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

121–130 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#121

Post by pipeline_peak »

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#122

Post by delecti »

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!

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#124

Post by com »

SoftTalker wrote: post #65
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.

Same thing + "AI" We're going to be seeing a lot of this in the next year or two.

Then the AI marketing term is going to be cursed like 3D TV is, yet the tech itself more useful.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#125

Post by tracker1 »

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.

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#126

Post by rickdeckard »

pydry wrote: post #31
rickdeckard wrote: post #4

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...

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.

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)

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#127

Post by rsynnott »

kylecazar wrote: post #112
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 experi…

> 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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#128

Post by rescripting »

ViktorRay wrote: post #74

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 controller…

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#130

Post by bitcharmer »

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.

It's such a shame that so many bright minds waste their talents in what now is essentially an ad business.
Post reply on HN