Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Are Chromecasts still "Stream from PC/laptop/phone" boxes? Or do they have the ability to run standalone like a Roku etc?
They can run standalone, and they run best standalone. You can still stream from your phone, but it doesn't work as well as the old ones did -- you can only stream from a single youtube or netflix account for instance, rather then just being able to stream whatever to any TV that you're on the network of.
That's an improvement. I never liked the old style of interface and was sticking with Roku (or FireTV on some sets - honestly they both worked fine).
Even though both of those have remote apps I still need the physical remote as I don't want to look at the remote when I'm using it. A screen based remote requires that whereas a traditionally ones once you get used to the feel and location of the buttons you can just use it by feel without looking.
I have the opposite experience, I bought a Hisense TV with google tv built in and it works great for me, never had any issues with it, but I also only use it for the jellyfin app.
"...two years after Google launched a $49 Chromecast with 4K HDR streaming support...The new Chromecast supports 1080p streaming..."
"...two years after Google launched a $49 Chromecast with 4K HDR streaming support...The new Chromecast supports 1080p streaming..."
Well I see the fashionable trend of re-defining words continues. I take it this is what we're calling an "upgrade" now?
Realistically, the two-year old $49 superior model should have probably dropped to $30 by now, depreciating like all other tech does.
No, we're calling it "new" and "cheaper"
The summary says the 2 year old, more costly chromecast is 4K while the newer, cheaper model is only 1080p.
That's correct, so that's why the newer one isn't being called an "upgrade"
I didn't see the word "upgrade" in the summary, or in the linked article. Are you inventing a complaint?
It's a cheaper unit, with a lower set of specs. If Google is claiming it as an upgrade, I can't find it.
I didn't see the word "upgrade" in the summary, or in the linked article. Are you inventing a complaint?
I didn't see the word "upgrade" in the summary, or in the linked article. Are you inventing a complaint?
No, I'm more questioning depreciation. The two-year old 4K unit should have dropped to $30 by now, and the new hardware should probably be as good or better, as defined by what consumers have come to expect.
It's a cheaper unit, with a lower set of specs. If Google is claiming it as an upgrade, I can't find it.
It's a cheaper unit, with a lower set of specs. If Google is claiming it as an upgrade, I can't find it.
Given the fact that this is almost a worthless device without a consumer bringing $XX amount of streaming services to it, perhaps the streaming pimps should have done the logical thing and given the hardware away for free.
And as far as cheaper goes, downgrading back to 1080p (Hello, 2008 TV) doesn't j
Because it's a cheaper model too. If you don't need 4K support, why pay the premium for it? Same with Roku, I went with one that wasn't 4K.
I found the Onn 4K Android TV [walmart.com] box from Walmart to be a decent device. It supports 4K video, Dolby audio, Chromecasting, and a voice remote for just $19.88
I used it for over a year and I'm happy with it, but I haven't used any other streaming devices to compare it to. My Samsung TV recognizes it as an AnyNet+ device so my generic universal remote's key presses are passed to the device. I side loaded SmartTube onto it so I can watch YouTube videos while it automatically skips the ads, sponsor segment, and
... Just Smart TV surveillance by other means?
No remote was the major reason why I went with Amazon Firestick instead.
Being forced to do it isn't a feature, though being able to do it is.
The early chromecast I had borrowed from a friend didn't have a remote so you had to use your phone which was a horrible way to control stuff. Doorbell rings, need to pause, so fumble with the phone, swipe to unlock, swipe again because you weren't steady enough, touch a button but you missed because it was too small and you hit fast forward instead, and bleh... Microwave dings because your tv snack is ready, and ti's the same fumbling again. Phone-only only works if you're the sort that can press play and then not need to do anything else for the next hour. If you like it, great, but for those who don't like it then it's an anti-feature to not have a remote.
It's a totally minor thing, but just to help out - TVs that support CEC control via HDMI will also pass back their play/pause/next commands from the TV remote to a Chromecast.
The whole idea that you can reuse the same product name over and over again without a series number that makes it clear which one you're talking about is maddening. Just put the year into the product name already.
Windows 95, then 2000, then XP, then back to 8, then skip 9 and head to 10, which is the last version evarrr, but then 11. Next version will likely be called Windows Semiquincentennial (in the US).
It's even better than that:
Windows 2000 is version 5.0 Windows XP is version 5.1 Windows Vista is version 6.0 Windows 7 is version 6.1 Windows 8 is version 6.2 Windows 8.1 is version 6.3 Windows 10 is version 10.0 Windows 11 is version 10.0.22000
You seemed to have successfully forgotten about Windows CE and ME. Now you have to go into therapy again. You're welcome.
When I see a price tag of just $30, I think "How are they making any money on this?", and the answer is always "Me and my data".
Especially from Google (but also from Amazon) I just really don't like the thought of devices micro-analyzing every second of video I watch.
It's not as simple, they do sell movies, they run ads on their Youtube platform, they sell Youtube TV that runs on this. They might charge some app providers for access or charge in-app purchases just like Apple does...
I think it makes users more likely to subscribe to Google Play rather than just sticking with Netflix or Hulu. You don't have to login to use the Chromecast (or at least you didn't in the past as I recall, and no ads either).
I think it makes users more likely to subscribe to Google Play rather than just sticking with Netflix or Hulu.
