Slashdot Mirror
Google Claims ChromeCast Local Streaming Only Broken Because of SDK Changes
sfcrazy writes "You may be familiar with the story that a ChromeCast update disabled the playback of local content, but Google has confirmed that it will allow every kind of content. Google Statement: 'We're excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.' So no need to fear!"
That's a fair statement.
As alternative people use Plex, Apple TV or Western Digital TV
I can't find anything for my FTA satellite receiver to feed HDMI or RCA output onto my local network and use laptop to watch the shows. In the past I used Dreambox to do that. It could even change the channels. All in software using built-in VLC as a server/client.
Any recommendations?
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason? An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting? Locking down this device isn't really their style.
Google bad. Microsoft good. Get it right people!
I suspected it was some mistake, but I still think they're evil.
Aye, I think it's more likely that it'll take use of that 2nd screen window thing that 4.2? onwards has had in the system, just not used in anger yet. Having a render surface on the device, then cast that over, so you get it controllable on if you want a screen mirrored, or something on the tablet, then something else cast over might be the more long term solution. How faffy it can be from sending stuff over from a chrome tab, I can see they'd want to keep working on things so an SDK change at this point? Understandable.
Shame Koushik's app was broken and hopefully comes back once the platform's more stable.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
This is called a Testing Balloon, just like Microsoft with their XBone restrictions.
Fear not! More attempts will come after this died down, what Google cannot make money out of, Google will discontinue eventually.
I suspected it was some mistake, but I still think they're evil.
Well, Edward Snowden pretty much confirmed that.
...and I don't jerk off.
I suspected it was some mistake, but I still think they're evil.
Well indeed, but let's atleast get our reasons straight...
Microsoft has always been our ally.
In other news, the chocolate rations will be increased this week, and there's been another winner in the lottery!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason? An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting? Locking down this device isn't really their style.
No, their style will be to cancel the device/services with some warning and litle explanation.
Silence is a state of mime.
I am fairly certain we are all living in Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lottery
It should be pointed out...is an API change undocumented if the API itself is documented??
It should be pointed out...is an API change undocumented if the API itself is documented??
Or... is it an API at all if it's undocumented?
Yeah, people fucking pointed this multiple times (here and elsewhere), but this rather important tidbit was lost among the noise that is misguided Internet rage.
The Internet is extremely good at pushing things out of context or missing that little bit of info that completely changes the meaning of something. Like that image of Will Smith's family looking shocked over Miley Cyrus' act at the VMAs even though the picture-in-picture clearly showed it was Lady Gaga's act. But hey, people love to not pay attention to the details. It's faster that way.
I suspected it was some mistake
Yes, and it wasn't even Google's mistake. Some developer wanted go make a name for himself by being an ass.
That's crap. Do you think they didn't test this 'change' before pushing it out? Of course they did. BTW, changing the API so it won't stream local content is still just changing the API.
The ChromeCast hasn't been out long enough for products to be taking advantage of "undocumented" APIs when the whole thing is too new to have anything realy built around it.
Maybe Google can hire Steve Balmer when he retires from Microsoft so they can fine-tune their evil ways.
That was a supremely shitty reference for your claim. Using snowden's name gives your claim more weight, but in reality that article is all about Julian Assange...with only a passing reference to Google. Don't be a dick.
I guess so. Unless you think it should be called an `undocumented API` in that case. Doesn't seem to bring much to the table; calling it something else would bring even less.
The Internet is extremely good at pushing things out of context or missing that little bit of info that completely changes the meaning of something.
You mistake strength for weakness. Imagine such levels of hue and cry and demanding of accountability in the mainstream populous -- Such is missing even over things that actually really matter.
'Tis better to Sense Emphatically and waste a few cycles for self correction than Decide to dismiss threats by default and Act far too late. For the first time in your planet's history businesses can respond nearly instantly to customer demands. Just look at the Xbone, for a recent example. The point is that if Google had removed such feature they'd know it was a bad move, and going forward they know for sure not to strip that feature.
Tell me, do you curse yourself for your immediately incorrect first impression before you've even considered a second look to discover something a bit closer to truth? Your indignation would be warranted if despite widespread evidence of the falsehood everyone still believed the initially perceived deceptions. Let they who hath never done the double take pass the first judgment.
The Internet is not unlike your brain, except that you can see every part of this seething Cybernetic system as it fills with speculation prior to arriving at better understanding over time. Like humans the Internet reacts the most to what is perceived most threatening. What is most notable is not the time frames of the responses but the relative time frames of each cybernetic phase: Rapid repeated Sensing and even duplication of thoughts bubble up here in Slashdot's corner of the global mind; At a slower pace do the Decisions percolate as information is gathered; Yet more energy still is required to activate that synapse of the collective's Actions.
