Page 1 / 2   >   >>
gconnery 7/29/2013 | 7:03:52 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run Yeah, that could be a problem. I may have to set up my laptop as a Wi-Fi access point, which already puts it past most people I guess...
gconnery 7/29/2013 | 7:02:16 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run Sure. It all sounds good. All sounds like it should happen. But hey, remember Miracast? Remember when Google announced they were building support for it into Android 4.2 Jelly Bean? Remember that back in November last year Miracast was going to be their Air Play competitor? Remember that?

Does anybody talk about Miracast anymore?

Have you seen a lot of TVs come out with Miracast built in? Can you name a streaming box that supports it?

Seen an article that mentioned it?

If Google works on this and app developers support it, this has a shot. If they don't, and they forget about it like they did Miracast, then it won't.

It isn't a given yet. The price point SHOULD create a huge market opportunity that forces developers to support it. Maybe.

Roku says nobody who isn't a tech head is going to want this. Normal people want a remote control. Etc. He's probably just hoping that's true. But it might be.

Let's wait and see.
msilbey 7/29/2013 | 11:49:16 AM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run Not blind faith, Fanfoot, but huge potential here. The app ecosystem exists, and it's cheap enough to be a stocking stuff.
swattz101 7/27/2013 | 3:56:36 AM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run The current available apps are set up to let you use your mobile device or chrome browser act as a remote for the ChromeCast, but the ChromeCast ultimately pulls the stream directly. This is for Netflix, YouTube, Google Play Movies, and a few others in the works, such as Pandora.

When it comes to casting tabs from Chrome, it works a little different. While you can cast just about, some are optimized for ChromeCast. (Netflix & YouTube initially.) These pages will "cast" just like the apps and stream directly from ChromeCast. Non-optimized pages are more like a mirror and will not work us well. As far as I know, pages that require plugins will not work either.

As for using ChromeCast in a hotel room, there may be issues depending on how the wifi is set up. If the access point has any kind of security to prevent you from seeing devices from other guest rooms, your devices may not be able to see each other either.

This is my understanding from what I have read about ChromeCast so far. I'm still trying to decide if I want to buy one or wait for the rumored new GoogleTV with ChromeCast and the built in camera.
DanJonesLRMobile 7/26/2013 | 9:42:13 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run I don't actually know what the ad situation with Chromecast is though, not really my area, I'm the mobile guy. But yeah, maybe its their way to serve ads without cable control.
redface 7/26/2013 | 9:38:10 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run I think Google could have given the ChromeCast away for free instead of charging $35 for it. Maybe they want to stress the impression that this stick is dirt cheap. If they can sell ads on ChromeCast, it pays for itself in no time.

I wonder how it works with stereo receivers. A lot of home theaters have stereo receivers so that the sound effect is not limited by the puny speakers that the TVs come with. I bet when the ChromeCast is hooked up to the stereo receivers, one loses the ability to turn on the TV from the smartphone. But it would be OK if it does.
gconnery 7/26/2013 | 5:58:31 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run The innovation here is that its from Google and it costs $35! Let's not underplay this either. This is VERY important. It could still be just another competitor in the TV space, selling a few million units--which means it doesn't change ANYTHING. At its current sell rate the Apple TV or the Roku box aren't threats to Cable. This MIGHT sell in the kind of numbers that could start to change that but we'll see.

If it let you watch free Hulu on your TV without issue (I say it won't), it would be a bigger deal. If the tab projection didn't have audio sync and lag issues (maybe they'll fix that) it would be a bigger deal. When it has more app support, it'll be a bigger deal--its not like that Plair device is going to get a lot of app support...

Personally I'm going to try it out in Hotel Rooms. Small enough to take with you. Plays Netflix. I'll try watching Orange is the new Black that way and see how it goes. But these are cheap enough I may pick one up for each TV in my house.
fivebuckchuck 7/26/2013 | 2:02:39 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run what's the innovation here ? replacing a HDMI cable with Wi-Fi ? really ?

Not to mention, http://home.plair.com/ has already been doing this for an year .. AND more ..as plair re-routes powerpoint presentations as well .. so .. it is good for offices too !
gconnery 7/26/2013 | 6:01:55 AM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run Mari, you're better than this. Such blind faith. Really?

Look, I've already ordered one. But I'm as certain as you that this will all work out perfectly.

The Apps are very limited right now. Will companies support it? $35 should mean a nice installed base in short order I would think. But let's see. Even with that there could be reasons companies won't support it. Remember how all the media companies blocked the Google TV?

The browser is an embedded version. Yes with flash. Yes with some DRM support as req'd by Netflix. But it won't let Showtime Anywhere work for example. It requires you to install a plugin. You can't add new codecs to ChromeCast.

Google has been clear that they won't lie with the user agent. If a company wants to block their content from playing, Google wont stop them.

The Chrome tab play thing? Early reviews sound not so great, but hey, it's Beta. Lets give it time.

Sarah Thomas 7/25/2013 | 6:20:39 PM
re: Chromecast Gives Google a Home Run I was contemplating a Netflix subscription already. Seeing as this comes with 3 free months, it's even more of a no brainer. Ordering it now!
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In