Chromecast Now Open To Developers With the Google Cast SDK

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chromecast Now Open To Developers With the Google Cast SDK

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 3, 2014 @09:09AM from the let-the-streaming-begin dept.

sfcrazy writes "Google has finally released the SDK for Chromecast which will allow 3rd party developers to stream content to the living room via Chromecast. When Google broke Koushik Dutta's (CyanogenMOD fame) app, it was met with criticism. However it was assumed that Google was positioning Chromecast as a streaming device and was focusing on getting content providers for it before it engaged developers to add support for their apps. Now that Google has succeeded in getting a long list of content providers to bring their content on Chromecast, the company is opening the device to developers."

104 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What does this mean to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:13 · Score: 0, Insightful

I don't have a clue what any of this shit is.
1. Re:What does this mean to me? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  It means that there is now a non-free SDK that can be used to develop software for ChromeCast. What the non-free SDK does to your bits I don't know, but since it's non-free I assume it's something bad since Google doesn't want to show it to their users.
2. Re:What does this mean to me? by friesandgravy · 2014-02-03 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Here you go buddy:
  http://bit.ly/LIF2CR
3. Re:What does this mean to me? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2014-02-03 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  I think this is a more pertinent answer to his question.
4. Re:What does this mean to me? by khellendros1984 · 2014-02-03 11:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know; it depends on who you are. Are you a developer that would like to be able to stream audio and video to a television or other HDMI-equipped device? Then this is an API that will allow you to do so, provided the user has a device called a "Chromecast".
  
  Are you an owner of the aforementioned Chromecast device? Then you should be interested that with an API available, more developers can implement Chromecast apps, and you'll be able to stream a greater variety of content to your TV.
  
  If you're neither, and you've never heard of a "Chromecast" before, then you can still get some information from the summary. First, that it's a Google device for streaming things "to the living room", second, that it requires app-specific support to work, and third, that Google has now released an API for the device that will allow developers to provide Chromecast streaming support in their apps.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
5. Re:What does this mean to me? by binarylarry · 2014-02-03 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  WHO IS this new ultra talented Rick Astley guy?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
6. Re:What does this mean to me? by Cwix · 2014-02-03 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Is your google broken? Do the links in the summary not work?
  
  --
  You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
More HDMI dongle devices coming by the_scoots · 2014-02-03 09:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

We've been playing with a number of yet to be announced similar pieces of HDMI hardware at work, as well as Chromecast. The #1 feature I wish was available is to make multiple dongles stackable on one HDMI port.
1. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Shadowmist · 2014-02-03 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  We've been playing with a number of yet to be announced similar pieces of HDMI hardware at work, as well as Chromecast. The #1 feature I wish was available is to make multiple dongles stackable on one HDMI port.
  That's why we have HDMI switchers.... they even have some with remote controls.
2. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  That sounds vaguely filthy.
3. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Stop trolling, Adria
4. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Sunshinerat · 2014-02-03 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  Different devices on a hotel guest wifi network are not supposed to see each other (and a hotel room wifi login on a ChromeCast dongle seems difficult - to say the least).
  ChromeCast in a hotel would be my critical application. Plug it into the Hotel TV, tie it my tablet to it and play local movies or HBO Go.
  The best way to solve that would be a direct connection between the dongle and the tablet, not going through the router.
  Unless this is fixed by now, I have need to hold out as I have other (better?) means of playing various sources of video at home.
  Maybe a third party solution would fix this, however, will it be supported by the third parties like HBO?
  
