Google Breaks ChromeCast's Ability To Play Local Content

sfcrazy writes "Bad news for all ChromeCast users who were thinking of being able to stream local content to their HD TVs. Google has pushed an update for ChromeCast which has broken support for third-party apps like AirCast (AllCast) which allow users to 'stream' local files from their devices to ChromeCast connected TV sets."

Comments

Well that's that

[dorfed]

Why am I not surprised Google?

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I not surprised Google?

Because removing features from already purchased hardware seems to OK with manufacturers. If they aren't getting something extra from you using it for your own purposes then they'll take that away from you. Bless their hearts.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly I am surprised in this case. Being able to stream content is a selling point with broad appeal, unlike say Other OS on the PS3 which was only used by a tiny fraction of PS3 owners.

Re:Well that's that

[utkonos]

They definitely don't want you to be able to stream your own content. There's a chance that your own content includes pirated stuff, so that will never happen.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

no.. it's that there's a chance you won't buy, rent, or subscribe to any media through their store or one operated by one of their partners.. it's all about the money.. google's money, they don't give a shit about piracy, exactly.. they don't want you playing local content at all, legit or not, when there's perfectly good pay-for media available through the device for which google gets their cut.

Re:Well that's that

[nurb432]

Not only that, but sometimes the government REQUIRES them to do it.

And don't forget removing content too,....

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is yet another reason my router doesn't allow connections out from "devices" on my network.

Re:Well that's that

[Stumbles]

Oh man and I was just about to pull the trigger on one of those. Am I soooooo glad that did not happen, I would be pissed as hell. Guess what Google; you get zero clams from me.

Re:Well that's that

[aklinux]

I don't remember Google ever advertising the ability to play local content. Allcast essentially reverse engineered their own, undocumented, API. To the best of my knowledge, the device still does everything Google advertises.

Re:Well that's that

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Don't be EVIL..."

Never, NEVER use anything by these crooks.

Google and the NSA: Who's holding the 'shit-bag' now?

by Julian Assange

It has been revealed today, thanks to Edward Snowden, that Google and other US tech companies received millions of dollars from the NSA for their compliance with the PRISM mass surveillance system.

So just how close is Google to the US securitocracy? Back in 2011 I had a meeting with Eric Schmidt, the then Chairman of Google, who came out to see me with three other people while I was under house arrest. You might suppose that coming to see me was gesture that he and the other big boys at Google were secretly on our side: that they support what we at WikiLeaks are struggling for: justice, government transparency, and privacy for individuals. But that would be a false supposition. Their agenda was much more complex, and as we found out, was inextricable from that of the US State Department. The full transcript of our meeting is available online through the WikiLeaks website.

The pretext for their visit was that Schmidt was then researching a new book, a banal tome which has since come out as The New Digital Age. My less than enthusiastic review of this book was published in the New York Times in late May of this year. On the back of that book are a series of pre-publication endorsements: Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Michael Hayden (former head of the CIA and NSA) and Tony Blair. Inside the book Henry Kissinger appears once again, this time given pride of place in the acknowledgements.

Schmidt's book is not about communicating with the public. He is worth $6.1 billion and does not need to sell books. Rather, this book is a mechanism by which Google seeks to project itself into Washington. It shows Washington that Google can be its partner, its geopolitical visionary, who will help Washington see further about America's interests. And by tying itself to the US state, Google thereby cements its own security, at the expense of all competitors.

Two months after my meeting with Eric Schmidt, WikiLeaks had a legal reason to call Hilary Clinton and to document that we were calling her. It's interesting that if you call the front desk of the State Department and ask for Hillary Clinton, you can actually get pretty close, and we've become quite good at this. Anyone who has seen Doctor Strangelove may remember the fantastic scene when Peter Sellers calls the White House from a payphone on the army base and is put on hold as his call gradually moves through the levels. Well WikiLeaks journalist Sarah Harrison, pretending to be my PA, put through our call to the State Department, and like Peter Sellers we started moving through the levels, and eventually we got up to Hillary Clinton's senior legal advisor, who said that we would be called back.

Shortly afterwards another one of our people, WikiLeaks' ambassador Joseph Farrell, received a call back, not from the State Department, but from Lisa Shields, the then girlfriend of Eric Schmidt, who does not formally work for the US State Department. So let's reprise this situation: The Chairman of Google's girlfriend was being used as a back channel for Hillary Clinton. This is illustrative. It shows that at this level of US society, as in other corporate states, it is all musical chairs.

That visit from Google while I was under house arrest was, as it turns out, an unofficial visit from the State Department. Just consider the people who accompanied Schmidt on that visit: his girlfriend Lisa Shields, Vice President for Communications at the CFR; Scott Malcolmson, former senior State Department advisor; and Jared Cohen, advisor to both Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, a kind of Generation Y Kissinger figure -- a noisy Quiet American as the author Graham Greene might have put it.

Google started out as part of Californian graduate student culture around San Francisco's Bay Area. But as Goo

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the cola wars were far more destructive. Canada still has yet to recover from them.

Re:Well that's that

[DragonTHC]

Because some apps have a policy whereby they won't work if a second display or HDMI is enabled. And this would get around that.

Such as my comcast app not working if HDMI is plugged in.

While content owners have a right to determine who has access to their content, choosing where in my home is a step too far.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. The headline should be "Google breaks Allcast use of Chromecast in unintended ways." It's much less remarkable when you realize that the ability to play local content was not an intended or advertised feature of the Chromecast(although it should be).

Re:Well that's that

[ifiwereasculptor]

Android TV sticks seem to be a much better proposal than Chromecasts, anyway, especially at the same price. And some of them run Linux. Which is a godsend, because after this, I'm finally starting to get truly wary about Android.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

They did not remove a feature, they fixed a bug that was being exploited by third parties to do unintended things. Huge, huge, huge difference.

Re:Well that's that

[viperidaenz]

Perhaps its something to do with the fact Google never said you could stream local content.

All they've done is change an undocumented, unsupported API that third parties have been using.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

or just maybe having multiple ways of getting content to your Chromecast has presented their support people with lots of "WTH are you going?" scenarios and/or they have some plans to enable local content.

I don't know if those other mechanisms use the Google SDK for creating the apps and serving up the files and if not then again it would not seem unusual that they try and put a stop to hacks anybody and his mother can install.

So until someone provides proof of why they are doing this, speculating they are evil sounds like something Steve Ballmer would say.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

pissed as hell? for a $35 dongle because they're blocking hacks to get local files sent? Call the Whhhhhaaaaaamulance!

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Except now they removed the only feature that would convince me to use one over my blu ray player (which is almost never used to play blu rays but instead local content and netflix).

Re:Well that's that

[tibman]

This really shouldn't have been modded troll. He brought up a good point and should be argued with, not buried.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be the "Whhhhhaaaaaambulance" with a "b". I was laughing so much I missed a key.

Re:Well that's that

[sd4f]

Bit off topic, but;

Sometimes i've wondered. There's so much espionage around, and so much information that can potentially be gathered, surely these spy agencies have people who are the beneficiaries of industrial espionage? or even information come across by chance. I get the feeling that there just has to be a bit of you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back when corporations, or even individuals get into bed with the spooks.

What does google get in return? If they're prepared to hand over data to the likes of the NSA, what do they do with the data themselves? Are their privacy policies worth anything at all?

Re:Well that's that

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And financial market manipulation. And drug trafficking.

The mind reels.

Re:Well that's that

[93 Escort Wagon]

That's fine; but if the comparison is going to be made to Roku or Apple TV... this is one additional item they've got checked off and Chromecast doesn't.

Whether or not that matters to a potential buyer is the question - it certainly matters to me.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Android's open source. You can see it's safe & recompile at will, which Cyanogenmod & Paranoid Android does for you. But whatever comes installed by default is more questionable.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it is advertised as allowing 3rd party apps. As a consumer, that is a feature I take into consideration. As part of my evaluation to buy or not, I see that feature and take into account 3rd applications that are available. Not every consumer can look at the details of _how_ those 3rd party application were implemented.

This is where maybe a walled garden model like Apple makes sense where there is _less_ likelihood of undesirable features going live via 3rd party apps and then consumers making purchasing decision and getting burnt after the fact when they pull support for those 3rd party apps. Not saying it won't happen in the Apple model, just less so.

Re:Well that's that

[AmiMoJo]

In other words there is no evidence they deliberately tried to break it, they just made a change to their private API that happened to interfere with it. The same thing has happened a few times to people using undocumented Google APIs, like the guy from a few years back claiming that Google deliberately broke his tracking-free search mash-up site when in fact they just retired an ancient Palm version of their homepage he was parsing.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the people behind Google really are trying to make the world a better place.
Sacrificing individuals in the big picture? I'll gladly stand up and take a shot to the chest if that means some real change.

The people who choose to perpetuate a regime they believe is ethically and morally wrong are the ones who will pay for it, through their own feelings of guilt.
Doing what you believe to be right, through understanding and compassion, can make the world a better place.

Captcha: rhapsody

Re:Well that's that

[randomErr]

You mean something like this?

Der Spiegel said the European Union and the UNâ(TM)s Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were among those targeted by US intelligence agents.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/us-spy-agency-bugged-un-headquarters-der-spiegel-reports-1.1505184

The original der Spiegel article talked about how the IMF and other corporations were also bugged.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps its something to do with the fact Google never said you could stream local content.

All they've done is change an undocumented, unsupported API that third parties have been using.

Which probably (hopefully) means, all these 3rd party apps have to do is be rewritten for the new API. Problem solved, conspiracy averted.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldnt agree with you more.... Everyone seem to be moving in the same direction here. Sell you a device, then restrict said device to their own content sources. You get the profits from the hardware, and then the long term reoccurring from the rentals.

So much for "selling" you the hardware when its restricted to their pay-per-use services. If this is the model they want to adopt, they should either rent the device (they seem to think they own it after it was sold anyhow) or give it away and earn money on the rentals.

Re:Well that's that

[cjjjer]

Actually I am surprised that Google turned this off and just didn't hard-wire serving up ads during local content being played. Seems more like the Google thing to do.

Re:Well that's that

[Billly Gates]

no.. it's that there's a chance you won't buy, rent, or subscribe to any media through their store or one operated by one of their partners.. it's all about the money.. google's money, they don't give a shit about piracy, exactly.. they don't want you playing local content at all, legit or not, when there's perfectly good pay-for media available through the device for which google gets their cut.

NFL CEO: "... phone rings

Schmidt: Hello

NFL CEO: Hey Schmidt, what is this crap I hear that your device is an illegal circumvention device designed to steal money from me, but obeying my wishes to rip off consumers!

Schmidt: Google Cast is just a simple device to enable streaming. It is not different than someone using a webcam and uploading their own videos to where ever he or she wants.

NFL CEO: What?! This could pirated content and would mean I can't fucking scalp my users at the stadiums! My shareholders will have a fucking fit. Fix it now!

Schmidt: No

NFL CEO: SCHMIDT!!! You know it would be a shame if somehow we used DRM flags in our content to make your device useless. Under the DMCA your device must obey our shareholder wishes. I have friends in CNN, NBC, Universal, and others who would happily make your device useless. I guess we can work with Apple and Microsoft instead. They too understand the meaning of protected intellectual property.

Schmidt: Oh yes oh great masters. We would never want to make the great cartel of the MPAA and NFL unhappy. We want to build a successful relationship

NFL CEO: Grins. Ok very good then. Do what you need to do then to make it happen. FYI how would you like some private rooms at the SuperBowl next year for your family for being so nice to us?

Google is not the evil one here but, but the broadcasters. Remember the NFL with every media mongul on the planet wrote the DMCA and just had the senators approve it and rubber stamp it!

If Google will not play nice and suck it then they will use the DMCA and DRM to ban the device and will sue and arrest any Google developer who wont obey them. This my friends is why we opposed the DMCA back in 2000. If you didn't write your senators back then tough shit you deserved this law for not standing up to yourself.

