12 ms·

Chromecast update breaks AllCast

176 points by cygwin98 13y ago

cygwin98 13y ago
Is the new motto being Do Evil?
- BitMastro 13y ago
  Reductio at Evilerum will be the new Reductio at Hitlerum
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Only because speaking in strong terms has somehow become taboo. We are neutering language.
    - BitMastro 13y ago
      I'm not sure if sarcasm, but I have issues with defining "EVIL" as "removing a feature to allow custom streaming". I also have issues considering falling down the stairs an "EPIC" fail, or reading companies looking for SUPERSTAR NINJA programmers, or things that are LITERALLY the worse ever happened to someone.
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        cygwin98 did not introduce the "evil" terminology. Google introduced the "evil" terminology. Do you really think that the phrase, associated with Google, was intended to mean "We're not going to commit any war crimes?" If you dislike hyperbole, that is fine, but blame the people who are actually responsible for introducing the hyperbole.
        BitMastro 13y ago
        The meaning of the "don’t be evil" motto is "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." How changing an undocumented function, that was used to circumvent an SDK that is clearly marked as beta and "could change significantly" can be classified as evil is beyond me. The problem is that people are using the "don't be evil" whenever they see something that simply bothers them. Damn, they closed a bug in android that allows me to remove advertisement from apps! Google don't be evil! They shut down a product that was offered for free for almost a decade! Google don't be evil! So what adjective will people use if Google starts charging if you search more than 10 times a day, or obscuring the maps a few miles from the destination asking for a fee to see the rest, or blackmailing people based on data extracted from the mail? Google don't be.... evillest maybe?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Ripping functionality out from under paying customers is not something that just "bothers" people. Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means. This situation invokes to comparisons to certain companies that had rather poor reputations in the 90s. Companies the slogan was almost certainly meant to differentiate Google from. If hyperbole to shareholders is a-okay with you but hyperbole from angered consumers is out of line, then we just are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I hope people inside Google do not share your attitude or Google truly is doomed to become what they assured us they wouldn't. This attitude towards consumers is extremely toxic.
        BitMastro 13y ago
        I see that you prefer downvoting rather then having a discussion, so I will stop here. Edit: Apologies, I didn't know that rule, it was obviously someone else.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        1) I responded to you. Obviously. You just replied to my response to you. 2) Because your comment was in response to one of mine, it is impossible for me to downvote it. I can only downvote comments that are in response to others.
    - abraininavat 13y ago
      We're "neutering language"? Hyperbolize much?
      - jlgreco 13y ago
        I was hoping somebody would say that. That is exactly my point. With Godwin's Law the standard argument is that hyperbole somehow diminishes the plight of those that suffered, but that argument really does not encompass the full breadth of the War On Hyperbole. Here, for example, I've made an exaggeration with a comparison to sterilizing pets. Is the concern that I am diminishing the plight of pets and their reproductive lives? No, I don't think so, that would be silly. Rather, the objection is to the rhetorical device itself, not merely to the tasteless application of it. (I suspect I've just been 'wooshed')
        abraininavat 13y ago
        and I was hoping you'd get that it was a joke instead of spending time explaining what you meant :)
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Aaaah yep. I should slow down. ;)
- anxiousest 13y ago
  Not sure how you went from "an update that broke undocumented functionality" to "evil".
  - tty 13y ago
    It's hyperbole, a pretty common tool when expressing yourself. It's not a long way from Google's motto "Don't be evil" to "Be evil" and it doesn't take that much imagination to figure out what he meant. On the other hand, acting obtuse is rarely funny.
    - magicalist 13y ago
      Except it's not only informationless hyperbole, it's also just a tired catchphrase at this point. Witness the thread from yesterday on the verge story covering the same post that is this submission[1]. You'll notice a "Don't be evil" and an "Open always wins" comment there too. Mix in some beowulf clusters and netcraft confirmations and we can be well on our way to generating these threads via markov chains. No humans needed! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273292
- _nullandnull_ 13y ago
  No, but Newspeak is the official new language at Google.
  - randomafk 13y ago
    Everyone on HN is an expert on working at Google and its policies it seems. Speculation and pet theories at it's finest.
  - gosub 13y ago
    Well newspeak[1] was created by Gilad Bracha. He now works for Google, he was one of the creators of Dart. So, almost. [1] http://newspeaklanguage.org/ http://newspeaklanguage.org/
    - _nullandnull_ 13y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
- fluidcruft 13y ago
