Slashdot Mirror
Chromecast Gets a Hardwired Ethernet Adapter
Mark Wilson writes: Google's Chromecast has gained quite a following of people looking for a cheap, simple way to stream content to their TVs. Part of the device's appeal is its easy of use and extensibility through the use of apps, but it is reliant on a steady Wi-Fi signal. If this represents a problem in your home, there's now a solution. The new Ethernet Adapter for Chromecast does very much what you would expect — it adds a wired Ethernet port to Google's streaming dongle. This is great news for anyone with a flaky Wi-Fi signal, or those looking to use Chromecast beyond their router's normal range.
This is wonderful. The Chromecast's 2.4GHz 802.11n tops out at 72Mbps -- barely better than 802.11g. And while it is begrudgingly slogging in that 72Mbps data, it also is hogging timeslots from devices that could be at ~150 or ~300Mbps if the channel weren't full.
I couldn't reliably stream HD video from the Chromecast app on my Samsung S5 to the Chromecast on 802.11g*. Frames were dropped frequently enough to be a real usability problem, and various disconnects happened enough to make it useless.
I expect that this new adapter will solve the problems with the device that I was experiencing. (Not that it owes me much: I paid $23, shipped, for it on Black Friday, and it came with $20 of Play Store credit that I surely would've used sooner or later anyway.)
*: Incidentally (yes, really incidental) I moved the wireless network that my Chromecast and my phone use from 802.11g to 2.4GHz 802.11n this very afternoon. The streaming of BBC iPlayer via a VPN got a lot better: It didn't freeze or outright stall. It's still a bit rough, though. The phone syncs at 144Mbps, and the Chromecast can't go more than 72. I'd love to say that bandwidth shouldn't be a problem in these modern enlightened times, but apparently it is.
**: As an unreferenced footnote, fixed devices such as Chromecast should always have a hardwired option. Every other*** fixed device on my network is hard-wired; why should the Chromecast not be? I've never carried the Chromecast between TVs, although it's easy enough to do so.
***: Except for the Wii, because that costs extra and its wireless burden is not all that burdensome.
****: The other option I was exploring today was setting up a dedicated access point just for the Chromecast. I've got the hardware, and a bit of room on the outskirts of the ISM band, but fuuuuuu.
*****: TL;DR shut up and take my money
Kid-proof tablet..
Chromecast all but requires another smart device running (continuously) to control it. You can't control it directly.
No buts - it requires another device, period.
Chromecast is one of the least useful of "the sticks", I agree, but really all of the sticks are currently horribly underpowered with fairly poor wifi reception.
Basically now for $30 + $15 = $45 you can get a slow "stick" device that still requires another device to work, but even when it does the experience kind of sucks. Or you can spend ~$90 for a Roku 3 that is blazingly fast for what it does, has a great remote, full wifi or IR control for other devices, and hundreds of 3rd party apps (not to mention the wifi signal is actually solid).
Don't underestimate convenience - that extra $45 cost will pay itself off in an hour for many people who actually value their free time and don't feel like fighting with a Chromecast.
Does anybody buy those things?
Like, really?
I just play my media through one of the several devices most of us already have plugged in in our TVs....