1219 posts • joined 23 Mar 2010
Re: Too bad
The Start screen is not the problem, and nor is not being able to run Windows software. This is a TABLET so should be compared to the ipad, which doesn't have a desktop mode and can't run mac software.
People don't expect to run legacy stuff on Windows phone so why should they expect to do so on a Windows tablet? Maybe it's because there is a sort-of-desktop mode on Surface RT for MS Office. Instead of the Start screen being the problem, the desktop mode is the problem - remove that and even the most ignorant commentard would understand what this product is.
Re: Rape threats?!
A cooking appliance reference is a rape threat.
Why do people not take this stuff seriously?
Don't blame the victim.
The nasty women are proposing that there should be a place for women instead of for more notable men - they want men removed because of their gender. In the BBC's 100 greatest britons, the public selected 12 women in the top 100. So with 4 bank notes and a democratic selection system it's fair to assume there would be no women on the bank notes 50% of the time. Do you think the misandrists would accept that as equality? It's not equality when people are promoted because of their gender! If the women on the BBC list are evenly distributed then you'd have to go to number 208 to get the 25th woman, who would be treated as being equal to the 75th placed man, who is 86th on the list.
I'm no misogynist and why does my spellcheck not think misandry is a word? Smash the feminarchy!
that's more than 160 characters, but I didn't need to rage.
What rape stuff? I looked for it and didn't find any. Even on the blog posts with screenshots of the abuse there was no "rape stuff".
We should have scientists on the money to encourage people to respect scientists, farmers on the money to encourage people to respect farmers, transsexuals on the money to highlight their contribution to society, etc. But there is a limited number of places and if we deselect notable people simply because they weren't transsexual, that's not equality.
It's not about equality though, it's about ensuring women take up 25% of the places even though fewer than 25% of qualified people may be women. It doesn't matter that 51% of the population is female or that 6% is muslim or 10% is black or gay, in an EQUAL society we should select people based on their characters rather than their characteristics. Feminazi because they select for characteristics rather than for virtues alone.
There are some men less worthy of contention than other men, and some women less worthy than men. When there is a rule discriminating in favour of women, men will be overlooked. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact sums up everything we need to know about you.
It's hard to state how stupid an their anti-equality campaign is in just 160 characters. Rage comes too easily.
Re: Re Anonymous Coward While I don't by any means endorse the rape stuff...
If you think it's about equality you've not been paying attention. Do they campaign to end violence or to end violence against women? Do they campaign to end genital mutilation or the genital mutilation of females? Do they campaign to get all people more equally represented in parliament or to get women into parliament? Do they campaign for equality in divorce courts? What about funding for disease research based on the number of people affected regardless of their gender?
I'm for equality, so I'm a humanist not a feminist.
If you signed the petition you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Having no woman on the banknotes at a single point in time does NOT signify that no women have contributed to our society, it just means that we have only 4 bank notes and fewer than 25% of the people worthy of being on a banknote are women. In the top 100 of the BBC's greatest Britons only 12% were female. If we were to use that list as the source of banknote images, should the final 13 males on the list be replaced with less worthy females just to placate the feminazis? (Not that we should use the list - Tony Blair and Robbie Williams are on it!)
Should Montgomery of El Alamein be banned from the banknotes on the grounds of gender?
Re: Well, if this is specifically about the rape threat....
Did The Register see any rape threats or are they just joining the throng and reporting it as fact? Criado-Perez herself tweeted these links as evidence of the abuse she received, but there is only 1 which could be considered a rape threat (and it's not credible unless you believe the people behind the tweet would rape all the police).
Here's the first in the series on that blog, which wasn't on the same tweet:
Using the word "rape" does not constitute a threat. But in some people's little minds a poor-taste joke about women belonging in the kitchen is a rape threat. Note that Criado-Perez retweeted the tweet which asked for the alleged "rape threat" to be pointed out, so she must have known people wanted to see the evidence. Why not point out actual rape threats?
I also saw a tweet which stated someone posted "what they thought was CP's address". Not that it would take long to know the minds of the people trolling her, but can anyone really be sure what that tweeter was thinking? And is being tweeted something which is not your address really such a threat?
As you might deduce, I spent a while on the case. I wanted to see if it was real or just the feminists' time-honored tactic of demanding victim status and claiming to be made uncomfortable. I didn't see any credible rape threats and only the 1 tenuous rape threat in total. If anyone can provide compelling evidence please do.
Chromecast does tap into the Play Store! You can own or rent movies (and TV in the States) and you can upload your own music collection to play via Chromecast. Being able to upload DVDs in the same way would be great (they'd use their matching service rather than upload 4Gb I hope).
Dongles all round
If everything is a dongle then the remote control is a dongle. Most are awful but Chromecast doesn't have one, so Chromecast wins.
