A couple weeks ago when Google introduced its Chromecast HDMI dongle I wrote a column wondering whether it was really such a good product or simply good demoware? Now that I have my own Chromecast and have been playing with it for a few days I have to admit I was wrong. Chromecast appears to be every bit as good as Google claims. That’s not to say it’s perfect (more below) but pretty darned good.
What I really doubted was Google’s claim that the Chromecast could turn on your HDTV, switch the HDMI input, and throw content onto the big screen all in one seamless succession of events. It wasn’t that any of these tasks were especially difficult to do, but that to do them all on every HDTV would require more remote control capability than I knew existed in any current device.
When I got my Chromecast at first it looked like my suspicions were confirmed. Though it could switch the HDMI input, for example, it couldn’t turn on my TV, a very nice 60-inch LED model from Sharp. Close but no cigar.
Then I had one of those moments that prove I have no life: I awoke in the middle of the night with the realization that my problem was powering my Chromecast from one of the Sharp’s USB ports. When the TV is off those ports are dead so there was no way the Chromecast could know I wanted to turn on the TV.
Sure enough, once I replaced the TV USB port with a separate power supply the Chromecast was on all the time (in idle it consumes almost no power) and reliably turned on the TV and switched the input every time I threw to the TV a new episode of Merlin, the boys’ current favorite TV series.
If you have young sons, watch Merlin.
For $35, Chromecast is extraordinary technology. Right now it only supports YouTube and Netflix. Or maybe I should say right now Chromecast is only supported by YouTube and Netflix. But I see no reason why there won’t be dozens of supporting apps shortly — plenty to satisfy any viewer.
Best of all in our household, as long as your phone is around you can’t lose the TV remote control.
What’s not so good about Chromecast is its total reliance on WiFi. This makes good sense, but the video performance can only be as good as your WiFi signal and WiFi at my TV isn’t very good at all. WiFi engineers who specialize in consumer electronics have told me they really can’t rely on more than about 10 meters of range.
Of course you get far more than that, Mr. Smartypants, I’m just repeating what I’ve been told by people who design this stuff.
One thing to remember is that Chromecast in its present incarnation doesn’t actually stream video from the phone or computer controlling it. Rather the phone or computer tells Chromecast to stream the video from Netflix or YouTube. This led Cole to wonder what would happen if we turned off my phone that had initiated the stream? Nothing happened. Once started the video stream kept on streaming.
Cole was disappointed, however, that he couldn’t stream directly from his phone or computer everything on his screen, effectively using Chromecast as a second screen enabler. Cole’s not the only one who wants that capability, which I’m sure will come in time, though for the moment Google seems to have forbidden it.
At $35 the Chromecast is a wonder but at $0 it would be even better and I am pretty sure that’s where Google is heading, following the example of Android. This is one of the best implementations yet of a smart TV and I can’t believe that Google won’t license it for free to TV manufacturers. Why bother to develop your own smart TV capability when Google will do it for you for nothing?
But of course to get quick market penetration Google needs to address the installed base of HDTVs and that’s where the current Chromecast dongle comes in. I just wish it had RJ-45 Ethernet.
The only mistake I can see Google having made with Chromecast, other than the lack of Ethernet, is that HDMI logo printed on the Chromecast case. That means Google has joined the HDMI Consortium, a trade group dedicated to promoting the standard and policing its implementation.
It’s this latter job — policing the implementation — that I think will come back to bite Google on the ass. By joining the HDMI Consortium, you see, they’ve promised not to hack HDMI encryption, not to letterbox or do video overlays — the very things Google as an advertising company would naturally want to do in order to turn Chromecast into a huge money machine. With those capabilities Google could in a very practical way sell its own commercials to run with The Big Bang Theory, all without having to pay a penny to Chuck Lorre or CBS.
How un-Google-like to have signed away that right.
Could Google have found a loophole?
Why are you apologizing? Your original suspicion was 100% correct, proved by the story you tell above.
