I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they then prohibit such uses of the Chromecast, then maybe you have a story, but until then -- geez.
Chromecast update breaks AllCast
81–90 of 127 posts
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#82Earlier 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…
> 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? Consumer hardware devices that Google has released so far are: Nexus {One,S,Galaxy,4,7,10,Q}, Glass, Chromebook Pixel, Chromecast. All of the Nexus devices (except for the abandoned-before-launch Q) have official support…
Past performance isn't the only indicator of future performance. What will you say when it's revealed that the Chromcast is Google's first foray into locked hardware, and that they liked how it was well-received by consumers?
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#83I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they…
Any chance you'd be willing to put the code up on GitHub so other Chromecast users can just add it locally and whitelist it?
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meaning of the "don’t be evil" motto is "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." How changing an undocumented function, that was used to circumvent an SDK that is clearly marked as beta and "could change significantly" can be classified as evil is beyond m…
Ripping functionality out from under paying customers is not something that just "bothers" people. Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means. This situation invokes to comparisons to certain companies that had rather poor reputations in the 90s. Companies the slogan was almost certainly meant to differentiate Google from. I…
I see that you prefer downvoting rather then having a discussion, so I will stop here.
Edit: Apologies, I didn't know that rule, it was obviously someone else.
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#85I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they…
Any chance you'd be willing to put the code up on GitHub so other Chromecast users can just add it locally and whitelist it?
Sure... I'll throw up a gist... not the correct way to do it, crappy sender UI, based on early code examples from Google, but it works:
https://gist.github.com/jonathansadowski/6345103
Feel free to use / copy / fork, whatever. Basically, you can send any URL to the receiver, and the receiver then loads that URL in its video element.... that URL can be local, remote, whatever... requires that you have a webserver to serve your local content.
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
We've had a long time to prove that using automatic updates to remove features is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I seem to remember a certain company using forced updates specifically to remove users' ability to install other OSes on their devices... Just because you can install another OS on your chromebook today doesn't mean you will be able to in the future. Get out now, or you are making a gamble.
> We've had a long time to prove that using automatic updates to remove features is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I seem to remember a certain company using forced updates specifically to remove users' ability to install other OSes on their devices...
They didn't remove a feature... They removed an undocumented setting for an SDK that has warnings all over the place that the API is not final and to not release an app until it is.
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But they didn't remove a feature. No where is it advertised that what the OP was doing was supported. There are plenty of warnings about how it's only an SDK preview though and that you should not release an app that uses it until the SDK is officially released.
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#88https://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…
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…
I can't think of any tech company in Google's league that matches them in terms of device openness.
The Nexus phones and tablets officially support flashing of custom ROMs.[1,2]
The Moto X will have an unlockable bootloader on carriers that allow it.[3]
Google gave a tutorial on how to root Glass (see the I/O talk "Voiding Your Warranty: Hacking Glass" [4]).
All Chromebooks have a developer mode that can be accessed using a hardware switch or key combination. See e.g. [5,6] for the Samsung ARM and Pixel Chromebooks.
Google even provides instructions for disassembling the Chromebooks ([5,6], at the bottom).
I don't think it's wise to ignore Google's history and extrapolate the future based exclusively on an SDK preview.
[EDIT: Downvoters, I would be curious to know your motivations.]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_rooting
[2] http://android-developers.blogspot.ch/2010/12/its-not-rootin...
[3] https://plus.google.com/+PunitSoni/posts/e6oQdFnLGiv
[4] https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/332704837
[5] http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-fo...
[6] http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-fo...
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#89The developer of AllCast, Koushik Dutta, gave his side in this reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1l2hez/google_block...
Copied here:
Koush here.
I've been suspicious of the Chromecast developer policies since release. From my personal interactions with their developer relations, they've been quite tight lipped about who would be receiving approval for a release to a broader audience:
"Unfortunately, at the moment our standard answer is: Thank you so much for reaching out about developing for Chromecast. It’s still early days, so we are just previewing the Google Cast SDK and hope to be sharing it in its entirety with developers soon. We look forward to seeing to releasing the public SDK later on so that mobile and web developers can start to create compelling, multi-screen experiences. We're not currently working with additional partners until we release a public SDK. We are trying to find a better answer, but we have nothing yet to announce."
Google TV (yes, Chromecast is from the GoogleTV team) has a storied history of releasing closed off products, only allowing access to select partners and media companies. I was fairly certain that Chromecast would be no different. My suspicions were confirmed today. Here's what's happened since release, for context:
Chromecast ships with whitelisting. Why go through the trouble of having a whitelist to do development? It took extra development effort to lock the platform down, and build out the whitelisting infrastructure. A walled garden was planned since inception. They intend to use that wall.
Chromecast shipped with no default media player app, or any way to play your own content. As I demonstrated, this is actually very easy to implement. The fact that it did not ship with this by default was likely calculated. They don't want you playing your own content.
Chromecast had a "GoogleCastSample" app that could be leveraged as a default media player. Many developers started using this. One week after release, GoogleCastSample was disabled.
Chromecast's tab casting also supported local content. I, and a few other developers, managed to reverse engineer the Chromecast tab protocol to piggy back this to deliver local content. This was not simply "broken" with an update. It was intentionally disabled. See code explanation here, if you want: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG...
What this all points to: The Chromecast is just a Google TV in a smaller form factor. Yet another box from your TV that delivers the same old tired array of big media apps that you can find on any other cable/tv box. I already have 5 of such boxes (2 Xbox, 2 Apple TV, 1 Roku).
I don't need another box to do this. I want a mainstream, open platform, that I can connect to my TV. That would be new. That would be different.
The motivations behind this behavior are obvious. Google needs to do this to placate media companies, who will perpetually push stringent requirements before granting access to their coveted content. This will not change until content delivery companies (Netflix, Amazon, and Google) start creating their own content. And in fact, this is starting to happen already.
Re: Chromecast update breaks AllCast
#90https://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…
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…
What is there to restore if Google never enabled it through the SDK in the first place?