Why should the Premier League have to go through broadcasters to get to users? (Broadcasters are just another dongle!) With Chromecast it doesn't - it could stream direct to the consumer. So for a £20 (or so) up-front cost and a payment per game we could get all the football we want. For consumers to get the same thing via Sky, BT and whatever other rights buyers there are, what's the up-front investment, is there a subscription, what do they pay per game and what would their TV stands look like with all those boxes? A service which lets content creators cut out the middle man would give us a wider selection at a lower cost, would it not? And it would be a dongle.
Some things work well on a tablet and others work well on a TV. So instead of looking at specs and functionality you should consider what people actually want to do with each device. For an app with a UI of any level of complexity (eg it requires text input or button presses) a TV interface is bad enough that people would choose a tablet instead. But for watching movies a TV is best, and if the button pressing can be moved to a more suitable device then all the better.
So you can get an Android dongle and install a note-taking app from the play store, but what's the point? The netflix app is more suitable to the form factor but you'd have to type your login details, scroll through menus and select your content with the TV remote control. That's no better than current smart TVs. Using the netflix app on your tablet and watching the content on your TV is pretty much ideal.
Watch an ad-free service (eg netflix, youtube* or google play movies) if you don't want to see ads in the stream. In fact, that's exactly what you can do with chromecast!
*I've never seen an ad when streaming youtube to my tv. Not sure why that's the case and I don't expect it to last. They have big plans for content on youtube, with rumours of subscription-based services but there might be ad-supported ones too.
You can't have read very much about this if you think it streams the videos from your phone! It streams from the internet, the phone just tells it what to stream.
I've connected computers to the TV too; had them open on the floor plugged in to the TV's serial port and my amp. It's a really bad solution compared with a wireless stream which actually allows you to use your laptop for something else or turn it off completely...for the cost of a decent HDMI cable.
The screen mirroring (it handles both tabs and full desktop) is the beta product whereas the casting of youtube, netflix etc is the main selling point (and is not in beta, contrary to the article). Mirroring is proper mirroring, the URL flinging is for the youtube/netflix functionality.
Chromecast is a dongle and it streams your desktop* wirelessly via HDMI. Is there something more specific you need?
*Yes, it can stream the whole desktop - not just a Chrome tab.
Re: $35 to watch YouTube on my telly....
It's not just for Youtube, How can people still not know that?
Re: what a load of old bollocks
Airplay isn't widely used. I've sent MMS but never needed to stream anything to Apple hardware.
It ONLY does applications!
It doesn't kick Chromecast's ass.
It's not cross-platform.
Microsoft beat it by 5 years with media Center. In the context of the article that's a huge fail!
So much wrong in the first few sentences! Can someone send the reporter back to school please? Needs to learn the history of tablets, phones, mp3 players and GUI interfaces. Also needs to use a Gingerbread Android device and see where Apple gets its ideas from.
Re: Google Switch
If you don't want Google to know anything about you then don't sign into the phone with your Google account. That part of the setup is optional.
The next fanboy get-out was there in the article:
"The term 'handset' includes all smartphones and feature phones combined."
So Apple might still make the most from Smartphones.
Re: Memories of Eaton's...
There's been a license check API since Android 1.6, but apparently not many devs used it.
Google makes money from the Play Store, which grew 150% in the last year (in app revenue) and from mobile search. Probably more important than the money the do make is that if they didn't have Android they would have less influence on what people do with their mobile devices, and their mobile revenues may have suffered because of that.
And they charge to have the Gmail, Play Store etc apps installed.
Re: People still watch TV?
Chromecast is not about TV, it's just content and a screen. Even when broadcasts cease I expect "TV" will still hang around as the name for a big screen in a living room.
It has a proprietory SDK of course, but the protocol is open.
Re: Pocket money prices
Lovefilm aren't showing stock Android any love (they stream only on Kindles) and if they don't support Chromecast I'll be taking my £120/year elsewhere. They can't even be bothered to sync my watchlist from the website to the TV app.
Re: No-one has mentioned the ads yet...
What form will the ads take? I can't imagine Netflix being happy if a 3rd party inserted ads in their content. The advantage to Google of this solution is that it keeps things on the web instead of hiding them in apps. If they're on the web then people will search for them with Google and see ads there.
A lot of people tweet whilst watching TV. Is it really such an issue for you that this doesn't prevent them from doing that?
Re: How is it different from a Smart Android Dongle?
In what sense is it a "google walled garden" when you select Netflix content on your Ipad and cast it to a Toshiba TV?
The "host device" doesn't host anything - that's where the biggest difference is. RTFA. HDMI is less functional and less convenient.
Re: I only regret that I have but one...
