9 ms·

I fear the release the this new Nexus Player portends we're not going to see an update to the Chromecast anytime soon, if ever. That makes me sad. I guess I'm

• hoopism 12y ago
  It says this is chromecast enabled... so it's the same thing with more, no?
  • cfontes 12y ago
    But bigger...
    • moskie 12y ago
      And three times the price.
• jonny_eh 12y ago
  Why does it need updating? 4K support? Since the Nexus Player will have Chromecast support built-in (like all Android TV devices), software will hopefully continue to add support on their end.
  • moskie 12y ago
    > Why does it need updating? This is a good point... it's not missing much in terms of features and functionality. A pie in the sky idea, that none of these devices have tried to incorporate, is to have a webcam peripheral support to enable video chatting. This is the primary thing I still use my HTPC for. Being able to gather my wfie and/or friends into the living room to video chat with friends that live elsewhere, having those friends be able to see the whole room where we're able to sit comfortably, is really a great experience. And at this point, using an HTPC for that is overkill, in terms of horsepower needed. Incorporating a feature like this into a media device would be a killer feature for me. "Casting" a Skype or Hangout video chat.... I'd be all over that.
    • matt_heimer 12y ago
      5Ghz or even 802.11ac would be nice. 1 or 2 chromecasts running with not great signal will completely kill my 2.4Ghz network.
    • jackvalentine 12y ago
      I'm seriously considering buying a couple of Xbox ones with kinect for that reason. My parents are getting older and my sister lives overseas with a new baby. I live in another city again. The kinect Skype with fancy microphones and the ability to focus on the speaker is compelling.
  • dangrossman 12y ago
    5GHz wifi for one. No 802.11n/802.11ac on 5GHz at all. The airwaves are crowded where I live. There are so many networks and sources of interference that any 2.4GHz network I set up inevitably drops out constantly. I've had 3 different routers. The solution was to move to 5GHz. Pretty much everything else in the house can run on 5GHz and stay connected to the internet that way. Chromecast can only connect to 2.4GHz networks, so I have to run one for it, but it doesn't see devices on the 5GHz network even though they're on the same LAN.
    • matt_heimer 12y ago
      My 5GHz devices can seem my 2.4GHz Chromecasts. You don't have wireless isolation on in your router do you? Has to be a router setting. 1 access point or 2?
      • elif 12y ago
        right but if the link from the router to the chromecast is 2.4GHz you're still going to suffer. Source: I couldn't use anything but "low quality mode" in my old apartment building unless i wanted artifacts and buffering every 30 seconds
  • ianburrell 12y ago
    WPA-Enterprise support would be good. I would like to use Chromecasts at work for screen sharing but they won't login onto network. Sounds like this is also a big issue for college networks. Captive portal support would also help in getting on more wireless networks. Chromecast is small enough to take traveling and would be useful to plug into hotel TV. But most hotels networks have captive portals.
• king_jester 12y ago
  Chromecast is a little different from a box like this. Chromecast is about bridging the gap between the Android phone/tablet and the TV as a display. These boxes are more about directly targeting that TV environment as its own ecosystem. For some apps like Netflix this is a redundant point, but for other apps it is a key difference.
  • moskie 12y ago
    Other apps like what? What apps (besides games that need a controller) would the Chromecast (or devices like it) not be able to accomplish?
    • Igglyboo 12y ago
      Anything that requires more than minimal computation? Chromecast pretty much just mirrors a screen, it also requires a separate device to control it. You could browse the web on this without requiring a phone or laptop.
      • moskie 12y ago
        > Anything that requires more than minimal computation? But, again, like what? The Chromecast is able to display pretty complex HTML and JavaScript apps. And perhaps a new updated Chromecast with more horsepower would be able to do an even better job... But give me an example of something you think the Chromecast couldn't do that you'd want it to? It can do HD video, and has a decent HTML rendering engine....
        • Igglyboo 12y ago
          Games, I'll be getting one just to have a decent box for emulators which work perfectly for controllers.
• patja 12y ago
  The one thing I wish the Chromecast had is a physical remote. Well really I just want to be able to learn/program my IR remote to control it.
  • sanderjd 12y ago
    Could you explain why you prefer remotes? To me, they are just one more thing to keep track of and keep charged. I think connecting the remote control of things to the one device that is always around, instead of an assortment of tailor made devices, is brilliant.
