7 ms·
Google blocks Chromecast app that let you stream your own videos
- jonbaer 13y agoNot sure I understand this, isn't the device just a low-cost implementation of a DIAL device? http://www.dial-multiscreen.org http://www.dial-multiscreen.org
- lcampbell 13y agoYes, but DIAL requires a centralized registry of whitelisted apps (and they're using their own registry for ChromeCast, not the dial-multiscreen.com one); my reading is that Google is un-whitelisting any apps that allow streaming of local media. Honestly, it's really silly since the built-in Chrome casting webapp is basically "throw arbitrary content at the screen via WebRTC" -- so hypothetically you could write a local WebRTC client that pushed your local video content to the device (and sidestep any whitelist restrictions). Unfortunately, WebRTC looks like a needlessly complicated protocol to implement.
- doctoboggan 13y agoWhat is the evidence for the claim that this was an intentional move by Google rather than just them breaking an unpublished protocol?
- kgarten 13y agoThey reference Koushik Dutta in the sources. He believes it's intentional, see: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/ZeHgRXS6AZs https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/ZeHgRXS6...
- doctoboggan 13y agoHis only evidence seemed to be that this was the second time it happened.
- _sabe_ 13y agoIt could still be a bit of both. This particular case might probably be a coincidence, but from a business perspective it would also make perfect sense for Google to keep some control over the device.
- acgourley 13y agoFrom a business perspective it doesn't make sense to block a very useful feature like this. My vote goes with them simply moving around the private API for technical reasons.
- ewillbefull 13y ago> But he also voiced support for Chromecast's tab casting feature, which essentially gives users limitless viewing options so long as they're watching something in a Chrome browser. I have not had a good experience with this. None of my personal media is in a format that Chrome will play let alone stream to Chromecast.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoFYI, Plex will transcode your personal content to something that an HTML5 player can view on the fly. I can't recommend it highly enough. (Correction: Plex uses a Flash player . . . so Plex is still great, but it doesn't help solve this issue.)
- ihuman 13y agoIf you are using iOS, it somehow detects it and uses quicktime player to load the video instead. If you are somehow able to trick chrome into telling Plex to show the iOS version, you may be able to stream it to the chromecast.
- ZoF 13y agoThis is purely conjecture, they have no way of knowing if breaking changes were intentional. Also: Any media that can be played in your browser can be played with Chromecast, Just start casting and go to "File:///C:/" and traverse your file system/find your media. Obviously this applies to your desktop, not your phone.
- ibrahima 13y agoThe point of the app that got broken was to play media directly from your phone. The way Koush describes the breakage makes it sound pretty intentional to me. It makes sense why they did it though, and even if it's limited to Youtube and Netflix for the price that's still a great deal.
- engrenage 13y agoLike almost everything Google does, they never said this was open. It doesn't seem like anything was 'blocked' - it was just never supported in the first place.
- lvs 13y agoCheapCast[1] + a cheap Android 4.2 dongle[2] may make Chromecast platform lockdown irrelevant[3]. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=at.maui.cheapcast&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=at.maui.cheapc... [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEN1X3BR910 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEN1X3BR910 [3] ... for those willing and able to muck about.
- foobarqux 13y agoThat doesn't seem to let you stream local videos.
- lvs 13y agoNo, this will just implement the DIAL protocol, but the app will allow hooks for other developers to build whatever they like. My point was that there are open solutions to implement a DIAL compliant dongle, if indeed it turns out that Google locks down Chromecast.
- cremnob 13y agoOpen always wins, until it conflicts with your business interests.
- anxiousest 13y agoYour comment reads like an entry in daring fireball, just trollish nonsense. They pushed an update that broke some non official/supported functionality, I'm not sure what "business interests" you're babbling about.
- THE_PUN_STOPS 13y agoSimple. Google hopes to woo Hulu, HBO and others. They can't if they keep it open.
- mikecane 13y agoIs this the future? You buy a device but the manufacturer actually owns it?
- zapt02 13y agoWell it is pretty heavily subsidized...
