5 ms·

I think people aren't understanding how awesome this technology is: 1. Every time someone shows you a YouTube video, you spend 10% of your time watching it and

I think people aren't understanding how awesome this technology is: 1. Every time someone shows you a YouTube video, you spend 10% of your time watching it and the other 90% thinking about that one video you know of that's funnier. With Chromecast, you can queue that sucker up for nexties right from your own phone, without interrupting the video that's currently playing. 2. Chromecast does NOT use the resources of the device used to control the TV for processing...its don't on the dongle itself. This will save battery power, minimize bandwidth consumption, and you can do other things with your phone while watching things on the TV. 3. If it can run Chrome, it can cast to Chromecast. Apple, Microsoft, and Google devices playing together in one ecosystem. No more throwing the babies out with the bathwater. 4. $35.00. Thirty-five dollars for a device that ups the WAF most HTPC nerds have dreamed of for years! I would have bought this at $100! This is what the Nexus Q was meant to be, but hardware drove the price down dramatically. I haven't been this excited about a new piece of hardware since the iPhone. This is a game changer.

Karunamon 13y ago
Agreed! The one thing that worries me about this is underpowered hardware. If they made the UI not suck (read: not take seconds to respond to button presses) then I'll be all over this. It'll end up being what Google TV should have been.
- corresation 13y ago
  It sounds like it has no UI. It simply shows video streams.
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    This is correct. It has a screen that shows up when nothing is playing, but all navigation and control is handled by all the other devices.
    - altcognito 13y ago
      Exactly. In truth, there is nothing preventing you from playing Crysis (other than a terrible response time and a poor quality video stream) on this with nothing else but this and a wireless keyboard/mouse. This is the true dumb terminal. The developers SDK is probably more about connecting devices or having them communicate with the chromecast rather than being an app repository. The more I think about it, the more I hope this is where they going with this. To borrow a very damaged phrase, this might as much about the cloud/virtual computing as it is about streaming and music.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> 3. If it can run Chrome, it can cast to Chromecast. That's probably the long-term goal, but currently the list of "Can run Chrome" overlaps, but does not subsume, the list of "can cast to Chromecast". Particularly, Linux and ChromeOS devices can run Chrome, but (with the exception of the Chromebook Pixel) cannot cast to Chromecast.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  I'll be interested to see how this all works once I get my devices. Because its not relying on the processing power of the device in question, I wonder why it wouldn't work on any device running Chrome. I did notice during the Presser that the Chrome browser had two cast icons; one in the bottom right he keyed in on, and one where normal extensions go.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I'll be interested to see how this all works once I get my devices. Because its not relying on the processing power of the device in question, I wonder why it wouldn't work on any device running Chrome. As others have pointed out on the thread, the limiting factor is probably the need to encode video on the sending device for the casting Chrome tabs feature, which probably is going to be an issue on low-end Chromebooks (but, I would imagine, would also be a feature on low-end devices running Windows Chrome.) It may be that it relies on Chrome features that don't exist on low-end chromebooks (and, if it involves licensed technology, it may be something that isn't licensed for low-end Chromebooks.)
    - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
      If when in local mode its leaving the rendering up to the initiating device, I can definitely see that being a limiting factor. Perhaps the reason it's in 'beta' then is that DIAL doesn't have the provisions in place for low end unit to unit, low latency performance. Hopefully enabling this on the lower end devices amps up the usefulness even further.
- lftl 13y ago
ratscabies 13y ago
I don't get it. I have an HTPC, and I watch Youtube on it all the time. I will often pause what I am watching to look something up related to the video I am watching. I don't have a personal phone as I get by fine with my work phone. It's a blackberry, so not compatible anyway. Also, when watching TV, its with the family, and we all are interested in what we look up. As far as I know, this only does some video, and doesn't send web pages to the screen. Yes, it's $35, but it's pretty limited from what I can see.
- guizzy 13y ago
  It's limited compared to what you can already do, but that's because you have a HTPC. Same for people who have a Google TV device, an Apple TV device, a Roku or whatever media box or media center plugged in to their TV. To you and me, who don't mind learning how to use a media center device, this doesn't really change anything. The Chromecast is a device for your mom; something where she can just take her iPad and press "send to TV" and it appears on her TV.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    I don't have much interest in this and was just skimming over the comments but I have to thank you -- your comment got my attention. My mother (on the complete opposite end of the "techie" spectrum from me) watches soap operas on her iPad every few days while laying in bed. I'm certain she'd much rather watch them on the huge TV across the room instead. > The Chromecast is a device for your mom; something where she can just take her iPad and press "send to TV" and it appears on her TV. I was trying to figure out what I'd use this device for and you've answered that question for me. I'm ordering one of these for mom.
    - sjwright 13y ago
      I realise it's twice the price, but an Apple TV will be much simpler to use, and will work with almost all apps on her iPad that play video (and audio). That includes all the built-in apps and nearly all store-bought apps. There's a strong possibility your mother's soaps are being played in a way that's unsupported by the Chromecast.
ricardobeat 13y ago
The AppleTV can do everything this does, plus real-time mirroring of any app. It's more expensive, and AirPlay doesn't have a queue, but this is hardly game-changing.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  Never underestimate the power of the price point. This also throws down the gauntlet regarding the walled garden in hardware interactivity. Even Apple zealots I work with begrudgingly nod their heads in agreement that vendor lock-in is a destructive to innovation.
randomsearch 13y ago
>This is a game changer. Completely agree. This is potentially an incredibly disruptive innovation. Provided third parties (TV Networks, Vimeo, etc.) write apps for this, I think it will radically change the way people watch TV. No-one wants another box with another clumsy interface. They just want to watch what they see on their phone or laptop on a better screen. Wow.
- barista 13y ago
  What this is is another proprietary technology that Google has chosen to adopt over open standards such as WFD and Miracast. After tuning off support for jabber, deprioritizing rss, yet another step in that direction from a company that touts open standards for its own benefits. Shame!

