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

571–580 of 609 posts

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#571

Post by ssl-3 »

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 have had a few generations of Chromecast, including the OG from ten years ago.

The latest one in my bunch has a remote and menus and stuff, and is what I presume y'all are talking about. I've seen it referred to as CCWGTV.

"Privacy" seems easy-enough and is not so dissimilar to "privacy" on any other shared computer: Just set up profiles. One for you, one or more for kids, one for guests, or whatever makes sense.

For your own profile, set a PIN. (The included d-pad remote makes PIN entry easy-enough.)

Aaaand... done?

Mine also does old-school phone-driven Chromecast stuff just fine with zero profiles logged in -- while it is just sitting there at the profile-select screen. In this mode, it accepts Youtube and Spotify and whatever else I throw at it.

---

Am I doing something wrong?

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#572

Post by ssl-3 »

softfalcon wrote: post #246
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure. Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple TV? Yes.

Google TV did win, didn't it? "Modern" Chromecasts (the ones that include a remote and which have a local UI) have Google TV, and are sold as such.

https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv

(If not, then: What am I missing?)

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#573

Post by RankingMember »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #473
eric-hu wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google cannot make a profit from them *enough profit Remember that Google has sunset many products because those profits pale in comparison to search and advertising.

Sure, but I do not see how that improves by focusing on the “premium” hardware. Unless the box is actually cheaper, I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit. People just want to watch Netflix or Disney with minimum friction. A box that is twice the price of the competition, with questionably useful AI features does no…

> I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit.

This is a problem for the next exec after the one behind this has happily parachuted to his next position before the chickens come home to roost on things like "long-term costs" and "fit with the overarching corporate strategy".

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#574

Post by vladvasiliu »

mmaniac wrote: post #539
vladvasiliu wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you using it as a "smart" tv?

In my case, I did connect it once to the internet, to see what's up, and since it had prime video which is pretty much the only thing I watch, it could have allowed me to not have a different box and cables laying around.

And, indeed, it started showing ads on the homepage and the UI was pretty laggy, even compared to my several-year-old firetv. Fortunately, I was able to do a full factory reset and it forgot everything.

Now I only use the software to switch to an HDMI input which doesn't handle the control bits, like a PC, and to increase the brightness in case I'm watching at noon and don't want to close the blinds. 90% of the time, though, I don't even know it exists, since I only use my set top box' remote to do everything I need (change channels and volume, turn on and off). The other 10% it works well enough that I can't really complain.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#575

Post by ssl-3 »

sahruum9 wrote: post #561
ianburrell wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if you aren't logged in to that app on the Google TV, you aren't allowed to cast. It's incredibly annoying.

Really?

Just to try, I just logged out of my Google Chromecast with Google TV (yes folks, it may time to rebrand...), and started playing a stream from Spotify using my phone.

And now I'm listening to Spotify.

I did this with both Google Cast and Spotify Connect (Spotify, at least on Android, allows selection of this).

No issues.

Am I not holding it right? It sure has the appearance of working correctly, but we may not be observing the same things.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#576

Post by icar »

Honestly I'm pretty happy with a 2010 iMac with LibreElec and no streaming subscriptions payed. I keep dodging bullets, like this one. What I miss and I might get to write myself is a plug-in for Kodi to act as a Chromecast.

On the other side, Chromecast is something that's been essential in my family's home for years, so it's worrisome what alternatives my, for example, mother will have.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#577

Post by RedCardRef »

OOPMan wrote: post #570
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 Google TV on my Sony TV and found that I was able to disable the ads and crap. There was a setting to toggle. They tried to make it unattractive by saying I wouldn't be able to use the Google Assistant feature but this just seemed like a win for me. I don't need my TV to be fancy, it just needs to accept signal from my consoles and HTPC. I do kinda miss seeing all the suggested dogshit movies sometimes tho XD

Do you mind sharing the guide? I am already on the "Apps Only Mode", but I still get the full banner ads on the home screen.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#578

Post by dusted »

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

The worst thing about modern TVs are all their smart shit. I just want a monitor, no speakers, no nothing, just HDMI input and a large, good image, it's what it should do. Sound should come from the stereo system. Input should come from input devices, such as chromecast and gaming consoles.

I hate this future.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#579

Post by dolmen »

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 major difference is between a device powered by the TV vs an always on device.

Targeted use vs constant home inhabitants monitoring.

Re: Moments in Chromecast's history

#580

Post by lxgr »

ajross wrote: post #384
complaintdept wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I travel quite a bit and I've never encountered one. Never even seen one at all. I've heard of Chromecast because I go on tech sites, but they're suspiciously absent in my bubble of reality. I'm an Android and Linux user too.

The protocol is baked into almost every TV sold now. Have you seriously never even tried it? Never wondered what that rectangle icon was in youtube videos on your phone, etc...?

At least Samsung and LG don't include them, and these seem to be the most popular brands in Europe as far as I can tell.

They both support AirPlay these days, I've never been able to use Google Cast natively with a TV here, which is a shame for my use cases (Netflix doesn't support it, and I generally don't like to have my phone connected to the TV via Wi-Fi for the entire duration of a movie).

Edit: Turns out LG is currently in the process of adding it, and Samsung seems to have support in some models as well, but it's definitely not ubiquitous.

Post reply on HN