36 ms·
Moments in Chromecast's history
- Atreiden 2y agoHow much longer until we reach the logical conclusion here? - "Google kills off Google"
- theandrewbailey 2y agoThat's been a joke for years: https://xkcd.com/1361/ https://xkcd.com/1361/
- giancarlostoro 2y agoWhen we all wear AR goggles 24/7 and the traditional web is killed off in favor of ad infested "free" apps.
- alemanek 2y agoThey are working on it.
- nostrademons 2y agoSeen on Hacker News yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41164240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41164240
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ilrwbwrkhv 2y agoI chose React Native recently over Flutter for a new bunch of apps that I'm making. Go seems to be the only one which survives the terrible management of Google.
- rickdeckard 2y agowell, they no longer produce the "display-only" Chromecast in favor of their "Google TV" sticks with Remote etc. Not that much of a shock here, the market moved on from simple wireless display dongles. Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for general purpose use. Would be great to be able to run your own custom Receiver-device without needing a Google certificate...
- davidmurdoch 2y agoThe market didn't move on, the manufacturers found a better way to put ads in front of eyeballs.
- jerlam 2y agoThe "Chromecast with Google TV" main upgrade for my use case (watching YouTube) was to introduce longer ads. For that reason I've lost faith in this product line and this rebranding (and price increase) guarantees I won't be getting one of these.
- scarmig 2y ago> Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for general purpose use. Matter Cast in theory exists, though afaik Amazon's the only big power really pushing it.
- pydry 2y agomiracast is a decent standard. i'm not sure why we'd need chromecast's proprietary equivalent as well. the fact that google dropped it from stock android kind of says it all - they clearly think that chromecast isn't good enough to compete without being coddled.
- arghwhat 2y agoMiracast is for streaming a video feed from a device. This is horrible for battery life, AV sync and cannot deal with things like HDR content and remote input. Cast and Airplay makes the device itself fetch and play content, with local control and importantly much better display and video manage. (AirPlay and Cast both support screen sharing, but that is not the main use case.)
- pydry 2y agoThe practical upshot is the same. Whether I get my TV to play a youtube video or play it on my phone and cast, it still plays, at least with wifi 6 (earlier versions were flaky). I also DGAF about battery life. If im watching TV, I have power nearby and im not moving anywhere. Id be charging my phone anyway.
- theandrewbailey 2y agoI've opened an issue on Killed By Google: https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/1544 https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/1544
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 2y agoNot really a surprise. I'd have been more unhappy a number of years back but mostly use an Apple TV these days. Not quite a 1:1 replacement for everything though.
- christkv 2y agoI found that using infuse I got what i needed for streaming from the NAS and the kids enjoy apple arcade so it does the job at a decent price.
- ghaff 2y agoThanks for the tip. For streaming from the web I mostly find that just connecting a laptop to HDMI works pretty well but you obviously have to be near the TV. At one point, I bought a second Apple TV for another TV and I confess I haven't really used Chromecast--which at one point I considered pretty essential--in a while.
- aestetix 2y agoSo they are ending Chromecast, and also just launched the "Google TV Streamer" which seems to do the same thing, but "faster, more premium" whatever that means. Seems to be a reason to charge people more for the same thing but slap the AI label all over it. But that's just first impressions. Edit: and apparently the TV Streamer thing is twice the price of the Chromecast.
- paxys 2y agoMore than twice. Chromecast is $30. The new TV streamer is $100.
- gclawes 2y ago"faster, more premium" == can't fit in a dongle form-factor anymore I guess
- PhasmaFelis 2y ago"Premium" in general means "more expensive," right?
- jsheard 2y agoIt's $100, compared to $50 for the last 4K Chromecast dongle or $30 for the 1080p version.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gclawes 2y ago> Google TV Streamer (4K) Oh, so they're just rebranding and not making it a dongle anymore....
- lxgr 2y agoI suspect that being a dongle is part of the appeal of Chromecast for many people. At least I definitely don't want more visible external boxes behind/next to my TV, especially if they don't even need line-of-sight to the remote since that's all Bluetooth anyway these days.
- FalconSensei 2y ago> I suspect that being a dongle is part of the appeal of Chromecast for many people. Exactly. Also: I just want to watch stuff. I don't want AI or smart-home features.
- mrweasel 2y agoThe rebranding makes sense, because I don't think people see it as "Google Chromecast", but simply "Chromecast" and not associating it with Google.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoGoogle has a really horrible brand reputation though. Would be bizarre if someone at Google thought tacking "Google" on a product would improve the product's reputation.
- pawelmurias 2y agoDoes it have a horrible brand reputation? The tech savy people complaining about the account review procedures are not the mainstream consumer.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoYes, I do think it does have a horrible rep for the layman.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ramijames 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- danesparza 2y agoI slowed my Google use after they killed off Google Reader. Yeah, that's right. I showed up here to mention I'm still bitter over Google Reader. No, I'm NOT "getting over it" (contrary to the cease and desist letter I got from Google recently).
- Waterluvian 2y agoI’m incredibly anxious about this. Chromecast is core to how my family’s television usage works. I got a free Chromecast recently and it’s a much worse UX than the ones I got many years ago. What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole market of devices that’ll work. It feels frustrating and kind of ugly that there’s an Apple version and a Google version, etc.
- exe34 2y agomy next step after my chrome cast stops working is going to be a raspberry pi connected directly to the projector.
- petepete 2y ago> What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole market of devices that’ll work Sonos, take note.
- paradox460 2y agoWhy, so they can patent it and sue everyone?
- petepete 2y agoOh so that's why I can't cast to my Sonos speakers? I thought they just couldn't work out how to make casting work, like how they still haven't figured out RSTP.
- deedub 2y agoI am taking a look at the Nvidia shield, which also uses the cast button. I have 3 Chromecasts that need to be replaced, but the cheapest Shield is $150!! I guess each time Google kills something and I remove one more part of my life from their ecosystem they are doing me the real favor.
- 2y ago
- swamp_donkey 2y agoIs there any substitute for chrome cast audio? I love being able to play in sync audio to the group of receivers I choose throughout the property, using any amplifier. I’m not even using the digital optical input and I love them
- mgaunard 2y agoYou can buy any of the google-enabled speakers, or you can just get some raspberry pi and run your own solution.
- physicsguy 2y agoThe point was that you could have an optical out connection to a Hi-Fi system and things would just work from Spotify, etc... The google speakers don't even have an aux out. A Rasperry Pi isn't at all equivalent as it's not plug and play.
- mgaunard 2y agoIf you're posting on hacker news surely you would be able to install raspotify on a debian raspberry pi or just load the moode audio image.
- physicsguy 2y agoNot everyone wants to hack on things all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that.
- iicc 2y agoSnapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast https://github.com/badaix/snapcast
- wilsonnb3 2y agoCheck out wiim for hardware. And also https://roon.app/en/ https://roon.app/en/ for music streaming software that can group up devices from a bunch of different manufacturers.
