Google Announces Chromecast

kllrnohj said:
Wrong, this doesn't do transcoding on device at all. The device just tells the Chromecast where to get the media, and then chromecast does everything from there on. The device stops being important from then on - it doesn't even have to stay on the wifi network.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so then can it even play High Profile H.264 or DTS? Will it even be powerful enough to decode HD when we move to HEVC soon?
 
Wow - there is a lot of misinformation out there (esp in the media). The name of the game with this stick is convenience. Your easy-to-navigate device that you are already using will tell it what to stream off of the internet. That's all it does. Very fast, very simple. That's why it's $35. No local streaming (unless someone like plex steps up), no transcoding, no apps. It's basically a device that listens for instructions. It can theoretically display anything that streams off the web (hulu, vudu, etc...) since Google released the API. It's so cheap I'll probably put one on my secondary TV's.

Regarding Rokus - you can get refurbed Roku 2 XS's (ethernet, 1080p, etc...) off of ebay for about $60 shipped. It's a much more well-rounded device (amazon, plex, hulu, etc...), but even at $60 it's nearly twice as much as the chromecast. However, browsing on a roku is tedious.

So I see the real benefit of the chromecast is its convenience... especially situations where you are browsing your phone and say "hey check this out". Push one button and there it is for everyone to see. The touch screen interfaces that we enjoy on our mobile devices are light years ahead of remote-control based streaming pucks.

Main downside I see so far is it's wifi only (would be great to see an ethernet port for more stable streaming). I'd also love to see future versions have HDMI passthrough. In its current form you have to switch inputs to use it, so that's an extra step. If it had passthrough, you could be watching anything else (movie / cable / roku / etc...), hit the chromecast button on your mobile device and boom there it is without switching inputs.
 
Virtus said:
Main downside I see so far is it's wifi only (would be great to see an ethernet port for more stable streaming).
Click to expand...
This can only apply to situations where there are way too many WiFi networks operating or weird RF-blocking house construction.

I have 10+ WiFi networks theoretically (if I had the passwords) accessible from my apartment, yet I still have no problem streaming HD video to my Nexus 7, even when the connection degrades to a minimum (in the bathtub). At my sister's house, they've got 3 Roku boxes, multiple (5+) tablets, and 3 PCs using WiFi, and video streaming works great.

If you're having trouble, you might want to think about using software that will help you find the best channel for your WiFi router...and/or upgrade from 802.11b. ;)
 
Virtus said:
Main downside I see so far is it's wifi only (would be great to see an ethernet port for more stable streaming).
Click to expand...

That's one of many downsides to this device.

no local streaming (on purpose)
requires high speed internet to be of any use
requires an additional device to control it (that must also be networked)
it's a google trojan horse
 
Anyplace online that seems to have it is charging double the list price.

We're just starting to recover somewhat from all the Ammo bullshit that's been going on. I'm not playing on this one.

When I can buy it for $35, I'll buy it.
 
BryanSTG said:
That's one of many downsides to this device.

no local streaming (on purpose)
requires high speed internet to be of any use
requires an additional device to control it (that must also be networked)
it's a google trojan horse
Click to expand...
Local streaming would be nice - hopefully plex or xbmc will jump onboard to fix this like they did with AppleTV and Roku.
Who doesn't have high speed internet? All streaming devices that use cloud services (netflix, hulu, amazon, etc...) live or die by their connection.
Yes, this is targeted towards people who already have smartphones and high speed internet (which is nearly everyone).
 
Send local media (music, videos, etc on your hard drive) to Chromecast

While Chromecast is designed to let you stream content from the internet to your TV, as mentioned above it can actually send anything from a browser tab to your TV.

So here’s a neat trick: Open up the Chrome web browser on your computer and type c:/ into the address bar. You should see a list of files and directories on your computer’s C drive.

Navigate to a video file and you can play it through your Chrome browser — and if you can do that, you can also send it to your TV.





