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

431–440 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#431

Post by geor9e »

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 original

FYI Google stopped pushing critical security updates to the 1st gen Chromecast already. I'm not saying it joined a botnet already but maybe~ https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1023...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#433

Post by petepete »

paradox460 wrote: post #405
petepete wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole market of devices that’ll work Sonos, take note.

Why, so they can patent it and sue everyone?

Oh so that's why I can't cast to my Sonos speakers?

I thought they just couldn't work out how to make casting work, like how they still haven't figured out RSTP.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#434

Post by jwally »

musing: It feels like Google has a reputation of creating a bunch of products and killing them off within 3-5 years.

It seems like this helps with initial adoption of the product (backed by Google!) but erodes trust in the brand every time they axe a cult-favorite ("why would I invest time in ${x} when they'll probably just kill it off in a couple of years anyway..?")

Would it be better if Google launched these products subsidiaries without (obvious) links to Google?

Total Arm-Chair QB exercise, but one I feel might be interesting to get feedback on...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#435

Post by fluidcruft »

ink_13 wrote: post #97
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 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.

I have one of these and I am going to be blunt: I just can't figure out the privacy. At. All. I have kids (and their many friends) running through the house using TVs and streaming etc and I don't want them browsing through my YouTube viewing history or filling it up with their dumb kid shows nor accessing things I don't think are appropriate at random times.

But for whatever reason when I plug in the 4K with Google it's the annoying nagbot that refuses to do anything unless I'm logged in (not to mention my password is not exactly easy to type using the remote) and then it drags in my whole YouTube history and the device is useless and nags you to hell when not logged in.

It's so much easier and less insane to just use Roku. I can throw YouTube videos at the Roku without being logged in and the device works just fine. Google seems to be constantly changing things and I have no interest in playing wack-a-mole with whatever thing they decide to change this week.

Roku's just work and they rarely change. That trust just does not exist with Google's products.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#436

Post by leokennis »

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…

As a brand I’m of the opinion that “Chromecast” was a huge success. All non technical people I know basically call any stick/dongle and even devices like an Apple TV a “Chromecast”. For them, if you watch anything that isn’t linear cable TV (so: YouTube, Netflix etc.) on your TV you’re “casting”. And for a while Chromecast was fantastic because it turned any dumb TV into a smart TV.

Now that every TV has apps and even the older people watch more streaming than cable TV, sure, it is a good moment to say goodbye to the mental image of what Chromecast was. But if you measure success in tech by how many people outside of the “HN crowd” are familiar with a thing, Chromecast is right up there with something like Dropbox.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#437

Post by pydry »

arghwhat wrote: post #61
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 for streaming a video feed from a device. This is horrible for battery life, AV sync and cannot deal with things like HDR content and remote input. Cast and Airplay makes the device itself fetch and play content, with local control and importantly much better display and video manage. (AirPlay and Cast both support screen sharing, but that is not the main use case.)

The practical upshot is the same. Whether I get my TV to play a youtube video or play it on my phone and cast, it still plays, at least with wifi 6 (earlier versions were flaky).

I also DGAF about battery life. If im watching TV, I have power nearby and im not moving anywhere. Id be charging my phone anyway.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#439

Post by stiltzkin »

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.

I have a Shield Pro, Onn and a Chromecast. All have Projectivity Launcher. Good bye Google ads.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#440

Post by ncr100 »

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…

Streamer is 3x more expensive vs Chromecast.

- $30 HD Chromecast https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entert...

- $99 ("just") Streamer https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer

Post reply on HN