Worth noting- the $35 Chromecast dongle comes with three months of free Netflix membership (including for existing users), which makes the thing very cheap indeed.
"...you will recieve an email with a promotional code for 3 months of Netflix. Offer valid for previous, new and existing Netflix members, one per Netflix account."
Well that was close.... I also have prime so I figured I might get my chromecast quicker if I cancelled my order from google store which I made 4 hours earlier (I went with cheapest shipping).
Click through the confirm prompts to cancel my order from google. Click to buy from amazon, expected delivery date: 22nd of August.
Arrrrrhhhhhhhggggggg
Flick back to the google store tab and find that it has declared that I couldn't cancel my order. Phew.
So, Amazon actually said when Chromecast might ship by? When I was about to order it, it didn't give any indication of when it might arrive, it just said "we'll email you when we get an idea."
The Google play store guaranteed shipment by August 7, though, so if Amazon really expects it to arrive by late August, I'll just go with the play store.
"Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet.
We're working to bring devices to more countries as quickly as possible.
Please check back again soon."
Annoying thing is that loads of companies have a large European presence here (Ireland: low corporate taxes, educated English speaking workforce, EU country, plenty of rain(uh wait, that's not a reason)) but then fail to offer their products!
Amazon (originally wouldn't ship Kindle Fires), Google (no Nexuses (Nexi?)) through Play Store. To name but two companies. With a hack (vpn) you can get Google.co.uk to ship Nexi to Ireland but they go via the UK and apparently they start off being shipped from Dublin[1], not good for the ol' planet!
I noticed that the end opposite of the HDMI seemed to have a micro USB in port on it. I suspect that it is powered via that, however none of the demonstrations showed it being plugged in, so I believe it may have an internal battery which needs recharging.
Edit: The specs at the bottom of the page don't list a battery but it does list an included power adapter, so I guess you have to have that plugged in at all times.
Edit 2: Certain versions[1] of the HDMI spec provide power. It's possible that the USB is a backup solution for older spec'd TVs.
The Gamestick is powered by MHL if you have it, but you have to power it through its micro-usb port if you have normal HDMI (source: have one). I expect it's the same for the Chromecast.
Opening it on my phone said "We are out of inventory. Check back soon.". Opening on PC said "Coming soon" and a refresh of the page let me buy it. Hope that helps.
They haven't said anything about that, for obvious reasons, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. You probably can't run Netflix on it[1], but I bet YouTube would work just fine.
[1] Although if I understood correctly, the dongle depends on another device to connect to the internet. If you setup a DNS on your device that's connected to the dongle, it's likely that you can use Netflix as well.
Just bought two - one for each TV in my house. I already have tons of media-streamer devices (TLBB XBMC, Pivos DS, Roku, etc) but they should be nifty.
What the hell is this about a "power cord". The specs and details are totally not clear. Is this not powered by HDMI? If it requires a power cord, these images are deceptive marketing.
Just like, pretty much every, android device it uses a USB charger. Many advertisement related images don't include cords and the like for prettier pictures. Using HDMI to power things is a tricky thing, many monitors and TVs din't supply power over HDMI and among those that do (especially Sony TV iirc) they provide less-than ideal amounts of power.
On recent HD TVs that's true, but if you go back more than 2-3 years (or didn't buy a giant 55" set) then it's quite likely you'll have to resort to the AC adapter.
Neither of my TVs have USB, but both have HDMI. I'd hazard a guess that the older "brand new HD" TVs that came with HDMI first will need external power, while modern ones won't need it.
Actually, many (perhaps even most) TV USB ports don't provide power (or good enough quality power) for anything beyond basic thumb drives. It's also possible for ports not to offer power unless the right handshake is made by the device. Also, some TVs have a USB port which is only for diagnostic use, and can provide unsteady/harmful power output.
However, I'm guessing this device ships with a USB cable + wall wart for everyone else.