So people with existing streaming equipment (ps3,xbox etc...) this looks useless and it is. But for those that don't its great! Im getting a few
 
SirMaster said:
Hmm, so then can it even play High Profile H.264 or DTS? Will it even be powerful enough to decode HD when we move to HEVC soon?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if it does high profile H.264, but it can do 1080p HD & 5.1 surround (at least it does with Netflix, dunno about others)
 
naib said:
Navigate to a video file and you can play it through your Chrome browser — and if you can do that, you can also send it to your TV.
Click to expand...

That isn't a very good way to play video.

It will decode play on your PC browser tab, then it will recompress in real time and send to the device.

Re-compressing in real time will likely make a mess of HD quality video, just like it did for TheVerge when they tried this.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553368/hands-on-googles-35-chromecast-a-streaming-tv-stick
 
Ordeith said:
and how does it communicate to get content? only with Chrome. Show me this running with a platform that doesn't support Chrome, I double dog dare you.
Click to expand...

It's just HTTP requests dude...

And the client runs on Android and iOS. Last I checked neither of those are Chrome.

It leads to a chrome only a web, or a Google controlled web. All roads end up with Google running the show.
Click to expand...

Only if other browser vendors give up, which isn't Google's fault.

If Dart or pNaCL catch on then others will adopt them. If they don't they don't. Google is doing nothing wrong here. This is how new standards happen.

Except for them going their own way with CSS3 against the recommendations of the W3C
Click to expand...

Such as...?

oh and that whole CardDav/CalDav debacle.
Click to expand...

You mean those free extra protocols Google supports for free that it doesn't use itself but instead purely provides for users and developers that don't want to use Google's apps for free?

Holy shit, that is EVIL!

A statement that doesn't make any sense to the grossly uninformed, perhaps.
Click to expand...

I agree with that completely. I suspect, however, we disagree on which one of us is the "grossly uninformed" one, though.

WebRTC co-opts SIP, makes changes to it in order for WebRTC to work, and is dependent on it. It is not easily extensible and is dependent on Google's infringing codecs. SIP/SPD are not controlled by the W3C, WebRTC CANNOT be standardized by the W3C because of the SIP/SPD issues. It's standardization process has stalled.
Click to expand...

Taking an existing protocol to make a new one does not break the original protocol. That is where your claim that WebRTC "breaks" SIP falls apart - SIP works just fine regardless of WebRTC.

And FYI WebRTC is protocol agnostic - it doesn't use SIP at all. You can use HTTP with it if you want. It does use SDP for codec negotiation, but that wasn't changed.

Also please provide evidence for your claim that the "standardization process has stalled", as I can't find a single scrap of evidence to support that claim. Quite the contrary, in fact, as the latest draft is from last month.

That infringe on others patents, like so much of what Google does.
It is one thing to make it available for people to use. Quite a different thing to force its use when you find people prefer the better licensed alternatives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, bullshit. Google has licenses from the MPEG LA for VP8. The only one asserting any patent claims on VP8 is Nokia, and it's quite a stretch to presume validity on those - software patents get struck down in courts all the time.
 
Snowdog said:
That isn't a very good way to play video.

It will decode play on your PC browser tab, then it will recompress in real time and send to the device.

Re-compressing in real time will likely make a mess of HD quality video, just like it did for TheVerge when they tried this.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553368/hands-on-googles-35-chromecast-a-streaming-tv-stick
Click to expand...
But it works in contrast to the FUD being thrown around here...

Yes it isn't the best method BUT it shows local content can be accessed which means all that is needed now is something like vlc to be ported.
Right now its only Netflix, YouTube, play and chrome. That isn't a lot but enough to get started.
Get BBC iPlayer a media player (vlc) and you have quite a nice product for $35
 
can you stream local PC content to your tv with this device?
 
eon said:
can you stream local PC content to your tv with this device?
Click to expand...

Not cleanly.

As mentioned above, there is a crappy workaround to do this.

You use Google Chrome web browser, open your video in a Tab, then mirror that tab to the Chromecast device. This will decode locally on you computer, then compress again with WebRTC to send it to the Chromecast. Not good for HD video.

Pay a few dollars more and get a Roku that can stream everything without bizarre workarounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top