Yesterday Google announced a product called ChromeCast — a $35 HDMI dongle that’s essentially YouTube’s answer to Apple TV. While the event was more Googlish than Applesque (the venue was too small, the screens were too small, the presenters weren’t polished, and as a result the laughs and applause didn’t come) the product itself was astonishing — or appeared to be.
The press today picked-up on the most obvious headline item in the announcement — the $35 selling price which drops to $11 if you factor in three months of free Netflix per dongle even for existing Netflix customers. That’s Google attaching an $8 bill to every ChromeCast — something Apple would never do.
But the press — even the so-called technical press — seemed to miss some attributes of the product that were right up there in the “then a miracle happens” category. Let me list what stood out for me:
- It works with all HDMI-equipped TVs.
- It can turn the TV on with a command from your WiFi-attached phone or tablet.
- It can change the HDMI input on your TV.
I don’t doubt that ChromeCast can do number one. Though HDMI varies from TV to TV there is a base feature set required to even put the HDMI sticker on the set so this one makes sense to me. It’s the combination of 1 with 2 and/or 3 that had me scratching my head.
Very few TVs accept remote control commands through HDMI and even those that do aren’t compatible with each other, so turning on the TV or changing the HDMI input as shown were unlikely to work exactly as portrayed across a broad sample of TVs.
So what can this thing actually do?
This morning I asked around and found a couple folks in the consumer electronics space who either knew about the product directly (one guy) or knew the product space even more intimately (another guy). Here’s what they agreed on: in order for ChromeCast to work with all HDMI-equipped TVs and do what Google demonstrated, the TV had to be already turned on with the display asleep and the ChromeCast had to be the only HDMI device powered-up or (more likely) the only HDMI device attached to the TV.
In other words, while the product is still important and ground-breaking in many ways, at least some of the more exciting features appear to have been… demoware.
Most HDMI-equipped TVs that have a sleep mode will come to life if they detect a signal on any HDMI port. So the ChromeCast isn’t likely to have actually turned on the TV as much as turned on the display.
Some (notice not most) HDMI-equipped TVs will switch the active input to, well, the input that is active. But this depends to some extent on the behavior of the other HDMI inputs and devices. The Cringely Boys have a newish 60-inch LED TV from Sharp with four HDMI inputs assigned variously to a satellite receiver (we live on a mountain remember), an xBox, a Roku and an Apple TV (sharing a smart HDMI splitter), and a PC. On this TV at least, with all of those devices attached and in their various sleep modes, I don’t think just using the remote to bring a single device to life (hitting the Apple TV menu button, for example) would actually switch the active HDMI input. At least it doesn’t for me, and this Sharp is a pretty representative higher-end TV.
So ChromeCast is amazing, especially for its price point. It’s the functional equivalent of an Apple TV for a lot less money. If Google can come up with an equally radical content strategy this could be a game-changer for television (more on that in a future column), but looking closer the product simply isn’t as cool as Google presented it to be.
That makes no sense to me. They could have been more honest about the features while improving the venue and the crowd to build buzz and get people watching the event later online. We could all be excited about the actual product — thanks to showmanship — not the ideal of the product.
Or maybe I’m the one who’s full of shit and Google has created a miracle.
Wow, first comment.
Anyhow for $35 I’ll probably get one just cause its so cheap. Already have a appletv. will proably use the apple tv more since my apple server has all my content on it.
I returned my Apple TV and got an App called iMediashare it’s an amazing product! So much so that I actually spent $5. and bought the full App! If this is the future of TV then the cable Comapnies better watch out!!
That is the worst reason to buy something, in my opinion. We have only so much money available in high tech for R&D, and Google has put some unknown fortune into a device that will end up in the bargain bin of Big Al’s Bargain Barn and Overstock WhereHouse. What will this do for my HDMI equipped tv? Nothing. Because there’s no reason for me to buy it. Three months of free NETFLIX isn’t reason enough to switch from Internet vid and movies on my computer to seeing it on an LCD screen that is exactly the same size and has the same audio hook up as the Winblows machine…
.. sure it is, for those of us who won’t watch tiny screened devices. Resolution in pixels isn’t the only factor.
