7 ms·
I 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
by MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
I 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 agoYeah that's just an awful name, could've just gone with a streamlined version of what they have, e.g. "Google Cast".
- cubefox 2y ago"Google TV Streamer" pretty exactly describes what this thing does. It's from Google, and it streams things to your TV. "Chromecast" was more puzzling. What's "Chrome"? Isn't that a browser? What does this have to do with anything? And what is "cast"? Does it broadcast something? Etc.
- entropicdrifter 2y agoOn the other hand, "Google TV Streamer" also describes Chromecasts and is immensely less memorable or distinctive. It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap.
- bsimpson 2y agoGoogle TV was also the name of their failed settop box strategy like a dozen years ago. I think they gave out one from Logitech (with a keyboard!) at an I/O one year.
- pimlottc 2y agoTo be fair, "MacBook" is basically a portmanteau of "Macintosh Notebook", so it's really not that far removed from "Apple Laptop".
- entropicdrifter 2y agoBut the point is that they're giving up distinctive, widely-recognized branding for a bland, flavorless alternative
- cubefox 2y ago> It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap. You get used to it. They also called the Apple smartwatch "Apple Watch" from the beginning, and nobody is complaining. So "Apple Laptop" or "Apple Phone" would be just as good.
- TheKarateKid 2y ago
- tjoff 2y agoWait til you hear about Play Store. Been over a decade and I still cringe.
- softfalcon 2y agoConfused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure. Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple TV? Yes.
- vanshg 2y agoGoogle TV is already the name of their software platform (based on the Android TV OS) that TVs run
- wkat4242 2y agoYes but that's really the same as this just in a separate box. Makes total sense to bring it under the same naming tree. I'd call it "Google TV Box" though. Streaming is too contrived and not everyone knows what it means. Xiaomi use the Box naming too and that seems to go down well.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. The reason Google TV didn't win (and the reason why it kind of did) is that Google TV already won for something else closely related, which this is being associated with: https://tv.google/ https://tv.google/
- ssl-3 2y agoGoogle TV did win, didn't it? "Modern" Chromecasts (the ones that include a remote and which have a local UI) have Google TV, and are sold as such. https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv (If not, then: What am I missing?)
- healsdata 2y agoI agree, but they're not just rebranding. They also doubled the price, ostensibly because they changed the form factor and added "AI". I don't need a visible device or AI just to stream YouTube or other video apps.
- raydev 2y agoThey explicitly call it "premium" in the launch page. Time to move upmarket in the hopes of actually making a profit.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoRoku sells dongles at the same price point, without many other services with which to subsidize the hardware. I am sure Roku monetizes the users in the same ways as Google can, so I do not understand how Google cannot make a profit from them.
- eric-hu 2y ago> Google cannot make a profit from them *enough profit Remember that Google has sunset many products because those profits pale in comparison to search and advertising.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoSure, but I do not see how that improves by focusing on the “premium” hardware. Unless the box is actually cheaper, I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit. People just want to watch Netflix or Disney with minimum friction. A box that is twice the price of the competition, with questionably useful AI features does not seem a winning play.
- RankingMember 2y ago> I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit. This is a problem for the next exec after the one behind this has happily parachuted to his next position before the chickens come home to roost on things like "long-term costs" and "fit with the overarching corporate strategy".
- NohatCoder 2y agoThat doesn't really matter, everyone know what a Chromecast is, that is worth far more than a descriptive name.
- farco12 2y agoIt was a good brand name when it launched, but not for how it evolved. It was a device that made it possible to cast video from your Chrome browser. When it was released in 2013 it reinforced the superior utility of Chrome which had just began to dominate browser market share. Embedding the Google Cast protocol directly into video streaming apps and having the Chromecast brand name coexist alongside the Android TV and Google TV brand names made things confusing.
- kps 2y agoThe earlier Chromecasts did run a cut down Chrome on cut down ChromeOS. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:chromecast/ https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:chr...