  --
  Load New Commander (Y/N)?
5. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by nblender · 2014-02-03 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Any indication how well Chromecast works with Plex? I'm in Canada and could probably get a grey-market chromecast but it would only be useful to me if it ran Plex (which I'm told you can get for ChromeCast)
6. Re: More HDMI dongle devices coming by AvitarX · 2014-02-03 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  I'd recommend a Zuni connect zr301.
  That plus my chromecast were the best $80 I've ever spent for work travel.
  It works with ethernet or will connect to the hotels WiFi, and give you a separate private network and NAT you onto the hotels for internet.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
7. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by mythosaz · 2014-02-03 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  This is exactly the problem in my living room. While I've got multiple HDMI inputs, only my XBox One works in series with another device -- and since the XBox One doesn't act as a Media Center Extender (you bastards!), right now that device is my TV input.
  The Chromecast is on another HDMI input, and is mostly relegated to the world of "this odd toy I bought."
8. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Githaron · 2014-02-03 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Plex already supports Chromecast in their premium version. They claim that the feature will eventually released to everyone.
9. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  At least the Chromecast supports HDMI CEC. The Xbox One doesn't, and requires IR to do control. It's pretty absurd. My PS3 supports CEC, and now my Chromecast does, but the "hub" device of Xbox One doesn't.
10. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Belial6 · 2014-02-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  HDMI switchers are a device of last resort.
11. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by darkNeko · 2014-02-03 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this will help.
12. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Belial6 · 2014-02-03 10:53 · Score: 2
  
  I just got am email from Roku. Apparently they have partnered with a couple of different TV manufacturers, and that models will be releases this year with Roku as the TV's UI. Part of that is making the different inputs act as Roku channels.
13. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by nblender · 2014-02-03 11:05 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah; I'd seen that it was available in the play store. I'm afraid that it will work as poorly as RaspPlex... If it works well then it would be terrific.
14. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Shemmie · 2014-02-03 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  I used Plex and Chromecast all over Christmas. It streamed very well indeed. It'd occasionally crash (as in the movie would stop playing suddenly), but it'd usually remember where the movie got to, and pick up where it left off - and I never needed to restart the media server.
  All in all, very impressed with how Plex and Chromecast play together - mixture of file formats / quality were attempted, and all played at first time of asking.
  As a by the by, I'm British, and got mine via the grey-market; if you're considering it, I can highly recommend it. All I need now is an UltraViolet player for Flixster, which will hopefully come with the SDK out, and my movie needs are completely sorted.
15. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by farble1670 · 2014-02-03 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Plug it into the Hotel TV
  except the hotel screen is probably worse than your tablet, despite being larger.
16. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just bought one of these "Roku Ready" TV's (An Insignia 39" 1080p). The Roku-readiness comes in the form of a sticker on the box, and the back of the TV next to the MHL-compatible HDMI input. You plug in a Roku streaming stick, and use the TV's remote, which includes play/pause/rewind etc. buttons, to drive it.
17. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by gmhowell · 2014-02-03 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  Sometimes, quantity is a kind of quality.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
18. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to solve that would be a direct connection between the dongle and the tablet, not going through the router.
  Except Chromecast doesn't work by streaming from your tablet. The tablet just sends URLs (and control for trick play, etc) to the Chromecast receiver, which then streams from the content provider's server directly.
  The best solution would be to have your own travel AP, and connect the devices to that. Also solves the annoyance that connecting Chromecast to a new WiFi network is kind of a pain. Of course, that solution might also depend on whether the hotel makes you login and how they authenticate.
19. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  The Chromecast is on another HDMI input, and is mostly relegated to the world of "this odd toy I bought."
  Well, there really isn't that much point to Chromecast if you already have a full-featured streaming device connected to your TV. It's advantage is in locations you *don't* have a permanent device setup, it's a cheap and portable solution as long as you have a phone/tablet/pc to control it.
  In your living room you'll probably have a much better experience with a real device like an Xbox, Playstation, or Roku.
20. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Immerman · 2014-02-03 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  So instead you want... auto-HDMI switches built into the devices themselves? I'm seeing *ferocious* downsides to that, not least of which is the added cost per devices, and the complete inability to switch between sources in any sort of consistent manner. I could totally see the value of a high-speed, efficiently daisy-chainable A/V data bus, but that's a spec that would need to be developed unto itself to have any chance of not leading to complete insanity, not something to be tacked on completely inconsistently by manufacturers as a value-add.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
21. Re: More HDMI dongle devices coming by Scowler · 2014-02-03 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed that building in that HDMI switch functionality into end devices sounds horrid. For the existing discrete HDMI switches... are these things reliable? They certainly cost a lot, presently. Any chance we'll see HDMI switches that will dual switch paired HDMI/Ethernet lines? That would be compelling... especially since the industry seems slow to adopt HDMI 1.4+ functionality in this area.
22. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by ozmanjusri · 2014-02-03 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Set your tablet as a WiFi hotspot.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
23. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 18:09 · Score: 0
  
