Given that, HN, how can we now kill hollywood/use live video in a new way/make journalism new again?
Is Chromecast even relevant to all of those?
1. Hollywood: Chromecast doesn't change the production costs of high-end movies, so doesn't seem relevant to the main function of Hollywood. There's already vast hordes of lower-end video content produced outside the Hollywood studio system and its foreign equivalents. 2. Use live video in a new way: Chromecast might be relevant here, in that it might extend the potential reach of internet-based video apps into the living room. So I see some potential there. 3. Make journalism new again: video is demonstrated to be a less effective medium (and, in many studies I've seen, a medium of negative impact) for actually informing and conveying understanding of journalistic content -- and Chromecast doesn't really do much to increase the reach of textual content, which is the more effective medium.
B) Sharing is care - another thought I had was more of integrating a raspberry pi or device to hook into your NAS or external hard drives that have videos/content from DVDs/Music/whatever - which you would want to stream. So maybe a raspberry pi to hard drives (usb) device that allows you to have all your content in 1 location but leverage some p2p secure protocol to allow for others to stream/request the content to their box before pushing to the chrome cast
Just some thoughts!
I don't think this is revolutionary.