I thought he meant literally “same size” like he uses the same display for his TV as he does for the computer. Your interpretation may be better since mine is unlikely. But then he doesn’t grasp the difference between “lean forward” and “lean back” experiences.
Bob, given histories, I don’t think it’s you who is full of anything. That said, I probably will buy a ChromeCast if for no other reason but to get the three free months of Netflix 🙂
So…… net price of $11 isn’t enough of a miracle? You HAVE to accuse them of puffery? How about avoiding having what could become one of the most universally accepted types of Consumer Electronics devices predominantly dominated by upstart companies in mainland China? Would that soften the blow to the Apple TV ego?
HDMI-CEC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC
I know I can (somewhat) control my PS3 with my TV remote – and I can turn on my PS3 and my TV will turn on and switch to the PS3 HDMI input…
CEC is exactly how it is done and is a standard present in many TVs for years. It should be noted that CEC requires the TV standby to be at a slightly higher power level. On some TVs (mine for example) CEC is turned off by default, and requires going into the TV menus and changing a poorly named option to on.
Yep, my Chromecast does all three things Bob listed. It’s a brand new LG TV, but only cost $500 so it’s not like this feature is restricted to only a handful of high-end sets.
Bob, I have an LG media player that is attached to my Sony TV
and it does these things. It turns on the TV (if the TV’s been sleeping
rather than turned off, I don’t know, but in that case the only way
I know to turn it off is to unplug it) and it will change the input to itself
when turned on. There is also an xbox hooked up to it, though that
is rarely on when the LG is turned on.
Not sure if that’s contridicting your information or not but that’s how
I read it.
Despicable Me Too device, nothing new here
Their is a standard in HDMI called EDID. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_display_identification_data
The device can get video information, timing and resolution, automatically from the TV over the HDMI connector. It is a standard data format on top of I2C bus, for the more technical readers.
CEC is optional for the TV maker, so mileage may vary.
For the majority of us who don’t live in AppleLand, this is it. Cast from the cloud and my browser (hopefully firefox will catch the fever). Let’s hope the Android developers will bring many more products that can be Chromecast.
Bob, it’s called HDMI-CEC. Different vendors call it by different marketing names. My Yamaha receiver calls it “REGZA Link.” My LG TV calls it “SIMPLINK.” You do have to dig into a menu to enable the feature on both of them. But once you do, it’s at least mostly compatible between device manufacturers.
I’ve got a Chromecast, and yes, at least on my TV, it turns it on and switches inputs exactly as shown in the demo. Very slick.
So Google is a little awkward with their demos. That’s not surprising since they are more technology than marketing oriented. They probably over thought the ideas they came up with while they were overthinking the demo….
I don’t think most people will care about the HDMI switching. I’m used to doing that with my remotes so even if it did it for me, that might suck because I’d just have to switch away from it.
Now, I didn’t see the demo so I’m unsure exactly what they landed on as being the cool features.
But from what it looks like, it’s Airplay for $35. And works with Chrome browsers, so perhaps, maybe, maybe, it’ll be dead simple to get web browser based video streamed directly to a TV (Hulu rather than requiring a Hulu Plus subscription).
And it’s dirt cheap. So, assuming it’s not totally crippled by the No Fun Police (it *has* been confirmed it’ll stream a local file from your PC/laptop directly to it – hello MKV files! Goodbye Handbrake) it’s totally worth throwing a few bucks at it.
“Works with iOS” is a bit of a stretch. They will release a SDK that app developers can integrate in their apps to add Chromecast compatibility, but it won’t be a universal system-level, works-with-all-apps solution like Airplay or Bluetooth A2DP.
When I heard about the demo I assumed it was something like:
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2117
Now that I’ve heard details of what was actually demo’ed, I guess it is something different.
Read this today on the BBC site. Thing that struck me was the stated difference between Apple TV and ChromeCast. If it’s correct then ChromeCast streams direct from the Internet via wi-fi while Apple TV can simply stream an already present local file to the TV, again via wi-fi.