Until Google is powerful enough to make its own content the content owners have IP laws, DMCA, and use monopoly powers over companies like Google. A ruined relationship with them is death. Microsoft would happily comply if Google wont and then people will bitch and whine how the Chromecast wont stream their favorite football games.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's fixed, he's at +5 now, but there are some REALLY bad moderations today. I think I'll metamoderate when I get home and can log in. Some people should NEVER get mod points.

Re:Well that's that

[Jmac217]

They actually specified that Chromecast would NOT be able to play local content from the very beginning. I guess their original code allowed for that, but it was never intentional. It makes sense that their first update would be to stop local content, which I find to be pretty dumb, but probably easily hackable. If you guys need to use "Chromecast"s functionality, I'd recommend keeping an eye on applications like CheapCast. They're working to put Chromecast functionality into Android. I only heard of them fromt Linux Action Show and haven't tried them, but things seem promising.

Re:Well that's that

[jodosh]

It would be suprising if this didn't happen. the API for 3rd party aps is still in beta and to sign up for the dev program right now tell you this sdk is for dev purposes right now and not production use.. ( https://developers.google.com/cast/downloads/ ) Eventually I expect the ability to cast content from my android devices, but for right now Google has been very clear to devs the state the cast is in right now.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

there is an official chrome cast API coming out. Someone will write an app to play local files. This particular app just happens to have been broken by an update, because it doesn't use the official APIs.

Re:Well that's that

[interkin3tic]

That article was basically that powerful people at google have ties with powerful people in the government. While that's important to keep an eye on, it's also worth noting that the government has ties with powerful people everywhere. Google isn't unique. And it's clear that the NSA et al will keep an eye on you no matter what phone you have.

I think boycotting based on privacy could help make the tech companies slightly more resistant to handing our data over to the government, but we still need to scale back the government's spying addiction, and we can't rely on companies to help us there.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

"Don't be EVIL..."

Never, NEVER use anything by these crooks.

How to tell if someone cares about your well-being or their own:
Are they trying to sell you something? Then they only care about making dat money.

This is in no way limited exclusively to any one single organization of any kind.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in: devices that cost less have fewer features

Re:Well that's that

[P-niiice]

And a huge number of people have bought the device and love it. Certainly it's not the device it could be, but it does what it says it does. Calling people who own this "Lemmings" and "Sheeple" is bullshit - the got what they paid for. I have plenty of ways to get local and internet content to my TV so i don't need a chromecast, and I understand the frustration at having a nice hack blocked by Google, but don't insult people who paid good money and got what they paid for.

Re:Well that's that

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'm sure the powerful are grateful for your apologetic.

Google are in a unique, panopticon position.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand what you are saying.. and that's the common knowledge.

But let's look at it differently.

I bought something. That something now no longer does what it did when I bought it.

If we were talking about any kind of physical device, this would be absurd - although to modify a physical device, we'd have to allow someone to do said modifications... and if we were using it for a non-standard purpose, we'd consider that up front.
With software updates, it gets harder to control. Yes, we probably agreed to the updates - but there is possibly no way to go back either. Whoever is managing the software is being given control over how I use that device in the future.. and that's sketchy.

Re:Well that's that

[rsborg]

Google isn't unique.

This would seem to be the salient point from your response. And a rude awakening for many Fandroids.

Google, like Apple, Amazon and many others (Microsoft doesn't make my list because people knew they were money grabbers from day 1) are only interested in making money. Not changing the world (despite how visionary founders seem to convince us otherwise). This is ok - as long as you don't excuse any of their misbehaviors by citing their "vision". Let every action speak for itself. When Google decided it was ok to support anti-environment anti-science nujob neocons like OK SEN Coburn, I pretty much figured they would cave to the media industry quickly and compromise all their offerings like the Chromecast to suit the MAFIAA (GoogleTV, while capable, proved a failure and they "learned a lesson"). Apple and Amazon caved a long time ago.

Seems the only company recently worth the hype is Tesla, whose future seems reliant on disrupting our entire fossil-fuel consumer vehicle industry.

Re:Well that's that

[interkin3tic]

Unique? Perhaps unique for a private corporation, but I'm more worried about the NSA's ability to see everything I do, so I'm suggesting we take care of the bigger threat first.

If that's too pro-google for you, then I'd suggest you're too concerned about corporate branding and need to care more about big government.

Re:Well that's that

[houghi]

It should not be relevant if it was advertised or even if it was a known feature. What happens now is that manufacturers are saying : I have changed it, pray I don't alter it any further.

Sure, they will get away with it because of the above excuse you mentioned, but that does not make it right.

Re:Well that's that

[eclectro]

Google will have to update their quarterly earnings:

"Slashdot user Stumbles decided not to buy Chromecast today, which caused us to take a $35 hit to profits. We had to go and dig some change out of Sergey's couch cushions in his office."

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the added code is literally "if not a chrome tab -> return null" This serves no purpose except to prevent other apps from talking to the ChromeCast - this is clearly deliberate.

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

they just made a change to their private API that happened to interfere with it.

Fuck this private API shit, it wasnt OK when Microsoft did it in their software and it isnt OK for Google to do it either! Or Apple for that matter! But the apologists will surely respond with "but its OK because Google isnt a monopoly" well that doesnt change the *fact* that the behavior is the same!

Re:Well that's that

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't an undocumented API, Google released an example app as part of the SDK that used the same API call.

more like

[the_fat_kid]

bad news for Google, who was hoping that I would buy such a thing.

Re:more like

[dorfed]

Well, I wanted it for netflix because my wife keeps nagging me about a way to watch it on the telly. Of course I'd prefer a XBMC plugin, but that seems impossible or at least impractical today. But when they pull crap like this, it turns me off the whole product. I guess my "smart" LG tv could have done it too, but LG can't be bothered with catering to existing customers.

Re:more like

[The Good Reverend]

Get a Roku. Cheap and awesome, and it'll go with you if you switch TVs or upgrade.

Re:more like

[utkonos]

Do you have a Roku? You can't stream your own content with Roku either, so it essentially the same, just a different manufacturer.

Re:more like

[dugancent]

You can with Plex.

Re: more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Plex

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm pretty sure the roku has the plex app which lets you stream your own content

Re:more like

[dorfed]

I have XBMC for all that, that's not my issue. My issue is with software having artificial limitations, I hate that. But thanks for the Roku tip, I'm looking into it right now.

Re:more like

[peragrin]

so far the only thing I can't do on roku is youtube.

Plex lets you stream your own movies, and both the IOS and andriod roku apps not only allow you to control the roku box but stream local music and pictures from it.

Re: more like

[Anonymous Coward]

plex has a YouTube channel. problem solved.

Re: more like

[bennettvonbennett353]

plex has a YouTube channel. problem solved.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Roku owner here, Roku's WIFI sucks. I opened it up and added an external antenna, now I at least get a consistent "poor" signal instead of flickering in and out signal. For the money avoid the Roku, go with an Android powered HDMI stick and install whatever apps you want.

Re:more like

[The Good Reverend]

Your experience isn't standard - I've got three of them, no wifi problems at all. Like everything, they're subject to interference, so you might want to move it around and see if that solves your problem.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Others have mentioned plex but there are also some DLNA channels for it, I use chaneru.

Re:more like

[BrokenSoldier]

You can with PlayOn, as well.

Re:more like

[Curtman]

This box is great for running XBMC http://dx.com/p/android-4-0-google-tv-player-w-wi-fi-1gb-ram-4gb-rom-black-164039 Here's a great firmware for it: http://www.j1nx.nl/downloads/?category=6

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that me streaming music from my cell phone to the Roku3 isn't streaming my own content?

Cause uh, I did that all afternoon today.

And that's even outside of Plex!

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

I too have had three of them, primarily because I sent the first two back thinking they were defective. On the third one it became painfully obvious that the flaw was the design, specifically the lack of an external antenna. Once added one the device worked but still loses connection constantly. As for the suggestion I "move it around", no thanks. I am not rearranging my furniture to compensate for the failings of an inferior device.

The Roku2 XS is a highly finicky unit and for $100 it is vastly inferior to everything else on the market when viewed performance per dollar.

Don't be swayed by the whitewashers on here, better products are on the market at a much better ratio of quality per dollar. If you want to play angrybirds while waiting for unit to find your wifi then the Roku is for you. However if you just want to watch videos on your video player, look elsewhere. You'll be glad you did.

Re:more like

[Bigbuzzman]

http://roksbox.com/ works like a dream

Re:more like

[Pulzar]

I've got two of them, and both have lousy wifi connections in two different parts of the house where other devices connect fine (including BoxeeBox right next to it).

I ran ethernet cables into both rooms, and now I'm happy with Roku... but I don't recommend it to anyone who can't get a wired connection.

Re: more like

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's not forget twonky... the you can stream youtube from your phone or tablet to your roku....

Re:more like

[Scutter]

You can with Plex.

...which is a Roku add-on and it requires a PC component to serve the files. The Roku, natively, can't stream directly from a local network source such as a NAS. At best, it's a hack and it while it works, it doesn't work as well as a native solution would.

I'd like to find one single device that can stream from all of my sources natively. Is that really too much to ask?

Re:more like

[El Rey]

Plex can run on several brands of NAS.

Either that or use Roxsbox on Roku and serve it from your NAS using http.

My NAS can do both and I stream local content on Roku all the time.

Re:more like

[Scutter]

Again, this just illustrates the hack nature of this process. That the Plex service (or Roxsbox, which is essentially the same thing) can run directly on the NAS is irrelevant. It's still a collection of third-party tools that involve setting up remote agents off of the player unit (the Roku, in this case). I can stream on my Android tablet from a plain SMB NAS with no additional agent software or intermediary. Direct. I should be able to do the same thing with a Roku (or any of the other similar devices on the market).

Each one of them lacks a key feature. Either they can't stream from an SMB NAS, they don't have YouTube, they don't do Netflix, etc. There's always something. That each of these can be streamed from SOME device means that they're being deliberately left out of the ones that "can't".

I'm not asking for transcoding, either. If your device doesn't have enough power to transcode, that's fine. But I can copy a file from my SMB NAS to a thumbdrive and play it directly on my Roku. That is a bush league hack in 2013. It already has network access, there should be no reason to force me to use sneakernet.

Re: more like

[LesFerg]

Can you still do that? Last time I installed twonky those options seemed to have disappeared. Or were they moved from the free version to the paid app only?

Re:more like

[viperidaenz]

I use a WD-TV. Streams from SMB shares and DLNA servers. Works reasonably well with Serviio

Probably works with other shared drives but I haven't checked.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

I just yesterday added a Roku "channel" called USB Media Player (or something similar). Supposedly it will play a variety of formats from a USB stick plugged into the Roku.

http://support.roku.com/entries/423946-What-media-file-types-does-the-Roku-USB-Media-Player-channel-support-

So you may not be able to "stream" your own content, but you can play local media files.

Re:more like

[Dynedain]

Plex is not Roku-specific. It's a great media management server/client app designed for a 10' interface with support across a wide range of platforms and the ability to stream to tons of different devices (including Roku):

Windows - Server/Client
Mac - Server/Client
Linux - Server
Various NAS boxes - Server
Android - Client
iOS - Client
Various "smart" TVs - Client

I bought a Roku specifically because it could do Plex streaming, not the other way around. If you really want to go straight from your NAS to your TV, then by one of those set-top boxes that have slots or USB ports for hard drives.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a WD-TV here, too. It actually became semi-useful after they added USB keyboard support in a later firmware update. Obviously none of their devs had ever tried to type a search string into YouTube from the IR remote before that. :)

Re:more like

[aliquis]

"403: Access Forbidden

Your country (SE) has been blacklisted."

Polite error message =P

Re:more like

[pthisis]

Works fine with NFS, FWIW.

Re:more like

[drinkypoo]

I'd like to find one single device that can stream from all of my sources natively. Is that really too much to ask?

No. It's called an Ion-based HTPC, or other ultra-low-power PC with an nVidia graphics card, running XBMC on top of Linux. You can control it with a variety of controls; the PS3 BD Remote is a good choice on Linux, where it actually works easily through lirc. It's $13 (used) and Bluetooth. This type of system will play anything you want to throw at it and come back asking for more jobs to do.

