

Google Chromecast review - sidcool
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/28/review-google-chromecast/

======
Sven7
I really like what Google has done here.

There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for
~100$. They are great for bringing things like skype/youtube/presentations to
the big screen. The main problem is controlling the UI via wireless
mice/keyboard or special remotes. They really suck. And it looks like
Chromecast has solved this input issue by turning ones smartphone/tab/laptop
into the input system.

One thing I would like to see is eliminating the need for the TV remote in
this process, which would still be required to switch between AV/HDMI input
coming from my STB to chromecast input.

~~~
rudy750
if your TV supports it (HDMI CEC) it already does this .
[http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-
cec/](http://gigaom.com/2013/07/24/chromecast-hdmi-cec/)

~~~
Sven7
Great! Thanks for the link. Have to figure out whether mine supports it.

------
saturdaysaint
The hype around this is kind of weird to me - really, watching Netflix Instant
on your TV is exciting? I mean, I talk about watching shows on Netflix instant
pretty regularly with fairly non-technical people, and I'm assuming there's an
easy way they're watching on their TV. It's almost comical how many devices I
own capable of streaming Netflix, from my (fairly cheap) plasma TV to my 2009
Samsung HTIB to my PS3. I mostly use Apple TV.

Chromecast is cheap, but for the demographic that's been paying $9 - $25 a
month for Netflix for a while, this is a solved problem.

~~~
jonknee
I've never seen a TV that has Netflix/YouTube built-in that doesn't have a
horrible interface. The [low] cost may be worth it just for less pain.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Is it really less pain if you can't use the thing if your phone is charging in
the other room?

~~~
jonknee
For me it would be, I have much more rage with trying to type with a remote
control than I do finding a device with battery left (you can use a phone,
tablet or computer and I don't foresee a time when all three are out of juice
and my power isn't out).

The Apple TV is the worst of both worlds because the remote is required but is
smaller than any other remote out there so that it's very easy to lose.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
That's true, but it's definitely more of a hassle to pull out a laptop, or go
digging through a box to find that tablet you never use, than it is to grab a
remote that only exists to fulfill this one function.

~~~
jonknee
I guess it's differing tastes, but I'd much rather have one less remote
control and just be able to use one (or more) of the devices that I always
have within arms reach. If the Apple TV had a decent app to use instead of the
remote I would use it and dump Apple's joke of a remote. It doesn't, the app
is literally four arrows so you can navigate around like the very limited
remote. Steve Jobs hated buttons and as a result his ideal remote is garbage.

Using WiFi also means line of sight isn't necessary which is a nice perk.

------
spyder
The price shouldn't bee too surprising because there is similar dongle with
DLNA and AirPlay support for $30 :
[http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA14...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1NV0UA1453)
The advantage of Chromecast is that it's integrated with YouTube and Netflix
which are harder to do with DLNA.

------
geekymartian
Sorry, I'm going to be "that guy"

OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?

Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities):
[http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-
ra...](http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ram-4gb-rom-
wi-fi-hdmi-white-white-205043)

[http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-
hdmi-...](http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-esd-
black-1gb-ram-4gb-rom-us-plug-217874)

They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36
bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to
start playing stuff.

Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources...

OH, HYPE

~~~
samuelfine
"OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?"

Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some
assumptions. But, for starters:

\- Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a
second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing,
instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver
content you want to play.

\- The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV-
friendly interfaces.

\- As The Verge's review leads with: it’s surprisingly difficult to put a web
browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV,
I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote.

"beefy hardware and way more capabilities"

Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed-
down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews,
it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities"
you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone.

"They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..."

Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much
any website.

"Plus, you can play your own files..."

Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab.

"...access your network resources..."

Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be
shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks.