If you live in a poor broadband area (or on a mountain!?!) then the Apple TV looks a better option. If you have good, fast and cheap BB then ChromeCast could be great. A tiny dongle that doesn’t appear to need a power brick (??) and no space under of over the TV to place a box.
Intriguing stuff and I wonder if ChromeCast might also be a way of converting an “old” non-smart-TV into an Internet connected one?
What I don’t like about the Apple TV is that it’s so locked down. You can’t easily stream any file you want to the device; or at least I’ve not found an easy way. Yes, I do believe that V1 and V2 can be hacked, but I like to keep these devices as they are.
I also believe that you can install software on to a Raspberry Pi to allow streaming to your display.
Local Content: Wired dropped a file unto a chrome browser tab and it play well on the TV.
https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/07/one-night-with-chromecast/
This is called CEC, consumer electronics control, and has been around for years now. Many TVs do support it fully. Even bargain basement BestBuy TVs can use it. It allows the device to communicate with the TV and send an “Active Source” command that will A: Power on the TV B: Set it to the correct HDMI source. It isn’t automatic, and does require the HDMI source to communicate with the end device. It is supported on the Raspberry Pi using the libcec library and associated tools.
I have been working on a project that requires the Pi to turn a TV on and off, as well as ensure the TV is on the correct input. We found that CEC works on most TVs currently, even with other devices connected. Some intermediate devices (video switches, audio amps, etc), can even be controlled with this, so that all of the equipment will switch to the correct inputs so that the unit is active on the display and audio.
I’ll let you know, Bob, because the minute the live show stopped I went to the Play store and bought two – and I may have been one of the first orders because it initially showed out of stock until I refreshed. I just got my shipping notice and it’s arriving Monday.
I got two because I will have one on the main set and one spare for hacking!
According to engadget, Google has now discontinued the Netflix promotion.
I would think that if you ordered one yesterday (as I did), you should still be able to get the offer though.
The Chromecast dongle does require power. It can either be powered by a USB cable, or an included power brick.
Non-geeks are going to be mostly baffled by this device, which is not surprising since it’s coming from Google. It’s yet another thing that takes up an HDMI port, and it doesn’t actually do anything on its own. All the other streaming video boxes come with their own interfaces and their own remote controls so that they’re stand alone, and even then their adoption hasn’t been very high. Tell the average non-geek “Well, you have to use your computer or phone to do anything with this” and they’ll reply “but I just want to watch stuff on TV, I don’t want to have to fiddle with my computer or phone first.” This is the same problem that held back adoption of the first generation Apple TV, and it didn’t really start gaining consumer interest until the second generation model became more of an untethered, stand-alone device.
Amusingly, the perfect market for Chromecast is the set of geeks who already have an HDMI cable connecting a computer to their TV. But then they already have most of what Chromecast can do. Plus they have the advantage of being able to mirror a full computer screen rather than just a browser window, and there’s no lag due to WiFi.
Right now if you want to legally access your cable TV programming on a PC, Microsoft’s Media Center is the only software tool that has been blessed by all the digital rights gods. Unfortunately Microsoft’s after market has vanished and they don’t support satellite services, yet. There’s is the only game in town and it is about a 25% complete solution.
….
The rumor on the street is Google is developing its own technology and getting it bless by the digital rights gods. If this happens then this device and future products from Google could be more significant. Right now Netflix is easy. They have and manage their own digital rights technology. If Google does it right they will be able to support other forms of protected programming. That would be a very good thing for the consumer.
I wouldn’t call this the equivalent of Apple TV. It has no remote for starters. Still, at $35 (sorry, no more Netflix available) it’s a great deal. I still find a lot of conflicting reports about how it does certain things. For starters, does it have to be plugged in to USB for power, or no? I’ve read reports going both ways. All the promo material from Google does not show USB connected though.
It must have a power source…USB plug or AC.
At $35 this is a no-brainer for folks who are glued to their smartphones 24/7. It integrates well into their current lifestyles. However for the rest of us, it seems pretty useless.