- mymyairduster 2y ago[dead]
- mbreese 2y agoHow much of this is an "end" to Chromecast and a rebranding of Chromecast to "Google TV Streamer"? It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being tied to a phone (or browser) is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. If this is the case, it might be a (rare) example of a good branding shift from Google. I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel like both were hampered by the phone requirement. Part of this is my house having kids without phone who would have liked to have access to Netflix, and part is due to my Apple TV use, which I use far more often. I'm sure there will be some loss of functionality here, but hopefully it's with the benefit of a much better user experience.
- woodrowbarlow 2y agothe phone/browser lock-in is largely due to lack of a standardized and open protocol to stream content in this manner. in the wireless-display-sharing ecosystem the chromecast is unique in that, when possible, it streams content from the original provider on a local client rather than relying on mirroring your device's display. this gives a better user experience but required participation from each service provider. i'm surprised netflix or amazon hasn't tried to create a standardized protocol for asking another client to initiate a stream from a provider on your behalf, including passing account credentials and allowing for widevine and other drm. if this was successful, it would open the market for chromecast-like-devices from other vendors.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 2y agoI was at my brother's on vacation and we were sharing some vacation pics. The mirroring worked pretty well but I do wish there were a straightforward way to just cast a browser to a TV in a standard way.
- vel0city 2y agoIn Windows, you can press Win+K to pull up the Cast menu. Lots of smart TVs and streaming devices will work with it. You can mirror or extend your display to it. This is through standardized protocols.
- lxgr 2y agoWow, even for Google, this seems like an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name and device to kill. The replacement ("Google TV streamer") seems to be a quite different device – most importantly, one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its predecessor. For anyone not particularly interested in having "AI" in their streaming stick (and this being Google, surely that will just happen in the cloud...?), I'm not sure if that's an improvement.
- ghaff 2y agoI think you'd find that the vast majority of consumers have never heard of Chromecast.
- compiler-guy 2y agoBut many, many more than have heard of Google TV Streamer.
- Izkata 2y agoI think that's the point of: > one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its predecessor. You're now advertising to anyone who visits your home.
- compiler-guy 2y agoThat doesn't require changing the branding.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lxgr 2y agoDefinitely, and the same probably goes for Pixel, Nest etc. But those that have at least subjectively/anecdotally seem pretty happy with it – so why kill it and start from scratch?
- lordleft 2y agoI really disliked my Chromecast...despite being able to output 4k, the OS was sluggish and it barely had storage to hold the streaming apps I was interested in using. I ditched it for the Apple4K.
- delecti 2y agoI didn't even know you could install apps onto a Chromecast. I'm not sure why you'd need to though, because phone apps can "cast" to it.
- vel0city 2y agoIMO this is a part of the reason why they're dropping the Chromecast branding. The product is very different from the original Chromecast streaming stick. It is now mostly a cheap Google TV device.
- riggsdk 2y agoI also quickly ditched mine. I mean it worked sorta fine - but the usability was absolutely terrible. Often apps lost connection with it so any requests to pause or resume the media was several seconds delayed. If I got a phone call I often wanted a quick way to pause my media but chromecast made this super inconvenient, slow and stressful when the phone is blurting out it's ringtone. App support was also spotty at best. In the end I realized that since I've already chosen between a rock and a hard place (went with the Apple ecosystem), I could just screenshare using an old Apple TV. This ended up working much better in practice (although lower quality video stream) than Chromecast. Today I don't cast much video anymore for some reason, not really sure why. I have an Apple TV 4K and just mostly use the native apps from various services. Having a remote to a system that is completely detached from your phone is much nicer usability wise IMHO.
- deelowe 2y agoDamnit. I'm so tired of buying Google products only to have them cancelled. I literally just bought chromecasts for my entire home less than 6 months ago. That's it. I'm NEVER buying another google device again.
- jeffbee 2y agoWhat difference does this announcement make to you? I am still using a 2013 Chromecast for some purposes. It does all the things it originally did, even though "support" for it ended a while back.
- esafak 2y agoWhat if stops working tomorrow?
- jeffbee 2y agoWhat if I get hit by an asteroid tomorrow?
- keepamovin 2y agoOne can only hope. Hahaha! :)
- paxys 2y agoThen complain tomorrow.
- esafak 2y agoNo thanks. Better an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure. I just won't buy the stuff. Feel free to pester Google at your own leisure.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- poetril 2y agoLooks like I'll be moving towards Roku, most of my friends use it and I've been using a Chromecast because I was gifted on. But the experience w/ Roku seems to be superior to Chromecast nowadays anyways.
- codepoet80 2y agoRoku has always been pretty great -- simple, straightforward, limited UI clutter (source: have been a user since 2013). However, lately they've been adding more and more suggested/sponsored content to the home screen. Most of these things can be turned off, and even with them on, it doesn't slow down the experience significantly (I'm looking at you, Fire TV) but it is a shame. I suppose they've got to make money somehow...
- chuckadams 2y agoGot a Roku stick last year after two FireTV sticks bricked themselves. First thing I noticed was that the volume on the remote can only control Roku devices. Then there’s the ads that are creeping in everywhere, but I admit they do stay out of the way… for now. Going back to AppleTV for my next device. I don’t like how search steers all results through Apple, but I can work around that. Plus I can use it as an exit node on my Tailscale network.
- vel0city 2y ago> First thing I noticed was that the volume on the remote can only control Roku devices. Rokus can send volume/mute commands through CEC. The volume buttons on my Roku control my home theater receiver, they controlled the volume on a sound bar on a different TV, and they controlled the TV volume.
- 1980phipsi 2y agoSame. My Roku remote can control sound bar.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
- ecshafer 2y agoThey also announced Google Streamer, which is just Google Chromecast but more expensive I guess, and also with the Nest technology for smart home stuff, which they also killed iirc. I have to say, I don't really see this product strategy as being good, or working. Google's product is just a mess, they are nearing Microsoft levels of incoherence. When you compare Google with Apple, it's such a night and day experience.
- kylecazar 2y agoI agree with your second paragraph for a lot of reasons and product lines of theirs. But -- I decided a while ago to bite the bullet and go whole hog on using Google everything for my personal life (for better or worse). The decision was either to avoid them entirely or resign and buy into the ecosystem. I have a Pixel, my home uses Nest, I use their cloud storage personally, their AI, etc. FWIW it is a better experience than using only a few of their products in isolation. At what cost, we will find out. But I imagine Google Streamer will be useful for people like me, the user group Google is presumably trying to expand.
- rsynnott 2y ago> But I imagine Google Streamer will be useful for people like me, the user group Google is presumably trying to expand. Until, in a few years, there is another such blogpost, and it goes to the Google office in the sky. Really, Google seems like possibly the worst ecosystem to go all in on, in that bits of it keep unexpectedly vanishing.
- kylecazar 2y agoYeah, I'd emphasize this is for personal stuff only (doubt I'd build a startup on top of Flutter tomorrow). It may be the product of how boring my personal digital requirements are but I haven't been burned yet by their many abandonments. I really only use pretty core services (Gmail/ Drive/Calendar, ChromeOS/Android/Pixel Watch, Google TV) that I don't anticipate going anywhere soon. The biggest downside so far is overcoming the ethical dilemma of such a resignation. I'd prefer to use what's best in every case independently, but the value I put on convenience grows every year.
