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

201–210 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#201

Post by glenstein »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #69
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…

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.…

>the phone/browser lock-in is largely due to lack of a standardized and open protocol to stream content in this manner.

I feel like the thing you are describing as lock-in is, in a critical sense, quite the opposite. It gave you the power to make a dumb TV into a versatile streaming system that's not locked down and beholden to Smart TV software.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#202

Post by SparkyMcUnicorn »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #155
SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this can actually compete with, and might be better than, the nvidia shield pro. Since 2019, I don't think we've had such a device (last I checked). The "best devices" lineup has been the nvidia shield pro, Roku ultra, and Apple tv 4k, with Roku being the cheapest at $99. If you don't care about decoding support for all the different video formats, HDR10, dolby xy and z, etc., then these sorts of devices migh…

The oen thing no device currently has that the shield does that I'd need to see to replace mine is support for HD audio codecs. I play blu-ray rips on my shield through my Jellyfin server and it supports bitstreaming DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD without any decoding on the streaming device. The Shield is literally the only streaming device on the market that I'm aware of that does this. Without it, I wouldn't…

I'm in a similar boat.

For audio it says it supports "Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Atmos", so I guess we can only assume that means DTS-X is missing.

But supporting HDR10+ a nice win over the shield, and it also does support the necessities like HLG, H.265, H.264, VP9, and AV1.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#203

Post by n4r9 »

antonyh wrote: post #154
n4r9 wrote: post #96

What 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.

We use a Roku, which we found out yesterday supports AirPlay from an iPad. It's an old model though, not sure if the newer ones do.

Cool. Looks like you can do screen-mirroring from Windows or Android as well, which covers all my use cases. Thanks!

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#204

Post by vel0city »

delecti wrote: post #77
lordleft wrote: post #25

I really disliked my Chromecast...despite being able to output 4k, the OS was sluggish and it barely had storage to hold the streaming apps I was interested in using. I ditched it for the Apple4K.

I didn't even know you could install apps onto a Chromecast. I'm not sure why you'd need to though, because phone apps can "cast" to it.

IMO this is a part of the reason why they're dropping the Chromecast branding. The product is very different from the original Chromecast streaming stick. It is now mostly a cheap Google TV device.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#205

Post by impalallama »

This is very annoying. Even with the prevalence of smart tvs some tvs just don't come with all streaming apps I want and Chromecast was a great inexpensive option. They are discontinuing it in favor of a product that appeals to a totally different market in mind at 2x-3x the price. Roku still mostly fills that niche but I don't see the logic in this move at all.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#206

Post by paxys »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146
ink_13 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4K Chromecast "with Google TV" basically was that already, since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and remote. It seems a bit silly to me that they're tossing the brand aside but maybe they're doing that for exactly this reason.

I own the 4K Chromecast and it's pretty good. But in my opinion "Chromecast" was always a bad brand name. I guess it originated in the browser, but it's so far removed from that now; "Chrome" no longer makes sense.

Probably true, but it's not like "Google TV Streamer" is any better.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#209

Post by mikestew »

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 only feature I can think of that you would miss is using the phone to type passwords on the Apple TV (instead of using the keyboard-less remote). Set that up once, and you should otherwise not know the difference. Otherwise, my iPhone needs no interaction with the ATV.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#210

Post by myko »

Seems really dumb not to continue using the name Chromecast, even if it has a remote now. It is essentially the same product and the best one on the market in its class.

So, pretty typical product/marketing shitshow from Google, unfortunately.

Post reply on HN