Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Chromecast

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 326 posts

Re: Google Chromecast

#291

Post by tomkarlo »

ricardobeat wrote: post #269
tolmasky wrote: post #165

This is exactly what I've been wanting the Apple TV to be for ages. The only thing Apple TV is actually good for is Airplay. There doesn't need to be an OS or a UI for the Apple TV: your phone or tablet will be a better experience for typing and searching for content every time. Its a fool's errand to try to design a UI for a TV that isn't dreadfully painful to use: no one ever wants to interact with something 10 fee…

I find it a pain to get my phone/tablet and 1) wake it up 2) unlock it 3) type password 4) close running app 5) scourge screens for the remote app, and 6) wait for it to start and connect, sometimes it takes a while. It's infinitely easier to grab the aluminum remote or bluetooth keyboard and just press a key. You're also missing the fact that the AppleTV is a shared device. It doesn't need locking/protection, and ca…

Except you don't necessarily have to do 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 with this. It either has controls over lock screen or in the notifications tray depending on the app. (and most users don't use passwords anyway. So really it's just a matter of picking up your phone and turning it on, which is usually easier than finding a remote.

Re: Google Chromecast

#292

Post by solnyshok »

natrius wrote: post #182
antimatter15 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the setup page ( https://cast.google.com/chromecast/setup ), it appears that it generates its own access point that you connect to.

This is how WiFi-enabled printers and bathroom scales work, too.

Does it mean that I have to disconnect from my home wifi and loose ability to google stuff during this process?

Re: Google Chromecast

#293

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

jvehent wrote: post #168
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there will be exceptions as a rule I'd suggest the older generation have no interest in having to use a phone, tablet or laptop to control their TV.

You should see the baby-boomers I know show off to their neighbors when they watch xfinity, streamed from their laptops to their TVs, via hdmi. Being 60 doesn't mean you don't get excited about technology anymore. But it does mean that you have more time to play with it ;)

And my Dad's friends take great pride in the deliberately simple feature phones with as few features as possible.

Smart phone ownership for 60+s is about half what it is for 18 - 36 year olds and I'd wager that engagement levels are proportionately lower too.

I'm not saying no older users will go for this but I think the core users will be younger and will be far, far more likely to be under the 18 - 35 bracket than over (that group being willing to tinker and price sensitive therefore more likely to use Android phones and see the appeal of a $35 device).

Re: Google Chromecast

#294

Post by solnyshok »

Some compared this to AppleTV, but I would love to point out sellers of overpriced hdmi cables ($20-60, gold plated bla-bla-bla together with new TV). Also, Samsung sells wifi dobgles for their SmartTVs for $60-80 in my country. Hopefully that business will get more reasonable...

Re: Google Chromecast

#295

Post by ChikkaChiChi »

ricardobeat wrote: post #268
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #100

I think people aren't understanding how awesome this technology is: 1. Every time someone shows you a YouTube video, you spend 10% of your time watching it and the other 90% thinking about that one video you know of that's funnier. With Chromecast, you can queue that sucker up for nexties right from your own phone, without interrupting the video that's currently playing. 2. Chromecast does NOT use the resources of th…

The AppleTV can do everything this does, plus real-time mirroring of any app. It's more expensive, and AirPlay doesn't have a queue, but this is hardly game-changing.

Never underestimate the power of the price point.

This also throws down the gauntlet regarding the walled garden in hardware interactivity. Even Apple zealots I work with begrudgingly nod their heads in agreement that vendor lock-in is a destructive to innovation.

Re: Google Chromecast

#296

Post by ChikkaChiChi »

ratscabies wrote: post #155
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #100

I think people aren't understanding how awesome this technology is: 1. Every time someone shows you a YouTube video, you spend 10% of your time watching it and the other 90% thinking about that one video you know of that's funnier. With Chromecast, you can queue that sucker up for nexties right from your own phone, without interrupting the video that's currently playing. 2. Chromecast does NOT use the resources of th…

I don't get it. I have an HTPC, and I watch Youtube on it all the time. I will often pause what I am watching to look something up related to the video I am watching. I don't have a personal phone as I get by fine with my work phone. It's a blackberry, so not compatible anyway. Also, when watching TV, its with the family, and we all are interested in what we look up. As far as I know, this only does some video, and d…

the easiest answer I've come up with is that yes... WE have been doing this for quite some time. I have several devices I can push to including an HTPC that requires more finagiling than it should.