- theryan 2y agoIs there a replacement device out there for the ability to cast a tab or your full desktop to a TV? We use this functionality all the time and I would rather not deal with HDMI cords.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoSnatch up some 4k chromecasts on eBay while they're still available
- kube-system 2y agoMiracast devices have pretty decent compatibility. Some TVs have it built in, but there are dongles that implement it as well. IIRC Microsoft has (had?) one that worked quite well.
- solardev 2y agoYour Chromecast should still keep working. The replacement streamer device would still work too, or the last gen chromecast with google tv. Apple TV also works if you have a Mac. Many TVs also have Chromecast built in. Miracast is another option but it's really terrible. Steam Link is another option. There are also wireless HDMI adapters.
- alphazard 2y agoSeems like the perfect opportunity for an open source dongle that does pass-by-reference content streaming to replace Chromecast.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoIn this case "premium" just means "expensive, right? What new features are there? AI summaries? I don't think there is anyone that would think AI summaries would be worth paying extra. But I do think people would pay more if there was a version that completely removed any and all AI integrations.
- pseudoscienc3 2y agoYes -- it is very difficult to get a customer to pay for "AI summaries" for movies/shows especially if they are not bundled with anything else. I tried it about 6 months ago at recapflix.com (it's not perfect and we got 1 paying customer over like 3 months haha).
- joshfee 2y agoLike others are saying, this just looks like a rebrand. Hopefully this competes in performance with the 2019 Nvidia Shield TV Pro which is to date still the only streamer that performs well enough for high quality audio and video, but is starting to age (and no longer works with things like google home audio groups). If anyone knows of a comparable plex streamer let me know :)
- kyriakos 2y agoapparently doesn't support DTS audio which means can't replace the 10 year old nvidia shield TV Pro
- pbhowmic 2y agoI still have one. A few years old but still works, rock-solid and what I love best is the form-factor: unobtrusive, in fact, totally hidden from view.
- lxgr 2y agoHang on to it. Google inexplicably killed the Chromecast Audio as well, and it was an absolutely perfect device for a very particular niche (streaming audio to an old stereo/amplifier without needing a permanently connected phone as is the case for Bluetooth). I hope mine still lasts for a long time (I believe there are some Google-signed certs on it that might expire some day?).
- empyrrhicist 2y agoAnd they came with optical out. I have a couple as well and am hoping to get many more years out of them.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoThis makes me sad as I have multiple chromecasts, it has its issues but for the price they're amazing. I guess they need to throw more money at AI search nobody wanted or likes instead. I feel like nobody running product at google has any idea what they're doing.
- mgaunard 2y agoI just bought a Chromecast because my TV doesn't support the latest apps.
- guzik 2y agoJust this morning, I was chatting with a colleague about how much I love Chromecast and how relieved I am that it hasn't been discontinued. Then, an 3 hours later, I read this news, and it really bummed me out. Honestly, I'm not sure which company frustrates me more right now. Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic). Plus, the google search is practically useless.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rimunroe 2y ago> Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic). What do you mean by "(sic)" here? I'm used to seeing that in quotes to make it clear the quote is being reproduced exactly, but I've never seen it outside a quote.
- guzik 2y agoOh wow, I was using it incorrectly—thanks for indirectly correcting me! I thought I could use it to emphasize that something is indeed true.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rimunroe 2y agoAh! I was wondering if that might be what you were intending to say, but not being familiar with app development I wasn't sure.
- pradn 2y agoIf brands can be put on the balance sheet as "goodwill", how much money was burnt by obliterating this brand name - one almost as generic as Kleenex, for its product category (small streaming-first HDMI dongles)?
- transcriptase 2y agoThey’ve been getting more sluggish for years. When the Ultra launched I could stream something to the TV from my laptop or phone nearly instantly. Now it’s a 20 second wait and only 80% chance of success. Why the fuck can’t products by Google improve performance over time? What perverse incentives do they have to slowly and steadily make them worse than they were out of the box?
- arrosenberg 2y ago> What perverse incentives do they have to slowly and steadily make them worse than they were out of the box? Its Google, so almost certainly advertising related tracking (and the associated bloat)
- esafak 2y agoI speculate that they give them a trial period to prove runaway success, and when it invariably does not meet their unreasonably high demands (of being 'Google scale'), they focus on something else and leave the products on auto-pilot using minimal resources.
- solardev 2y agoThis is really just a rebranding. For the past few years, we've already had a Chromecast with Google TV, which is pretty much the same thing. This is just a hardware refresh, adding AI freatures and doubling the price. I'm hoping this hardware is faster. The previous model was very laggy compared to the Apple TV or Nvidia Shield. But probably not. It just looks like the Chromecast team is tyring to shoehorn in AI features because it's 2024. I guess the description summaries could be helpful, maybe.
- stuaxo 2y agoI wish they'd sort out the actual experience of casting, maybe it's OK with a Chromecast - but with AndroidTV and an Android Phone, it's a complete gamble how well it's going work, and there are always so many options you can choose (most sub optimal).
- light_hue_1 2y agoHave they lost their minds? Chromecast is a great device to have with you on the road. Now it's this massive brick?. Why would I want this? It's just another reason to not get invested in anything Google related. Whatever you do you'll always end up with a discontinued product or a brick in the end.
- unethical_ban 2y agoIt is annoying that we do not have an open standard for Wi-Fi video casting.
- kube-system 2y agoThis is a widely supported standard by the WiFi Alliance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracast https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracast
- vel0city 2y agoWe do. https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-specification https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-specification
- dharmit 2y agoThe way they forced reconnecting to the same Wi-Fi network that was used to configure it the first time rendered it useless even if you changed just the SSID!
- indymike 2y agoI wonder if sales are down that much now that every new TV has Roku or something similar built-in. The Chromecast's form factor was fantastic, but it really left a lot of features on the table compared to Amazon, Roku, and even Onn (Wal-Mart's house brand) streaming sticks.
- yieldcrv 2y agoI used to love Chromecast and I love the concept but since 2020 My ISPs have sent me non-configurable routers, they broadcast 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz Wifi on the same spectrum. This bricked my older devices that can't figure out how to find the 2.4Ghz only network. I never bought the newer Chromecast and its just been sitting idle, hopeless dangling off of an HDMI port since. My world has moved on as literally everything else can get shows displaying on a TV including the TV. I guess it was coming.
- plantain 2y agoChromecast was an endless source of frustration for me from having the first prototypes while at Google, to the latest devices. It solves such a simple problem that no one else seemed to want to tackle - put a video on the TV - and yet, it never quite worked reliably. We used it every evening for years and 19/20 times it streams effortlessly and instantly... 1/20 times I'm restarting browsers, TV's, WiFi until we give up and watch on a laptop. Back to the HDMI cable. In retrospect, I should have never left it.
- leptons 2y agoWe have 5 Chromecasts with Android TV and they all work perfectly. We really only use Plex, Youtube, Netflix and a few other streaming apps, but none of them has any problems. It sounds like your problems with Chromecast are due to the rest of your network infrastructure and not the Chromecast.
