That's what's implied when you say 802.11b/g/n rather than 802.11a/b/g/n or 802.11ac. Both 802.11a and 802.11ac are 5Ghz-only protocols [0], and 802.11ac implies[1] support for 802.11a/b/g/n. :)
[0] And 802.11b/g are 2.4 Ghz-only protocols.
[1] Or it might dictate support, I haven't read the text of the standard.
It only is 5Ghz when there is a 5GHz radio in the device. I gather that world-wide 5Ghz operation not-infrequently requires the ability to do DFS. [0] This is an added engineering and testing burden that -I guess- many companies just don't want to undergo. [1]
I've spent an absurd amount of time looking for and at WiFi network adaptors. Devices that advertise just b/g(/n) support contain only a 2.4Ghz radio 99.9% of the time.
Look at the first-gen Chromecast, the 3G Nexus S, or the 2012 Nexus 7. They all advertised b/g/n support, and all operated only in the 2.4GHz band.
[0] There are regulatory domains in which the majority of 5Ghz channels require DFS and/or transmit power control.
[1] You'd think that all the engineering work would be done already, and only the testing would be left, but who knows?
Yes the "what's new" section is the first thing I looked for! Does anyone know if this new version supports HEVC/H.265 video? I would upgrade my existing Chromecast if more codecs were supported but I didn't see any information in the articles I read. 5 GHz Wi-Fi is not as important to me because the 2.4 GHz band is not very crowded in my neighborhood.
Multi-room support is really neat feature that will compete with hardware like Sonos. With Chromecast audio you can use existing speakers to create a multi-room listening experience.
I believe that is the case. I highly recommend just purchasing an RPI 2 and throwing the OSMC distro (Debian+Kodi) on it. Kodi supports the AirPlay protocol, so once you enable it in services you can use https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.airaudio&hl... and basically pipe AUX out from your phone to multiple devices on your network. :)
This obviously requires the dependency of your phone, but I prefer the flexibility.
That sounds cool. So basically I don't need the chromecast audio if I have the PI, right?
I like the iOS' system level of audio output (AirPlay) and didn't know Android is flexible enough that an app can do that!
My concern is - can it still work with power provided by a regular USB socket on the TV? The specs claim it needs a 1 amp power supply, and most sockets can't do that much.
> My concern is - can it still work with power provided by a regular USB socket on the TV? The specs claim it needs a 1 amp power supply, and most sockets can't do that much.
I've used the old chromecast successfully like this. The manual also suggested to do it. One downside was that this means the chromecast can no longer turn your TV on due to lack of power. When casting to it, it will turn on my TV and switch it to the chromecast input which is quite nice.
Yes, my Samsung Smart TV supported this, and while it'd be great to do that, but I just disliked the idea of taking another long cable and make it reach my wall socket. :(
I believe it will still work fine via the USB socket on the TV, but my qualm with that is that many TVs don't send power to the USB unless the TV is on -- Which means you can't turn on a TV using the Chromecast app and that the Chromecast needs to boot-up every single time.
On the last iteration, my Chromecast would only connect to my WiFi about 2/3 times after reboot which hopefully is better with the new WiFi since the hassle was enough that I gave it up for an AppleTV. I bought 2 Chromecasts the first day they were announced and evangelized a fair bit to my friends and family but they ended up not being as useful as I had hoped.
IIRC, my Chromecast came with a 5VDC power supply and a USB->Micro USB cable for plugging the PSU into the Chromecast. The documentation for the CC warned against plugging the CC into USB ports on a TV because of exactly what you're complaining about. :)
The marketing copy for the new Chromecast mentions that it, too ships with a 5V power supply (1A this time around) for powering the Chromecast.
Yeah, in my eventual problem-solving steps, I strung up another cord to the back of my TV to plug the CC into a power-strip but the reliability wasn't any better -- not sure if I broke something on the CC by using the TV's built-in USB previously, but it was allegedly rated for 1.8amps according to its documentation.
Heh, I saw the "Supported Operating Systems" list (w/ Windows and MacOS X) and thought that was the OS that can be installed on device b/c of atom proc or something... but of course it was the supported client OS.
Two likely reasons. First, the previous form factor didn't fit in all TVs, so they had to include a tiny HDMI extender cable; this form factor has built-in tolerance for tight fits. Second, the new form factor allows more room for hardware bits and heat dissipation.
Also probably because some television sets can block wifi signals up close. I had a weak wifi connection on mine and a 3 ft hdmi extender fixed it (which was probably overkill).
I had this as well. Took me a while to figure out it was my Chromecast. When I watch TV I basically have to turn of my Chromecast because of the otherwise interference it causes.
