agree that
| there's a real need for that. Having said that, I love my 4K
| Google TV Chromecasts. All I'd ever wanted was something that
| combined the Fire TV Stick and the Chromecast into one
| device, and this delivered perfectly. The compact form factor
| makes it easy to keep a spare in my backpack for whenever I
| might need it while away from home, which comes in handy
| often.
|
| My problem with this is that it sounds like they're
| discontinuing a product that works perfectly well, and
| replacing it with something slightly worse (for my use case)
| at 2x the price. Granted, for now they are still selling the
| Chromecast, so they have time to introduce a future "Google
| TV Streamer Mini" that retains the form factor of the
| Chromecast. As long as they do that, I don't really care what
| they call it.
| brewdad wrote:
| For the right user, the Chromecast is the perfect device.
| Trouble is, for multi-user households or other users that
| don't fit the perfect mold its flaws quickly become
| apparent. Hopefully this device can fix most of the flaws
| while still providing that easy way of getting video from
| my device to my TV screen without logins and apps or
| anything getting in the way. I don't use "casting" often
| but there are times when it is by far the easiest way to
| view content.
| santiagobasulto wrote:
| Well, back in the day (and I feel old now), the ability to
| cast a chrome tab to a TV with a $30 dongle was huge. It was
| a great brand until it got commoditized.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I never understood the utility. So could a 10$ HDMI cable?
|
| I bought a Chromecast thinking it could play videos from a
| network drive like XBMP, but it couldn't and I thought it
| was beyond useless with its buggy and slow interface.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| It's like comparing the PSP's un-included HDMI cable
| setup to the Switch's slick integration of an HDMI dock
| and saying "well actually Sony did the portable to TV
| tech first".
|
| You plugged it in once to what used to be dumb TV's and
| in 2-3 presses I can have whatever was on my phone on my
| TV, with no fanagling with a USB to HDMI dongle into an
| HDMI cable, which may phone may or may not even support.
|
| And once it was playing you didn't really have to manage
| the connection for Youtube; Your phone could die and
| it'll still play since it's ultimately not actually
| extracting the content from your phone's network.
|
| > I thought it was beyond useless with its buggy and slow
| interface.
|
| The older Chromecasts' didn't really have an interface
| once you set it up. I just casted from phone, waited 5
| seconds and it was done. Honestly prefer my Ultra to the
| newer Google TV dongles precisely because there's no
| unnecesary middleman interface. My phone should and did
| manage all of that.
| leokennis wrote:
| As a brand I'm of the opinion that "Chromecast" was a huge
| success. All non technical people I know basically call any
| stick/dongle and even devices like an Apple TV a
| "Chromecast". For them, if you watch anything that isn't
| linear cable TV (so: YouTube, Netflix etc.) on your TV you're
| "casting". And for a while Chromecast was fantastic because
| it turned any dumb TV into a smart TV.
|
| Now that every TV has apps and even the older people watch
| more streaming than cable TV, sure, it is a good moment to
| say goodbye to the mental image of what Chromecast was. But
| if you measure success in tech by how many people outside of
| the "HN crowd" are familiar with a thing, Chromecast is right
| up there with something like Dropbox.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| The ending allows them end support which is September 2027.
| geor9e wrote:
| >the original
|
| FYI Google stopped pushing critical security updates to the 1st
| gen Chromecast already. I'm not saying it joined a botnet
| already but maybe~ https://support.google.com/product-
| documentation/answer/1023...
| ncr100 wrote:
| Streamer is 3x more expensive vs Chromecast.
|
| - $30 HD Chromecast https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-
| TV-Streaming-Entert...
|
| - $99 ("just") Streamer
| https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being
| is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience.
|
| Weird thing about this is the best thing about Chromecast is
| it's not an Apple TV form factor and experience and the worst
| thing about Apple TV is it's not a Chromecast style stick.
|
| I just don't see where a TV would even exist that doesn't offer
| what's in the box built in already, but I definitely know a lot
| of TVs where Chromecast or AirPlay just doesn't work on the
| base unit.
| adra wrote:
| Every "smart" tv is definitely spying on you. Your best
| defense is never setting it up or buying a dumb tv I'd you
| can still find them. Control your data! If you're going to
| surrender your data willingly to apple, google then fine
| that's a choice, but smart TVs like modern cars have no
| choice.
| torartc wrote:
| Who even makes a good non-smart tv these days? I'm not
| going to limit my watching experience just to avoid a tv
| having apps.
| philistine wrote:
| No one. No one is making a good non-smart TV. The shitty
| TVs have smarts in them to subsidize the price by spying
| on you, and the expensive TVs are not going to compete
| with less features, right? Oh, and why not make more
| money by spying on you as well?
|
| If you want a modern TV with correct colours, HDR, and
| useful inputs, you have to stop yourself from connecting
| a smart TV to the internet. There's just no other way.
| Roku's OS is absolutely usable without ever configuring
| it for internet access, and my particular brand of
| choice, TCL, offers an option to update the OS with a USB
| stick.
|
| I use my TV with an AV receiver, and HDMI-CEC switching
| means the TV remote is literally hidden away. The TV has
| no say in what's happening to it at all.
| nucleardog wrote:
| Yeah the whole reason I ever recommended a Chromecast to
| people was that it was basically dummy simple. You know how
| to watch Netflix or YouTube on your phone? Great, you know
| how to watch it on your TV too.
|
| My mother who hates every piece of technology and gets
| frustrated to the point of tears when things don't work like
| they did yesterday was just fine with a Chromecast. There's
| no separate Chromecast to learn, manage, or deal with. It's,
| effectively, a way to mirror your phone to your TV.
|
| I regularly recommended them to people even with Smart TVs
| and stuff. There were often bugs, UI issues, general
| confusion... "Just plug this thing in and then use your phone
| as a remote" added a lot of value.
|
| I don't know why I'd ever want a "Google TV". For $100 what
| does this give me over the crappy Smart TV UI I've already
| got? Do I really want to deal with Google's privacy track
| record over Apple's to save $40?
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I
| feel like both were hampered by the phone requirement.
|
| I rarely was. Ultiamately I usually have some piece of tech on
| hand and I just wanted some way to get youtube on my dumb TV.
|
| But I also get it. that tv casting has more or less been built
| into every modern smart TV (and we aren't getting many good
| dumb tv's these days). So focusing on something more robust
| instead of selling a cheap streaming stick seems inevitable.
| lxgr wrote:
| Wow, even for Google, this seems like an exceptionally well-liked
| and popular brand name and device to kill.
|
| The replacement ("Google TV streamer") seems to be a quite
| different device - most importantly, one that will be very
| visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its
| predecessor.
|
| For anyone not particularly interested in having "AI" in their
| streaming stick (and this being Google, surely that will just
| happen in the cloud...?), I'm not sure if that's an improvement.
| ghaff wrote:
| I think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have
| never heard of Chromecast.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| But many, many more than have heard of Google TV Streamer.
| Izkata wrote:
| I think that's the point of:
|
| > one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out
| of sight behind it like its predecessor.
|
| You're now advertising to anyone who visits your home.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| That doesn't require changing the branding.
| lxgr wrote:
| Definitely, and the same probably goes for Pixel, Nest etc.
|
| But those that have at least subjectively/anecdotally seem
| pretty happy with it - so why kill it and start from scratch?
| ghaff wrote:
| That's reasonable. Although Chromecast also has a brand
| identity of dongle you plug into a TV for streaming. If
| you're something a lot different/more ambitious then
| rebranding isn't a bad idea.
|
| I'm actually a big proponent of moving TV smarts out of the
| display just as I am in cars.
| cflewis wrote:
| Wild guess: most people go "I want the Google TV thingy"
| anytime5704 wrote:
| I find that hard to believe...
|
| "Cast" is a pretty ubiquitous term and, anecdotally,
| Chromecast is almost always the device I find when traveling.
|
| Probably selection bias on my part, but I'd expect most
| people to be aware of Chromecast unless they're over the age
| of ~70 and fully Apple-oriented.
|
| Seems like throwing away a perfectly well known brand.
| complaintdept wrote:
| I travel quite a bit and I've never encountered one. Never
| even seen one at all. I've heard of Chromecast because I go
| on tech sites, but they're suspiciously absent in my bubble
| of reality. I'm an Android and Linux user too.
| ajross wrote:
| The protocol is baked into almost every TV sold now. Have
| you seriously never even tried it? Never wondered what
| that rectangle icon was in youtube videos on your phone,
| etc...?
| ghaff wrote:
| No. I have never seen it or tried it outside outside of a
| couple devices I bought.
| complaintdept wrote:
| I screencasted once to play with video feedback, but
| never seen a Chromecast device that plugs into a TV.
| ajross wrote:
| Right, because no one buys them anymore as the feature is
| baked into their televisions already. They were popular
| originally but don't have a home. If it's just the
| hardware device you're talking about, sure. It's obscure
| now, which is why it's being cancelled.
|
| What's frustrating in this thread is how many people are
| conflating the weird dongle product with the extremely
| successful streaming control protocol. Only the weird
| thing is being cancelled!
| ghaff wrote:
| Part of it is how often do people buy TVs? I doubt if
| I've bought one in over 15 years.
| ajross wrote:
| A quick Google says that 40M televisions are sold in the
| US every year, into a market with 130M households. So...
| a whole lot more often than once every decade and half.
| ghaff wrote:
| I assume a lot new "households" are created every year.
| Once a stable household is established it would surprise
| me a bit if TVs were regularly repurchased.
| complaintdept wrote:
| The whole thread is about Google discontinuing a physical
| product, not a feature baked into TV's. I've never seen
| the product they're discontinuing IRL.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| My Vizio TV calls it SmartCast. I just Airplay to it. I
| didn't realize until I just googled it that Chromecast is
| basically Airplay for Android.
| ajross wrote:
| Other way around; Chromecast beat Airplay to market by
| like four years I think. But yes, they're very comparable
| technologies.
| tiltowait wrote:
| According to Wikipedia, AirPlay was 2010 (and preceded by
| AirTunes in 2004); Chromecast 2013.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I had an AirPort Express back in 2004 timeframe that was
| precursor to Airplay that did beat Chromecast by close to
| 10 years with AirTunes. AirPlay came out in 2010. Then,
| in 2017, Apple released AirPlay 2.
|
| Chromecast first gen was in 2013.
|
| Apple actually beat Google on this one in terms of time.
| randunel wrote:
| How is a wireless audio technology comparable to
| chromecast? If it is, bluetooth audio streaming started
| in 1998, beating airport express by 6 years. And don't
| get me started on radio...
| firesteelrain wrote:
| By your logic, AirPlay and Chromecast are just smaller
| versions of broadcast television.
|
| Come on man
| acdha wrote:
| They've sold a hundred million of them and embedded it into
| millions of TVs. It's not as mainstream as Chrome or Android
| but it's far from a niche product, especially for people who
| aren't old enough to have grown accustomed to using dedicated
| boxes attached to their TVs to watch everything.
| jerf wrote:
| I have no idea why they think that "full summaries, reviews and
| season-by-season breakdowns of content" is even a feature worth
| mentioning. The going value of that on the current market is
| $0. Heck, at times it's negative, you have to go out of your
| way to avoid the info if you don't want it. And there is no way
| whatsoever that this is happening locally. A $100 device is not
| spontaneously ingesting video, running speech-to-text on it or
| advanced video analysis, and processing it all down to a
| summary for you.
|
| If this is what we can expect from "Gemini" technology, it's
| damning it with faint praise. Who even cares. Nobody has the
| problem of really wanting a summary of a season of TV, but they
| just can't get it because darn it all they lack access to super
| advanced AI. Nobody had that problem 10 years ago and they
| still don't. If I were them I'd scrub that off the marketing,
| it's a negative if it's anything.
| wiredfool wrote:
| We can watch it for you wholesale?
| knodi123 wrote:
| Do androids stream electric sheep?
| lxgr wrote:
| > A $100 device is not spontaneously ingesting video, running
| speech-to-text on it or advanced video analysis, and
| processing it all down to a summary for you.
|
| You're clearly underestimating the 2021 SoC in it. It does 20
| GFLOPS!
| jlarocco wrote:
| IMO that's the big question AI companies need to answer.
|
| If I can get a movie summary from a _real intelligence_ for
| free online, why would I bother with an AI generated summary?
| pseudoscienc3 wrote:
| Yeah -- I built a quick movie/show summarizer (easy to do
| with the latest models with larger than >50k token context
| window), I got literally 1 customer for $5 haha, but it was
| a fun little project to learn the various leading LLM APIs.
|
| It's here: recapflix.com (and it's not at all perfect, due
| to a number of reasons...).
|
| It was actually useful in the rare case that you wana skip
| an episode or get caught up on some obscure anime/show, but
| otherwise, meh.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > full summaries, reviews and season-by-season breakdowns of
| content
|
| Who even needs this crap? Just watch the goddamn show,
| people.
| behringer wrote:
| I find TV streamer to be an incredibly stupid name. Overall
| this is the kind of thing I would expect from Google.
| mFixman wrote:
| My conspiracy theory is that renaming all products to generic
| names (Hangouts to Google Chat, G Suite to Google Workspace)
| are an attempt by Google to prevent regulators from splitting
| them out from the main company.
|
| It's only a matter of time until Pixel gets renamed to "Google
| Phone".