- ViktorRay 2y agoI got a free Chromecast ultra when I got a free Google Stadia box kit a few years ago. I didn’t use the Chromecast ultra much but I thought it was pretty neat. Kinda sad to see it go. Honestly the Google Stadia controller is probably the most comfortable and well designed controller I’ve used. I still have it and use it for PC gaming stuff. I don’t play video games much anymore so I don’t know if the other controllers nowadays are better but that was my experience. The point I’m trying to make is that it seems Google has talented engineers and designers. So I wonder why so many of its products fail and why it cancels so many things…
- rescripting 2y agoI find it funny that Google managed to sell you not one but two products in the same box that they unceremoniously discontinued. At least it looks like your Chromecast will continue to work for a while.
- anderber 2y agoTechnically, the controller can also be used as a Bluetooth controller.
- wasteduniverse 2y ago[dead]
- piperswe 2y agoGive, not sell. They (and I, and many others) received that box for free as part of a promo.
- catapart 2y agoI'm suddenly reminded to ask this community whom I assume might know: Are there any good "dumb tv" solutions out there? I'm thinking 1-4 HDMI ports, and a maximum of RF tuning and input-switching on the firmware. Products would be preferred suggestions, but I'm even at the point of considering DIY solutions, if something looks lego-ish enough!
- n4r9 2y agoWe looked into this when moving house a few years ago in the UK. There didn't seem to be any viable options, so we bought a secondhand TV. I've heard that there are ways to get hold of shop display monitors but didn't figure out how to do this.
- walthamstow 2y agoIf you don't connect your TV to the internet, ever, not even once, it will function as a dumb panel.
- n4r9 2y agoCall me paranoid, but I just don't trust it not to look for nearby unsecured wifi networks. Ontop of which I feel dirty and complicit by paying for functionality that I will never use and believe is detrimental to society.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoFind the Wi-Fi antenna and remove it if you are so worried. Unfounded fears without action is merely handwringing, while unactionable fears aren't worth worrying about.
- n4r9 2y agoFair point, but that only covers half of my objection. Also I would not agree with "no action". My action was to decide on a different product.
- wnevets 2y agoChanging the name makes sense, the Google TV version of the Chromecast is a terrible experience compared to the original Chromecasts.
- sf_rob 2y agoWhenever I submit Google Home/Chromecast bugs/feature requests I include some snark in my sign-off like "I know you don't care about this product and it will be killed soon, but if I'm wrong please consider the suggestions above."
- asveikau 2y agoI expose my home assistant entities to Home so that I get voice commands using their speakers. Stuff that you install in your house is generally expected to last a long time. Imagine centering your home around Google and having them unceremoniously kill it. I'm glad a vendor neutral open source project like Home Assistant exists. Edit: apparently some form of this already happened with their alarm system. The $400 paperweight comment in this article hits hard -- shame on them for creating so much e-waste -- https://www.cnet.com/home/security/googles-nest-secure-has-fully-shut-down-weve-got-answers-if-youre-worried/ https://www.cnet.com/home/security/googles-nest-secure-has-f...
- n4r9 2y agoWhat reasonably priced alternatives are there for streaming from a phone/laptop to a screen via HDMI port? Ideally a portable solution that I can use when traveling and staying in hotels or AirBnBs (as I can currently do with my Chromecast unless the hotel WiFi has an annoying sign-in process). Even more ideally, something that's free/open-source and can be guaranteed not to collect and send data to third parties.
- antonyh 2y agoWe use a Roku, which we found out yesterday supports AirPlay from an iPad. It's an old model though, not sure if the newer ones do.
- n4r9 2y agoCool. Looks like you can do screen-mirroring from Windows or Android as well, which covers all my use cases. Thanks!
- 1980phipsi 2y agoI have a newer Roku and it has AirPlay.
- israrkhan 2y agoRoku supports both airplay (mac, iphone, iPad) and miracast (windows and some android devices). Most android devices support Miracast, but Google abandoned support for miracast in their firstparty devices in order to promote their proprietary (Google cast/Chromecast) solution.
- komali2 2y agoAlso interested. I run a self hosted jellyfin setup and it's really fun to visit someone's house that has a Chromecast, connect to wifi, hit the "cast" button in the jellyfin app, and play whatever content we want, including music. I'm sad that one day that easy UX will be gone in favor of needing to install the jellyfin app on someone's device, login, etc, which is the current UX for smart tv style devices.
- hsaliak 2y agoThe 30 dollar price point was the big deal. A 100 dollar price point opens up competition to a lot more devices. As a consumer, this is completely unexciting.
- Lutger 2y agoWe had this coming. Over the years, the various chromecasts in our house are slowly getting worse. I had the sense they are cutting costs on the software and servers powering these devices. Spend way too much on the chromecasts and home devices. I guess they will continue to work for a few years, hopefully. After this, no more google devices for me.
- Blot2882 2y ago> We had this coming. Over the years, the various chromecasts in our house are slowly getting worse. I had the sense they are cutting costs on the software and servers powering these devices. I can't imagine they will get better. It seems smart devices always crap out after a few years. I am regretting buying my Samsung TV last Fall because it's already slowing down. It takes 5 seconds to load the options menu.
- EricE 2y agoJust plug an external streaming box into it and move on. Embedded apps were always a dumb idea. Double bonus - disconnecting the TV from the 'net will stop their spying on you too.
- Blot2882 2y agoThis is totally true, but unfortunately it is hard to find a good TV that doesn't have embedded software. So whether or not I plug in a Roku, my options menu will always be handled by the TVs OS.
- no_wizard 2y agoSometimes I wonder if this is it right here. Internally they think something like this: Dev 1: “Well we have this backlog of bug reports and issues for Chrimecast” Dec 2: “Ugh. I don’t want to do maintenance. Acknowledgment of there bugs will be a black mark on my career!” Dev 1: “Lets re-brand it and close all the bugs. Now those bugs become features and we start with a clean slate!”
- rightbyte 2y ago
- apitman 2y agoToo bad they're not killing the Chromecast protocol as well, then maybe the world would start moving toward a simple, open protocol for casting.
- shiandow 2y agoWhat does a protocol for casting need that UPnP/DLNA doesn't provide?
- knowaveragejoe 2y agoAren't there issues with latency in the protocol?
- apitman 2y agoIf I have an MP4 video file sitting in cloud storage somewhere, does UPnP/DLNA provide an easy way for me to use my phone to tell my TV to play that file? Also same question but for Netflix.
- shiandow 2y agoNetflix at least could easily provide a link. When it is on a fileshare somewhere, is that something Chromecast can handle? If so it will be essentially serving the file from your device, and I see no reason you couldn't similarly ask DLNA to stream from a server you're running locally. In fact I do very much the same thing regularly (using swyh, quite a useful tool)
- pipeline_peak 2y agoChromecast symbolizes the older Google I loved. The one that did a damn good job competing with Apple. Exciting projects like Google Glass that while weren’t successful were still optimistic. Not today’s Google, the parking garage cloud company. Readers digest ad agency Google. I will admit that without those ads we wouldn’t have the cool stuff, I just don’t see that stuff much these days. I see 90s Microsoft monopoly dressed in Apples aesthetic. Real shame, I prefer controlling with my phone more than the shitty smart tv interfaces. Don’t even get me started with controlling said interfaces with my phone, it’s not as simple. I use a tv from 2010 , Chromecast is the retrofit that lets me do modern streaming. Of course we’re far past the transitional stage the device served as every $100 tv is equipped with streaming.