- Argorak 13y agoWhich is, from the users perspective, pretty irrelevant. The user bought it and is the legal owner of the device. Everything else is a calculation of the seller and his problem (tm).
- GhotiFish 13y agoI agree, but once you start putting a price tag on freedom, human beings are too willing to make compromises. I guess humans just like paying for freedom with blood, rather than money.
- devcpp 13y agoAlso, most people can;t afford to buy quality stuff in every domain. The lucky few who can buy good furniture or a good house will rarely have money remaining to buy good computing devices. A lot of us tech-savvy people but these before the rest because we have a passion for technology and/or make money out of it, but we're the exception in that regard. And let's not forget how many people like their devices to be entirely controlled, because they're afraid of entering the wrong commands. This stuff requires not only money but also time, and most people have neither to sacrifice for technology.
- Argorak 13y agoMany people like their devices entirely preconfigured. A lot of people are well aware that e.g. their cell phone is bound to a provider and that this is a significant drawback. Let's not mingle that.
- ekidd 13y agoThe Chromecast would be a pretty great device with a few hundred third-party apps, including streaming radio, a photo viewer, and other stuff that could be easily implemented on top of the existing SDK. And I was planning on writing a specialty app at some point. I have a whitelisted device and I've been fooling around with the SDK. It's a nice platform. But there's several comments in the Koushik Dutta thread from people who "spoke to Googlers" suggesting that Google intends to keep very tight control over the platform and only allow major media companies to ship apps. If this is the case, the Chromecast is a pretty worthless competitor to the average, proprietary smart TV, which already does Netflix, Hulu, etc., and doesn't require the customer to use multiple devices to turn on the TV and play content. As somebody who once spent a couple months of evenings hacking on Google Wave bots, I'm ready to drop my Chromecast plans like a hot potato. If there isn't a robust market for third-party apps, this thing's going to be another stinker.
- magicalist 13y ago> But there's several comments in the Koushik Dutta thread from people who "spoke to Googlers" To be fair, I only see the one comment mentioning that and it's by Koushik Dutta himself, so I don't think that really says anything beyond what's in the initial post. In fact, there is a googler in there asking for patience, though it doesn't appear that he actually works on chromecast. On the side of patience, it doesn't make much sense to make an SDK and tell people about it if making apps is going to be more or less invitation only. And it would be pretty weird to allow arbitrary browser tab broadcasting but not arbitrary app broadcasting, since it's media that's (ridiculously) licensed to be played in a browser but not on a TV that made all the media companies go apoplectic with google TV in the first place. All that said, I agree that cat and mouse games with potential device hackers is super lame and makes it not that much more valuable than an hdmi cord. On the one hand, it's (sort of) wireless hdmi, on the other, it only works with a tiny list of whitelisted apps! Not exactly a glowing advertising slogan.
- Pxtl 13y agoYup. Android/Google fanboys already have Android HDMI sticks to get their Google + TV fix - little Chinese no-names like Smallart are actually making some very nice devices. Chromecast is Google's answer to Apple TV, not iTV. It's just the latest iteration of GoogleTV and will do just as well. I'm happily waiting for my Android stick to come in the mail for my kids' TV.
- mig39 13y agoDon't be evil?
- joeblau 13y agoIs there a way to put your own custom OS on a Chromecast? The hardware seems great for allowing some third party (maybe via Kickstarter) to build a truly open platform on top of it.
- kylemaxwell 13y agoSo, you don't really own a Chromecast. Google lets you use it, as long as you use it the way they approve. Sounds more like a lease than a purchase.
- drivebyacct2 13y agoThe sad thing is, koush and the CM team can take the TV sticks they're getting from http://equiso.com/features/ http://equiso.com/features/ http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/this-week-in-cm-aug-16-2013 http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/this-week-in-cm-aug-16-2013 If they do it right, they can tie it to CM Account, preserve user privacy, and use bonjour to enable stuff that you can't do with Chromecast because it uses SSDP. This is pretty annoying of Google.