Probably the fact that you couldn't plug it into a lot of TVs without using an HDMI extender cable (due to how ports are laid out). That's why the HDMI connector is now on a flexible cable.
I just installed a couple old CCs at the office, and the old rigid form factor can sometimes be tricky to plug into some TVs, due to the mounting brackets sitting right on top of the video connectors. Bad design from the TV makers? Yes, but the flexible dongle would never have this issue.
It's available as a Chrome (and maybe Firefox?) extension[0], then websites can use some JavaScript APIs to control it (with user permission of course)[1].
I downloaded CastHelloVideo-chrome, put it on my webserver, opened the URL in Chrome, and it worked as advertised. Granted, it does require Chrome and the Google Cast extension, which is as far as I know proprietary.
There's also an awesome command-line chromecast client which can play local and remote media. It works quite well in my experience. https://github.com/xat/castnow
Very little goes through google's servers, actually. "Casting" something from your phone/tablet to the chromecast is just sending it a url (and a timestamp if you were already watching on your phone). Then it streams locally.
So, for example, you can stream from Plex and not touch Google servers at all.
As far as I know, Chromecast supports handoff very well. I've used my Chromecast for things like Netflix, but my primary use-case is Videostream for direct streaming of local files.
Yes you can - the UX isn't all that obvious though: Open Chrome, click on Cast extension, click on small arrow and select "Cast screen". It'll mirror your desktop to CC.
While you can do this, it means your device needs to be on (drawing power, running the radio, not on standby) for the whole stream, so the "normal", preferred model is for the content server to stream directly to the chromecast, and your phone is just the remote control for that process.
I haven't looked at this at all to see if there are any changes, so this is based on the previous version of Chromecast.
The only bit of information that has to go through Google is a registration check to make sure that the application that's playing the media is a registered and valid Chromecast app. After that check the receiver loads whatever URL is registered for the app that's playing and receives a payload from the casting device with whatever information is needed.
So no actual streaming is proxied through Google or anything like that. Even the request to load the player interface come directly from the receiver device (once it's verified with Google that it should load said URL). There is a "default" player app that I've never checked to see whether that's saved onto the receiver itself or if it's loaded from Google, but either way that's just a thin slice of HTML and JS, not a stream going through Google.
On Android I use an App called Localcast, it can play directly from your device or from a network attached storage, DLNA or a link to a resource on the web. It also does Cloud storage such as Dropbox, Google Drive etc.
So it would seem like handoff to the Chromecast works really well. My TV supports Miracast and that does not work as well as the Chromecast does.
You stream from the content source straight to the device. Google is only involved with the content if you stream it from Google services (eg, YouTube, Play).
The Videostream plugin works beautifully. No plex-style on-demand encoding required. Just pick that 1080p mkv file or whatever and play, negligible CPU usage.
So then it runs everything through a browser on your computer, and you have to navigate the file system? Seems like you aren't understanding the appeal/use case of plex. I can use a nice clean interface on my TiVo, Phone, Computer, Roku, AppleTV, X-Box... And watch TV, unless I'm trying to watch something on the computer I don't have to get out a clunky computer to play anything.
Videostream has a basic media library as well, and you can choose stuff to play from your (Android) phone/tablet. Works quite well. I've used both Plex and Videostream and find myself using Videostream most of the time.
I've been looking for something similar, only on the iOS side of things.
I've been thinking about just getting the little Sabrent Puck (http://amzn.to/1NZYp6w) or an Airport Express and attach it to a studio monitor. Alternatively just getting a USB powered speaker and run both items from a powered USB Hub.
Alternatively, there is also the "professional" way out using a Sonos Play or Bose Soundtouch.
Two speakers would be for bathrooms (think: NPR in the shower, podcasts in the bathtub), one would be for the kitchen / living room area.
Any one have any good/bad experiences with airplay compatible setups?
I'm by no way an audiophile and most of my content is "spoken word" anyway.
Requirements
TV with an HDMI port
Wi-Fi network
Wi-Fi enabled supported device
But it still comes with a power supply...
I've been looking for a usable (high enough performance), MHL-enabled Miracast dongle for a long time... The Microsoft Wireless Display Adapater comes close but doesn't support MHL and is too expensive.
How does it support Windows if not with Miracast? Is it just 'support' as in 'casting' (playing media locally) as opposed to actual streaming (eg. cloning) of the display?
I read somewhere that most HDMI ports only support up to 55 mA, which isn't enough for most devices. For comparison, a raspberry Pi will run 500-1000 mA, depending on peripherals.
It would be nice if more TV manufacturers took full advantage of the 5V pin.
