8 ms·
How 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
by mbreese 2y ago
How 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.
- scarmig 2y ago> amazon hasn't tried to create a standardized protocol Amazon is pushing Matter Cast, which is in many ways superior to Google Cast, most of all by being open. Its biggest downside is that it's not supported by anyone else.
- mbreese 2y agoThe new (Google TV Streamer) device seems to support Matter as a protocol, so maybe there is more hope here...
- vel0city 2y ago> most of all by being open Didn't Chromecasts work with DIAL which was an open protocol? https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-specification https://www.dial-multiscreen.org/dial/protocol-specification
- scarmig 2y agoGoogle Cast was originally built on top of DIAL, but DIAL itself is mostly about device discovery IIRC. Nowadays it's all mDNS instead.
- vel0city 2y agoDIAL is literally discovery and launch. The discovery part is just SSDP. The rest of DIAL is entirely state tracking the stream, sending playback commands, requests to launch content, etc. through REST endpoints. It seems entirely possible to me for a revision of the spec based off mDNS for discovery rather than UPnP, and most of the document would be the same. The DIAL spec documents spend three pages talking about discovery and sixteen pages talking about state tracking, launching, HDMI-CEC, etc. It's a pretty basic protocol spec since it mostly relies on things like UPnP for discovery and HTTP REST so a lot of complications are already defined in other specs.
- cbsmith 2y agoWell, better than Doesn't Matter Cast.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- glenstein 2y ago>the phone/browser lock-in is largely due to lack of a standardized and open protocol to stream content in this manner. I feel like the thing you are describing as lock-in is, in a critical sense, quite the opposite. It gave you the power to make a dumb TV into a versatile streaming system that's not locked down and beholden to Smart TV software.
- HumblyTossed 2y agoI wouldn't say opposite. You're still choosing one company's platform.
- realityking 2y ago> 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. AirPlay has the same capabilities, I believe even in the original v1 version - back then only for Audio as it didn’t support video at all.
- xerox13ster 2y agoThe standardized protocol already exists and it’s called DLNA which Chromecast initially cannibalized in its first release and then basically killed off every single other DLNA provider and app because they Sherlocked the feature into the Android operating system and to the Chrome browser. Now that they are at risk of being split up for their monopoly, and as they lose an Antitrust case for their search monopoly, they are probably looking to kill off the Chrome brand because Chrome is how they entirely dominated the web, warping it to their standards and killing more open standards in favor of their Proprietary technology.
- lern_too_spel 2y agoDLNA is meant to play media from a media server on a home network. It doesn't make sense for Internet services to implement DMS. The relevant standard for casting using web protocols is DIAL.
- Shog9 2y agoI vaguely remember DLNA... Which is to say, I remember it barely working at best and mostly just wasting a lot of time debugging configuration and network nonsense. Arguably the biggest advantage of Chromecast was just not having to deal with all that.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoThe decent solution to the remote-less Chromecast is to buy a super cheap android tablet to use as a remote.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lbourdages 2y agoNewer Chromecasts ship with a remote and do not require a phone. Multiple people can be logged in too.
- mbreese 2y agoTrue, but at that point, what does the "Chrome" part of Chromecast mean? It made much more sense when the device was tied to a browser, and then (kinda) apps on a phone. Once they added a remote, I think the writing was on the wall for the name "Chromecast". Google TV is a better "brand", IMO.
- systems 2y agobut the new brand is actually "Google TV Streamer" (3 words) why didnt they just go for "Google TV" (2 words) they also could have played a bit "Google TOP" (because its a table top device) , "Google S" (S for Streamer) , i think the 3 word "Google TV Streamer" , is function over form gone wrong
- ZeroCool2u 2y agoThere's an entire app called Google TV already. https://tv.google https://tv.google
- mbreese 2y agoProbably because they saw what happened with Apple TV (the device), Apple TV+ (the service) and TV (the app). That's a whole headache I think Google is (wisely) trying to avoid here...
- extraduder_ire 2y agoI think they've always had CEC remote control anyway. Was still a surprise the first time I backed out of a youtube video using the TV remote and saw what looked like the entire youtube app with search and everything.
- ink_13 2y agoThe 4K Chromecast "with Google TV" basically was that already, since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and remote. It seems a bit silly to me that they're tossing the brand aside but maybe they're doing that for exactly this reason.
- MetaWhirledPeas 2y agoI own the 4K Chromecast and it's pretty good. But in my opinion "Chromecast" was always a bad brand name. I guess it originated in the browser, but it's so far removed from that now; "Chrome" no longer makes sense.
- paxys 2y agoProbably true, but it's not like "Google TV Streamer" is any better.
- dwighttk 2y agoThere’s gonna be about 12 more names/products before they settle on something.
- RankingMember 2y ago
- crazygringo 2y agoExactly -- it's not an end at all, just a rebranding. And it's about time. "Chromecast" was always a terrible brand IMHO, because it had utterly nothing whatsoever to do with Chrome, except that there happened to be a "Cast..." menu item in Chrome. But you can cast from lots of apps that aren't Chrome. It would have made just as much sense to call it "Gmailcast" -- that is to say, no sense at all. "Google TV Streamer" isn't particularly memorable, but it's perfectly logical and intuitive. And it doesn't introduce confusion with a browser. Google wants the brand to be Google directly, not some sub-brand. Makes sense to me.
