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

511–520 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#511

Post by babypuncher »

delecti wrote: post #122
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!

Most "smart" TVs work perfectly fine as a dumb panel if you just don't give them internet access. And because they're sold expecting to get a bit of money back on ads, it's generally cheaper than a truly dumb panel of the same quality. I've got a Samsung QN90B and it has never once complained about not having internet access, and the UI is plenty responsive.

You can't even get "dumb" panels of the same quality. They're all built to be used as digital signage, so they usually skip consumer-oriented features like HDR, VRR, eARC, even 4k can be rare. I'm not sure there are any OLED options.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#512

Post by ianburrell »

kentonv wrote: post #324

This makes me so sad. The old Chromecast experience -- choose media on phone, play on TV -- is all I ever wanted. I hate using a remote to browse -- my phone is much better. I hate having my TV logged into an account -- my family, kids, guests all use the same TV and I don't want them using my account, nor do I want to see their account when I'm using it. The Chromecast protocol is the only thing that the entire ecos…

They aren't getting rid of the Chromecast streaming. Google TV does both Chromecast and the Android interface.

The one difference is that Google TV runs the app for service if installed and streams with that. It is nice to use the remote when streaming instead of pulling out phone to pause or change volume.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#513

Post by bsimpson »

fluidcruft wrote: post #435
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 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…

I feel that way about casting in general.

The prompt to login whenever you cast to an arbitrary TV feels like a footgun. I don't want whatever community I'm watching with to know what the algorithm thinks I like. The distance between "annoying" and "embarrassing" is directly correlated to who is in the room to observe.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#514

Post by pphysch »

JoeCianflone wrote: post #215

Call me cynical but it’s a shell game as far as I can see: same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, more expensive so more profit per unit…except they won’t sell as many units, but on paper it will look good so the market will reward them. I can’t tell though if investors and analysts are too stupid to see it this way or maybe they don’t care either? I guess it’s better to not care because you make money so…

>same product but new name, probably cheaper parts,

The new $100 TV Streamer has 32GB of RAM. 32GB of consumer RAM alone is at least $50, and that doesn't include any of the other stuff (graphics, cpu, nic) that makes a minimally useful device.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#515

Post by kelnos »

Sigh, of course. At least this isn't quite Google's usual product shutdown; Chromecast sorta more or less will love on.

But "Google TV Streamer"? No, I don't want that. I just want a relatively dumb device that allows me to stream stuff from my other devices to my TV. Chromecast has always been that, and has always worked fairly well. I don't need or want yet another media center platform.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#516

Post by bsimpson »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #491
cubefox wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google TV Streamer" pretty exactly describes what this thing does. It's from Google, and it streams things to your TV. "Chromecast" was more puzzling. What's "Chrome"? Isn't that a browser? What does this have to do with anything? And what is "cast"? Does it broadcast something? Etc.

On the other hand, "Google TV Streamer" also describes Chromecasts and is immensely less memorable or distinctive. It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap.

Google TV was also the name of their failed settop box strategy like a dozen years ago.

I think they gave out one from Logitech (with a keyboard!) at an I/O one year.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#517

Post by kelnos »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #351
rickdeckard wrote: post #4

well, they no longer produce the "display-only" Chromecast in favor of their "Google TV" sticks with Remote etc. Not that much of a shock here, the market moved on from simple wireless display dongles. Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for general purpose use. Would be great to be able to run your own custom Receiver-device without needing a Google certificate...

> Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for general purpose use. Open Screen Protocol exists and is very similar. It works and you can use it today (via the one and only reference implementation in the Chromium source tree)! It's even pretty good & makes sense! This was kind of part of the bargain for adding Presentation API to the web back in 2014/2015. Your site can itself trigger Chromecast! I…

> Open Screen Protocol exists and is very similar.

Like any client-server protocol, it's useless if the devices and apps you use don't support it. Exactly zero of the apps I use to cast to my Chromecast supports Open Screen Protocol. And this isn't a case where I can just switch to a new client app. Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, Jellyfin, etc. would have to all support it.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#518

Post by lazycouchpotato »

pphysch wrote: post #514
JoeCianflone wrote: post #215

Call me cynical but it’s a shell game as far as I can see: same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, more expensive so more profit per unit…except they won’t sell as many units, but on paper it will look good so the market will reward them. I can’t tell though if investors and analysts are too stupid to see it this way or maybe they don’t care either? I guess it’s better to not care because you make money so…

>same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, The new $100 TV Streamer has 32GB of RAM. 32GB of consumer RAM alone is at least $50, and that doesn't include any of the other stuff (graphics, cpu, nic) that makes a minimally useful device.

There's some misunderstanding. It's 32 GB ROM, not RAM. RAM is 4 GB.

https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer_specs

Seems pricey for what it offers. Just WiFi 5 - not even WiFi 6 or 6E, let alone WiFi 7. It doesn't even come with an HDMI cable, sigh.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#519

Post by rightbyte »

santiagobasulto wrote: post #428
crazygringo wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never understood the utility. So could a 10$ HDMI cable?

I bought a Chromecast thinking it could play videos from a network drive like XBMP, but it couldn't and I thought it was beyond useless with its buggy and slow interface.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#520

Post by pphysch »

lazycouchpotato wrote: post #518
pphysch wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, The new $100 TV Streamer has 32GB of RAM. 32GB of consumer RAM alone is at least $50, and that doesn't include any of the other stuff (graphics, cpu, nic) that makes a minimally useful device.

There's some misunderstanding. It's 32 GB ROM, not RAM. RAM is 4 GB. https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer_specs Seems pricey for what it offers. Just WiFi 5 - not even WiFi 6 or 6E, let alone WiFi 7. It doesn't even come with an HDMI cable, sigh.

Gotcha, that makes more sense.
Post reply on HN