This takes those this us media geeks have been doing for years and empowers those that don't want to deal with the early adopter hassles and makes it just work.

Not to mention the end result is more attractive and usable.

Re: Google Chromecast

#297

Post by ChikkaChiChi »

ratscabies wrote: post #155
ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #100

I think people aren't understanding how awesome this technology is: 1. Every time someone shows you a YouTube video, you spend 10% of your time watching it and the other 90% thinking about that one video you know of that's funnier. With Chromecast, you can queue that sucker up for nexties right from your own phone, without interrupting the video that's currently playing. 2. Chromecast does NOT use the resources of th…

I don't get it. I have an HTPC, and I watch Youtube on it all the time. I will often pause what I am watching to look something up related to the video I am watching. I don't have a personal phone as I get by fine with my work phone. It's a blackberry, so not compatible anyway. Also, when watching TV, its with the family, and we all are interested in what we look up. As far as I know, this only does some video, and d…

the easiest answer I've come up with is that yes... WE have been doing this for quite some time. I have several devices I can push to including an HTPC that requires more finagiling than it should.

This takes those this us media geeks have been doing for years and empowers those that don't want to deal with the early adopter hassles and makes it just work.

Not to mention the end result is more attractive and usable.

Re: Google Chromecast

#298

Post by tiziano88 »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #282
robryan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea if the thing can run via a proxy? Could be a fairly clean way of using Netflix from Australia.

It streams from one of your devices, not directly from netflix. If your device can proxy, it can

It would seem the opposite, it does not even need the device to be on while it's streaming from what I've read.

Re: Google Chromecast

#299

Post by VikingCoder »

chockablock wrote: post #236
tolmasky wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I know, but: 1. The app is terrible. It takes forever to connect and the remote is harder to use than the real remote (swipe up to simulate pressing up, ugh). Typing on the phone is also frustrating when the realtime search results show up on the TV, it should all just be on the phone! 2. The remote app shows how Apple completely misses the point: the remote app is designed to be secondary to the TV. You're still…

> You're still looking at the TV while fiddling with the phone. The experience should be completely on your phone. But the people sitting with you also get to see the search results come up, and together you can decide what previews to watch, etc. This is how it works in my household, and wouldn't work as well if the phone was where all the UI action is, with the TV solely a dumb display.

My co-worker was just telling me he wants to show his kids some YouTube videos, but the "suggested videos" are always R-Rated. So, keeping all of the browsing on the phone would be a huge plus for him.

Re: Google Chromecast

#300

Post by roc »

jasallen wrote: post #194
roc wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you want Airplay to be more the focus of Apple TV, but that state of affairs doesn't sound at all like Chromecast. Chromecast seems to be a method for driving-devices to send pointers to internet video streams or web pages, for the dongle to queue, download and then send to the display. The apps/content don't live on the mobile device at all. They live on remote internet servers. The device is just feeding a qu…

"to queue, download and then send to the display" According to AvsForum news: "streams it directly to the Chromecast device from the cloud". So you are right about it being somewhat different from airPlay, but it clearly intends to be seamless, and not have a queue / download cycle, but stream it just as it would to your browser. It also says "including Youtube, Netflix, and Google Play, Vudu, Hulu... anything that p…

'queue' was referring to chromecast's touted ability for, say, me to be able to send a video to the chromecast and then you to send one for it to play 'next'.

And 'download' was to make explicit the chromecast is downloading the content from the internet itself; it's not taking a videostream from the device as in the Airplay/"device-as-brains" scenario.

I'm not sure there's any difference between the phrasings in your second paragraph. I certainly didn't intend to imply anything different.

Post reply on HN