The truth is that MOST players have crappy format support. Even WD live is going to be missing support for some not uncommon download formats. XBMC is the hero here, bar none. Some of the USB sticks are starting to be pretty good platforms on which to run XBMC, but I wouldn't buy one that doesn't run Picuntu and right now that rules out the quad-cores. In theory Picuntu will soon install on RK3188-based sticks. At that time, my recommendation will change.

Re:more like

[Scutter]

If you really want to go straight from your NAS to your TV, then by one of those set-top boxes that have slots or USB ports for hard drives.

How are you missing the point? I don't want to use Plex. Period. Plex is a third-party add-on with a component that runs on the local PC. I want native, built-in support (that doesn't require me to run a server agent on another box) in whatever streaming device I select.

If you really want to go straight from your NAS to your TV, then by one of those set-top boxes that have slots or USB ports for hard drives.

What? How does that even make sense? If I want to stream from a NAS, I should get a set-top with a USB port?

Re:more like

[Scutter]

XBMC is the closest I've come, but it lacks good support for Netflix. It can be done, but it's not native and getting it to work well is also a bit of a hack.

Re:more like

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, Netflix is a problem. I actually get it on Linux by using XP in vmware player, where it works perfectly. Unlike netflix-desktop, which is pure shit. I have a six-core machine with nvidia graphics and it still stutters and chokes continually (as in, every fraction of a second.)

Re:more like

[Scutter]

And that's where it falls down. Every option is missing some key ingredient. With XMBC, it's Netflix. With Roku, it's local streaming. There are always work-arounds, but why not build it into the core so it actually works well? One device that streams everything, that is small enough to throw into my suitcase so I can take it when I travel. Chromecast had promise, but falls flat in so many ways.

Re:more like

[drinkypoo]

There are always work-arounds, but why not build it into the core so it actually works well?

Well right now I'm using an MK908 with Finless 1.4 and hoabycsr's kernel, it runs XBMC and Netflix fine. That's an option. Not a great one.

There's some android boxes with ethernet out which run XBMC properly, that'd be another possibility. They run Netflix fine.

Re:more like

[cblguy2]

I bought a Roku to see what it was all about. Returned it after I found out that I would have to set up another fscking server on my network running Plex to host files that are already on a MythTV box. WTF? Roku wouldn't play with MythTV at all. Fortunately the Panasonic Blu-Ray player I bought (for $4 more than the Roku) had a Netflix button on the remote, and it plays my MythTV files just fine. Bye bye Roku. Some people just don't want to mess around with yet another box/system to overcome a limitation of a device.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can't stream your own content with Roku either

News to me!

http://netguy204.github.io/roku_media_server/

Re:more like

[Formorian]

I bought one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/400435109432?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

XBMC full HW playback (I use the DroidTV firmware which is a firmware from the Midnight Gx2 or something, supposedly the boxes that aren't midnight brand had an Audio sync issue, i put that firmware on it first minute I received, no issues) based on the PIOS XBMC port. Netflix full HW playback. With XBMC play right from SMB or anything else for that matter.

The only content that it seems to have issues with, is the 60 FPS certain codecs. 20% of the time the audio will go out of sync on the 60 fps content. But 99.9% of my content is 23-30 fps. I only discovered it by accident, I was recording Disney HD for my kids and automatically reencoding the content with Handbrake batch script. And it was reencoding at 60fps by mistake instead of 23.97. Fixed my batch script and no more issues.

Cost me what $15 more then a Roku. My only problem is Netflix has not released a remote friendly android App. Sure I have one of thsoe mini wireless keyboard/trackpad's for netflix or any other non remote friendly app. My wife has picked it up very easily.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux based == no Netflix and sketchy Pandora at best. What else you got?

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

One possible reason not to support local "streaming" via SMB is that SMB eats a lot more CPU cycles than receiving an RTSP Stream or reading from a local USB Storage device. While the TviX media player I own has a 1000MBit Ethernet interface, it works best with local (SATA or USB) storage, and has some limits for the maximum data rate of a Video served via NFS, and some lower limit when using SMB.

Re:more like

[Dynedain]

There NAS boxes designed to also be a set-top box.

Re:more like

[pnutjam]

I use a Wii with homebrew, but it stutters on alot of HD content.

Re:more like

[LanMan04]

I've had this device (WDTV) for almost 2 years and it does everything you want:

http://www.amazon.com/Streaming-Media-Player-Wi-Fi-1080p/dp/B005KOZNBW

-Wifi/Ethernet/USB
-Netflix/YouTube/Hulu
-Streams content from SMB/NFS or a "media server" (like Vuse)

Love it love it love it. Plays any/everything I throw at it.

Re:more like

[spikesahead]

I'm really glad I took a 'wait and see' approach with this thing. Now Roku is back at the top of my list.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not too much to ask for. Also, it's called a PC. I and my family run various forms of this PC with xbmc, from rpis to core2 duo retirees. Dual boot with a slim Windows install (not with rpi obviously) and you even get native netflix in full 1080p. I gave up looking for that "one device" and went old school. I couldn't be happier, especially for the price.

Re:more like

[El Rey]

Those are nice, but the problem I have with all Android based solutions is that there is no free Hulu. If it's free on my laptop it should be free on my tablet and STB.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

Read my comment above, there IS a Device that streams everything. Its called a PC. There may not be one piece of software that works as a catch all, but one device (a PC) with xbmc and Firefox pretty much covers EVERYTHING.

Re:more like

[wikdwarlock]

We use PlayOn for local media streaming, as well as Hulu, YouTube, and some cable channels. We bought it for $70, lifetime license. Requires a PC to run on, but other than that, makes our Rokus serve all our television needs.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

People seem to like to write-off the Boxee Box these days, but mine can stream from a NAS or computer, it does YouTube, it does Netflix, it's got a full web browser and plays any Flash-based web content I've come across so far, it's got a billion other apps like Pandora, and a whole bunch of other stuff that I find useful.

I'm still using the Boxee Box because I can't find any other single device that does everything it does. It's got a few quirks, but they're very minor compared to the value I get from all the things it does.

Re:more like

[denmarkw00t]

All I hear is that you want a computer plugged in to your TV with an IR remote. There won't ever, ever, be a little box that just "does it all" - yes, it is too much to ask. New codecs, new standards for network sharing, new TVs, new X Y and Z will prevent that from ever happening. So, your best bet is to get something that can at least be expected to be reasonably future-proof, for a long time, for a cheap price - a computer.

Re:more like

[El Rey]

Well now you've changed the requirements. Your original statement only mentioned serving from a NAS not specifically about serving from a NAS via SMB. Serving from NAS over HTTP or Plex works fine for me.

SMB on the NAS is also a, "remote agent off of the player unit", if you want to get technical about it. Turning on HTTP on the NAS (at least for the one I am using) was no easier or harder than turning on SMB. There is no server piece to Roxsbox as there is for Plex except a simple httpd.

But yeah, there is no built in client for either SMB or HTTP. Adding one for HTTP isn't rocket science but evidently it bothers you more than it bothers me. To each his own.

Re:more like

[Cormacus]

Please clarify something for me - what media sources do you want your display device (with 'native, built-in support that doesn't require me to run a server agent on another box') to connect to? Pretty much any arrangement of video source/dest is going to require a server agent of some kind (to set up the stream if nothing else) on the source device, or it requires local support for some kind of file system (hence the suggestion about a set-top box with a USB port I think).

Not trolling, just curious what you have in mind. I think I don't understand what you are looking for.

Re:more like

[Scutter]

No, I haven't changed my requirement. My requirement was "I'd like to find one single device that can stream from all of my sources natively". In this case, my NAS happens to be one that supports SMB, but that's not really relevant. What IS relevant is my point that there is no one device that can stream from all sources without requiring some sort of hacked-in add-on. My tablet can stream from a NAS over SMB, why can't Roku? Roku can stream Netflix, why can't XMBC? I had high hopes for the Chromecast, and it's still a nifty little device for what it is, but I was afraid that they were going to lock it down and that's exactly what they're doing.

Re:more like

[exomondo]

I'd like to find one single device that can stream from all of my sources natively. Is that really too much to ask?

It's called a PC. Either build an SFF box or buy a Mac Mini, Zotac ZBox, Dell SFF or something similar.

Re:more like

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you really want to go straight from your NAS to your TV, then by one of those set-top boxes that have slots or USB ports for hard drives.

When I want to go straight from my NAS to my TV, I usually use floppy disks.

Re:more like

[exomondo]

What's wrong with a small-form-factor PC or a laptop or a smartphone?

I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[mysidia]

How wretched and nasty of Google to so suddenly turn to the dark side, and render the hardware useless.

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem to have really moved past the "don't be evil thing"

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you mean by suddenly?

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

How wretched and nasty of Google to so suddenly turn to the dark side, and render the hardware useless.

Really. For $350 I expected more. Oops. I mean $35. Oh nevermind...

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

"so suddenly turn to the dark side"

You have been asleep.

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, shill - this is a wireless hdmi cable so park your fucking enthusiasm.

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

Same ac ftr - maybe the big G wants more home videos to sift through in order to satiate the other big G s voyeuristic obsession. Who knows either way, fuck your shit don't hobble shit that I've paid for, if you want more money ask it up front. In any sane sense this is the definition of false advertising.

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, shill - this is a wireless hdmi cable so park your fucking enthusiasm.

So your $35 wired HDMI cable can play media off your NAS without any other hardware? Which Best Buy did you get that from? (and did it come with a cable?)

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[Anonymous Coward]

Render useless? Hardly...

Sony removed OtherOS, after advertising the feature. People bought a PS3 because of OtherOS, only to have it removed after purchase. THAT is evil.

This? Show us advertising that says Chromecast supports Local play? This is removal of unsupported functionality that you have no reason to expect. This would be akin to Apple removing support for Cydia. Sure, it's a pain but you can't say it's not expected.

Re:I suppose we should all return our chromecasts

[mysidia]

Really. For $350 I expected more. Oops. I mean $35. Oh nevermind...

Roku has a competing offering for less than $50 that can handle local video.

Google's hardware was known to be capable of handling this. For them to introduce artificial barriers to prevent it is criminal.

Bound to happen.

[solidraven]

Bound to happen, Google is still obliged to follow their contracts they have with the content providers. If they say they device can't do that for one reason or another then they don't have much of a choice. And we all know MPAA would NEVER EVER dare to force a content distributor in such a position. *cough*

Re:Bound to happen.

[sd4f]

I don't know much (even after reading the article), but it seems more like as if they just want the chromecast to dish out online content so that google can keep on feeding people adds.

Re:Bound to happen.

[solidraven]

Sure, and a massive drop in sales is totally going to help them with that...

Re:Bound to happen.

[SpaceLifeForm]

Whew. For a minute there, I thought they were going to start feeding people subtracts.

Oh, wait. Maybe they just did.

Re:Bound to happen.

[TheGavster]

At $35, the business model behind this thing is probably similar to a gaming console: sell it at a loss to make customers for your lucrative content. Cutting loose the local content customers is long term a cost savings measure for two reasons: a) as you no longer need to field support calls from customers who don't watch your ads, and b) it's must easier to force software upgrades (ie, less QA needed because you can test builds in the field and force fixes out to the machines that break).

Re:Bound to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're missing the big picture. The *real* long term goal is for Amazon video, Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc. to be able to supply all media. I mean imagine a world where the Netflix library contained every movie and TV show ever made. It's going to take a while to get there but I honestly believe we're headed that direction. Broadband will improve dramatically, and so will content availability. When that happens only the "kooks" will even consider storing their movies anywhere because everything will be instantly available from everywhere. We're not there yet, and it's a totally dick move to remove features from a product after it's sold. That's why I use Roku.. but anyways, imho that's the reasoning behind their push.

Re:Bound to happen.

[solidraven]

$35 is plenty to make a profit on these sort of small devices if they're well designed.