  So, you want more HDMI ports for your wireless HDMI port.
  Perfect Logic.
24. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Belial6 · 2014-02-03 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  The answer is to have a lot of HDMI ports on the TV itself.
25. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by AmiMoJo · 2014-02-04 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  You can buy a tiny portable router and either wire it in or set up a wireless bridge to the hotel's wifi.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
26. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Kaitiff · 2014-02-04 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the chromecast can cast it's own wifi. It's not all the powerful but for sitting in the hotel it would work fine. When I set mine up, I had to choose between my existing wireless network(s) or the chromecast one. So you could plug it into the hotel tv, get it up and connect to it and not have to use any other wireless. You would still need some sort of uplink to GET your content on your laptop or your phone but that's on a different network connection.
  
  --
  If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
27. Re: More HDMI dongle devices coming by Albanach · 2014-02-04 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  They cost a lot? $10 is less than the cost of an HDMI cable from a retail store. And with a couple of thousand reviews and four stars I expect reliability isn't bad for the price, especially given you can return to Amazon if it's DOA.
28. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by Albanach · 2014-02-04 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Take an extra wifi dongle and set up network sharing using whatever OS your laptop runs. Problem solved.
29. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by jratcliffe · 2014-02-04 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just bought one of these "Roku Ready" TV's (An Insignia 39" 1080p). The Roku-readiness comes in the form of a sticker on the box, and the back of the TV next to the MHL-compatible HDMI input. You plug in a Roku streaming stick, and use the TV's remote, which includes play/pause/rewind etc. buttons, to drive it.
  That's the current model. The ones coming out this fall (from TCL and HiSense) won't require the stick, they'll actually have the Roku software built in.
  http://blog.roku.com/blog/2014...
30. Re:More HDMI dongle devices coming by sh00z · 2014-02-04 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Which would be great, but the Insignia I tried with that feature*also* refused to HDMI handshake with my Panasonic Blu Ray player (which, if you know VieraCast, you know why the add-on media stick is needed). Back to the store it went. There's no way I'll ever drop the Panny, because it has my critical feature of 5.1 analog audio outputs.
About damn time! by heezer7 · 2014-02-03 09:24 · Score: 2

I bought 2 of this with a project in mind and have been stuck waiting...
spread the HOLY GAYNIGGER SEED by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:36 · Score: -1

chromecast it far and wide!
android support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:45 · Score: -1

I wont buy one till the stupid thing works with android.. sheesh
-db
1. Re:android support?! by mcl630 · 2014-02-03 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  When hasn't it worked with Android?
2. Re:android support?! by bobbied · 2014-02-03 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I wont buy one till the stupid thing works with android.. sheesh
  -db
  Works in *what* way with android? Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm tag, but I have one of these and it works just fine with my old android phone, at least for streaming vendors that have ported their stuff to android..
  I know I've used Pandora on my Android with my Cromecast, do not recall if I tried Netfix or not. I know it worked with my old XP laptop, albeit at a reduced frame rate due to processing power available when displaying the Crome screen, but ran great when casting and streaming directly to the device.
  So what doesn't work on Android for you?
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
3. Re:android support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Two years ago.
4. Re: android support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  didn't work for me either. it doesn't support all android devices. this isn't widely documented. I got error after error. chromecast is a piece
5. Re:android support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  So that would mean most Android devices in use has not yet caught up to this?
6. Re:android support?! by mcl630 · 2014-02-03 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Chromecast was released less than a year ago.
7. Re:android support?! by mcl630 · 2014-02-03 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Chromecast works with Android 2.3 and up... so about 98% of devices in use today. I don't know where the AC got 2 years from as Chromecast was released less than a year ago.
8. Re: android support?! by symbolset · 2014-02-03 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  It seems the ACs here who bash everything Google haven't even bothered to do a trivial amount of research. You guys are mailing it in.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
9. Re:android support?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  That's probably why the AC said, "two years ago", in response to your question.
this is /. , after all... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:48 · Score: 0

