Google Chromecast review
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. They are great for bringing things like skype/youtube/presentations to the big screen. The main problem is controlling the UI via wireless mice/keyboard or special remotes. They really suck. And it looks like Chromecast has solved this input issue by turning ones smartphone/tab/laptop into the input system.
One thing I would like to see is eliminating the need for the TV remote in this process, which would still be required to switch between AV/HDMI input coming from my STB to chromecast input.
Chromecast is cheap, but for the demographic that's been paying $9 - $25 a month for Netflix for a while, this is a solved problem.
The Apple TV is the worst of both worlds because the remote is required but is smaller than any other remote out there so that it's very easy to lose.
Using WiFi also means line of sight isn't necessary which is a nice perk.
Chromecast is nice - and novel in a few fun ways - but I just don't see it changing the world, especially since most of its target demographic is somewhat tech savvy (smartphone owning Netflix subscribers) and therefore quite likely to own at least one of the above.
For them, it's far from a solved problem.
OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?
Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities): http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ra...
http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-...
They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36 bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to start playing stuff.
Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources...
OH, HYPE
Further there is a recurring mistake that people are making when they say that this can only play from the "web" (for instance http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch..., though he is hardly alone is saying something like that). The web is ubiquitous, and anything that can host a stream can become "the web". Expect file servers to add Chromecast sourcing in no time.
Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some assumptions. But, for starters:
- Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing, instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver content you want to play.
- The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV-friendly interfaces.
- As The Verge's review leads with: it’s surprisingly difficult to put a web browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV, I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote.
"beefy hardware and way more capabilities"
Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed-down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities" you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone.
"They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..."
Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much any website.
"Plus, you can play your own files..."
Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab.
"...access your network resources..."
Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks.
The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At worst, it's better execution.
2) grab a remote is better than grab a laptop and fire an application, plus you need to power it on, etc. but if you prefer that it's ok. Netflix and pandora apps are available in Android, no need to use a web browser.
3) " but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat" well, is not what the review says:
"If you’re using the Chromecast extension for Chrome on your laptop to project an otherwise incompatible video site (like Hulu or HBOGO), however, video quality can dump quite a bit depending on your setup. It’s using your laptop as a middle man to encode the video signal and broadcast it to the Chromecast, whereas the aforementioned compatible sites just send video straight to the dongle, mostly removing your laptop from the mix. When casting video tabs on a 2012 MacBook Air running on an 802.11n network, the framerate was noticeably lower and there were occasional audio syncing issues."
You even need an additional transcoder! the mini pcs can decode MKVs by themselves (and lots of formats more)
4) network resources, yes they can: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.ci...
Look, I got an apple TV and one of those "dongles" connected to my TV, and trust me, when I need to play an MKV is way more easier to use a remote to access the File NAS than firing up Beamer app (http://beamer-app.com/) from my mac to watch a movie.
Chromecast requires extra hardware to complete almost anything, so yes, I think it's less capable than the mini pcs at 36 usd that ship free.
2) Anything that reduces the amount of hardware I interact with is a net positive, IMO. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "in Android". Netflix and Pandora are on the web and iOS devices, there is no shortage of ways to find their content. In my experience, browsing YouTube has been a giant PITA on every single device I've tried. I'd much rather browse videos on my computer and send ones I find to my TV as desired.
3) Tab mirroring is in beta, as Google has said, which is not the same as an app streaming directly from the web. (No middleman device required.) It's already pretty good, but does need improvement. In the meantime, Netflix - which has "native" support - is great, with none of those issues. The rest are simply good, and will become great once Google improves their mirroring feature.
4) That's a feature that 95% of users won't ever need. If the other dongles you mention do that, fantastic. I'll concede that Chromecast isn't doing that now, but I think we can agree it's definitely not a major selling point. (Not to mention, there's no reason someone couldn't write a Chromecast app to do something exactly like that. Just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't or won't.)