As a cyberneticist I agree that you should have the sense to decide before you act; However, do not mistake Sensation for Decision or Action. The Internet isn't perfect, but I couldn't have designed it better myself.
Perhaps so... another explanation is that the removal was generating bad PR. If there hadn't been Slashdot coverage of the loss of the capability, they might have continued with some plan of removing the capability I suppose we will never know.
If they truly want to be non-evil; they'll provide a documented stable API to expose the hardware's functionality -- instead of just undocumented API they keep randomly changing in minor updates.
That was a supremely shitty reference for your claim. Using snowden's name gives your claim more weight, but in reality that article is all about Julian Assange...with only a passing reference to Google. Don't be a dick.
Only a passing reference?? Not sure if we read the same article, because almost every paragraph in that article is about Google.
And true the article writer is Julian Assange, but the revelations he first reference and then adds too with his own experience and knowledge are the latest Edward Snowden revelations.
No, it is not only Google that are caught with their pants down by the latest Snowden revelations. But with the latest revelation it is becoming very clear that Google is just as much in bed with NSA as others, while in beginning people tried spinning Google as still somewhat better. In the article Assange adds to this with his own story, I don't see how that can't be relevant too.
Yeah like Reader! We only had several months of warning for that one!
But it is the style of those content providers whose apps leave messages like, "This content is not available on mobile"
and "You cannot play content while a second display is enabled"
And if you could cast any media class, then all of a sudden, those messages just wouldn't matter.
And content providers would pull their apps claiming they no longer have control over where it's displayed.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Latitue
If there hadn't been Slashdot coverage of the loss of the capability, they might have
continued with some plan of removing the capability
And if I hadn't been holding this rock, I might have been mauled by tigers.
But go ahead. If you think that justifies the bad behavior in yesterday's discussions, with everyone jumping to conclusions over some massive google conspiracy, then continue on. I'll just sit her, embarrassed for you all, since you apparently don't have a sense of shame of your own.
Latitue
Latitude isn't cancelled, it's just moving into Google+. Granted that in the short term it's lost some functionality, but I'm sure it'll be back.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason? An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting? Locking down this device isn't really their style.
No, their style will be to cancel the device/services with some warning and litle explanation.
Cancel the system that's bringing YouTube (and its ads) into the living room? Seems very unlikely. In general, Google only discontinues services that aren't very successful (no, Reader wasn't very widely used, in spite of the heat generated by its fans). Successful services that are generating revenue are expanded. Successful services that aren't generating revenue are monetized. Unsuccessful services are discontinued if it looks like they're not going to become successful.
The Chromecast seems to be very successful, and to have an obvious and successful revenue model in place (YouTube). I don't think it's going anywhere.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't speak for Google.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Unfortunately much of the tech press content consists of (paid?) product announcements, unsubstantiated rumour, and reviews of dubious quality.
Google was up front about there being no Chromecast apps until the SDK was released, at the very beginning. This was never a story.
I don't understand this argument.
I have a mobile device. Its OS was developed by Google. It is able to play most any content I want. Sure, providers of streaming video may choose to restrict my access to their online media. But they haven't bullied Google into preventing me from playing videos that I've loaded onto it.
How was the API undocumented. FYI if this feature is undocumented and not supported then the original contention that Google will not allow local content streamed is still valid.
I'm still perplexed by the fact that they cancelled Reader. It had been around for 8 years. I'm sure it wasn't their most popular service, but then again, there probably didn't cost them much to run. The code didn't really need updating as nothing has changed in RSS in the past 5 years, and less users just means fewer server resources to handle the traffic. After they announced they were closing, 3 million people joined Feedly. That's not a very small number of people by any means. Personally, I went to Tiny-Tiny RSS, which I host on my own (shared host) server. That way I'm not reliant on some company deciding to shut down service.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Except when your SDK is in beta and explicitly states that apps are not to be distributed without your approval until the SDK comes out of beta.
In this case, I'm not sure if it's even an SDK change - it's a removal of an exploit that was used to allow a non-whitelisted unofficial app to behave like a whitelisted one.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"Don't be perceived as evil"
It makes a huge difference. If they are intentionally breaking it that means the software will never be allowed to work. If its just a matter of churn in a preview SDK, which developers were warned about, its really the fault of the developers releasing prematurely (there's a joke about premature release in there somewhere). The alternative would be Google to fully develop the SDK without third party input and release it. As a software developer I'd rather give input before release when things can get fixed right instead of after release where fixes are often awkwardly bolted on since they can't break existing APIs.
An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting?
How is the API undocumented?
Developers might also want to take note of the following:
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.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
That's crap. Do you think they didn't test this 'change' before pushing it out? Of course they did. BTW, changing the API so it won't stream local content is still just changing the API.
The ChromeCast hasn't been out long enough for products to be taking advantage of "undocumented" APIs when the whole thing is too new to have anything realy built around it.