- UncleMeat 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chris_wot 2y agoYeah, don’t buy Google tech. If it ain’t search, stay away from it.
- dtx1 2y agoDoes anyone know what chipset that gogole tv streamer is using? A GrapheneOS streamig device would be so cool!
- AdmiralAsshat 2y agoI had an original 2013 Chromecast plugged into my TV for ten years. It did its job admirably, until it started becoming more and more unstable and began rebooting randomly with each new OS version that Google pushed. I finally replaced it about a month ago with an onn streaming box from Walmart for about 20 bucks--less than I paid for the original Chromecast a decade ago: https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-Streaming-Box-New-2023-4K-UHD-Resolution/2835618394?athbdg=L1200&from=/search https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-Streaming-Box-Ne... Works great, and still has Chromecast support. Most of the stuff I used to cast can be handled by Google TV having equivalent Android apps now, but I still like casting my local music from my phone to the TV when I'm reading. There's a $50 4K version out now, as well, if you have a higher resolution TV, but the TV I had the Chromecast plugged into caps out at 1080P, so, no need.
- stavros 2y agoI have the same experience. My Chromecast worked great until yesterday, when there was an update and now the remote just refuses to pair. Luckily I can use my phone as a remote, it's not as convenient as the actual remote, but it works. I'd really like to stop updates when I get something that works, but alas, Google "cares about my security".
- fullstop 2y agoI also picked up an onn device recently. It's a remarkably capable device, well worth the $20.
- wildzzz 2y agoI used a Chromecast for years until we slowly replaced all of the TVs with ones that have Roku built in. Having a remote is definitely better than needing to pickup your phone, switch over to the streaming app, wait for it to link up with the Chromecast, and then pause the video. The OG Chromecast definitely made sense for the time. Video encoding hardware capable of 1080p playback wasn't that cheap so fitting a bunch of extra processing power to run the various streaming apps seemed like extra effort when everyone already had a phone with the streaming apps installed. Roku was already in the business but their devices cost more money so Google came in at just the right time to establish themselves. One of the first dates with my girlfriend, we were watching TV at her house via a laptop plugged in with an HDMI cord. I bought her a Chromecast the next day (I just got one too) and I think that may have secured my way into her heart.
- maxglute 2y agoChromecast always a little slow / finicky. But I doubt Google can fix for twice the price, not because they can't squeeze in better components, but just can't expect them to do it right.
- debacle 2y agoI have some Chromecast enabled speakers. They used to work great through Google Home, but at some point they stopped being able to sync. Expensive and quality speakers that are basically bricks at this point.
- kyriakos 2y agoSadly the performance boost is not that great. It uses the same SoC as Amazon's Firestick 4k Max (2023), the MT8696.
- kardianos 2y agoThis is not the same thing. My Chromecast dedicated device would put a default nice picture, then wait for a cast. Google TV and this new device displays advertisements, store, and more. I hate it. It's the last google thing in my house. When it dies, google will be gone from my house.
- morkalork 2y agoAww man, this sucks. I had mine connected to a google photos album. I loved that feature.
- timgilbert 2y agoYou can either have it display from a Google Photos photo album, and get the version of the interface which constantly displays ads to you, or you can switch the interface to "apps only" mode which will only show you one big ad on the home screen. In "apps only" mode, the thing won't display your photos, either as a screensaver or anything else. You still need to be logged into your Google account, of course; as far as I can tell, not displaying photos is just a way of punishing you for trying to reduce the ads you see.
- dzikimarian 2y agoIs there different version for EU? I see either list of apps and bunch of shows from streamings that I have (home view) or just basically play store, with installed apps on top. None contains ads. If I leave it alone it will switch to Screensaver in a few minutes. Photos in my case. Bit sad they have hidden 3rd party screens savers, which were better, but there definitely isn't anything I can call "constant ads".
- fivestones 2y agoYou can still get third party screen savers if you use adb
- freedomben 2y ago
- datadeft 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kderbyma 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fareesh 2y agoChromecast + Dumb TV is amazing. Unfortunate to see it go
- qwertox 2y ago> With ambient mode, you can turn an idle TV into a work of art. [...] or create one-of-a-kind screensaver art with generative AI [...] Assuming a TV consumes 70 Watts, why would they want to encourage using it as a picture frame? Either they care about the environment or they don't.
- danvoell 2y agoLots of shade here. The Chrome served to make dumb tvs smart. It did its job. It changed the world of TVs. We don't use it anymore because TVs are smart out of the box. Google could spend the next 20 years trying to service and repurpose these things or cut technical debt and move onto the next.
- Filligree 2y agoI have yet to meet the smart TV I didn't want to throw out the window.
- paxys 2y agoHalf the smart TVs out there have the exact same software as Chromecast to begin with, so not sure what everyone is complaining about.
- kbolino 2y agoI have a "smart" Samsung TV from 2015 and it definitely doesn't have Chromecast software, its hardware is too weak to handle modern streaming apps, and it stopped receiving updates from Samsung years ago anyway. The picture is still good, I've disconnected it from the network, and it has HDMI input, so there's no good reason to replace it yet. Friends have had problems with newer/smarter TVs so I'm still not seeing what's so great about baking the apps into the TV.
- doawoo 2y agoNope. They just want to serve more ads directly to your TV.
- imchillyb 2y agohttps://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ Can you see my surprised face? Me, too, neither. Google is a serial murderer of its own parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins. There is no product too small, or large, for Google to murder. It is beyond my ken why any person, organization, company, or government would do business with Google or use Google's products. You're just biding time for Google to murder your profits.
- ko_pivot 2y agoAs a lot of commenters are already pointing out, this is a bit different than Google’s past escapades with poor product management. In this case, they have a replacement hardware device, they have an operating system that is widely used by OEMs, and there is wide support for casting natively to TVs.
- impalallama 2y agoThis is very annoying. Even with the prevalence of smart tvs some tvs just don't come with all streaming apps I want and Chromecast was a great inexpensive option. They are discontinuing it in favor of a product that appeals to a totally different market in mind at 2x-3x the price. Roku still mostly fills that niche but I don't see the logic in this move at all.
- myko 2y agoSeems really dumb not to continue using the name Chromecast, even if it has a remote now. It is essentially the same product and the best one on the market in its class. So, pretty typical product/marketing shitshow from Google, unfortunately.
- JoeCianflone 2y agoCall me cynical but it’s a shell game as far as I can see: same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, more expensive so more profit per unit…except they won’t sell as many units, but on paper it will look good so the market will reward them. I can’t tell though if investors and analysts are too stupid to see it this way or maybe they don’t care either? I guess it’s better to not care because you make money so instead of calling it out when you see it, just give it pass and everyone makes more money. I know Google isn’t the only company that does this it’s just a sad commentary on tech and the market that it works.
- pphysch 2y ago>same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, The new $100 TV Streamer has 32GB of RAM. 32GB of consumer RAM alone is at least $50, and that doesn't include any of the other stuff (graphics, cpu, nic) that makes a minimally useful device.
