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

361–370 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#361

Post by complaintdept »

anytime5704 wrote: post #200
ghaff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have never heard of Chromecast.

I find that hard to believe... "Cast" is a pretty ubiquitous term and, anecdotally, Chromecast is almost always the device I find when traveling. Probably selection bias on my part, but I'd expect most people to be aware of Chromecast unless they're over the age of ~70 and fully Apple-oriented. Seems like throwing away a perfectly well known brand.

I travel quite a bit and I've never encountered one. Never even seen one at all. I've heard of Chromecast because I go on tech sites, but they're suspiciously absent in my bubble of reality. I'm an Android and Linux user too.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#362

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#363

Post by [deleted] »

kentonv wrote: post #324

This makes me so sad. The old Chromecast experience -- choose media on phone, play on TV -- is all I ever wanted. I hate using a remote to browse -- my phone is much better. I hate having my TV logged into an account -- my family, kids, guests all use the same TV and I don't want them using my account, nor do I want to see their account when I'm using it. The Chromecast protocol is the only thing that the entire ecos…

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#364

Post by [deleted] »

xnyan wrote: post #264
walthamstow wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any normal TV, just don't connect it to the internet. Use an external box like an Nvidia Shield or Apple TV, its remote will control on/off/volume on the TV via HDMI-CEC. Now your cheap replaceable external box is the internet-connected computer and your expensive wall-mounted TV is an appliance.

Make sure you get one that won't nag you, a friend's Hisense will regularly overlay an annoying splash screen if it can't reach the internet.

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#365

Post by jtwebman »

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…

Maybe it is time to start a OpenCast project!

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#366

Post by bombcar »

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…

Current-year Vizios have no problem using ARC or whatever it is, and the smart/network stuff is completely disabled. It just works with whatever HDMI is sending it.

The smart stupidity is why I didn't cry at all when the kids broke the Samsung piece of shit. Vizio has my vote, at least for now.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#367

Post by MrBrobot »

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…

You did a great job summing up every Google product’s evolution over time.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#368

Post by buH39Pq4Ss »

vzaliva wrote: post #285

I don't care much about Chromecast hardware, but I wonder if the protocol and application support for casting in apps will survive. I imagine third-party hardware vendors could step in to produce compatible devices. Example use-case: I was recently in a hotel, travelling just with my phone. The hotel TV supported Chromecast, and I was able to connect my phone and watch some movies from Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, an…

The product page on the Google Store[1] calls out “Enjoy content from compatible apps on your phone, tablet, or laptop and cast right to your TV.”, so it seems clear that it will still support the Cast protocol.
Post reply on HN