If you have to a) recognize the power limitations of your television’s USB ports and b) replace it with a separate power supply, then you were spot on. Sure, in the demo it works like a charm, but in the real world it takes a technically savvy guy to have a eureka moment, then do some actual work. That is not even close to “just working every time.”
Give yourself more credit. Your initial take is correct – this is a very nifty and economically interesting device that is nowhere near as universally easy as advertised, but will probably work well much of the time.
Mike, the thing comes with a separate power supply and tells you it isn’t recommended to plug into the TV but into the included separate power supply. If you don’t read the instructions then its your own damn fault things don’t work as advertised.
Whence cable boxes, then?
I suspect that the limitations you cited only pertain to HDMI inputs on a device. With respect to content that enters the device from other than an HDMI-in port, presumably they can letterbox, overlay, mangle, replace every head with Richard D. James, whatever can be imagined and coded up.
My experience with the Chromecast via an iPad has been good but not great. Last night I was watching “House of Cards” — I hadn’t been a Netflix customer until it came free with the Chromecast — and needed to leave the room, as nature had called. I had let the iPad go to sleep (naturally) and when it woke up, I had to fight with the Netflix app on the iPad for about five minutes, finally having to reboot the iPad in order to get the little box to display in order to choose to play on the iPad and then be able to halt the playback. (Then it didn’t remember where I was in the show and I had to skip through on the iPad and then restart the Chromecast.)
It was a great $35 but I’ll really have to think hard about renewing the Netflix account once I’ve watched all the “HoC” and “Orange is the New Black” episodes.
Oh man! Life was so much easier when we all watched regular broadcast TV.
It’s even easier with a couple old fashioned VCRs and NTSC cable channels! Still doing that.
Hmm… I draw the line at VCR, I’m afraid. We’ve got a HDD recorder and it’s a million times better than tape. You’ll be telling me you’re recording video onto wax cylinders next!
On my cable system recording digital is a bit of a kluge if you want to record more than 2 channels at once. I have several VCRs in different rooms and can easily store all the tapes in one place for future playback. I’m thinking of getting a TiVo that can record 4 channels at once but I have to rent a multistream cable card for it and add a switched digital video (sdv) tuner as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video . On top of that, the cable company hates cable cards; a few years ago I had to get one for my Sony Home Theatre PC. I had to write a formal FCC complaint and wait 6 months for them to get it working right. Even then, I can’t get the sdv channels unless I get the sdv box and replace my 8-way distribution amp with one that has a back channel. The digital channels I can get are often so blocky or troublesome that we normally stick to the ntsc cable channels on the HTPC as well.
Ronc, get the TiVo, you will not regret it! If you want to stick to standard def, get 2 of the older System 2 Dual Tuner models (eBay). Each will record a two shows from a single standard analog cable line. A single remote controls both with a flick of a switch. One you go this way, you will wonder how you ever lived without it!
@JH Do you have Time Warner Cable in California? Technology is one thing. Fighting the local cable company that likes to pretend cable cards don’t exist anymore is quite another. Even if they cooperate I still need the kluge of TiVo box plus the sdv box at each location and I need a new back channel capable 8-way amp. But you’re probably right that it may be my best option, except possibly for the complexity of satellite, which I hear works quite well. Due to the way the major networks schedule their prime time stuff, recording only 2 channels at once is not an option. Must be 3 or 4 simultaneous recordings while playing back the one I’m watching.
I struggled with the same issue when trying to find any controls to use while watching my firt Netflix cast of “House Of Cards.”
I discovered that after an hour’s worth of staggering through the instructinless setup of Cromecast, that I had no functionig controls (pause, stop, FF, rew etc.) anywhere to allow me to ontinue the play.
I heed the thoughtful help of someone here to tell me wheret hese controls are for controlling playback os a streaming cast.