- lazycouchpotato 2y agoThere's some misunderstanding. It's 32 GB ROM, not RAM. RAM is 4 GB. https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer_specs https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer_specs Seems pricey for what it offers. Just WiFi 5 - not even WiFi 6 or 6E, let alone WiFi 7. It doesn't even come with an HDMI cable, sigh.
- pphysch 2y agoGotcha, that makes more sense.
- tekno45 2y agoChromecasts are too small to run their AI so they need a box.
- ortusdux 2y agoThey only reason I went with a Chromecast over a Nividia shield was the price. Now that the gap has narrowed the shield looks much more enticing. The pro version can run a PLEX server and has 2 USB 3.0 ports for storage. And Gforce Now is actually quite nice for games where a milliseconds don't matter all that much.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 2y agoAs someone who ran their plex server on the shield for a year, don't plan on keeping it there if you want get serious with it and/or want to open up it up to external users. As your library grows, it will start to struggle and I had to rebuild my library two or three times. A $100 SFF or micro computer off ebay with an 8th+ gen intel cpu will serve as a much better plex server, with plenty of room for other things like HomeAssistant etc. The iGPU will do 15-20+ simultaneous 1080p transcodes, and my machine idles at around 10w. The shield can serve up 1 or 2. The shield pro is hard to beat as a plex client, though.
- ricktdotorg 2y agowas there ever any information (released by Google or other parties) as to why Google decided to remove the functionality to "Cast" *any* tab, and not a tab from a site that was whitelisted by Google? who pressured Google to do this? or did they "pressure themselves" to do it? the BEST feature of early Chromecasts was the ability to cast any video from any page. it was revelatory! and then that feature was silently removed.
- theryan 2y agoI still do this all the time from my desktop PC with Chrome. As far as I'm aware you can cast any tab, or even your whole desktop.
- ricktdotorg 2y agoahhh... when i try to Cast from my desktop to my Roku, i see the Roku as a destination, but only "Available for specific video sites". i think it must be that the _Roku_ is restricted as a Cast[ing] destination. my Chromecast HD is in a drawer so i can't test it right now. so using a real Chromecast, it still is possible to Cast any tab at all? damn, i should get that Chromecast back out! thank you for the correction!
- theryan 2y agoYes, it is still 100% possible with the real Chromecast. My TV also has an option to cast to it (not sure what it uses under the hood) but it is similarly restricted.
- gedy 2y agoIt's still there afaik (on desktop Chrome): View > Cast...
- paxys 2y agoWriting is on the wall for all the $20-$30 TV dongles. Get ready for a series of $100+ "upgrades".
- igtztorrero 2y agoI hate you Google, all good stuff get kicked just because...
- chanux 2y agoThe form factor and what it did felt just right. Rest in peace.
- ravenstine 2y agoChromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into. It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well. I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual casting being relegated to the status of unwanted stepchild. It forces you to sign in to a Google account, which the original did not force you to do. The original was a small stick that could be powered by the USB coming from the TV itself, whereas the new one is a larger white puck that needs a wall wort and can't be powered by a regular (non-C) USB connection. My final disappointment was that VLC fails to cast to it, even though it worked perfectly with the original. All I want is a way to cast any video I want to my TV. This is apparently a huge ask in 2024. I looked up alternative devices on Amazon and they all seem inferior or have deal breakers like trying to Do Everything(TM), not supporting 4K, using some weird protocol, requiring a login, etc.
- hartator 2y agoCan't have nice things indeed. An alt: Apple AirPlay works super well even with Android tvs nowadays.
- ravenstine 2y agoIsn't AirPlay only good for screen casting as opposed to casting videos directly? My conclusion was that it's not feasible to use AirPlay to cast a video at the full frame rate and sound synced.
- mguerville 2y agoAirPlay or more accurately "screen mirroring" does cast sound and more often than not recognizes the video content and casts it full screen (from most iOS media apps such as youtube at least). It doesn't always work on my samsung TV without an Apple TV device though, in about 10% of cases it'll just fail to connect to the TV altogether
- 2y ago
- m3kw9 2y agoThat’s what happens when you always get too fancy with names. Chromecast, duo, wave, plus, Stadia, all sht names. Keep it simple like messages, [company name] TV, cloud = win
- alienchow 2y agoI wanted to make a joke about it possibly being Chromecast has no LLM. Then I realized the replacement product advertises Gemini.
- m-p-3 2y agoToo bad, the Google TV Streamer seems to be targeting a higher price and performance (not gonna say no to that..), which the Chromecast did a decent job at a relatively low cost, and made some low-end "smart TV" usable with a quick drop-in replacement. Hopefully they'll try to reach back that low-end market in some way.
- analista 2y agoI think I am going to stock up some chromecasts with google tv 4K, reasons: - they are going to be lower price than before - which will make new streamer to be 3x price - they are losing the dongle feat which is amazing, zero footprint - smart home features, sorry, they are a scam - core functionalities are the same, 4k, dolby atmos/vision - its a streamer, don't need 32gb of rom - don't need AI, another scam I honestly don't see the point on upgrading or even buying over prev. version
- KoolKat23 2y agoAny idea whether it has access to the play store or apks can be sideloaded? The heavy AI integration makes me nervous it won't be the case. It annoying no longer is behind the TV, just copying Apple (an irritating but effective marketing ploy).
- Myrmornis 2y agoSomeone needs to tell their marketing copy writer that "more premium" is not good English (doesn't mean anything). > Today, we’re introducing Google TV Streamer, a more premium device built for the new era of entertainment and smart home needs. > , bringing its best features to our next-generation 4K TV streaming device — but as a faster, more premium version.
- ZeroCool2u 2y ago" Android TV has expanded to 220 million devices worldwide and we are continuing to bring Google Cast to other TV devices, like LG TVs." This line in particular puts a bad test in my mouth, because my $2k LG G2 OLED has the worst support for casting I've ever experienced. In fact the software in general is so bad I was excited to pre-order the new Google TV Streamer this morning, so I don't have to deal with it again.
- andrewstuart 2y agoI feel like companies simply get bored of certain products.
- wtcactus 2y agoI don't have a Chromecast, but I do have an Nvidia Shield for more than 5 years now. I use that a lot but in recent months is getting unreliable for some reason (I think it's lack of memory), apps get stuck and sometimes the apps crash (the OS remains fine, I just have to reopen them). Still, from what I can see, it's the best device available barring Apple TV. I've been searching around, but ready made there isn't anything that's better (on paper) and the DIY route, the only alternative I can see is LineageOS in the Banana PI. [1] AFAIK, that's not great because it doesn't have hardware acceleration, which for a device to do heavy media consumption in a 4K TV, is not an option. I would be really happy to know about some better alternatives. [1] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/m5/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/m5/
- vzaliva 2y agoI don't care much about Chromecast hardware, but I wonder if the protocol and application support for casting in apps will survive. I imagine third-party hardware vendors could step in to produce compatible devices. Example use-case: I was recently in a hotel, travelling just with my phone. The hotel TV supported Chromecast, and I was able to connect my phone and watch some movies from Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and YouTube apps. This was super convenient.