  No, since everyone finds out what words mean by Googling them, they'll just adapt the meaning of "evil" as necessary.
runn1ng 13y ago
Can I ask for more context?
- lazypenguin 13y ago
  The OP developed an app that allowed you to stream raw media files directly to the chromecast. This is not possible by default, instead you're limited to youtube, netflix and mirroring a tab in your browser. OP's application doesn't use SDK but instead works at a lower level. This new update broke his application and he is making the argument that it was a directed update. They specifically removed a part of their code that allowed for this functionality.
  - sp332 13y ago
    It can mirror a tab in your browser? Doesn't that mean you could just open a video file in your browser and watch it that way? Edit: looks like it's limited to 5 Mbps at 720p. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-an-awesome-35-hdmi-dongle/4 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-...
    - tylerkahn 13y ago
      Yes you can do that. The problem is that currently tab projection is limited to 720p. If anyone knows how to get around this, please reply to this with the solution. Googling for anything Chromecast related gets mostly pop-tech articles.
    - BitMastro 13y ago
      Yes, it still can, but the app allowed to stream without using the browser, for example from the phone's gallery.
    - aroch 13y ago
      Yes, but only for codecs supported by Chrome (basically mp4 and the occasional avi). Anything that needs transcoding (or any file with high bitrate/multichan audio) will cause extreme stuttering unless you have a machine with a fairly beefy processor and GPU. Casting a tab is like using logmein to watch a movie on another computer. Casting either the RAW or the local file directly is like playing something off a NAS
djrogers 13y ago
Open always wins!
- nine_k 13y ago
  I'd love to hear about an open alternative for $35. Maybe something RPi-based?
  - iambot 13y ago
    Check out https://github.com/lanceseidman/PiCAST https://github.com/lanceseidman/PiCAST
  - dz0ny 13y ago
    Leapcast(https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast), nodecast are both on the way becoming the replacement for CC. All we need is someone to port video acceleration to chromium browser. :)
dell1994 13y ago
I guess google wants to control the platform. What is the surprise here.
tylerkahn 13y ago
https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes > Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).
- markshepard 13y ago
  Do you think the intent of the post is to complain about SDK compatibility ? :)
  - lukesandberg 13y ago
    I think he was saying that this is a case of Hanlon's razor[1]. i.e. this situation could be easily explained by simple api churn (and the fact that the OP was using an undocumented api), so it may not be appropriate to ascribe malice without evidence. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
    - markshepard 13y ago
      I agree with your point. The larger implication (not withstanding using documented or undocumented API) is violation of general assumption that Chromecast will be open and idie friendly than the Apple TV. Even if the OP had used a documented API, the developer warning is clear that any and all API can be changed.
  - mason240 13y ago
    You should have seen the reaction to this on Reddit/r/Android. I thought Google made it clear from the beginning that this was intended to be a beta release until testing was done. Looking at Reddit I was shocked to see the number of people who think Google is trying to force them into buying from the Play Store.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jlgreco 13y ago
If I were somebody with a Chromebook that still had ChromeOS installed, I would be very very concerned right now. If you don't control your device's software updates, then the device is not yours. It is as simple as that.
- themstheones 13y ago
  It's the same with android. They made adblock stop working several times, slowly tightening restrictions on it. And OS updates remove root, which will break a slew of apps. It doesn't feel like your device unless you install something like CM.
  - ajross 13y ago
    Android, however, has a large and vibrant (albeit poorly organized and highly confusing) community of open source distributions that aren't subject to this kind of nonsense. The Chromecast is still new and unhackable, though hopefully this will change.
    - devx 13y ago
      I think I'm starting to see the writing on the wall for CyanogenMod. I can see one day Google going after them if they remove some functionality from their ROM's that Google really wants in, and their ROMs become used by say - tens of millions of people. But Google would be really, incredibly stupid to do that. The Reader outrage will seem tiny compared to the outrage they will get if they mess with CyanogenMod, who's used by the most core users of Android, and most vocal ones in the Android community. CyanogenMod also has a lot of good will with those users, while Google's good will is diminishing by the day. Jeff Jarvis said recently that Google has only done well when it has done stuff for the users, not against them. If I were Google's CEO I would imprint that in my brain before doing something really stupid in the future.
      - untog 13y ago
        I mean, you're saying you can see Google going after Cyanogenmod, then you list out the reasons it would be really stupid for them to do it. I think Google are aware of these reasons, too. In all honesty, I do not think that Cyanogenmod is used by any more than a statistical blip of users, when the whole of Android is considered. I really doubt Google cares very much about these custom ROMs, and won't start caring until everyone starts flashing them on their phones. Which will not happen any time soon.