Many thanks
JP
Yup, it works pretty much as advertised. That was my impression (no offense) reading other tech journalists the same time as your article (read up on CEC, etc.), and while you’re right there’s some degree of exaggeration or at least unstated collateral requirements in Chromecast’s implementation, it’s really quite good.
Unfortunately their update just broke the experimental apps people put out, which also kills some great Java-based desktop streaming, but I do hope that’s just a growing pain and not an ominous sign (yes, I grant it may be, but not presuming at this point). It is too bad; for about a day or two I could stream anything that works in VLC via the Java app (Fling or some-such is the name), which works better than via browser.
No question, though, we’ll see a lot of 3rd party adapters, it’s both too good and already too widely distributed to be ignored.
“By joining the HDMI Consortium, you see, they’ve promised not to hack HDMI encryption, not to letterbox or do video overlays”
1. Thank goodness.
2. Since it’s not passing through video from a cable box, DVR, DVD/Blu-Ray player, game console, or whatever, what video would it be doing those overlays or letterboxing on, anyway? They could just do it server-side with YouTube videos, and whatever agreement they have now with Netflix and in the future with other streaming partners would probably restrict this.
As far as streaming directly from third party apps, it’s not too surprising that Google blocked this. It disambiguates Google from the device and any 3rd party service agreements. At only $35 they’re probably selling these at cost. So how are they getting value from it? Right now it’s through: A. YouTube plays, B. A 3rd party deal with Netflix (Google probably gets some very tiny cut out of a subscriber’s fees every time they play a video; the bundled 3 months of Netflix access with the first devices would then have been an up-front exchange for the first x Netflix video plays through it), and C. Encouraging use of the Chrome browser on PCs and Macs.
Google gets no value from allowing 3rd parties to send video to the ChromeCast, and it doesn’t even provide Google with Internet traffic data.
Another first impression: “This device is so bare-boned and so barely functional I can’t see myself recommending it to anyone. We’ll see, but that’s the initial impression. This thing is a joke.” http://winsupersite.com/music-amp-videos/google-chromecast-first-impressions-and-photos
Umm Bob… Merlin’s been cancelled. Sorry ’bout that.
“Chromecast in its present incarnation doesn’t actually stream video from the phone or computer controlling it.” How does it stream local content from the computer to the TV then? I haven’t seen any explanation of how this works in any of the media coverage so far. I had thought that the computer allows the chromecast dongle to intercept its video stream from the wireless router and display it on the TV. Local content, however, shouldn’t use the router unless it has some way to re-send it to the TV dongle..
Here’s my explanation as briefly as I can:
A) Video comes in many formats ( certain COder/DECoders aka CODECs and then even specific settings like colorspace, bitrate etc. )
B) Chromecast like many devices is efficient, and can only play a limited subset of formats.
then:
a) The ChromeCast can play files directly from the ‘net if they are the right format.
b) Otherwise it needs to be fed via a converter running on a real computer ( officially the Chrome Browser ).
—
Hackers should have no problem setting up Chromecast to play local files directly ( by converting them to the proper format etc) or share a screen to Chromecast ( by streaming in the proper format ).
—
Techies, check out a related Google standard called WebRTC. Support has recently been added to Firefox as well as Opera ( as well as Chrome of course ). Expect many new cool programs soon!
I hear Google is already blocking the cool new programs: https://www.androidpolice.com/2013/08/26/koush-explains-chromecast-software-update-intentionally-disables-third-party-streaming-google-wants-to-control-playback/
You haven’t been keeping up with the news then:
See update at the bottom of this page:
https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/25/4657202/google-blocks-chromecast-app-that-let-you-stream-own-videos
Turns out the SDK isn’t officially released yet and the app that got people worried wasn’t using stable api calls.. so when the api changed as expected guess what else happened… from article above:
“Dutta has admitted that he reverse engineered the Google Cast protocol to make AllCast possible”
Thanks for the update on the local file issue, which still doesn’t work since they call it a “developer preview”. The more general issue is that of device neutrality. Google still has to make content deals to get internet content on a TV that is available on a computer, the same problem they had with Google TV. Why shouldn’t a TV with internet access be able to get anything a computer can? It’s ridiculous to think we need to bolt a PC on to the side of a TV just to do that and it’s not much better if the cable is replaced with a Wi-Fi link to an hdmi dongle.
