6 ms·

Google Chromecast review

45 points by sidcool 13y ago

bsaul 13y ago
do you get the hdmi cable for that 35$ price ? i see that thing almost like an advanced wireless port. i don't understand what's the big deal ( especially since apple tv does that for some time now). anyone could enlighten me ?
- dsr_ 13y ago
  It plugs directly into an HDMI port. No cable included, no cable needed. It is, in fact, a moderately smart wireless port: whatever you send to it that it recognizes, it plays. That's it. If you want a pause function, you need to tell the source, not ChromeCast. If you want a rewind, a fast forward, a seek... ditto. It's a big deal because it's $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku, who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources, pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer one for three times the price.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    There's a short HDMI extender included in the box. This is for when the HDMI port is inaccessible for the Chromecast itself, or if you need to move it get slightly better Wi-Fi.
    - ExpendableGuy 13y ago
      Seeing as how the HDTV in my bedroom is about 7 years old and only has two HDMI ports right next to each other, I'm willing to bet I'm going to need that when my Chromecast arrives Saturday.
- jonknee 13y ago
  Apple TV is 3x the price and doesn't work well outside of the Apple eco-system (you can watch Netflix, but other than that you'll want an iOS device or Mac).
  - skc 13y ago
    At least one person thinks the Apple TV is a better deal. Two guesses as to who. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catches http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch...
chrisdevereux 13y ago
It will be interesting to see if google open up the chromecast protocol to third parties. My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non-existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money out of this as a hardware product. It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make substantially less from advertising. Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Surely low margins are a reason for Google to licence this out? It seems to be using the DIAL protocol anyway, which is intended for smart TV and plug in devices. And if you hit the "cast" button you'll also see listed any Mira-cast devices. So this mostly seems to be about making Android, and Chrome more desirable targets for video content, not an attempt to monopolise the video sending dongle market.
  - chrisdevereux 13y ago
    Right, good point. Licensing to third-party manufacturers makes sense for them. I was thinking about third-party applications (which it seems they've already opened the protocol up to. never mind...)
- jedc 13y ago
  You mean this? https://developers.google.com/cast/ https://developers.google.com/cast/ Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV w/Chromecast?
  - chrisdevereux 13y ago
    Cool. Looks like I guessed wrong...
  - icesoldier 13y ago
clicks 13y ago
One interesting implication is that Chromecast will probably affect Smart TV sales -- because justifying the extra few hundred bucks to get a smart TV vs. just a dumb 1080p TV just got a lot more difficult. I was planning on buying a Smart TV (~46") for 800 bucks, now I think I'll just get one for around 400 or less and use Chromecast for Netflix, Pandora, etc.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  It might increase Smart TV sales, as long as a) the smart TVs adopt the same tech (which seems to have been designed by Youtube and Netflix for exactly that purpose) and b) they don't price themselves out of the market.
- illyism 13y ago
  Smart TV is a gimmick. Buy a PS3 and enable streaming from your computer. Boom, all the movies you want. YouTube. YouTube from your mobile phone just like chromecast. An Internet browser. Netflix. Blu-ray. As a bonus you also get to play games. Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or other features. You'll get your money's worth. Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.
  - inthewoods 13y ago
    Smart TV most certainly is not a gimmick. Among all the parents I know, including myself, we all bought smart TVs to have the built-in Netflix streaming without an extra box or anything to think about. The price difference of TVs with and without apps is almost nothing at this point - we bought a 60" Vizio for around $900 - they don't even offer a version without apps as far as I know. But I do agree with you about 3D. :)
- corresation 13y ago
  SmartTV isn't a $400 upgrade -- you can buy $79 Bluray players with full SmartTV functionality. Instead it's an afterthought addition, and if you were seriously tossing up between a $800 and a $400 set, the differences were much greater than a lame on-device UI.
Sven7 13y ago
I really like what Google has done here. There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. They are great for bringing things like skype/youtube/presentations to the big screen. The main problem is controlling the UI via wireless mice/keyboard or special remotes. They really suck. And it looks like Chromecast has solved this input issue by turning ones smartphone/tab/laptop into the input system. One thing I would like to see is eliminating the need for the TV remote in this process, which would still be required to switch between AV/HDMI input coming from my STB to chromecast input.
- rudy750 13y ago
  if your TV supports it (HDMI CEC) it already does this . http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/ http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/
  - Sven7 13y ago
    Great! Thanks for the link. Have to figure out whether mine supports it.
saturdaysaint 13y ago
The hype around this is kind of weird to me - really, watching Netflix Instant on your TV is exciting? I mean, I talk about watching shows on Netflix instant pretty regularly with fairly non-technical people, and I'm assuming there's an easy way they're watching on their TV. It's almost comical how many devices I own capable of streaming Netflix, from my (fairly cheap) plasma TV to my 2009 Samsung HTIB to my PS3. I mostly use Apple TV. Chromecast is cheap, but for the demographic that's been paying $9 - $25 a month for Netflix for a while, this is a solved problem.
- jonknee 13y ago
  I've never seen a TV that has Netflix/YouTube built-in that doesn't have a horrible interface. The [low] cost may be worth it just for less pain.
  - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
