3 ms·

I 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 rebooti

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
I also picked up an onn device recently. It's a remarkably capable device, well worth the $20.
wildzzz 2y ago
I 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.
- BowBun 2y ago
  > 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 I would always unlock my phone, and simply swipe down and use the media controls in the Android drawer, didn't really need all the steps in between. Heck, you should have been able to press play/next from your lock screen unless you blocked that specifically.
  - kasabali 2y ago
    still much more involved than picking up the remote and pressing a button blindly
bhelkey 2y ago
With the rapid improvements in electronics, lasting a decade is quite an achievement.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  I'm still running my original generation Chromecast. They were very good quality devices.
matsemann 2y ago
What I love about the Chromecast at the cabin is that people visiting can just cast whatever streaming service they're using from their phone. No installation, no login, no sharing users. If instead it will become a more Apple Tv like experience where apps have to be installed and logged in to, it's just a hassle. I will have to log out to avoid guests staying using my subscriptions. A kid watching YouTube will wreak havoc on my suggestions etc. So not a product I really want. It works well as it is.
Ambroos 2y ago
I built a Chromecast receiver application for a broadcaster in Belgium back in 2017, and even then the original Chromecast was just a bit of a PITA. Our service was heavily ad supported, and porting our web ads to Chromecast was painful. The OG Chromecast was very hard to work on because of its super limited RAM. When connecting a remote Chrome debugger session you'd have to make sure to clear the console and network request history very often (multiple times per minute), otherwise the whole device would just crash. We generally only developed on the v2/Ultra and an Nvidia Shield, and then crossed our fingers to test on the OG Chromecast.

stavros 2y ago

I 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 ago

I also picked up an onn device recently. It's a remarkably capable device, well worth the $20.

wildzzz 2y ago

I 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.

BowBun 2y ago
> 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 I would always unlock my phone, and simply swipe down and use the media controls in the Android drawer, didn't really need all the steps in between. Heck, you should have been able to press play/next from your lock screen unless you blocked that specifically.
- kasabali 2y ago
  still much more involved than picking up the remote and pressing a button blindly

bhelkey 2y ago

With the rapid improvements in electronics, lasting a decade is quite an achievement.

SauciestGNU 2y ago
I'm still running my original generation Chromecast. They were very good quality devices.

matsemann 2y ago

What I love about the Chromecast at the cabin is that people visiting can just cast whatever streaming service they're using from their phone. No installation, no login, no sharing users. If instead it will become a more Apple Tv like experience where apps have to be installed and logged in to, it's just a hassle. I will have to log out to avoid guests staying using my subscriptions. A kid watching YouTube will wreak havoc on my suggestions etc. So not a product I really want. It works well as it is.

Ambroos 2y ago

I built a Chromecast receiver application for a broadcaster in Belgium back in 2017, and even then the original Chromecast was just a bit of a PITA. Our service was heavily ad supported, and porting our web ads to Chromecast was painful. The OG Chromecast was very hard to work on because of its super limited RAM. When connecting a remote Chrome debugger session you'd have to make sure to clear the console and network request history very often (multiple times per minute), otherwise the whole device would just crash. We generally only developed on the v2/Ultra and an Nvidia Shield, and then crossed our fingers to test on the OG Chromecast.