The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some
way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same
features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow
that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At
worst, it's better execution.

~~~
geekymartian
1) got my first android tv around 2012 and that was the second version of
mk802, early models were available before.

2) grab a remote is better than grab a laptop and fire an application, plus
you need to power it on, etc. but if you prefer that it's ok. Netflix and
pandora apps are available in Android, no need to use a web browser.

3) " but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no
sweat" well, is not what the review says:

"If you’re using the Chromecast extension for Chrome on your laptop to project
an otherwise incompatible video site (like Hulu or HBOGO), however, video
quality can dump quite a bit depending on your setup. It’s using your laptop
as a middle man to encode the video signal and broadcast it to the Chromecast,
whereas the aforementioned compatible sites just send video straight to the
dongle, mostly removing your laptop from the mix. When casting video tabs on a
2012 MacBook Air running on an 802.11n network, the framerate was noticeably
lower and there were occasional audio syncing issues."

You even need an additional transcoder! the mini pcs can decode MKVs by
themselves (and lots of formats more)

4) network resources, yes they can:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.ci...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.cifsmanager&hl=en)

Look, I got an apple TV and one of those "dongles" connected to my TV, and
trust me, when I need to play an MKV is way more easier to use a remote to
access the File NAS than firing up Beamer app ([http://beamer-
app.com/](http://beamer-app.com/)) from my mac to watch a movie.

Chromecast requires extra hardware to complete almost anything, so yes, I
think it's less capable than the mini pcs at 36 usd that ship free.

~~~
samuelfine
1) Cool! That doesn't have any real bearing on Chromecast, though, and those
devices don't have the extensibility that Chromecast does.

2) Anything that reduces the amount of hardware I interact with is a net
positive, IMO. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "in Android". Netflix and
Pandora are on the web and iOS devices, there is no shortage of ways to find
their content. In my experience, browsing YouTube has been a giant PITA on
every single device I've tried. I'd much rather browse videos on my computer
and send ones I find to my TV as desired.

3) Tab mirroring is in beta, as Google has said, which is not the same as an
app streaming directly from the web. (No middleman device required.) It's
already pretty good, but does need improvement. In the meantime, Netflix -
which has "native" support - is great, with none of those issues. The rest are
simply good, and will become great once Google improves their mirroring
feature.

4) That's a feature that 95% of users won't ever need. If the other dongles
you mention do that, fantastic. I'll concede that Chromecast isn't doing that
now, but I think we can agree it's definitely not a major selling point. (Not
to mention, there's no reason someone couldn't write a Chromecast app to do
something exactly like that. Just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it
can't or won't.)

I play my MKVs from a local Plex server to my Roku ($80). Chromecast ($35)
will likely replace that soon, either via the Plex Web Client (which organizes
all my media in a nice, friendly format, no ugly directory tree browsing
required) or a "native" app. Plus, a remote control _is_ extra hardware. I'm
never more than 5 feet from my phone, and I regularly lose my TV remotes.

Those dongles you linked to seem to be running Google TV. Chromecast runs a
stripped down version of Chrome OS. Two sides of the same coin, but Chromecast
is far more integrated and extensible. Seems worthy of some praise to me.

------
Rezo
Yes! I'll happily pay $35 to turn my "Smart" TV into the dumb screen it should
be. Compare:

My Samsung "Smart" TV: Find TV remote, power on. Wait a while, after which the
TV will default to showing static (not very Smart of it not to notice I don't
have cable attached, and never will). Press the Smart-button on the remote,
again wait a small eternity while it's "Loading". Use the navigation buttons
to quickly navigate to the Netflix icon. Oh, you were too slow to reach
Netflix, now the UI is locked up for 5-10 seconds because the homescreen is
refreshing the Samsung app store icons and ads. OK, now Netflix is finally
loading, which takes a good 20-40 seconds. Now to find what I want to watch
using the damn arrow keys. God help me if I need to enter some text to search,
at that point it's just easier to reach over for my laptop and add what I want
to my instant queue from there.

Chromecast: Using my phone or tablet, load the Netflix app (near instant).
Click the Chromecast button (instant). Click the show I want to play, or
search using a decent keyboard or voice input. TV powers on (HDMI-CEC, yay),
plays my show (in a few seconds).