Re:Bound to happen.

[solidraven]

It wasn't a feature, it was a bug...

Some might say...

[Anonymous Coward]

evil ??

Re: Some might say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey ! Just anonymous, not cowardly (or evil !)

Order canceled

[Anonymous Coward]

Was really looking forward to it, now it's useless.

Re:Order canceled

[viperidaenz]

Why did you place the order in the first place when this was never an intended feature?

Re:Order canceled

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

Why did you place the order in the first place when this was never an intended feature?

Wheelies and bunnyhops were not an intended original feature of BMX bicycles, yet people bought them for that capability.

My washing machine is quite capable of washing my running shoes. That's not an intended feature either.

Re:Order canceled

[viperidaenz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8ujrNWSwf8 Looks like BMX endorse wheelies and bunnyhops
Even back in 1981 in partnership with Mountain Dew http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2fDdhnCKLg

My washing machine says you can wash shoes. My dryer even has an optional shoe rack attachment so you can dry them without having them bang around inside.

Samsung says you can wash shoes. http://answers.us.samsung.com/answers/7463/product/WF410ANR/samsung-4-3-cu-ft-washer-questions-answers/questions.htm

I think you picked some poor examples there.

I was planning to get one...

[sootman]

... and probably still will, as long as it's able to play any arbitrary content from Chrome. My idea was to drop all my media into a web-servable directory on a small server in my house and use Chrome on my laptop or phone to browse to that directory, then click the "send to chromecast" button to send it to my TV. That should still work, right? Is there anyone here who has one and is using it in that way? It's the only reason I'd get one -- I have no use at all for Yet Another Way to play hulu, netflix, youtube, etc.

Re:I was planning to get one...

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK the Chrome streaming feature works by screencasting the Chrome window to the Chromecast, not by having the latter display the web page directly. Assuming the framerate keeps up both sides (a big if), you still have to deal with the inevitable framerate conversion and re-encoding going on. It's probably not going to be suitable for watching movies.

Re:I was planning to get one...

[MozeeToby]

In my experience, it works well on my reasonably high end laptop. There is a couple seconds latency, so you won't be able to stream games up to the TV, but it is most definitely able to stream movies. Personally, I wouldn't waste the effort trying to stream something that I really cared about image quality (but I say the same thing about streaming services too) but it is quite watchable.

The same cannot be said for my wife's much lower powered laptop. Streaming from that machine all the negative reviews that talk about poor streaming from chrome make perfect sense. Frame rates in the single digit Hz and bad audio syncing make it impossible to watch anything.

Re:I was planning to get one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on Earth would you do it in this complicated way with some walled garden bullcrap?

1. Just get a small HTPC. Install XBMC on it. Install your media on a disk and share it in your LAN (via SMB or DLNA or whatever).

2. Attach HTPC to your TV. Now you can stream stuff via SMB (or DLNA or whatever) and watch it on your TV. Or you can copy locally to HTPC, they usually come with a few 100 gigs hard drives.

3. Install "XBMC for Android" to your tablet. Now you can watch the same media, streamed over SMB (or DLNA or whatever), on your tablet, in your LAN.

Re:I was planning to get one...

[Xphile101361]

How much does a "small HTPC" cost? Is it 35$ or less?

Re:I was planning to get one...

[MachineShedFred]

No, but it's not out of the question to build a small one for $250, which has much more functionality. 7x as much functionality to reflect 7x the price? That's on the builder / buyer to determine before undertaking the project.

Re:I was planning to get one...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does cost less than $35 is hooking your laptop up to the TV when you want to watch something, at least it doesn't need to be fairly well specced to do that unlike screencasting from Chrome.

The Chromecast is nice if you want to use it for YouTube and Netflix (and whatever else will be supported in the future), but screencasting from Chrome seems more gimmicky than useful.

Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had this been Microsoft we'd be hearing that this is proof that Ballmer was sacrificing virgin children to Satan.
 
You guys really like to suck on that Google dick, don't ya?

Re:Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had this been Microsoft we'd be hearing that this is proof that Ballmer was sacrificing virgin children to Satan.

You guys really like to suck on that Google dick, don't ya?

Only because Steve Jobs is now a corpse, and Apple's is now flaccid.

Re:Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had this been Microsoft we'd be hearing that this is proof that Ballmer was sacrificing virgin children to Satan.

You guys really like to suck on that Google dick, don't ya?

Between Microsoft and Google, one is

(1) an ad agency that
(2) monetizes your private details and
(3) has a private jumbo jet for executives.

The other sells crappy software.

Re:Too easy...

[Chrontius]

Dear coward:

You seem to have misread the tenor of this discussion, which reads to me like an indictment of Google's wholesale violation of their code of ethics with these antics.

Re:Too easy...

[oodaloop]

Well, don't leave us hanging! Which one is which?

Re:Too easy...

[HiThere]

But I've only seen one post saying that they should be sued because the sold a gadget with and advertised feature that they broke after the purchase. So I think that Google is still being let off easy.

That said, perhaps the circumstances were different, and certainly the time-lapse is different. Probably a lot fewer posters bought Goiogle's gadget because of the feature. (And, honestly, to me it's a lot murkier exactly what Google did. Perhaps that will clear up in a couple of days.)

Re:Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

All three describe all major platforms to date.

(1) One controls all ads on their platform.
(2) monetizes your private details (ntegrating their chat messenger into their text messaging application was a coincidence? Or that the opt-out of location tracking for ads is buried in the EULA, and not actually on-device (it's a specific opt-out "oo" domain on their website)?
(3) likely has a private jumbo jet(s) for executives too. Perhaps an island.

I'll give you three guesses which company I'm referring to, and here's a hint: most of their popular products start with an "i".

Re:Too easy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Microsoft is looking for a new CEO, I suggest they merge with Google!

They have two choices of name, both of which represent their products excellently:

- Goo-Soft
and
- Microgle (pronounced Micr-Ogle)

The first represents their tendencies to bring out somewhat functional software that later is either canned (when it is found to be too good for its purpose) or somehow boned by feature removal and crap redesign insertion, resulting in software with a user experience that can at most be compared to handling one of those slime cans that are sometimes sold as toys.
The second is perfect for their tendency to want to spy and control all of their users.

Re:Too easy...

[rsborg]

Well, don't leave us hanging! Which one is which?

Clearly Google+Microsoft - folks who were wondering what the was missing in the Google+(...) equation now know. Microsoft's mountain view campus is right next to Google's and they both have "sharing plans" that involve your private data and the government.

Clearly a merger signal.

Re:Too easy...

[eclectro]

hearing that this is proof that Ballmer was sacrificing virgin children to Satan.

You mean he's not doing this?

iTunes next?

[DigiShaman]

How soon will Apple follow? Currently, I can take any files created in HandBrake and play them through iTunes. From iTunes, I can host them to be played back on my AppleTV. Freaking awesome! My guess, only digitally signed files will only have this capability. Question is, when will Apple drop the ban-hammer on current streaming functionality for non-signed content?

Re:iTunes next?

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't.

Re:iTunes next?

[BitZtream]

Have you not been paying attention to the last 10 years? Apple has repeatedly shown they've tried to beat down this sort of restrictive shit.

Remember who resulted in music losing DRM.

Re:iTunes next?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Jobs were still alive, never. As much of an asshole as he was, he at least did fight against DRM; he believed that technology shouldn't piss off users with arbitrary restrictions. Your name may be embedded into each music file you get from iTunes, but you can always use that file on anything that plays AAC.

Re:iTunes next?

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember who resulted in the most popular mobile software distribution model being "our store or GTFO".

They've been beating down DRM when it was profitable for them, when they've got the market by the balls - why would they? Cf. smaller contender iTunes breaking through other publishers with DRM-free music vs. DRM'd iBooks working together with others to make ebooks prices leap.

Re:iTunes next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they will alright. You can rest assured of that.

Re:iTunes next?

[spire3661]

Wont happen, Apple is still a hardware company. There are some updates coming to Apple TV to allow guests to use it to screen mirror too.

Re:iTunes next?

[Richard_at_work]

You don't remember Apple pushing an iPod update which broke Reals music store purchases? Real found a way to make their DRMed stuff work on iPods, and almost immediately Apple pushed an update which did nothing other than disable Reals stuff.

Re:iTunes next?

[UnknowingFool]

Yes Real found a way to trick the iPod into thinking their DRM format was FairPlay. Apple update their firmware to prevent the hack. And? Tricking your competitor's product to support yours isn't really a good move.

Now what?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't know, I downloaded everything at the OP's link, and now nothing works.

Left In a Lurch

[Chrontius]

This leaves me still looking for a way to play arbitrary local media files on my TV; I don't terribly feel like waiting for stuff to buffer - if an online service will deign to give me a sufficiently large buffer - so I always download in advance whenever feasible.

Don't say "an HTPC" - I don't want to run a space heater to do this. Many Android dongles I've seen are out of date or will soon be out of date, and offer lousy codec support to boot. If you've found an exception to that, be my guest - a great many of us /.ers are going to be in need of a new playback device so let's try to be productive here.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

HTPC in an old laptopl They're pretty efficient (battery life) and quiet, and sleep remarkably well.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

XBMC to the rescue: http://xbmc.org/

It runs on a number of small form factor devices that run from $100 - $300 (zotac, acer revo, appletv, etc.)

Re:Left In a Lurch

[jader3rd]

I don't want to run a space heater to do this.

Guess it depends on what you consider a space heater. I had an Acer AspireRevo 3610, and currently have a Lenovo q180. Both have Atom processors and run cool enough that they don't need fans. Both could handle any high def resolution thrown at them. The q180 is - due to recently introduced young children - is locked in a cabinet with absolutely no air flow and it isn't over heating itself.
If you think that's still treds into "space heater" category, fine, but I don't. Some actions are obviously a bit sluggish due to the lower power CPU, but everything is certainly faster than any operation I've seen on my parents Samsung "smart" TV's.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Try an Ouya.
It has excellent Plex, XBMC, and VLC apps.
It has a proper ethernet port as well as wifi.
It supports pretty much any bluetooth or USB mouse/keyboard.
It is a fast quad core with a recent version of android and reasonable developer support.

I have previously run a full HTPC and a Boxee box. The Ouya is miles better now that the official XBMC app is available.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Rob Simpson]

I've had good experiences with the Shuttle XS35GS series running XBMC on linux. Low wattage, fanless, fit easy on a shelf, and totally silent with an SSD.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol? Use an HTPC! Starts in seconds nowadays. Can be configured to shut down on inactivity by itself. Has Android remotes. Doesnt have problems with google or whoever being an ass. Has an sdd and if you really need it you can get one with really silent/no fans.

XBMC. I just did it. Get the yatse remote not the official one on Android. The official ios one is ok though.

The media is on a NAS in the basement.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[0100010001010011]

I have a Atom with an Nvidia fanless card that will decode anything I throw at it in hardware. I tried out the Android sticks but they're woefully underpowered.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[nick0909]

Rasberry Pi is as quiet and small as you can get, and BMC running on it is nice. http://www.raspbmc.com/

Re:Left In a Lurch

[dashZD]

WDTV Live. It will play whatever you throw at it.

Re: Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree. anything but webm in 1080p from youtube ... that is a no go on nvidia.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Demonantis]

Agreed. There are a ton of options with any dev board if you research it a bit. HDMI has kind of become the standard output of these devices.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Roku + various PC based servers. I personally use MyMedia (not from the makers of PlayOn but the open source one) running on PogoPlug linux box. Works exceptionally well. There are many more windows and linux servers available.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Someones probably already said it, but Roku. I just bought one recently (about 4 months ago). When used in combination with Plex it'll do just about anything I ever wanted from an HTPC with less noise, size (it's a puck) and annoyance.

As an added bonus the company appears to be small enough to be more interested in providing what the consumers actually want then locking features away.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Chrontius]

Strictly speaking, Plex requires running a space heater, just not in the same room with the TV. The server's a pain in the ass and doesn't support the better scrapers that XBMC does - AniDB, I'm looking at you - and while it's much improved in the last six months, I find it unpleasant that I have to settle for it.