- buH39Pq4Ss 2y agoThe product page on the Google Store[1] calls out “Enjoy content from compatible apps on your phone, tablet, or laptop and cast right to your TV.”, so it seems clear that it will still support the Cast protocol.
- kotaKat 2y agoIt's a shame Google had to ruin the Chromecast with the Google TV platform. It's so bloated and obnoxious and just a shame that we have to keep getting "suggestions" crammed down our throat disguised as ads.
- zhyder 2y agoSuch an odd rebranding. Why retire a beloved brand? How does "TV Streamer" work better in describing that smart home hub is included?
- paxys 2y agoPretty smart to "discontinue" a $30 device and replace it with a rebranded $100 version that does the exact same thing...
- ncr100 2y agoAnd seemingly stupid price given that for $213 https://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-43-Class-S-Class-4K-UHD-HDR-LED-Smart-TV-with-Google-TV-43S450G/1283668502 https://www.walmart.com/ip/TCL-43-Class-S-Class-4K-UHD-HDR-L... one can purchase a 43" TV with Google TV smart features from TCL, a respectable brand, obviating the need for "streamer" entirely.
- multimoon 2y agoIf this new device supports TrueHD so you get full Dolby - this may finally replace my aging nvidia shield.
- jmull 2y agoI thought this bit from the replacement device marketing was funny: > And thanks to Gemini technology on Google TV, you can now get full summaries, reviews and season-by-season breakdowns of content, so finding your next marathon-watch just got easier. They know it needs to be "AI powered" but they can't figure out anything that actually needs modern AI, so it's relegated to doing ordinary internet searches. It's interesting, though, because there are existing sources for this content, like IMDB and wikipedia. I wonder if the real point is more about selling ads while avoiding having to cut a deal with those existing sources. An LLM can essentially "launder" content so that, in general, it's hard to determine the sources for any given response. (There are plenty of individual examples where you can tell exactly what the primary source was, but those are the exception.) I suspect the quality of the LLM-generated content will be worse than existing sources, but since the real point is to avoid sharing ad revenue, not providing good content to the user, that will probably be fine. It content doesn't need to be good, just good enough. Welcome to the AI future! It's a lot grubbier than I expected.
- yalogin 2y agoMakes sense. Chromecast is built into most tvs. That way they can eliminate the hardware costs and focus fully on software. The tv manufacturers will be happy to work with them as they, hopefully, will get a share of the ad revenue too. Also this is the first product they killed that I agree with.
- LinAGKar 2y agoExcept that means that you'll have to hook the TV up to the internet instead of just connecting a dongle to it (which means the TV may spy on you and/or display ads), and when they inevitably stop supporting it you'd have to replace the whole TV instead of just a dongle. At least there still is a separate device you can hook up, at least for now, though it's more expensive, clunkier, and packed with a bunch of needless stuff.
- yalogin 2y agoYeah, it's not a consumer win, more a strategically good decision for google. Pichai seems to not do that at all these days.
- kentonv 2y agoThis makes me so sad. The old Chromecast experience -- choose media on phone, play on TV -- is all I ever wanted. I hate using a remote to browse -- my phone is much better. I hate having my TV logged into an account -- my family, kids, guests all use the same TV and I don't want them using my account, nor do I want to see their account when I'm using it. The Chromecast protocol is the only thing that the entire ecosystem of Android streaming apps integrates nicely with. I wish Google would open it up to third parties to create Chromecast-replacement devices... but of course they won't. They aren't doing what's best for users, they are doing what's best for their engagement metrics and revenue. And thus, our experience actually gets worse.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- amflare 2y agoSame. I was so sad when my old chromecast broke. And casting was basically the only thing that kept me on the chrome browser all these years. So perhaps its a good thing and this change will finally allow me to move to a more private browser.
- cheald 2y agoThe absolutely killer feature of the Chromecast is that I can have guests over (or be visiting someone), and anyone can stream any content they're authorized for. Movies I've bought can be watched anywhere there's a Chromecast; my buddy can come over and we can watch something together with his Paramount+ subscription. Keeping the accounts and authorization linked to personal devices, and letting the Chromecast essentially be a way to translate that to a bigger screen without having to actually stream it out of your pocket is fantastic.
- oezi 2y agoAbsolutely +1! I love Chromecast on vacations for the same reason: I can continue using my subscriptions without logging my account into the hosts TV.
- ianburrell 2y ago
- stadia_8bitdo 2y agoTIL to get a Stadia controller to work with Chromecast Ultra for longer than one session, you still must buy an 8bitdo USB wireless adapter with a pairing button. Controller support would have been a selling point of the existing line of affordable devices. Hopefully this is not the case with the $20 Onn Android TV device with USB ports FWIU instead of another $100*n TVs for updates through when now?
- ninju 2y agoHere's the replacement product: Google TV Streamer https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/ https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/
- vermarish 2y agoIt sounds like Google wants to get more edge compute in people's homes so they have a new vector to deploy AI products on, but they're still so far from actually deploying an innovative product that they can't announce anything to actually drive up hype. Then, the rebranding is only because they've abandoned the original "minimal footprint" ethos of ChromeCast.
- colonwqbang 2y agoThis is the least suitable market for AI that I can think of. People love writing summaries for TV shows and movies. They do it for free. Why not focus on making AI do jobs that humans don't like. I also don't think people actually long for having the machine recommend new movies and shows. At least I get enough of that from my human friends and family. ("Have you seen game of thrones? You have to watch game of thrones")
- colonwqbang 2y agoOk, what's the device to get now if you're looking for a chromecast experience? Who will take my money now that Google doesn't want it?
- nyxtom 2y agoChromecast is a household name, what a weird thing to kill that off
- Ekaros 2y agoMakes perfect sense in Google's company culture. Reinvent the wheel and plaster your own name on it to get the promotion...
- leptons 2y agoThe people at Google that thought killing Chromecast and replacing it with a $100 device certainly do not have the consumer in mind. This is entirely a political play within the company. They said they sold 100 million Chromecasts, but do 100 million houses really have (or need, or want) home automation? I seriously doubt it.
- _xnmw 2y agoWho wants to bet that Google will be dead (or as about as relevant as Yahoo) in less than 5 years?
- Animats 2y ago"The time has now come to evolve the smart TV streaming device category — primed for the new area of AI, entertainment and smart homes. ... With Google TV Streamer, you can not only indulge your entertainment needs, but also have a hub for your whole smart home." Your home, controlled by Google. What could possibly go wrong?
- ncr100 2y agoAnswer this yourself, by saying out loud, "Hey Google, i need help". ...
- hnburnsy 2y agoSupport for critical security issues ends September 2027, as it is 5 years from product release, not when production or sales ends... https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/10231940 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1023...
- didymospl 2y ago>When we launched Chromecast (...) connecting your TV to your phone, tablet or laptop was clunky and hard I would argue that this still holds true today. Is there any reliable way to do the screen mirroring/photo sharing from an Android phone to a Samsung smart TV without additional devices? My Pixel works great with Chromecast or a similar dongle(e.g. Xiaomi Box) but I really couldn't make it work without them. I tried a couple of options from plain Android sharing, through Samsung's SmartThings, to some sketchy apps that ask for your CC for trial but none of them worked before I gave up and asked my host for a HDMI cable.