Is this intended to compete with the AppleTV/FireTV/Roku? If so Google just failed miserably. Not having its own OS severely limits its abilities it would seem. It looks like it continues to be nothing more than a wireless audio/monitor cable that makes use of your phone as a remote.
You would be surprised. I've always found the interfaces for AppleTV/FireTV/Roku to be extremely clunky and not user friendly in the slightest. There's no reason not to use your phone that has interfaces that are much better designed and easier to navigate (a swipe of the finger to type some text, versus a hundred button presses to navigate an awful on-screen TV leopard). I think using remotes is pretty old-school and we're going to see them phased out pretty fast. AppleTV's interface is especially jarring, the Netflix app is borderline unusable.
I like choosing media from a phone/computer, but I love having my Roku's physical remote. Instant access to tactile playback controls is huge. I can pick up the remote in the dark and find the pause button with no effort at all. If I could have that on Chromecast, I'd be sold.
Last night, I was watching something on Netflix on my Chromecast (using the Android app) and somehow the app and the CC got out of sync. It thought it wasn't casting anymore, so it took away my playback controls and I had no way to pause my show. IIRC, eventually I had to turn off the TV (and thus the CC).
I've definitely had that happen with my Chromecast as well. Not sure if the bug lies in Netflix's app, or the way Netflix and the Chromecast communicate.
My TV also detects when the Chromecast starts casting and automatically turns on and changes to the input. Great if you want to watch something without finding the TV remote, but I've woken up numerous times in the middle of the night to find my TV on, just showing the Netflix title screen even though no devices are casting. Never had that happen with YouTube or Plex or anything else I use, so I wonder if it is just Netflix.
A physical remote for the Chromecast for pausing/fast-forwarding/rewinding is a pretty good idea. I wonder how difficult it would be to interface with the Chromecast and make a WiFi remote? Or would it have to emulate the signals that the app sends over WiFi to the Chromecast? I wonder if you could sniff the packets for pause/play/rewind and emulate them? (I smell a good idea for that dusty ol Raspberry Pi that I have on my shelf)
Hmmm, there is the HDMI-CEC stuff (where you supposedly can control your CC from the TV remote -- my TV doesn't have it, so I can't try it). Given that, I wonder if you could make a pass-through dongle, HDMI male-to-female, and put some play/pause/rewind HDMI-CEC endpoints in it with some arbitrary wifi/bluetooth control api.
It depends on the user scenario. My family has a Roku and it's great - our kids don't have smartphones, and we can also choose a video to play by looking at the TV screen.
Also note that the Roku has an Android app that allows you to completely avoid any on-TV UI, if you so choose.
True, Chromecast only works in a world where it's assumed that everybody has a smartphone (and a decent in-home WiFi setup...) I hadn't thought about children no having smartphones or tablets, of if grandma comes over and doesn't know how to use a smartphone so she can't watch Netflix.
Can you cast to Roku through Netflix/YouTube/etc? It's not the on-TV UI that I don't like as much as it is that I like browsing through Netflix on my phone much more. I know with the Xbox One (and the 360) you can cast Netflix and YouTube to it just the same as you would to a Chromecast, so it wouldn't surprise me if other devices implement the same functionality.
The Roku can be casted to, although I haven't played all to much with this functionality. I've done it through the youtube app on my phone. Haven't tried it with Netflix though, but I suspect it would work.
And it sells and works very well with that niche. I know many non-techie people who just love their CC's for quickly transferring videos or images from their phones.
Chromecast is the "light" competitor. Why give it it's own OS when "everyone" (yes I know not everyone) already has a smartphone that can just cast it's content to it?
This allows it to be cheaper and means the device itself is less prone to bugs & software glitches.
For the more advanced, you've got the Android TV Operating System - on the Nexus Player and other Android TV manufacturers, or built into some TVs.
The last thing I need is another OS. I really like the Chromecast for doing its job without fanfare. It puts the smart in my otherwise dumb and un-networked TV.
The bragged about how it's smaller and easier to hide. Who gives a crap what color it is. They shouldn't have focused on the looks at all but made sure it had the lowest possible profile.
I more or less accidentally found out that Google released an ethernet adapter for the original Chromecast[0]. Purchasing that has given me a lot more utility from my Chromecast.
I love the device. I am loving how much support there is for it among sports streaming services: WatchESPN, BTN2Go, and NFL Sunday Ticket all support Chromecast streaming.
My biggest issue with the device right now is the lack of official Spotify support. I would love to be able to stream spotify from my phone to my Chromecast.
I didn't know that either. That is definitely interesting. That definitely can overcome the lack of 5Ghz. But that plus the original chromecast is now more than the new one. I only have a Roku so they only thing I am interested in is the chrome tab casting.