I believe you meant that multiple dongles sounds delightfully filthy
New ChomeCast Device ? by psergiu · 2014-02-03 09:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hope Google releases a better ChromeCast device - with an Ethernet port and support for accepting HDMI-CEC events from the TV so you can use the TV remote to Play/Pause/FF/RW.
The current one is sucky.
And if you are on a metered internet connection, beware: While plugged in, the current ChromeCast pulls lots of large photos to display as the screensaver slideshow. It would be nice if it could be pointed to a local network share to display a slideshow with your own photos.

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
1. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by bobbied · 2014-02-03 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  . And if you are on a metered internet connection, beware: While plugged in, the current ChromeCast pulls lots of large photos to display as the screensaver slideshow. It would be nice if it could be pointed to a local network share to display a slideshow with your own photos.
  I think you have your first app idea....
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by prehistoricman5 · 2014-02-03 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  Support for HDMI-CEC events would actually solve the problem of the display updating; it would know when the tv is powered off or it ceased to be the active source and could disable updating the background until it becomes the active source again.
  
  --
  Fuck Beta
3. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  But but if content is served locally how will Google track the data and monetize usage through ads?!
4. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Scowler · 2014-02-03 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  No Ethernet port means no sale to me. Not going to stream HD video over a flaky WiFi. Thankfully, Apple TV and Roku did it right, even if they cost significantly more. And, by the way, a dongle is kind of a silly form factor when there's a power brick hanging off it.
5. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by symbolset · 2014-02-03 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Works great here.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
6. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  And if you are on a metered internet connection, beware: While plugged in, the current ChromeCast pulls lots of large photos to display as the screensaver slideshow.
  That's a pretty insignificant amount of bandwidth considering this is an HD-capable *streaming* device. You do realize streaming video is effectively 24-30 highly compressed images downloaded per second, right? Watching one streamed movie is going to use almost 2GB (and that's in standard def - HD is going to be 2-4x that). That would be a shit-ton of screensaver photos...
7. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  Power your Chromecast from a USB port on your TV and it's off when the TV is off.
8. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  It's not meant for Ethernet setups (where by definition you have a cable, so it's a semi-permanent location). They went for dirt-cheap and simple.
  If you want a $35 streaming device that requires a second screen to control, it's not bad. If you want a much more powerful device with Ethernet that you can plug into a TV in a fixed location, you are much better off getting a $100 Roku.
  I agree the power situation is kind of annoying - though doesn't require a "brick", just a USB connection which almost all TVs have.
9. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Scowler · 2014-02-03 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's a more reasonable use case you outline, one that sounds great for frequent travelers perhaps. Pretending for a moment that WiFi is tolerable... the biggest issue remaining is the lack of a "quick pause button". I do not like fumbling with a touchscreen phone for 10-20 seconds (swipe, pass code, etc) just trying to pause a movie or TV show. For other controls I don't mind, I guess. Does Android/iPhone have a solution for this?
10. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  On Android (atleast any recent 4.x version) the netflix pause/whatever screen becomes part of the lock screen, so you can just wake screen up and hit pause.
  I prefer using chromecast for netflix over my other available solutions (ps3, panasonic viera app, probably some more).
11. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Newer versions of Android let you control the app from the main player controls. On the iPhone you have to control it from an app (Apple isn't going to integrate Chromecast integration into their Airplay controls, of course ;)
  We have been able to stream and decode 1080p video @ 9Mbps over the WiFi. It's definitely not the greatest WiFi quality but if you have a good signal it works...
12. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by AvitarX · 2014-02-03 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  What power brick? I have an 18" USB cord plugged into my TV.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
13. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by non0score · 2014-02-03 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  I-frames may cost that much. However, most of the frames are P-frames (using VP8 parlance), which cost a lot less. There is even more room for compression when you consider temporal coherence in additional to adjacent block coherence. (There are Golden frames and alt-reference frames, but those are details of the algorithm/implementation.)
14. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't invalidate his point that the streamed videos will use up far more bandwidth than the background photos.
15. Re:New ChomeCast Device ? by Anne+Thwacks · 2014-02-04 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  If they dont support locally served content, they will lose the entire market to someone who does.
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
16. Re: New ChomeCast Device ? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  I just pull down the notification shade and hit the pause button on the notification shown by the app controlling the chromecast (presumably this feature needs Android 4.1+). But I don't have a passcode on my lockscreen and I've only used it with Play Movies and Youtube.
Holy crap that's some bad writing. by fang0654 · 2014-02-03 09:50 · Score: 3, Funny