- ncr100 2y agoYeah. Disingenuous of G to frame it as "WE SOLVED THIS" since they now are KILLING their solution. Offering basically a wall-connected laptop, with no kbd, instead.
- aidenn0 2y agoGood riddance. I tried a "Chromecast with Google TV" because it was so cheap, and seemed to support everything. It was easily the worst experience I've had with a set-top-box: 1. Sometimes it took 2-3 minutes to wakeup from the sleep state. 2. The remote is so curved on the bottom (literally a semi-circle) that I struggled to pick it up and the only ways to reliably pick it up successfully resulted in inadvertent button presses 3. The remote is overly minimalist. 8 buttons total. Missing buttons include a play/pause button, which is easily the most vital button for a device dedicated to playing media. Sometimes the center button acts as play pause but other times not. It has taken me 30s to pause what I'm watching when I'm already holding the remote (add in #2 and it can take me over a minute to pause) 4. Sometimes media playback just crashes and I need to start over. 5. Tons of ads. I was expecting this from a Google product, but thought I'd mention it anyways TL;DR: If you want a STB, just pay the extra $20 for a Roku, everything about it works absurdly better. If the Roku cost $100 more, I'd still recommend it for anyone not on the most extreme of budgets.
- leptons 2y agoWe have 5 Chromecasts with Android Tv around the house, and we don't have any of the problems you describe - no 2-3 minute wake-up, it's pretty much instant on all of them. No ads, we use "apps only mode". The remote is just fine, your hands may be the problem. Media playback never crashes. That said, I'm not paying $100 for the same experience I recently paid $30 for. I'm going to test on the Onn 4k streaming device for $20.
- wbshaw 2y agoChromecast is dead. Long live Chromecast (aka Google Internet Streamer)!
- cageface 2y agoGoogle is a ghost ship adrift on the endless seas now. Can a new captain rescue it or is it doomed to run aground?
- freitzkriesler2 2y agoThis makes sense since now the pixel 8 FINALLY supports video out. Whenever Google makes an about face like that it's always a strategy change.
- elchief 2y agothe only reason i kept using Chrome was because of Chromecast... what are some good alternatives to Chromecast? (can cast from phone or desktop browser)
- xyst 2y agoyet another one headed for the graveyard
- bayofpigs 2y ago[dead]
- jwally 2y agomusing: It feels like Google has a reputation of creating a bunch of products and killing them off within 3-5 years. It seems like this helps with initial adoption of the product (backed by Google!) but erodes trust in the brand every time they axe a cult-favorite ("why would I invest time in ${x} when they'll probably just kill it off in a couple of years anyway..?") Would it be better if Google launched these products subsidiaries without (obvious) links to Google? Total Arm-Chair QB exercise, but one I feel might be interesting to get feedback on...
- ncr100 2y agoCritically, the replacement, here, is 3x more expensive vs https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/B0B9HS6DLZ https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entert...
- tiltowait 2y agoI’m not following how this reputation would help initial adoption. Isn’t that reputation a big component of why Stadia failed?
- stiltzkin 2y agoTheir new streamer has MediaTek MT8696 SoC, same processor as Fire Stick 4k max 2021. Also WiFi 5. Not worth it for $99, this is worth $50 the most. Nvidia Shield and Onn still have better value for their niches.
- bananapub 2y agoless wood behind worse arrows
- nottorp 2y agoI wonder how they'll fuck it up. I have one and I've never used the 'cast' feature. I only run the apps for the streaming services i watch plus VLC. Somehow I think this will be impossible in the new and improved version...
- leptons 2y ago>I wonder how they'll fuck it up. They fucked up the price at $99. I have 5 Chromecast with Android TV around my house, I paid about $30 for each one. There's no way I'm going to buy 5 of these new devices at a $100 price.
- nottorp 2y agoMmm I would complain about that but I've tried a generic noname Android box and that wasn't worth a single dime.
- simple10 2y agoWow! 500 Server Error from Google. Looks like their blog runs on non-scaleable infra and got the hug of death?
- simple10 2y agoBlog is working again. I got the 500 error for a couple of minutes.
- synergy20 2y agothe branding is confusing, chromecast, chromecast with google tv, chromecast dongle, android auto, chromecast audio,etc. does this mean airplay will be the only game in town from now on, that is, to cast your audio or screen from your phone to smart speaker or TVs.
- cactusplant7374 2y agoWill the old ones still work?
- xnx 2y agoLike a lot of Google products, the branding story has been very confusing. Small possibility that this is a step toward cleaning up some of the historical mess: Chromecast Chromecast Ultra Chromecast with Google TV Google TV YouTube TV YouTube Premium YouTube Music YouTube Red etc.
- becurious 2y agoGoogle TV for two completely different products. The initial one was an OS on Sony / Logitech devices that came out in 2010.
- elpalek 2y agoChromecast is actually super useful for my immigrants parents. Since some foreign languages' input method on remote is horrendous, Chromecast helps them selecting youtube video easily.
- boredumb 2y agoI've used chromecast to power all my "dumb" tvs for years and being able to use my laptop or any phone that's on the wifi has been amazing to avoid using a clunky roko or firetv interface. Sad to see one of the most personally useful pieces of google tech ending.
- crakhamster01 2y agoI picked up the Google TV 4K and generally like the experience, but in 2024 the performance feels really sluggish. I was considering getting an Apple TV as a result, but maybe this new "streamer" device will be competitive.
- kelnos 2y agoSigh, of course. At least this isn't quite Google's usual product shutdown; Chromecast sorta more or less will love on. But "Google TV Streamer"? No, I don't want that. I just want a relatively dumb device that allows me to stream stuff from my other devices to my TV. Chromecast has always been that, and has always worked fairly well. I don't need or want yet another media center platform.
- georgehm 2y agopromptly ordered 2 (an HD and 4K) .. its still cheaper than the new "AI" enabled experience ..
- murphyslab 2y ago> With this, there are no changes to our support policy for existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security updates to the latest devices. "no changes to our support policy" links to https://safety.google/nest/ https://safety.google/nest/ It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?
- penguin_booze 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Bloating 2y agoNow that APPle has invented streaming TV, google just wanting to copycat
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sieabahlpark 2y ago[dead]
- icar 2y agoHonestly I'm pretty happy with a 2010 iMac with LibreElec and no streaming subscriptions payed. I keep dodging bullets, like this one. What I miss and I might get to write myself is a plug-in for Kodi to act as a Chromecast. On the other side, Chromecast is something that's been essential in my family's home for years, so it's worrisome what alternatives my, for example, mother will have.
- dusted 2y agoNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! The worst thing about modern TVs are all their smart shit. I just want a monitor, no speakers, no nothing, just HDMI input and a large, good image, it's what it should do. Sound should come from the stereo system. Input should come from input devices, such as chromecast and gaming consoles. I hate this future.
- schnatterer 2y agoA bought several chromcasts pver the years, mainly because they provide a simple and uniform way to retrofit multi-room sound into my collection of sound systems from different brands an eras. Surprised not to see more comments on this topic here. Yes, video streaming can be done easily nowadays. But finding a multi-room audio solution that works across different brands and also on offline devices was my main reason for getting into chromcast.