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| > It's only a matter of time until Pixel gets renamed to
| "Google Phone".
|
| gPhone.
| asveikau wrote:
| That's funny when you consider the rename to Alphabet.
|
| Edit: to clarify, since somebody downvoted me, I'm just
| saying it's funny that they refactored all their properties
| into multiple legal entities and now several years later
| might want to do the opposite. You can't expect consistent
| behavior from these companies over time.
| julienfr112 wrote:
| My grandma used to say "doing and undoing is still
| working". High end Law firms won't disagree.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name_
|
| I don't think so at all. I'm not sure if anyone I know outside
| of tech has ever even heard of Chromecast. It was never super
| popular. While every single one of them knows what an Apple TV
| is, and they know what the Chrome browser is.
|
| The replacement makes much more sense. It's just branded as
| Google, and what it does -- it's a TV streamer. The branding
| tells you that it's Google's version of an Apple TV, while
| "Chromecast" told you nothing except that maybe it had to do
| with a browser (which it didn't).
|
| Chromecast was always a bizarre name to begin with, since it
| didn't really have anything to do with Chrome. Chrome wasn't
| necessary to use it, nor did it run Chrome for you.
| icholy wrote:
| In my circle everyone under the age of 40 knows what a
| Chromecast is.
| jessfyi wrote:
| If something that sells 100 million+ devices isn't "super
| popular", I don't know what is. And not even counting the
| millions of TVs that have it built-in (Hi-Sense, TCL,
| Samsung) the brand is pretty ubiquitous.
| afavour wrote:
| The brand has been "Google Cast" for a long time, though.
| None of the TVs with this stuff built in have mentioned
| "Chromecast" in a very long time.
| jessfyi wrote:
| I was being generous and said "not even counting," but no
| despite the internal name change, most still maintain the
| "Chromecast Built-In" designation on their branding and
| sites which takes a mere second to Google and see.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| My almost 70 year old parents knows what Chromecast is
| because we owned one before.
| sambeau wrote:
| Most techie people I know have an Apple TV, most of the
| others have a Chromecast. I'm in the UK, I don't know if that
| makes a difference.
| progforlyfe wrote:
| remember this is Google -- don't worry, they'll be changing the
| name again in 2-3 years. Probably YouTubeCast or YouTube TV
| (yes they already have a "YouTube TV" but I wouldn't put it
| past them to combine/confuse the two things like they've done
| with Google Pay / GPay / Google Wallet / etc)
| debian3 wrote:
| Or Gtalk, Google Chat, Hangouts, allo, duo, wave, whatever
| it's called nowadays.
| simbas wrote:
| Meet, it's called Google Meet now.
| lordleft wrote:
| I really disliked my Chromecast...despite being able to output
| 4k, the OS was sluggish and it barely had storage to hold the
| streaming apps I was interested in using. I ditched it for the
| Apple4K.
| delecti wrote:
| I didn't even know you _could_ install apps onto a Chromecast.
| I 'm not sure why you'd need to though, because phone apps can
| "cast" to it.
| vel0city wrote:
| IMO this is a part of the reason why they're dropping the
| Chromecast branding. The product is very different from the
| original Chromecast streaming stick. It is now mostly a cheap
| Google TV device.
| riggsdk wrote:
| I also quickly ditched mine. I mean it worked sorta fine - but
| the usability was absolutely terrible. Often apps lost
| connection with it so any requests to pause or resume the media
| was several seconds delayed. If I got a phone call I often
| wanted a quick way to pause my media but chromecast made this
| super inconvenient, slow and stressful when the phone is
| blurting out it's ringtone. App support was also spotty at
| best. In the end I realized that since I've already chosen
| between a rock and a hard place (went with the Apple
| ecosystem), I could just screenshare using an old Apple TV.
| This ended up working much better in practice (although lower
| quality video stream) than Chromecast. Today I don't cast much
| video anymore for some reason, not really sure why. I have an
| Apple TV 4K and just mostly use the native apps from various
| services. Having a remote to a system that is completely
| detached from your phone is much nicer usability wise IMHO.
| deelowe wrote:
| Damnit. I'm so tired of buying Google products only to have them
| cancelled. I literally just bought chromecasts for my entire home
| less than 6 months ago.
|
| That's it. I'm NEVER buying another google device again.
| jeffbee wrote:
| What difference does this announcement make to you? I am still
| using a 2013 Chromecast for some purposes. It does all the
| things it originally did, even though "support" for it ended a
| while back.
| esafak wrote:
| What if stops working tomorrow?
| jeffbee wrote:
| What if I get hit by an asteroid tomorrow?
| keepamovin wrote:
| One can only hope. Hahaha! :)
| paxys wrote:
| Then complain tomorrow.
| esafak wrote:
| No thanks. Better an ounce of prevention than a pound of
| cure. I just won't buy the stuff. Feel free to pester
| Google at your own leisure.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| ebay another one?
| poetril wrote:
| Looks like I'll be moving towards Roku, most of my friends use it
| and I've been using a Chromecast because I was gifted on. But the
| experience w/ Roku seems to be superior to Chromecast nowadays
| anyways.
| codepoet80 wrote:
| Roku has always been pretty great -- simple, straightforward,
| limited UI clutter (source: have been a user since 2013).
| However, lately they've been adding more and more
| suggested/sponsored content to the home screen. Most of these
| things can be turned off, and even with them on, it doesn't
| slow down the experience significantly (I'm looking at you,
| Fire TV) but it is a shame. I suppose they've got to make money
| somehow...
| chuckadams wrote:
| Got a Roku stick last year after two FireTV sticks bricked
| themselves. First thing I noticed was that the volume on the
| remote can only control Roku devices. Then there's the ads
| that are creeping in everywhere, but I admit they do stay out
| of the way... for now.
|
| Going back to AppleTV for my next device. I don't like how
| search steers all results through Apple, but I can work
| around that. Plus I can use it as an exit node on my
| Tailscale network.
| vel0city wrote:
| > First thing I noticed was that the volume on the remote
| can only control Roku devices.
|
| Rokus can send volume/mute commands through CEC. The volume
| buttons on my Roku control my home theater receiver, they
| controlled the volume on a sound bar on a different TV, and
| they controlled the TV volume.
| 1980phipsi wrote:
| Same. My Roku remote can control sound bar.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Roku is just as creepy if not worse than Google. They do sell
| your data AFAIK, not just use it to deliver ads...
| nightski wrote:
| But the thing is Roku has far less data on me than Google.
| They might have viewing history or whatever, but it's not
| tied to my entire identity on the web the way Google can do
| that. So not it's not as creepy or worse than Google, not by
| a long shot.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| > But the thing is Roku has far less data on me than Google
|
| Do they? They have your IP address, most likely email, user
| IDs for various streaming platforms, your location... All
| of that for sale to anyone that will pay Roku for it.
| nightski wrote:
| Yes, they do have much less. They do not have two decades
| of email history, map/location data, photo libraries,
| advertising profiles on the web, etc...
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I have both. I don't even know where the Chromecast is anymore.
|
| I also have a smart TV, but the Roku has a lot of apps that the
| TV doesn't.
| xnx wrote:
| Roku has "Automatic Content Recognition (ACR)" which
| effectively uploads screenshots of what you're watching every
| few seconds: https://support.roku.com/en-
| ca/article/115005739288
|
| Short of having an always on camera and microphone, this is
| amongst the scummiest corporate spying behavior out there.
| jp191919 wrote:
| At least there is an option to disable it.
|
| Edit: actually it appears to be "opt-in"
| lxgr wrote:
| Does it have the same level of content provider support,
| though?
|
| Almost any app or content I've ever wanted to stream to my TV
| supports Google Cast on both iOS and Android, which definitely
| can't be said for my TV's native OS, Apple TV/Airplay, Miracast
| etc.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Roku does not work very well with airplay in my experience.
| Other than that, it's a good solution for the price.
| ecshafer wrote:
| They also announced Google Streamer, which is just Google
| Chromecast but more expensive I guess, and also with the Nest
| technology for smart home stuff, which they also killed iirc.
|
| I have to say, I don't really see this product strategy as being
| good, or working. Google's product is just a mess, they are
| nearing Microsoft levels of incoherence. When you compare Google
| with Apple, it's such a night and day experience.
| kylecazar wrote:
| I agree with your second paragraph for a lot of reasons and
| product lines of theirs. But -- I decided a while ago to bite
| the bullet and go whole hog on using Google everything for my
| personal life (for better or worse).
|
| The decision was either to avoid them entirely or resign and
| buy into the ecosystem. I have a Pixel, my home uses Nest, I
| use their cloud storage personally, their AI, etc.
|
| FWIW it is a better experience than using only a few of their
| products in isolation. At what cost, we will find out. But I
| imagine Google Streamer will be useful for people like me, the
| user group Google is presumably trying to expand.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > But I imagine Google Streamer will be useful for people
| like me, the user group Google is presumably trying to
| expand.
|
| Until, in a few years, there is another such blogpost, and it
| goes to the Google office in the sky.
|
| Really, Google seems like possibly the worst ecosystem to go
| all in on, in that bits of it keep unexpectedly vanishing.
| kylecazar wrote:
| Yeah, I'd emphasize this is for personal stuff only (doubt
| I'd build a startup on top of Flutter tomorrow).
|
| It may be the product of how boring my personal digital
| requirements are but I haven't been burned yet by their
| many abandonments. I really only use pretty core services
| (Gmail/ Drive/Calendar, ChromeOS/Android/Pixel Watch,
| Google TV) that I don't anticipate going anywhere soon.
|
| The biggest downside so far is overcoming the ethical
| dilemma of such a resignation. I'd prefer to use what's
| best in every case independently, but the value I put on
| convenience grows every year.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I wouldn't do that with a company that could at any moment
| being forced split into pieces for being a monopoly.
| steelframe wrote:
| > At what cost, we will find out.
|
| We already know. Your privacy.
| rightbyte wrote:
| How do you reason about the privacy drawbacks on going full
| Google?
|
| I mean, it is quite a leap to ungoogle totally, but having a
| Nest listening 24/7? And everything else?
|
| Aren't you worried Google will just lock you out someday?
| tensor wrote:
| FWIW I was all in on Google years ago. But as features and
| products kept vanishing or degrading and being replaced with
| ad driven crap, it eventually drove me to swear off all
| Google products. The only one I still use is Workspace.
| kej wrote:
| The problem is that Google makes it hard to go all-in on
| their products even when you want to.
|
| I was an early user for Google Apps for Your Domain, which
| was a free version of what is now Google Workspace that you
| could use with custom domains. I signed up for Google Play
| Music with that account.
|
| Then they introduced Google Family, with app sharing and a
| family plan for Google Play Music, but you couldn't use
| Google Workspace accounts as part of a family plan. So I went
| back to using a regular Gmail account, manually moving my
| playlists for Google Play Music, and repurchasing the handful
| of apps I wanted to be able to share with my kids.