It was written as if someone pushed it through Google translate, deleted some random characters, printed it out, ate it, and crapped it onto a keyboard. I do hope we get some badass apps for the Chromecast though. It has a lot of potential.
Frist s%top by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 09:54 · Score: -1

are havinG trouble may be hUrting our cause. Gay
Can someone fill me in? by astro128 · 2014-02-03 09:54 · Score: 1

Can someone tell me what Koushik Dutta has to do with this and maybe what app they are referring to?
1. Re:Can someone fill me in? by mcl630 · 2014-02-03 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Koushik Dutta wrote an app called AllCast to cast videos stored locally on an Android device to Chromecast by reverse-engineering the (then closed) APIs. Google then changed the APIs to break his app. Koushnik then changed AllCast to cast to anything but Chromecast (Roku, AppleTV, Google TV, Samsung TVs, etc). Now that the Chromecast APIs are available to everyone, he will update AllCast to support Chromecast again.
2. Re:Can someone fill me in? by fang0654 · 2014-02-03 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I may be a little fuzzy on the exact details, but Koush made an app for local file streaming, using the SDK. Some time after, the ChromeCast itself started requiring apps to be signed to run, so you could only run the dozen in the Google Play Store. Then for awhile the CC was nothing more than a Netflix streaming device.
Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by Mister+Liberty · 2014-02-03 10:12 · Score: 1

Think before you code.
1. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by Threni · 2014-02-03 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Android has the market share. What else would you target these days?
2. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by symbolset · 2014-02-03 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  Between Android and iOS a developer has 94% of mobile devices covered. Mobile developers have never had it this good.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
3. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by John+Bokma · 2014-02-03 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Recommended reading to understand "market share": http://www.theguardian.com/tec... and http://9to5mac.com/2014/01/10/... Quote from the former:
  
  So what's wrong with the sentence? After all, in the third quarter of 2013 Android did have around 80% of worldwide market share. That's correct - here are the ABI research figures.
  It's simply wrong, though, to extrapolate from that to think that four in five smartphones in peoples' hands are Android-powered. Here's the reality: at the time this was written, more than 40% of the smartphones in use in the US (a key market for Nike) were iPhones. Only about 51% of the smartphones in peoples' hands in the US are Android phones. The ratios are more in Android's favour elsewhere, but nowhere outside of China (and perhaps India) would you find four in five smartphone owners using an Android phone.
  
