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

551–560 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#551

Post by n4r9 »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #540
n4r9 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair point, but that only covers half of my objection. Also I would not agree with "no action". My action was to decide on a different product.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#552

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel like both were hampered by the phone requirement.

I rarely was. Ultiamately I usually have some piece of tech on hand and I just wanted some way to get youtube on my dumb TV.

But I also get it. that tv casting has more or less been built into every modern smart TV (and we aren't getting many good dumb tv's these days). So focusing on something more robust instead of selling a cheap streaming stick seems inevitable.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#553

Post by brnt »

Shog9 wrote: post #376
xerox13ster wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standardized protocol already exists and it’s called DLNA which Chromecast initially cannibalized in its first release and then basically killed off every single other DLNA provider and app because they Sherlocked the feature into the Android operating system and to the Chrome browser. Now that they are at risk of being split up for their monopoly, and as they lose an Antitrust case for their search monopoly, the…

I vaguely remember DLNA... Which is to say, I remember it barely working at best and mostly just wasting a lot of time debugging configuration and network nonsense. Arguably the biggest advantage of Chromecast was just not having to deal with all that.

I use DLNA every day. It just werx. But yes, it's designed to stream local files, so no Netlix et all.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#554

Post by johnnyanmac »

rightbyte wrote: post #519
santiagobasulto wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's like comparing the PSP's un-included HDMI cable setup to the Switch's slick integration of an HDMI dock and saying "well actually Sony did the portable to TV tech first".

You plugged it in once to what used to be dumb TV's and in 2-3 presses I can have whatever was on my phone on my TV, with no fanagling with a USB to HDMI dongle into an HDMI cable, which may phone may or may not even support.

And once it was playing you didn't really have to manage the connection for Youtube; Your phone could die and it'll still play since it's ultimately not actually extracting the content from your phone's network.

> I thought it was beyond useless with its buggy and slow interface.

The older Chromecasts' didn't really have an interface once you set it up. I just casted from phone, waited 5 seconds and it was done. Honestly prefer my Ultra to the newer Google TV dongles precisely because there's no unnecesary middleman interface. My phone should and did manage all of that.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#555

Post by complaintdept »

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…

The whole thread is about Google discontinuing a physical product, not a feature baked into TV's. I've never seen the product they're discontinuing IRL.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#556

Post by mbreese »

systems wrote: post #242
mbreese wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but at that point, what does the "Chrome" part of Chromecast mean? It made much more sense when the device was tied to a browser, and then (kinda) apps on a phone. Once they added a remote, I think the writing was on the wall for the name "Chromecast". Google TV is a better "brand", IMO.

but the new brand is actually "Google TV Streamer" (3 words) why didnt they just go for "Google TV" (2 words) they also could have played a bit "Google TOP" (because its a table top device) , "Google S" (S for Streamer) , i think the 3 word "Google TV Streamer" , is function over form gone wrong

Probably because they saw what happened with Apple TV (the device), Apple TV+ (the service) and TV (the app).

That's a whole headache I think Google is (wisely) trying to avoid here...

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#557

Post by buH39Pq4Ss »

cubefox wrote: post #359
buH39Pq4Ss wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like an unnecessarily cynical take. As a Chromecast user, both the price increase and the name change make sense to me. The current generation Chromecast (Chromecast with Google TV (4K)) was fast and responsive when it launched, but software updates have made it almost unusually laggy over time. Obviously the best solution here would be “just make the software fast again”, but not all the relevant software…

I wouldn't expect much performance difference here: > Although the specifications for the MT8696 haven’t been published by MediaTek anywhere online, Amazon [which also used it in the past] says that the MT8696(T) variant of the chipset in the 2nd Gen model features a quad-core CPU clocked at up to 2.0GHz. The core design is ARM’s Cortex-A55 > The 2020 Chromecast with Google TV (4K) utilized Amlogic’s S905X3 SoC with…

I would expect thermals to be significantly better in a set top box form factor compared to a dongle. My Chromecast with Google TV is often hot to the touch, so I would expect that it spends a lot of time thermally-limited, and not operating at peak frequency. A larger heat sink could make a big difference there.

At the same time, the current generation Apple TV will absolutely smoke this thing in performance, even though the Apple TV is at the end of its refresh cycle.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#558

Post by adamomada »

hi-v-rocknroll wrote: post #541
attendant3446 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only Firestick has crap software and slow as hell.

The latest Firestick 4K Max is slow, full of ads, and locked down to where some of the more fun side-loading features don't work anymore like remote button remapping. I ditched it and got an Apple TV that doesn't force you to watch ads for Ford pickup trucks.

But Kodi is available for the fire stick while you have to jump some hoops with third party signing services to keep it on Apple TV.

It’s certainly better in other ways but this thread doesn’t follow

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#559

Post by arghwhat »

pydry wrote: post #437
arghwhat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The practical upshot is not the same in any way or form. Miracast is complete garbage for video content.

With one solution, you get good quality playback (including anti-judder from your TV), correct color handling (e.g., 10-bit, HDR, Dolby Vision, whatever), HDMI CEC volume control from the “source” device, and remote control support on the TV.

With the other, you get recompressed content at random source resolution with improper frame pacing (TV cannot so anti-judder of a re-compressed 3:2 pulldown source), poor AV sync, a color space likely crushed to 8-bit with incorrect gamma, no integration and a device that is throwing its battery out the window - even if you don’t feel like you need your battery, Miracast still has no redeeming qualities for this usecase.

Miracast is great for presentations and other scenarios that strictly need screen mirroring though.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#560

Post by shiandow »

apitman wrote: post #318
shiandow wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a protocol for casting need that UPnP/DLNA doesn't provide?

If I have an MP4 video file sitting in cloud storage somewhere, does UPnP/DLNA provide an easy way for me to use my phone to tell my TV to play that file? Also same question but for Netflix.

Netflix at least could easily provide a link. When it is on a fileshare somewhere, is that something Chromecast can handle? If so it will be essentially serving the file from your device, and I see no reason you couldn't similarly ask DLNA to stream from a server you're running locally. In fact I do very much the same thing regularly (using swyh, quite a useful tool)
Post reply on HN