|
| Google bought Fitbit, and we got some Fitbit Ace watches for
| our kids. Then Google decided that Fitbit accounts needed to
| be converted to Google accounts, but the kids can't use their
| watches with their Android tablets anymore, because the
| Fitbit app won't let you log in to use your Ace (the kid
| watch) with a child account from a Google family. The watch
| designed for kids doesn't work with the account management
| designed for kids. My wife's Fitbit died and she was ready to
| buy the newer version of it, except that one doesn't work
| with the Fitbit app store because (presumably) they want
| people to buy the more expensive Pixel watches and use that
| completely separate app library.
|
| Somewhere in there I had to switch my playlists from Google
| Play Music to YouTube Music. They also decided to start
| charging for the free Google Workspace plans, eventually
| relenting only if you solemnly promised it was only for
| personal use.
|
| I'm the kind of person who _should_ be a loyal Google
| customer, but I 've been burned enough that my immediate
| response to a new Google product is to wonder what I would do
| if it suddenly disappeared.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Yup - G's aggressive at transitioning out enjoyable
| functionality to whatever their new hotness, their next
| direction, is that they want to push.
|
| I feel much more like The Product is the Consumer with G,
| vs Apple.
|
| To me Apple product- / business-approach seems torn between
| capturing the audience with delight vs high prices to
| achieve profit.
| oldkinglog wrote:
| > The decision was either to avoid them entirely or resign
| and buy into the ecosystem.
|
| An easy choice that you somehow managed to get wrong?
| ncr100 wrote:
| Criticality without reasoning ...
| sf_rob wrote:
| While I'm not all-in on the ecosystem, I'm pretty far. It's
| still terrible.
|
| I still can't "cast" YouTube audio to my Google Home Mini
| unless I use the Home Mini in Bluetooth mode (I have more
| reliable Bluetooth speakers for that) even as a YouTube
| Premium user.
|
| My Nest devices are stuck in limbo between the Google Home
| and Nest apps; it's been like this for years.
|
| Integrating new Google devices into Google Home tends to fail
| without helpful troubleshooting a few times before they
| succeed.
|
| I refuse to upgrade my Nest Thermostat 1, even though it
| doesn't support needed features like the temperature sensors.
| I've also had to turn off all the learning because it decides
| I'm not home, and doesn't infer that I am home from my Google
| Wifi hubs.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Ah, yes, Microsoft - the second largest company in the world -
| with a brand itself worth more than all but a handful of
| companies - is incoherent.
|
| And Google, too.
| ecshafer wrote:
| Microsoft's products are so incoherent they have
| certifications for navigating their offerings and pay. I
| don't think their consumer facing stuff is poorly thoguht
| out, but their business facing stuff is full of weird and
| changing names, discontinued and merged products.
| solardev wrote:
| Apple makes fancy five-course dinners for the wealthy. Google
| throws half-cooked ramen at the wall for the masses. It's not
| terrible, but you have to finish eating it before it falls off.
| Your favorite flavor won't be there next time, and they might
| be serving burritos instead, but at least your loyalty card
| still works.
| ncr100 wrote:
| $99 (the new hotness) is a LOT of burritos, vs a $30
| chromecast (the old busted).
|
| I feel like I am the product.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| It has Android TV, direct competitor to Apple TV.
| theryan wrote:
| Is there a replacement device out there for the ability to cast a
| tab or your full desktop to a TV? We use this functionality all
| the time and I would rather not deal with HDMI cords.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| Snatch up some 4k chromecasts on eBay while they're still
| available
| kube-system wrote:
| Miracast devices have pretty decent compatibility. Some TVs
| have it built in, but there are dongles that implement it as
| well. IIRC Microsoft has (had?) one that worked quite well.
| solardev wrote:
| Your Chromecast should still keep working. The replacement
| streamer device would still work too, or the last gen
| chromecast with google tv.
|
| Apple TV also works if you have a Mac. Many TVs also have
| Chromecast built in. Miracast is another option but it's really
| terrible. Steam Link is another option. There are also wireless
| HDMI adapters.
| mgaunard wrote:
| I just bought a Chromecast because my TV doesn't support the
| latest apps.
| guzik wrote:
| Just this morning, I was chatting with a colleague about how much
| I love Chromecast and how relieved I am that it hasn't been
| discontinued. Then, an 3 hours later, I read this news, and it
| really bummed me out.
|
| Honestly, I'm not sure which company frustrates me more right
| now. Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared
| to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic).
| Plus, the google search is practically useless.
| rimunroe wrote:
| > Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared
| to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic).
|
| What do you mean by "(sic)" here? I'm used to seeing that in
| quotes to make it clear the quote is being reproduced exactly,
| but I've never seen it outside a quote.
| guzik wrote:
| Oh wow, I was using it incorrectly--thanks for indirectly
| correcting me! I thought I could use it to emphasize that
| something is indeed true.
| rimunroe wrote:
| Ah! I was wondering if that might be what you were
| intending to say, but not being familiar with app
| development I wasn't sure.
| alphazard wrote:
| Seems like the perfect opportunity for an open source dongle that
| does pass-by-reference content streaming to replace Chromecast.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| In this case "premium" just means "expensive, right? What new
| features are there? AI summaries? I don't think there is anyone
| that would think AI summaries would be worth paying extra. But I
| do think people would pay more if there was a version that
| completely removed any and all AI integrations.
| pseudoscienc3 wrote:
| Yes -- it is very difficult to get a customer to pay for "AI
| summaries" for movies/shows especially if they are not bundled
| with anything else. I tried it about 6 months ago at
| recapflix.com (it's not perfect and we got 1 paying customer
| over like 3 months haha).
| joshfee wrote:
| Like others are saying, this just looks like a rebrand. Hopefully
| this competes in performance with the 2019 Nvidia Shield TV Pro
| which is to date still the only streamer that performs well
| enough for high quality audio and video, but is starting to age
| (and no longer works with things like google home audio groups).
| If anyone knows of a comparable plex streamer let me know :)
| kyriakos wrote:
| apparently doesn't support DTS audio which means can't replace
| the 10 year old nvidia shield TV Pro
| pbhowmic wrote:
| I still have one. A few years old but still works, rock-solid and
| what I love best is the form-factor: unobtrusive, in fact,
| totally hidden from view.
| lxgr wrote:
| Hang on to it.
|
| Google inexplicably killed the Chromecast Audio as well, and it
| was an absolutely perfect device for a very particular niche
| (streaming audio to an old stereo/amplifier without needing a
| permanently connected phone as is the case for Bluetooth).
|
| I hope mine still lasts for a long time (I believe there are
| some Google-signed certs on it that might expire some day?).
| empyrrhicist wrote:
| And they came with optical out. I have a couple as well and
| am hoping to get many more years out of them.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| This makes me sad as I have multiple chromecasts, it has its
| issues but for the price they're amazing. I guess they need to
| throw more money at AI search nobody wanted or likes instead.
|
| I feel like nobody running product at google has any idea what
| they're doing.
| solardev wrote:
| This is really just a rebranding. For the past few years, we've
| already had a Chromecast with Google TV, which is pretty much the
| same thing. This is just a hardware refresh, adding AI freatures
| and doubling the price.
|
| I'm hoping this hardware is faster. The previous model was very
| laggy compared to the Apple TV or Nvidia Shield. But probably
| not. It just looks like the Chromecast team is tyring to shoehorn
| in AI features because it's 2024. I guess the description
| summaries could be helpful, maybe.
| stuaxo wrote:
| I wish they'd sort out the actual experience of casting, maybe
| it's OK with a Chromecast - but with AndroidTV and an Android
| Phone, it's a complete gamble how well it's going work, and there
| are always so many options you can choose (most sub optimal).
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| Have they lost their minds?
|
| Chromecast is a great device to have with you on the road. Now
| it's this massive brick?. Why would I want this?
|
| It's just another reason to not get invested in anything Google
| related. Whatever you do you'll always end up with a discontinued
| product or a brick in the end.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| It is annoying that we do not have an open standard for Wi-Fi
| video casting.
| kube-system wrote:
| This is a widely supported standard by the WiFi Alliance:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracast
| vel0city wrote:
| We do.
|
| https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-specification
| transcriptase wrote:
| They've been getting more sluggish for years. When the Ultra
| launched I could stream something to the TV from my laptop or
| phone nearly instantly. Now it's a 20 second wait and only 80%
| chance of success. Why the fuck can't products by Google improve
| performance over time? What perverse incentives do they have to
| slowly and steadily make them worse than they were out of the
| box?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > What perverse incentives do they have to slowly and steadily
| make them worse than they were out of the box?
|
| Its Google, so almost certainly advertising related tracking
| (and the associated bloat)
| esafak wrote:
| I speculate that they give them a trial period to prove runaway
| success, and when it invariably does not meet their
| unreasonably high demands (of being 'Google scale'), they focus
| on something else and leave the products on auto-pilot using
| minimal resources.
| dharmit wrote:
| The way they forced reconnecting to the same Wi-Fi network that
| was used to configure it the first time rendered it useless even
| if you changed just the SSID!
| indymike wrote:
| I wonder if sales are down that much now that every new TV has
| Roku or something similar built-in. The Chromecast's form factor
| was fantastic, but it really left a lot of features on the table
| compared to Amazon, Roku, and even Onn (Wal-Mart's house brand)
| streaming sticks.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I used to love Chromecast and I love the concept but since 2020
| My ISPs have sent me non-configurable routers, they broadcast
| 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz Wifi on the same spectrum. This bricked my older
| devices that can't figure out how to find the 2.4Ghz only
| network.
|
| I never bought the newer Chromecast and its just been sitting
| idle, hopeless dangling off of an HDMI port since. My world has
| moved on as literally everything else can get shows displaying on
| a TV including the TV.
|
| I guess it was coming.
| pradn wrote:
| If brands can be put on the balance sheet as "goodwill", how much
| money was burnt by obliterating this brand name - one almost as
| generic as Kleenex, for its product category (small streaming-
| first HDMI dongles)?
| ViktorRay wrote:
| I got a free Chromecast ultra when I got a free Google Stadia box
| kit a few years ago.
|
| I didn't use the Chromecast ultra much but I thought it was
| pretty neat. Kinda sad to see it go.
|
| Honestly the Google Stadia controller is probably the most
| comfortable and well designed controller I've used. I still have
| it and use it for PC gaming stuff. I don't play video games much
| anymore so I don't know if the other controllers nowadays are
| better but that was my experience.
|
| The point I'm trying to make is that it seems Google has talented
| engineers and designers. So I wonder why so many of its products
| fail and why it cancels so many things...
| rescripting wrote:
| I find it funny that Google managed to sell you not one but two
| products in the same box that they unceremoniously
| discontinued. At least it looks like your Chromecast will
| continue to work for a while.
| anderber wrote:
| Technically, the controller can also be used as a Bluetooth
| controller.
| piperswe wrote:
| Give, not sell. They (and I, and many others) received that
| box for free as part of a promo.
| plantain wrote:
| Chromecast was an endless source of frustration for me from
| having the first prototypes while at Google, to the latest
| devices. It solves such a simple problem that no one else seemed
| to want to tackle - put a video on the TV - and yet, it never
| quite worked reliably.
|
| We used it every evening for years and 19/20 times it streams
| effortlessly and instantly... 1/20 times I'm restarting browsers,
| TV's, WiFi until we give up and watch on a laptop.
|
| Back to the HDMI cable. In retrospect, I should have never left
| it.
| leptons wrote:
| We have 5 Chromecasts with Android TV and they all work
| perfectly. We really only use Plex, Youtube, Netflix and a few
| other streaming apps, but none of them has any problems. It
| sounds like your problems with Chromecast are due to the rest
| of your network infrastructure and not the Chromecast.
| catapart wrote:
| I'm suddenly reminded to ask this community whom I assume might
| know: Are there any good "dumb tv" solutions out there? I'm
| thinking 1-4 HDMI ports, and a maximum of RF tuning and input-
| switching on the firmware.
|
| Products would be preferred suggestions, but I'm even at the
| point of considering DIY solutions, if something looks lego-ish
| enough!
