4 ms·

It's as if they are an eventually consistent system that is constantly moving towards a state of consistency that they never completely reach. They have some p

It's as if they are an eventually consistent system that is constantly moving towards a state of consistency that they never completely reach. They have some products which were nearly perfect. For instance, the Chromecast is more or less finished. It's not intended to be a game console or something to have apps in on a television. It's an extremely cheap device that allows you to stream a tab or from apps. That vision is well-executed, because it is cheap and works well for streaming. Of course, some people will have gripes about the Chromecast, but the fact that a device that looked incredibly boring at the start is now a pretty big success indicates that for many people it's exactly the product that they want.

hessenwolf 12y ago
The chromecast thing is great. It's an ugly little widget that comes in an overly-fancy box and does what it's supposed to. However, it's terribly advertised, and it still annoyingly says "beta" all over stuff. I feel like I bought it out of some kind of anonymised side-door at the back of the warehouse.
thomaslutz 12y ago
Chromecast is pretty shitty. It often lags und quality is not great. The first time I saw it in action, it was pretty embarrassing for a Google manager who tried to demo something with it. I replaced mine with an Amazon Fire TV.
ghaff 12y ago
More ecosystem would be nice although, with an Android tablet, I gather that doesn't matter any much as you can cast the screen in any case. In fact, I'm seriously tempted to pick up an inexpensive Android tablet just for that purpose. But I agree that Chromecast gets things just right. I want the ability to "throw" an image or video from my PC, tablet, or phone to my big dumb screen on the wall--whatever proprietary smarts the TV manufacturer is trying to make me interact with--and that's exactly what Chromecast does.
Mithaldu 12y ago
Due to the fact that the chromecast requires an always-on internet connection it's far from finished and entirely useless in many cases.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  I think you've confused "finished" with "what Mithaldu wants".
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    "Mithaldu and everyone in his cicles of friends, relatives and work acquaintances." Maybe it's different where you are, but where i live the chromecast is literally useless due to the restriction and nobody has one.
    - layman 12y ago
      Ya, it's so useless it's one of the best selling gadgets on Amazon! Not saying you're lying, but to rule something out as "useless" just because it doesn't work for you (and the closure of your acquaintances) just makes you look stupid!
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      While there's other stuff you can do with a Chromecast, and it would make sense to make it usable locally for screen mirroring, the main selling point is internet streaming, which isn't limited by the requirement for an internet connection. I can certainly see how for some people it's not useful, but its of people do have reliable internet access where they'd want to use it and aren't limited by that requirement.
    - teraflop 12y ago
      A lot of people live in places where a telescope is literally useless (for astronomical purposes, anyway). Does that make it a worthless product?
      - 12y ago

hessenwolf 12y ago

The chromecast thing is great. It's an ugly little widget that comes in an overly-fancy box and does what it's supposed to. However, it's terribly advertised, and it still annoyingly says "beta" all over stuff. I feel like I bought it out of some kind of anonymised side-door at the back of the warehouse.

thomaslutz 12y ago

Chromecast is pretty shitty. It often lags und quality is not great. The first time I saw it in action, it was pretty embarrassing for a Google manager who tried to demo something with it. I replaced mine with an Amazon Fire TV.

ghaff 12y ago

More ecosystem would be nice although, with an Android tablet, I gather that doesn't matter any much as you can cast the screen in any case. In fact, I'm seriously tempted to pick up an inexpensive Android tablet just for that purpose. But I agree that Chromecast gets things just right. I want the ability to "throw" an image or video from my PC, tablet, or phone to my big dumb screen on the wall--whatever proprietary smarts the TV manufacturer is trying to make me interact with--and that's exactly what Chromecast does.

Mithaldu 12y ago

Due to the fact that the chromecast requires an always-on internet connection it's far from finished and entirely useless in many cases.

dragonwriter 12y ago
I think you've confused "finished" with "what Mithaldu wants".
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  "Mithaldu and everyone in his cicles of friends, relatives and work acquaintances." Maybe it's different where you are, but where i live the chromecast is literally useless due to the restriction and nobody has one.
  - layman 12y ago
    Ya, it's so useless it's one of the best selling gadgets on Amazon! Not saying you're lying, but to rule something out as "useless" just because it doesn't work for you (and the closure of your acquaintances) just makes you look stupid!
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    While there's other stuff you can do with a Chromecast, and it would make sense to make it usable locally for screen mirroring, the main selling point is internet streaming, which isn't limited by the requirement for an internet connection. I can certainly see how for some people it's not useful, but its of people do have reliable internet access where they'd want to use it and aren't limited by that requirement.
  - teraflop 12y ago
    A lot of people live in places where a telescope is literally useless (for astronomical purposes, anyway). Does that make it a worthless product?
    - 12y ago