  --
  
  Perl Programmer for hire
4. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Android has the market share. What else would you target these days?
  It doesn't have the usage rates to follow - which is a primary concern of developers.
  Our Android usage numbers pale in comparison to our iOS ones. Lot's of people are buying Android devices. But all evidence points to a smaller subset than iOS users actually using them for apps.
5. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by mcl630 · 2014-02-03 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Chromecast works with iOS too. I'm unclear how your "usage rates" of Android vs iOS really relate to Chromecast.
6. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  > more than 40% of the smartphones in use in the US (a key market for Nike) were iPhones. Only about 51% of the smartphones in peoples' hands in the US are Android phones.
  I like the use of ONLY in that the smaller share for iPhones "40%" gets a positive "more than" while the largest Android "51%" gets a negative "only".
7. Re:Everybody drinking the Google-Aid now? by sh00z · 2014-02-04 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably because of the usual logic they attach--the fact that only Apple makes iPhones. Therefore 40% of the smartphones are made by Apple. Of the 51% Android, no other single vendor has more than 25% overall market share.
Chromecast by LookIntoTheFuture · 2014-02-03 10:22 · Score: 1

So, what is the deal with Chromecast anyway? Does it track what you do and what you watch? What am I thinking? Of course it does. And if it doesn't now, it will. Bah.

--
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Maybe I will finally ditch roku! by netsavior · 2014-02-03 10:26 · Score: 1

From day 1 roku had a powerful enough SDK that I could make a "channel" to front-end my locally served content with a picture based menu so my kids could use it...

Roku has some problems (lack of DNLA support) that bug me, but has other problems that bug the wife (Hulu plus sucks on every platform, including roku, but she really believes it is possible to have a device where it works as good as hulu on a computer, I think this is a unicorn)

We are basically willing to try any streaming device that is under 100 dollars, and chromecast was no better than just HDMI-ing my laptop to the TV, since the only sensible/exclusive feature it included was the ability to make a browser window appear on screen, but if it requires a PC in order for chromecast to be worth a damn, well then it is a 50 dollar hdmi cable with added network latency.

I am excited to see the chromecast become more worthwhile.
1. Re:Maybe I will finally ditch roku! by Belial6 · 2014-02-03 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Roku did not have a powerful enough SDK from day 1. On day one, Roku was exclusively a Netflix streaming device. It was quite some time before other channels were added.
  
  While, I don't have a ChromeCast, so cannot comment on it's quality, I do know enough about it to say that a laptop plugged into the TV is most definitly not equivalent. A ChromeCast is a fraction of the cost of a laptop, a fraction of the size of a laptop, and uses a fraction of the power of a laptop.
2. Re:Maybe I will finally ditch roku! by khellendros1984 · 2014-02-03 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  We are basically willing to try any streaming device that is under 100 dollars, and chromecast was no better than just HDMI-ing my laptop to the TV, since the only sensible/exclusive feature it included was the ability to make a browser window appear on screen, but if it requires a PC in order for chromecast to be worth a damn, well then it is a 50 dollar hdmi cable with added network latency.
  I like it during parties; anyone with an Android or Apple phone can enqueue music or Youtube videos. You don't have to search for a remote; any phone or PC in the house will work as one. I like using my phone or tablet for an interface more than I like using an IR remote. Chromecast does a lot of things that I like without running an HDMI cable across the room to my laptop.
  
  That's all pretty subjective, of course. Some things are a result of my own preferences, and some things are a result of how my living room is set up. For my uses, it's a worthwhile device.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
3. Re:Maybe I will finally ditch roku! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-04 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  My Roku's firmware now seems to have DLNA after recent updates. I have yet to try it though.
Lying with statistics about market share by tepples · 2014-02-03 10:34 · Score: 2

