Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Breaks ChromeCast's Ability To Play Local Content

Posted by timothy on from the alternatives-abound dept.

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."

36 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's that by dorfed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why am I not surprised Google?

    --
    New signature coming soon.
    1. Re:Well that's that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Well that's that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Well that's that by Stumbles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    4. Re:Well that's that by aklinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Well that's that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    6. Re:Well that's that by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Well that's that by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Well that's that by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Well that's that by jodosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. more like by the_fat_kid · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    --
    -- Sig under construction...
    1. Re:more like by utkonos · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:more like by Scutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:more like by Scutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  3. I suppose we should all return our chromecasts by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  4. Re:Bound to happen. by sd4f · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. I was planning to get one... by sootman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  6. Maybe not completely true? by ad454 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Maybe not completely true? by c0lo · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Try something more open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  8. Re:Too easy... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  9. Apple closed by tuppe666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Apple closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Apple closed by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  10. Good argument, except... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  11. My Smart TV and Blu-Ray players still play media by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  12. China version by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. ctrl+o by spire3661 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:ctrl+o by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:ctrl+o by Nimey · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Unpossible!

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  14. What they really broke: by FuzzNugget · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only reason for buying a ChromeCast

  15. I'll stick to my Roku by vilain · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Does *not* break casting local content from Chrome by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  17. Frothy hysteria is fun by Nimey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Frothy hysteria is fun by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

      >

      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.

  18. Would have skipped buying it by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.