Google Chromecast: Here's why it's the most important smart TV tech ever The more details that emerge about Chromecast, Google's new streaming media dongle, the more it sounds like you get what you pay for – and let's face it, $35 isn't a lot. But don't be fooled. There's more to Chromecast than meets the eye. When the hardware hackers at iFixit did their teardown of the device, their conclusion …
The problem with "smart" TV is you know you will be lucky to get updates 5 minutes after a new model is released. Chances are you will have the TV years after they added any updates to the smart stuff. Only idiots with too much money are going to buy a new TV every 3 years.
While it's the same for a media player (my original WD TV box is mostly useless now) it's a LOT less to replace a media player then a TV. Chromecast is even cheaper, if they add a few more features it will be much better then paying extra for a smart TV.
When Chromecast v2 comes out, not a big deal to upgrade and keep your current TV.
Why do I need updates? It does what I want, and will still work. It's like moaning that a car doesn't get updates.
It's not made dead by a Chromecast, indeed, I might buy a Chromecast and plug it in for the extra functionality. It's not like the "smart" functionality costs more - it's standard in all but low end TVs these days.
You know I've seen a few cars with built in GPS and a stand alone GPS stuck on the dash because the latest update for the built in unit were too old and out of date. Also cars with factory sound systems with Apple docs, only to have Apple change something. I had to update my 71 MGB to run on unleaded fuel too.
> Why do I need updates?
...because it doesn't do what a 15 year old DVD player can. My current generation of HTPCs have outlasted 3 generations of streamer appliances and still run circles around them.
External streamers and the one's embedded into TV's are all cheap crap that confirm the idea that people will eat dirt as long as it looks like they're getting a bargain.
The attraction for me isn't the living room, I've got a Frankenstein PC sat under the TV in there that does everything this does and more, you know like help keep the room warm.
However in the bedroom I've only got a Freeview TV, which may sound enough but a Saturday morning in Casa del Bing involves a lot of swearing at daylight and putting off getting up. Now I can plug my Asus Transformer into it to watch YouTube videos and 4OD/iPlayer etc. but that involves a certain amount of getting up to set it up. With a Chromecase I could happily trough some content at the screen without having to suffer the onset of a migraine induced by moving to the vertical.
Now I'm aware my lifestyle choices are not for everyone, somedays they're not even for me, however my general point stands. This isn't for getting Smart TV into the living room, it's for getting Smart TV into every room.
but....
If you don't have a computer hooked up to your tv already then hang your head in shame.
Remote - Check (there are hundreds of keyboard/mouse handhelds out there)
Decent O.S. - Check. Pick from the many available.
DRM free - Check
I bought a new tv about a year ago, choice was "Smart". "3D", "Size", why the fuck would I want 3D or smart when I have the knowledge to plug a computer into it? 3D off topic: I've been to imax 3D, it's shite, just a bunch of wankers going "ooh" "aah" not knowing they look like a bunch of twats in dame edna everage specs.
Personally, as a cynical old git - I wonder what ELSE it's sending to Google. I trust Smart-TVs about as much as I trust Amazon and Google not to sell my details to 'interested' parties. Kinex-enabled TVs with facial recognition - too convenient for my liking. Chromecast is a nice idea but I don't like the idea of yet another way they can track what I do in the privacy of my own home. If privacy still exists.
Well I know one company that will hate it Microsoft lol namely the fact that Xbox One has an HDMI in port now it means everyone can stream netflix,you tube ,etc without a gold membership ;)
And how is it better than airplay some ask well first of all it works with anything even apple products and is not limited in use like airplay is only for apple products. the only plus I see with airplay is the remote.
How is this any better than miracast which is far more open and compatible with almost anything on the play store and mirrors almost anything on your miracast capable phone or tablet and intel widi enabled laptop. See what miracast can do in comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxSJ57Q3zak and see for yourself if chromecast can even do 10% of that.
