4 ms·

If it works as advertised, this could be disruptive. They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly t

by dm8 13y ago

If it works as advertised, this could be disruptive. They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly the older generation. Potential for number of apps that could be developed is endless. Apparently, Washington Post is building an app on top of it (http://t.co/dTWesNOoIC http://t.co/dTWesNOoIC). So possibilities are endless. And good news - another step towards making cable TV irrelevant. P.S. I just bought one. Can't wait to play with it's SDK.

MBCook 13y ago
> They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly the older generation. That's not really new. Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. Seems like a decent device, and the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households, but I don't think it's disruptive.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  If Microsoft developed the first tablets but Apple perfected it into a disruptive device, couldn't the same hold true for an Airplay to Chromecast corollary? The NEW disruptive aspects of the new device are the price point, the collaborative playlist aggregation, and the open ecosystem. Airplay was the first to the table in ease of push technology but existing in its own vertical market prevented it from a more widespread adoption. We'll be looking back on the Chromecast as the device that helped redefine how we addressed the media center form factor.
- prehkugler 13y ago
  > Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. Not entirely. AirPlay is baked into the OS, so devs don't need to do extra work to support it. Chromecast (or, the Google Cast SDK) is built into the app level, and works in a fundamentally different way (i.e. streams from the internet and allows multi-user queueing vs. streams from the audio/video output of the device). I don't think it's terribly disruptive - it's essentially AirPlay 2.0 - but it is new.
  - ash_gti 13y ago
    AirPlay also lets you use the Apple TV as a second window for iOS apps. Basically, you can just create a new UIWindow and assign it to the Apple TV and then it won't mirror your app, it will just display whatever view you have on the screen. It does have some lag time though so its hard to do real time graphics on the Apple TV.
  - roc 13y ago
    "Streams from the internet" isn't inherently superior. There are things about it that are nice and things about it that are not so nice. 1. it requires the dongle to have equivalent internet access as the 'controlling' device. So it would seem you'd be out of luck if you wanted to stream from a mobile device using a cell modem, to a chromecast on a display in, say, a hotel, conference room or cabin without (unfiltered) wifi access to the internet. 2. sometimes internet-streamed video, even when possible, is far inferior to just soaking some processing power from the mobile device. People who locally-save video content for performance/quality reasons aren't going to be wild about it happily ignoring that local store to pull down a choppy/compressed stream. 3. it seems to limit the stream to codecs the device supports. So one can't likely chromecast from an HTPC that's otherwise perfectly capable of streaming xvid/divx/etc. multi-user queue-ing is nice. Airplay really should pick that up. But I'm not at all wild about "it's own internet stream". While the pros are neat in certain situations, the cons are a deal-breaker for me.
  - jckim 13y ago
    What makes it AirPlay 2.0?
- bergie 13y ago
  the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households It seems it will work with both Android and iOS apps and with anything that runs the Chrome browser. That is quite a big improvement over the walled garden of Apple TV.
  - drivers99 13y ago
    I'm confused about how it works with iOS apps. Does it just act like an AirPlay device? From Safari on iOS, Spotify, etc. there's the AirPlay icon that I can push to switch it to the Apple TV. Or would the apps have to add a different type of button? I didn't realize until now that Chrome is available for iOS. Would you have to switch to that for streaming web videos?
    - SEMW 13y ago
      Apps which want to support this would add a 'stream to chromecast' button which would use the Chromecast android/iOS API. (https://developers.google.com/cast/ https://developers.google.com/cast/) It seems to not be possible to stream the web browser from a mobile for now - all the mobile apps in the demo (netflix, google video, youtube) triggered a video download straight to the dongle from the internet, with the mobile effectively being used just as a remote. That's the primary use case. The 'stream a web page a browserdirectly from your computer' bit is still in beta and, AFAICS, currently only works with chrome on Windows/MacOS/chromeOS. But it's possible it'll be added in future to chrome for iOS/android, and if it is: yes, you'll need to use chrome, the chances of Apple supporting chromecast in safari are... slim.
- josteink 13y ago
  > Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. With Apple-devices only. The majority of the market has non-Apple devices. And that's across a range of product-classes: Desktops, Laptops and mobile devices. To be able to take advantage of AirPlay you need to be all in all across all those classes. That brings the effective market-share which can use AirPlay (in developed countries) down from around 20% to much less than 5%. In less developed countries, AirPlay is dead code. This will be a device people can actually use. Do you seriously not consider that a factor in being disruptive?
  - imissmyjuno 13y ago
    > This will be a device people can actually use. Assuming they use Chrome or Android, that is...
    - bdcs 13y ago
      Forgive my well, actually.... but: Well, actually, iOS and OSX devices are supported too.
    - josteink 13y ago
      > Assuming they use Chrome or Android Ok. Point. Currently (and maybe for the foreseeable future?) there will be some limitations and requirements. But Chrome can be installed anywhere, for free. You don't have to throw out everything you own and buy new equipment, like Apple requires you to. If it's a $0 vs $1000 question, I know which one will win.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
While there will be exceptions as a rule I'd suggest the older generation have no interest in having to use a phone, tablet or laptop to control their TV.
- jvehent 13y ago
  You should see the baby-boomers I know show off to their neighbors when they watch xfinity, streamed from their laptops to their TVs, via hdmi. Being 60 doesn't mean you don't get excited about technology anymore. But it does mean that you have more time to play with it ;)
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    And my Dad's friends take great pride in the deliberately simple feature phones with as few features as possible. Smart phone ownership for 60+s is about half what it is for 18 - 36 year olds and I'd wager that engagement levels are proportionately lower too. I'm not saying no older users will go for this but I think the core users will be younger and will be far, far more likely to be under the 18 - 35 bracket than over (that group being willing to tinker and price sensitive therefore more likely to use Android phones and see the appeal of a $35 device).
- mark-r 13y ago
  Why not? You can't use a TV these days without a remote of some kind, and I believe a software interface on a general purpose device will actually be easier than a remote.

