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…
> an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name I don't think so at all. I'm not sure if anyone I know outside of tech has ever even heard of Chromecast. It was never super popular. While every single one of them knows what an Apple TV is, and they know what the Chrome browser is. The replacement makes much more sense. It's just branded as Google, and what it does -- it's a TV streamer. The branding tells you th…
Moments in Chromecast's history
331–340 of 609 posts
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#332Controller support would have been a selling point of the existing line of affordable devices.
Hopefully this is not the case with the $20 Onn Android TV device with USB ports FWIU instead of another $100*n TVs for updates through when now?
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#333was 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.
so using a real Chromecast, it still is possible to Cast any tab at all?
damn, i should get that Chromecast back out!
thank you for the correction!
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#334Earlier 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.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#335https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#336Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into. It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well. I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual cast…
Many modern TVs, if you can find one that isn't complete dogshit (good fucking luck), can do Miricast without connecting to the Internet or requiring an account. That's nice since it fills one role of Chromecast: the ability to easily cast your desktop.
But I'd like a full open source ecosystem implementing casting. Right now using Chromecast protocols from Firefox is a crapshoot and I just haven't bothered, but I don't think there's any reason why we can't just make our own. YouTube may be somewhat hostile, but at a certain point it's hard to stop a cast tool that just execs an official Google Chrome binary, you know? So there's always something that could be done.
That said, I keep a list of instructions for un-shittifying the Google Chromecast TV devices for myself, since I do have a few of them. Note that you already need to log in for this to really work, but I already do that, since I want to be logged into YouTube, for the time being (for Premium and age-restricted videos and subscriptions and etc.)
I'll just copy and paste them here:
## Replacing the Terrible Launcher
Google took a dump all over the TV launcher with ads. Here is a workaround:
1. Enable *Developer Mode* by tapping the TV OS Build Number in Settings -> About 7 times.
2. Enable USB debugging.
3. Prepare a device with `adb`. On NixOS, `nix shell nixpkgs#android-tools`.
4. Find the IP in About -> Status and use it to do `adb connect [IP]`.
5. Install an alternative launcher like ATV Launcher Pro.
6. Disable the default launcher entirely. `adb shell "pm disable-user --user 0 com.google.android.apps.tv.launcherx && pm disable-user --user 0 com.google.android.tungsten.setupwraith"`
### Button Mapper
Google also made their version of Android extra hostile to the launcher being replaced, so when you disable the launcher the Home and YouTube buttons will stop working. This can be fixed using a third party app called _Button Mapper_ available on Play Store.
1. Install _Button Mapper_ from Play Store.
2. Enable the Button Mapper Accessibility Service in Settings.
3. Add the Buttons
4. Map YouTube to open the YouTube app
5. Map Netflix to open the Jellyfin app
The app will warn about not working if the device sleeps, but this doesn't apply as these devices don't seem to "sleep" the way that Android phones and tablets do.
If your auth becomes stale you need to re-enable those app IDs and log back in. This will manifest as things simply not working, e.g. videos not playing. However, it only happened to me a couple of times. I think it requires session tokens to completely expire, which takes a while of inactivity.Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#337Then, the rebranding is only because they've abandoned the original "minimal footprint" ethos of ChromeCast.
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m pleasantly surprised by Apple Airplay. I can cast anything from my iPhone or iPad to my TV, they just need to be on the same WiFi. The original Chromecast was really good at just letting you cast anything to a TV.
Sign-in required?
Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#339Re: Moments in Chromecast's history
#340The 30 dollar price point was the big deal. A 100 dollar price point opens up competition to a lot more devices. As a consumer, this is completely unexciting.
I think they have let Walmart's Onn tv box take over that segment. I have one and it works pretty well.