bru 13y ago
The developer of AllCast, Koushik Dutta, gave his side in this reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1l2hez/google_blocks_chromecast_app_that_let_you_stream/cbv8u0s http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1l2hez/google_block...
- barista 13y ago
  Copied here: Koush here. I've been suspicious of the Chromecast developer policies since release. From my personal interactions with their developer relations, they've been quite tight lipped about who would be receiving approval for a release to a broader audience: "Unfortunately, at the moment our standard answer is: Thank you so much for reaching out about developing for Chromecast. It’s still early days, so we are just previewing the Google Cast SDK and hope to be sharing it in its entirety with developers soon. We look forward to seeing to releasing the public SDK later on so that mobile and web developers can start to create compelling, multi-screen experiences. We're not currently working with additional partners until we release a public SDK. We are trying to find a better answer, but we have nothing yet to announce." Google TV (yes, Chromecast is from the GoogleTV team) has a storied history of releasing closed off products, only allowing access to select partners and media companies. I was fairly certain that Chromecast would be no different. My suspicions were confirmed today. Here's what's happened since release, for context: Chromecast ships with whitelisting. Why go through the trouble of having a whitelist to do development? It took extra development effort to lock the platform down, and build out the whitelisting infrastructure. A walled garden was planned since inception. They intend to use that wall. Chromecast shipped with no default media player app, or any way to play your own content. As I demonstrated, this is actually very easy to implement. The fact that it did not ship with this by default was likely calculated. They don't want you playing your own content. Chromecast had a "GoogleCastSample" app that could be leveraged as a default media player. Many developers started using this. One week after release, GoogleCastSample was disabled. Chromecast's tab casting also supported local content. I, and a few other developers, managed to reverse engineer the Chromecast tab protocol to piggy back this to deliver local content. This was not simply "broken" with an update. It was intentionally disabled. See code explanation here, if you want: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVGWvS https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG... What this all points to: The Chromecast is just a Google TV in a smaller form factor. Yet another box from your TV that delivers the same old tired array of big media apps that you can find on any other cable/tv box. I already have 5 of such boxes (2 Xbox, 2 Apple TV, 1 Roku). I don't need another box to do this. I want a mainstream, open platform, that I can connect to my TV. That would be new. That would be different. The motivations behind this behavior are obvious. Google needs to do this to placate media companies, who will perpetually push stringent requirements before granting access to their coveted content. This will not change until content delivery companies (Netflix, Amazon, and Google) start creating their own content. And in fact, this is starting to happen already.
smtddr 13y ago
Well, I don't agree with what Google is doing assuming it's intentional. But, 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. 2)I bet cyanogenmod will make an appearance. I'm just buying Chromecast for the hardware.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  > 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. That's not a real argument though is it? The issue is that Google are intentionally trying to further a closed ecosystem and the people who don't want to be part of it/their system. It doesn't matter if the price is $0 or $500, if Google has an anti-freedom/choice ideology then there will be pushback on that. That pushback might be technological (e.g. CM mod) or political (EFF et al) but it will occur. The price point is just a distraction that I'd suggest people don't get drawn into. Google doesn't owe you anything, but you also don't owe Google anything, and are entitled to bitch if you're unhappy with the amount of choice you have.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please, just check out these national debt numbers? These types of price comparisons between unrelated things are almost always worthless. You could make me feel ripped off over two dollars; I sure as hell can feel ripped off over $35.
  - munificent 13y ago
    This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
    - aqme28 13y ago
      But "compare to completely unrelated thing" is also a logical fallacy.
kayoone 13y ago
Seems like 35$ for this device was too good to be true. Hopefully there will be some custom ROM sometime, anyway i wanted to get one soon, but now i will hold out as streaming anything to my TV would have been the killer feature for me.
DonnyV 13y ago
Well this device has gone from a "must have" to a "no thanks".
badman_ting 13y ago
It's not so much that I mind Google doing this, as I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways.
- myko 13y ago