by dm8 13y ago

MBCook 13y ago

> They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly the older generation. That's not really new. Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. Seems like a decent device, and the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households, but I don't think it's disruptive.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
If Microsoft developed the first tablets but Apple perfected it into a disruptive device, couldn't the same hold true for an Airplay to Chromecast corollary? The NEW disruptive aspects of the new device are the price point, the collaborative playlist aggregation, and the open ecosystem. Airplay was the first to the table in ease of push technology but existing in its own vertical market prevented it from a more widespread adoption. We'll be looking back on the Chromecast as the device that helped redefine how we addressed the media center form factor.
prehkugler 13y ago
> Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. Not entirely. AirPlay is baked into the OS, so devs don't need to do extra work to support it. Chromecast (or, the Google Cast SDK) is built into the app level, and works in a fundamentally different way (i.e. streams from the internet and allows multi-user queueing vs. streams from the audio/video output of the device). I don't think it's terribly disruptive - it's essentially AirPlay 2.0 - but it is new.
- ash_gti 13y ago
  AirPlay also lets you use the Apple TV as a second window for iOS apps. Basically, you can just create a new UIWindow and assign it to the Apple TV and then it won't mirror your app, it will just display whatever view you have on the screen. It does have some lag time though so its hard to do real time graphics on the Apple TV.
- roc 13y ago
  "Streams from the internet" isn't inherently superior. There are things about it that are nice and things about it that are not so nice. 1. it requires the dongle to have equivalent internet access as the 'controlling' device. So it would seem you'd be out of luck if you wanted to stream from a mobile device using a cell modem, to a chromecast on a display in, say, a hotel, conference room or cabin without (unfiltered) wifi access to the internet. 2. sometimes internet-streamed video, even when possible, is far inferior to just soaking some processing power from the mobile device. People who locally-save video content for performance/quality reasons aren't going to be wild about it happily ignoring that local store to pull down a choppy/compressed stream. 3. it seems to limit the stream to codecs the device supports. So one can't likely chromecast from an HTPC that's otherwise perfectly capable of streaming xvid/divx/etc. multi-user queue-ing is nice. Airplay really should pick that up. But I'm not at all wild about "it's own internet stream". While the pros are neat in certain situations, the cons are a deal-breaker for me.
- jckim 13y ago
  What makes it AirPlay 2.0?
bergie 13y ago
the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households It seems it will work with both Android and iOS apps and with anything that runs the Chrome browser. That is quite a big improvement over the walled garden of Apple TV.
- drivers99 13y ago
  I'm confused about how it works with iOS apps. Does it just act like an AirPlay device? From Safari on iOS, Spotify, etc. there's the AirPlay icon that I can push to switch it to the Apple TV. Or would the apps have to add a different type of button? I didn't realize until now that Chrome is available for iOS. Would you have to switch to that for streaming web videos?
  - SEMW 13y ago
    Apps which want to support this would add a 'stream to chromecast' button which would use the Chromecast android/iOS API. (https://developers.google.com/cast/ https://developers.google.com/cast/) It seems to not be possible to stream the web browser from a mobile for now - all the mobile apps in the demo (netflix, google video, youtube) triggered a video download straight to the dongle from the internet, with the mobile effectively being used just as a remote. That's the primary use case. The 'stream a web page a browserdirectly from your computer' bit is still in beta and, AFAICS, currently only works with chrome on Windows/MacOS/chromeOS. But it's possible it'll be added in future to chrome for iOS/android, and if it is: yes, you'll need to use chrome, the chances of Apple supporting chromecast in safari are... slim.
josteink 13y ago
> Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great. With Apple-devices only. The majority of the market has non-Apple devices. And that's across a range of product-classes: Desktops, Laptops and mobile devices. To be able to take advantage of AirPlay you need to be all in all across all those classes. That brings the effective market-share which can use AirPlay (in developed countries) down from around 20% to much less than 5%. In less developed countries, AirPlay is dead code. This will be a device people can actually use. Do you seriously not consider that a factor in being disruptive?
- imissmyjuno 13y ago
  > This will be a device people can actually use. Assuming they use Chrome or Android, that is...
  - bdcs 13y ago
    Forgive my well, actually.... but: Well, actually, iOS and OSX devices are supported too.
  - josteink 13y ago
    > Assuming they use Chrome or Android Ok. Point. Currently (and maybe for the foreseeable future?) there will be some limitations and requirements. But Chrome can be installed anywhere, for free. You don't have to throw out everything you own and buy new equipment, like Apple requires you to. If it's a $0 vs $1000 question, I know which one will win.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

While there will be exceptions as a rule I'd suggest the older generation have no interest in having to use a phone, tablet or laptop to control their TV.

jvehent 13y ago
You should see the baby-boomers I know show off to their neighbors when they watch xfinity, streamed from their laptops to their TVs, via hdmi. Being 60 doesn't mean you don't get excited about technology anymore. But it does mean that you have more time to play with it ;)
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  And my Dad's friends take great pride in the deliberately simple feature phones with as few features as possible. Smart phone ownership for 60+s is about half what it is for 18 - 36 year olds and I'd wager that engagement levels are proportionately lower too. I'm not saying no older users will go for this but I think the core users will be younger and will be far, far more likely to be under the 18 - 35 bracket than over (that group being willing to tinker and price sensitive therefore more likely to use Android phones and see the appeal of a $35 device).
mark-r 13y ago
Why not? You can't use a TV these days without a remote of some kind, and I believe a software interface on a general purpose device will actually be easier than a remote.