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

531–540 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#531

Post by brewdad »

buu700 wrote: post #413
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…

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. Ha…

For the right user, the Chromecast is the perfect device. Trouble is, for multi-user households or other users that don't fit the perfect mold its flaws quickly become apparent. Hopefully this device can fix most of the flaws while still providing that easy way of getting video from my device to my TV screen without logins and apps or anything getting in the way. I don't use "casting" often but there are times when it is by far the easiest way to view content.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#532

Post by murphyslab »

> With this, there are no changes to our support policy for existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security updates to the latest devices.

"no changes to our support policy" links to https://safety.google/nest/

It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#533

Post by kentonv »

ianburrell wrote: post #512
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.

> They aren't getting rid of the Chromecast streaming.

I understand that, but the new Chromecast devices and presumably the devices replacing them require you to log into the device before you can even use it as a Chromecast stream destination, and then when the video is done instead of going back to nice photos they try to shove algorithmic recommendations in your face. I want the old Chromecast back.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#534

Post by philistine »

torartc wrote: post #481
adra wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one. No one is making a good non-smart TV. The shitty TVs have smarts in them to subsidize the price by spying on you, and the expensive TVs are not going to compete with less features, right? Oh, and why not make more money by spying on you as well?

If you want a modern TV with correct colours, HDR, and useful inputs, you have to stop yourself from connecting a smart TV to the internet. There's just no other way. Roku's OS is absolutely usable without ever configuring it for internet access, and my particular brand of choice, TCL, offers an option to update the OS with a USB stick.

I use my TV with an AV receiver, and HDMI-CEC switching means the TV remote is literally hidden away. The TV has no say in what's happening to it at all.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#535

Post by wkat4242 »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #492
copperroof wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This drives me nuts. When I first got the original fire tv it was fast and had no ads. I could easily recommend it. Now it’s stuffed to the brim with ads and is incredibly slow. When this one dies I’ll likely not buy a hardware device from Amazon ever again.

At least on a Roku you can block the ads with a PiHole

Yeah sadly this doesn't work on a Fire TV Stick. It ignores DHCP and uses its own DNS resolver. Probably DoH or something, I didn't dig that deep into it.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#536

Post by matsemann »

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…

Exactly! For the Chromecast at our cabin, the fact that people cast from their own phone is a feature. No shared logins between families staying there, no need to log in and out from some additional device.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#537

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

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.

I have a QN90A that operates as a "dumb" panel via a HDMI-CEC through a combination of receiver and Apple TV 4K. Rarely/never need the TV remote and there's zero point to giving the TV internet access. The receiver has internet access so it can play Tidal.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#538

Post by TheKarateKid »

cubefox wrote: post #402
paxys wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"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.

You could say the same about "Chromebooks" -- but that doesn't matter anymore. Thanks to Chromebooks dominating schools and Google's general ubiquity, almost everyone knows what Chrome is if you've used a computer in the past decade.

The only market who wouldn't know is the same crowd that would never use a smart TV anyway.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#539

Post by mmaniac »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #176
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!

I love my TCL tv. It’s not “dumb” since it’s actually a “google tv” , but if you don’t connect it to the internet, you don’t have to deal with that. It only shows a notification when turned saying it has no internet, but it goes away on its own after a few seconds. When I turn it on, it will automatically select the previous input, so I don’t have to interact with the “smart welcome screen” or whatever it’s called. I…

Funny... My TCL TV (75C745K) has been nothing but headaches. Extremely buggy and often needs to be rebooted.

Great panel but the software stinks.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#540

Post by hi-v-rocknroll »

n4r9 wrote: post #235
walthamstow wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't connect your TV to the internet, ever, not even once, it will function as a dumb panel.

Call me paranoid, but I just don't trust it not to look for nearby unsecured wifi networks. Ontop of which I feel dirty and complicit by paying for functionality that I will never use and believe is detrimental to society.

Find the Wi-Fi antenna and remove it if you are so worried. Unfounded fears without action is merely handwringing, while unactionable fears aren't worth worrying about.
Post reply on HN