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

421–430 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#421

Post by xyst »

kardianos wrote: post #168

This is not the same thing. My Chromecast dedicated device would put a default nice picture, then wait for a cast. Google TV and this new device displays advertisements, store, and more. I hate it. It's the last google thing in my house. When it dies, google will be gone from my house.

The only “google” thing in my home is a nest. That’s only because G acquired the company years back. Only thing they added was forcing users to migrate Nest account to G.

Honestly might disconnect the nest from the network. But only keep it connected and segmented from rest of network for remotely changing the temp from my phone.

One of these days I’ll “hack” (explore) the device so it doesn’t rely on Nest/Google APIs. There’s absolutely no reason why I need a Google auth token to access the Nest other than for Google to collect whatever data and feed to their beast

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#422

Post by pydry »

rickdeckard wrote: post #126
pydry wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

miracast is a decent standard. i'm not sure why we'd need chromecast's proprietary equivalent as well. the fact that google dropped it from stock android kind of says it all - they clearly think that chromecast isn't good enough to compete without being coddled.

Miracast is not content-aware, it's just a standard to stream a video over Wi-Fi, competing with Intel Wireless Display (and other proprietary Wireless Display implementations) The beauty of the Google Cast protocol is that you can hand over meta-data as well as the actual source-URL to the receiver and it can initiate the stream directly. > the fact that google dropped it from stock android kind of says it all - the…

Most major vendors add it themselves because google refuses to put it in stock. Samsung calls it smart view, for instance. My phone calls it screencast.

I use it every day and the experience is decent. Google just didnt like the competition from an open standard i guess. but, they dont control what vendors do.

I dont want a proprietary content aware equivalent. There is no beauty to sending metadata separately. There is beauty in having a dead simple way of mirroring whats on my phone that will play any kind of video.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#423

Post by solardev »

theryan wrote: post #33

Is there a replacement device out there for the ability to cast a tab or your full desktop to a TV? We use this functionality all the time and I would rather not deal with HDMI cords.

Your Chromecast should still keep working. The replacement streamer device would still work too, or the last gen chromecast with google tv.

Apple TV also works if you have a Mac. Many TVs also have Chromecast built in. Miracast is another option but it's really terrible. Steam Link is another option. There are also wireless HDMI adapters.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#424

Post by ajross »

firesteelrain wrote: post #412
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...?

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.

Other way around; Chromecast beat Airplay to market by like four years I think. But yes, they're very comparable technologies.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#425

Post by afavour »

jessfyi wrote: post #331
crazygringo wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If something that sells 100 million+ devices isn't "super popular", I don't know what is. And not even counting the millions of TVs that have it built-in (Hi-Sense, TCL, Samsung) the brand is pretty ubiquitous.

The brand has been "Google Cast" for a long time, though. None of the TVs with this stuff built in have mentioned "Chromecast" in a very long time.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#426

Post by ghaff »

ajross wrote: post #416
complaintdept wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Part of it is how often do people buy TVs? I doubt if I've bought one in over 15 years.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#427

Post by [deleted] »

guzik wrote: post #81
rimunroe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic). What do you mean by "(sic)" here? I'm used to seeing that in quotes to make it clear the quote is being reproduced exactly, but I've never seen it outside a quote.

Oh wow, I was using it incorrectly—thanks for indirectly correcting me! I thought I could use it to emphasize that something is indeed true.

[deleted]

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#428

Post by santiagobasulto »

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…

Well, back in the day (and I feel old now), the ability to cast a chrome tab to a TV with a $30 dongle was huge. It was a great brand until it got commoditized.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#429

Post by rimunroe »

guzik wrote: post #81
rimunroe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic). What do you mean by "(sic)" here? I'm used to seeing that in quotes to make it clear the quote is being reproduced exactly, but I've never seen it outside a quote.

Oh wow, I was using it incorrectly—thanks for indirectly correcting me! I thought I could use it to emphasize that something is indeed true.

Ah! I was wondering if that might be what you were intending to say, but not being familiar with app development I wasn't sure.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#430

Post by tjoff »

paxys wrote: post #206
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.

Probably true, but it's not like "Google TV Streamer" is any better.

Wait til you hear about Play Store. Been over a decade and I still cringe.
Post reply on HN