Karunamon 13y ago

Agreed! The one thing that worries me about this is underpowered hardware. If they made the UI not suck (read: not take seconds to respond to button presses) then I'll be all over this. It'll end up being what Google TV should have been.

corresation 13y ago
It sounds like it has no UI. It simply shows video streams.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  This is correct. It has a screen that shows up when nothing is playing, but all navigation and control is handled by all the other devices.
  - altcognito 13y ago
    Exactly. In truth, there is nothing preventing you from playing Crysis (other than a terrible response time and a poor quality video stream) on this with nothing else but this and a wireless keyboard/mouse. This is the true dumb terminal. The developers SDK is probably more about connecting devices or having them communicate with the chromecast rather than being an app repository. The more I think about it, the more I hope this is where they going with this. To borrow a very damaged phrase, this might as much about the cloud/virtual computing as it is about streaming and music.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> 3. If it can run Chrome, it can cast to Chromecast. That's probably the long-term goal, but currently the list of "Can run Chrome" overlaps, but does not subsume, the list of "can cast to Chromecast". Particularly, Linux and ChromeOS devices can run Chrome, but (with the exception of the Chromebook Pixel) cannot cast to Chromecast.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
I'll be interested to see how this all works once I get my devices. Because its not relying on the processing power of the device in question, I wonder why it wouldn't work on any device running Chrome. I did notice during the Presser that the Chrome browser had two cast icons; one in the bottom right he keyed in on, and one where normal extensions go.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I'll be interested to see how this all works once I get my devices. Because its not relying on the processing power of the device in question, I wonder why it wouldn't work on any device running Chrome. As others have pointed out on the thread, the limiting factor is probably the need to encode video on the sending device for the casting Chrome tabs feature, which probably is going to be an issue on low-end Chromebooks (but, I would imagine, would also be a feature on low-end devices running Windows Chrome.) It may be that it relies on Chrome features that don't exist on low-end chromebooks (and, if it involves licensed technology, it may be something that isn't licensed for low-end Chromebooks.)
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    If when in local mode its leaving the rendering up to the initiating device, I can definitely see that being a limiting factor. Perhaps the reason it's in 'beta' then is that DIAL doesn't have the provisions in place for low end unit to unit, low latency performance. Hopefully enabling this on the lower end devices amps up the usefulness even further.
lftl 13y ago

ratscabies 13y ago

I don't get it. I have an HTPC, and I watch Youtube on it all the time. I will often pause what I am watching to look something up related to the video I am watching. I don't have a personal phone as I get by fine with my work phone. It's a blackberry, so not compatible anyway. Also, when watching TV, its with the family, and we all are interested in what we look up. As far as I know, this only does some video, and doesn't send web pages to the screen. Yes, it's $35, but it's pretty limited from what I can see.

guizzy 13y ago
It's limited compared to what you can already do, but that's because you have a HTPC. Same for people who have a Google TV device, an Apple TV device, a Roku or whatever media box or media center plugged in to their TV. To you and me, who don't mind learning how to use a media center device, this doesn't really change anything. The Chromecast is a device for your mom; something where she can just take her iPad and press "send to TV" and it appears on her TV.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  I don't have much interest in this and was just skimming over the comments but I have to thank you -- your comment got my attention. My mother (on the complete opposite end of the "techie" spectrum from me) watches soap operas on her iPad every few days while laying in bed. I'm certain she'd much rather watch them on the huge TV across the room instead. > The Chromecast is a device for your mom; something where she can just take her iPad and press "send to TV" and it appears on her TV. I was trying to figure out what I'd use this device for and you've answered that question for me. I'm ordering one of these for mom.
  - sjwright 13y ago
    I realise it's twice the price, but an Apple TV will be much simpler to use, and will work with almost all apps on her iPad that play video (and audio). That includes all the built-in apps and nearly all store-bought apps. There's a strong possibility your mother's soaps are being played in a way that's unsupported by the Chromecast.

ricardobeat 13y ago

The AppleTV can do everything this does, plus real-time mirroring of any app. It's more expensive, and AirPlay doesn't have a queue, but this is hardly game-changing.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
Never underestimate the power of the price point. This also throws down the gauntlet regarding the walled garden in hardware interactivity. Even Apple zealots I work with begrudgingly nod their heads in agreement that vendor lock-in is a destructive to innovation.

randomsearch 13y ago

>This is a game changer. Completely agree. This is potentially an incredibly disruptive innovation. Provided third parties (TV Networks, Vimeo, etc.) write apps for this, I think it will radically change the way people watch TV. No-one wants another box with another clumsy interface. They just want to watch what they see on their phone or laptop on a better screen. Wow.

barista 13y ago
What this is is another proprietary technology that Google has chosen to adopt over open standards such as WFD and Miracast. After tuning off support for jabber, deprioritizing rss, yet another step in that direction from a company that touts open standards for its own benefits. Shame!