5 ms·

Was it ever supported? The response in the forum is "[a]t this time, Chromium is not supported for use with Google Cast." which doesn't explicitly say that supp

Was it ever supported? The response in the forum is "[a]t this time, Chromium is not supported for use with Google Cast." which doesn't explicitly say that support was retracted. Original title, lest it changes: Chromium is no longer supported for Chromecast (productforums.google.com) 3 points by keeperofdakeys 1 hour ago

DrAwesome 10y ago
I don't have a Chromecast set up, so I'm not 100% sure on this, but my understanding is that Chromium users could cast using the Google Cast extension, and that Google did something (intentionally or unintentionally) to break the Cast extension and didn't fix it because casting is built into directly into Chrome now.
- Sylos 10y ago
  Yeah, you could cast with the Google Cast extension over Chromium. And it's generally believed that Google moved the Chromecast-functionality into Chrome and away from an extension to not necessarily lock out Chromium, but rather to lock out other Chromium-based browsers which could use their extensions, so for example Opera. Firefox and, I believe, Edge are also getting support for Chrome extensions in the foreseeable future, so this might have increased the incentive to lock out browsers that can use their extensions, too.
  - jeremydw 10y ago
    What is that speculation based on? Why wouldn't Google want more browsers to be able to Cast? My opinion: I feel like this is a pro-user move with an unfortunate side effect of breaking/unsupporting an extension. If I just want to cast to my TV why should I have to hunt for an extension. I'd rather it "just work" via a context menu in the browser.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      It favors a particular implementation (Chromecast) in a market where there are several competing standards and no established leader. Shouldn't Miracast, for example, "just work" as well?
      - kevincox 10y ago
        I don't know of any competing standards. The Matchstick tried but failed (I think they had DRM problems). Miracast is completely different, it deals with video to remove displays where as chromecast (primarily) is about loading a URL on a remote display with some communication primitives. I really wish there was a competing product/standard, but I don't know of one.
      - DiabloD3 10y ago
        Miracast is a streaming endpoint. As in, you typically throw H264+AAC at it. Chromecast, however, is amount remote controlling a secondary Chrome HTML canvas on the Chromecast, where the intended use is manipulating a <video> object. You can cast a tab to your Chromecast, thus treating it like Miracast, but that is largely not what the Chromecast is meant for. Example, I can have Youtube (the website or the phone app) cast a queue of videos to the Chromecast, interact with that queue from multiple devices, and even disconnect all devices, and the Chromecast keeps playing because it streams the video directly from Youtube, not my phone or browser. Miracast cannot do any of these things. In addition, the only functioning Miracast device I've ever discovered is Microsoft's Wireless Display Adapter. All the built in Miracast end point impls in TVs and such are utter garbage and usually don't work.
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      >What is that speculation based on? Why wouldn't Google want more browsers to be able to Cast? You have to remember how Google's business works. Ads on search is a massive part (majority?) of their revenue. The main reason for Chrome existing is to direct people to Google search via the address bar.
      - TD-Linux 10y ago
        Chrome now uploads all browsing history associated with a Google login too, so it's a lot of extra valuable information for ads.
  - yincrash 10y ago
    Given that there is a support article on how to make Chrome use the cast extension by disabling the media router functionality, this seems unlikely. https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/6349849?hl=en https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/6349849?hl=en
TD-Linux 10y ago
Well, the bug report made clear that it worked before with the official extension and doesn't work now. It depends on how pedantic you want to be with "supported".
Sylos 10y ago
No one ever held a press meeting and officially said that Chromium is supported by Chromecast (Chromium doesn't even officially exist as a product), but you could use Chromium with the Google Cast extension and it worked, anyways. So, yes, legally speaking Google is doing no wrong here, but morally speaking it's not that great.
ekianjo 10y ago
Yeah it was working before with the Google cast extension on Chromium.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Working and Supported are two different things

DrAwesome 10y ago

I don't have a Chromecast set up, so I'm not 100% sure on this, but my understanding is that Chromium users could cast using the Google Cast extension, and that Google did something (intentionally or unintentionally) to break the Cast extension and didn't fix it because casting is built into directly into Chrome now.

Sylos 10y ago
Yeah, you could cast with the Google Cast extension over Chromium. And it's generally believed that Google moved the Chromecast-functionality into Chrome and away from an extension to not necessarily lock out Chromium, but rather to lock out other Chromium-based browsers which could use their extensions, so for example Opera. Firefox and, I believe, Edge are also getting support for Chrome extensions in the foreseeable future, so this might have increased the incentive to lock out browsers that can use their extensions, too.
- jeremydw 10y ago
  What is that speculation based on? Why wouldn't Google want more browsers to be able to Cast? My opinion: I feel like this is a pro-user move with an unfortunate side effect of breaking/unsupporting an extension. If I just want to cast to my TV why should I have to hunt for an extension. I'd rather it "just work" via a context menu in the browser.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It favors a particular implementation (Chromecast) in a market where there are several competing standards and no established leader. Shouldn't Miracast, for example, "just work" as well?
    - kevincox 10y ago
      I don't know of any competing standards. The Matchstick tried but failed (I think they had DRM problems). Miracast is completely different, it deals with video to remove displays where as chromecast (primarily) is about loading a URL on a remote display with some communication primitives. I really wish there was a competing product/standard, but I don't know of one.
    - DiabloD3 10y ago
      Miracast is a streaming endpoint. As in, you typically throw H264+AAC at it. Chromecast, however, is amount remote controlling a secondary Chrome HTML canvas on the Chromecast, where the intended use is manipulating a <video> object. You can cast a tab to your Chromecast, thus treating it like Miracast, but that is largely not what the Chromecast is meant for. Example, I can have Youtube (the website or the phone app) cast a queue of videos to the Chromecast, interact with that queue from multiple devices, and even disconnect all devices, and the Chromecast keeps playing because it streams the video directly from Youtube, not my phone or browser. Miracast cannot do any of these things. In addition, the only functioning Miracast device I've ever discovered is Microsoft's Wireless Display Adapter. All the built in Miracast end point impls in TVs and such are utter garbage and usually don't work.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    >What is that speculation based on? Why wouldn't Google want more browsers to be able to Cast? You have to remember how Google's business works. Ads on search is a massive part (majority?) of their revenue. The main reason for Chrome existing is to direct people to Google search via the address bar.
    - TD-Linux 10y ago
      Chrome now uploads all browsing history associated with a Google login too, so it's a lot of extra valuable information for ads.
- yincrash 10y ago
  Given that there is a support article on how to make Chrome use the cast extension by disabling the media router functionality, this seems unlikely. https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/6349849?hl=en https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/6349849?hl=en

TD-Linux 10y ago

Well, the bug report made clear that it worked before with the official extension and doesn't work now. It depends on how pedantic you want to be with "supported".

Sylos 10y ago

No one ever held a press meeting and officially said that Chromium is supported by Chromecast (Chromium doesn't even officially exist as a product), but you could use Chromium with the Google Cast extension and it worked, anyways. So, yes, legally speaking Google is doing no wrong here, but morally speaking it's not that great.

ekianjo 10y ago

Yeah it was working before with the Google cast extension on Chromium.

kalleboo 10y ago
Working and Supported are two different things