Yeah, Spotify is the reason I use my Apple TV much more than the Chromecast.. There's no AppleTV app for it either, but at least you can do the Airplay from any Apple device and it will play from my good speakers and show the album art on the screen.
It's not any better on Android, and Hulu isn't any better either (but they do have an ad-free subscription now, which makes them actually nice to use finally).
Hmm, can you provide more details about the xfinity functionality? As of a week or two ago I wasn't able to find any support for it beyond just generically casting the tab from a PC to chromecast.
> I'm also unhappy that Chromecast doesn't use USB-C yet.
Why would it need to? It only draws 1A @ 5V. That's well within what one would expect from a high-output USB2.0 or 3.0 port.
You're also not likely to be frequently removing and reattaching the power cable to the device, so who cares if there's only one way to plug it in?
Edit: Or are you talking about Displayport-over-USB-C vs. HDMI? If you are, I, too am disappointed that the CC doesn't output over DP or miniDP. Displayport->HDMI adapters are easy to come by (and one could be packed right in to the CC box), DP is technologically superior to HDMI, and its consortium is not run by a bunch of evil thugs. ;)
Just a minor clarification but USB-C is not necessarily USB 3.0. It's solely a form-factor as such a USB 2.0 type-C can be a perfectly normal thing to find.
Very few devices use USB-C cabling. Very many mobile devices use Micro USB cabling. Most folks will have a mess of Micro USB cables on hand, but very few USB-C cables.
Your argument is sound, but you're making it four or six years too early. :)
Uh... Chromecast doesn't support USB anything. The microUSB connector on the device is just a convenient power plug form factor.
(Edit: I should add that there is in fact a USB host controller behind that port, or at least there is per the rooting instructions I remember reading. But the product as shipped has no USB "support" for anything but 5V DC power.)
The ethernet adapter using that connector absolutely does not mean it is a USB device. Note that that's a microUSB-B connector, which is not generally used for a host controller. For all we know, the connection between the ethernet adapter and the device is completely proprietary. I'd be willing to bet it's a USB device and they just used a very strange connector setup, but we certainly don't know that just based on the connector.
Steam Link is a different kind of product. With Steam Link, your PC is loading the content and then sending it to your TV, with Chromecast, you are telling (in most cases) your Chromecast to load that content directly.
Also, Steam Link doesn't work with phones. Many apps have specifically designed experiences for the Chromecast as well.
I have to admit that this frustrates me. This is Google, not a scrappy start up.
Google have a large presence in my country and the Chromecast has sold pretty well here.
For me what's missing is Amazon instant video. I understand why it doesn't have it, but it's a real bummer. Would also be nice if I could watch NBC sports, but I think I might be able to and just haven't figured it out yet.
Roku seems to be supporting everything I can think of except iTunes store movies/tv.
I know each company has their own product, but supporting all the popular formats/apps would really mean the best platform wins. After all, is Roku _really_ the best product?
Well, it's not bad at all, it's cheap, it comes with a massive amount of content, it doesn't require a phone or tablet, and it comes with a remote. Considering the market... maybe?
Apparently it does, but only on recent revisions of their hardware.[1]
I actually have the original youtube channel from way back, before it got pulled from the available channels. it may have been a private channel of someone's and Google didn't like it looking like it was from them, it wasn't even close to parity with youtube phone/web features.
It is annoying that Amazon Instant Video doesn't directly have an option to cast to a Chromecast. You can, however, configure[0] Amazon Instant Video to use Flash instead of Silverlight. Once you switch to using Flash, you can use the "Cast Tab" feature of the Google Cast extension to watch your video on a Chromecast, assuming you're using Chrome.
Wake me up when you and Amazon can stop hissing at each other like cats on opposite corners of the room so I can get Amazon Instant Video, and Firestick users can get Youtube natively.
Yea, bummer. I use my Xbox One because it supports everything and does Blu-ray too, but the thing uses like 80 watts while playing videos and is pretty clunky to navigate.
I get around this by just casting my phone's screen. It works great out of the box. Just cast your phone's screen, start the Amazon Prime Video app and start your show. The phone will automatically full screen and orient correctly for the TV and all audio on the phone will silence in favor of using the TV's.
Hang on, you can cast your phone screen? I understood that you could only cast a chrome-browser tab to chromecast or use an app designed for chromecast ... have I been misled? Is that a newer feature because it didn't seem to be there 9 months ago when I trialed one?
Yeah, the Chromecast app[1] will let you cast whatever's on your screen, regardless of individual app support. I used it recently, for example, to play the turn-based game UniWar on the TV in my living room.
