Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chromecast update breaks AllCast

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 127 posts

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#61

Post by jlgreco »

BitMastro wrote: post #53
jlgreco wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because speaking in strong terms has somehow become taboo. We are neutering language.

I'm not sure if sarcasm, but I have issues with defining "EVIL" as "removing a feature to allow custom streaming". I also have issues considering falling down the stairs an "EPIC" fail, or reading companies looking for SUPERSTAR NINJA programmers, or things that are LITERALLY the worse ever happened to someone.

cygwin98 did not introduce the "evil" terminology. Google introduced the "evil" terminology.

Do you really think that the phrase, associated with Google, was intended to mean "We're not going to commit any war crimes?"

If you dislike hyperbole, that is fine, but blame the people who are actually responsible for introducing the hyperbole.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#62

Post by ChuckMcM »

I posted the register link on this story, seeing Koushik's comments it looks very much like there is an intent at work here. That intent being that the 'crown jewels' of this device is sitting between what you see and the source of that stream. I would guess that Google would consider doing what Hulu did and inject 30 second commercials into that stream. Perhaps that doesn't work if you call the streaming API directly?

A number of folks seem to make these 'linux/android to HDMI dongle' type systems, I guess we're stuck making our own version of one.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#63

Post by ihsw »

thezilch wrote: post #41
ihsw wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the future, when video playback isn't restored and Google makes a public admission that they don't intend on restoring it, would you mind if I remind you of how you were naive and foolish? When Google's next hardware product comes out, can we stop thanking them and instead point out how they have a history of releasing products that give users no control over what runs on them? Google has far more technical expert…

Entitled much? What obligations does Google have here, exactly?

I don't feel entitled to anything, I just take a perverse amount of pleasure in pointing out how much shit people are full of.

I'm just trying to encourage some honesty from an intellectual perspective -- why confuse ourselves when the outcome will be no different than the last? Why do we willfully continue to lock ourselves into an ecosystem, be it Google, Facebook, or Apple?

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#64

Post by abraininavat »

munificent wrote: post #48
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches ! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please , just check out…

This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

This is your friendly reminder that jlgreco's is not a deductive argument and that most of the logic we base our everyday decisions on would be called logical fallacies. It's time for a Fallacy Fallacy, I think.

This is also your friendly reminder that jlgreco wasn't even employing "slippery slope" logic. He wasn't arguing that employing a cost comparison will lead inevitably to employing further cost comparisons. He simply pointed out that one cherry-picks the level that best makes one's argument.

This is your friendly reminder that your post makes no sense.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#65

Post by slg »

foobarqux wrote: post #57
tylerkahn wrote: post #11

https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes > Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be support…

The point isn't about functionality changing as much as how "open" the functionality is going to be. The author posted code that suggests that the ability to stream arbitrary content has been intentionally disabled. https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG...

Looking at the actual code, it looks a lot like a random hack thrown into beta code to disable a feature that isn't ready for use yet. It doesn't look like those 3 lines of code are a long term solution to anything. It is hard to attribute a motive to code, but I don't think the motive of that snippet is less openness.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#66

Post by mhurron »

jonknee wrote: post #55
jlgreco wrote: post #13

If I were somebody with a Chromebook that still had ChromeOS installed, I would be very very concerned right now. If you don't control your device's software updates, then the device is not yours. It is as simple as that.

We've had a long time to prove the disaster that is users controlling updates. The majority of people are far and away better off having automatic updates. It's also one of the big selling points of the devices though so I don't think it should catch anyone by surprise. You're free to install another OS on your device though (which is a good sign the device is yours).

Automatic patches of vulnerabilities is good. Automatic removal of features is not.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#68

Post by jlgreco »

munificent wrote: post #48
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches ! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please , just check out…

This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.

I am not making a slippery slope argument. Comparisons between the shuttle program and the national debt are real, not some absurd hypothetical I've dreamed up that I think exists down some sort of slope with poor traction.

The point I am making is that price comparisons between unlike things are worthless.

If you prefer, here is an entire HN discussion on the problem of price comparisons between unlike things: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4393817

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#69

Post by hershel »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #27
tylerkahn wrote: post #11

https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes > Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be support…

Exactly. I think we're a long way from malice here, or even incompetence. That the ChromeCast has an SDK at all at this stage seems like a pleasant surprise; I feel certain the API will become more stable over time. If this were truly intended to be a closed device, unavailable for use except by specific media partners, why would there be a public SDK at all? In the absence of a statement from Google that the ChromeC…

>> I think we're a long way from malice here

If you think about why did google enable local content streaming(but with bad/no sound - how hard is for google to get the bloody sound working before an important launch?) and whitelisting and used hdcp(secure content) on this device , google's strategy becomes clear:

They want to frighten content owners into submission. Let the content owners know that if they won't support chromecast , google will open it, and content companies will suffer.

On the other hand ,if content owners play ball, google will provide highly secure platform(and i wouldn't be surprised if tab casting will turned off - it's currently labeled experimental). This is the preferred road for Google, since there's more money that way.

In light of this potential strategy , there's probably malice in the last changes.

Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast

#70

Post by jlgreco »

abraininavat wrote: post #67
jlgreco wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because speaking in strong terms has somehow become taboo. We are neutering language.

We're "neutering language"? Hyperbolize much?

I was hoping somebody would say that. That is exactly my point.

With Godwin's Law the standard argument is that hyperbole somehow diminishes the plight of those that suffered, but that argument really does not encompass the full breadth of the War On Hyperbole.

Here, for example, I've made an exaggeration with a comparison to sterilizing pets. Is the concern that I am diminishing the plight of pets and their reproductive lives? No, I don't think so, that would be silly. Rather, the objection is to the rhetorical device itself, not merely to the tasteless application of it.

(I suspect I've just been 'wooshed')

Post reply on HN