

The Chromecast continues to be perhaps the best value in tech - bane
http://www.writingabouttech.com/?p=713

======
gergles
Sure, assuming it even works. It has gigantic swaths of incompatibility with
many televisions and they don't seem to care about it. It works for a while
then fails to display anything, no matter how much you reset it or anything --
until you move it to a new TV, then back to the original one, upon which time
you'll get a few more hours/days of use. The 'support' sends you through the
same canned troubleshooters then tries to authorize RMAs, which don't work
either - it's some sort of software bug or (more likely) some sort of DRM
lockdown bullshit incompatibility.

~~~
chez17
It plugs into the HDMI slot, how are you having compatibility issues? If your
tv takes an HDMI cable, that's all you need.

~~~
georgemcbay
HDMI isn't like composite video -- it is more than just a physical connection,
it is a highly complex set of protocols with DRM and version numbers and
everything.

I haven't run into Chromecast issues with my TV, but I have seen dozens of
cases where two devices that ostensibly both supported "HDMI" refused to work
together while the individual devices would work fine with (most) other
devices. So I find it perfectly plausible that the OP's situation is very real
even if I haven't experienced that particular one myself.

~~~
ajross
This isn't remotely limited to the chromecast though. The HDMI video
signalling protocol is old and robust and works well and near-universally. The
HDCP spec and CEC remote control features, on the other hand, are cesspools of
complexity that work pretty much nowhere sanely.

------
AndrewDucker
It's a great shame that it doesn't use an open API.

Having a standard way of telling devices to play media would be very useful.

As it is I backed the Matchstick on Kickstarter because I wanted a more open
device.

~~~
thibauts
These links might be of some help :

[https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2#protocol-
description](https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2#protocol-description)

[https://github.com/thibauts/node-
castv2-client](https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2-client)

~~~
eclipxe
Yeah, except for the fact that Chromecast sender apps perform a cert check
now, so open implementations don't work. [https://github.com/thibauts/node-
castv2/issues/2](https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2/issues/2)

~~~
thibauts
Open server implementations don't, open clients do. I wrote this issue.

------
Mithaldu
I live in the middle of a big city. From my apartment there are at least 50
different wifi routers visible. The Chromecast simply cannot maintain a stable
connection under these circumstances. My parents do not have internet.

These are two situations where this device is, entirely needlessly so,
completely without value.

That said, when it works it is a charm.

~~~
bane
Google desperately needs to release a wired version as well as upgrade the
existing wi-fi versions to let you stream direct to the dongle instead of
using the internet as an intermediary.

~~~
soylentcola
I agree with the need for a wired option. It's one of the things I had hoped
for in the Nexus Player and might have been enough to get me to buy one (even
though I haven't run into any issues with WiFi with my Chromecast, it would be
preferred).

As far as the second part, I'm admittedly not a Chromecast "expert" by any
means (only had it for a month now and only use it occasionally) but it seemed
to me that I had both options depending on what I'm "casting".

When I'm using on online media source like Netflix or Youtube, I prefer using
my phone or laptop as more of a remote control so it's not constantly draining
the battery in order to actively stream as a wireless extender. Still, I can
cast my screen directly if I want to do that. I haven't done that too much
since it seems less useful in my personal usage cases but the option is there.

The only thing I'd love to see is something more along the lines of Miracast
where you have the option of sending content over an ad-hoc connection between
your device and the Chromecast. I considered something like a Chromecast for
conference rooms at work but since you need to be on the same WiFi network,
that's not really an option since the accessible WiFi network at the office
has restrictions and limitations that would make Chromecast unusable. It would
be nice if I could purchase several of these inexpensive devices that could
easily enable streaming from online media providers but could also receive
content directly from devices within range (like the laptops and tablets of
people in a meeting) without needing to install separate access points just
for Chromecast.

~~~
mahyarm
Supposedly a USB OTG cable + ethernet adaptor will work.

But that is a big hack.

~~~
Mithaldu
It doesn't help in areas where wifi is hopelessly congested.

------
dataminded
If anyone from Google is listening, please release a version with an ethernet
cable. Wi-fi is not reliable everywhere.

~~~
mahyarm
I'm surprised the $99 nexus player doesn't come with ethernet either. I guess
it doesn't meet their 'toothbrush' rule.

~~~
mdwrigh2
Ethernet over USB OTG works on it though.

------
ekianjo
For about the same price, I feel the Raspberry Pi provides much better value
_in tech_. It's way more versatile.

------
Jedd
I looked at the Chromecast, but as others have mentioned, the frequent reports
of fragility, along with the DRM-laden aspects deterred me. I've bought the
Netgear Push2TV (PTV3000) but haven't received it yet. And then Samsung have
their own variant, which I believe is WiDi standards-compliant. Is the
compelling thing with the Chromecast just the price, then?

~~~
bane
It's a bit fragile. I'll lose connections every once in a while or whatever --
usually just reconnecting to the current thing the chromecast is doing will
solve it. But for ~$35 and the unbelievable ecosystem of support it has, it's
_really_ hard to beat.

I use mine frequently (basically daily) with youtube, plex and podcast addict
and pretty often to mirror tabs from chrome and mirror my android device.

 _Most_ of the time the issues are with my home wifi setup and not with the
device. But it's not so complicated a platform that there's lots of fiddling
to do. I've tried various other systems to get my media to my tv and bar none,
chromecast is the best one.

------
davidholmesnyc
I like the Chromecast.I brought 3 when they had a sale at staples for $30/each
a few months back. It really is the best value for a TV device that supports
Netflix and Youtube that you can control with your phone. I also have been
having fun hacking on it the past few months using node.js. I just wish more
apps supported it.

------
Pxtl
I'm actually surprised google launched the new nexus player device instead of
doubling down on chromecast. I'd think a boxed-set of a chromecast and a
minimalist cheap $60 4" wifi-only device would have fit more with the existing
android ecosystem, and would give the users similar functionality to the nexus
player.

------
superflit
I really wish I be able to set the DNS servers on ChromeCast.... wink

~~~
Pxtl
Just set it upstream on your router.

~~~
superflit
I may set it at my router but the chromecast will always use google
dns..(8.8.8.8)

~~~
e12e
Good to know, so mitm it is then. (If I ever have to play with one of these
horribly locked down things).

------
plicense
I just wish I had an LCD TV at my home..

------
finalight
" I decided I wanted a cloud-powered digital photo frame in my house, to
retroactively justify my tendency to over-photograph every event, and because
I had a ton of digital photos but no way to display them in my house. "

wow, just wow....

~~~
Jedd
What was your wow bit? The fact that cloud is a term no one understands (okay,
no two people can agree on), that it can't actually power anything, or that up
until Chromecast there was no way to display your photos in your house?