It seems pretty clear from the first picture that it's a male HMDI plug on one end and a female plug (which looks like the standard Android phone USB plug) on the other end. I don't see any images of the device plugged into a TV without a power cord (correction: there is one animation in the Plug and Play section if you mouse over). The images are just of the device on its own, so it doesn't seem deceptive to me.
You comment made me curious: is it possible for things to be powered by HDMI? There is definitely a 5V pin as part of the HDMI spec, but I can't find a good source for details.
Lots of Smart TVs also have USB -- how much power does this draw? Could it not have a USB power-slurper that you could plug into the USB port of the TV fr power?
This isn't even the same as devices that always require AC power but don't show a cord. It's basically a method of providing backwards-compatibility with HDMI ports that don't provide power, but if you're using the state-of-the-art TVs they show the product with, there's no power cord necessary.
"The power adapter is an optional requirement. In fact, most modern TV's with HDMI 1.4 or higher spec are supported. The Chromecast can draw power from the HDMI port it's plugged into. If your TV doesn't support that, there's also a USB cable and power adapter included in the box. I have a 2012 LG LED and a 2013 Lenovo 27" Monitor with HDMI input and the ports power it with no cable."
I'm a little confused by this device, and I haven't been able to find the info from Google.
Is it that this device acts like an AirPlay receiver of sorts and accepts a video feed from an approved device or is it that the device simply acts as a remote and the device gets its own stream from Internet sources? The latter is much more intriguing than the former, although both have issues for sure, but hard to complain for the price.
It's an interesting concept either way. I don't see it as a huge threat to the Apple TV or Roku, as both do a lot more and have dedicated controllers. Using an Apple TV with an iPhone is nice in some respects, but the wifi connectivity isn't great. A Bluetooth pairing would be exponentially better. It doesn't appear this device uses Bluetooth either.
As I see it, I could envision having an Apple TV or Roku for a main TV and something like this for another TV or for a computer monitor than can support this.
Just curious, what don't you like about the Remote app for Apple TV? I purchased an Apple TV over a Roku just because of how slick the Remote app was, personally, along with the good-but-not-great* airplay functionality you get with an iPad. I haven't had any issues with the wi-fi at all.
*: It seemed at first to be superb but then I found out that the AppleTV will refuse to play some (most?) content due to DRM restrictions. It's not clear if that's a problem with my HDMI cable or with AirPlay itself - I think AirPlay is simulating an HDMI connection via WiFi.
I should clarify that I mostly use the Remote app and largely find it works well, particularly for searching.
I find the wifi connection between my iPhone and my Apple TV (via an Airport Extreme) is a bit laggy and sometimes drops. I think it would be a much smoother experience if it paired via Bluetooth 4.0. I'm hoping the next Apple TV includes Bluetooth.
The Remote app is much more usable than the Apple TV remote, but the remote has a lot less lag and is easier to move around the interface with. This hasn't stopped me from using my Apple TV several days a week with just the Remote app, but I think that a Bluetooth connection would be much better.
The current AppleTV has bluetooth -- you can use it for pairing of a keyboard. The issue is that AirPlay doesn't support bluetooth as a transmission method in its current implementation.
it essentially acts as a remote, your controlling device instructs the chromecast where to stream from, it doesn't actually pull a stream from the controlling device. They said that the device you start streaming from can go to sleep (or, i'm assuming, turn off entirely) and the stream will keep playing.
To answer indirectly, I have Rokus I use for Netflix. I've always wanted freedom to roam Youtube as freely. That would be enough to make me choose this (if my Roku 3 was not a recent purchase).
Has Google been holding full Youtube navigation as a content card against the other dedicated players? (as opposed to media pcs) Is this where they spend it?
Will this bypass the need for a Hulu Plus subscription for TV watching? Hulu plus allows you to watch Hulu on a big screen device in addition to tablets.
I really want to know this as well. I pay for Hulu Plus, but the ads are almost as bad as they are on regular television (that's right, you get ads even when you pay for content).