Android has the market share.
Of what? One can pick a market to give anything you want "the market share". For example, among makers of phones that can play Amazon streaming video, Apple has 100% market share.
1. Re:Lying with statistics about market share by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Very clever! I am in owe.
2. Re:Lying with statistics about market share by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of the Kindle Fire I take it?
3. Re:Lying with statistics about market share by tepples · 2014-02-03 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  among makers of phones that can play Amazon streaming video, Apple has 100% market share.
  Never heard of the Kindle Fire I take it?
  No, I've never heard of a Kindle Fire with a 4-5" display and capability to make cell phone calls. When did Amazon bring that out?
4. Re:Lying with statistics about market share by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  uhh, kindle fire 4g? small little SIP app and it's, well, it's pretty much my phone. Oh, and I don't have a dorky little screen.
Unicorn Computer Corp. by tepples · 2014-02-03 10:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hulu plus sucks on every platform, including roku, but [my wife] really believes it is possible to have a device where it works as good as hulu on a computer, I think this is a unicorn
A Unicorn computer? I didn't know about that brand. :p But seriously, Hulu works as well on a PC in the living room as it does on a PC on a desk.
How is Chromecast better than this? by darkNeko · 2014-02-03 10:59 · Score: 2

Recently found an indiegogo project that seems to be better than anything chromecast has been able to pull so far. Here for the campaign (already ended) There for the site. I'm not affiliated in any way with them, just seems a cooler idea, and open source to boot.
1. Re:How is Chromecast better than this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-03 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  $90 to wirelessly replace the functionality of a $1 HDMI cable? And additionally, you don't receive the hardware immediately, perhaps not at all? There's a sucker born every minute I suppose.
2. Re:How is Chromecast better than this? by slimjim8094 · 2014-02-03 15:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously?
  1) You can do pretty much all that with a Chromecast out of the box already. It's perfectly happy to display a tab from your web browser, or the whole desktop. For the stuff it can't do (act like a second monitor, multi-target), this API should allow somebody to write that pretty quickly. And in any case, they're pretty bad ideas. - any second screen closer/further from the first by more than a few inches is a waste of time as your eyes will have to refocus to look at it, and if you're at a desk anyway you might as well just get a cable. For the multi-target thing, I can't think of anything where this is better than just sending your buddy a link.
  2) Not sure why a pseudo-VNC is listed. That has nothing to do with the hardware, and the remote-desktop space is pretty well established already (and has been for more than 10 years).
  3) The Chromecast can be controlled from a mobile device. Not everybody is going to bring their laptop into their living room or want to plug it in (this will kill the battery) which is why...
  4) The Chromecast doesn't require a computer as an intermediary - it'll go off and fetch e.g. a Netflix stream on its own after the phone/tablet/laptop sets it up, and then you can turn the device off and watch.
  5) The Chromecast is only $35 - about 1/3 the cost. And by my eye it has more features.
  6) Oh, and the Chromecast went on sale 6 months ago, while if the AIRTAME is on schedule, it won't be out for another 6 months. Making it a year late to the party.
  Are you sure it's "better than anything chromecast has been able to pull so far"? In what ways?
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Why? by sexconker · 2014-02-03 11:27 · Score: 2

How is any of this shit any better than simply using an HDMI cable?
The tiny benefit of it being wireless pales in comparison to the compatibility issues and added cost. With an HDMI cable I can display whateverthefuck on whateverthefuck, With an HDMI cable I can get proper surround sound, a full quality stream, having my remote work through CEC, having ethernet piped down the HDMI, etc. etc. etc.
1. Re:Why? by Dahamma · 2014-02-03 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't stream from your device. You can use a phone or tablet to control it - the phone just sends a URL and the Chromecast streams directly.
  And I'm pretty sure no one wants to run a 10'+ cable from their phone across their living room to their TV. If that were true we might as well all be using wired remote controls.
  And as far as your other points, most aren't actually issues with the Chromecast anyway. It's only $35, supports multichannel sound and 1080p video (it IS an HDMI device), and it supports CEC so it can change the input.
  IMO I would not necessarily agree that it's better than, say, a Roku, but an HDMI cable? Yep.
2. Re:Why? by wile_e8 · 2014-02-03 14:35 · Score: 1
  Off the top of my head:
  