  > I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways. This is the first device Google has done this with though, isn't it?
angryasian 13y ago
Everyone wants to blame google, but because Chromecast requires a functional HDCP link... its probably more due to content providers.
drivebyacct2 13y ago
Why does everyone act like $35 is some super subsidized price? It's NOT.
lampooned 13y ago
Google basically just made Chromecast less useful than an Apple TV,
ChuckMcM 13y ago
I posted the register link on this story, seeing Koushik's comments it looks very much like there is an intent at work here. That intent being that the 'crown jewels' of this device is sitting between what you see and the source of that stream. I would guess that Google would consider doing what Hulu did and inject 30 second commercials into that stream. Perhaps that doesn't work if you call the streaming API directly? A number of folks seem to make these 'linux/android to HDMI dongle' type systems, I guess we're stuck making our own version of one.
Ironlink 13y ago
Google has responded to a request for comment from The Verge. We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.
- hobbified 13y ago
  Which is a disingenuous answer since he's not even using the SDK. The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks. I believe that's just called "it doesn't support that protocol".
- moreentropy 13y ago
  A real response would be "we blocked this app because $reason". This is just corporate BS. Great experience my ass.
- nivla 13y ago
  > We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available. Then why are they offering it in retail stores like best buy? Sucks that you buy something for feature X and few days later an update comes through getting rid of it. Does anyone know how hard is it to reverse this update?
  - 13y ago
Kiro 13y ago
Still getting one.
JSadowski 13y ago
I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they then prohibit such uses of the Chromecast, then maybe you have a story, but until then -- geez.
- selectout 13y ago
  Any chance you'd be willing to put the code up on GitHub so other Chromecast users can just add it locally and whitelist it?
  - JSadowski 13y ago
    Sure... I'll throw up a gist... not the correct way to do it, crappy sender UI, based on early code examples from Google, but it works: https://gist.github.com/jonathansadowski/6345103 https://gist.github.com/jonathansadowski/6345103 Feel free to use / copy / fork, whatever. Basically, you can send any URL to the receiver, and the receiver then loads that URL in its video element.... that URL can be local, remote, whatever... requires that you have a webserver to serve your local content.
espeed 13y ago
My Chromecast arrived today. I set it up on my living room TV, and to my surprise, my Nexus pad is also presenting the wireless TV in the kitchen as a playback option. Is this a documented feature?
- Rabidgremlin 13y ago
  Your wireless TV must support the DIAL protocol around which which Google Cast is built: http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/ http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
dicroce 13y ago
I got news for Google. What stopped me from rooting my iPhone was a pretty vibrant app store... that I would lose access to. Given that I already have multiple ways to do Netflix and Youtube on my TV, I'll root my chromecast and run something open that lets me do what I want AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY CAN.
sologoub 13y ago
Just got my Chromecast that I ordered in July and am profoundly disappointed. For a device with such high potential, it really did not deliver on the promise. Here's what I expected: 1) AirPlay alternative via Google Chrome/Chromecast. 2) Reasonable picture quality and fit. 3) Possibly an office alternative to Apple TV for presentations. While yes, this thing can project your browser tab on to the TV, there is severe lag, washed-out colors, and most importantly I have not been able to play HTML5 videos in full-screen mode. Could be user error... Amazon Prime Instant Videos do not play in full-screen mode either. But then again, I didn't really expect SilverLight to work with Google's products all that well. Picture quality is terrible. I only tried it on a 720p TV, as tab mirroring reportedly only supports 720p. Colors are washed out and lighting is off. Not a big deal, but I also did not get 720p all the time, connection seemed to fade in and out. This is on a completely not busy N router and nothing else streaming. What really got me though was spotty support in YouTube and Drive Presentations going off-screen. YouTube has a nice library of international films. I really like watching old Soviet movies from my childhood. They are free to watch and I was stunned when Chromecast reported that the videos I was trying to watch are not supported, even though there is a chromecast icon in the player itself. Lastly, Google Presentations ended up being cut off when projected in fullscreen (yes here it's fully supported, but not on all videos... go figure.). This last bit basically killed my hypothesis that we could get these for ever conference room and project from both Macs and PCs. I was really hoping this would work...
- sologoub 13y ago
  Update: Using YouTube with Nexus7 and Chromecast actually works a lot better than using a Mac. That said, I have not been able to play a movie I had bought on the Play store and downloaded to the device using the store app... again, maybe user error.
cjhopman 13y ago
So there was a way for any random app to play whatever video it wanted on my tv? And Google disabled it? Well gee, shame on them.