Screen-casting from the desktop version of Google Chrome is a (beta) browser extension. From 2 mins of Googling (I'm no expert), it looks like you can detect those trivially.
Using a phone app will probably require Hulu Plus. If you open up Hulu in chrome and cast it with the chrome extension, it might work until Hulu figures out a way to detect it.
The device has a microUSB port. The microUSB powers the device. The device plugs into the HDMI port. The device requires a microUSB powered cable to operate while plugged in through HDMI.
I'm sure you aren't their target market. Personally I went for a bare bones TV because I have so many peripheral devices it made sense to keep using those.
Also - Can you stream games and other random apps to your TV? I would assume this would let you in the feature with supported apps.
Sounds like it - Netflix is what, $10/mo? Pulling that off the top of my head. After tax it was ~$42 with basic shipping - so more than half off it sounds like :-)
I've got a "smart TV" and can tell you that the UI they provide is crappy, slooooooooow, glitchy, and hard to navigate, even with the tinsy (yet clever) remote they provided (yes, Vizio, I'm talking to you). However, if you want to get an idea of how this device will operate, try pairing your phone to the YouTube app. Amazing? Yep. So much more useable than a silly remote. Plus, you'll likely be able to watch whatever service makes an app. Boom!
For me, it is the ability to control the TV from my cellphone, tab or mac without dealing with the terrible keyboards on the smart TV remotes (PS3 input is only slightly better).
So it's like an apple tv where you can push streams from your iOS or andriod device (e.g. youtube) but what about browser/app integration?
I would love to be able to create a "widget" that sits on my tv and has internet. I could think of a ton of things. Like snapchat but for videos .. just saying :)
I wish this did a full laptop display mirroring like AirPlay. Looks like this only works with Chrome, so it looks like I can't rent / download a movie on a different service (say iTunes) and play it on my TV.
Oh just wait until the community gets the devices in their hands. I suspect we'll see this feature added in via 3rd party software installed on your PC.
AirPlay is proprietary to Apple. The competing technology that Google (or at least Android) is throwing its support behind is Miracast (which uses WiFi Direct). I don't know if this device supports this kind of streaming, though; I get the impression that the device merely receives URLs from controlling devices, which it connects to directly.
Chromecast will be available for $35 starting Wednesday from Amazon, Google Play and Best Buy. Best Buy will also carry the device in stores later this month.
If it works as advertised, this could be disruptive. They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly the older generation.
Potential for number of apps that could be developed is endless. Apparently, Washington Post is building an app on top of it (http://t.co/dTWesNOoIC). So possibilities are endless. And good news - another step towards making cable TV irrelevant.
P.S. I just bought one. Can't wait to play with it's SDK.
> They made it dead simple to stream content from any device to your TV. So anyone can use it, particularly the older generation.
That's not really new. Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great.
Seems like a decent device, and the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households, but I don't think it's disruptive.
If Microsoft developed the first tablets but Apple perfected it into a disruptive device, couldn't the same hold true for an Airplay to Chromecast corollary?
The NEW disruptive aspects of the new device are the price point, the collaborative playlist aggregation, and the open ecosystem. Airplay was the first to the table in ease of push technology but existing in its own vertical market prevented it from a more widespread adoption.
We'll be looking back on the Chromecast as the device that helped redefine how we addressed the media center form factor.
> Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great.
Not entirely. AirPlay is baked into the OS, so devs don't need to do extra work to support it. Chromecast (or, the Google Cast SDK) is built into the app level, and works in a fundamentally different way (i.e. streams from the internet and allows multi-user queueing vs. streams from the audio/video output of the device).
I don't think it's terribly disruptive - it's essentially AirPlay 2.0 - but it is new.
AirPlay also lets you use the Apple TV as a second window for iOS apps. Basically, you can just create a new UIWindow and assign it to the Apple TV and then it won't mirror your app, it will just display whatever view you have on the screen. It does have some lag time though so its hard to do real time graphics on the Apple TV.