| n4r9 wrote:
| We looked into this when moving house a few years ago in the
| UK. There didn't seem to be any viable options, so we bought a
| secondhand TV. I've heard that there are ways to get hold of
| shop display monitors but didn't figure out how to do this.
| walthamstow wrote:
| If you don't connect your TV to the internet, ever, not even
| once, it will function as a dumb panel.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Call me paranoid, but I just don't trust it not to look for
| nearby unsecured wifi networks. Ontop of which I feel dirty
| and complicit by paying for functionality that I will never
| use and believe is detrimental to society.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| Find the Wi-Fi antenna and remove it if you are so
| worried. Unfounded fears without action is merely
| handwringing, while unactionable fears aren't worth
| worrying about.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Fair point, but that only covers half of my objection.
| Also I would not agree with "no action". My action was to
| decide on a different product.
| catapart wrote:
| Yeah, this is the frustrating part. I've worked with
| retailers on in-store displays, so I know that you can get
| high-quality, cheap panels that are "dumb" in that they don't
| have apps, but they do have full local-only operating systems
| that can access wifi networks and list files. Some of them
| can even boot into a chrome-based kiosk mode, indicating a
| full html rendering stack.
|
| But if you check for anything DIY, they're either sourcing
| panels directly from manufacturers in China, or ripping apart
| smart TVs (or just "not using" parts of them). There's a
| happy middle ground and I know, from experience, that's it's
| not an _expensive_ one, even though I also know from
| experience that it 's often times an _extremely pricey_ one.
| By which I mean, the panels themselves are cheap for an
| outlet to get and use, while actually trying to buy a panel
| from those outlets is reserved for B2B applications and is
| priced for enterprise work.
|
| What I was hoping for is that someone who knows about those
| kinds of panels and that kind of work would be able to say
| "Ah, yeah, here's a great panel that we use for our displays
| which is a good deal". But, so far, I've never had any takers
| on that. It's a small industry (or, at least it was when I
| was involved), so that's not unexpected. But I keep hoping
| that some dogged youtuber or some experimental blogger will
| figure out how to source all the bits for the TV that so many
| of us want, but that there's is strong business disincentives
| to create.
|
| That's what's most galling, I think. Samsung/LG/Sony could
| make this and sell it, but they refuse to because it would
| provide an alternative to the market they really want which
| is ad capture/data harvesting. And I'm just so tired of that
| being the only option for that specific reason. Because now
| I'm stuck here hoping that someone out there makes the least-
| complex, cheapest, and fastest thing for a TV manufacturer to
| make, which seems like the dumbest thing to have to hope for.
| uolmir wrote:
| This is gonna be me if or when my quite functional dumb LG from
| 2012 ever gives up the ghost. I just don't see the appeal of
| smart TVs when that functionality can be outsourced to a
| cheaper modular device.
| delecti wrote:
| Most "smart" TVs work perfectly fine as a dumb panel if you
| just don't give them internet access. And because they're sold
| expecting to get a bit of money back on ads, it's generally
| cheaper than a _truly_ dumb panel of the same quality. I 've
| got a Samsung QN90B and it has never once complained about not
| having internet access, and the UI is plenty responsive.
| babypuncher wrote:
| You can't even get "dumb" panels of the same quality. They're
| all built to be used as digital signage, so they usually skip
| consumer-oriented features like HDR, VRR, eARC, even 4k can
| be rare. I'm not sure there are any OLED options.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| I have a QN90A that operates as a "dumb" panel via a HDMI-CEC
| through a combination of receiver and Apple TV 4K.
| Rarely/never need the TV remote and there's zero point to
| giving the TV internet access. The receiver has internet
| access so it can play Tidal.
| walthamstow wrote:
| Any normal TV, just don't connect it to the internet. Use an
| external box like an Nvidia Shield or Apple TV, its remote will
| control on/off/volume on the TV via HDMI-CEC.
|
| Now your cheap replaceable external box is the internet-
| connected computer and your expensive wall-mounted TV is an
| appliance.
| xnyan wrote:
| Make sure you get one that won't nag you, a friend's Hisense
| will regularly overlay an annoying splash screen if it can't
| reach the internet.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I love my TCL tv. It's not "dumb" since it's actually a "google
| tv" , but if you don't connect it to the internet, you don't
| have to deal with that. It only shows a notification when
| turned saying it has no internet, but it goes away on its own
| after a few seconds.
|
| When I turn it on, it will automatically select the previous
| input, so I don't have to interact with the "smart welcome
| screen" or whatever it's called. It can even be turned on and
| off by my set top box which actually handles the media
| playback. I only need to reach for its remote to change the
| brightness. I think it's supposed to have some kind of adaptive
| thing, but it doesn't work since I've disabled everything that
| sounded like "camera" or "mic".
|
| It has 4 HDMI ports, dvb-t, dvb-s and can play things from usb.
| It also has optical audio out and can output audio to Bluetooth
| headphones.
|
| Image quality and brightness are great for my needs. Audio is
| surprisingly good, so I can use a low volume without issue.
|
| The model is 65c845 and cost me less than 1000EUR new. My
| understanding from reviews is that the panel is pretty good,
| but that they skimped on the "smart" side, which was the right
| choice if you ask me.
| ncr100 wrote:
| $218 for 43 inch TCL S4 television, (with Google TV built in)
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-43-Class-S-Class-4K-UHD-
| HDR-L...
|
| $99 for Google Streamer.
|
| This "streamer" is overpriced for the market.
| calmoo wrote:
| Damn it's kinda crazy a 43 inch tv can cost 218 dollars
| Takennickname wrote:
| Surplus panels from old technology. Absolutely amazing if
| you're not a consumerist moron who needs the newest
| technology because of FOMO.
| mmaniac wrote:
| Funny... My TCL TV (75C745K) has been nothing but headaches.
| Extremely buggy and often needs to be rebooted.
|
| Great panel but the software stinks.
| mikestew wrote:
| Bought an LG "C" series OLED a month or so ago. Never gave it a
| WiFi password. Everything (Apple TV, XBox, Switch) uses HDMI
| CEC, so I just turn on the desired device, inputs are switched
| and devices powered on. I never see the TV's Home Screen, and
| it doesn't complain about lack of network. The LG acts as
| "dumb" as the truly dumb TV it replaced.
| TehShrike wrote:
| I'll echo what other people are saying, that you should just
| not connect the smart tv to your wifi, but I am nervous about
| smart TVs that ship with cell chips to connect to the
| manufacturer's servers when people don't hook the device up to
| wifi.
|
| I'm not sure how to determine which models do or don't ship
| with cell chips.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| That's not a thing. Do you seriously believe OEMs would ship
| a 4G/5G modem and bundle an unlimited data plan with low
| margin consumer electronics, just to earn a few dollars per
| year from ads?
| popcalc wrote:
| I agree, since 90%+ of people connect to WiFi, it's not
| economically sane. With cars it's a different story though.
| mikestew wrote:
| And man, oh man, wouldn't we all just _love_ a device with
| a free cell modem and a data plan ripe for the hacking?
|
| IOW, if it has been done, hackaday, et al., would have
| already shown us how to bypass the weak obfuscation and get
| free data. Or at least an article on "my new Samsung TV has
| a cell modem that they don't advertise. 'da fuq?"
| TehShrike wrote:
| If it gave them enough extra data to sell, yes?
|
| I don't think Sony or Samsung would be paying consumer
| prices for cheap low-end cell chips or bulk low-bandwidth
| data plans.
| wiredfool wrote:
| I've got an Iiyama 42" monitor running as a TV for AppleTV and
| an Xbox. Panel quality is a bit meh, I think it's some sort of
| weird 2k/4k thing done for dynamic range. It's a signage one,
| rather than a strict monitor, so there's a little bit of
| firmware, and I could put rotating pics on it using a usb key,
| but I'm using the apple-tv for it. No RF (which is good, means
| I don't have to pay for a tv license that I woudln't used), and
| 2 hdmi inputs.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Getting an Amazon Firestick and putting Kodi on it is a great
| way to watch stuff locally if you have a NAS full of media
|
| Otherwise, look at getting an Intel Compute Stick. They are
| full PCs that plug into an HDMI port. Running VLC on these is a
| pretty good solution
| attendant3446 wrote:
| Only Firestick has crap software and slow as hell.
| hi-v-rocknroll wrote:
| The latest Firestick 4K Max is slow, full of ads, and
| locked down to where some of the more fun side-loading
| features don't work anymore like remote button remapping. I
| ditched it and got an Apple TV that doesn't force you to
| watch ads for Ford pickup trucks.
| adamomada wrote:
| But Kodi is available for the fire stick while you have
| to jump some hoops with third party signing services to
| keep it on Apple TV.
|
| It's certainly better in other ways but this thread
| doesn't follow
| wnevets wrote:
| Changing the name makes sense, the Google TV version of the
| Chromecast is a terrible experience compared to the original
| Chromecasts.
| sf_rob wrote:
| Whenever I submit Google Home/Chromecast bugs/feature requests I
| include some snark in my sign-off like "I know you don't care
| about this product and it will be killed soon, but if I'm wrong
| please consider the suggestions above."
| asveikau wrote:
| I expose my home assistant entities to Home so that I get voice
| commands using their speakers.
|
| Stuff that you install in your house is generally expected to
| last a long time. Imagine centering your home around Google and
| having them unceremoniously kill it. I'm glad a vendor neutral
| open source project like Home Assistant exists.
|
| Edit: apparently some form of this already happened with their
| alarm system. The $400 paperweight comment in this article hits
| hard -- shame on them for creating so much e-waste --
| https://www.cnet.com/home/security/googles-nest-secure-has-f...
| n4r9 wrote:
| What reasonably priced alternatives are there for streaming from
| a phone/laptop to a screen via HDMI port? Ideally a portable
| solution that I can use when traveling and staying in hotels or
| AirBnBs (as I can currently do with my Chromecast unless the
| hotel WiFi has an annoying sign-in process). Even more ideally,
| something that's free/open-source and can be guaranteed not to
| collect and send data to third parties.
| komali2 wrote:
| Also interested. I run a self hosted jellyfin setup and it's
| really fun to visit someone's house that has a Chromecast,
| connect to wifi, hit the "cast" button in the jellyfin app, and
| play whatever content we want, including music. I'm sad that
| one day that easy UX will be gone in favor of needing to
| install the jellyfin app on someone's device, login, etc, which
| is the current UX for smart tv style devices.
| antonyh wrote:
| We use a Roku, which we found out yesterday supports AirPlay
| from an iPad. It's an old model though, not sure if the newer
| ones do.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Cool. Looks like you can do screen-mirroring from Windows or
| Android as well, which covers all my use cases. Thanks!
| 1980phipsi wrote:
| I have a newer Roku and it has AirPlay.
| israrkhan wrote:
| Roku supports both airplay (mac, iphone, iPad) and miracast
| (windows and some android devices).
|
| Most android devices support Miracast, but Google abandoned
| support for miracast in their firstparty devices in order to
| promote their proprietary (Google cast/Chromecast) solution.
| hsaliak wrote:
| The 30 dollar price point was the big deal. A 100 dollar price
| point opens up competition to a lot more devices. As a consumer,
| this is completely unexciting.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| I think they have let Walmart's Onn tv box take over that
| segment. I have one and it works pretty well.
| hsaliak wrote:
| good to know there are alternatives!
| Too wrote:
| Yeah. At that price point, give me a reason not to buy Apple TV
| instead.
| Lutger wrote:
| We had this coming. Over the years, the various chromecasts in
| our house are slowly getting worse. I had the sense they are
| cutting costs on the software and servers powering these devices.
|
| Spend way too much on the chromecasts and home devices. I guess
| they will continue to work for a few years, hopefully.
|
| After this, no more google devices for me.
| Blot2882 wrote:
| > We had this coming. Over the years, the various chromecasts
| in our house are slowly getting worse. I had the sense they are
| cutting costs on the software and servers powering these
| devices.
|
| I can't imagine they will get better. It seems smart devices
| always crap out after a few years. I am regretting buying my
| Samsung TV last Fall because it's already slowing down. It
| takes 5 seconds to load the options menu.
| EricE wrote:
| Just plug an external streaming box into it and move on.
| Embedded apps were always a dumb idea. Double bonus -
| disconnecting the TV from the 'net will stop their spying on
| you too.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder if this is it right here. Internally they
| think something like this:
|
| Dev 1: "Well we have this backlog of bug reports and issues
| for Chrimecast"
|
| Dec 2: "Ugh. I don't want to do maintenance. Acknowledgment
| of there bugs will be a black mark on my career!"
|
| Dev 1: "Lets re-brand it and close all the bugs. Now those
| bugs become features and we start with a clean slate!"
| rightbyte wrote:
| I wonder if there is a way to reset the firmware? My wife
| connected out Samsung TV to the interwebs and triggered an
| update. It is not notacibly slower but there are ads
| placeholders.
| apitman wrote:
| Too bad they're not killing the Chromecast protocol as well, then
| maybe the world would start moving toward a simple, open protocol
| for casting.
| shiandow wrote:
| What does a protocol for casting need that UPnP/DLNA doesn't
| provide?