    Is it really less pain if you can't use the thing if your phone is charging in the other room?
    - jonknee 13y ago
      For me it would be, I have much more rage with trying to type with a remote control than I do finding a device with battery left (you can use a phone, tablet or computer and I don't foresee a time when all three are out of juice and my power isn't out). The Apple TV is the worst of both worlds because the remote is required but is smaller than any other remote out there so that it's very easy to lose.
      - evilduck 13y ago
        You can use any remote with the AppleTV (it can be trained) and you can use your iOS devices entirely once you initially configure the wireless.
      - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
warcode 13y ago
A $35 bottleneck between my laptop and TV? I thought HDMI-out was becoming standard.
- NegativeK 13y ago
  One of the differences between Chromecast and an HDMI cable running across your living room is convenience.
plg 13y ago
Can I plug it into an LCD projector and then wirelessly stream my presentation (keynote, PowerPoint, PDF) or even screen mirror, from my laptop? Would be great for presentations.
- jayrobin 13y ago
  It just plugs straight into the HDMI port, so I don't see why not. Before the presentation started you'd need to set it up on the local wi-fi however.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    And hope no-one in the audience has videos of their own that they want to share.
wubbfindel 13y ago
I want one now, but I'm in the UK. I hope Google don't drag their heels on this one. Can anyone who has it tell me whether the web based spotify player will cast from a laptop?
geekymartian 13y ago
Sorry, I'm going to be "that guy" OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011? Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities): http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ram-4gb-rom-wi-fi-hdmi-white-white-205043 http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ra... http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-esd-black-1gb-ram-4gb-rom-us-plug-217874 http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-... They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36 bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to start playing stuff. Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources... OH, HYPE
- corresation 13y ago
  Sometimes less is more. We already have a lot of interfaces around us, so why add yet another? In this case it's an extremely simple mechanism of streaming audio/video to a TV. Having dealt with a number of disastrous (but purportedly very flexible) oddball interfaces on every different device...no thanks. Further there is a recurring mistake that people are making when they say that this can only play from the "web" (for instance http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catches http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch..., though he is hardly alone is saying something like that). The web is ubiquitous, and anything that can host a stream can become "the web". Expect file servers to add Chromecast sourcing in no time.
- samuelfine 13y ago
  "OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?" Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some assumptions. But, for starters: - Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing, instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver content you want to play. - The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV-friendly interfaces. - As The Verge's review leads with: it’s surprisingly difficult to put a web browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV, I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote. "beefy hardware and way more capabilities" Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed-down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities" you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone. "They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..." Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much any website. "Plus, you can play your own files..." Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab. "...access your network resources..." Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks. The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At worst, it's better execution.
pond_lilly 13y ago
here is a downside: more electromagnetic radiation in your dwellings. Amazing how no one even bothers to look at all these devices from the health point of view.
spyder 13y ago
The price shouldn't bee too surprising because there is similar dongle with DLNA and AirPlay support for $30 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA1453 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA14... The advantage of Chromecast is that it's integrated with YouTube and Netflix which are harder to do with DLNA.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Rezo 13y ago
Yes! I'll happily pay $35 to turn my "Smart" TV into the dumb screen it should be. Compare: My Samsung "Smart" TV: Find TV remote, power on. Wait a while, after which the TV will default to showing static (not very Smart of it not to notice I don't have cable attached, and never will). Press the Smart-button on the remote, again wait a small eternity while it's "Loading". Use the navigation buttons to quickly navigate to the Netflix icon. Oh, you were too slow to reach Netflix, now the UI is locked up for 5-10 seconds because the homescreen is refreshing the Samsung app store icons and ads. OK, now Netflix is finally loading, which takes a good 20-40 seconds. Now to find what I want to watch using the damn arrow keys. God help me if I need to enter some text to search, at that point it's just easier to reach over for my laptop and add what I want to my instant queue from there. Chromecast: Using my phone or tablet, load the Netflix app (near instant). Click the Chromecast button (instant). Click the show I want to play, or search using a decent keyboard or voice input. TV powers on (HDMI-CEC, yay), plays my show (in a few seconds). Moving all of the UI out from the TV screen is a fantastic move. And no, a Roku, Chinese Android players, Apple TV, etc. aren't interesting to me at all because I don't want to interact with my TV screen.
chestnut-tree 13y ago
I can see the Chromecast being useful for presentations in an office environment too. Instead of a projector or messy cables, just plug the Chromecast into a suitable TV and display your presentation on a large TV screen to an audience.