I'm not sure about that, maybe it makes rentals more likely but I see way more reason to subscribe to Netflix or Hulu than Google Play - and I don't even keep subscriptions to those services for very long anymore either.
That probably is part of the reason why they produce it for a low cost though, with that hope.
Google Play is like Apple's whatever thingy (itunes but not tunes). You can rent or buy movies there. The big market for Apple TV player is for people who have a preexisting set of purchased content that only the Apple TV player supports. Likewise, there are people who have bought content on Google Play. I know it sounds a bit crazy, but...
The big market for Apple TV player is for people who have a preexisting set of purchased content
Even Apple's stuff though now has a lot of original content, and you get free service for a while when you buy any Apple product... I know iTunes the rental part is distinct (and in fact I think it's confusing how it's still distinct) but I can see more people wanting a way to easily play Apple content on a TV just because of the free content they would get.
I wouldn't have said that when they first started out
"When I see a price tag of just $30, I think "How are they making any money on this?", and the answer is always "Me and my data"."
You might think that, but you're SuperKendall, you don't really think anyway. Meanwhile, there are things known as "complementary goods", when you grow up you might learn about them. Chromecasts are complementary products for Google.
"Especially from Google (but also from Amazon) I just really don't like the thought of devices micro-analyzing every second of video I watch."
However it's good for "casting" from a different device. Put the media on a phone or tablet. I think that was the original point of the first Chromecast. There are other media platforms that let you use external media but they will cost a bit more since most of these cheaper streaming devices want to have minimal hardware cost and be "streaming sticks".
That's not as annoying as the shield tube, which doesn't even have a USB port. My google-equipped TV has two. The gaming performance is beyond unacceptable though, they must have actually put a dorito in there, yuk yuk. No wait, they're made in Qingdao, it's probably a shrimp chip. Great with Tsingtao.
a content suggested tab called ‘For You'
a content suggested tab called ‘For You'
Google needs to introduce a model with more storage. I have external USB drives on all of my Chromecast with Google TV devices because they are out of room to install apps.
Network filesystem support would be nice. Apps can get to cifs shares via libsmb but it would be nice if there were OS-level support so all the apps could benefit from the same credentials. (And a matching permission to prevent them from taking advantage of it without your consent, obv.)
Eventually Android will have all the features that were already in all the desktop Linux distributions, and then the cycle can renew
The way I see it is I can attach a computer to the TV or I can attach one of these and half a dozen other things to get the same level of functionality.
Which is why attaching computers to TVs has been so wildly successful in the market.
This may come as a shock to you, but some people live in households with more than one TV, and even more than one person! Some people have more TVs than computers! Some people have the computer in a different place than the TV! Some people consider it stupid to have a several hundred (at least) dollar device doing what a $30 one can do (more conveniently).
Not to be argumentative but your answer is uninformative, non responsive and rather belligerent. The cost of a computer is around $100.00 to $150.00 for a device that does the job and many others.
What's more you still need a computer of some sort to drive the damn Chromecast, so what is the point ?
No, you do not 'need a computer of some sort to drive the damn Chromecast'. And even if you did (as you did in the past), the 'computer of some sort' would be a phone or tablet, neither of which I want to connect to the TV, both because of the cabling involved and the fact that I want to use the 'computer of some sort' for a different purpose at the same time as I am watching TV.
The way I see it is I can attach a computer to the TV or I can attach one of these and half a dozen other things to get the same level of functionality.
The way I see it is I can attach a computer to the TV or I can attach one of these and half a dozen other things to get the same level of functionality.
Picture a TV in the living room and a couch some distance away. You can indeed hook a computer to it but then how do you control it? The computer is too far away from the couch to reach the keyboard.
You could use a very long video cable but an HDMI cable that long isn't cheap and it is a tripping hazard.
But, let's say you did it anyway. Now you have a laptop taking up space on your couch all so you can control it with an awkward interface. Is this really worth it to save $30?
I've still got the original one. Works fine and is connected via Ethernet, so saved me $30 anyway.
Tablet with mouse without borders or equivalent one to many control software same goes for phone. I can walk through my house controlling virtually everything this way.
Thanks that's been the best response I have had so far. I can see the use case for presentations in public venues but not so much in the home.
The new feature seems like a ROKU.
Yes. Or you can do like I do: install kodi directly on the chromecast and use it to watch your media collection stored somewhere else and shared through nfs.
Since it is no longer tied to a phone, it doesn't have access to the phone's browser. Yet, there is the occasional need to access web content that doesn't have a dedicated app. I have found that web browsers are surprisingly uncommon features of set-top boxes and smart TVs. My 7-year-old Samsung TV has a browser but it hasn't been updated in who knows how long so newer/more complicated pages sites often won't load properly.
You can still cast from a phone, like you did before. But it's basically android, so yes, you can install a browser on it. I installed ungoogled-chromium on mine from f-droid. And guess what ? Since it's android, I can pair a bluetooth mouse and keyboard with it, making it a very basic computer.
I also installed kodi, that I use to watch my movie library stored on an external USB drive plugged into my openwrt router and shared through nfs.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Facebook Report: Censorship Violated Palestinian Rights
T-Mobile 5G Is Linking Wildfire-Detecting AI Cameras To Put Out Fires Faster
"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities." -- Robin Williams, _Good Morning Vietnam_