Miracast works on miracast capable devices and intel widi devices for screen mirroring of almost everything except some apps that are specifically disabled for miracast by app developer. The converse is true for chromecast where everything needs to be enabled by app developer and google. With miracast you can do what you want with your miracast and widi devices unlike with chromecast. Bonus is unlike chromecast and air play, with miracast you dont need a wifi network so dongles are very portable while travelling.
Is it so amazing because google have pioneered a device that is leaps BEHIND devices that countless other people have not only made and marketed for years but in fact that google ARE already aware of having sold them the operating system they operate on?
You can already buy for almost the same price a similar item BUT it has a full version of the android OS running on it that not only allows streaming of TV content from the internet but also allows you to play games on your TV these devices can also be controlled either by a 2.4 Ghz keybard, mouse or media remote and in some of the newer ones directly from smartphones and tablets
The latest ones I have been looking at even have 2gb ram, quadcore processors, quad core GPUs, Bluetooth and android 4.2 as well as wifi and Ethernet in the larger boxed versions for around £65 which will tumble quickly
So to me this is like Microsoft launching a 486 computer running windows 98 in terms of "cutting edge" and functionality
An whatever this unit "could" do in the future will also most likely already be being done on the other devices first too as that's pretty much just going to be a case of someone writing the software
So I have to admit as much as I think the nexus range is fairly good apart from their lack of expansion and interfaces this "thing" seems like a bit of an illconceived misnomer
Or maybe two pages stuck together when the reference design was being faxed to the production department and they included everything except the operating system and flexibility???
Thanks Neil for understanding just how important Googlecast might be. Too many people (like many of your commenters here) only see this as a way to get video onto your TV. If that is all you think it is then it is easy to think that it does nothing more than Airplay or DLNA and not see what the big deal is.
Many in the press compare it to Roku and ask which should you buy. In reality, Google cast is something that will get incorporated into Roku or your future television.
The correct way to see the potential is to ask yourself for any given app on your smartphone, is there any way that app can be enhanced if the app could control your large television display to display video, audio, text, images, or anything else that you can do in a web page. Certainly when one thinks of Youtube and Netflix it is easy to see that yes these can be greatly enhanced if the video and audio could be played on the television. But the potential goes far beyond this.
An alternative approach is to ask if for any given streaming media content could that content be enhanced by having the interactivity from a secondary smaller touch screen device that has better ways to interact than a clunky remote, including touch capability, audio input, accelerometers, and speech recognition.
To see the full potential requires some imagination and it will take years for developers to come up with new ways to use it that we haven't even thought of yet.
Here are a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. These are probably going to sound lame. If you went back in time 20 years ago and explained to someone at that time some of the top internet properties, you would sound pretty lame as well.
Imagine a shopping app like Zappos. Buying shoes using a little 4 inch screen is a bit sketchy. Imagine if as you browsed shoes the app sent high def video and images of the shoes to your television so you can see what you are buying in greater detail.
Imagine something like taking an online class from your smartphone. It could show the lecture on the big screen and your phone could be used for asking questions or the teacher could ask the students questions that they answer on their phone.
Imagine more interactivity with streaming video content. Say you are watching a live stream of the emmy awards and there is polling on your phone to vote for who you think will win the category and a way to post comments. Or a streaming internet game show that lets you play along with the contestants.
There is lots of potential for casual gaming as well using the display of the big screen and you phone as a controller. You won't have the horsepower to do a first-person shooter, but there are certainly many more casual games that would work.
Certainly many things like these can be sort of be done now using different unconnected apps or relying on expensive hardware like a game box or a full-fledged computer, but not with all the simplicity and tight integration you could get with Googlecast.
When you imagine some of the things that could be done it is easy to see that this is so much more than an Airplay or DLNA copy.
So I think you'll eventually see many things you can do with Googlecast that haven't even been imagined yet. Developers need to time to come up with ways to use it since it is breaking new ground.
Needs the other half, the remote control if you will, to deliver something of the quality of Yatse for XBMC.