The USB port is wasted on stock Roku firmware, and I don't know of anything better to run on it. :(

Re:Left In a Lurch

[drinkypoo]

I tried out the Android sticks but they're woefully underpowered.

That's not really a problem any more now that you can get a quad core for seventy bucks. The problem now is the software. All of the sticks have crap software.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had good experiences with the Shuttle XS35GS series running XBMC on linux. Low wattage, fanless, fit easy on a shelf, and totally silent with an SSD.

I love my Shuttle XS35GT - small as a paperback book and completely silent, zero moving parts (fans or disks). I actually run WinMCE on it and like the IR remote controlled interface. VLC for the very few files WinMCE with the right codec plugins can't handle + Netflix and Spotify of course.

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything above 5W is long over the "space heater" border. Your solution is most likely > 10 W?

Re:Left In a Lurch

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you concidered the Ouya? Android/Tegra 3 based, it's certainly small and quiet, and it runs XMBC and VLC. (Haven't tried playing video on it though so can't vouch for the performance).

Re:Left In a Lurch

[LanMan04]

Just get this and be done with it. Ive had it for almost 2 years and I absolutely love it:

http://www.amazon.com/Streaming-Media-Player-Wi-Fi-1080p/dp/B005KOZNBW

Maybe not completely true?

[ad454]

When I powered cycled my ChromeCast a couple of hours ago, I noticed that it installed a new update.

I then launch my Chrome browser and open several local files of type MP4 (video), PDF, and PPT (powerpoint), and I am still able to successfully cast these to my ChromeCast on my HDTV, with this type of URL:

file://{LOCAL_DIRECTORY}/{LOCAL_FILE}

Even the MP4 video plays nice on my HDTV in FullScreen.

I have not had time to do a packet inspection yet via WireShark, so I cannot speak about the complexity of the protocol used to transmit the content locally.

I am not denying that something with ChromeCast might have changed, since the author is likely telling the truth, and may have been using some "hack" or trick that they used to simplify incorporating their 3rd party support.

But considering that I have my Chrome browser at version 29.0.1547.57 which was not updated in the last 5 days, I would think that any 3rd party app could still be modified to support ChromeCast with the same protocol used by the Chrome browser, NetFlix, YouTube, etc.

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[Anonymous Coward]

"have not had time to" usually means "don't know how to"

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[m1ss1ontomars2k4]

The Chrome browser uses a completely different strategy from Netflix/YouTube. Netflix/YouTube stream the content directly from the cloud. Chrome tab casting sends data from your machine.

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're playing a file locally, there won't be any packets for you to inspect with wireshark. The browser is opening a file handle and reading data from the file handle.

So how is the data getting from his browser to the ChromeCast ?
Maybe it's magic pixies, or even the fabled Google wormhole

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[c0lo]

If you're playing a file locally, there won't be any packets for you to inspect with wireshark. The browser is opening a file handle and reading data from the file handle.

So how is the data getting from his browser to the ChromeCast ? Maybe it's magic pixies, or even the fabled Google wormhole

You forgot to consider telepathy.

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA is talking about his own application and its 'casting' ability being removed. Chrome is still able to 'cast' things itself just fine, since it's on the whitelist.

Re:Maybe not completely true?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, DBus.

the wisdom of youthful folly

[epine]

Corporations grow up, just like children.

If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain.

This much-laundered sentiment originated with Francois Guisot (and not as widely believed the sock-prophet Winston Churchill). The genius of Bill Gates was being twenty years ahead of his time. Unfortunately, the life expectancy of a brainy conservative is twenty to thirty years (tops), before the grizzled Ebenezer-in-Chief is forcibly defenestrated.

Roughly twenty years from now, the legacy of Brin and Page will be facing its own mop reduce. Brilliant strategy on their part to postpone the day of reckoning with a youthful sojourn into saccharine Dr Evil.

Re:the wisdom of youthful folly

[epine]

That came off slightly more cynical than I intended. In truth, I have nothing but gratitude for much of what hippie Google chose to do. My point at this juncture, however, is that that was then, this is now.

In much the same way that the terrorists succeeded in reshaping America in their own image (two crushed fingers was all it took), Facebook has succeeded in reinventing Google in their own image. Zuck, like Bill, was way ahead of his time right from the get go.

As far as I'm concerned Google+ is hardly any different than America+. Any symbol that leaves you asking "plus what?" is not to be trusted. What of this unary additive? Those who know are not entitled to say. Happily, that's as much as we need to know to guess what shape that mark will take once it reaches adult height, wreathed in flames.

Re:the wisdom of youthful folly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain.

Please put this tired canard to sleep. It was invented by conservative think tanks to coax younger generations into their primitive way of thinking. There are very very few conservatives of any age that display rational thought; scientific studies have actually found that lower IQ correlates with conservative idealism, religiosity, and sociopathic behaviour. It is not something you "grow into" unless you are also relating it with senility and/or Alzheimer's. As intelligence increases, so too does the tendency towards non-conservative ideologies (and this has been shown to happen at any stage in life).

Re:the wisdom of youthful folly

[HiThere]

That's only one root of the saying. The other is that liberal ideas which are successful become a part of the conservative platform.

(Note that this does NOT refer to neo-cons who are con-men that have usurped the conservative name.)

Re:the wisdom of youthful folly

[Anonymous Coward]

dogmatic thinking is not limited to neocons (religion, freemarket+corporate welfare). modern 'liberal' democrats do the same thing with their propaganda (political correctness/censorship, identity politics).

Sounds like these studies only linked liberalism with university education, which probably does correlate, but not for the reasons you imply. Most universities have hard left leaning cultures, the more prestigious ones being borderline communist. A good hypothesis might be that young people are simply more gullible, but sometimes, it takes someone older, closer to the ground, to see what's really going on because the air at the tippy top of the ivory tower is dangerously thin.

Try something more open

[Anonymous Coward]

My raspberry pi and Ouya still play any arbitrary content I throw at them. Take that, Google.

Re:Try something more open

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash video?

Try Media Center

[Anonymous Coward]

Xbox Media Center Extender's been doing this for years, so there's that option.

Re:Try Media Center

[Namarrgon]

Hmm, semi-open $35 dongle from Google, vs 100% proprietary $200 box from Microsoft. Is that really a choice?

Re:Try Media Center

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, semi-open $35 dongle from Google, vs 100% proprietary $200 box from Microsoft. Is that really a choice?

google vs m$ ?

open your eyes there are other options. less evil options

Apple closed

[tuppe666]

Have you not been paying attention to the last 10 years? Apple has repeatedly shown they've tried to beat down this sort of restrictive shit.

Remember who resulted in music losing DRM.

Apple is the rapist of ecosystems using walled prisons; proprietary connectors; proprietary API; proprietary software. They actually got caught for illegal monopolistic practices with Publishers...and have been forced to allow other companies to publish on their not your devices. The MP3 thing was a war attrition, Companies were offering DRM free on other platforms before Apple. Their not your books and movies still are.

Re:Apple closed

[Anonymous Coward]

The MP3 thing was a war attrition, Companies were offering DRM free on other platforms before Apple.

Steve Jobs was calling on the record labels about how music should be DRM-free before those other platforms existed (which presumably is Amazon you are referring to). It only lagged behind some of those other stores because they had legacy contracts, not because they actually wanted DRMed music.

Re:Apple closed

[peragrin]

other companies only went DRM free first because the RIAA let them to break Apple's strangle hold which only partially worked.

The only thing the RIAA and MPAA fear more than pirates, and DRM free music is another company with a stranglehold on their future business relationships with artists. the RIAA and MPAA are the only groups that can threaten to make, break or enslave artists.

I suggest you learn history.

Re:Apple closed

[Anonymous Coward]

So the fact they were the only company to have DRM on their platform is... what? ok?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMusic ... Is 1998 a little too early for non-DRM music? Imagine if they became popular and the go-to music store for everyone. Imagine if the big labels would have been forced to abide by their policies because of their popularity.

Re:Apple closed

[Dare nMc]

While in 2006 Amazon wasn't in the picture, every major player was in mp3 players, and there were many (now bankrupted through litigation) services competing.
Also considering Steve Jobs was the single largest stock holder in Disney (7% owner) and on the board of directors (Including Hollywood records, which was closely tied with Universal.) He didn't need to make a public appeal for no DRM on a good chunk of the music for sale, if he was serious, he would have just done it.

Re:Apple closed

[Anonymous Coward]

Tuppe666 with his personal brand of Apple hate and Google fluff. Visit http://slashdot.org/~tuppe666 for more details.

Tuppe I hope they mail your cheque!

Re:Apple closed

[Anonymous Coward]

While in 2006 Amazon wasn't in the picture, every major player was in mp3 players, and there were many (now bankrupted through litigation) services competing.

allofmp3.ru was not competition for Apple.

He didn't need to make a public appeal for no DRM on a good chunk of the music for sale, if he was serious, he would have just done it.

I'm glad they're still teaching percentages in elementary school. "Just done it"? With his majority of 7%?

Derp. Derpderpderp. Derppityfuckingderp.

Hurp.

Re:Apple closed

[UnknowingFool]

Proprietary connectors: that was true with ADB. Since the iMac the only somewhat proprietary connector left is FireWire which is a IEEE 1394a/b standard. USB is standard. Ethernet is standard. MiniDSP is a VESA standard.

The MP3 thing was a war attrition, Companies were offering DRM free on other platforms before Apple. Their not your books and movies still are.

Please tell which companies were offering non-DRM online music legally before Apple. Yes I could get them from all sort of sites but I don't think they were quite legal. If you say Amazon you need to check your history. Apple offered DRM free first from EMI only. Amazon offered DRM free from the big four record labels first.

Re:Apple closed

[UnknowingFool]

Um copyright law says that you can't distribute material without the consent of the owners. The owners insisted on DRM. Later they reversed this when they realized DRM only gave Apple more leverage.

Re:Apple closed

[Dare nMc]

Exactly my point, Apple wasn't a content owner, Steve Jobs was. We know from Steve screwing over Woz, that he was unscrupulous and in his role at apple, a marketing master. When Steve Jobs, a major copyright owner, with his background makes a plea to copyright owners, without mention, then without action from his ownership rights. It sends a clear message IMO, this was a sales speal not a legitimate call to arms.

Re:Apple closed

[UnknowingFool]

By your definition I am also a content owner as I have shares in a mutual fund that owns EMI. With his 7% he was Disney's larger single individual stockholder. That is nowhere near majority owner status. Also, did Jobs have a say in the operations or direction of the company? No. Yes, Jobs was an asshole. There's no need to imagine that he did things he didn't.

Re:Apple closed

[goombah99]

ADB connectors were phone jacks. not proprietary.

Re:Apple closed

[Dare nMc]

Do you sit on the board of Directors? At least 6 times a year it was his job, along with 9 other people to set direction for Disney. Of those 9 other people he alone had enough shares to vote the others out of office if they fought him. It is safe to say he was the most influential person in Disney, anytime he wanted to be. And his personality isn't one that would lead you to believe he would be a silent owner.

Re:Apple closed

[MachineShedFred]

And what happened to those other companies? They were either sued into oblivion, or had subscription models that nobody wanted.

We can "imagine if" all you want, but it didn't. And that's the rest of the story.

Re:Apple closed

[UnknowingFool]

So you're saying that Jobs could have simply decreed that Disney should not use DRM and the board and the stockholders would have followed. Also Jobs could have easily changed the minds of the other 3 major labels. Get real.

an HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

In the form of 2.5 Watt Raspberry Pi running XBMC or similar. Not much of a space heater...

Re:an HTPC

[stewsters]

I have one of these and can recommend it. The interface isnt terribly fast, but it the 720p video playback is solid. The other thing I you can look for is xbmc on an Ouya. Both can mount samba shares and play most formats.

Re:an HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to second this. Raspberry Pi rocks. Other similar options too and they're completely open.