- jauntywundrkind 2y agoFrom a user perspective you're right but from a technical sense, Chromecast got its roots as little more than a remote-controlled Chrome session. Alike the Netflix DIAL protocol that it evolved from, Chromecast was for many years merely a hdmi-out stick device that ran Chrome! It's not at all clear to users though, isn't a meaningful name. And now as well as web there are also Android Custom Receivers from Chromecast. https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/web_receiver/basic https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/web_receiver/basic https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/android_tv_receiver/core_features https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/android_tv_receiver/... It would have been interesting if there was an alternate path where Chromecast really did expose its underlying browser-ness better. If I could just tell my phone to cast hacker news and then scroll on my phone's screen. I wonder if that was ever considered. Also note that ChromeOS was also a web-centered thing at the time, so there was some symbiosis with that. Both web powered tech platforms. But given the recent announcement that Google is killing ChromeOS & Android is the way forward for everyone, well, extra sensible that Chromecast has to go: finalizing/cementing the (imo unfortunate for all) cultural victory of Android-over-all at Google.
- buu700 2y agoI agree. The branding doesn't really matter as long as casting still works. It seems like an odd choice for Google to frame this in such dramatic terms, especially when so many people have already been burned by their tendency to kill popular products out of the blue. I get the lamentation of the final nail in the coffin of what was just a simple wireless HDMI dongle, and I agree that there's a real need for that. Having said that, I love my 4K Google TV Chromecasts. All I'd ever wanted was something that combined the Fire TV Stick and the Chromecast into one device, and this delivered perfectly. The compact form factor makes it easy to keep a spare in my backpack for whenever I might need it while away from home, which comes in handy often. My problem with this is that it sounds like they're discontinuing a product that works perfectly well, and replacing it with something slightly worse (for my use case) at 2x the price. Granted, for now they are still selling the Chromecast, so they have time to introduce a future "Google TV Streamer Mini" that retains the form factor of the Chromecast. As long as they do that, I don't really care what they call it.
- hnburnsy 2y agoThe ending allows them end support which is September 2027.
- geor9e 2y ago>the original FYI Google stopped pushing critical security updates to the 1st gen Chromecast already. I'm not saying it joined a botnet already but maybe~ https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/10231940 https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1023...
- ncr100 2y agoStreamer is 3x more expensive vs Chromecast. - $30 HD Chromecast https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entertainment/dp/B0B9HS6DLZ https://www.amazon.com/Chromecast-Google-TV-Streaming-Entert... - $99 ("just") Streamer https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer https://store.google.com/product/google_tv_streamer
- whywhywhywhy 2y ago>It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. Weird thing about this is the best thing about Chromecast is it’s not an Apple TV form factor and experience and the worst thing about Apple TV is it’s not a Chromecast style stick. I just don’t see where a TV would even exist that doesn’t offer what’s in the box built in already, but I definitely know a lot of TVs where Chromecast or AirPlay just doesn’t work on the base unit.
- adra 2y agoEvery "smart" tv is definitely spying on you. Your best defense is never setting it up or buying a dumb tv I'd you can still find them. Control your data! If you're going to surrender your data willingly to apple, google then fine that's a choice, but smart TVs like modern cars have no choice.
- torartc 2y agoWho even makes a good non-smart tv these days? I'm not going to limit my watching experience just to avoid a tv having apps.
- philistine 2y agoNo one. No one is making a good non-smart TV. The shitty TVs have smarts in them to subsidize the price by spying on you, and the expensive TVs are not going to compete with less features, right? Oh, and why not make more money by spying on you as well? If you want a modern TV with correct colours, HDR, and useful inputs, you have to stop yourself from connecting a smart TV to the internet. There's just no other way. Roku's OS is absolutely usable without ever configuring it for internet access, and my particular brand of choice, TCL, offers an option to update the OS with a USB stick. I use my TV with an AV receiver, and HDMI-CEC switching means the TV remote is literally hidden away. The TV has no say in what's happening to it at all.
- nucleardog 2y agoYeah the whole reason I ever recommended a Chromecast to people was that it was basically dummy simple. You know how to watch Netflix or YouTube on your phone? Great, you know how to watch it on your TV too. My mother who hates every piece of technology and gets frustrated to the point of tears when things don't work like they did yesterday was just fine with a Chromecast. There's no separate Chromecast to learn, manage, or deal with. It's, effectively, a way to mirror your phone to your TV. I regularly recommended them to people even with Smart TVs and stuff. There were often bugs, UI issues, general confusion... "Just plug this thing in and then use your phone as a remote" added a lot of value. I don't know why I'd ever want a "Google TV". For $100 what does this give me over the crappy Smart TV UI I've already got? Do I really want to deal with Google's privacy track record over Apple's to save $40?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel like both were hampered by the phone requirement. I rarely was. Ultiamately I usually have some piece of tech on hand and I just wanted some way to get youtube on my dumb TV. But I also get it. that tv casting has more or less been built into every modern smart TV (and we aren't getting many good dumb tv's these days). So focusing on something more robust instead of selling a cheap streaming stick seems inevitable.
- dang 2y agoEmailers are telling me this is more of a rebrand so I've replaced the submitted title "Google is killing Chromecast" with the unfortunately press-releasey original. If anyone suggests a better title (i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the article), we can change it again.
- DANmode 2y ago"Google is redefining Chromecast as Google Cast".
- dolmen 2y agoThe major difference is between a device powered by the TV vs an always on device. Targeted use vs constant home inhabitants monitoring.