That app works with Android TV devices, too, although there's an issue there that trips some people up. When it first launches, it will look for Chromecast devices specifically but will not pick up Android TV ones. Even so, if you thereafter select the "Cast Screen" option, your Android TV devices should show up, as my Nexus Player does.
For the multi-room audio they talked about (to be released later this year), has anyone seen anything that indicates if it will work with a non-audio-specific chromecast? For example, I hope to be able to play music to my TV through a chromecast (and be able to see album art on my tv), and then have the same audio playing in my living room coming out of a chromecast audio. Man i hope it will work regardless of type of chromecast.
When I bought my TV supporting Miracast protocol, I thought I would not need to buy a Chromecast. And it (the TV) worked beautifully with my Nexus 5 for some days. But soon, the phone stopped casting the screen on the TV. Another phone (Moto X Play) still works fine though, so pretty sure it is a phone problem.
A conspiracy theorist would suggest Google intentionally breaking Miracast support to boost sales of Chromecast ;)
Miracast turns out to be a terrible protocol in many ways. The way it uses Wifi networks is clunky, and requiring from-device streaming is fine for local content or screen mirroring, but terrible for streaming services (where you end up with Netflix streaming to your phone, then your phone transcoding and streaming to the TV via Miracast, which means two video streams on your Wifi and a lot of drain on your phone; by contrast, with Chromecast, Netflix streams from the internet to your TV with no intervening step).
It is supposed to have latency in the 10s of milliseconds, I have yet to see it under 100 or even 200ms. (and I am pretty sure I have seen it a lot higher!)
This is despite having a nice fast Intel chipset and what is supposed to be a well reviewed Miracast receiver.
It is a great idea, but it works so poorly.
Next up for standards failure, DLNA!
I am saddened that there are standards body tech to do what I want, and that none of them really work that well.
If I want to stream from multiple platforms to my sound system, I am best off investing in a proprietary solution from either Google or Apple. :(
I believe you can write apps for it.
I have not tried myself, but been to some google/Android software meetups where people discussed the API and their apps.
I am not sure what kind of apps you'd want to write. i believe the media niche has been pretty well filling, Gaming, engineering/science software probably not.
I'm sorry, but what is new besides the form factor? Everybody must be upvoting this for some reason other than the fact that they can buy something colorful to hide behind their TV.
> I'm sorry, but what is new besides the form factor?
That's actually WHY I found this really interesting. A slight change to the form factor for easier connection to some TVs is all they changed. No features only this model can use. New features every day coming to both models. That means they got it right on gen 1, which is absolutely incredible.
What new features are coming "every day" to the Chromecast? Other than new software written for the thing, and bug fixes, I've noticed 0 new features [0] over the year+ I've owned mine.
(I would really like to be able to load an ICC profile into the thing. I have a nice, but wide-gamut monitor that would become my Chromecast's new best friend.)
[0] Edit: I guess you can set your own wallpaper and slideshows now? So, make that one new -not really useful- feature that I've seen over the year+ that I've owned the thing.
Nobody cares about Android TV because the worst thing that can happen when you turn on your TV is it displays "Optimizing app 15 of 189" for the next half an hour.
No HDMI passthrough is a real irritation for me. I hate the fact it hogs one of the two HDMI ports in my office screen, meaning I need a HDMI switch for the Logitech videoconf and the Apple TV.
Can't you streamcast to the apple tv, making the chromecast largely redundant? I'm genuinely curious; what do you get from the chromecast that you don't already have?
Chromecast Audio is being reported poorly. Many articles suggest it works with "most any home speakers" and "old school speakers" when it only works with powered speakers.
Well, considering the Google page says nothing about needing power or an amp, yes, I do. And my original point noted that the news articles claim it works with "any home speaker" and "old school speakers" when that is not the case at all. Why would I have a receiver when Google says it works "on your best speakers"?
This may be dissonance between audiophiles and regular people.
When I see that it works with my best, old-school speakers, I wonder if it has red and black posts for me to crimp my speaker wire to. But of course I know better and know that it will just provide line out audio. When they say "old school" they mean it has an RCA out jack, and when they say "speakers" they mean boombox, receiver, or modern powered speakers (the sort which often have an iphone connector on top to plug your phone into).
We as audiophiles know that the language used in the copy is imprecise and implies the wrong thing (hopefully we're also smart enough to know what it's actually implying). I suspect the average human would not be as confused.
My main audio receiver is the home theater system in my living room (and already has a Chromecast hooked up to one of the HDMI inputs). It's been good for the obvious stuff like watching movies over streaming apps and my Plex server but also just as a way to play audio and control it from my phone while walking around the house doing stuff.