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| Aren't there issues with latency in the protocol?
| apitman wrote:
| If I have an MP4 video file sitting in cloud storage
| somewhere, does UPnP/DLNA provide an easy way for me to use
| my phone to tell my TV to play that file? Also same question
| but for Netflix.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Chromecast symbolizes the older Google I loved. The one that did
| a damn good job competing with Apple. Exciting projects like
| Google Glass that while weren't successful were still optimistic.
| Not today's Google, the parking garage cloud company. Readers
| digest ad agency Google. I will admit that without those ads we
| wouldn't have the cool stuff, I just don't see that stuff much
| these days. I see 90s Microsoft monopoly dressed in Apples
| aesthetic.
|
| Real shame, I prefer controlling with my phone more than the
| shitty smart tv interfaces. Don't even get me started with
| controlling said interfaces with my phone, it's not as simple.
|
| I use a tv from 2010 , Chromecast is the retrofit that lets me do
| modern streaming. Of course we're far past the transitional stage
| the device served as every $100 tv is equipped with streaming.
| chris_wot wrote:
| Yeah, don't buy Google tech. If it ain't search, stay away from
| it.
| EricE wrote:
| And the only reason they care about search is it's what drives
| their advertising, which is their primary product.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Does anyone know what chipset that gogole tv streamer is using? A
| GrapheneOS streamig device would be so cool!
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| I had an original 2013 Chromecast plugged into my TV for ten
| years. It did its job admirably, until it started becoming more
| and more unstable and began rebooting randomly with each new OS
| version that Google pushed.
|
| I finally replaced it about a month ago with an onn streaming box
| from Walmart for about 20 bucks--less than I paid for the
| original Chromecast a decade ago:
|
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-Streaming-Box-Ne...
|
| Works great, and still has Chromecast support. Most of the stuff
| I used to cast can be handled by Google TV having equivalent
| Android apps now, but I still like casting my local music from my
| phone to the TV when I'm reading. There's a $50 4K version out
| now, as well, if you have a higher resolution TV, but the TV I
| had the Chromecast plugged into caps out at 1080P, so, no need.
| stavros wrote:
| I have the same experience. My Chromecast worked great until
| yesterday, when there was an update and now the remote just
| refuses to pair. Luckily I can use my phone as a remote, it's
| not as convenient as the actual remote, but it works.
|
| I'd really like to stop updates when I get something that
| works, but alas, Google "cares about my security".
| fullstop wrote:
| I also picked up an onn device recently. It's a remarkably
| capable device, well worth the $20.
| wildzzz wrote:
| I used a Chromecast for years until we slowly replaced all of
| the TVs with ones that have Roku built in. Having a remote is
| definitely better than needing to pickup your phone, switch
| over to the streaming app, wait for it to link up with the
| Chromecast, and then pause the video. The OG Chromecast
| definitely made sense for the time. Video encoding hardware
| capable of 1080p playback wasn't that cheap so fitting a bunch
| of extra processing power to run the various streaming apps
| seemed like extra effort when everyone already had a phone with
| the streaming apps installed. Roku was already in the business
| but their devices cost more money so Google came in at just the
| right time to establish themselves.
|
| One of the first dates with my girlfriend, we were watching TV
| at her house via a laptop plugged in with an HDMI cord. I
| bought her a Chromecast the next day (I just got one too) and I
| think that may have secured my way into her heart.
| bhelkey wrote:
| With the rapid improvements in electronics, lasting a decade is
| quite an achievement.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I'm still running my original generation Chromecast. They
| were very good quality devices.
| matsemann wrote:
| What I love about the Chromecast at the cabin is that people
| visiting can just cast whatever streaming service they're using
| from their phone. No installation, no login, no sharing users.
|
| If instead it will become a more Apple Tv like experience where
| apps have to be installed and logged in to, it's just a hassle.
| I will have to log out to avoid guests staying using my
| subscriptions. A kid watching YouTube will wreak havoc on my
| suggestions etc.
|
| So not a product I really want. It works well as it is.
| maxglute wrote:
| Chromecast always a little slow / finicky. But I doubt Google can
| fix for twice the price, not because they can't squeeze in better
| components, but just can't expect them to do it right.
| debacle wrote:
| I have some Chromecast enabled speakers. They used to work great
| through Google Home, but at some point they stopped being able to
| sync.
|
| Expensive and quality speakers that are basically bricks at this
| point.
| kyriakos wrote:
| Sadly the performance boost is not that great. It uses the same
| SoC as Amazon's Firestick 4k Max (2023), the MT8696.
| kardianos wrote:
| This is not the same thing. My Chromecast dedicated device would
| put a default nice picture, then wait for a cast.
|
| Google TV and this new device displays advertisements, store, and
| more. I hate it.
|
| It's the last google thing in my house. When it dies, google will
| be gone from my house.
| morkalork wrote:
| Aww man, this sucks. I had mine connected to a google photos
| album. I loved that feature.
| timgilbert wrote:
| You can either have it display from a Google Photos photo
| album, _and_ get the version of the interface which
| constantly displays ads to you, or you can switch the
| interface to "apps only" mode which will only show you one
| big ad on the home screen. In "apps only" mode, the thing
| won't display your photos, either as a screensaver or
| anything else. You still need to be logged into your Google
| account, of course; as far as I can tell, not displaying
| photos is just a way of punishing you for trying to reduce
| the ads you see.
| dzikimarian wrote:
| Is there different version for EU? I see either list of
| apps and bunch of shows from streamings that I have (home
| view) or just basically play store, with installed apps on
| top.
|
| None contains ads. If I leave it alone it will switch to
| Screensaver in a few minutes. Photos in my case. Bit sad
| they have hidden 3rd party screens savers, which were
| better, but there definitely isn't anything I can call
| "constant ads".
| freedomben wrote:
| Google TV does roughly the same thing. It's called "Ambient
| Mode"[1]. The default timeout takes a while though so I changed
| my timeout value to be much lower. It does feel like they're
| kind of hiding ambient mode though, which makes me think it's
| days are numbered, but on my current Google TV it works great.
| I set the timeout value very low so it will enter that mode
| after being idle for 60 seconds.
|
| There may be a way to do it through the settings, but I enabled
| dev mode and used (wireless) adb to configure the timeout:
| adb shell settings put system screen_off_timeout 60000
|
| I have a ton of handy bash functions and aliases to essentially
| have a CLI remote using adb that I can share if anybody is
| interested. It's really a pretty neat device and a lot more
| "open" than most people think thanks to developer mode.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidTV/comments/os2z6q/chromecas...
| xyst wrote:
| The only "google" thing in my home is a nest. That's only
| because G acquired the company years back. Only thing they
| added was forcing users to migrate Nest account to G.
|
| Honestly might disconnect the nest from the network. But only
| keep it connected and segmented from rest of network for
| remotely changing the temp from my phone.
|
| One of these days I'll "hack" (explore) the device so it
| doesn't rely on Nest/Google APIs. There's absolutely no reason
| why I need a Google auth token to access the Nest other than
| for Google to collect whatever data and feed to their beast
| cheald wrote:
| Last I looked, there was essentially no good programmatic
| route into local Nest control, unlike most home automation
| devices which use wifi/bluetooth/zwave/zigbee. I replaced my
| Nests with a couple of $25 Centralite Zigbee thermostats and
| drive it via HomeAssistant running on a Raspberry Pi, and I'm
| significantly happier with it than I ever was with the Nest.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| I have a Shield Pro, Onn and a Chromecast. All have
| Projectivity Launcher. Good bye Google ads.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > When it dies, google will be gone from my house.
|
| In case you're looking, I have a friend with a set of special
| skills that can help with this. This friend is very discrete,
| and there will be nothing left that traces it back to you. It
| will look like natural causes. I think you can find an ad in
| the back of an issue of Solder of Fortune.
| fareesh wrote:
| Chromecast + Dumb TV is amazing. Unfortunate to see it go
| qwertox wrote:
| > With ambient mode, you can turn an idle TV into a work of art.
| [...] or create one-of-a-kind screensaver art with generative AI
| [...]
|
| Assuming a TV consumes 70 Watts, why would they want to encourage
| using it as a picture frame? Either they care about the
| environment or they don't.
| danvoell wrote:
| Lots of shade here. The Chrome served to make dumb tvs smart. It
| did its job. It changed the world of TVs. We don't use it anymore
| because TVs are smart out of the box. Google could spend the next
| 20 years trying to service and repurpose these things or cut
| technical debt and move onto the next.
| Filligree wrote:
| I have yet to meet the smart TV I didn't want to throw out the
| window.
| paxys wrote:
| Half the smart TVs out there have the exact same software as
| Chromecast to begin with, so not sure what everyone is
| complaining about.
| kbolino wrote:
| I have a "smart" Samsung TV from 2015 and it definitely
| doesn't have Chromecast software, its hardware is too weak
| to handle modern streaming apps, and it stopped receiving
| updates from Samsung years ago anyway. The picture is still
| good, I've disconnected it from the network, and it has
| HDMI input, so there's no good reason to replace it yet.
| Friends have had problems with newer/smarter TVs so I'm
| still not seeing what's so great about baking the apps into
| the TV.
| doawoo wrote:
| Nope. They just want to serve more ads directly to your TV.
| imchillyb wrote:
| https://killedbygoogle.com/
|
| Can you see my surprised face? Me, too, neither.
|
| Google is a serial murderer of its own parents, siblings, aunts,
| uncles, and cousins.
|
| There is no product too small, or large, for Google to murder.
|
| It is beyond my ken why any person, organization, company, or
| government would do business with Google or use Google's
| products.
|
| You're just biding time for Google to murder your profits.
| ko_pivot wrote:
| As a lot of commenters are already pointing out, this is a bit
| different than Google's past escapades with poor product
| management. In this case, they have a replacement hardware
| device, they have an operating system that is widely used by
| OEMs, and there is wide support for casting natively to TVs.
| impalallama wrote:
| This is very annoying. Even with the prevalence of smart tvs some
| tvs just don't come with all streaming apps I want and Chromecast
| was a great inexpensive option. They are discontinuing it in
| favor of a product that appeals to a totally different market in
| mind at 2x-3x the price. Roku still mostly fills that niche but I
| don't see the logic in this move at all.
| myko wrote:
| Seems really dumb not to continue using the name Chromecast, even
| if it has a remote now. It is essentially the same product and
| the best one on the market in its class.
|
| So, pretty typical product/marketing shitshow from Google,
| unfortunately.
| JoeCianflone wrote:
| Call me cynical but it's a shell game as far as I can see: same
| product but new name, probably cheaper parts, more expensive so
| more profit per unit...except they won't sell as many units, but
| on paper it will look good so the market will reward them. I
| can't tell though if investors and analysts are too stupid to see
| it this way or maybe they don't care either? I guess it's better
| to not care because you make money so instead of calling it out
| when you see it, just give it pass and everyone makes more money.
| I know Google isn't the only company that does this it's just a
| sad commentary on tech and the market that it works.
| pphysch wrote:
| >same product but new name, probably cheaper parts,
|
| The new $100 TV Streamer has 32GB of RAM. 32GB of consumer RAM
| alone is at least $50, and that doesn't include any of the
| other stuff (graphics, cpu, nic) that makes a minimally useful
| device.
