4 ms·
> Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it. So does the Fire TV. The remote control is still a device you have to have in hand. And, person
by moskie 13y ago
> Chromecast requires you having another device to use with it.
So does the Fire TV. The remote control is still a device you have to have in hand. And, personally, I'd take using my phone or tablet instead anyday.
It's gotten to the point that I think any device that uses its own proprietary remote control with physical buttons is a failure in UI design.
- untog 13y agoThe remote is shared, though. It sits on the table. If my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote. And what about children? Do you want them to use your smartphone? A cheap, disposable remote is no bad thing.
- spinchange 13y agoIf my smartphone is the remote then no-one can use it when I'm not at home. So instead you have to set up every smartphone as a remote That's not how it works. Anyone connected to your Wifi, is "set up" to use the Chromecast and can stream from any number of apps like YouTube, Netflix, Google Play Music and Movies, Pandora, and now even Rdio and Vudu.
- untog 13y agoI know, I have a Chromecast. They still need to set up those apps on their phone. They need to log in to Netflix, Amazon Instant, etc. etc. even if they never watch content on their phone.
- spinchange 13y agoYou log into those apps once when you install them on your device. How difficult is it to install an app one time? Amazon Instant doesn't have an app that works with Chromecast that I'm aware of.
- 72deluxe 13y agoDo you want a child with unrestricted Internet access on a mobile device?
- moskie 13y agoSomething along the lines of a shared iPod Touch that sites on the table solves this problem. Perhaps it's not cheap and disposable, but I would view that as the price of a better solution to a remote control (that can also be more than a remote control).
- gagaga 13y agoYou do realize that a remote control is always going to be faster than pulling out your phone, unlocking it, and finding the app whose content you want to view, waiting for the app to launch? I've done countless usability studies and in-home studies where we looked at the behavior of people who have access to a remote control and apps on their phone or tablet that can launch content or control their set-top box. People loved the idea of this, but guess what the majority of users end up doing? Picking up the physical remote control. And tasks that you may think are easy and intuitive are not always for the average user. We saw many people struggle to play content via AirPlay. Remember, part of good UI design is embracing 40 years of ingrained behavior.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jonathansizz 13y agoNot if the remote control is e.g. a Roku remote control. By the time I've done all the things you list in your first paragraph on my phone or tablet with my Chromecast, you'll have typed about three or four letters into the onscreen keyboard that Roku uses.
- jcastro 13y agoYou would think that but a remote is handy because it's on the couch, and my phone is either in my pocket or charging. The bummer with this remote (and the roku remote) is that if you have an AV system hooked to the TV you need a separate remote for volume. I wish there was a tiny bit of learning on these sort of remotes.