Wait until your parents are in their late 70’s or 80’s; and find it difficult to operate the TV. You’ll get calls like — “I was watching a movie and now I can’t watch TV.” Translation — TV is connected the DVD player and its input needs to be switched to the cable TV tuner. It isn’t obvious how to use the cable tv remote to reset the TV.
…
My mom lives 800 miles away. It would be SOOOO nice if I could get on the Internet and switch my mom’s TV to cable TV mode. My late mother-in-law lived only a few miles away. There were many times I drove to over to her house to help her with her TV. It would be nice if this could be done remotely.
…
The bottom line is most TV setups are not intuitive. Most of the people who read this column are tech savvy. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of those who are not tech savvy. There is much that can be done. If people like Google (and Roku, and others) will give us better tools and assert some leadership in the industry — it would help.
@John:
I understand your point, for I have been giving tech support to extended family members for many years. But I am not sure how the Chromecast, by itself, will be of help.
As far as I can tell, Chromecast does not provide a general interface for controlling the TV remotely. As has been discussed in this thread, it does automatically switch the TV’s HDMI input to the one that it is connected to, but that doesn’t solve the general problem of providing remote control. In fact it’s not clear that smartphones that are not connected to the local network can even access a Chromecast.
BTW, my solution to helping extended family members was to write down extremely detailed instructions for how to perform common tasks, such as “How to Watch the TV”, “How to Watch a DVD”, etc. Then when someone calls me for help, I can usually refer them to one of those sheets.
And at home I almost completely solved this problem by switching to a Harmony One remote. My non-techie wife loves it, and recommends it to her friends.
Meh. For 50 bucks you can get a Roku that does so much more. This thing still requires a power sucking alien (not every TV has a USB port, in fact there are MANY that don’t), and not every TV has CEC (I have 2 Vizios bought at the local Costco and none of them have CEC or USB either. Sure the Roku is a little bigger, but at least I have OPTIONS (Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc.).
If you think you’re going to carry this into a hotel and make it work on their shitty throttled Wi-Fi you haven’t stayed in a hotel lately.
The only vaguely interesting thing is being able to use Chrome to view video on your TV. But even that comes with a lot of limitations from what I’m seeing. Most Canon cameras shoot video in MOV format for instance, doesn’t work.
And as mentioned does nothing for your ‘local’ viewing capabilities.
If Google really wanted to kick the shit out of cable they’d have gone around and signed deals to rebroadcast every over-the-air channel in the country on top of having the ability to stream multiple internet properties, and then they’d have something. I’m non-plused about broadcast companies thinking they own their content from such deals other than geographically limiting them since their capabilities of over the air broadcast were (and still are in some cases) heavily subsidized by you and I as taxpayers.
For me this is defiantly a ‘don’t buy’ in current form, regardless of the price.
Oh, I disagree.
…
After the first TV, it costs me $10-20 a month to get HD programming to each additional TV. My first inclination was to get mad at my cable TV (or satellite or uverse or …) provider. When you look at the cost of the equipment they are putting in your house, it isn’t cheap. That $10 a month isn’t that unreasonable.
…
If a $35 gizmo from Google (or a $50 Roku box) can be used to do the same thing as a $200-350 device, then that is good for the everyone.
…
While I don’t see myself controlling my TV with my smart phone, being able to do so tells me something important. Google is building the interfaces needed to open up their device to many applications. Roku can do the same. It can be argued they haven’t done much in this area. Maybe with a little prodding from Google, Roku will be more open to new uses for their device.
…
What we have here is the beginning of a new round of competition. Google has fired the first shot. Roku, Apple, Microsoft, and others can and should step up to the challenge. The more firms we have competing to improve TV entertainment, the better.
The thing that convinces me to buy a ChromeCast is Youtube access.
I have a Roku and love it for most things, but not being able to view Youtube videos is a real bummer. I understand that there was a hack some time ago to stream Youtube on the Roku, but that has been ‘fixed’.