  As you mentioned, it's wireless.
  Since it's wireless, it can display even more whateverthefuck on whateverthefuck, as it can receive from all sorts of phones, tablets, laptops, and desktops that don't have HDMI ports. Just need WiFi and an app or program that use this API.
  Since it's wireless, it can display from multiple devices without having to physically connect and disconnect each device
  Since it's wireless, multiple devices can control the display at the same time (YouTube allows multiple devices to queue up videos, for instance).
  In fact, it's not even required that the device that started the video stay in contact. For some streaming, if you start the video with your phone and then need to leave, the video will keep streaming for others even if you take your phone with you.
  Basically it's perfect for cord-cutters looking to stream content to their TV, as almost anything you can stream over the web can be redirected to the Chromecast as long as the developers implement the API. And it's pretty cheap too.
3. Re:Why? by darkmeridian · 2014-02-04 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like you're missing the part where you have to plug your vaunted HDMI cable into something. Perhaps you have a HTPC or a Plex Server. Who knows? But the Chromecast costs $35 (and was on sale for $25) so you can stream without having to set up a HTPC.
  
  --
  A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
4. Re:Why? by sexconker · 2014-02-04 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds like you're missing the part where you have to plug your vaunted HDMI cable into something. Perhaps you have a HTPC or a Plex Server. Who knows? But the Chromecast costs $35 (and was on sale for $25) so you can stream without having to set up a HTPC.
  You have to connect the WiDi/Miracast/Chromecast dongles to something too. Whether it's a PC or a phone, it's no different than using a cable. There has to be a source.
5. Re:Why? by sexconker · 2014-02-04 07:19 · Score: 1
  Off the top of my head:
  As you mentioned, it's wireless.
  Since it's wireless, it can display even more whateverthefuck on whateverthefuck, as it can receive from all sorts of phones, tablets, laptops, and desktops that don't have HDMI ports. Just need WiFi and an app or program that use this API.
  Since it's wireless, it can display from multiple devices without having to physically connect and disconnect each device
  Since it's wireless, multiple devices can control the display at the same time (YouTube allows multiple devices to queue up videos, for instance).
  In fact, it's not even required that the device that started the video stay in contact. For some streaming, if you start the video with your phone and then need to leave, the video will keep streaming for others even if you take your phone with you.
  Basically it's perfect for cord-cutters looking to stream content to their TV, as almost anything you can stream over the web can be redirected to the Chromecast as long as the developers implement the API. And it's pretty cheap too.
  Literally the only benefit I see to these things is that they're wireless. I get that some people like that, but I myself prefer to use a cable between my source and display so I don't have to deal with video quality / latency issues or limited compatibility. As far as I know, these dongles don't actually do anything beyond acting as a virtual cable. With all the buzz about Chromecast, I thought there was something key feature I was just missing.
Using a 4G tablet as a primary phone by tepples · 2014-02-03 15:27 · Score: 1

I don't think many people want to hold an 8.9" tablet up to their ear or, even with Bluetooth, carry an 8.9" tablet while they jog. And does a tablet like the KF4G reliably make and receive SIP calls even where the only coverage is UMTS or EDGE?
Chromecast as a dashboard display by blackorzar · 2014-02-03 15:57 · Score: 1

I think that another use for Chromecast is for dashboard displays. Usually you put a computer + monitor for each station where you want to display dashboards showing the current status of production line/sales/promotions/news/donations/etc. With chromecast you can point it to the website that will display the info and you are set.

Chromecast is a Wifi device with a chrome browser/js engine so this use case can be cheap and interesting because you don't need a computer, just a monitor and a working wifi signal.
Related: by fyngyrz · 2014-02-03 19:20 · Score: 1

Google has decided to censor -- Welcome to Apple's world.
http://gigaom.com/2014/02/03/no-chromecast-porn-apps/
Google knows best, apparently.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.