176 points by cygwin98 13y ago

cygwin98 13y ago

Is the new motto being Do Evil?

BitMastro 13y ago
Reductio at Evilerum will be the new Reductio at Hitlerum
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Only because speaking in strong terms has somehow become taboo. We are neutering language.
  - BitMastro 13y ago
    I'm not sure if sarcasm, but I have issues with defining "EVIL" as "removing a feature to allow custom streaming". I also have issues considering falling down the stairs an "EPIC" fail, or reading companies looking for SUPERSTAR NINJA programmers, or things that are LITERALLY the worse ever happened to someone.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      cygwin98 did not introduce the "evil" terminology. Google introduced the "evil" terminology. Do you really think that the phrase, associated with Google, was intended to mean "We're not going to commit any war crimes?" If you dislike hyperbole, that is fine, but blame the people who are actually responsible for introducing the hyperbole.
      - BitMastro 13y ago
        The meaning of the "don’t be evil" motto is "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." How changing an undocumented function, that was used to circumvent an SDK that is clearly marked as beta and "could change significantly" can be classified as evil is beyond me. The problem is that people are using the "don't be evil" whenever they see something that simply bothers them. Damn, they closed a bug in android that allows me to remove advertisement from apps! Google don't be evil! They shut down a product that was offered for free for almost a decade! Google don't be evil! So what adjective will people use if Google starts charging if you search more than 10 times a day, or obscuring the maps a few miles from the destination asking for a fee to see the rest, or blackmailing people based on data extracted from the mail? Google don't be.... evillest maybe?
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Ripping functionality out from under paying customers is not something that just "bothers" people. Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means. This situation invokes to comparisons to certain companies that had rather poor reputations in the 90s. Companies the slogan was almost certainly meant to differentiate Google from. If hyperbole to shareholders is a-okay with you but hyperbole from angered consumers is out of line, then we just are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I hope people inside Google do not share your attitude or Google truly is doomed to become what they assured us they wouldn't. This attitude towards consumers is extremely toxic.
        BitMastro 13y ago
        I see that you prefer downvoting rather then having a discussion, so I will stop here. Edit: Apologies, I didn't know that rule, it was obviously someone else.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        1) I responded to you. Obviously. You just replied to my response to you. 2) Because your comment was in response to one of mine, it is impossible for me to downvote it. I can only downvote comments that are in response to others.
  - abraininavat 13y ago
    We're "neutering language"? Hyperbolize much?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I was hoping somebody would say that. That is exactly my point. With Godwin's Law the standard argument is that hyperbole somehow diminishes the plight of those that suffered, but that argument really does not encompass the full breadth of the War On Hyperbole. Here, for example, I've made an exaggeration with a comparison to sterilizing pets. Is the concern that I am diminishing the plight of pets and their reproductive lives? No, I don't think so, that would be silly. Rather, the objection is to the rhetorical device itself, not merely to the tasteless application of it. (I suspect I've just been 'wooshed')
      - abraininavat 13y ago
        and I was hoping you'd get that it was a joke instead of spending time explaining what you meant :)
        jlgreco 13y ago
        Aaaah yep. I should slow down. ;)
anxiousest 13y ago
Not sure how you went from "an update that broke undocumented functionality" to "evil".
- tty 13y ago
  It's hyperbole, a pretty common tool when expressing yourself. It's not a long way from Google's motto "Don't be evil" to "Be evil" and it doesn't take that much imagination to figure out what he meant. On the other hand, acting obtuse is rarely funny.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    Except it's not only informationless hyperbole, it's also just a tired catchphrase at this point. Witness the thread from yesterday on the verge story covering the same post that is this submission[1]. You'll notice a "Don't be evil" and an "Open always wins" comment there too. Mix in some beowulf clusters and netcraft confirmations and we can be well on our way to generating these threads via markov chains. No humans needed! [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273292
_nullandnull_ 13y ago
No, but Newspeak is the official new language at Google.
- randomafk 13y ago
  Everyone on HN is an expert on working at Google and its policies it seems. Speculation and pet theories at it's finest.
- gosub 13y ago
  Well newspeak[1] was created by Gilad Bracha. He now works for Google, he was one of the creators of Dart. So, almost. [1] http://newspeaklanguage.org/ http://newspeaklanguage.org/
  - _nullandnull_ 13y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
fluidcruft 13y ago
No, since everyone finds out what words mean by Googling them, they'll just adapt the meaning of "evil" as necessary.