Next is the ability to search / etc.. for video content using a browser and then show it on the ChromeCast. The search functions added to Roku are pretty good, but I find that the video browsing available in Netflix (for example) when using a PC with a browser is superior to browsing Netflix directly on the Roku. Because of this I often browse for videos using my PC and then add them to my watchlist before switching to the TV and Roku to watch later.
If I can get other video streaming to work (HuluPlus), Ustream, etc… without problems, Roku may be the big loser for me.
Dear Google,
…
Send Bob a thank you note. You may want to send him a thank you check too. Amazon is now out of stock and are putting orders on a waiting list. I suspect sales soared in the hours after Bob posted his column.
…
You may want to take a close look at these comments. There are many good ideas. There are many business opportunities for a product like yours.
…
One of the things that allowed the PC industry to take off so fast was the willingness of the early pioneers in the industry to listen to their customers. That skill has been lost in the last several years. I am sure that if Google could find a way to listen to the market on a personal level you will learn so much. It will lead you to many wonderful opportunities.
ChromeCast is based on the DIAL protocol developed by Netflix, possibly in partnership with Google via YouTube.
https://sites.google.com/a/dial-multiscreen.org/dial/
My local Best Buy still had them in the store today. Bought one. Redeemed the $23.97 Netflix credit. Including tax, it was $13.84 for the total cost of ownership. It streams my desired YouTube, Netflix and Google Chrome browser window content from my iPad without a problem. It’s not as good as an AppleTV, but $13.84 total cost of ownership is the most compelling “technology” I’ve seen in anything in years….
After viewing the Cnet talk, it’s evident that this dongle doesn’t stream or “b-cast” content from your device. If it did you could unplug your Wi-Fi router from it’s internet source and you could still view files stored on your device, using the Wi-Fi router as a means of connection between your iPad and the dongle. Instead it’s really just half of a remote control, the other half being your iPad or phone. It is being told the IP address or URL for the content you selected and then streams it over your Internet connection. A “smart TV’ should be able to do the same thing as long as it had an internet connection (whether Ethernet or Wi-Fi). The only reason we have to deal with so many dedicated boxes/dongles with separate remotes from the one that came with the TV or cable box for Internet content is the need for “content deals”. This is where our government should step in in the Public Interest and simply say that all internet connected devices should be allowed to access any website (url) so long as that device has been authorized by evidence of payment for the content. If that were the case any Wi-Fi or Ethernet jack on any device (TV, DVD Player, Cable Box) would suffice for any and all Internet content.
And it only displays Chrome browser windows from my PC, not the iPad, correction to that too. My real point is that for what it does the price is pretty unprecedented….
Yes. It’s the cheapest version of a url streamer adapter so far. My point is that all such devices depend on content deals. For example, let’s say you normally select your cable TV programs from among a dozen channels and there were no cable boxes authorized to receive all 12. Instead, you would have to go to each of the 12 channels to buy their cable box and pay for 12 separate subscriptions to authorize all the boxes. This is where we are headed with device-specific content deals. (By the way, my other point was that it’s not streaming your PC display, it’s streaming a url from the same internet source that your PC streams it, after getting the url from your PC.)
You are wrong about it only acting as a URL streamer…
Here’s someone reporting on streaming your local files to Chromecast:
https://www.droid-life.com/2013/07/25/tip-you-can-play-local-video-files-through-chromecast/
—————
Also:
Check out the new WebRTC standard supported by Chrome, Opera and very recently Firefox ( and soon Webkit?)
Essentially it’s a browser standard for streaming video and audio ( and generic data ) between devices.
DuckDuckGo it or here’s a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2HzZkd2A40
It’s not just what I said. I merely repeated what the fellow in the YouTube link (which Bob provided above) said. But I’ll have to study the links you provided also. Still we can’t deny what was said in Bob’s original video presentation link.
JJones may be correct. The article says “We’re still playing around with the Chromecast, and will have some thoughts on it later, but we wanted to point out a feature that you may not have been aware of after watching yesterday’s demo from Google. Chromecast can play local video files from your computer to a TV. That means you aren’t stuck with YouTube or Netflix or uploading your current collection to a cloud service – you can grab files already on your computer and then stream them to a TV.” I wonder if there is any limit on the types of files and what those limits would be.
