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!"
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?