runn1ng 13y ago

Can I ask for more context?

lazypenguin 13y ago
The OP developed an app that allowed you to stream raw media files directly to the chromecast. This is not possible by default, instead you're limited to youtube, netflix and mirroring a tab in your browser. OP's application doesn't use SDK but instead works at a lower level. This new update broke his application and he is making the argument that it was a directed update. They specifically removed a part of their code that allowed for this functionality.
- sp332 13y ago
  It can mirror a tab in your browser? Doesn't that mean you could just open a video file in your browser and watch it that way? Edit: looks like it's limited to 5 Mbps at 720p. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-an-awesome-35-hdmi-dongle/4 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-...
  - tylerkahn 13y ago
    Yes you can do that. The problem is that currently tab projection is limited to 720p. If anyone knows how to get around this, please reply to this with the solution. Googling for anything Chromecast related gets mostly pop-tech articles.
  - BitMastro 13y ago
    Yes, it still can, but the app allowed to stream without using the browser, for example from the phone's gallery.
  - aroch 13y ago
    Yes, but only for codecs supported by Chrome (basically mp4 and the occasional avi). Anything that needs transcoding (or any file with high bitrate/multichan audio) will cause extreme stuttering unless you have a machine with a fairly beefy processor and GPU. Casting a tab is like using logmein to watch a movie on another computer. Casting either the RAW or the local file directly is like playing something off a NAS

djrogers 13y ago

Open always wins!

nine_k 13y ago
I'd love to hear about an open alternative for $35. Maybe something RPi-based?
- iambot 13y ago
  Check out https://github.com/lanceseidman/PiCAST https://github.com/lanceseidman/PiCAST
- dz0ny 13y ago
  Leapcast(https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast), nodecast are both on the way becoming the replacement for CC. All we need is someone to port video acceleration to chromium browser. :)

dell1994 13y ago

I guess google wants to control the platform. What is the surprise here.

tylerkahn 13y ago

https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes > Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).

markshepard 13y ago
Do you think the intent of the post is to complain about SDK compatibility ? :)
- lukesandberg 13y ago
  I think he was saying that this is a case of Hanlon's razor[1]. i.e. this situation could be easily explained by simple api churn (and the fact that the OP was using an undocumented api), so it may not be appropriate to ascribe malice without evidence. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
  - markshepard 13y ago
    I agree with your point. The larger implication (not withstanding using documented or undocumented API) is violation of general assumption that Chromecast will be open and idie friendly than the Apple TV. Even if the OP had used a documented API, the developer warning is clear that any and all API can be changed.
- mason240 13y ago
  You should have seen the reaction to this on Reddit/r/Android. I thought Google made it clear from the beginning that this was intended to be a beta release until testing was done. Looking at Reddit I was shocked to see the number of people who think Google is trying to force them into buying from the Play Store.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jlgreco 13y ago

If I were somebody with a Chromebook that still had ChromeOS installed, I would be very very concerned right now. If you don't control your device's software updates, then the device is not yours. It is as simple as that.

themstheones 13y ago
It's the same with android. They made adblock stop working several times, slowly tightening restrictions on it. And OS updates remove root, which will break a slew of apps. It doesn't feel like your device unless you install something like CM.
- ajross 13y ago
  Android, however, has a large and vibrant (albeit poorly organized and highly confusing) community of open source distributions that aren't subject to this kind of nonsense. The Chromecast is still new and unhackable, though hopefully this will change.
  - devx 13y ago
    I think I'm starting to see the writing on the wall for CyanogenMod. I can see one day Google going after them if they remove some functionality from their ROM's that Google really wants in, and their ROMs become used by say - tens of millions of people. But Google would be really, incredibly stupid to do that. The Reader outrage will seem tiny compared to the outrage they will get if they mess with CyanogenMod, who's used by the most core users of Android, and most vocal ones in the Android community. CyanogenMod also has a lot of good will with those users, while Google's good will is diminishing by the day. Jeff Jarvis said recently that Google has only done well when it has done stuff for the users, not against them. If I were Google's CEO I would imprint that in my brain before doing something really stupid in the future.
    - untog 13y ago
      I mean, you're saying you can see Google going after Cyanogenmod, then you list out the reasons it would be really stupid for them to do it. I think Google are aware of these reasons, too. In all honesty, I do not think that Cyanogenmod is used by any more than a statistical blip of users, when the whole of Android is considered. I really doubt Google cares very much about these custom ROMs, and won't start caring until everyone starts flashing them on their phones. Which will not happen any time soon.