Technically it’s still just a “url streamer” where the url is that of a local network file. “file:///users//filename.mp4” and requires a chrome browser with the appropriate browser extension so you can use the feature called “cast this tab to…”. I can’t help but wonder why the browser is needed on the PC since direct media streaming has been available on PCs since Windows Vista. The dongle could say “I’m not a PC but I play one on your network.” IIRC, the problem with the original Google TV was that the content providers decided to allow internet content on a computer while blocking it from TVs, hence the failure of Google TV. Sounds like Google doesn’t want to promote that feature since, like Aereo, it’s just an end run around content restrictions.
” I can’t help but wonder why the browser is needed on the PC ”
I’m guessing it’s because of the limited format playback available on the Chromecast. The PC-based browser re-encodes the video __if necessary__ before passing it along to the Chromecast ( hence the beefy hardware requirements ).
Sites like YouTube and Netflix supply Chromecast optimized encodings played directly. Google indicates that you can support chromecast optimization on your own site.
I’ve also seen reference to chromecast being directed to play a local “unofficial” movie MKV file. MKV is just a container so the enclosed video and audio formats must’ve been appropriate for the Chromecast.
I hope the more powerful generic Android Sticks can offer this functionality. The webRTC standard gives me hope.
It’s 18 months from fruition. For now it’s useless except for the select few.
Cheap maybe. But largely useless.
It’s not completely useless. I was considering spending $99 to get another AppleTV for another room in the house just to watch Netflix and YouTube. The net $13.84 price tag was really useful to me, but I guess I’m just one of the select few.
power will be required by USB if the HDMI port does not supply it, and google is promoting hooking it to this years model which most people do not have! Still we will be supporting it with WatzOnTV.com so that our 2000 24/7 channnels can get another way to get to your TV – enjoy!
brad
I’m puzzled that so much of the technorati seem to have absolutely nothing to say about the Google-NSA surveillance complex extending its tracking to one of the few remaining screens in most people’s lives that isn’t constantly watching them, back.
I mean, I realize not everyone cares. But no one? Not ONE peep?
It’s like the entire ChromeCast launch and subsequent conversation have somehow been taking place out of synch with the rest of the world, two months in the past.
I’m just glad the Chromecast doesn’t have a camera looking back at you like on the XBox and TV’s ( like Toshiba who was called out on their license agreement related to 3rd party access to the camera ). I’m sure it will be an add-on .. but I’m never buying one where I can’t unplug/cover the camera.
Just cover the lens.
What if the camera is also used to see the IR remote? 🙂
Watch in the dark !
Really! Do I have to do ALL your thinking for you LOL!
ChromeCast 🙂 I will be buying one. I have a Roku and an Xbox 360. This would be a welcome addition. Also an Nbox, but kind of dated. Thanks for the review. “Go Google Go!” 🙂
Um, Mr Lightyear, what does a ChromeCast actually do?
I just don’t think 24/7 access to Breaking Bad and Arrested Development re-runs is worth all the gyrations.
It would be helpful to me if it encourages the cable companies to license their scrambling technology to all hardware vendors. I don’t mind paying for cable content but hate all the attached boxes each with their own limitations on recording (or program access in the case of Internet TV). All I want to be able to do is record every show I’m paying for, including HD, and be able to play it back on any TV, with FF/RW just like with a VCR from the 80s.
Amen Brother – I just want to be able to record and watch the content I’ve already paid for.
Google has had limited success breaking into the TV market (equipment, content or services) which they badly want to do. Their Smart TV offerings have had limited success. At 35$ the intention of Chromecast is to give Google a Smart TV footprint quickly where they have full control. Rather than sharing control with the Smart TV vendors by just providing android or apps.
… everyone here seems to be missing the big picture. Google gets onto your TV for $35 USD bucks (or less in 6 months when v2, v3 v4 of this device come out) and they bring GOOGLE Search to your TV set (and block out Apple in the process). No-one (normal) will have more than 1 device hooked to their TV (Me: I have a couple cause I am in the Biz and I am nor normal). Google gets a bonus if you happen to buy movies/media/games that run now/eventually onto the Chromecast device on your TV with future (Gllgle Chrome OS) s/w updates to the stick.