| lazycouchpotato wrote:
| There's some misunderstanding. It's 32 GB ROM, not RAM. RAM
| is 4 GB.
|
| https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer_specs
|
| Seems pricey for what it offers. Just WiFi 5 - not even WiFi
| 6 or 6E, let alone WiFi 7. It doesn't even come with an HDMI
| cable, sigh.
| pphysch wrote:
| Gotcha, that makes more sense.
| tekno45 wrote:
| Chromecasts are too small to run their AI so they need a box.
| ortusdux wrote:
| They only reason I went with a Chromecast over a Nividia shield
| was the price. Now that the gap has narrowed the shield looks
| much more enticing. The pro version can run a PLEX server and has
| 2 USB 3.0 ports for storage. And Gforce Now is actually quite
| nice for games where a milliseconds don't matter all that much.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| As someone who ran their plex server on the shield for a year,
| don't plan on keeping it there if you want get serious with it
| and/or want to open up it up to external users. As your library
| grows, it will start to struggle and I had to rebuild my
| library two or three times.
|
| A $100 SFF or micro computer off ebay with an 8th+ gen intel
| cpu will serve as a much better plex server, with plenty of
| room for other things like HomeAssistant etc. The iGPU will do
| 15-20+ simultaneous 1080p transcodes, and my machine idles at
| around 10w. The shield can serve up 1 or 2.
|
| The shield pro is hard to beat as a plex client, though.
| ricktdotorg wrote:
| was there ever any information (released by Google or other
| parties) as to why Google decided to remove the functionality to
| "Cast" *any* tab, and not a tab from a site that was whitelisted
| by Google?
|
| who pressured Google to do this? or did they "pressure
| themselves" to do it?
|
| the BEST feature of early Chromecasts was the ability to cast any
| video from any page. it was revelatory!
|
| and then that feature was silently removed.
| theryan wrote:
| I still do this all the time from my desktop PC with Chrome. As
| far as I'm aware you can cast any tab, or even your whole
| desktop.
| ricktdotorg wrote:
| ahhh... when i try to Cast from my desktop to my Roku, i see
| the Roku as a destination, but only "Available for specific
| video sites". i think it must be that the _Roku_ is
| restricted as a Cast[ing] destination. my Chromecast HD is in
| a drawer so i can't test it right now.
|
| so using a real Chromecast, it still is possible to Cast any
| tab at all?
|
| damn, i should get that Chromecast back out!
|
| thank you for the correction!
| theryan wrote:
| Yes, it is still 100% possible with the real Chromecast. My
| TV also has an option to cast to it (not sure what it uses
| under the hood) but it is similarly restricted.
| gedy wrote:
| It's still there afaik (on desktop Chrome): View > Cast...
| paxys wrote:
| Writing is on the wall for all the $20-$30 TV dongles. Get ready
| for a series of $100+ "upgrades".
| igtztorrero wrote:
| I hate you Google, all good stuff get kicked just because...
| chanux wrote:
| The form factor and what it did felt just right. Rest in peace.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast
| for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this
| piece of crap TV I plugged it into.
|
| It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it
| well.
|
| I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find
| out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's
| Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual casting
| being relegated to the status of unwanted stepchild. It forces
| you to sign in to a Google account, which the original did not
| force you to do. The original was a small stick that could be
| powered by the USB coming from the TV itself, whereas the new one
| is a larger white puck that needs a wall wort and can't be
| powered by a regular (non-C) USB connection. My final
| disappointment was that VLC fails to cast to it, even though it
| worked perfectly with the original.
|
| All I want is a way to cast any video I want to my TV. This is
| apparently a huge ask in 2024. I looked up alternative devices on
| Amazon and they all seem inferior or have deal breakers like
| trying to Do Everything(TM), not supporting 4K, using some weird
| protocol, requiring a login, etc.
| hartator wrote:
| Can't have nice things indeed.
|
| An alt: Apple AirPlay works super well even with Android tvs
| nowadays.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Isn't AirPlay only good for screen casting as opposed to
| casting videos directly? My conclusion was that it's not
| feasible to use AirPlay to cast a video at the full frame
| rate and sound synced.
| mguerville wrote:
| AirPlay or more accurately "screen mirroring" does cast
| sound and more often than not recognizes the video content
| and casts it full screen (from most iOS media apps such as
| youtube at least). It doesn't always work on my samsung TV
| without an Apple TV device though, in about 10% of cases
| it'll just fail to connect to the TV altogether
| pgorczak wrote:
| You can cast video e.g. from the QuickTime app or a <video>
| tag in the browser too which won't just mirror your screen.
| In fact the cast video won't even show on your device's
| screen but only on the receiver in that case.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| AirPlay can do both. There's a "screen mirroring" button in
| Control Center that streams your phone screen to the TV,
| but if you tap the AirPlay button on a video player or in
| the audio device selector, the TV will stream the video
| directly from the server at native resolution and FPS,
| without going through your phone (you can turn your phone
| off and playback will continue).
| paxys wrote:
| Depends on if the video source itself supports Airplay or
| not. Most don't.
| somedude895 wrote:
| I use an app called Airflow on my Mac to stream local video
| files to Apple TV. It's $20, but lifetime license and it's
| been working fine through the years.
| tomkaos wrote:
| Still use my gen 1, the best 20$ spend in my life. I just have
| a annoying bug with youtube video that google won't fix.
| GTP wrote:
| My experience was the opposite: my gen1 Chromecast's unreliable
| streaming is what made me get a Raspberry pi 3 :) IIRC the
| problem likely was the lack of support for 5Ghz WiFi combined
| with crowded channels in my area.
| rendall wrote:
| Would you mind expanding? How do you use it? Even a DIY link
| would be great!
| GTP wrote:
| You mean how do I use it for streaming? That changed over
| the years and I haven't been using it for streaming the
| last months due to circumstances. But if you are looking
| for suggestions, then I would point you to DietPi as OS and
| Kodi as media center. You can configure it to dierctly boot
| into Kodi, and if you use NewPipe as YouTube client on your
| smartphone, you also get a convenient option to play videos
| on Kodi. Plus you can stream any file you have on your PC
| or smartphone. To stream from Linux I used idok, but there
| could be others.
| kemotep wrote:
| I'm pleasantly surprised by Apple Airplay. I can cast anything
| from my iPhone or iPad to my TV, they just need to be on the
| same WiFi.
|
| The original Chromecast was really good at just letting you
| cast anything to a TV.
| resource_waste wrote:
| Sign-in required?
| kemotep wrote:
| With Airplay? I do not think I have ever been prompted to.
| The TV is a Roku so technically I am signed in there and I
| have an AppleID but the iPad is my wife's and the Roku
| account isn't the same email as either of those accounts.
| conor- wrote:
| I actually just bought a current gen Chromecast because I was
| looking for a "plug it in so I can watch YouTube on my TV"
| device similar to the Gen1 and was also dismayed at being
| forced to register/log in with a Google account and go through
| all of the hoops. I wish I had done more research and had I
| known that current Chromecasts are basically just a thin proxy
| of the exact same "Google TV OS" that ships on a lot of current
| smart TVs I would have paid the premium to buy a Nvidia Shield
| or something
| Zaskoda wrote:
| I recently bought two TVs, one for my sister and one for my
| father. My sister's has Roku built in and my father's has
| GoogleTV built in. Meanwhile my sister dug out an old game
| console and wanted to see if we could get it to work. Upon
| unboxing and attempting to use the new TVs, I found
| absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without going
| through the process of creating and logging into an account
| on each. My next TV will be a dumb TV.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I recently picked up a dumb tv from an estate sale - 46"
| LED for $60. Cheaper, and for my use it's better.
| treyd wrote:
| > I found absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without
| going through the process of creating and logging into an
| account on each.
|
| This is crazy and infuriating. I would have returned both
| TVs to the store if this happened to me. Was this
| advertised on the box? This feels like it shouldn't be
| legal because you're being forced into a legal agreement
| after purchasing the product.
| bombcar wrote:
| Current-year Vizios have no problem using ARC or whatever
| it is, and the smart/network stuff is completely disabled.
| It just works with whatever HDMI is sending it.
|
| The smart stupidity is why I didn't cry at all when the
| kids broke the Samsung piece of shit. Vizio has my vote, at
| least for now.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| Fingers crossed Google doesn't deliberately kill support for
| these old devices in Android. For a very long time, I've used
| my gen 1 to watch local OTA sports broadcasts on my hotel room
| TV when I'm overseas. I accidentally bent the HDMI jack pretty
| badly one time, but it still works.
| everdrive wrote:
| It's a bit clunky, but the only real solution is just "a
| computer" with an old Logitech K400 keyboard + mouse combo. You
| won't be "casting," (although I suppose you still could) rather
| you'll just be using the keyboard directly. This is low tech
| but also sort of "bomb proof." A company can't sweep the rug
| out from under you, your setup will always work, and given that
| it's literally just a computer running whatever OS you want,
| you can perform nearly any task with this device. You might
| complain "but my embedded [company] product does X." Yes, but
| that product will be dead in two years, and they'll keep making
| the UI worse, and injecting more ads. Your computer will just
| keep working, and changing only as much as you let it change.
| wpm wrote:
| The pro move is getting a K830, a far superior
| keyboard/trackpad combo with backlighting. Unfortunately,
| also with a very weak microUSB charging port. Logitech
| perfected, then discontinued the best HTPC keyboard ever.
| unsui wrote:
| 2nd this.
|
| Bought 2 of them since I "lost" the first one (then later
| found it), and now that it's been discontinued, one of my
| best backup purchases ever.
|
| Daily driver for my 85" gaming TV/media center. Tried other
| couch keyboards, but always ended up coming back to this
| one.
| rchaud wrote:
| My K400 is a decade old and running strong. I don't think I
| have ever needed backlit keys for general Media Centre use.
| raydev wrote:
| I bought a huge and nice new Samsung TV last year and tried
| to pair it with a NUC running Win11, and the TV insisted on
| doing some weird "detecting your device, you should use our
| remote to control this device" bullshit with it every single
| time I switched inputs, such that it would miss the HDMI
| handshake and one side of the connection would give up and
| result in "no signal", and then I'd have to sleep and wake
| the NUC to get it to work.
| jacobyoder wrote:
| We just have old macs connected via HDMI to big flat panel
| TVs, and remote keyboard/trackpads. That's it. It's 'clunky'
| but has not failed in 10 years.
| andrepd wrote:
| If you want to plug your laptop on the TV and control it from
| your sofa, take a look at KDE Connect. It works amazing
| packetlost wrote:
| I switched to iPhone, in part, because Chromecast's casting
| protocol was so unstable. It just... stopped working
| consistently. AirPlay seems to still work rather well, but it
| was substantially more expensive and doesn't really work with
| non-Apple devices (though the remote mostly alleviates this).
|
| Idk, I think the real issue was it was probably "too
| complicated" for the average consumer. The type of person who
| is sitting at a TV probably _wants_ something with a remote
| that behaves independent of their phone, not relies entirely on
| it for it to work. I love Chromecasts, but I can see why they
| 're going away even if it makes me sad.
| cubefox wrote:
| > I switched to iPhone, in part, because Chromecast's casting
| protocol was so unstable. It just... stopped working
| consistently.
|
| I had a similar problem with some (Android phone) apps.
| Casting a movie, and after half an hour or so the app would
| lose its connection to the Chromecast. Which meant you
| couldn't control (e.g. seek backward/forward) the movie
| anymore without restarting it (the movie). This didn't happen
| with some other apps though, e.g. the Google TV app.
| Apparently it is easy to not properly implement the
| Chromecast connection. Perhaps the connection gets terminated
| when the phone goes to idle mode, unless you do something to
| prevent that.
| packetlost wrote:
| Yeah, that was a common issue with me. I had significantly
| worse issues though, my chromecast would hard lock and/or
| have very strange visual glitches that required a reboot to
| fix, typically about 10-20 minutes into playing something.
| That's if I even got to that point because half the time it
| would just refuse to actually play anything without a
| reboot 95% of the time I went to use it.