Still, I have been wanting something like the Chromecast Audio for a while and already ordered one. Might even order more depending on how well it works. My reasoning is that I've considered setting up some basic "whole home audio" system but stuff like Sonos is expensive whereas powered computer speakers and older boom boxes/shelf systems with an aux-in are a dime a dozen. I've got a set or two collecting dust in a closet right now and you can even find powered computer speakers at Goodwill for $5 if you want to go cheap.
Either way, it's great for rooms where you might not need anything fancy but still would like to have streaming radio or listen to a music app. Just plug in old PC speakers, connect $35 dongle, and you've extended your music to that room.
Not audiophile grade or as classy as some $500+ Sonos system but I don't really need all that just to have music coming out of the spare bedroom or the bathroom or the basement (or all of them) while we're having people over or I'm cleaning the house. My current setup is either cast to living room and crank the volume, play on PC in basement and crank the volume, or dock phone into some crappy little speaker thing in the kitchen. I like the idea of just using my phone and then picking what rooms it will play in.
I think the critical mass of people who are used to running a stereo plug from their iPhone/Android to a stereo or somesuch has been reached, they don't need anything more than the image with the device and a 3.5mm plug.
I used to use chromecast quite heavily, but ended up getting tired of their relatively limited format support and use wireless HDMI now (which does everything I wanted but does require dedicated source hardware - like a pc).
260 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 349 ms ] threadThat's what's implied when you say 802.11b/g/n rather than 802.11a/b/g/n or 802.11ac. Both 802.11a and 802.11ac are 5Ghz-only protocols [0], and 802.11ac implies[1] support for 802.11a/b/g/n. :)
[0] And 802.11b/g are 2.4 Ghz-only protocols.
[1] Or it might dictate support, I haven't read the text of the standard.
It only is 5Ghz when there is a 5GHz radio in the device. I gather that world-wide 5Ghz operation not-infrequently requires the ability to do DFS. [0] This is an added engineering and testing burden that -I guess- many companies just don't want to undergo. [1]
I've spent an absurd amount of time looking for and at WiFi network adaptors. Devices that advertise just b/g(/n) support contain only a 2.4Ghz radio 99.9% of the time.
Look at the first-gen Chromecast, the 3G Nexus S, or the 2012 Nexus 7. They all advertised b/g/n support, and all operated only in the 2.4GHz band.
[0] There are regulatory domains in which the majority of 5Ghz channels require DFS and/or transmit power control.
[1] You'd think that all the engineering work would be done already, and only the testing would be left, but who knows?
This obviously requires the dependency of your phone, but I prefer the flexibility.
http://i.imgur.com/SNMwrjd.png
Not widely supported, but it's basically power-over-HDMI among other things.
My concern is - can it still work with power provided by a regular USB socket on the TV? The specs claim it needs a 1 amp power supply, and most sockets can't do that much.
Maybe the specs overstate it.
I've used the old chromecast successfully like this. The manual also suggested to do it. One downside was that this means the chromecast can no longer turn your TV on due to lack of power. When casting to it, it will turn on my TV and switch it to the chromecast input which is quite nice.
Wait, it can do this? I had no idea. Freaking awesome.
I'd be shocked to see a TV or >~£120 monitor without MHL nowadays, but perhaps it really is the case...
On the last iteration, my Chromecast would only connect to my WiFi about 2/3 times after reboot which hopefully is better with the new WiFi since the hassle was enough that I gave it up for an AppleTV. I bought 2 Chromecasts the first day they were announced and evangelized a fair bit to my friends and family but they ended up not being as useful as I had hoped.
The marketing copy for the new Chromecast mentions that it, too ships with a 5V power supply (1A this time around) for powering the Chromecast.
source: google roommate beta testing in our living room
[0]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-cast/boadge... [1]: https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender
I downloaded CastHelloVideo-chrome, put it on my webserver, opened the URL in Chrome, and it worked as advertised. Granted, it does require Chrome and the Google Cast extension, which is as far as I know proprietary.
So, for example, you can stream from Plex and not touch Google servers at all.
Exactly how this works is up to whoever writes the cast apps that you're using. APIs are over here: https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/developers
The only bit of information that has to go through Google is a registration check to make sure that the application that's playing the media is a registered and valid Chromecast app. After that check the receiver loads whatever URL is registered for the app that's playing and receives a payload from the casting device with whatever information is needed.
So no actual streaming is proxied through Google or anything like that. Even the request to load the player interface come directly from the receiver device (once it's verified with Google that it should load said URL). There is a "default" player app that I've never checked to see whether that's saved onto the receiver itself or if it's loaded from Google, but either way that's just a thin slice of HTML and JS, not a stream going through Google.