"Streams from the internet" isn't inherently superior. There are things about it that are nice and things about it that are not so nice.
1. it requires the dongle to have equivalent internet access as the 'controlling' device. So it would seem you'd be out of luck if you wanted to stream from a mobile device using a cell modem, to a chromecast on a display in, say, a hotel, conference room or cabin without (unfiltered) wifi access to the internet.
2. sometimes internet-streamed video, even when possible, is far inferior to just soaking some processing power from the mobile device. People who locally-save video content for performance/quality reasons aren't going to be wild about it happily ignoring that local store to pull down a choppy/compressed stream.
3. it seems to limit the stream to codecs the device supports. So one can't likely chromecast from an HTPC that's otherwise perfectly capable of streaming xvid/divx/etc.
multi-user queue-ing is nice. Airplay really should pick that up.
But I'm not at all wild about "it's own internet stream". While the pros are neat in certain situations, the cons are a deal-breaker for me.
the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households
It seems it will work with both Android and iOS apps and with anything that runs the Chrome browser. That is quite a big improvement over the walled garden of Apple TV.
I'm confused about how it works with iOS apps. Does it just act like an AirPlay device? From Safari on iOS, Spotify, etc. there's the AirPlay icon that I can push to switch it to the Apple TV. Or would the apps have to add a different type of button? I didn't realize until now that Chrome is available for iOS. Would you have to switch to that for streaming web videos?
Apps which want to support this would add a 'stream to chromecast' button which would use the Chromecast android/iOS API. (https://developers.google.com/cast/)
It seems to not be possible to stream the web browser from a mobile for now - all the mobile apps in the demo (netflix, google video, youtube) triggered a video download straight to the dongle from the internet, with the mobile effectively being used just as a remote. That's the primary use case. The 'stream a web page a browserdirectly from your computer' bit is still in beta and, AFAICS, currently only works with chrome on Windows/MacOS/chromeOS.
But it's possible it'll be added in future to chrome for iOS/android, and if it is: yes, you'll need to use chrome, the chances of Apple supporting chromecast in safari are... slim.
> Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great.
With Apple-devices only. The majority of the market has non-Apple devices. And that's across a range of product-classes: Desktops, Laptops and mobile devices.
To be able to take advantage of AirPlay you need to be all in all across all those classes. That brings the effective market-share which can use AirPlay (in developed countries) down from around 20% to much less than 5%. In less developed countries, AirPlay is dead code.
This will be a device people can actually use. Do you seriously not consider that a factor in being disruptive?
While there will be exceptions as a rule I'd suggest the older generation have no interest in having to use a phone, tablet or laptop to control their TV.
And my Dad's friends take great pride in the deliberately simple feature phones with as few features as possible.
Smart phone ownership for 60+s is about half what it is for 18 - 36 year olds and I'd wager that engagement levels are proportionately lower too.
I'm not saying no older users will go for this but I think the core users will be younger and will be far, far more likely to be under the 18 - 35 bracket than over (that group being willing to tinker and price sensitive therefore more likely to use Android phones and see the appeal of a $35 device).
Why not? You can't use a TV these days without a remote of some kind, and I believe a software interface on a general purpose device will actually be easier than a remote.
The Chrome and Android teams don't seem to be great bedfellows, it seems - it isn't clear to me what demarcates Chrome-branded products from products running Android in areas far from their original targets.
The GoogleTV g+, twitter etc. feeds, previously pretty active, have been dead since January. My guess is the bulk of the GoogleTV engineering talent left it to make chromecast.
It's $35, but it only offers the Airplay receiver functionality of the Apple TV (I don't think it will do display mirroring of computers and Android devices though).
From what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Chromecast doesn't function as a standalone device. In other words, you need a smartphone/tablet/computer to play things on it. It doesn't have its own interface where you can browse and play content like the Apple TV does.
The fundamental problem I'm trying to solve with this device is streaming youtube to my parents TV. I want something low-tech that they can invoke from their Computer/Android/iOS device and I don't want them to learn a new menu.
The pricepoint is what sold me. AppleTV is too expensive for what it does, and while the power plug is annoying, it's easier than their current solution, which involves leveraging an old PS3 for Netflix playback.
So yeah, this is not a straight up replacement for AppleTV, but it solves the subset of problems I'm looking for.
What you might be looking for, is nowadays positioned as a "smart TV converter box" $60-100. Basically a Android box that has a hdmi/av out, connects to wifi and comes with a remote. I set this up for my parents so they can launch skype on their old TV a couple remote clicks. But turned out they can install apps from google play so they get youtube, news and email too.
Awesome that its so affordable. HTC has a similar device called Media Link HD which costs around $90 and i considered buying it. Chromecast all the way :)
This is useful for educational purposes, too - wirelessly streaming from a chrome browser or chromebook to a projector (via hdmi to vga adapter).
(An alternative if you have a laptop connected to the projector is to run AirServer to act as a virtual Apple TV, and then either airplay from your ipad or run AirParrot from a windows tablet. Of course Chromecast will be the first solution to work from android tablets, too, since Miracast solutions still seem to be non-existent or not so great.)
I'm actually desperately searching for confirmation on whether this devices DOES support Miracast (and screen sharing). My guy is saying "no", since it isn't advertised anywhere. I think this device might only be receiving URIs and control commands from other devices.
323 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 284 ms ] thread"...you will recieve an email with a promotional code for 3 months of Netflix. Offer valid for previous, new and existing Netflix members, one per Netflix account."
I would suspect not.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=chromecast
Click through the confirm prompts to cancel my order from google. Click to buy from amazon, expected delivery date: 22nd of August.
Arrrrrhhhhhhhggggggg
Flick back to the google store tab and find that it has declared that I couldn't cancel my order. Phew.
Successfully cancel my order from amazon.
Exciting!
The Google play store guaranteed shipment by August 7, though, so if Amazon really expects it to arrive by late August, I'll just go with the play store.
Annoying thing is that loads of companies have a large European presence here (Ireland: low corporate taxes, educated English speaking workforce, EU country, plenty of rain(uh wait, that's not a reason)) but then fail to offer their products!
Amazon (originally wouldn't ship Kindle Fires), Google (no Nexuses (Nexi?)) through Play Store. To name but two companies. With a hack (vpn) you can get Google.co.uk to ship Nexi to Ireland but they go via the UK and apparently they start off being shipped from Dublin[1], not good for the ol' planet!
Really good write-up [1] http://richardbloomfield.ie/2013/02/google-nexus-4/
Is this available anywhere but the US? Standard Google...
Edit: The Buy button forwards to the Play store, where it's "out of inventory". They could change the wording to "Sold Out!" and then brag about that.
Edit: The specs at the bottom of the page don't list a battery but it does list an included power adapter, so I guess you have to have that plugged in at all times.
Edit 2: Certain versions[1] of the HDMI spec provide power. It's possible that the USB is a backup solution for older spec'd TVs.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_High-Definition_Link#Fea...
[1] Although if I understood correctly, the dongle depends on another device to connect to the internet. If you setup a DNS on your device that's connected to the dongle, it's likely that you can use Netflix as well.
What the hell is this about a "power cord". The specs and details are totally not clear. Is this not powered by HDMI? If it requires a power cord, these images are deceptive marketing.
It would be a bit messy but perhaps you could have it plugged into both at once and then you won't need an ungainly power cable to a socket.
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/8651907/2013-07-...
However, I'm guessing this device ships with a USB cable + wall wart for everyone else.
This is probably true for current new TVs, but HDMI ports were common on HDTVs before USB ports were, and not everyone replaces their TV every year.