Re:an HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

The pi sucks for xbmc. The interface is really slow, you have to buy a codec to get to play mpeg and it only has stereo sound unless you have hdmi. And if you need analog input for your sound like I did youd have to buy a hdmi sound splitter. For that money I just got an itx htpc with an sdd. Fasssst and I can actually fix whatever I need. Tried to use openelec coz I wanted to not do anythning but the usb infrared dongle didnt work. Standard ubuntu now and it works like a charm.

Re:an HTPC

[Belial6]

I would recommend the Raspberry Pi over the Ouya. I have both, and they are both cool, but the killer feature of the Raspberry Pi is that it supports CEC. This means that if you have a TV that also supports the CEC standard, you don't need two remotes. Your TV remote will automatically work for controlling your Raspberry Pi with no extra hardware and no software configuration other than ticking off the check box in XBMC and on your TV to say that you want to use CEC.

Conversely, the Ouya has a Bluetooth gamepad for controlling XBMC. CEC with the remote you are already using to control your TV is a pretty find solution.

Also, I have no problem running 1080p video on the Raspberry Pi. Even SBS 3D stuff.

Re:an HTPC

[Belial6]

Oh yeah, the Raspberry Pi is powered via USB too. This means that if your TV leaves the USB ports powered when it is off, you can sticky tap the Raspberry Pi to the back of the TV, plug the USB power into a USB port on the back or side of your TV, and plug the HDMI in the back as well. In many cases, there doesn't need to be a single cable for the Raspberry Pi coming out from behind the TV.

Re:an HTPC

[vlueboy]

Both can mount samba shares and play most formats.

Youtube video can easily take hundreds of megs, and the video app provides no local-savable functionality so it obviously is built to STREAM. So I should be able to stream much audio via SMB, but always wondered why it that can't be shared without downloading permanently into the poor space contraints on the low-end of android phones. This contrast makes it clear what Google was thinking from the onset for Android and user-friendly SMB *streaming*.

What I don't understand is why music apps fail to fill in the SMB gap, despite knowing we use Wifi and have local networks at home. Tangentially, devs also have done nothing to let one remote type with a real PC into an android device. Bluetooth keyboards are horrible.

Re:an HTPC

[Chrontius]

As the first person to recommend a Pi while logged in, I'll ask you this: where the heck can I find codec support for PiBMC? Ouya?

The Roku's format support and USB playback app is a joke, and I regret picking one over an AppleTV.

This isn't another "H264 or nothing" box, is it?

Re:an HTPC

[drinkypoo]

As the first person to recommend a Pi while logged in, I'll ask you this: where the heck can I find codec support for PiBMC? Ouya?

XBMC: In the nightly build thread. There is a test corpus. You test with it, and then you post xbmc debug logs from any failures. Then you get ignored for months. Ouya: You just get ignored.

Raspberry Pi with 512MB and OpenELEC is pretty good, but it doesn't do many of the things they claim it does (like support the PS3 BD Remote) and the support is atrocious. When you complain that OpenELEC doesn't do the things they say it does on the front page, they complain that you aren't leaving an inadequate bug report.

The best thing is still an HTPC.

Re:an HTPC

[stewsters]

I used OpenELEC for playing mkv, avi, and mp4. Not sure what formats you need, but you can give it a try.

Re:an HTPC

[omnichad]

Have you tried installing Plex Server to use with Roku's Plex app? It will transcode the video on its way to your Roku. Works pretty well - even use it to play my MythTV recordings on one of my TV's.

Re:an HTPC

[Anonymous Coward]

I built an HTPC once, it was good until a codec came out that it wasn't fast enough to play. I couldn't be arsed to start on the upgrade treadmill, so I sold it.

The best thing is still a decently-powered PC.

Re:an HTPC

[Chrontius]

I don't have a PC I can leave running all the time plugged into gobs of storage.

Also, that just moves the space heater into another room.

Re:an HTPC

[drinkypoo]

I built an HTPC once, it was good until a codec came out that it wasn't fast enough to play. I couldn't be arsed to start on the upgrade treadmill, so I sold it.

The best thing is still a decently-powered PC.

The two are simply not mutually exclusive. You can get very small motherboards for fancy processors.

Re:an HTPC

[omnichad]

Also, that just moves the space heater into another room.

You can run Plex decently on devices all the way down to 40 watts or so (look at a low-power Ivy Bridge i3 setup, e.g.). Not what I'd call a space heater unless you live in a 2'x2' cube. They're not all that expensive to build. A lot of us on Slashdot already have some form of NAS set up for storage/backup. The perk is that this one device can serve to many devices - including multiple Rokus, smart phones and desktop/laptops.

You could get an android device with an MHL port and a large SD card. Use FTP to transfer files in and out.

Not to defend garbage from Google ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... but that XBox will cost $300+ to get.

Unless you are a gamer, that would be a waste of money.

Local content?

[PPH]

What? You haven't moved your entire life history, personal photo albums and soul to the cloud yet?

What's wrong with you? You need to be sent to a consumer re-education camp.

Lima supports Chromecast?

[Anonymous Coward]

The kickstarter project Lima (aka the plug) announced Chromecast support ten days ago. Is that still true?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/15/dropbox-alternative-lima-nee-plug-works-with-chromecast-breaks-into-kickstarter-tech-top-10/

vlc... (Sqore:200 Intense)

[Anonymous Coward]

...is your friend. If it's not open source, trust no one.
Google appears to be the new S0ny. Do no Evil (to their corporate Gods).

CAPTCHA = 'eluded'

Re:vlc... (Sqore:200 Intense)

[LesFerg]

yeah but VLC for android is not yet ready for market. the audio is never in sync with the video. practically any other android video player is better than VLC.

Oh Yea, That's Better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way less cynical. I guess this is opposite day.

Not that you're at all incorrect...

Good argument, except...

[tlambert]

Frankly I am surprised in this case. Being able to stream content is a selling point with broad appeal, unlike say Other OS on the PS3 which was only used by a tiny fraction of PS3 owners.

Good argument, except it's unlikely they are making money on the hardware, so the goal is not to sell Chromecast devices, the goal is to allow people to buy Chromecast devices at cost in order to be able to sell content, and to sell content in order to sell advertising. For a bare-bones devices, it's unlikely that additional economies of scale are going to increase their profit margin on the hardware any, and it may in fact be a loss-leader, like the PS/2 or original XBox.

Re:Good argument, except...

[Archangel Michael]

I am much more likely to buy something off Google or one of their partners if I have a Chromecast than if I don't. I won't have one at this rate. Good luck selling me something for something I won't buy.

Lemmings and Sheeple on the other hand ... have fun!

Re:Good argument, except...

[Anonymous Coward]

And, they are making less money by paying developers to write updates that remove features. Likely this was not nefarious at all as no sane company would pay developers to remove features unless there was a good reason. For the PS3 - that reason made sense to the company but not to most users. For Google? Time will tell...

My Smart TV and Blu-Ray players still play media

[BenJeremy]

I still wonder why people go through all the fuss over media players... Samsung, LG and others have TVs and Blu-Ray players that are capable of playing MKV files and such from local drives or streamed from DLNA, and the players can be had for less than $50 when you catch the right sales. As a bonus, you also can play DVDs, BDs and optical discs full of loose media files.

On the negative side, I don't get a lot of fancy presentation, and I don't have emulators and such running on it, but that's fine. I never really understood the excitement over Roku boxes - I also get plenty of online streaming services through my Blu-ray players and TV (I have one "smart" TV, but the rest in the house have the aforementioned Blu-Ray players).

For anything beyond that, I'll build an HTPC so I can also leverage my Steam library (not too excited about the next gen consoles, either).

Not surprised

[PopeRatzo]

Is this a surprise to anyone? Did anyone really think that once Google had control of hardware and software they'd eventually get around to limiting you to content purchased through them (or one of their partners)?

Don't buy a Chromecast if you want to view media you own or have made yourself. There are other similar devices that will let you do what you want to do.

The only thing that can keep a corporation from becoming totally evil is the consumers. The boardroom is an incubator for evil. If you want to keep a company from doing bad, you have to be a strategic consumer.

Re:Not surprised

[jenningsthecat]

The only thing that can keep a corporation from becoming totally evil is the consumers. The boardroom is an incubator for evil. If you want to keep a company from doing bad, you have to be a strategic consumer.

True, but not necessarily helpful. One problem is that few companies start out as evil, and by the time they become evil and the fact is widely recognized, they are often either monopolies or members of oligopolies. Another problem is that the overwhelming majority of people simply don't care, as long as they have their shiny new techno-toys, their reality TV shows, and all the other 'bread and circuses' stuff provided by government and the elites to keep them amused, confused, pliable, and quiet. Very few people have the awareness, or even the desire for awareness, that would cause them to boycott an integral company like Google for more than a day.

And if by chance someone DOES decide to boycott the 'bad guys', what viable alternatives exist? For example, if I decide to boycott my cell provider, I can either forsake cellular service altogether, or buy service from another provider that's equally bad, or possibly worse.

The whole 'consumers have ultimate control' presupposes both the will and the ability of a large number of consumers to act in concert over an extended period of time to further their common interests, even in the face of significant privation. Unfortunately, this seldom happens.

Re:Not surprised

[UnknowingFool]

Only the developer says Google intentionally broken something. Google says the Chromecast SDK is nowhere near ready for release and developers should not rely on it to release apps yet. It would be the same thing if some Linux developer claimed that the latest Linux 3.12 beta broke his application and that Linus did it intentionally. Linux 3.11 is only now in RC status. Linux 3.12 follows it.

Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).

Applications using this preview SDK will work only on Chromecast receiver devices that are whitelisted for development. Google will provide whitelisting for Google Cast receivers for development and testing purposes until the final SDK is released. See Whitelisting your receiver.

Re:Not surprised

[PopeRatzo]

Only the developer says Google intentionally broken something. Google says the Chromecast SDK is nowhere near ready for release and developers should not rely on it to release apps

And yet, they're selling them right now. While the SDK is "nowhere near ready for release".

You know, when it comes down to it, I trust some developer I never heard of before over Google.

Applications using this preview SDK will work only on Chromecast receiver devices that are whitelisted for development. Google will provide whitelisting for Google Cast receivers for development and testing purposes until the final SDK is released. See Whitelisting your receiver.

In other words, "just use the gizmos we sell you to buy more stuff from us and don't hold your breath for any 'apps'."

Like I said, boardrooms are incubators for evil.

Re:Not surprised

[UnknowingFool]

And yet, they're selling them right now. While the SDK is "nowhere near ready for release".

So you would rather have Google just sit and wait until everything is ready. You don't know Google very well do you. Seriously if they waited, we'd hear all this bellyaching about how they had the hardware ready and if Google just release a SDK even beta, developers would love it. I mean the Rasberry Pi is available for sale and entire OS you get with it is considered in development.

In other words, "just use the gizmos we sell you to buy more stuff from us and don't hold your breath for any 'apps'."

How about: The SDK isn't quite ready but you can play with it but otherwise it works out of the box if you don't want to hack with it.

Re:Not surprised

[PopeRatzo]

So you would rather have Google just sit and wait until everything is ready.

I guess the notion of a company waiting until the product is actually finished and working before selling them is pretty quaint.

Re:Not surprised

[UnknowingFool]

Google did release a finished product. ChromeCast works exactly as it should put of the box. If you want to tinker and play with the code to add other features, the SDK is ready for preview (alpha). Google had no obligations to release any SDK at all. Some companies don't. Google clearly labeled the SDK as preview.

Seriously, do you do any software development work at all? MS, Apple, Linux, practically everyone releases alpha and beta software all the time. Anyone working with knows that before RC, anything can change. Things may break. If I wanted to develop for iOS, I could have gotten iOS 7 for months to play with. Until it goes live, I should not release an app based on iOS7. This rather common sense.

Re: DLNA ?

[SirJorgelOfBorgel]

I have a few years old Samsung TV and it plays near anything over DLNA (stream over TCP/IP from your PC), though you have to do some searching to find the right DLNA server and setup. Serviio works best for me. Buffering at movie start may be one or two seconds but certainly not more if you're on a wired (!) connection. Over Wi-Fi it's crap, of course.