People have already got it to cast a full screen, and when you consider it doesn't need to have the same content running on your tablet as well as the TV, and the cost of entry is a small fraction of getting yourself into the Apple ecosystem, it's obvious why iTards are spreading the FUD.
It does a lot more than just play Youtube. Complaining about this product now is like dismissing the first web browser 20 years ago because there wasn't much internet at the time. You can connect a laptop via HDMI and play Iplayer content, but if your TV has an iplayer app, would you bother with the cable and the hassle of having the laptop open on the floor? For such a small price I'm happy to have the convenience of wireless streaming and being able to select and control content from my couch.
Re: I think this might work..
Yes, searching across services is definitely the next step. This already removes the awful TV/remote interface and soon it could remove the siloed app concept too. Google's interest is in keeping the web open and searchable, and when that coincides with giving customers a useful product it's a great thing.
Re: Audio to External sound system
I'm not up to date on AV hardware. Is there nothing which has HDMI input and output and also has home cinema functionality?
Sssshhhhh! Don't let Dave hear!
Re: As useful as Apple TV then?
The "ecosystem" in this instance is an IOS device, Android device or a Chrome browser. You don't even need a Google account.
And it does stream local content if you can play it in Chrome. On Windows it supports MKV, MP4, MP3, JPG and possibly others.
I'm pretty sure I heard that Google will vet all apps which use their SDK. Whether they can do that for something designed to work within a local network is another matter, but you might be disappointed. I sense this, like other media playback/distribution restrictions, is to keep the Copyright Cartel happy rather than to suit Google.
Re: $35 + Cost of a tablet remote
You don't need a tablet, just Chrome on your existing laptop. If you don't have a laptop then add that to the cost of the TV, couch, house and hookers.
"Applications on the sender device can be Android or iOS applications, or a Chrome app"
Sure, people already have apps on Smart TVs, but how many people actually like to use those interfaces?
Re: Chromecast v Smart Tv
The YouTube app on my Samsung TV already has chromecast-like functionality. There is an option in the app to pair with another device, which can be a smartphone app or a browser running the YouTube site. I think Sony TVs have the same, so yours might be able to do it too (if 2 brands have it they all might).
Re: Streaming from the net or via the local device?
It does both! Eg, from YouTube (iOS or android app, or the website in any browser) you can make chromecast stream a video from the YouTube server. From Chrome you can mirror a tab to chromecast no matter what content the tab contains.
Isn't a wire-free option more convenient? There's an SDK so there will be more content coming but in the mean time you can watch *anything* you like by streaming a Chrome tab.
Re: Might be worth a punt
It's Chrome so it runs web apps, there's nothing to install. Think of it as the youtube phone app sending Chromecast a URL for a video and asking it to stream it and you'll be close. But you can do the Airplay thing if you want, from Chrome.
This makes smart TV redundant, not the other way round. For content providers they just need to add some code to their website instead of making apps for all the different smart TV providers. For consumers the remote control is your phone or laptop, so typing and menu selection is a much less painful experience. This also benefits providers because it makes it more likely users will sign up for the available content - I can't be bothered using some of the stuff on my Smart TV because it's such a pain to register, log in and set up payments.
It's 312 ppi (beyond retina, contrary to the article) and, if it uses the same X8 chipset the new Droids have, it's actually an octo-core being misreported as a dual-core: 2 cores for normal processes, 4 for graphics, 1 for contextual stuff and 1 for natural language processing. With that setup the battery life might be superb even with a smaller mAh number than other phones.
Re: No desktop apps
Perhaps without the desktop mode its market position as a tablet would be more obvious; as it is we get a load of complaints about backward (in)compatibility. But the Office suite makes it a better prospect than any other tablet (ignoring app availability) so it's understandable that they'd include it - they just marketed it wrong.
If they allowed installable software on the RT desktop they'd create a confused ecosystem with X86, Arm and Metro apps. People are confused enough that they have 2 types, like Apple does.
Re: They got it wrong the first time...
The original tablet PCs were bulky and had an interface suited to mouse and keyboard. The Ipad was a success because it could be used with a finger. With Surface RT MS "examined those factors" and made something thin and light which could be used with a finger. I'll agree on the price though.
App makes sense on Android
On Android the app can appear in the share menu, so it gets integrated into the OS in a way that web apps can't.
There might be less data transfer when using the app, as the navigation, validation and appearance don't need to be downloaded.
Reality distortion field
"Although all ios apps sometimes send unencrypted data, 84% of users consider ios to be more secure than Android"
ios v Android: Less encryption, more analytics, more tracking, more contact and calendar slurping.
Re: So why didn't google make the play store push out system updates?
They weren't seeking control, so they made it open. It was designed right for what its intended use was, and it's up to the OEMs to patch their versions of Android.
Re: Stay away from those third-party apps
Unzip them and check for duplicate file names, then install if you must.
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests