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

381–390 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#381

Post by scarmig »

Shog9 wrote: post #376
xerox13ster wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Chromecast also allowed you to stream Netflix... I'm not sure DLNA ever got to that point.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#382

Post by attendant3446 »

Minor49er wrote: post #304
catapart wrote: post #87

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!

Getting an Amazon Firestick and putting Kodi on it is a great way to watch stuff locally if you have a NAS full of media Otherwise, look at getting an Intel Compute Stick. They are full PCs that plug into an HDMI port. Running VLC on these is a pretty good solution

Only Firestick has crap software and slow as hell.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#384

Post by ajross »

complaintdept wrote: post #361
anytime5704 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The protocol is baked into almost every TV sold now. Have you seriously never even tried it? Never wondered what that rectangle icon was in youtube videos on your phone, etc...?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#385

Post by hnburnsy »

mbreese wrote: post #23

How much of this is an "end" to Chromecast and a rebranding of Chromecast to "Google TV Streamer"? It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being tied to a phone (or browser) is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. If this is the case, it might be a (rare) example of a good branding shift from Google. I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel like both were hampere…

The ending allows them end support which is September 2027.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#386

Post by didymospl »

>When we launched Chromecast (...) connecting your TV to your phone, tablet or laptop was clunky and hard

I would argue that this still holds true today. Is there any reliable way to do the screen mirroring/photo sharing from an Android phone to a Samsung smart TV without additional devices? My Pixel works great with Chromecast or a similar dongle(e.g. Xiaomi Box) but I really couldn't make it work without them. I tried a couple of options from plain Android sharing, through Samsung's SmartThings, to some sketchy apps that ask for your CC for trial but none of them worked before I gave up and asked my host for a HDMI cable.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#387

Post by julienfr112 »

asveikau wrote: post #294
mFixman wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My conspiracy theory is that renaming all products to generic names (Hangouts to Google Chat, G Suite to Google Workspace) are an attempt by Google to prevent regulators from splitting them out from the main company. It's only a matter of time until Pixel gets renamed to "Google Phone".

That's funny when you consider the rename to Alphabet. Edit: to clarify, since somebody downvoted me, I'm just saying it's funny that they refactored all their properties into multiple legal entities and now several years later might want to do the opposite. You can't expect consistent behavior from these companies over time.

My grandma used to say "doing and undoing is still working". High end Law firms won't disagree.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#388

Post by aidenn0 »

Good riddance. I tried a "Chromecast with Google TV" because it was so cheap, and seemed to support everything. It was easily the worst experience I've had with a set-top-box:

1. Sometimes it took 2-3 minutes to wakeup from the sleep state.

2. The remote is so curved on the bottom (literally a semi-circle) that I struggled to pick it up and the only ways to reliably pick it up successfully resulted in inadvertent button presses

3. The remote is overly minimalist. 8 buttons total. Missing buttons include a play/pause button, which is easily the most vital button for a device dedicated to playing media. Sometimes the center button acts as play pause but other times not. It has taken me 30s to pause what I'm watching when I'm already holding the remote (add in #2 and it can take me over a minute to pause)

4. Sometimes media playback just crashes and I need to start over.

5. Tons of ads. I was expecting this from a Google product, but thought I'd mention it anyways

TL;DR: If you want a STB, just pay the extra $20 for a Roku, everything about it works absurdly better. If the Roku cost $100 more, I'd still recommend it for anyone not on the most extreme of budgets.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#389

Post by cubefox »

packetlost wrote: post #316
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 switched to iPhone, in part, because Chromecast's casting protocol was so unstable. It just... stopped working consistently. AirPlay seems to still work rather well, but it was substantially more expensive and doesn't really work with non-Apple devices (though the remote mostly alleviates this). Idk, I think the real issue was it was probably "too complicated" for the average consumer. The type of person who is sit…

> I switched to iPhone, in part, because Chromecast's casting protocol was so unstable. It just... stopped working consistently.

I had a similar problem with some (Android phone) apps. Casting a movie, and after half an hour or so the app would lose its connection to the Chromecast. Which meant you couldn't control (e.g. seek backward/forward) the movie anymore without restarting it (the movie). This didn't happen with some other apps though, e.g. the Google TV app. Apparently it is easy to not properly implement the Chromecast connection. Perhaps the connection gets terminated when the phone goes to idle mode, unless you do something to prevent that.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#390

Post by wildzzz »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #147

I had an original 2013 Chromecast plugged into my TV for ten years. It did its job admirably, until it started becoming more and more unstable and began rebooting randomly with each new OS version that Google pushed. I finally replaced it about a month ago with an onn streaming box from Walmart for about 20 bucks--less than I paid for the original Chromecast a decade ago: https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-S…

I used a Chromecast for years until we slowly replaced all of the TVs with ones that have Roku built in. Having a remote is definitely better than needing to pickup your phone, switch over to the streaming app, wait for it to link up with the Chromecast, and then pause the video. The OG Chromecast definitely made sense for the time. Video encoding hardware capable of 1080p playback wasn't that cheap so fitting a bunch of extra processing power to run the various streaming apps seemed like extra effort when everyone already had a phone with the streaming apps installed. Roku was already in the business but their devices cost more money so Google came in at just the right time to establish themselves.

One of the first dates with my girlfriend, we were watching TV at her house via a laptop plugged in with an HDMI cord. I bought her a Chromecast the next day (I just got one too) and I think that may have secured my way into her heart.

Post reply on HN