  • ChuckMcM 12y ago
    When casting from my phone, the phone is the remote. If I cast from my desktop I can use the remote that came with it (it was an ASUS motherboard of some flavor). I'm looking forward to the Mozilla clone which will let me cast VLC directly to the TV. That will useful for me.
• untog 12y ago
  I was an enthusiastic early adopter of Chromecast. I hated it, and now use a Roku. I share my television with my girlfriend, I don't want to have to set up Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. on both our phones and have us manually 'cast' to the screen. The Roku is so much better. Everything is centralised, and the remote is a better interface than a phone screen. So I'm excited for the Nexus Player, as I want my Roku to be more hackable than it is. A Nexus Player with XBMC will be a dream.
  • myko 12y ago
    Wow, I'm shocked at how opposite I feel about this. I already had Netflix setup on my phone so casting is no problem (I didn't realize Amazon already works to cast, I guess I'll set that up tonight). I definitely find the phone/tablet much more comfortable for searching content and flinging it to the TV. Typing to search for a specific show on Netflix on my TV is a huge pain to me.
    • untog 12y ago
      When I'm by myself browsing by phone is fine. But when we're discussing what Movie to watch I'd have to read what I'm looking at to her, etc. etc. - the two of you looking at the same screen is 1000% better. And casting through Netflix was painful in itself. So slow. But maybe that was just my phone/setup somehow.
      • ssmoot 12y ago
        Ditto. Also unlocking your phone. Rewinding/Fast-forwarding on your phone. It's all so slow. And for me at least, it feels like there's a 50/50 chance if I seek in a video it'll just break the stream, I'll have to close the Youtube app entirely, and try again. On the other hand when you're interested in something specific. Car reviews for example. The TV-Queue is really sweet. But I just cast from Youtube to my Sony Bravia or Roku's. I'm not sure if that's Google Cast or not. I just discovered it by accident last week.
        • alexanderblom 12y ago
• Touche 12y ago
  I disagree completely. Phone batteries get low every day. Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience. Using the phone as a remote is anti-social. I can't pick out what to watch with the person who's sitting in the chair across the room. Chromecast is good for accidental discovery. You come across an interesting talk on YouTube, Chromecast is good for that. Chromecast is also good for content that "lives" on your phone, like podcasts. But Chromecast is bad for picking out a movie or TV show to watch, especially in the company of others.
  • moskie 12y ago
    This just isn't my experience. > Phone batteries get low every day. Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience. I have solved the fairly rare occurrence of my phone dying when I want to watch a movie by having a charger next to my coffee table. I mean, maybe we just have different experiences, but has this actually happened to you? Regularly? Does it take up more or less time than hunting down a lost remote control? > Using the phone as a remote is anti-social. I can't pick out what to watch with the person who's sitting in the chair across the room. You'll have to instead talk to them, or have them sit closer and look over your shoulder. Not more or less social, just a different type of social. And add to that, the ability to have multiple people use their individual devices to queue videos is an excellent social experience
    • Touche 12y ago
      > I have solved the fairly rare occurrence of my phone dying when I want to watch a movie my having a chargee next to my coffee table. I mean, maybe we just have different experiences, but has this actually happened to you? Regularly? I have a charger next to my coffee table too, but then I have to sit in the seat next to the coffee table every time. And I have to reach over to use the phone because the charger cord isn't very long. > Does it take up more or less time than hunting down a lost remote control? Far less time. The remote isn't an object that gets moved around. It spends most of it's lifetime in a single room. If you lose it there's a 90% chance it's in the couch cushions. > You'll have to instead talk to them, or have them sit closer and look over your shoulder. Not more or less social, just a different type of social. And add to that, the ability to have multiple people use their individual devices to queue videos is an excellent social experience Multiple people staring at their own screens looking at different things is not social. A: "Oh this one looks interesting" B: "Which one"? A: "Third row down, second movie." B: "The one with the snowman?" A: "No, it's got the actors smiling" B: "Hm, third row down, second movie? I see a snowman"
• jonlucc 12y ago
  They updated it a week or two ago to allow you to select what images are shown during downtime.
• dchuk 12y ago
  My girlfriend and I have two TVs (bedroom and living room) in the house, each with a chromecast hooked up. I have a media center computer running plex in the living room. We use my original Nexus 7 tablet as our "remote". NO REMOTE IN THE WORLD will ever beat an app on a tablet or phone. I can search and browse so easily on my tablet to find what I want. I can start a video and then explore other stuff. It's the perfect setup. If only I could pay the NFL for a streaming-only HD football package, I would have literally everything I need for consuming video. But I don't think that will ever happen (at least without having to get a cable/satellite subscription which I refuse to ever do again).