I play my MKVs from a local Plex server to my Roku ($80). Chromecast ($35) will likely replace that soon, either via the Plex Web Client (which organizes all my media in a nice, friendly format, no ugly directory tree browsing required) or a "native" app. Plus, a remote control is extra hardware. I'm never more than 5 feet from my phone, and I regularly lose my TV remotes.
Those dongles you linked to seem to be running Google TV. Chromecast runs a stripped down version of Chrome OS. Two sides of the same coin, but Chromecast is far more integrated and extensible. Seems worthy of some praise to me.
Chromecast supports everything chrome does (audio, video, web sockets, canvas, web audio, etc.) and it all just works unlike most of the TV dongles on the market today (which usually have issues with google play, Netflix, and/or Hulu).
Magic in software refers to the ease-of-use and simplicity. I thought that was apparent in this community.
Almost any tech product, has predecessors. When the iphone came out That Guy was all over it. It wasn't the first phone that had web browswing, emails and music. It didn't even have whatever it didn't have at the time. Basically, just a nokiaberry with reality distortion. Nothing new.
That guy obviously missed the point because within a few days every website was getting iphone web traffic. Sites that had one nokiaberry hit every 3 months were now testing on iphone. When the app store opened, all the users were installing (even paying for) apps. People made sure they had a data plan. The important thing about the iphone is not that it could do web browsing, its that it could do web browsing in an easy, pleasant way.
I don't know if chromecast is any good. But pointing to an android-on-a-stick is missing the point. There are lots of ways of getting youtube or netflix onto your TV. Consoles, set top boxes, laptops, smart TVs, android sticks. They're all clumsy and most people don't use them. The hard part that is missing is doing interaction (eg, text search) in a way thats easy and pleasant and fits into people's slob time.
TA DA. Anyone can project to it, just by downloading one browser extension.
Can you do that?
Also, you linked to "Android in a USB stick" products, that's not what Chromecast is.
My Samsung "Smart" TV: Find TV remote, power on. Wait a while, after which the TV will default to showing static (not very Smart of it not to notice I don't have cable attached, and never will). Press the Smart-button on the remote, again wait a small eternity while it's "Loading". Use the navigation buttons to quickly navigate to the Netflix icon. Oh, you were too slow to reach Netflix, now the UI is locked up for 5-10 seconds because the homescreen is refreshing the Samsung app store icons and ads. OK, now Netflix is finally loading, which takes a good 20-40 seconds. Now to find what I want to watch using the damn arrow keys. God help me if I need to enter some text to search, at that point it's just easier to reach over for my laptop and add what I want to my instant queue from there.
Chromecast: Using my phone or tablet, load the Netflix app (near instant). Click the Chromecast button (instant). Click the show I want to play, or search using a decent keyboard or voice input. TV powers on (HDMI-CEC, yay), plays my show (in a few seconds).
Moving all of the UI out from the TV screen is a fantastic move. And no, a Roku, Chinese Android players, Apple TV, etc. aren't interesting to me at all because I don't want to interact with my TV screen.
Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or other features. You'll get your money's worth.
Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.
But I do agree with you about 3D. :)
Can anyone who has it tell me whether the web based spotify player will cast from a laptop?
My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non-existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money out of this as a hardware product.
It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make substantially less from advertising.
Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
It seems to be using the DIAL protocol anyway, which is intended for smart TV and plug in devices. And if you hit the "cast" button you'll also see listed any Mira-cast devices. So this mostly seems to be about making Android, and Chrome more desirable targets for video content, not an attempt to monopolise the video sending dongle market.
Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV w/Chromecast?
Since I'm completely unfamiliar with the structure of a Chrome App, I don't know what's sandboxed away in that environment. But I'm stopping short of calling full Windows/OS X compatibility there.
It is, in fact, a moderately smart wireless port: whatever you send to it that it recognizes, it plays. That's it. If you want a pause function, you need to tell the source, not ChromeCast. If you want a rewind, a fast forward, a seek... ditto.
It's a big deal because it's $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku, who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources, pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer one for three times the price.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch...
I thought HDMI-out was becoming standard.