Last year I connected Samsung Blu-Ray player which supported even more formats and worked even better (faster). Now, DLNA is about as shitty a protocol as possible (really, if you get down to the tech nitty gritty, "frackin' terrible" would be a compliment) so not everything always works and codec support has some limits, but some brands (including Samsung) support some non-standard stuff like additional codecs and even SRT subtitle support. Ultimately, I hacked my BR player with "SamyGO" which allows you to use network shares directly instead of DLNA which made it even better.

I've used laptops for this purpose and have even built HTPCs, but if you take a little care about what you download, by far most things will play on a DLNA setup on modern TVs and BR players (support differs per brand). My PC is usually turned on in my office room, I download my shows and movies (usually x264 720p or 1080p in mkv format with optional srt) and play them back in the living room without any additional gadgets at all.

Then again, maybe none of your TV room playback devices support DLNA or your computer isn't always-on, both will ruin this setup :)

China version

[nurb432]

I have never had a Chinese product magically lose features after i bought it. Its pretty sad, and ironic, when you have to go to Communist china to get products that support your freedom..

Re:China version

[DNS-and-BIND]

LOL. Chinese always copy. Give them a while to catch up, they'll "update" their software to established standards.

Re:China version

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because their aren't any Chinese companies that design hardware that also have either large advertising departments to sell ads on the product, nor do they directly sell content for the device. In both cases Google and white-labeled Chinese companies, they are doing what will earn them the most money. If the Chinese company were in google's shoes, they'd do the same thing.

Re:China version

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand every Chinese product I owned came short (bugs) on features it promised.

Re:China version

[shutdown -p now]

They don't copy "features" that are not actually useful to the people they're selling to. E.g. they have never copied DVD region locking for their players.

Re:China version

[nurb432]

I gladly accept some bugs to keep my 'control'.

many options

[Chirs]

I've heard decent things about the Western Digital TV Live boxes. For people that like to play with their tech, the Pivos Xios DS can be reflashed with a factory supported XBMC load. (Still basically beta, but reasonably stable.) This is a little ARM box that comes stock running Android, that has full sized USB ports, microSD slot, ethernet/WiFi, etc. I have one of these boxes, I use it for playing local media. I also have a Roku that gets used mostly for Netflix.

I played with a Raspberry Pi running XBMC...it worked, but the menus were a bit sluggish. The Xios is quite a bit quicker at navigating the menus.

No confirmation

[BitZtream]

There seems to be a lot of raking Google over the coals ... but the only thing we have here is a single report, approved to the slashdot front page by timothy.

At this point, since not a single person has confirmed it on here, I'm inclined to believe there is no such breakage and this is just another example of timothy approving something stupid that he shouldn't be allowed to even read, let alone approve.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

They want it under lockdown, What do you expect? I'll just stick to the plain ol' net thanks.

Local Servers?

[heezer7]

Can anyone confirm this breaks playback from local servers along with direct from android devices?

ctrl+o

[spire3661]

Right now, Im playing an .mp4 located on my NAS, opened from my mac and streaming to my Chromecast via Chrome tab. So what did this break?

Re:ctrl+o

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly, never update the firmware

Re:ctrl+o

[Namarrgon]

It didn't break tab casting from Chrome at all.

If you read the original post, it only breaks Koush's Cast app for Android, which worked around the whitelisting restrictions to cast content directly.

Re:ctrl+o

[Nimey]

You mean he worked around the official unstable API and was surprised when it broke?

Unpossible!

What they really broke:

[FuzzNugget]

The only reason for buying a ChromeCast

Re:What they really broke:

[Namarrgon]

Why, were you planning to use only Koush's Cast app? There are other ways to stream local content which still work fine, like tab casting from Chrome.

Re:What they really broke:

[drinkypoo]

There are other ways to stream local content which still work fine, like tab casting from Chrome.

Requiring a PC to be on and transcoding when I could be streaming directly from my NAS is not "fine". That's pathetic. If you have two brain cells to rub together, you are not the target market.

Re:What they really broke:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not wrong, you're just an asshole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E

Re:What they really broke:

[Namarrgon]

Agree completely. Personally I was really hoping for the Chromecast stick to support DLNA rendering robustly (and maybe it will yet be hacked to do so).

In the meantime, while I sincerely hope Koush continues his efforts, it's no surprise that his little workaround got broken. Might even be deliberate like he claims, but the API warning is right there in black & red.

Let's see what's possible after the API is finalised; Google may not be willing to throw the content gates too widely open, but they've always been hacker-friendly for the two-brain-cell market.

Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is the new Apple, who was then the new Microsoft.

I'll stick to my Roku

[vilain]

While it was $99, it can play movies from a USB stick OR a NAS. Plus stream from my Netflix and AmazonPrime accounts. Not all that interested in the 100 other streaming services they offer. I bought it because I could plug in a USB stick and watch whatever. They added the NAS feature recently.

Re:I'll stick to my Roku

[bazorg]

Can it play a DVD film stored as an .iso file?

(thanks in advance)

Re:I'll stick to my Roku

[rsborg]

While it was $99, it can play movies from a USB stick OR a NAS. Plus stream from my Netflix and AmazonPrime accounts. Not all that interested in the 100 other streaming services they offer. I bought it because I could plug in a USB stick and watch whatever. They added the NAS feature recently.

I've tried the USB-stick playing on my Roku2 and it never quite worked for me. Tried various formats converting my yoga video to Apple-friendly (.mp4), windows friendly (.avi) and the like, using dvd quality mpeg4 stream. A whole lot of nothing.

My AppleTV (though it's strict on formats) works like a breeze either streaming the iTunes content or casted via my iPad.

Has this changed recently with the Roku3 or updated Roku2 firmware updates?

Does *not* break casting local content from Chrome

[Namarrgon]

Read Koush's actual post - the update breaks his Cast app for Android, which works around the app whitelisting to stream directly. Nothing says anywhere that casting arbitrary content from Chrome tabs is broken.

Frothy hysteria is fun

[Nimey]

but instead of the boringly predictable GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!!1eleventy karma-whoring[1], shall we examine why exactly this third-party program broke with the new update?

Were they, perchance, using an undocumented API, or one that was known to be unstable?

This seems to be the public API for Chromecast: https://developers.google.com/cast/devprev
but I'm not enough of a programmer to tell if there's explicit support for the kind of thing AirCast does; however, get a load of this:

Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).

Applications using this preview SDK will work only on Chromecast receiver devices that are whitelisted for development. Google will provide whitelisting for Google Cast receivers for development and testing purposes until the final SDK is released. See Whitelisting your receiver.

So it seems my guess was correct and you're all bellyaching about a program taking advantage of an unstable API, with a feature not guaranteed to be there, and when the documentation recommends not distributing production apps yet.

In short, non-story click-whoring. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

[1] I know I'll get modded down for this, but...

Re:Frothy hysteria is fun

[tlambert]

>

So it seems my guess was correct and you're all bellyaching about a program taking advantage of an unstable API, with a feature not guaranteed to be there, and when the documentation recommends not distributing production apps yet.

I checked out the SDK link you provided. The iOS and Android sender examples were last updated July 30th. The breakage occurred post-July 30th, so the documentation should have been updated with working examples, or the references to using the SDK to create 3rd party senders should have been removed.

As I was in the Chrome OS group at Google, and not the Google TV group that is responsible for ChromeCast, I have no idea how frequently that group updates their developer documentation. However, if it's anything like the Chrome OS group, other than design documents, the documentation tends to stay rather out of date for Chrome OS, since there are no technical writers specifically tasked with updating documentation.

So it could be a bug or an intentional API change (for which the documentation is now out of date) that caused the breakage. However, since the breakage has been pretty localized as to where it occurred, it's unlikely to be supported via an alternate API, which implies intentionality, since releases are tested internally before going out to production systems.

Re:Frothy hysteria is fun

[ravnous]

If they deny Koush's request for his app to be whitelisted when using the official, released SDK, THEN we can start getting upset.

Re:Frothy hysteria is fun

[Rich0]

I'm not enough of a programmer to tell if there's explicit support for the kind of thing AirCast does

There isn't - that's why everybody is upset. Google never really intended the device to do what the Cyanogenmod guys are doing with it, just like the company that made the computer you're using never intended you to run Linux on it. The API is basically artificially limited, perhaps because Google doesn't want you to play the copy of the movie that you already have, and instead they want you to buy yet another copy of it from them or one of their partners.

I haven't really seen any whining - just pointing out that the API was changed. It is useful to know, because if you were planning on buying one of these just so that you could use it to stream from Cyanogenmod you know not to waste your money until this is straightened out. This is not unlike all the random posts about UEFI firmwares that have trouble running Linux for whatever reason - the vendors could care less if you want to run Linux but if you care then you need to know, since almost nobody makes consumer hardware intended to run Linux.

Re:Frothy hysteria is fun

[maccodemonkey]

but instead of the boringly predictable GOOGLE IS EVIL!!!!1eleventy karma-whoring[1], shall we examine why exactly this third-party program broke with the new update?

Were they, perchance, using an undocumented API, or one that was known to be unstable?

The accusation (and the supplied evidence) is not that the API changed, it's that Google intentionally blocked this behavior with a white list.

Not shipped

[Anonymous Coward]

And couldn't be happier, I just cancelled my order for a Chromecast.

Re:Not shipped

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes an even huger faggot to know that. Your faggotry must be entirely exceptional. I salute your massive faggotry.

- A. Small Faggot.

Re: DLNA ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Samsung LN52B7xx (from NewEgg, has white "trim lighting" instead of the usual red, so I'm not sure what the model modifier digits are, I think it's "50")

The 7-series has this built in DLNA render/display system, and it works with MP3 audio and MP4 video (the same file renamed as M4V will not work, so it's based completely off of the filename extension). It auto-detects the DLNA libraries on the local network.

I also have a D-Link DNS-321 2-bay NAS with 2x2TB HDD's in it in a RAID-1. This particular model has a built in "A/V Server", which is just a UPnP/DLNA library. To set up the server through the web interface, you simply pick a drive location and point the A/V Server at it, then enable the A/V Server. It auto-refreshes its library listing any time you add things under that directory node.

They work together perfectly. My PS3 has more trouble connecting to the NAS than the TV does, though the TV's browsing interface is kinda slow and annoying. The TV also doesn't allow for fast-forward or rewind, so it's not without flaws. But playback is no problem at all.

Wouldn't buy one, don't need one

[DogDude]

It's called an HDMI cable from my computer to my TV. Cheap, simple, and reliable.

Re:Wouldn't buy one, don't need one

[neminem]

Except that requires you to move your computer over by your tv, or I suppose have a hilariously long HDMI cable. I even have a laptop, so it wouldn't be *that* much work moving the computer over to by the tv, but it's still enough work that I don't feel like it. Plus then if you want to pause it, you have to get up, open the computer, and hit pause. Infinitely more convenient running something like Plex, where all my media is stored on a server and I can stream it via Roku wirelessly, and control it with the Roku remote. (But it would be even more convenient if I could have a device that would just stream content directly. Plex works... most of the time.)

And the lesson learned is...

[dinther]

An upgrade is not always an upgrade.

Fling

[El Rey]

This solution bypasses Google's Chromecast SDK entirely.

Re:Fling

[El Rey]

So much for that... This one is broken now too....

Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately the market for this gear is pretty active and offers some alternatives. Sure, no Netflix and the Android UI probably is not the best for TV navigation. Needs some enterprising hackers to make it shine.

Re:My Smart TV and Blu-Ray players still play medi

[Demonantis]

I have found that who ever designed DNLA was a complete idiot. Some people prefer having the option of smb,nfs,afp. Plus decoding options. Having to reencode a bunch of video files just sucks. Of course its all about the right device for the right situation or person.