45 points by sidcool 13y ago

bsaul 13y ago

do you get the hdmi cable for that 35$ price ? i see that thing almost like an advanced wireless port. i don't understand what's the big deal ( especially since apple tv does that for some time now). anyone could enlighten me ?

dsr_ 13y ago
It plugs directly into an HDMI port. No cable included, no cable needed. It is, in fact, a moderately smart wireless port: whatever you send to it that it recognizes, it plays. That's it. If you want a pause function, you need to tell the source, not ChromeCast. If you want a rewind, a fast forward, a seek... ditto. It's a big deal because it's $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku, who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources, pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer one for three times the price.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  There's a short HDMI extender included in the box. This is for when the HDMI port is inaccessible for the Chromecast itself, or if you need to move it get slightly better Wi-Fi.
  - ExpendableGuy 13y ago
    Seeing as how the HDTV in my bedroom is about 7 years old and only has two HDMI ports right next to each other, I'm willing to bet I'm going to need that when my Chromecast arrives Saturday.
jonknee 13y ago
Apple TV is 3x the price and doesn't work well outside of the Apple eco-system (you can watch Netflix, but other than that you'll want an iOS device or Mac).
- skc 13y ago
  At least one person thinks the Apple TV is a better deal. Two guesses as to who. http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catches http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch...

chrisdevereux 13y ago

It will be interesting to see if google open up the chromecast protocol to third parties. My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non-existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money out of this as a hardware product. It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make substantially less from advertising. Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Surely low margins are a reason for Google to licence this out? It seems to be using the DIAL protocol anyway, which is intended for smart TV and plug in devices. And if you hit the "cast" button you'll also see listed any Mira-cast devices. So this mostly seems to be about making Android, and Chrome more desirable targets for video content, not an attempt to monopolise the video sending dongle market.
- chrisdevereux 13y ago
  Right, good point. Licensing to third-party manufacturers makes sense for them. I was thinking about third-party applications (which it seems they've already opened the protocol up to. never mind...)
jedc 13y ago
You mean this? https://developers.google.com/cast/ https://developers.google.com/cast/ Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV w/Chromecast?
- chrisdevereux 13y ago
  Cool. Looks like I guessed wrong...
- icesoldier 13y ago

clicks 13y ago

One interesting implication is that Chromecast will probably affect Smart TV sales -- because justifying the extra few hundred bucks to get a smart TV vs. just a dumb 1080p TV just got a lot more difficult. I was planning on buying a Smart TV (~46") for 800 bucks, now I think I'll just get one for around 400 or less and use Chromecast for Netflix, Pandora, etc.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
It might increase Smart TV sales, as long as a) the smart TVs adopt the same tech (which seems to have been designed by Youtube and Netflix for exactly that purpose) and b) they don't price themselves out of the market.
illyism 13y ago
Smart TV is a gimmick. Buy a PS3 and enable streaming from your computer. Boom, all the movies you want. YouTube. YouTube from your mobile phone just like chromecast. An Internet browser. Netflix. Blu-ray. As a bonus you also get to play games. Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or other features. You'll get your money's worth. Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.
- inthewoods 13y ago
  Smart TV most certainly is not a gimmick. Among all the parents I know, including myself, we all bought smart TVs to have the built-in Netflix streaming without an extra box or anything to think about. The price difference of TVs with and without apps is almost nothing at this point - we bought a 60" Vizio for around $900 - they don't even offer a version without apps as far as I know. But I do agree with you about 3D. :)
corresation 13y ago
SmartTV isn't a $400 upgrade -- you can buy $79 Bluray players with full SmartTV functionality. Instead it's an afterthought addition, and if you were seriously tossing up between a $800 and a $400 set, the differences were much greater than a lame on-device UI.

Sven7 13y ago

I really like what Google has done here. There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. They are great for bringing things like skype/youtube/presentations to the big screen. The main problem is controlling the UI via wireless mice/keyboard or special remotes. They really suck. And it looks like Chromecast has solved this input issue by turning ones smartphone/tab/laptop into the input system. One thing I would like to see is eliminating the need for the TV remote in this process, which would still be required to switch between AV/HDMI input coming from my STB to chromecast input.

rudy750 13y ago
if your TV supports it (HDMI CEC) it already does this . http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/ http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/
- Sven7 13y ago
  Great! Thanks for the link. Have to figure out whether mine supports it.

saturdaysaint 13y ago

The hype around this is kind of weird to me - really, watching Netflix Instant on your TV is exciting? I mean, I talk about watching shows on Netflix instant pretty regularly with fairly non-technical people, and I'm assuming there's an easy way they're watching on their TV. It's almost comical how many devices I own capable of streaming Netflix, from my (fairly cheap) plasma TV to my 2009 Samsung HTIB to my PS3. I mostly use Apple TV. Chromecast is cheap, but for the demographic that's been paying $9 - $25 a month for Netflix for a while, this is a solved problem.

