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 ?
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.
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.
Apple TV is 3x the price and doesn't work well outside of the Apple eco-system (you can watch Netflix, but other than that you'll want an iOS device or Mac).
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.
Surely low margins are a reason for Google to licence this out?
It seems to be using the DIAL protocol anyway, which is intended for smart TV and plug in devices. And if you hit the "cast" button you'll also see listed any Mira-cast devices. So this mostly seems to be about making Android, and Chrome more desirable targets for video content, not an attempt to monopolise the video sending dongle market.
Right, good point. Licensing to third-party manufacturers makes sense for them. I was thinking about third-party applications (which it seems they've already opened the protocol up to. never mind...)
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?
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.
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.
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 $900 - they don't even offer a version without apps as far as I know.
There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
As I said, I agree with your comment that the software is the good part (or magic as you call it).
The magic word comment was about the TC writer expression about the hardware of the device, which is not that magic in my opinion.
Right out of the box, no I can't.
Downloading an android app to do some sort of airplay I could probably do it.
My comment was just to let ppl know that for the same 35 bucks you probably could have been doing the same thing since last year.
The SDK part is interesting in the other hand, and I will get a Chromecast to see how that works.
23 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 51.9 ms ] threadIt 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 $35 in a usable form. Nearest competitor is Roku, who has a slightly better box -- one with an interface for selecting sources, pause and fast forward and rewind -- for about twice the price, and a nicer one for three times the price.
My guess is that they won't --- I expect the margins on this are low or non-existent, and it anyway would be very unlike google to attempt to make money out of this as a hardware product.
It's clearly a strategy to sneak the web onto the TV. There seems to be little incentive for google to extend it to mobile apps, where they make substantially less from advertising.
Also, I have no idea why Apple haven't released a similar dongle purely for airplay streaming. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
It seems to be using the DIAL protocol anyway, which is intended for smart TV and plug in devices. And if you hit the "cast" button you'll also see listed any Mira-cast devices. So this mostly seems to be about making Android, and Chrome more desirable targets for video content, not an attempt to monopolise the video sending dongle market.
Where it allows Android/iOS/ChromeOS/MacOS/Windows developers to integrate a little code into their apps to make it very easy to send stuff to a TV w/Chromecast?
Just buy the biggest TV you can afford that doesn't have 3D nor Smart TV or other features. You'll get your money's worth.
Don't want to buy a ps3? Just connect it to your laptop or computer. Or buy a raspberry pi and run Linux. Or chromecast of course.
But I do agree with you about 3D. :)
There are a lot of "smart TV converter" boxes running android being sold for ~100$. 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.
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.
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.