Such an interesting device it’s a shame it isn’t more widely available. (UK for e.g) I mean for the price it is, it’s the same as a cheap MP3 player but promises a lot more, despite the limitations and lock-downs.
Makes me realise how under-utilised all those USB and HDMI ports are on the backs of our TVs, because despite the fact that most hereabouts know and understand the technology, your average TV buyer is less than conversant. The subtlety of USB power being down when a TV is in standby is a great example of a pit-fall. Another brick adaptor in another socket, or another socket duplicator just adds to clutter behind your TV even if a 5v USB charger costs very little these days.
As I have no direct experience of the Chromecast due to my location, I wonder how it compares with the plethora of no-name boxes available on Ebay, running Android, that *seem* to do much the same job.
I hope the HDMI Consortium dies of a nasty horrible festering death.
.
HDMI for the A/V industry has been nothing but a disaster. Never before has a “standard” been brought out that was such a nightmare to work with. Incompatibilities between screens and source. Worse if you then try and distribute your picture to multiple screens.
.
HD Audio to your amplifier being switched off because your screen has only two speakers. 3D to your TV being switched off because your amplifier doesn’t under stand 3D. It’s an absolute mess.
.
We need something better where the end user isn’t expected to junk all their hardware every time something new comes out. Can you imagine having to junk all your computers, the networking in your home, and even your printer, because a new version of Facebook came out? Daft? Not if you’re the HDMI Consortium.
“I hope the HDMI Consortium dies of a nasty horrible festering death.”
Here! Here! HDMI is the antithesis of an open communication standard. It’s over complex (deliberately), obstructive and controlling, i.e. everything good technology shouldn’t be.
which is how the founding members of the HDMI group wanted it.
“don’t go fiddling with MY content, the way I want it presented, or sneak out of MY walled garden, punk.”
same old media empire.
And that’s why it’s been an absolute disaster.
.
HDMI has been primarily to prevent people watching content the way they’d like to – not enabling. Nor was it ever developed with any future improvements allowed. Hence why there’s been 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and a, b, c versions of those! Although each is supposed to be backward compatible when a device doesn’t understand new features it simply switches them off for the whole system, whereas it should pass that information through.
.
Essentially they decided to ignore the teachings of the ISO 7 layer model that works so well for networking. One which allows many different types of content to flow over the physical media because the information is at in an upper layer.
It’s a pretty toy – but not really a solution to much – it’s just a slightly cheaper Hulu. Meanwhile, I’m sitting here with a collection of DVD’s that I’d love to convert to ISO and play from a NAS …
but all Google is offering me is the chance to watch hippos farting.
Omigod! Do you have a link for that?
You’d not want to be near one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivu5LDQeHJ4
Now we’re sharing links to farting hippo’s on Bob’s site. What has the world come to?
That video is why the internet was invented.
They can turn it off now.
I love the photograph. Are those chocolate milk stains on your son’s T-Shirt? Are they his stains or are these hand-me-down stains from his brothers passing down clothes? Oh the fun and joy of having young boys! I hope you are enjoying every moment. I hope your wife isn’t trying too hard to make the boys look “perfect.” Don’t bother. It can’t be done. A boy with dirty wrinkled clothes is a happy active boy.
Fresh hot chocolate stains.
Oooom Yum….With marshmallows I hope!
Any chance Netflix is paying for the cost of production of these dongles?
I doubt they would be giving a cut of their subscriptions to Google – doesn’t make sense,
The only other angle is that Google felt they needed something more than just YouTube to sell the devise, which does makes sense. No one is spending $35 to buy a device to watch YouTube on yet another device, hence the need for Netflix which is a nice win for those guys.