bru 13y ago

The developer of AllCast, Koushik Dutta, gave his side in this reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1l2hez/google_blocks_chromecast_app_that_let_you_stream/cbv8u0s http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1l2hez/google_block...

barista 13y ago
Copied here: Koush here. I've been suspicious of the Chromecast developer policies since release. From my personal interactions with their developer relations, they've been quite tight lipped about who would be receiving approval for a release to a broader audience: "Unfortunately, at the moment our standard answer is: Thank you so much for reaching out about developing for Chromecast. It’s still early days, so we are just previewing the Google Cast SDK and hope to be sharing it in its entirety with developers soon. We look forward to seeing to releasing the public SDK later on so that mobile and web developers can start to create compelling, multi-screen experiences. We're not currently working with additional partners until we release a public SDK. We are trying to find a better answer, but we have nothing yet to announce." Google TV (yes, Chromecast is from the GoogleTV team) has a storied history of releasing closed off products, only allowing access to select partners and media companies. I was fairly certain that Chromecast would be no different. My suspicions were confirmed today. Here's what's happened since release, for context: Chromecast ships with whitelisting. Why go through the trouble of having a whitelist to do development? It took extra development effort to lock the platform down, and build out the whitelisting infrastructure. A walled garden was planned since inception. They intend to use that wall. Chromecast shipped with no default media player app, or any way to play your own content. As I demonstrated, this is actually very easy to implement. The fact that it did not ship with this by default was likely calculated. They don't want you playing your own content. Chromecast had a "GoogleCastSample" app that could be leveraged as a default media player. Many developers started using this. One week after release, GoogleCastSample was disabled. Chromecast's tab casting also supported local content. I, and a few other developers, managed to reverse engineer the Chromecast tab protocol to piggy back this to deliver local content. This was not simply "broken" with an update. It was intentionally disabled. See code explanation here, if you want: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVGWvS https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG... What this all points to: The Chromecast is just a Google TV in a smaller form factor. Yet another box from your TV that delivers the same old tired array of big media apps that you can find on any other cable/tv box. I already have 5 of such boxes (2 Xbox, 2 Apple TV, 1 Roku). I don't need another box to do this. I want a mainstream, open platform, that I can connect to my TV. That would be new. That would be different. The motivations behind this behavior are obvious. Google needs to do this to placate media companies, who will perpetually push stringent requirements before granting access to their coveted content. This will not change until content delivery companies (Netflix, Amazon, and Google) start creating their own content. And in fact, this is starting to happen already.

smtddr 13y ago

Well, I don't agree with what Google is doing assuming it's intentional. But, 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. 2)I bet cyanogenmod will make an appearance. I'm just buying Chromecast for the hardware.

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
> 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch. That's not a real argument though is it? The issue is that Google are intentionally trying to further a closed ecosystem and the people who don't want to be part of it/their system. It doesn't matter if the price is $0 or $500, if Google has an anti-freedom/choice ideology then there will be pushback on that. That pushback might be technological (e.g. CM mod) or political (EFF et al) but it will occur. The price point is just a distraction that I'd suggest people don't get drawn into. Google doesn't owe you anything, but you also don't owe Google anything, and are entitled to bitch if you're unhappy with the amount of choice you have.
jlgreco 13y ago
There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please, just check out these national debt numbers? These types of price comparisons between unrelated things are almost always worthless. You could make me feel ripped off over two dollars; I sure as hell can feel ripped off over $35.
- munificent 13y ago
  This is your friendly reminder that slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
  - aqme28 13y ago
    But "compare to completely unrelated thing" is also a logical fallacy.

kayoone 13y ago

Seems like 35$ for this device was too good to be true. Hopefully there will be some custom ROM sometime, anyway i wanted to get one soon, but now i will hold out as streaming anything to my TV would have been the killer feature for me.