So it would seem like handoff to the Chromecast works really well. My TV supports Miracast and that does not work as well as the Chromecast does.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/videostream-for-go...
https://store.google.com/product/chromecast_audio
I've been looking for something similar, only on the iOS side of things.
I've been thinking about just getting the little Sabrent Puck (http://amzn.to/1NZYp6w) or an Airport Express and attach it to a studio monitor. Alternatively just getting a USB powered speaker and run both items from a powered USB Hub.
Alternatively, there is also the "professional" way out using a Sonos Play or Bose Soundtouch.
Two speakers would be for bathrooms (think: NPR in the shower, podcasts in the bathtub), one would be for the kitchen / living room area.
Any one have any good/bad experiences with airplay compatible setups?
I'm by no way an audiophile and most of my content is "spoken word" anyway.
The specs seem to imply it:
But it still comes with a power supply...I've been looking for a usable (high enough performance), MHL-enabled Miracast dongle for a long time... The Microsoft Wireless Display Adapater comes close but doesn't support MHL and is too expensive.
Hopefully this new Chromecast is it..
EDIT: Sibling comment says it's also supported via a Chrome plugin. That might be an option...
It would be nice if more TV manufacturers took full advantage of the 5V pin.
Last night, I was watching something on Netflix on my Chromecast (using the Android app) and somehow the app and the CC got out of sync. It thought it wasn't casting anymore, so it took away my playback controls and I had no way to pause my show. IIRC, eventually I had to turn off the TV (and thus the CC).
My TV also detects when the Chromecast starts casting and automatically turns on and changes to the input. Great if you want to watch something without finding the TV remote, but I've woken up numerous times in the middle of the night to find my TV on, just showing the Netflix title screen even though no devices are casting. Never had that happen with YouTube or Plex or anything else I use, so I wonder if it is just Netflix.
A physical remote for the Chromecast for pausing/fast-forwarding/rewinding is a pretty good idea. I wonder how difficult it would be to interface with the Chromecast and make a WiFi remote? Or would it have to emulate the signals that the app sends over WiFi to the Chromecast? I wonder if you could sniff the packets for pause/play/rewind and emulate them? (I smell a good idea for that dusty ol Raspberry Pi that I have on my shelf)
Also note that the Roku has an Android app that allows you to completely avoid any on-TV UI, if you so choose.
Can you cast to Roku through Netflix/YouTube/etc? It's not the on-TV UI that I don't like as much as it is that I like browsing through Netflix on my phone much more. I know with the Xbox One (and the 360) you can cast Netflix and YouTube to it just the same as you would to a Chromecast, so it wouldn't surprise me if other devices implement the same functionality.
No, that would be the Nexus Player.
The CC competes with other streaming sticks...like the Fire TV stick, Roku Streaming stick, etc.
This allows it to be cheaper and means the device itself is less prone to bugs & software glitches.
For the more advanced, you've got the Android TV Operating System - on the Nexus Player and other Android TV manufacturers, or built into some TVs.
I really rather like my Nexus Player, though.
No, its intended as an incremental upgrade to the existing Chromecast.
The related product most similar to AppleTV/FireTV/Roku (in price and features -- though still less expensive) is Nexus Player.
I love the device. I am loving how much support there is for it among sports streaming services: WatchESPN, BTN2Go, and NFL Sunday Ticket all support Chromecast streaming.
My biggest issue with the device right now is the lack of official Spotify support. I would love to be able to stream spotify from my phone to my Chromecast.
[0]: https://store.google.com/product/_ethernet_adapter_for_chrom...
[0]: http://www.wired.com/2015/09/spotify-might-best-new-thing-ne...
Why would it need to? It only draws 1A @ 5V. That's well within what one would expect from a high-output USB2.0 or 3.0 port.
You're also not likely to be frequently removing and reattaching the power cable to the device, so who cares if there's only one way to plug it in?
Edit: Or are you talking about Displayport-over-USB-C vs. HDMI? If you are, I, too am disappointed that the CC doesn't output over DP or miniDP. Displayport->HDMI adapters are easy to come by (and one could be packed right in to the CC box), DP is technologically superior to HDMI, and its consortium is not run by a bunch of evil thugs. ;)
Just my guess.
Your argument is sound, but you're making it four or six years too early. :)
(Edit: I should add that there is in fact a USB host controller behind that port, or at least there is per the rooting instructions I remember reading. But the product as shipped has no USB "support" for anything but 5V DC power.)
I'm guessing its a full-fledged general-purpose port that just has limited uses in the Chromecast devices (upgradeable) software.