But what I really don’t get, is that a lot ( if not most) TVs these days have these apps already, and if not the TV then the DVD or BluRay has it. Not to mention game consoles or a laptop that is easy to hook up to the TV.
The only need I can see for these things is to penetrate the non tech crowd with a cheap way to get these apps on an older tv without a newer DVD/BlurRay. And the problem I see with this is that non tech people tend not to buy dongles to plug into their tv’s and try to use their phone as a remote. But maybe I’m missing something here.
Worth noting that Google Play indicates a 2 to 3 week turnaround for one of these little darlings; Amazon is out of stock, and Best Buy has none online and some in stock in only one of the ten stores in my area. Bob, I hope you had a referral deal 🙂
One of the many things I don’t get about this device is how, if it plugs in to the USB port, does it control an HDMI port on the tv?
The USB port is used only to supply power, apparently via a cable. It’s not used for its data bus.
I got the Chromecast after reading your last piece Bob. It is currently pretty limited but looks like it has possibilities. I see no one yet has hit you with ‘RTFM’ yet, but the little sheet that comes with it tells you that the HDMI-CEC stuff won’t work unless/until you use A/C power. Also, no one above notes that you can cast Chrome browser tabs to the screen. This is ‘beta’ and is VERY choppy, but with an amped up local wifi network it would improve and allows casting all sorts of stuff, as long as it runs in the browser. This would really be a short term option I’d think until more people adopt the ‘cast’ API ( https://developers.google.com/cast/ ) Unless Google trips them up with the API changes, I would think many new Casting apps are in the very near future!
“What I really doubted was Google’s claim that the Chromecast could turn on your HDTV, switch the HDMI input, and throw content onto the big screen all in one seamless succession of events. It wasn’t that any of these tasks were especially difficult to do, but that to do them all on every HDTV would require more remote control capability than I knew existed in any current device.”
Logitech’s harmony remotes have been able to control just about every TV or Home Theater Box for years. I’m not sure why it would be surprising that Google was able to do the same.
Not all true: I was “playing” a Chrome tab from my Macbook Air onto my HDTV. I closed the Macbook Air to sleep it and the video stopped. So it wasn’t “handing off” the tab to the Chromecast, it was simply mirroring it.
I have an Apple TV, whose Netflix app is far superior to Netflix’s own website for my purposes. and if I happen to find a movie via TiVo’s remote app on my iOS device, it does what Chromecast does: starts that movie instantly by handing the job off to the TiVo to play it, freeing up my iOS device.
The thing is a Trojan Horse in hardware for Google. That’s its primary function.
It’s a computer, there ought to be other ways to control it–ssh, maybe. So I googled ‘chromecast hack’ and there’s lots going on. Sure enough, there’s access to a root shell:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/162463-chromecast-hacked-its-based-on-google-tv-and-android-not-chrome-os
So it’s got a big future, unless Google gets tighta** about it.
Bob, I don’t thing Google has a problem leaving the hacking to the hackers. At $35 they aren’t trying to make money with the actual device… like Android they want to make sure they have a play in the advertising game and keep the delivery open.
I expect a plethora of cheap devices with Chromecast capabilities to arrive soon.. probably just a firmware upgrade of existing Android TV Sticks and boxes ( some with hard wired ethernet to the internet ).
As far as HDMI overlay.. they can overlay whatever they want before spitting it out the HDMI port.
“Chromecast in its present incarnation doesn’t actually stream video from the phone or computer controlling it. ”
No.. the PREFERRED method is to get the content direct from the web ( as it should be ). You should be able to throw any video playing in a (Win/IOS only )Chrome Browser Tab to the ChromeCast. See my A) B) post above.
Playing a file directly from your phone however is at this point a hacker only exercise… but not afaik disallowed by Google.
