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

411–420 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#411

Post by complaintdept »

ajross wrote: post #384
complaintdept wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...?

I screencasted once to play with video feedback, but never seen a Chromecast device that plugs into a TV.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#412

Post by firesteelrain »

ajross wrote: post #384
complaintdept wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...?

My Vizio TV calls it SmartCast. I just Airplay to it. I didn't realize until I just googled it that Chromecast is basically Airplay for Android.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#413

Post by buu700 »

crazygringo wrote: post #291
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…

Exactly -- it's not an end at all, just a rebranding. And it's about time. "Chromecast" was always a terrible brand IMHO, because it had utterly nothing whatsoever to do with Chrome, except that there happened to be a "Cast..." menu item in Chrome. But you can cast from lots of apps that aren't Chrome. It would have made just as much sense to call it "Gmailcast" -- that is to say, no sense at all. "Google TV Streamer…

I agree. The branding doesn't really matter as long as casting still works. It seems like an odd choice for Google to frame this in such dramatic terms, especially when so many people have already been burned by their tendency to kill popular products out of the blue.

I get the lamentation of the final nail in the coffin of what was just a simple wireless HDMI dongle, and I agree that there's a real need for that. Having said that, I love my 4K Google TV Chromecasts. All I'd ever wanted was something that combined the Fire TV Stick and the Chromecast into one device, and this delivered perfectly. The compact form factor makes it easy to keep a spare in my backpack for whenever I might need it while away from home, which comes in handy often.

My problem with this is that it sounds like they're discontinuing a product that works perfectly well, and replacing it with something slightly worse (for my use case) at 2x the price. Granted, for now they are still selling the Chromecast, so they have time to introduce a future "Google TV Streamer Mini" that retains the form factor of the Chromecast. As long as they do that, I don't really care what they call it.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#414

Post by pseudoscienc3 »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #41

In this case "premium" just means "expensive, right? What new features are there? AI summaries? I don't think there is anyone that would think AI summaries would be worth paying extra. But I do think people would pay more if there was a version that completely removed any and all AI integrations.

Yes -- it is very difficult to get a customer to pay for "AI summaries" for movies/shows especially if they are not bundled with anything else. I tried it about 6 months ago at recapflix.com (it's not perfect and we got 1 paying customer over like 3 months haha).

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#415

Post by solardev »

ecshafer wrote: post #28

They also announced Google Streamer, which is just Google Chromecast but more expensive I guess, and also with the Nest technology for smart home stuff, which they also killed iirc. I have to say, I don't really see this product strategy as being good, or working. Google's product is just a mess, they are nearing Microsoft levels of incoherence. When you compare Google with Apple, it's such a night and day experience…

Apple makes fancy five-course dinners for the wealthy. Google throws half-cooked ramen at the wall for the masses. It's not terrible, but you have to finish eating it before it falls off. Your favorite flavor won't be there next time, and they might be serving burritos instead, but at least your loyalty card still works.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#416

Post by ajross »

complaintdept wrote: post #411
ajross wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...?

I screencasted once to play with video feedback, but never seen a Chromecast device that plugs into a TV.

Right, because no one buys them anymore as the feature is baked into their televisions already. They were popular originally but don't have a home. If it's just the hardware device you're talking about, sure. It's obscure now, which is why it's being cancelled.

What's frustrating in this thread is how many people are conflating the weird dongle product with the extremely successful streaming control protocol. Only the weird thing is being cancelled!

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#417

Post by Kon-Peki »

lxgr wrote: post #140
kobalsky wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For reference, an Apple TV 4K costs $129.

And that can run games on par with last-gen consoles (below PS4, but significantly above Switch level in terms of raw GFLOPs)! At their original price point, Chromecasts were pretty great, but why on earth would I pay the same as an Apple TV for something containing an SoC from 2021? I wasn't able to find reliable numbers, but performance seems to be lower by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

> And that can run games on par with last-gen consoles (below PS4, but significantly above Switch level in terms of raw GFLOPs)!

It also supports a wide variety of wireless gaming controllers (including PS and xbox ones). The games aren't as good as a Switch or PS4, though.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#418

Post by zeven7 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #373
vanshg wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. My initial guess was that the Google TV Streaming name had something to do with a Twitch-like streaming platform.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#419

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #302
lxgr wrote: 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…

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#420

Post by Izkata »

compiler-guy wrote: post #115
ghaff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But many, many more than have heard of Google TV Streamer.

I think that's the point of:

> one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its predecessor.

You're now advertising to anyone who visits your home.

Post reply on HN