A power cord is included in the box, according to The Verge. You can power it either via one of your TV's USB ports, or an A/C jack: http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/8651957/2013-07-...
You comment made me curious: is it possible for things to be powered by HDMI? There is definitely a 5V pin as part of the HDMI spec, but I can't find a good source for details.
From the "Plug and Play" section:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/assets/common/images/ch...
The only place I see any mention of a power cord is in 10px #d1d1d1 font on a white background.
www.roku.com/streamingstick
it's too bad it can't use MHL power where available and fall back to external. Seems like an obvious feature.
1. https://www.apple.com/appletv/
2. https://www.apple.com/imac/
Why is this even an issue?
Source: http://www.amazon.com/review/RBCJ03NLRAHIF/
Is it that this device acts like an AirPlay receiver of sorts and accepts a video feed from an approved device or is it that the device simply acts as a remote and the device gets its own stream from Internet sources? The latter is much more intriguing than the former, although both have issues for sure, but hard to complain for the price.
It's an interesting concept either way. I don't see it as a huge threat to the Apple TV or Roku, as both do a lot more and have dedicated controllers. Using an Apple TV with an iPhone is nice in some respects, but the wifi connectivity isn't great. A Bluetooth pairing would be exponentially better. It doesn't appear this device uses Bluetooth either.
As I see it, I could envision having an Apple TV or Roku for a main TV and something like this for another TV or for a computer monitor than can support this.
*: It seemed at first to be superb but then I found out that the AppleTV will refuse to play some (most?) content due to DRM restrictions. It's not clear if that's a problem with my HDMI cable or with AirPlay itself - I think AirPlay is simulating an HDMI connection via WiFi.
I find the wifi connection between my iPhone and my Apple TV (via an Airport Extreme) is a bit laggy and sometimes drops. I think it would be a much smoother experience if it paired via Bluetooth 4.0. I'm hoping the next Apple TV includes Bluetooth.
The Remote app is much more usable than the Apple TV remote, but the remote has a lot less lag and is easier to move around the interface with. This hasn't stopped me from using my Apple TV several days a week with just the Remote app, but I think that a Bluetooth connection would be much better.
Has Google been holding full Youtube navigation as a content card against the other dedicated players? (as opposed to media pcs) Is this where they spend it?
Also - Can you stream games and other random apps to your TV? I would assume this would let you in the feature with supported apps.
I think there are already android apps that let you stream stuff to your tv via wifi, I could be thinking about something else.
If you already have netflix, is this device basically half off?
http://live.arstechnica.com/breakfast-with-sundar-at-google/...
I would love to be able to create a "widget" that sits on my tv and has internet. I could think of a ton of things. Like snapchat but for videos .. just saying :)
Bummer.
Because the system seems generic and it could bring AirPlay to any TV.
My guess : Yet another way to consume more medias / using Google services.
Potential for number of apps that could be developed is endless. Apparently, Washington Post is building an app on top of it (http://t.co/dTWesNOoIC). So possibilities are endless. And good news - another step towards making cable TV irrelevant.
P.S. I just bought one. Can't wait to play with it's SDK.
That's not really new. Apple TV lets you do the same thing with AirPlay, and it works great.
Seems like a decent device, and the fact that it works with non-Apple hardware is obviously useful for people who don't have Apple households, but I don't think it's disruptive.
The NEW disruptive aspects of the new device are the price point, the collaborative playlist aggregation, and the open ecosystem. Airplay was the first to the table in ease of push technology but existing in its own vertical market prevented it from a more widespread adoption.
We'll be looking back on the Chromecast as the device that helped redefine how we addressed the media center form factor.
Not entirely. AirPlay is baked into the OS, so devs don't need to do extra work to support it. Chromecast (or, the Google Cast SDK) is built into the app level, and works in a fundamentally different way (i.e. streams from the internet and allows multi-user queueing vs. streams from the audio/video output of the device).