If we cheat a little, and look at Chromecast rooting instructions [0] we get a strong indication that that port is totally a USB 2.0 port. :)
[0] http://cord-cutters.wonderhowto.com/how-to/root-your-chromec...
Also, Steam Link doesn't work with phones. Many apps have specifically designed experiences for the Chromecast as well.
:(
I can't find PoE to micro-usb cable anywhere else but this comes close.
I know each company has their own product, but supporting all the popular formats/apps would really mean the best platform wins. After all, is Roku _really_ the best product?
Well, it's not bad at all, it's cheap, it comes with a massive amount of content, it doesn't require a phone or tablet, and it comes with a remote. Considering the market... maybe?
The not so smart TV software is horrible. If I pause anything it basically crashes, and it takes 6 min from boot to wifi connection.
For Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and Google Play it works great.
I actually have the original youtube channel from way back, before it got pulled from the available channels. it may have been a private channel of someone's and Google didn't like it looking like it was from them, it wasn't even close to parity with youtube phone/web features.
1: https://blog.roku.com/blog/2014/04/22/youtube-update-channel...
[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/settings (near the bottom of the page)
Wake me up when you and Amazon can stop hissing at each other like cats on opposite corners of the room so I can get Amazon Instant Video, and Firestick users can get Youtube natively.
Until then, Zzz...
That app works with Android TV devices, too, although there's an issue there that trips some people up. When it first launches, it will look for Chromecast devices specifically but will not pick up Android TV ones. Even so, if you thereafter select the "Cast Screen" option, your Android TV devices should show up, as my Nexus Player does.
1: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
What sucks is that the real losers in all this are the customers.
A conspiracy theorist would suggest Google intentionally breaking Miracast support to boost sales of Chromecast ;)
It is supposed to have latency in the 10s of milliseconds, I have yet to see it under 100 or even 200ms. (and I am pretty sure I have seen it a lot higher!)
This is despite having a nice fast Intel chipset and what is supposed to be a well reviewed Miracast receiver.
It is a great idea, but it works so poorly.
Next up for standards failure, DLNA!
I am saddened that there are standards body tech to do what I want, and that none of them really work that well.
If I want to stream from multiple platforms to my sound system, I am best off investing in a proprietary solution from either Google or Apple. :(
I am not sure what kind of apps you'd want to write. i believe the media niche has been pretty well filling, Gaming, engineering/science software probably not.
Edit: See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10298026
And also chromecast audio, which is new.
That's actually WHY I found this really interesting. A slight change to the form factor for easier connection to some TVs is all they changed. No features only this model can use. New features every day coming to both models. That means they got it right on gen 1, which is absolutely incredible.
(I would really like to be able to load an ICC profile into the thing. I have a nice, but wide-gamut monitor that would become my Chromecast's new best friend.)
[0] Edit: I guess you can set your own wallpaper and slideshows now? So, make that one new -not really useful- feature that I've seen over the year+ that I've owned the thing.
It also acts as a Chromecast, so I can still cast from my phone if I want to.
When I see that it works with my best, old-school speakers, I wonder if it has red and black posts for me to crimp my speaker wire to. But of course I know better and know that it will just provide line out audio. When they say "old school" they mean it has an RCA out jack, and when they say "speakers" they mean boombox, receiver, or modern powered speakers (the sort which often have an iphone connector on top to plug your phone into).
We as audiophiles know that the language used in the copy is imprecise and implies the wrong thing (hopefully we're also smart enough to know what it's actually implying). I suspect the average human would not be as confused.
And the product I'm thinking of isn't that far-fetched and drives a pair of Bose 301s fine.
http://www.amazon.com/Bluetooth-Audio-Receiver-Amplifier-Mod...
It's crazy that regular speakers are becoming so rare.
Still, I have been wanting something like the Chromecast Audio for a while and already ordered one. Might even order more depending on how well it works. My reasoning is that I've considered setting up some basic "whole home audio" system but stuff like Sonos is expensive whereas powered computer speakers and older boom boxes/shelf systems with an aux-in are a dime a dozen. I've got a set or two collecting dust in a closet right now and you can even find powered computer speakers at Goodwill for $5 if you want to go cheap.
Either way, it's great for rooms where you might not need anything fancy but still would like to have streaming radio or listen to a music app. Just plug in old PC speakers, connect $35 dongle, and you've extended your music to that room.
Not audiophile grade or as classy as some $500+ Sonos system but I don't really need all that just to have music coming out of the spare bedroom or the bathroom or the basement (or all of them) while we're having people over or I'm cleaning the house. My current setup is either cast to living room and crank the volume, play on PC in basement and crank the volume, or dock phone into some crappy little speaker thing in the kitchen. I like the idea of just using my phone and then picking what rooms it will play in.