Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moments in Chromecast's history

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#111

Post by empyrrhicist »

lxgr wrote: post #71
pbhowmic wrote: post #45

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.

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?).

And they came with optical out. I have a couple as well and am hoping to get many more years out of them.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#112

Post by kylecazar »

ecshafer wrote: post #28

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…

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#113

Post by uolmir »

catapart wrote: post #87

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!

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#115

Post by compiler-guy »

ghaff wrote: post #98
lxgr wrote: post #24

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 wil…

I think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have never heard of Chromecast.

But many, many more than have heard of Google TV Streamer.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#116

Post by [deleted] »

ghaff wrote: post #98
lxgr wrote: post #24

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 wil…

I think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have never heard of Chromecast.

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#117

Post by thriftwy »

nextos wrote: post #95
aestetix wrote: post #8

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.

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.

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#119

Post by lxgr »

ghaff wrote: post #98
lxgr wrote: post #24

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 wil…

I think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have never heard of Chromecast.

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?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#120

Post by mbreese »

lbourdages wrote: post #88
mbreese wrote: post #23

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 hampere…

Newer Chromecasts ship with a remote and do not require a phone. Multiple people can be logged in too.

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.

Post reply on HN