| Yizahi wrote:
| My first Chromecast was the current one, and I honestly don't
| get what the issue with it (except VLC streaming) and the wall
| wart which is kinda expected given the SoC power. I've logged
| in Google acc and every app acc exactly once a year ago and
| since then it just works autonomously. And I have all modern
| streaming, my local streaming from ISP and youtube in one place
| on any outdated TV which are present in all rentals here. That
| was the point of it, right? To add smart tv functionality to
| the old tv.
| jchw wrote:
| I think honestly the best solution really is to just use a
| stock PC and forget all of this crap. It's a shame there aren't
| any good open source setups using stock computers like
| Raspberry Pi that can act as a good Chromecast replacement (or
| if there are, I missed on it; I tried Kodi but while it is
| pretty cool it isn't really great for streaming services like
| YouTube in my opinion.) but on the other hand, it's not the end
| of the world.
|
| Many modern TVs, if you can find one that isn't complete
| dogshit (good fucking luck), can do Miricast without connecting
| to the Internet or requiring an account. That's nice since it
| fills _one_ role of Chromecast: the ability to easily cast your
| desktop.
|
| But I'd like a full open source ecosystem implementing casting.
| Right now using Chromecast protocols from Firefox is a
| crapshoot and I just haven't bothered, but I don't _think_
| there 's any reason why we can't just make our own. YouTube may
| be somewhat hostile, but at a certain point it's hard to stop a
| cast tool that just execs an official Google Chrome binary, you
| know? So there's always _something_ that could be done.
|
| That said, I keep a list of instructions for un-shittifying the
| Google Chromecast TV devices for myself, since I do have a few
| of them. Note that you _already_ need to log in for this to
| really work, but I already do that, since I want to be logged
| into YouTube, for the time being (for Premium and age-
| restricted videos and subscriptions and etc.)
|
| I'll just copy and paste them here: ##
| Replacing the Terrible Launcher Google took a dump all
| over the TV launcher with ads. Here is a workaround: 1.
| Enable *Developer Mode* by tapping the TV OS Build Number in
| Settings -> About 7 times. 2. Enable USB debugging.
| 3. Prepare a device with `adb`. On NixOS, `nix shell
| nixpkgs#android-tools`. 4. Find the IP in About ->
| Status and use it to do `adb connect [IP]`. 5. Install
| an alternative launcher like ATV Launcher Pro. 6.
| Disable the default launcher entirely. `adb shell "pm disable-
| user --user 0 com.google.android.apps.tv.launcherx && pm
| disable-user --user 0 com.google.android.tungsten.setupwraith"`
| ### Button Mapper Google also made their version of
| Android extra hostile to the launcher being replaced, so when
| you disable the launcher the Home and YouTube buttons will stop
| working. This can be fixed using a third party app called
| _Button Mapper_ available on Play Store. 1. Install
| _Button Mapper_ from Play Store. 2. Enable the Button
| Mapper Accessibility Service in Settings. 3. Add the
| Buttons 4. Map YouTube to open the YouTube app
| 5. Map Netflix to open the Jellyfin app The app will
| warn about not working if the device sleeps, but this doesn't
| apply as these devices don't seem to "sleep" the way that
| Android phones and tablets do.
|
| If your auth becomes stale you need to re-enable those app IDs
| and log back in. This will manifest as things simply not
| working, e.g. videos not playing. However, it only happened to
| me a couple of times. I think it requires session tokens to
| completely expire, which takes a while of inactivity.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > I think honestly the best solution really is to just use a
| stock PC and forget all of this crap.
|
| I used to do that, with a Linux HTPC and Plex. I eventually
| switched to the physical AppleTV device, with all the content
| on a surplus Mac mini connected to the home network. It's
| just less work to maintain. On the old setup, it always
| worked perfectly whenever I was around and had plenty of time
| to tinker with things. It only ever had problems when I was
| at the office, very busy, and the kids wanted to watch some
| show I had digitized from our DVD collection. Granted, the
| problems were always small and easily fixed, but they were
| disruptive because of the circumstance.
|
| I've never had that happen to me with the Apple setup. Yeah,
| you've got to at least partially buy into their ecosystem.
| But they don't force you to go all in if you don't want to.
| jchw wrote:
| I'm currently using Jellyfin to manage my media. With very
| few exceptions, it's been as turnkey as it gets. Anything
| with a web browser is good enough to use it, making nearly
| any kind of setup sufficient. Almost any OS can just browse
| the web very well. I run it with Docker on Synology DSM.
| Early on in Jellyfin's life, some Jellyfin server updates
| required manual intervention, but for a long time now, I
| just update periodically (every few months) and haven't run
| into a problem.
|
| With that in mind, if I wanted a Linux HTPC setup for
| minimal tinkering, for the purposes of accessing YouTube
| and Jellyfin, I'd probably go with an immutable system; I
| like the look of Bazzite for this. Then, I'd probably
| disable automatic updates, and manually update things
| periodically when I have time. If it breaks, you can always
| roll it back, but manual updates will take the minimal
| potential disruptions to probably just zero. You could run
| this on a cheap mini/NUC PC. For TVs that are not mounted
| to the wall, you could probably even mount it to the back
| using a VESA mount adapter.
|
| That said, I don't currently have plans to replace all of
| my Chromecast setups, so I haven't actually done this.
| That's because they've been working very well for years and
| there's really no reason to mess with something that works.
| They were cheap, they run Android apps, and I've cut out
| all of the unwanted advertising.
| switchbak wrote:
| I've had 2 Chromecasts of various vintage and an Nvidia Shield,
| and I've consistently run into stupid bugs and obvious failure
| modes the entire time. It's like it was a beta product rushed
| into production, then forgotten about when the project lost its
| executive champion.
|
| But this is standard fare for Google these days. It's just not
| an organization that's structured to create AND sustain
| customer products. I no longer buy or invest in any customer-
| focused Google tech, and I try to avoid it on the Biz side
| where I can.
| andrepd wrote:
| Why would they give you a 25$ device to stream video to your TV
| when they can sell you a shitty subscription to a shitty
| service for that amount every month, plus whatever they earn
| from plastering the whole thing with ads?
| jtwebman wrote:
| Maybe it is time to start a OpenCast project!
| MrBrobot wrote:
| You did a great job summing up every Google product's evolution
| over time.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| That's what happens when you always get too fancy with names.
| Chromecast, duo, wave, plus, Stadia, all sht names. Keep it
| simple like messages, [company name] TV, cloud = win
| alienchow wrote:
| I wanted to make a joke about it possibly being Chromecast has no
| LLM. Then I realized the replacement product advertises Gemini.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| Too bad, the Google TV Streamer seems to be targeting a higher
| price and performance (not gonna say no to that..), which the
| Chromecast did a decent job at a relatively low cost, and made
| some low-end "smart TV" usable with a quick drop-in replacement.
|
| Hopefully they'll try to reach back that low-end market in some
| way.
| analista wrote:
| I think I am going to stock up some chromecasts with google tv
| 4K, reasons: - they are going to be lower price than before -
| which will make new streamer to be 3x price - they are losing the
| dongle feat which is amazing, zero footprint - smart home
| features, sorry, they are a scam - core functionalities are the
| same, 4k, dolby atmos/vision - its a streamer, don't need 32gb of
| rom - don't need AI, another scam
|
| I honestly don't see the point on upgrading or even buying over
| prev. version
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Any idea whether it has access to the play store or apks can be
| sideloaded? The heavy AI integration makes me nervous it won't be
| the case.
|
| It annoying no longer is behind the TV, just copying Apple (an
| irritating but effective marketing ploy).
| Myrmornis wrote:
| Someone needs to tell their marketing copy writer that "more
| premium" is not good English (doesn't mean anything).
|
| > Today, we're introducing Google TV Streamer, a more premium
| device built for the new era of entertainment and smart home
| needs.
|
| > , bringing its best features to our next-generation 4K TV
| streaming device -- but as a faster, more premium version.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| " Android TV has expanded to 220 million devices worldwide and we
| are continuing to bring Google Cast to other TV devices, like LG
| TVs."
|
| This line in particular puts a bad test in my mouth, because my
| $2k LG G2 OLED has the worst support for casting I've ever
| experienced. In fact the software in general is so bad I was
| excited to pre-order the new Google TV Streamer this morning, so
| I don't have to deal with it again.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| I feel like companies simply get bored of certain products.
| wtcactus wrote:
| I don't have a Chromecast, but I do have an Nvidia Shield for
| more than 5 years now. I use that a lot but in recent months is
| getting unreliable for some reason (I think it's lack of memory),
| apps get stuck and sometimes the apps crash (the OS remains fine,
| I just have to reopen them).
|
| Still, from what I can see, it's the best device available
| barring Apple TV.
|
| I've been searching around, but ready made there isn't anything
| that's better (on paper) and the DIY route, the only alternative
| I can see is LineageOS in the Banana PI. [1] AFAIK, that's not
| great because it doesn't have hardware acceleration, which for a
| device to do heavy media consumption in a 4K TV, is not an
| option.
|
| I would be really happy to know about some better alternatives.
|
| [1] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/m5/
| vzaliva wrote:
| I don't care much about Chromecast hardware, but I wonder if the
| protocol and application support for casting in apps will
| survive. I imagine third-party hardware vendors could step in to
| produce compatible devices.
|
| Example use-case: I was recently in a hotel, travelling just with
| my phone. The hotel TV supported Chromecast, and I was able to
| connect my phone and watch some movies from Amazon Prime Video,
| Netflix, and YouTube apps. This was super convenient.
| buH39Pq4Ss wrote:
| The product page on the Google Store[1] calls out "Enjoy
| content from compatible apps on your phone, tablet, or laptop
| and cast right to your TV.", so it seems clear that it will
| still support the Cast protocol.
| kotaKat wrote:
| It's a shame Google had to ruin the Chromecast with the Google TV
| platform. It's so bloated and obnoxious and just a shame that we
| have to keep getting "suggestions" crammed down our throat
| disguised as ads.
| multimoon wrote:
| If this new device supports TrueHD so you get full Dolby - this
| may finally replace my aging nvidia shield.
| jmull wrote:
| I thought this bit from the replacement device marketing was
| funny:
|
| > And thanks to Gemini technology on Google TV, you can now get
| full summaries, reviews and season-by-season breakdowns of
| content, so finding your next marathon-watch just got easier.
|
| They know it needs to be "AI powered" but they can't figure out
| anything that actually needs modern AI, so it's relegated to
| doing ordinary internet searches.
|
| It's interesting, though, because there are existing sources for
| this content, like IMDB and wikipedia.
|
| I wonder if the real point is more about selling ads while
| avoiding having to cut a deal with those existing sources. An LLM
| can essentially "launder" content so that, in general, it's hard
| to determine the sources for any given response. (There are
| plenty of individual examples where you can tell exactly what the
| primary source was, but those are the exception.)
|
| I suspect the quality of the LLM-generated content will be worse
| than existing sources, but since the real point is to avoid
| sharing ad revenue, not providing good content to the user, that
| will probably be fine. It content doesn't need to be good, just
| good enough.
|
| Welcome to the AI future! It's a lot grubbier than I expected.
| zhyder wrote:
| Such an odd rebranding. Why retire a beloved brand? How does "TV
| Streamer" work better in describing that smart home hub is
| included?
| paxys wrote:
| Pretty smart to "discontinue" a $30 device and replace it with a
| rebranded $100 version that does the exact same thing...
| ncr100 wrote:
| And seemingly stupid price given that for $213
| https://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-43-Class-S-Class-4K-UHD-HDR-L...
| one can purchase a 43" TV with Google TV smart features from
| TCL, a respectable brand, obviating the need for "streamer"
| entirely.
| yalogin wrote:
| Makes sense. Chromecast is built into most tvs. That way they can
| eliminate the hardware costs and focus fully on software. The tv
| manufacturers will be happy to work with them as they, hopefully,
| will get a share of the ad revenue too.
|
| Also this is the first product they killed that I agree with.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| Except that means that you'll have to hook the TV up to the
| internet instead of just connecting a dongle to it (which means
| the TV may spy on you and/or display ads), and when they
| inevitably stop supporting it you'd have to replace the whole
| TV instead of just a dongle.
