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

341–350 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#341

Post by wpm »

everdrive wrote: post #309
ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast 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…

It's a bit clunky, but the only real solution is just "a computer" with an old Logitech K400 keyboard + mouse combo. You won't be "casting," (although I suppose you still could) rather you'll just be using the keyboard directly. This is low tech but also sort of "bomb proof." A company can't sweep the rug out from under you, your setup will always work, and given that it's literally just a computer running whatever O…

The pro move is getting a K830, a far superior keyboard/trackpad combo with backlighting. Unfortunately, also with a very weak microUSB charging port. Logitech perfected, then discontinued the best HTPC keyboard ever.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#342

Post by switchbak »

ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast 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…

I've had 2 Chromecasts of various vintage and an Nvidia Shield, and I've consistently run into stupid bugs and obvious failure modes the entire time. It's like it was a beta product rushed into production, then forgotten about when the project lost its executive champion.

But this is standard fare for Google these days. It's just not an organization that's structured to create AND sustain customer products. I no longer buy or invest in any customer-focused Google tech, and I try to avoid it on the Biz side where I can.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#343

Post by treyd »

Zaskoda wrote: post #303
conor- wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually just bought a current gen Chromecast because I was looking for a "plug it in so I can watch YouTube on my TV" device similar to the Gen1 and was also dismayed at being forced to register/log in with a Google account and go through all of the hoops. I wish I had done more research and had I known that current Chromecasts are basically just a thin proxy of the exact same "Google TV OS" that ships on a lot of…

I recently bought two TVs, one for my sister and one for my father. My sister's has Roku built in and my father's has GoogleTV built in. Meanwhile my sister dug out an old game console and wanted to see if we could get it to work. Upon unboxing and attempting to use the new TVs, I found absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without going through the process of creating and logging into an account on each. My next…

> I found absolutely no way to access an HDMI port without going through the process of creating and logging into an account on each.

This is crazy and infuriating. I would have returned both TVs to the store if this happened to me. Was this advertised on the box? This feels like it shouldn't be legal because you're being forced into a legal agreement after purchasing the product.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#344

Post by lern_too_spel »

xerox13ster wrote: post #268
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.…

The standardized protocol already exists and it’s called DLNA which Chromecast initially cannibalized in its first release and then basically killed off every single other DLNA provider and app because they Sherlocked the feature into the Android operating system and to the Chrome browser. Now that they are at risk of being split up for their monopoly, and as they lose an Antitrust case for their search monopoly, the…

DLNA is meant to play media from a media server on a home network. It doesn't make sense for Internet services to implement DMS. The relevant standard for casting using web protocols is DIAL.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#345

Post by raydev »

everdrive wrote: post #309
ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast 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…

It's a bit clunky, but the only real solution is just "a computer" with an old Logitech K400 keyboard + mouse combo. You won't be "casting," (although I suppose you still could) rather you'll just be using the keyboard directly. This is low tech but also sort of "bomb proof." A company can't sweep the rug out from under you, your setup will always work, and given that it's literally just a computer running whatever O…

I bought a huge and nice new Samsung TV last year and tried to pair it with a NUC running Win11, and the TV insisted on doing some weird "detecting your device, you should use our remote to control this device" bullshit with it every single time I switched inputs, such that it would miss the HDMI handshake and one side of the connection would give up and result in "no signal", and then I'd have to sleep and wake the NUC to get it to work.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#346

Post by knodi123 »

wiredfool wrote: post #243
jerf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do androids stream electric sheep?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#347

Post by LinAGKar »

yalogin wrote: post #321

Makes sense. Chromecast is built into most tvs. That way they can eliminate the hardware costs and focus fully on software. The tv manufacturers will be happy to work with them as they, hopefully, will get a share of the ad revenue too. Also this is the first product they killed that I agree with.

Except that means that you'll have to hook the TV up to the internet instead of just connecting a dongle to it (which means the TV may spy on you and/or display ads), and when they inevitably stop supporting it you'd have to replace the whole TV instead of just a dongle.

At least there still is a separate device you can hook up, at least for now, though it's more expensive, clunkier, and packed with a bunch of needless stuff.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#348

Post by jacobyoder »

everdrive wrote: post #309
ravenstine wrote: post #251

Chromecast 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…

It's a bit clunky, but the only real solution is just "a computer" with an old Logitech K400 keyboard + mouse combo. You won't be "casting," (although I suppose you still could) rather you'll just be using the keyboard directly. This is low tech but also sort of "bomb proof." A company can't sweep the rug out from under you, your setup will always work, and given that it's literally just a computer running whatever O…

We just have old macs connected via HDMI to big flat panel TVs, and remote keyboard/trackpads. That's it. It's 'clunky' but has not failed in 10 years.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#349

Post by tonypace »

rob74 wrote: post #175
thriftwy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've basically lost the market to Zoom due to their failure to have a single stable offering when COVID hit. I hope they're happy with the zoo they have.

Still wondering how Zoom managed to pull that off - granted, they have a single offering, but describing it as "stable" is a stretch. And the UI is such a mess, don't get me started...

The audio was acceptable over a bad line. For the competition, it too often wasn't.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#350

Post by raydev »

healsdata wrote: post #334
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, but they're not just rebranding. They also doubled the price, ostensibly because they changed the form factor and added "AI". I don't need a visible device or AI just to stream YouTube or other video apps.

They explicitly call it "premium" in the launch page. Time to move upmarket in the hopes of actually making a profit.
Post reply on HN