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.
What does a protocol for casting need that UPnP/DLNA doesn't provide?
Moments in Chromecast's history
131–140 of 609 posts
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> 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.
The new (Google TV Streamer) device seems to support Matter as a protocol, so maybe there is more hope here...
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#133Does anyone know what chipset that gogole tv streamer is using? A GrapheneOS streamig device would be so cool!
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#134Wow, 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 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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#135We 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.
> 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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#137What 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.
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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#138I'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!
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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's $100, compared to $50 for the last 4K Chromecast dongle or $30 for the 1080p version.
For reference, an Apple TV 4K costs $129.
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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's $100, compared to $50 for the last 4K Chromecast dongle or $30 for the 1080p version.
For reference, an Apple TV 4K costs $129.
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.