jonknee 13y ago
I've never seen a TV that has Netflix/YouTube built-in that doesn't have a horrible interface. The [low] cost may be worth it just for less pain.
- MatthewPhillips 13y ago
  Is it really less pain if you can't use the thing if your phone is charging in the other room?
  - jonknee 13y ago
    For me it would be, I have much more rage with trying to type with a remote control than I do finding a device with battery left (you can use a phone, tablet or computer and I don't foresee a time when all three are out of juice and my power isn't out). The Apple TV is the worst of both worlds because the remote is required but is smaller than any other remote out there so that it's very easy to lose.
    - evilduck 13y ago
      You can use any remote with the AppleTV (it can be trained) and you can use your iOS devices entirely once you initially configure the wireless.
    - MatthewPhillips 13y ago

warcode 13y ago

A $35 bottleneck between my laptop and TV? I thought HDMI-out was becoming standard.

NegativeK 13y ago
One of the differences between Chromecast and an HDMI cable running across your living room is convenience.

plg 13y ago

Can I plug it into an LCD projector and then wirelessly stream my presentation (keynote, PowerPoint, PDF) or even screen mirror, from my laptop? Would be great for presentations.

jayrobin 13y ago
It just plugs straight into the HDMI port, so I don't see why not. Before the presentation started you'd need to set it up on the local wi-fi however.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  And hope no-one in the audience has videos of their own that they want to share.

wubbfindel 13y ago

I want one now, but I'm in the UK. I hope Google don't drag their heels on this one. Can anyone who has it tell me whether the web based spotify player will cast from a laptop?

geekymartian 13y ago

Sorry, I'm going to be "that guy" OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011? Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities): http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ram-4gb-rom-wi-fi-hdmi-white-white-205043 http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ra... http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-esd-black-1gb-ram-4gb-rom-us-plug-217874 http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-... They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36 bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to start playing stuff. Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources... OH, HYPE

corresation 13y ago
Sometimes less is more. We already have a lot of interfaces around us, so why add yet another? In this case it's an extremely simple mechanism of streaming audio/video to a TV. Having dealt with a number of disastrous (but purportedly very flexible) oddball interfaces on every different device...no thanks. Further there is a recurring mistake that people are making when they say that this can only play from the "web" (for instance http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catches http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch..., though he is hardly alone is saying something like that). The web is ubiquitous, and anything that can host a stream can become "the web". Expect file servers to add Chromecast sourcing in no time.
samuelfine 13y ago
"OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?" Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some assumptions. But, for starters: - Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing, instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver content you want to play. - The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV-friendly interfaces. - As The Verge's review leads with: it’s surprisingly difficult to put a web browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV, I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote. "beefy hardware and way more capabilities" Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed-down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities" you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone. "They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..." Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much any website. "Plus, you can play your own files..." Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab. "...access your network resources..." Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks. The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At worst, it's better execution.

pond_lilly 13y ago

here is a downside: more electromagnetic radiation in your dwellings. Amazing how no one even bothers to look at all these devices from the health point of view.

spyder 13y ago

The price shouldn't bee too surprising because there is similar dongle with DLNA and AirPlay support for $30 : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA1453 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA14... The advantage of Chromecast is that it's integrated with YouTube and Netflix which are harder to do with DLNA.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Rezo 13y ago

Yes! I'll happily pay $35 to turn my "Smart" TV into the dumb screen it should be. Compare: My Samsung "Smart" TV: Find TV remote, power on. Wait a while, after which the TV will default to showing static (not very Smart of it not to notice I don't have cable attached, and never will). Press the Smart-button on the remote, again wait a small eternity while it's "Loading". Use the navigation buttons to quickly navigate to the Netflix icon. Oh, you were too slow to reach Netflix, now the UI is locked up for 5-10 seconds because the homescreen is refreshing the Samsung app store icons and ads. OK, now Netflix is finally loading, which takes a good 20-40 seconds. Now to find what I want to watch using the damn arrow keys. God help me if I need to enter some text to search, at that point it's just easier to reach over for my laptop and add what I want to my instant queue from there. Chromecast: Using my phone or tablet, load the Netflix app (near instant). Click the Chromecast button (instant). Click the show I want to play, or search using a decent keyboard or voice input. TV powers on (HDMI-CEC, yay), plays my show (in a few seconds). Moving all of the UI out from the TV screen is a fantastic move. And no, a Roku, Chinese Android players, Apple TV, etc. aren't interesting to me at all because I don't want to interact with my TV screen.

chestnut-tree 13y ago

I can see the Chromecast being useful for presentations in an office environment too. Instead of a projector or messy cables, just plug the Chromecast into a suitable TV and display your presentation on a large TV screen to an audience.