141–150 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cast what though, beyond YouTube and Netflix?
HBO Go and Plex are two apps I am using very frequently with my Chromecast... That gets me both external and locally stored content without a dedicated HTPC to play the media.
Chromecast is missing one thing, imho: a controller for my kids. I'm not giving my kids the Nexus 7 every time they want to watch something on the TV screen. The Chromecast suddenly goes from a $35 to a $235 device. Instead I have a uHost android-stick that uses an accelerometer-based airmouse... it's not good, but it works and cost me $50. I keep waiting for Google to complete the Nexus line with a bare-bones 4" low…
Plex ( https://plex.tv/ ) was the magic bullet that unlocked the potential of my Chromecast. I can only recommend it and am looking forward what other applications that come out now ill make it even more useful.
Does it work with subtitles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, what have you been using your Chromecast for? I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid: I have iOS devices, AppleTVs, and a home server running iTunes. Admittedly, the iTunes server is serving video and music that is ripped from legitimately-acquired spinning-discs, so perhaps I haven't tasted the iTunes Store Kool-Aid. I purchased a Chromecast right at launch. As far as I could tell, the only things it did…
Yes, the fact that Apple TV doesn't work with non-Apple devices makes it a non-starter among those who don't exclusively buy Apple products in perpetuity. So the question is Chromecast vs. other cross-platform TV solutions, like Roku. Roku does have it's own device-streaming but it only works with media on your device. I own both and use both, but lean towards the Roku more often as using the phone/tablet as a remote…
That's factually false. I daily use an Apple TV with my Synology NAS, for instance. There are AirPlay streamers for Android and for Windows. The protocol has been fully reversed (besides the DRM bits).
Now, I'm not saying that this was the design of the protocol. Obviously Apple doesn't care less about 3rd-party compatibility. I'm just saying that it's false that Apple TV nowadays is limited to the Apple ecosystem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you stream sports, chromecast is a godsend if you don't want to hook up your computer to the TV.
Are there places to stream sports with reasonable amount of content without being tied to a cable company ? And does it increase cord cutting ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the fact that Apple TV doesn't work with non-Apple devices makes it a non-starter among those who don't exclusively buy Apple products in perpetuity. So the question is Chromecast vs. other cross-platform TV solutions, like Roku. Roku does have it's own device-streaming but it only works with media on your device. I own both and use both, but lean towards the Roku more often as using the phone/tablet as a remote…
> Yes, the fact that Apple TV doesn't work with non-Apple devices makes it a non-starter among those who don't exclusively buy Apple products in perpetuity. That's factually false. I daily use an Apple TV with my Synology NAS, for instance. There are AirPlay streamers for Android and for Windows. The protocol has been fully reversed (besides the DRM bits). Now, I'm not saying that this was the design of the protocol.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there places to stream sports with reasonable amount of content without being tied to a cable company ? And does it increase cord cutting ?
legally and in high quality? not really. I wouldn't throw a superbowl party without tv access, but if you want to watch your favorite team when you otherwise can't, its definitely possible.
Team Name stream
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only one client can be connected at a time as far as I could see. That limits the gaming part.
afaik, the youtube, netflix, etc, apps actually connect to a server, not the device. so you could easily have all the devices connect to a webserver, only one would need to tell the comcast to start that webpage...
Seriously, this is about bloody time. I cannot believe how long we've had to wait for the public SDK to get released. It's like going to a meal at a restaurant and every member of your party is served 2 or 3 hours apart. Here's a video about the announcement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJItrPj7Ivk
It's interesting to me how entitled people feel to get a public SDK. Presumably there was a reason that Google chose to not release it until now; the usual reason is that Google doesn't want people building apps on unstable APIs, because that means a bad experience for both consumers and developers. I'm personally happy that they spent the time to actually make the SDK solid.
It really wasn't cool when they selected preferred providers to be the only ones allowed to release anything built with the SDK. This weird limbo period really pissed lots of early buyers off.
>the usual reason is that Google doesn't want people building apps on unstable APIs
But they let lots of preferred groups build apps. Very complex ones, not just the the simple "put my photos on my TV" apps even. The SDK has obviously been in good shape for months.
AND THEN they simply broke their initial Netflix promise because it was simply too popular.
It was clear from some of the early experiments with the SDK that it was "good" enough for many early apps. And if later improvements showed up, then that's great.
Back before December, they made another announcement that made it sound like it was going to be out any day. And then it slipped and slipped some more. Just release it and say it's beta. After all it's Google and most of the stuff they ship is barely better than a beta anyway.