DonnyV 13y ago

Well this device has gone from a "must have" to a "no thanks".

badman_ting 13y ago

It's not so much that I mind Google doing this, as I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways.

myko 13y ago
> I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways. This is the first device Google has done this with though, isn't it?

angryasian 13y ago

Everyone wants to blame google, but because Chromecast requires a functional HDCP link... its probably more due to content providers.

drivebyacct2 13y ago

Why does everyone act like $35 is some super subsidized price? It's NOT.

lampooned 13y ago

Google basically just made Chromecast less useful than an Apple TV,

ChuckMcM 13y ago

I posted the register link on this story, seeing Koushik's comments it looks very much like there is an intent at work here. That intent being that the 'crown jewels' of this device is sitting between what you see and the source of that stream. I would guess that Google would consider doing what Hulu did and inject 30 second commercials into that stream. Perhaps that doesn't work if you call the streaming API directly? A number of folks seem to make these 'linux/android to HDMI dongle' type systems, I guess we're stuck making our own version of one.

Ironlink 13y ago

Google has responded to a request for comment from The Verge. We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.

hobbified 13y ago
Which is a disingenuous answer since he's not even using the SDK. The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks.
- magicalist 13y ago
  > The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks. I believe that's just called "it doesn't support that protocol".
moreentropy 13y ago
A real response would be "we blocked this app because $reason". This is just corporate BS. Great experience my ass.
nivla 13y ago
> We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available. Then why are they offering it in retail stores like best buy? Sucks that you buy something for feature X and few days later an update comes through getting rid of it. Does anyone know how hard is it to reverse this update?
- 13y ago

Kiro 13y ago

Still getting one.

JSadowski 13y ago

I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they then prohibit such uses of the Chromecast, then maybe you have a story, but until then -- geez.

selectout 13y ago
Any chance you'd be willing to put the code up on GitHub so other Chromecast users can just add it locally and whitelist it?
- JSadowski 13y ago
  Sure... I'll throw up a gist... not the correct way to do it, crappy sender UI, based on early code examples from Google, but it works: https://gist.github.com/jonathansadowski/6345103 https://gist.github.com/jonathansadowski/6345103 Feel free to use / copy / fork, whatever. Basically, you can send any URL to the receiver, and the receiver then loads that URL in its video element.... that URL can be local, remote, whatever... requires that you have a webserver to serve your local content.

espeed 13y ago

My Chromecast arrived today. I set it up on my living room TV, and to my surprise, my Nexus pad is also presenting the wireless TV in the kitchen as a playback option. Is this a documented feature?

Rabidgremlin 13y ago
Your wireless TV must support the DIAL protocol around which which Google Cast is built: http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/ http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/

dicroce 13y ago

I got news for Google. What stopped me from rooting my iPhone was a pretty vibrant app store... that I would lose access to. Given that I already have multiple ways to do Netflix and Youtube on my TV, I'll root my chromecast and run something open that lets me do what I want AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

sologoub 13y ago

Just got my Chromecast that I ordered in July and am profoundly disappointed. For a device with such high potential, it really did not deliver on the promise. Here's what I expected: 1) AirPlay alternative via Google Chrome/Chromecast. 2) Reasonable picture quality and fit. 3) Possibly an office alternative to Apple TV for presentations. While yes, this thing can project your browser tab on to the TV, there is severe lag, washed-out colors, and most importantly I have not been able to play HTML5 videos in full-screen mode. Could be user error... Amazon Prime Instant Videos do not play in full-screen mode either. But then again, I didn't really expect SilverLight to work with Google's products all that well. Picture quality is terrible. I only tried it on a 720p TV, as tab mirroring reportedly only supports 720p. Colors are washed out and lighting is off. Not a big deal, but I also did not get 720p all the time, connection seemed to fade in and out. This is on a completely not busy N router and nothing else streaming. What really got me though was spotty support in YouTube and Drive Presentations going off-screen. YouTube has a nice library of international films. I really like watching old Soviet movies from my childhood. They are free to watch and I was stunned when Chromecast reported that the videos I was trying to watch are not supported, even though there is a chromecast icon in the player itself. Lastly, Google Presentations ended up being cut off when projected in fullscreen (yes here it's fully supported, but not on all videos... go figure.). This last bit basically killed my hypothesis that we could get these for ever conference room and project from both Macs and PCs. I was really hoping this would work...

sologoub 13y ago
Update: Using YouTube with Nexus7 and Chromecast actually works a lot better than using a Mac. That said, I have not been able to play a movie I had bought on the Play store and downloaded to the device using the store app... again, maybe user error.

cjhopman 13y ago

So there was a way for any random app to play whatever video it wanted on my tv? And Google disabled it? Well gee, shame on them.