This is a very interesting device! Someone should write a paper on its design and how it works.
.
It is a shame there is not a “power over hdmi” spec.
.
I was impressed by the fact my phone was able to set up the device’s wireless networking. Since I have security enabled on my wifi and the Chromecast did not know the password, how did they do it?
.
It looks like they’ve created an add-on to the Netflix and You-Tube apps on my phone. When I tell Netflix to play a movie via Chromecast it looks like it communicates instructions to the device. The device then sets up the link to Netflix’s servers, uses my account credentials, and starts the movie.
.
Google probably has a set of API’s to operate Chromecast. I wonder if they will publish and make them available to third party developers?
.
I see the Chromecast application is not available for Amazon’s Kindle’s. (Although LifeHacker has found a work around.) I’m getting a bit tired of Amazon limiting applications one can use. This would seem to me to be a slam dunk for Amazon. With it we could purchase and play Amazon’s movies too.
There is power over HDMI (pin 18); but it’s 5V @ 50mA (0.25W) and thus only suitable for very low power devices. I’d guess the intent was to give just enough of a trickle to allow good connectionbling lights on cables themselves.
However since: HDMI and DP associations are always stealing features from each other and then one upping them, DP currently offers more power 3.3V @ 500mA; and because dongles that only need a few watts of power are becoming common I suspect a future HDMI rev will offer USB port equivalent levels of power.
@Ronc “I hear Google is already blocking the cool new programs”
Well, if you don’t like the way Google is handling that, you can always complain to their customer service department.
Oh, wait… I keep forgetting that I am not a Google customer. And unless you are spending a half-million dollars per month on Google services, neither are you. I am in the process of reducing my dependence on Google, in all areas of my life.
http://howardleeharkness.com/2013/03/google-you-can-just-keep-keep/
Not sure this is Google’s fault. Many years ago Google developed Google TV that was built into new TVs. It was supposed and expected to bring any internet content to the TV that you could get on a computer. The problem is these devices must identify themselves to the system, and so the content providers imposed restrictions on what you could display on a TV vs a computer. The real solution is “device neutrality” so we would not need such ridiculous kluges in our living rooms. Let’s see if the FCC acts in the public interest on this issue.
I have to say this is one of the most enjoyable set of comments I’ve read in awhile.
Maybe they’ve taken care of the Ethernet problem by using HDMI 1.4?
https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hec.aspx
Of course the TV it’s connected to would then need the Ethernet connection.
I wonder if the TV is an Ethernet router or an Ethernet hub. I wonder if their plan is to impose hdmi content restrictions like drm on your Internet connected devices. Just askin’.
Well that Explains a puzzling thing that’s been bothering me a long time. The instructions said.. yeah I Know.. Who with a Y Chromosome reads those?
.
Well about two days later.. reading the instructions I was wondering “Why” does it say “Do Not” Power the Chromecast with a USB port on your television marked “Service” it seemed to work perfectly fine to me for two days and I never gave it another thought.
.
Maybe it wasn’t explicit.. but they obviously didn’t give it more thought that people would read the instructions.. than I did. The writer must have had a Y chromosome as well..
.
Now you’ve completely explained it.. the Service USB port will be shut off when the TV is turned off.. but if you have “other” USB ports which remain on while the TV is turned off.. then that would work.
.
Thanks Sherlock!
.
In it’s current revision it’s a failure, I could not play any music I had stored on my smart phone unless I removed the ssd card that had the music on it and played it from the cloud.
Not sure which “cloud” you mean. Also what is the file extension of the file on the phone? Anything other than “mp3” could be copy protected; the hdmi connection is all about copy protection and drm enforcement. Do the instructions even say it can play previously downloaded files stored on the phone or on the PC. I thought the PC local file playback isn’t possible yet since the Chromecast is still “beta” as discussed in some previous posts.
By cloud I meant any music upload to my Google Play account: play.google.com/music. Yes, I am using MP3.