Just my 2 cents. //GregH
I bought a Chromecast at Best Buy on 7/26. Even though the sales associate at Best Buy assured me it was covered by the Netflix rebate, I have since determined that both Google and Best Buy will not honor it.
I have been thinking of about the original announcement on 7/23 and the withdrawn of the rebate on 7/25. I think Google announced the rebate to get press coverage from people like you Bob. Once they got that coverage they stopped the rebate.
I have filed a complaint with the Attorney General of Pennsylvania concerning there actions. Their announcement is consumer fraud similar to bait and switch.
“…Even though the sales associate at Best Buy assured me it was covered by the Netflix rebate…” It sounds like your beef is with Best Buy. Even Microsoft sells discounted digital downloads “while supplies last”, which means “until we decide to end the discount”.
So how many of you own a Nexus Q? It’s been what, less than a year since that thing came out, and months since it became literally unusable due to changes in Google Play.
Google Reader is history, after it drew many of us in to depend on it. I loved it and was happier with it than I am with the various surrogates.
We know that Google capriciously changes its mind about what it will continue to support all the time. As a relatively satisfied Gmail user, I’m seriously worried about the day it gets shut down. To buy into Google’s ecosystem is to court disappointment.
“To buy into Google’s ecosystem is to court disappointment.” Isn’t that true of just about any company these days?
Anybody know just how many ChromeCast devices have been sold? I would think 2 to 5 million would be required to justify all the hoopla so far associated with the device.
“…the tv power controls are only going to support it if the TV itself doesn’t…” I doubt if Bob said that, since it makes no sense. The TV power controls are part of the TV so how can the TV simultaneously support it and not support it?
Don’t forget that Google is partners with the NSA….
Do you really think the NSA is worried about YouTube and Netflix browsing history?
http://gizmodo.com/google-to-government-let-us-publish-national-security-512647113
Thanks for the link but your comment about Youtube and Netflix, while true, is not the issue. Google is everywhere and has access to everything even without those two operations.
Love my Chromecast.
I can see it being a “demo” to get TV manufacturers interested in building it into their sets.
e.g. “Vizio SmartTV, now with Chromecast”
The main purpose of Chromecast is to turn a TV or display into a “smart TV’ which by definition means accessing Internet content (as with Google TV). Forcing people to use a smart phone or computer as a remote is just a way to save money on the conversion from dumb to smart. In the end, it’s all about content deals. If all smart TVs were treated the same as a computer for accessing content, there would be no need for such a ridiculous workaround. Google did it right the first time with Google TV but our government failed to take action to declare that all forms of Internet access are equal by law.
I work from home and like to listen to music while I work. My fancy sound system is connected to my TV. So, I wanted a way to listen to tunes without annoying earbuds. Besides, sometimes my neighbors just NEED to hear Great White Buffalo again!!! My fancy Sony blue-ray player can stream Slacker and Pandora but sometimes I want to listen to MY music instead of letting the “cloud DJs” pick my tunes. My fancy Samsung TV allows me to plug in a USB stick but the interface was designed by a centipede–a STUPID centipede!
So, I tossed $35 over the Amazon wall and plugged the Chromecast dongle into my TV. Now I can use my tablet or cell phone to stream my tunes from Google Music on the cloud. Very nice!
Here is my big gripe with Chromecast . . . it will not play a song that is locally stored on your device EVEN IF THAT SAME SONG IS ON ITS CLOUD! That is VERY annoying! I am a trout fisherman and sometimes I’m on the stream for an entire day. Often I’m in the mountains where the signal is spotty. Even if I had a steady signal I don’t want to waste battery life so I turn off all my radios and plug in the old-fashioned 3.5mm headset. If I remove all my tunes from the local device I’d have nothing to listen to.
I understand that their device does not stream from my phone to the Chromecast device but, if the song is ALSO on the cloud, just stream that one! FIX THIS GOOGLE!