  • thefreeman 12y ago
    How are you able to get NFL games without a cable / satellite subscription? Or did you just give up on the NFL? I am in a similar situation with sports being the only thing keeping my cable subscription active.
    • dchuk 12y ago
      I can't get them (legally) like I said in my OP. I usually stream games not on locally to my computer and tabcast to my TV with chromecast but the quality is mega-shitty. We also have an HD antenna in the living room which gets us NBC, Fox, CBS, and ABC just fine so that covers a couple of the games every weekend. The little exclusivity pact the NFL and the major Cable companies have makes me have zero qualms about just straight stealing the content. If they have me a legitimate way to pay for every Packers game (directly through the NFL, not a cable provider) I would do it in a heartbeat, but they haven't, so screw 'em. Apparently there's a way to signup and pay for NFL game pass using a VPN and pretending to be in Europe but I won't do that on sheer principle. It's insane to me I could legally pay for NFL outside of the US but inside the US I have to go through a third party (cable company) to get streaming access.
      • thefreeman 12y ago
        I can't imagine they can hold out for much longer. You can already stream basically every other major sport over the internet. I wouldn't be surprised if DirectTV has some sort of exclusive contract to provide all of the games, but that can't last forever.
• on_and_off 12y ago
  From what I heard, Chromecast and Google TV come from 2 completely different teams. It is possible that Google will want to focus on only one of these 2, but it is also possible that they will push both ideas at least for some time. I think Google stumbled on a very great idea with Chromecast. I don't want a smart TV with tons of features and a shitty interface that I have to navigate through with an awkward pad. I want an extremely dumb TV that only displays what my other terminals (laptop, tablet and phone) tell it to display.
• ianburrell 12y ago
  The Nexus Player supports Google Cast which may make it the best combination of Chromecast and media box functionality. Apps on your phone should be able to control apps on the player, and the apps on the player can be used standalone. We'll have to see if apps from the Play Store gets Google Cast control, or if this only happens for the Chromecast-style web apps. This has the advantage that you can select content on phone and then use the phone or remote on the player to control playback.
  • DCKing 12y ago
    Indeed. At $99 [1], equipped with 802.11ac [2], a far more powerful processor that is capable of playing 4K video [3], you could ignore Google TV in its entirety and probably justify your purchase just to use it as a Chromecast Deluxe. [1]: Reported by TechCrunch. Regular Chromecast is $35. [2]: Possibly with 5GHz band? Regular Chromecast is 2.4GHz 802.11n only. [3]: http://blog.laptopmag.com/intel-bay-trail-tablets-benchmarks; http://blog.laptopmag.com/intel-bay-trail-tablets-benchmarks... regular Chromecast maxes out at 1080p. EDIT: Aww, its specs say that it only outputs in 1080p.
• tegeek 12y ago
  Chromecast is one the best device I ever bought for 35$.
• potyl 12y ago
  > I fear the release the this new Nexus Player portends we're not going to see an update to the Chromecast anytime soon, if ever. That makes me sad. At least Chromecast had updates and worked. My Nexus Q never worked as expected.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • craigmccaskill 12y ago
    It wasn't ever a production device. The entire product line was constantly updating to bleeding edge, and thus hardly ever worked. Consumers shouldn't ever have had one. The real mistake was handing them out.
• thefreeman 12y ago
  I was really excited about the Chromecast when it was first announced. But sadly Google have really hamstrung it every step of the way. Luckily, Mozilla is developing a very similar device (Matchstick [1]), and looking to do it better. I am unable to find the link at the moment, but they already support like 3 or 4 times as many media formats as chromecast. And Mozilla has a pretty good track record with hackable, open projects. [1] - http://www.matchstick.tv/developers/index.html http://www.matchstick.tv/developers/index.html
  • doublec 12y ago
    I don't believe Mozilla is developing it. It's an external companies product but they are using Mozilla's Firefox OS on it. I could be wrong but that's my understanding from the material presented.
    • Widdershin 12y ago
      An external company driven by members of the Firefox OS team. So not Mozilla, but close enough.
      • doublec 12y ago
        I don't believe this to be the case, unless the definition of 'driven by' is different to what I understand it to be. Can you provide more information?
        • Widdershin 12y ago
          After checking my sources, I am indeed wrong. Sorry to anyone who took me at my word, it seems Mozilla has no ties to Matchstick.