Get yourself a Roku and the Twonky beam app. It does everything you said that the Chromecast doesn’t do. That is, it will beam pretty much any video you find on the internet. The Roku LT is usually on sale for $35 on Amazon. It won’t turn on your TV though. I am not sure I’d want that anyway since someone could hack your wi-fi and turn on your TV…
Excellent, I already own a Roku and just installed the Twonky beam app. Nice solution…
Can Chromcast be plugged in to a DVD recorder and still work properly?
No one answered the most important question on the page…how do you ff through these things? It won’t let you do it from your phone – do you have to have your laptop in front of you to hit the buttons? It will allow you to pause..thats it. I like to ff through the boring gore and killing parts, the boring fake sex parts, and the boring drama parts…ok, I admit. I usually only watch about 5 minutes of any program;. LOL….just got my chromecast yesterday. Had a great screensaver when I first turned it on, but once it started working through HBO Go, I could not get back to that screensaver. In fact, I could not even delete the HBO program I got bored with halfway through. All I could do was sign out of HBO Go………advise?
Whether a Chromecast, Roku, Logitech Revue or other like devices plugged into an HDMI slot, how does one go about recoring a program? Thanks.
He also should see to it. Despite the school bus recession excuse
to overspend. Request a visit from the contractor’s license
bond. Needless to say most people find themselves disrespecting the government be looking
for another person who will perform the job
done on site. You want to hire a contractor can tell you how to hire a school bus contractor to finish.
Instead of just being late either, and they can’t give you this
oh I like the finished project.
The HDMI logo on the box enable Google to a discount on HDMI royalties.
When you build a device with HDMI you have to pay a royalty, if you print the HDMI logo on the box you get a discount as you advertise HDMI.
The Real Amatic
[…]we came across a cool internet site that you may love. Take a appear should you want[…]
test me
[…]just beneath, are a lot of completely not related sites to ours, on the other hand, they may be certainly really worth going over[…]
penurun berat badan
[…]always a massive fan of linking to bloggers that I really like but really don’t get a whole lot of link love from[…]
motocourier
[…]very handful of internet sites that transpire to be detailed beneath, from our point of view are undoubtedly well really worth checking out[…]
traffic on articles
[…]we like to honor lots of other web web pages around the net, even when they aren?t linked to us, by linking to them. Underneath are some webpages really worth checking out[…]
e wie einfach
[…]usually posts some very intriguing stuff like this. If youre new to this site[…]
Google
We prefer to honor numerous other web web sites around the web, even when they arent linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages really worth checking out.
Green Smoke
[…]Sites of interest we have a link to[…]
Diet plan for Weight Loss
[…]Here are a number of the web pages we recommend for our visitors[…]
click here
[…]we like to honor a lot of other web internet sites on the web, even if they aren?t linked to us, by linking to them. Below are some webpages worth checking out[…]
enlevement epave gratuit 78
[…]we came across a cool web site that you could delight in. Take a appear should you want[…]
Topsail NC DJ
[…]Every as soon as in a even though we decide on blogs that we study. Listed below would be the most up-to-date websites that we decide on […]
HENS NIGHT
[…]The information talked about inside the article are a few of the best out there […]
social media management indianapolis IN
[…]Sites of interest we’ve a link to[…]
http://vxlo.com/artist-hit
[…]the time to read or check out the subject material or internet sites we have linked to beneath the[…]
garage door repair
[…]just beneath, are quite a few completely not connected web-sites to ours, having said that, they are surely worth going over[…]
poncelet or poncelet brian
[…]that could be the end of this post. Right here you?ll locate some web-sites that we assume you?ll enjoy, just click the hyperlinks over[…]
acoustic bands
[…]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not connected to ours, we feel they may be essentially worth a go through, so have a look[…]
tempurpedic cooling mattress
[…]check below, are some entirely unrelated websites to ours, having said that, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[…]