|
| At least there still is a separate device you can hook up, at
| least for now, though it's more expensive, clunkier, and packed
| with a bunch of needless stuff.
| kentonv wrote:
| This makes me so sad.
|
| The old Chromecast experience -- choose media on phone, play on
| TV -- is all I ever wanted. I hate using a remote to browse -- my
| phone is much better. I hate having my TV logged into an account
| -- my family, kids, guests all use the same TV and I don't want
| them using my account, nor do I want to see their account when
| I'm using it.
|
| The Chromecast protocol is the only thing that the entire
| ecosystem of Android streaming apps integrates nicely with. I
| wish Google would open it up to third parties to create
| Chromecast-replacement devices... but of course they won't. They
| aren't doing what's best for users, they are doing what's best
| for their engagement metrics and revenue. And thus, our
| experience actually gets worse.
| amflare wrote:
| Same. I was so sad when my old chromecast broke. And casting
| was basically the only thing that kept me on the chrome browser
| all these years. So perhaps its a good thing and this change
| will finally allow me to move to a more private browser.
| cheald wrote:
| The absolutely killer feature of the Chromecast is that I can
| have guests over (or be visiting someone), and anyone can
| stream any content they're authorized for. Movies I've bought
| can be watched anywhere there's a Chromecast; my buddy can come
| over and we can watch something together with his Paramount+
| subscription. Keeping the accounts and authorization linked to
| personal devices, and letting the Chromecast essentially be a
| way to translate that to a bigger screen without having to
| actually stream it out of your pocket is fantastic.
| oezi wrote:
| Absolutely +1!
|
| I love Chromecast on vacations for the same reason: I can
| continue using my subscriptions without logging my account
| into the hosts TV.
| ianburrell wrote:
| They aren't getting rid of the Chromecast streaming. Google TV
| does both Chromecast and the Android interface.
|
| The one difference is that Google TV runs the app for service
| if installed and streams with that. It is nice to use the
| remote when streaming instead of pulling out phone to pause or
| change volume.
| kentonv wrote:
| > They aren't getting rid of the Chromecast streaming.
|
| I understand that, but the new Chromecast devices and
| presumably the devices replacing them require you to log into
| the device before you can even use it as a Chromecast stream
| destination, and then when the video is done instead of going
| back to nice photos they try to shove algorithmic
| recommendations in your face. I want the old Chromecast back.
| stadia_8bitdo wrote:
| TIL to get a Stadia controller to work with Chromecast Ultra for
| longer than one session, you _still_ must buy an 8bitdo USB
| wireless adapter with a pairing button.
|
| Controller support would have been a selling point of the
| existing line of affordable devices.
|
| Hopefully this is not the case with the $20 Onn Android TV device
| with USB ports FWIU instead of another $100*n TVs for updates
| through when now?
| ninju wrote:
| Here's the replacement product: Google TV Streamer
|
| https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/
| vermarish wrote:
| It sounds like Google wants to get more edge compute in people's
| homes so they have a new vector to deploy AI products on, but
| they're still so far from actually deploying an innovative
| product that they can't announce anything to actually drive up
| hype.
|
| Then, the rebranding is only because they've abandoned the
| original "minimal footprint" ethos of ChromeCast.
| colonwqbang wrote:
| This is the least suitable market for AI that I can think of.
| People love writing summaries for TV shows and movies. They do
| it for free. Why not focus on making AI do jobs that humans
| don't like.
|
| I also don't think people actually long for having the machine
| recommend new movies and shows. At least I get enough of that
| from my human friends and family. ("Have you seen game of
| thrones? You have to watch game of thrones")
| colonwqbang wrote:
| Ok, what's the device to get now if you're looking for a
| chromecast experience? Who will take my money now that Google
| doesn't want it?
| nyxtom wrote:
| Chromecast is a household name, what a weird thing to kill that
| off
| Ekaros wrote:
| Makes perfect sense in Google's company culture. Reinvent the
| wheel and plaster your own name on it to get the promotion...
| leptons wrote:
| The people at Google that thought killing Chromecast and
| replacing it with a $100 device certainly do not have the
| consumer in mind. This is entirely a political play within
| the company.
|
| They said they sold 100 million Chromecasts, but do 100
| million houses really have (or need, or want) home
| automation? I seriously doubt it.
| igammarays wrote:
| Who wants to bet that Google will be dead (or as about as
| relevant as Yahoo) in less than 5 years?
| Animats wrote:
| _" The time has now come to evolve the smart TV streaming device
| category -- primed for the new area of AI, entertainment and
| smart homes. ... With Google TV Streamer, you can not only
| indulge your entertainment needs, but also have a hub for your
| whole smart home."_
|
| Your home, controlled by Google. What could possibly go wrong?
| ncr100 wrote:
| Answer this yourself, by saying out loud, "Hey Google, i need
| help". ...
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Support for critical security issues ends September 2027, as it
| is 5 years from product release, not when production or sales
| ends...
|
| https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1023...
| didymospl wrote:
| >When we launched Chromecast (...) connecting your TV to your
| phone, tablet or laptop was clunky and hard
|
| I would argue that this still holds true today. Is there any
| reliable way to do the screen mirroring/photo sharing from an
| Android phone to a Samsung smart TV without additional devices?
| My Pixel works great with Chromecast or a similar dongle(e.g.
| Xiaomi Box) but I really couldn't make it work without them. I
| tried a couple of options from plain Android sharing, through
| Samsung's SmartThings, to some sketchy apps that ask for your CC
| for trial but none of them worked before I gave up and asked my
| host for a HDMI cable.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Yeah.
|
| Disingenuous of G to frame it as "WE SOLVED THIS" since they
| now are KILLING their solution.
|
| Offering basically a wall-connected laptop, with no kbd,
| instead.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Good riddance. I tried a "Chromecast with Google TV" because it
| was so cheap, and seemed to support everything. It was easily the
| _worst_ experience I 've had with a set-top-box:
|
| 1. Sometimes it took 2-3 minutes to wakeup from the sleep state.
|
| 2. The remote is so curved on the bottom (literally a semi-
| circle) that I struggled to pick it up and the only ways to
| reliably pick it up successfully resulted in inadvertent button
| presses
|
| 3. The remote is overly minimalist. 8 buttons total. Missing
| buttons include a play/pause button, which is easily the most
| vital button for a device dedicated to playing media. _Sometimes_
| the center button acts as play pause but other times not. It has
| taken me 30s to pause what I 'm watching when I'm already holding
| the remote (add in #2 and it can take me over a minute to pause)
|
| 4. Sometimes media playback just crashes and I need to start
| over.
|
| 5. Tons of ads. I was expecting this from a Google product, but
| thought I'd mention it anyways
|
| TL;DR: If you want a STB, just pay the extra $20 for a Roku,
| everything about it works absurdly better. If the Roku cost $100
| more, I'd still recommend it for anyone not on the most extreme
| of budgets.
| leptons wrote:
| We have 5 Chromecasts with Android Tv around the house, and we
| don't have any of the problems you describe - no 2-3 minute
| wake-up, it's pretty much instant on all of them. No ads, we
| use "apps only mode". The remote is just fine, your hands may
| be the problem. Media playback never crashes.
|
| That said, I'm not paying $100 for the same experience I
| recently paid $30 for. I'm going to test on the Onn 4k
| streaming device for $20.
| wbshaw wrote:
| Chromecast is dead. Long live Chromecast (aka Google Internet
| Streamer)!
| cageface wrote:
| Google is a ghost ship adrift on the endless seas now. Can a new
| captain rescue it or is it doomed to run aground?
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| This makes sense since now the pixel 8 FINALLY supports video
| out. Whenever Google makes an about face like that it's always a
| strategy change.
| elchief wrote:
| the only reason i kept using Chrome was because of Chromecast...
|
| what are some good alternatives to Chromecast? (can cast from
| phone or desktop browser)
| xyst wrote:
| yet another one headed for the graveyard
| jwally wrote:
| musing: It feels like Google has a reputation of creating a bunch
| of products and killing them off within 3-5 years.
|
| It seems like this helps with initial adoption of the product
| (backed by Google!) but erodes trust in the brand every time they
| axe a cult-favorite ("why would I invest time in ${x} when
| they'll probably just kill it off in a couple of years
| anyway..?")
|
| Would it be better if Google launched these products subsidiaries
| without (obvious) links to Google?
|
| Total Arm-Chair QB exercise, but one I feel might be interesting
| to get feedback on...
| ncr100 wrote:
| Critically, the replacement, here, is 3x more expensive vs
| https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entert...
| tiltowait wrote:
| I'm not following how this reputation would help initial
| adoption. Isn't that reputation a big component of why Stadia
| failed?
| stiltzkin wrote:
| Their new streamer has MediaTek MT8696 SoC, same processor as
| Fire Stick 4k max 2021. Also WiFi 5. Not worth it for $99, this
| is worth $50 the most.
|
| Nvidia Shield and Onn still have better value for their niches.
| bananapub wrote:
| less wood behind worse arrows
| nottorp wrote:
| I wonder how they'll fuck it up.
|
| I have one and I've never used the 'cast' feature. I only run the
| apps for the streaming services i watch plus VLC.
|
| Somehow I think this will be impossible in the new and improved
| version...
| leptons wrote:
| >I wonder how they'll fuck it up.
|
| They fucked up the price at $99.
|
| I have 5 Chromecast with Android TV around my house, I paid
| about $30 for each one. There's no way I'm going to buy 5 of
| these new devices at a $100 price.
| nottorp wrote:
| Mmm I would complain about that but I've tried a generic
| noname Android box and that wasn't worth a single dime.
| simple10 wrote:
| Wow! 500 Server Error from Google. Looks like their blog runs on
| non-scaleable infra and got the hug of death?
| simple10 wrote:
| Blog is working again. I got the 500 error for a couple of
| minutes.
| synergy20 wrote:
| the branding is confusing, chromecast, chromecast with google tv,
| chromecast dongle, android auto, chromecast audio,etc.
|
| does this mean airplay will be the only game in town from now on,
| that is, to cast your audio or screen from your phone to smart
| speaker or TVs.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| Will the old ones still work?
| xnx wrote:
| Like a lot of Google products, the branding story has been very
| confusing. Small possibility that this is a step toward cleaning
| up some of the historical mess:
|
| Chromecast
|
| Chromecast Ultra
|
| Chromecast with Google TV
|
| Google TV
|
| YouTube TV
|
| YouTube Premium
|
| YouTube Music
|
| YouTube Red
|
| etc.
| becurious wrote:
| Google TV for two completely different products. The initial
| one was an OS on Sony / Logitech devices that came out in 2010.
| elpalek wrote:
| Chromecast is actually super useful for my immigrants parents.
| Since some foreign languages' input method on remote is
| horrendous, Chromecast helps them selecting youtube video easily.
| boredumb wrote:
| I've used chromecast to power all my "dumb" tvs for years and
| being able to use my laptop or any phone that's on the wifi has
| been amazing to avoid using a clunky roko or firetv interface.
| Sad to see one of the most personally useful pieces of google
| tech ending.
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| I picked up the Google TV 4K and generally like the experience,
| but in 2024 the performance feels really sluggish. I was
| considering getting an Apple TV as a result, but maybe this new
| "streamer" device will be competitive.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sigh, of course. At least this isn't quite Google's usual product
| shutdown; Chromecast sorta more or less will love on.
|
| But "Google TV Streamer"? No, I don't want that. I just want a
| relatively dumb device that allows me to stream stuff from my
| other devices to my TV. Chromecast has always been that, and has
| always worked fairly well. I don't need or want yet another media
| center platform.
| georgehm wrote:
| promptly ordered 2 (an HD and 4K) .. its still cheaper than the
| new "AI" enabled experience ..
| murphyslab wrote:
| > With this, there are no changes to our support policy for
| existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security
| updates to the latest devices.
|
| "no changes to our support policy" links to
| https://safety.google/nest/
|
| It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for
| finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've
| seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?
| penguin_booze wrote:
| Another addition to https://killedbygoogle.com/.
| Bloating wrote:
| Now that APPle has invented streaming TV, google just wanting to
| copycat
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-06 23:01 UTC)