You are just completely wrong. This whole kerfluffle was because the API was changed in such a way that Koush's aircast app for android stopped working. An app that used some undocumented API's to work around google's device whitelisting system. So yes, I'm sure google tested this thing. And (if you believe them), they still don't mind local content playing through it (which is likely, as they never broke streaming local content via a chrome tab). But if changing an undocumented API breaks a 3rd party app (particularly one that worked to get around the standard APIs), then so be it.
That said, I was still mad that they made the change, as I liked using Aircast. Hopefully it will be back at some point.
This is a preview SDK. They're not obliged at this point to retain compatability or to avoid breaking anything. In fact, they can quite legitimately throw the entire API out and replace it with something else.
Anyone developing for Chromecast right now knows this, which meant the original article was dubious, if not intentionally deceptive. The author's program would have broken whether they'd written the app to stream from local hard drives or from Hulu.com.
Ultimately anyone who wants to write their own streaming servers, be they for commercial services or for home hacking, continues to be able to do so, and in a few months they'll have a stable API to code against. Local streaming was never broken.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I think it's a good time for us all to take a step back and reflect on the (many very reactionary) comments made after the "Google breaks Chromecast" story the other day.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/08/25/2254208/google-breaks-chromecasts-ability-to-play-local-content
no because I have to fit google into my NWO corporate nsa fcontrail antasies somehow
In the case of the Chromecast which is presumably displaying to a 1920x10820 display, is there some sort of passthrough signalling that will let the streaming device use a more appropriate resolution? Or do I only get the same resolution as the intermediate device?
On a related note, can somebody tell me why this device is desirable? I'm still struggling with the use case here. What is the benefit of Chromecast over something like teeny little wdtv box? It's smaller and cheaper but does a lot less.
So, it is better to be incompetent than to be evil?
Because any decent software developer would test something as basic as local playback *before* doing a release.
listen up AC, it wasn't only videos that you've loaded onto the device.
Koush's work included DIALing anything with a media class. That included any video or audio capable app.
And that's why the loophole is closed.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I have looked over the API it's still very new and sensitive right now. Google needs to stabilize this then release to developers so big companies like HBOGO, Amazon and Hulu can build for this new product.
http://allamericancomputerrepair.com/
So, it is better to be incompetent than to be evil?
Because any decent software developer would test something as basic as local playback *before* doing a release.
It's got a SDK that is in developer preview and subject to change. Why is this so hard to understand on a supposedly technical site? When the SDK is stable, and it gets changed to disallow local playback (or the SDK somehow never makes it to a stable release), *then* we can all jump up and down. Calm the hell down, consumer devices have been released like this for years now. The iPhone didn't have a stable SDK on its first release, later it did. Chromecast doesn't, later it will.
"Undocumented API" = "NSA backdoor"
Look at it from a different perspective. Google gave up a project that was little value to them. It did prove and get many people, myself included, to use RSS. Do I like Feedly as much as Reader? No. Do I use it just as much as Reader? Yup. Destroying Reader suddenly created demand in a market that practically didn't exist the day before. Startups always worry about what will happen when one of the big boys decide to play in their yard. Well here is a case where one decided to go do something else and let everyone else get a chance to play. Shutting down Reader was a gain for a Google, a gain for alternate RSS developers and a gain for users.
Google's internal tools, frameworks and supporting services are constantly being improved, and Google prefers breaking changes over accumulation of legacy overhead in internal APIs.
It's not a matter of just leaving a LAMP box alone in a corner.
The most popular Google products have over a billion users. Medium popular ones have a hundred million.
I'm sure it wasn't their most popular service, but then again, there probably didn't cost them much to run.
it's just math. google exists to make money. if they were making $ with reader, it'd still be around. they aren't a non-profit, so argument like "it didn't cost that much" are irrelevant. google may allow some losing services to exist, but it's because they see future potential in them. RSS readership has been on a downward trend for some time.
So, an evil traitor says something about a highly successful, multi-billion dollar company, and I'm supposed to believe the traitor?
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason?
No and the evidence is in the fact that they even have these private/undocumented APIs. If a competitor comes along they can just break the necessary API while reserving the advantageous functionality for their own applications and claim that it was using a private API, we saw the exact same thing with Microsoft in the early 90s. Private APIs should not be allowed, they just give the platform author an unfair competitive advantage in the application market and the ability to shut out competitors.
No! You should never believe whistleblowers no matter what evidence they provide! Always trust the successful multi-billion dollar company that tells you they do no evil, if there is one thing we can always trust to have our best interests at heard it is our multi-billion dollar corporations.
"Don't be perceived as evil"
Thanks Machiavelli.
Chromecast has done its job
the vehicle to be changed will be Youtube also owned by google-which many non-developers forget.