Moving all of the UI out from the TV screen is a fantastic move. And no, a
Roku, Chinese Android players, Apple TV, etc. aren't interesting to me at all
because I don't want to interact with my TV screen.

------
chestnut-tree
I can see the Chromecast being useful for presentations in an office
environment too. Instead of a projector or messy cables, just plug the
Chromecast into a suitable TV and display your presentation on a large TV
screen to an audience.

------
clicks
One interesting implication is that Chromecast will probably affect Smart TV
sales -- because justifying the extra few hundred bucks to get a smart TV vs.
just a dumb 1080p TV just got a lot more difficult. I was planning on buying a
Smart TV (~46") for 800 bucks, now I think I'll just get one for around 400 or
less and use Chromecast for Netflix, Pandora, etc.

~~~
illyism
Smart TV is a gimmick. Buy a PS3 and enable streaming from your computer.
Boom, all the movies you want. YouTube. YouTube from your mobile phone just
like chromecast. An Internet browser. Netflix. Blu-ray. As a bonus you also
get to play games.

Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or
other features. You'll get your money's worth.

Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a
raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.

~~~
inthewoods
Smart TV most certainly is not a gimmick. Among all the parents I know,
including myself, we all bought smart TVs to have the built-in Netflix
streaming without an extra box or anything to think about. The price
difference of TVs with and without apps is almost nothing at this point - we
bought a 60" Vizio for around $900 - they don't even offer a version without
apps as far as I know.

But I do agree with you about 3D. :)

------
wubbfindel
I want one now, but I'm in the UK. I hope Google don't drag their heels on
this one.

Can anyone who has it tell me whether the web based spotify player will cast
from a laptop?

------
plg
Can I plug it into an LCD projector and then wirelessly stream my presentation
(keynote, PowerPoint, PDF) or even screen mirror, from my laptop? Would be
great for presentations.

~~~
jayrobin
It just plugs straight into the HDMI port, so I don't see why not. Before the
presentation started you'd need to set it up on the local wi-fi however.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
And hope no-one in the audience has videos of their own that they want to
share.

------
chrisdevereux
It will be interesting to see if google open up the chromecast protocol to
third parties.

My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non-
existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money
out of this as a hardware product.

It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little
incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make
substantially less from advertising.

Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for
airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.

~~~
jedc
You mean this?
[https://developers.google.com/cast/](https://developers.google.com/cast/)

Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a
little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV
w/Chromecast?

~~~
icesoldier
It looks like the Windows/OS X corners of that compatibility list are really
because of Chrome. The dev kit is available for iOS, Android, and Chrome Apps:
[https://developers.google.com/cast/developing_a_sender](https://developers.google.com/cast/developing_a_sender)

Since I'm completely unfamiliar with the structure of a Chrome App, I don't
know what's sandboxed away in that environment. But I'm stopping short of
calling full Windows/OS X compatibility there.

------
bsaul
do you get the hdmi cable for that 35$ price ? i see that thing almost like an
advanced wireless port. i don't understand what's the big deal ( especially
since apple tv does that for some time now). anyone could enlighten me ?

~~~
dsr_
It plugs directly into an HDMI port. No cable included, no cable needed.

It is, in fact, a moderately smart wireless port: whatever you send to it that
it recognizes, it plays. That's it. If you want a pause function, you need to
tell the source, not ChromeCast. If you want a rewind, a fast forward, a
seek... ditto.

It's a big deal because it's $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku,
who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources,
pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer
one for three times the price.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
There's a short HDMI extender included in the box. This is for when the HDMI
port is inaccessible for the Chromecast itself, or if you need to move it get
slightly better Wi-Fi.

~~~
ExpendableGuy
Seeing as how the HDTV in my bedroom is about 7 years old and only has two
HDMI ports right next to each other, I'm willing to bet I'm going to need that
when my Chromecast arrives Saturday.

------
warcode
A $35 bottleneck between my laptop and TV?

I thought HDMI-out was becoming standard.

~~~
NegativeK
One of the differences between Chromecast and an HDMI cable running across
your living room is convenience.