If it can finally convince the TV manufacturers that they haven't a hope in hell of being our preferred content aggregator through their crappy smart TV interfaces, then this could be a big win. While they're at it if they could offload the entire bloody TV menu on to our remote devices that would be nice.
I want a high quality dumb screen I can push (local and web) content to, and this is a step in the right direction. Unless Samsung do something interesting with Boxee*, I can't see anyone linking it all up until Apple get into the game. And then people will start claiming they fucking invented TV and other outrageous bollocks as usual, and we don't want that to happen again surely.
* What's the point, it was better when it was a XBMC fork. They could have given me the money and I could have made a little Boxee doll and buried it at the bottom of the garden. I'd have held a little funeral and filmed it and everything+.
+ To make sure they got their money's worth.
I think youre actually missing the mediocrity of the device
Practically everything you mention there is software based
And theres already far superior hardware out there with FULL internet and android functionality for the same price that would merely need an ap to do anything this does that they currently don't
I also think youre over estimating the need in the market too as someone (virgin and sky) supplies the bulk of media content to homes and both already have rudimentary interactive TV which, were the need there would already have expanded I suspect
But as much as you downplay media streaming and playing video files it IS a very common requirement and where I think this product wins its badge in mediocrity is because it COULD very simply have included full blown full function android with access to the app store and everything else you get with android on the other TV sticks already available AND any new chromecast stuff that SOME people MIGHT want to use at some point somewhere in the future when someone MAYBE bothers to develop it
In the meantime though they would have a very useable very functional google branded stock android TV stick with something like 2G ram/8G rom, quad core processor and GPU, wifi and blue tooth an SD slot and the app store for lets say £75
Far far better product IMO and one far more people would buy
Yes, that is the beauty of Googlecast. It is just software. That is why I expect it to actually be incorporated into TVs and other hardware boxes like Roku. It is essentially a very cheap way to add web apps to your television screen with almost no cost. When it gets incorporated into other devices the cost will be essentially zero add-on.
Please enlighten me on what this other hardware is that is out there that does what Googlecast does for the same price. I don't know of any. There are more powerful devices that cost more and with which you interact with through an awful remote control interface.
I have a device under my TV (a full home theater PC) that is much more powerful and more expensive but still can't easily do some of what Chromecast can do. If I want to watch a YouTube video on the TV, I have no easy way to do it. My television is not a smart TV, so that route is out. I end up having to grab my big wireless keyboard, open the browser, go to you tube, search for the video, try again because typing on the IR keyboard missed a letter, once it opens expand it to full screen. I'll take hitting one button on my phone or tablet any day.
You must be from outside the US, because Virgin and Sky are not supplying any of my media content. And that is another point that it lets anyone in on the interactive media front without having to go through another company.
I agree that media streaming is very important. My point was that if that was all that Googlecast did, I would agree that it is only interesting as a cheap alternative. But there is so much more potential than that.
It could have been a full-fledged Android device, but not at $35. If you want a full-fledged Android device its called GoogleTV that costs >$100 and note that it too will also support GoogleCast.
I disagree that a lot more people would buy a device that costs 3 times as much (75 pounds ~= $115 dollars vs.$35). One of my points was that it is not about hardware, it is about the Googlecast protocol itself. The $35 device is just the first implementation of the protocol, priced to make it an easy decision to buy. Eventually, if TV's and other set top boxes adopt it you won't even have to think about the $35 cost.
We'll have to see how it plays out. I won't make predictions, but it certainly has a great deal of potential, What I was trying to stress was that potential goes far beyond simple playing of video. We'll have to see what smart developers can do with that potential.
Slingbox??? How is Slingbox in any way related to Chromecast?
Ignoring the large price difference between the two, it seems to me that they are pretty much polar opposites.
Chromecast is answering the question, "I am in front of my TV, how can I get content that would be displayed on my phone/tablet/laptop and have it shown on the TV."
Slingbox is answering the question, "I am NOT in front of my TV, how can I get content that would be displayed on the TV and have it shown on my phone/tablet/laptop."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
