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

241–250 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#241

Post by theryan »

ricktdotorg wrote: post #227

was there ever any information (released by Google or other parties) as to why Google decided to remove the functionality to "Cast" *any* tab, and not a tab from a site that was whitelisted by Google? who pressured Google to do this? or did they "pressure themselves" to do it? the BEST feature of early Chromecasts was the ability to cast any video from any page. it was revelatory! and then that feature was silently r…

I still do this all the time from my desktop PC with Chrome. As far as I'm aware you can cast any tab, or even your whole desktop.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#242

Post by systems »

mbreese wrote: post #120
lbourdages wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newer Chromecasts ship with a remote and do not require a phone. Multiple people can be logged in too.

True, but at that point, what does the "Chrome" part of Chromecast mean? It made much more sense when the device was tied to a browser, and then (kinda) apps on a phone. Once they added a remote, I think the writing was on the wall for the name "Chromecast". Google TV is a better "brand", IMO.

but the new brand is actually "Google TV Streamer" (3 words)

why didnt they just go for "Google TV" (2 words)

they also could have played a bit "Google TOP" (because its a table top device) , "Google S" (S for Streamer) , i think the 3 word "Google TV Streamer" , is function over form gone wrong

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#243

Post by wiredfool »

jerf wrote: post #134
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 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 spe…

We can watch it for you wholesale?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#245

Post by cbsmith »

scarmig wrote: post #101
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #69

Earlier 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.

Well, better than Doesn't Matter Cast.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#246

Post by softfalcon »

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.

Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure.

Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple TV? Yes.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#247

Post by TehShrike »

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!

I'll echo what other people are saying, that you should just not connect the smart tv to your wifi, but I am nervous about smart TVs that ship with cell chips to connect to the manufacturer's servers when people don't hook the device up to wifi.

I'm not sure how to determine which models do or don't ship with cell chips.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#248

Post by fullstop »

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 also picked up an onn device recently. It's a remarkably capable device, well worth the $20.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#249

Post by wiredfool »

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!

I've got an Iiyama 42" monitor running as a TV for AppleTV and an Xbox. Panel quality is a bit meh, I think it's some sort of weird 2k/4k thing done for dynamic range. It's a signage one, rather than a strict monitor, so there's a little bit of firmware, and I could put rotating pics on it using a usb key, but I'm using the apple-tv for it. No RF (which is good, means I don't have to pay for a tv license that I woudln't used), and 2 hdmi inputs.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#250

Post by jerlam »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #17
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...

The market didn't move on, the manufacturers found a better way to put ads in front of eyeballs.

The "Chromecast with Google TV" main upgrade for my use case (watching YouTube) was to introduce longer ads. For that reason I've lost faith in this product line and this rebranding (and price increase) guarantees I won't be getting one of these.
Post reply on HN