7 ms·

https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes > Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK inten

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.
JoshTriplett 13y ago
Exactly. I think we're a long way from malice here, or even incompetence. That the ChromeCast has an SDK at all at this stage seems like a pleasant surprise; I feel certain the API will become more stable over time. If this were truly intended to be a closed device, unavailable for use except by specific media partners, why would there be a public SDK at all? In the absence of a statement from Google that the ChromeCast by design doesn't support the functionality used by this or other video streaming apps, I'd consider it premature to assume intentional breakage.
- hershel 13y ago
  >> I think we're a long way from malice here If you think about why did google enable local content streaming(but with bad/no sound - how hard is for google to get the bloody sound working before an important launch?) and whitelisting and used hdcp(secure content) on this device , google's strategy becomes clear: They want to frighten content owners into submission. Let the content owners know that if they won't support chromecast , google will open it, and content companies will suffer. On the other hand ,if content owners play ball, google will provide highly secure platform(and i wouldn't be surprised if tab casting will turned off - it's currently labeled experimental). This is the preferred road for Google, since there's more money that way. In light of this potential strategy , there's probably malice in the last changes.
ihsw 13y ago
In the future, when video playback isn't restored and Google makes a public admission that they don't intend on restoring it, would you mind if I remind you of how you were naive and foolish? When Google's next hardware product comes out, can we stop thanking them and instead point out how they have a history of releasing products that give users no control over what runs on them? Google has far more technical expertise than any ISP, so it stands to reason that they'll be using that to push down on users more than any other ISP has in the past. We may yet regret clamoring for Google Fiber to be everywhere.
- thezilch 13y ago
  Entitled much? What obligations does Google have here, exactly?
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    Huh? The GP comment never mentioned or implied the word "obligation".
    - thezilch 13y ago
      The ultimatum is for Google to restore undocumented functionality or publicly state they don't support openness. And we're all fools to think Google will go to the ends of the earth to support everything imaginable! Replace Google with Apple in the GP to understand the entitlement and just how foolish we aren't.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        Sorry, but I just don't see it. All I see is a complaint and a demand for a feature. IMO, that's not entitlement. Entitlement would use words like "owe" and "responsibility".
  - ihsw 13y ago
    I don't feel entitled to anything, I just take a perverse amount of pleasure in pointing out how much shit people are full of. I'm just trying to encourage some honesty from an intellectual perspective -- why confuse ourselves when the outcome will be no different than the last? Why do we willfully continue to lock ourselves into an ecosystem, be it Google, Facebook, or Apple?
faddotio 13y ago
This. The API and its feature set is liable to change. This isn't a broken promise because no promises were made.
nutanc 13y ago
He was not using the SDK. Google went back into their code and changed it just to break an app built by a developer. And, to be fair, Koushik, just alerted people who were planning on buying chromecast because of his app to hold on as his app may never be white listed.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  It's a little presumptuous to say why they changed a private (emphasis on PRIVATE) api...
foobarqux 13y ago
The point isn't about functionality changing as much as how "open" the functionality is going to be. The author posted code that suggests that the ability to stream arbitrary content has been intentionally disabled. https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVGWvS https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG...
- slg 13y ago
  Looking at the actual code, it looks a lot like a random hack thrown into beta code to disable a feature that isn't ready for use yet. It doesn't look like those 3 lines of code are a long term solution to anything. It is hard to attribute a motive to code, but I don't think the motive of that snippet is less openness.

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.

JoshTriplett 13y ago

Exactly. I think we're a long way from malice here, or even incompetence. That the ChromeCast has an SDK at all at this stage seems like a pleasant surprise; I feel certain the API will become more stable over time. If this were truly intended to be a closed device, unavailable for use except by specific media partners, why would there be a public SDK at all? In the absence of a statement from Google that the ChromeCast by design doesn't support the functionality used by this or other video streaming apps, I'd consider it premature to assume intentional breakage.

hershel 13y ago
>> I think we're a long way from malice here If you think about why did google enable local content streaming(but with bad/no sound - how hard is for google to get the bloody sound working before an important launch?) and whitelisting and used hdcp(secure content) on this device , google's strategy becomes clear: They want to frighten content owners into submission. Let the content owners know that if they won't support chromecast , google will open it, and content companies will suffer. On the other hand ,if content owners play ball, google will provide highly secure platform(and i wouldn't be surprised if tab casting will turned off - it's currently labeled experimental). This is the preferred road for Google, since there's more money that way. In light of this potential strategy , there's probably malice in the last changes.

ihsw 13y ago

In the future, when video playback isn't restored and Google makes a public admission that they don't intend on restoring it, would you mind if I remind you of how you were naive and foolish? When Google's next hardware product comes out, can we stop thanking them and instead point out how they have a history of releasing products that give users no control over what runs on them? Google has far more technical expertise than any ISP, so it stands to reason that they'll be using that to push down on users more than any other ISP has in the past. We may yet regret clamoring for Google Fiber to be everywhere.

thezilch 13y ago
Entitled much? What obligations does Google have here, exactly?
- burntsushi 13y ago
  Huh? The GP comment never mentioned or implied the word "obligation".
  - thezilch 13y ago
    The ultimatum is for Google to restore undocumented functionality or publicly state they don't support openness. And we're all fools to think Google will go to the ends of the earth to support everything imaginable! Replace Google with Apple in the GP to understand the entitlement and just how foolish we aren't.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      Sorry, but I just don't see it. All I see is a complaint and a demand for a feature. IMO, that's not entitlement. Entitlement would use words like "owe" and "responsibility".
- ihsw 13y ago
  I don't feel entitled to anything, I just take a perverse amount of pleasure in pointing out how much shit people are full of. I'm just trying to encourage some honesty from an intellectual perspective -- why confuse ourselves when the outcome will be no different than the last? Why do we willfully continue to lock ourselves into an ecosystem, be it Google, Facebook, or Apple?

faddotio 13y ago

This. The API and its feature set is liable to change. This isn't a broken promise because no promises were made.

nutanc 13y ago

He was not using the SDK. Google went back into their code and changed it just to break an app built by a developer. And, to be fair, Koushik, just alerted people who were planning on buying chromecast because of his app to hold on as his app may never be white listed.

Karunamon 13y ago
It's a little presumptuous to say why they changed a private (emphasis on PRIVATE) api...

foobarqux 13y ago

The point isn't about functionality changing as much as how "open" the functionality is going to be. The author posted code that suggests that the ability to stream arbitrary content has been intentionally disabled. https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVGWvS https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG...

slg 13y ago
Looking at the actual code, it looks a lot like a random hack thrown into beta code to disable a feature that isn't ready for use yet. It doesn't look like those 3 lines of code are a long term solution to anything. It is hard to attribute a motive to code, but I don't think the motive of that snippet is less openness.