XDA to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

While this does make me consider canceling my order, it will probably be a short while before some dev over at XDA comes out with a fully custom rom that solves all the issues, and probably gives us even more usability than stock. Perhaps it's already been done, I haven't looked.

Done. GOOG - TSLA

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought my Google stock at $271 a share. I'm done. Tomorrow I'm selling the original shares for TSLA. Sorry guys, but I just don't trust you any more. At least Elon tells everyone when he's being a whore for the establishment.

fuss about what?

[ushere]

i can stream content from win 7 to sony bravia simply by pressing play to>bravia. so what eaxactly am i missing in this conversation?

Re:fuss about what?

[Overzeetop]

What are you missing? How about the extra $500 for your TV over a commodity version which you paid to Sony, a corporation with an arguably worse reputation than MS around here. And, of course, the fact that you have to send your content from your windows box. You can still send content from your windows box to chromecast, too, it's just a step that wasn't formerly necessary.

Re:fuss about what?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Yes, clearly from this article using this $35 device on a cheap TV is much better.

But that is the problem with people that have an irrational hate for a company, they choose to use a compromised solution under the guise of moral indignation but are really just cheap so champion the free or cheap alternative vs something that works.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow i am always disapointed when manufacturer desides to handicap their hardware with poor software implementation.

Re:Hmm

[Overzeetop]

You must be disappointed a lot.

Alternatives & Google attitude

[Midnight Thunder]

This is why I got the Raspberry Pi. By not coming with any software, you know that by that nature you are pretty much free to do what you want. On the other hand there are other equivalent Android devices coming on to the market, so it will simply be a question of waiting a little and seeing which device comes with the best terms and user experience.

In the end, what really is frustrating about Google is that they push then open angle, and then you feel shafted when they take away that feature. It just seems like bait and switch. If they were open with their real intentions, then people wouldn't be so annoyed.

Chromecast doesn't work anyway

[Arkham]

I have a Chromecast, as well as a Roku and an Apple TV. The Chromecast's video quality is terrible by comparison, pausing and stuttering, buffering and rendering video quality from the 1990s. Hopefully one of these updates will make it actually do what it's designed for. Right now it's a $35 device that serves no purpose.

Google is a company

[Carnivore24]

Companies have one main goal, to make money. If you're looking for something free ask the government.

Then choose a different channel

[tepples]

While content owners have a right to determine who has access to their content, choosing where in my home is a step too far.

Then instead of major well-known commercial video providers, subscribe to video providers that don't exercise this right that you claim is a step too far.

Would have skipped buying it

[tepples]

Google never said you could stream local content

Say my brother is in a band. How should I play this band's music? Besides, Google never explicitly said that users of Android phones could do specific things with the phones that apps eventually enabled.

All they've done is change an undocumented, unsupported API

And replaced it with which documented, supported API? If none, then the fact that Google has taken explicit effort to ensure that the answer is none reveals something about Google's plans for this device that would make a lot of people have skipped buying the device.

Re:Would have skipped buying it

[Anonymous Coward]

Say my brother is in a band. How should I play this band's music?

Stick it on youtube?

Re:Would have skipped buying it

[rsborg]

Google never said you could stream local content

Say my brother is in a band. How should I play this band's music? Besides, Google never explicitly said that users of Android phones could do specific things with the phones that apps eventually enabled.

Clearly, they should have uploaded to YouTube and/or G+ ... because everyone does that, right? I mean, it's not like it's common to see the music industry or government [1] to issue takedown requests, right? And it's not like these things can be faked or sent improperly [2].

But since every one is posting to YouTube and since YouTube is clearly a safe place to post almost anything, that's all Google needs to support. QED. Not sure why anyone is still complaining... it's as good as local!

[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57581399-93/google-more-government-takedown-requests-than-ever-before/
[2] http://www.futureofcopyright.com/home/blog-post/2013/08/01/the-increase-in-false-takedown-requests-calls-for-more-checks-and-balances.html

Re:Would have skipped buying it

[Anonymous Coward]

Google never said you could stream local content

Say my brother is in a band. How should I play this band's music?

Easy. Upload it to your personal google music account and play it back from there using chromecast.

Re:Would have skipped buying it

[viperidaenz]

Why do they need to replace it with a supported documented API?
It's obvious they use the API for internal use, and if their internal use changes, because its not public, they're free to change it as they like.

Chroebooks don't do local netowrks either

[goombah99]

yes they did advertise it playing local content. it is supposed to be able to mirror your browser window. that was a n advetised feature. Many reviews talked about how badly that feature sucked infact.

I bought a chromebook and was a little shocked to find that a network computer won't mount any local network disks! there's no way to do it in chrome at all. There's also no way to stream local media to a chromebook and have it play while it is streaming.

Wasn't an advertised feature

[beanpoppa]

I bought one right after the initial announcement, as soon as they went on sale. I bought it for the only two announced features- direct streaming from the cloud for Netflix, Play, and Youtube, as well as the ability to Tab-cast other things like HBO-Go. The 'Allcast' features that Koush demonstrated only made it better. So, I ordered another for my main room, where I currently have a Logitech Revue GoogleTV. The Revue falls short in local video playback, so I was hoping to replace it with the Chromecast. With the removal of local video playback capability, I've cancelled my order, and will once again look for a solution from other platforms.

Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or can Google just go @#$* themselves?

Biased as I was a huge user of:
- Reader
- iGoogle
- Drive (recommended it as backup storage until the cost went UP - WTF storage cost going up?)
- Latitude

Keep seems great, is it just going to be around long enough for me to use it all the time then they drop it and let me download a zip file of my notes because it doesn't fit with the Facebook-chasing Google+?

Apparently Angry, but Actually Sad,

Anonymous Coward

What the engineers giveth, ...

[efalk]

the marketing department taketh away.

As someone once said, "nobody ever woke up in the morning wishing for *less* functionality from their devices.*

I was considering of getting one of those, thinking of all the cool things I could do with it. Now, there's no point.

Mod parent down

[goombah99]

we don't need such opinionated flamebait to be rated +5 insightful

Re:My Smart TV and Blu-Ray players still play medi

[goombah99]

First off you are right. But on the other hand DNLA completely sucks. I'm not sure if it's the DNLA protocol that sucks or the boxes that suck but they are slow and clumsy to use. The DNLA servers seem to use a lot of computer resources. What one would like is to screw DNLA and use an existing protocol like say file serving off of a NAS. I think DNLA was an attempt to roll up transcoding and file serving into one entity and it does neither well; I'm surprised it doesn't try to do e-mail as well.

open in chrome?

[Anonymous Coward]

you can still open files in a chrome tab and stream it that way. this isn't a big deal.

Google was great

[DrStoooopid]

...now it's just like every other greedy corporation. Sell you something then restrict its features AFTER you've bought it. Like buying a car, and then the manufacturer stealing a wheel in the middle of the night. "Yeah, it still works, just now not as good as when we first sold it to you." I'll stick with my Roku.

Re:Google was great

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been evil for a very long time, people just kept buying their bullshit, and apologizing for them.

Chrome for Android

[tepples]

There are other ways to stream local content which still work fine, like tab casting from Chrome.

I want to tab cast on my Nexus 7. Does tab casting work in Google Chrome for Android yet?

Re:Chrome for Android

[Namarrgon]

Nope, and it won't until more devices have solid video encoding support. The Android MediaRecorder is still limited to encoding from the camera only, and I'm not sure if any MediaCodecs can be made to encode from an OpenGL buffer.

You'll have to stick to DLNA (wouldn't it be nice if Chromecast supported that), or hope that Koush et al persist in their efforts. Or just pay $40 for a generic Android stick and run a DLNA server on that.

I limit my exposure to cellular evil

[tepples]

For example, if I decide to boycott my cell provider, I can either forsake cellular service altogether

People survived before cellular service was avoidable, but that's becoming more difficult with pay phones disappearing. I limit my exposure to cellular evil by buying a $100 per year voice-only plan and using it only for occasional calls to arrange rides and the like.

ADB

[tepples]

ADB was physically the same connector as S-Video. It's just that the signaling was highly proprietary, though its PWM protocol was vaguely similar to the N64, GameCube, and 1-Wire protocols that followed it.

MP3.com

[tepples]

Proprietary connectors: that was true with ADB. Since the iMac the only somewhat proprietary connector left is FireWire which is a IEEE 1394a/b standard. USB is standard. Ethernet is standard. MiniDSP is a VESA standard.

iPod (30 pin), MagSafe, and Lightning are all proprietary connectors.

Please tell which companies were offering non-DRM online music legally before Apple.

There was the original MP3.com, a place for indie artists to post MP3s and sell burn-on-demand CDs.

Re:MP3.com

[UnknowingFool]

MagSafe

Yes because all laptops have had universal connectors. No wait. They don't.

There was the original MP3.com, a place for indie artists to post MP3s and sell burn-on-demand CDs.

Yes where the original copyright content holds (and not the 4 major labels) allowed DRM free music.

SMB server

[tepples]

Let me rephrase: Someone who has a server agent that supports SMB protocol wants a set-top box that supports SMB protocol.

Which computer?

[tepples]

So what computer do you recommend that runs cool and quiet (not a "space heater" as mentioned here), has an attractive case (not a Big Honkin' Tower that the spouse objects to), comes pre-built (not as a kit that takes an hour or two to assemble, that requires ESD precautions, and whose OS is sold separately), and costs less than 400 USD (compare to the forthcoming PS4)?

Re:Which computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're cheap, lazy, superficial (you could always hide the case and run an IR repeater) and for some reason cant do any of the research yourself. GP is absolutely correct, you providing this idiotic set of arbitrary and subjective requirements does not change that, so show some level of intelligence and at least make an attempt to come up with a solution on your own rather than asking him/her to do all the work for you. As for what I think I would say probably a second-hand mac mini or dell small-form-factor PC would probably do the trick, and no Im not going to go and find one for you.

Re:My Smart TV and Blu-Ray players still play medi

[shutdown -p now]

It's mainly the convenience of playing it on TV but controlling it fully from my phone with a touchscreen (e.g. to easily rewind to a specific location, or to look up what I want to watch in an online catalog).

Billed by the GB

[tepples]

Then I guess Chromecast isn't for people who happen to live in areas where the best available Internet access is billed by the GB.

Re:Billed by the GB

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats absolute shit, Im billed by the GB and Chromecast is working fine for me, just like Google Play and YouTube always have.

Barrel connectors

[tepples]

Yes because all laptops have had universal connectors. No wait. They don't.

Every Windows or GNU/Linux laptop that I've owned has had a more or less standard barrel connector. Apple, on the other hand, has declined to license the MagSafe connector and instead gone to court against companies that bought genuine connectors, cut them off, and soldered them onto another PSU.

Yes where the original copyright content holds (and not the 4 major labels) allowed DRM free music.

My point is that if the major labels insist on DRM, one valid option is to ditch the major labels.

Bringing the solution to market

[tepples]

So you're cheap, lazy, superficial (you could always hide the case and run an IR repeater) and for some reason cant do any of the research yourself.

This describes the general public well.

so show some level of intelligence and at least make an attempt to come up with a solution on your own

I myself can come up with a solution; I just lack the business experience to bring my solution to market. I have listed some principles for an attractive HTPC. But the majority of the general public can't come up with a solution, as evidenced by twistedsymphony's comment among others listed here. Economies of scale tend to favor the general public, which may be part of why major manufacturers haven't engineered products based on these principles and brought them to market.

Re:Bringing the solution to market

[Anonymous Coward]

I myself can come up with a solution; I just lack the business experience to bring my solution to market.

You asked for a recommendation of a solution that "that runs cool and quiet, has an attractive case, comes pre-built, and costs less than 400 USD", now you seem to be suggesting you are confident such a thing does not exist otherwise the suggestion that you would bring such a thing to market would be stupid since such a thing already exists, so what was the point of your original question?

Economies of scale tend to favor the general public, which may be part of why major manufacturers haven't engineered products based on these principles and brought them to market.

They have! The Zotac ZBox and Mac Mini (if you are really that tight you can pick one up second hand in your budget) are examples of this.