I don't think it's terribly disruptive - it's essentially AirPlay 2.0 - but it is new.
1. it requires the dongle to have equivalent internet access as the 'controlling' device. So it would seem you'd be out of luck if you wanted to stream from a mobile device using a cell modem, to a chromecast on a display in, say, a hotel, conference room or cabin without (unfiltered) wifi access to the internet.
2. sometimes internet-streamed video, even when possible, is far inferior to just soaking some processing power from the mobile device. People who locally-save video content for performance/quality reasons aren't going to be wild about it happily ignoring that local store to pull down a choppy/compressed stream.
3. it seems to limit the stream to codecs the device supports. So one can't likely chromecast from an HTPC that's otherwise perfectly capable of streaming xvid/divx/etc.
multi-user queue-ing is nice. Airplay really should pick that up.
But I'm not at all wild about "it's own internet stream". While the pros are neat in certain situations, the cons are a deal-breaker for me.
It seems it will work with both Android and iOS apps and with anything that runs the Chrome browser. That is quite a big improvement over the walled garden of Apple TV.
It seems to not be possible to stream the web browser from a mobile for now - all the mobile apps in the demo (netflix, google video, youtube) triggered a video download straight to the dongle from the internet, with the mobile effectively being used just as a remote. That's the primary use case. The 'stream a web page a browserdirectly from your computer' bit is still in beta and, AFAICS, currently only works with chrome on Windows/MacOS/chromeOS.
But it's possible it'll be added in future to chrome for iOS/android, and if it is: yes, you'll need to use chrome, the chances of Apple supporting chromecast in safari are... slim.
With Apple-devices only. The majority of the market has non-Apple devices. And that's across a range of product-classes: Desktops, Laptops and mobile devices.
To be able to take advantage of AirPlay you need to be all in all across all those classes. That brings the effective market-share which can use AirPlay (in developed countries) down from around 20% to much less than 5%. In less developed countries, AirPlay is dead code.
This will be a device people can actually use. Do you seriously not consider that a factor in being disruptive?
Assuming they use Chrome or Android, that is...
Well, actually, iOS and OSX devices are supported too.
Ok. Point. Currently (and maybe for the foreseeable future?) there will be some limitations and requirements.
But Chrome can be installed anywhere, for free. You don't have to throw out everything you own and buy new equipment, like Apple requires you to.
If it's a $0 vs $1000 question, I know which one will win.
Being 60 doesn't mean you don't get excited about technology anymore. But it does mean that you have more time to play with it ;)
Smart phone ownership for 60+s is about half what it is for 18 - 36 year olds and I'd wager that engagement levels are proportionately lower too.
I'm not saying no older users will go for this but I think the core users will be younger and will be far, far more likely to be under the 18 - 35 bracket than over (that group being willing to tinker and price sensitive therefore more likely to use Android phones and see the appeal of a $35 device).
Chrome is likely the right name here, it supports most platforms where Chrome runs, not just Android.
From what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Chromecast doesn't function as a standalone device. In other words, you need a smartphone/tablet/computer to play things on it. It doesn't have its own interface where you can browse and play content like the Apple TV does.
The fundamental problem I'm trying to solve with this device is streaming youtube to my parents TV. I want something low-tech that they can invoke from their Computer/Android/iOS device and I don't want them to learn a new menu.
The pricepoint is what sold me. AppleTV is too expensive for what it does, and while the power plug is annoying, it's easier than their current solution, which involves leveraging an old PS3 for Netflix playback.
So yeah, this is not a straight up replacement for AppleTV, but it solves the subset of problems I'm looking for.
That's my $.02.
(An alternative if you have a laptop connected to the projector is to run AirServer to act as a virtual Apple TV, and then either airplay from your ipad or run AirParrot from a windows tablet. Of course Chromecast will be the first solution to work from android tablets, too, since Miracast solutions still seem to be non-existent or not so great.)