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

481–490 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#481

Post by torartc »

adra wrote: post #475
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. Weird thing about this is the best thing about Chromecast is it’s not an Apple TV form factor and experience and the worst thing about Apple TV is it’s not a Chromecast style stick. I just don’t see where a TV would even exist that doesn’t offer what’s in the box built in already, but I definitely know…

Every "smart" tv is definitely spying on you. Your best defense is never setting it up or buying a dumb tv I'd you can still find them. Control your data! If you're going to surrender your data willingly to apple, google then fine that's a choice, but smart TVs like modern cars have no choice.

Who even makes a good non-smart tv these days? I'm not going to limit my watching experience just to avoid a tv having apps.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#482

Post by NohatCoder »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146
ink_13 wrote: 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.

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.

That doesn't really matter, everyone know what a Chromecast is, that is worth far more than a descriptive name.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#483

Post by leptons »

nottorp wrote: post #460

I wonder how they'll fuck it up. I have one and I've never used the 'cast' feature. I only run the apps for the streaming services i watch plus VLC. Somehow I think this will be impossible in the new and improved version...

>I wonder how they'll fuck it up.

They fucked up the price at $99.

I have 5 Chromecast with Android TV around my house, I paid about $30 for each one. There's no way I'm going to buy 5 of these new devices at a $100 price.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#484

Post by farco12 »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146
ink_13 wrote: 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.

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.

It was a good brand name when it launched, but not for how it evolved.

It was a device that made it possible to cast video from your Chrome browser. When it was released in 2013 it reinforced the superior utility of Chrome which had just began to dominate browser market share.

Embedding the Google Cast protocol directly into video streaming apps and having the Chromecast brand name coexist alongside the Android TV and Google TV brand names made things confusing.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#485

Post by ajross »

ghaff wrote: post #426
ajross wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A quick Google says that 40M televisions are sold in the US every year, into a market with 130M households. So... a whole lot more often than once every decade and half.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#486

Post by sambeau »

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…

Most techie people I know have an Apple TV, most of the others have a Chromecast. I'm in the UK, I don't know if that makes a difference.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#487

Post by randunel »

firesteelrain wrote: post #446
ajross wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I had an AirPort Express back in 2004 timeframe that was precursor to Airplay that did beat Chromecast by close to 10 years with AirTunes. AirPlay came out in 2010. Then, in 2017, Apple released AirPlay 2. Chromecast first gen was in 2013. Apple actually beat Google on this one in terms of time.

How is a wireless audio technology comparable to chromecast? If it is, bluetooth audio streaming started in 1998, beating airport express by 6 years. And don't get me started on radio...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#488

Post by kps »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146
ink_13 wrote: 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.

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.

The earlier Chromecasts did run a cut down Chrome on cut down ChromeOS. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:chr...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#489

Post by israrkhan »

antonyh wrote: post #154
n4r9 wrote: post #96

What reasonably priced alternatives are there for streaming from a phone/laptop to a screen via HDMI port? Ideally a portable solution that I can use when traveling and staying in hotels or AirBnBs (as I can currently do with my Chromecast unless the hotel WiFi has an annoying sign-in process). Even more ideally, something that's free/open-source and can be guaranteed not to collect and send data to third parties.

We use a Roku, which we found out yesterday supports AirPlay from an iPad. It's an old model though, not sure if the newer ones do.

Roku supports both airplay (mac, iphone, iPad) and miracast (windows and some android devices).

Most android devices support Miracast, but Google abandoned support for miracast in their firstparty devices in order to promote their proprietary (Google cast/Chromecast) solution.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#490

Post by SauciestGNU »

bhelkey wrote: post #478
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…

With the rapid improvements in electronics, lasting a decade is quite an achievement.

I'm still running my original generation Chromecast. They were very good quality devices.
Post reply on HN