Live data from Hacker News

Moments in Chromecast's history

blog.google

371–380 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#371
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My K400 is a decade old and running strong. I don't think I have ever needed backlit keys for general Media Centre use.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#372
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…

remember this is Google -- don't worry, they'll be changing the name again in 2-3 years. Probably YouTubeCast or YouTube TV (yes they already have a "YouTube TV" but I wouldn't put it past them to combine/confuse the two things like they've done with Google Pay / GPay / Google Wallet / etc)

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#373
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google TV is already the name of their software platform (based on the Android TV OS) that TVs run

Yes but that's really the same as this just in a separate box. Makes total sense to bring it under the same naming tree.

I'd call it "Google TV Box" though. Streaming is too contrived and not everyone knows what it means. Xiaomi use the Box naming too and that seems to go down well.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#375
"The time has now come to evolve the smart TV streaming device category — primed for the new area of AI, entertainment and smart homes. ... With Google TV Streamer, you can not only indulge your entertainment needs, but also have a hub for your whole smart home."

Your home, controlled by Google. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#376

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…

I vaguely remember DLNA... Which is to say, I remember it barely working at best and mostly just wasting a lot of time debugging configuration and network nonsense.

Arguably the biggest advantage of Chromecast was just not having to deal with all that.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#377
post #225
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.

> since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and remote Most impotantly, it has ads!

Yeah that's really what kills it for me. Why do I have ads on a device I paíd for??

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy any of the google-enabled speakers, or you can just get some raspberry pi and run your own solution.

The point was that you could have an optical out connection to a Hi-Fi system and things would just work from Spotify, etc... The google speakers don't even have an aux out. A Rasperry Pi isn't at all equivalent as it's not plug and play.

If you're posting on hacker news surely you would be able to install raspotify on a debian raspberry pi or just load the moode audio image.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#379
post #107

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!

We looked into this when moving house a few years ago in the UK. There didn't seem to be any viable options, so we bought a secondhand TV. I've heard that there are ways to get hold of shop display monitors but didn't figure out how to do this.

Yeah, this is the frustrating part. I've worked with retailers on in-store displays, so I know that you can get high-quality, cheap panels that are "dumb" in that they don't have apps, but they do have full local-only operating systems that can access wifi networks and list files. Some of them can even boot into a chrome-based kiosk mode, indicating a full html rendering stack.

But if you check for anything DIY, they're either sourcing panels directly from manufacturers in China, or ripping apart smart TVs (or just "not using" parts of them). There's a happy middle ground and I know, from experience, that's it's not an expensive one, even though I also know from experience that it's often times an extremely pricey one. By which I mean, the panels themselves are cheap for an outlet to get and use, while actually trying to buy a panel from those outlets is reserved for B2B applications and is priced for enterprise work.

What I was hoping for is that someone who knows about those kinds of panels and that kind of work would be able to say "Ah, yeah, here's a great panel that we use for our displays which is a good deal". But, so far, I've never had any takers on that. It's a small industry (or, at least it was when I was involved), so that's not unexpected. But I keep hoping that some dogged youtuber or some experimental blogger will figure out how to source all the bits for the TV that so many of us want, but that there's is strong business disincentives to create.

That's what's most galling, I think. Samsung/LG/Sony could make this and sell it, but they refuse to because it would provide an alternative to the market they really want which is ad capture/data harvesting. And I'm just so tired of that being the only option for that specific reason. Because now I'm stuck here hoping that someone out there makes the least-complex, cheapest, and fastest thing for a TV manufacturer to make, which seems like the dumbest thing to have to hope for.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#380

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…

Same. I was so sad when my old chromecast broke. And casting was basically the only thing that kept me on the chrome browser all these years. So perhaps its a good thing and this change will finally allow me to move to a more private browser.
Post reply on HN