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

191–200 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#191

Post by stavros »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #147

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-S…

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".

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#192

Post by jeffbee »

esafak wrote: post #160
jeffbee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if stops working tomorrow?

What if I get hit by an asteroid tomorrow?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#193

Post by tensor »

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…

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#194

Post by rickdeckard »

lxgr wrote: post #104
rickdeckard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

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/ ).

> 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...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#195

Post by llm_nerd »

stavros wrote: post #158
lxgr wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#197

Post by ko_pivot »

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.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#198

Post by paxys »

esafak wrote: post #160
jeffbee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if stops working tomorrow?

Then complain tomorrow.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#200

Post by anytime5704 »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN