Slashdot Mirror
Google Cast Is Now Baked Into Chrome, No Extension Needed (trustedreviews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Google Chrome 51 browser now includes a built-in 'Cast' option within the drop-down settings menu, which can also be accessed from right clicking in a tab. This will then cast the current tab to the appropriate TV or monitor. Previously, if you wanted to cast content from your computer to your Chromecast-equipped display, you needed to download a Chrome extension. Along with the new changes, Google has removed the ability to tweak settings for resolution, bitrate, and quality when casting a tab, so Chrome itself will now control such parameters automatically. Chrome 51 is now available as a stable version, and the Cast option should be rolling out to users now. This casting ability will also be baked into Chrome OS. The report points out several new related features coming in Chrome 52, such as the ability to cast to Hangouts. You will be able to push Chrome tabs to your contacts within an open video Hangout, which may be useful for remote meetings. In addition, the Cast to Hangouts feature will also retrieve your calendar information to find such scheduled Hangout meetings to make quick sharing easier.
More reasons for people to stop and think: move back to FF, or to a third-party (probably FF fork) alternative. More code = less secure. Chrome is already the slowest and most painful of the bunch and only growing. This reminds one of the time FF wanted to include a security suite for CCTV cameras.
Will it cast to a miracast supported device like a Roku or only to a chromecast supported device? My Nexus 6P will only cast to the latter when it comes out of the box. You have to root the phone to restore the miracast functionality.
A browser doesn't need to be a calculator, a word processor, a typing instructor, a device manager, etc.
It also doesn't need spyware or curb feelers.
Tell that to Microsoft Windows 10.
They would get a right kicking on slashdot for implementing another non-relevant feature for the masses!
On another note, people here don't seem to realise that browsers are super hard and uber complex, and approaching the territory of operating systems. And mozilla in this battle is a tiny non-profit charity working for the good of the masses (first with getting everyone to care about standards and w3c against IE, and now fighting for privacy and developing the latest HTML5 / CSS4/ ES6 standards) and trying to stop a take-over by multi-billion dollar corporate empire like Google, who can pump virtually unlimited funding towards Chrome. And yet, people still have the audacity to bitch about Firefox, who have a miniscule and limited amount of funding, as let's face it, hardly anyone donates to!
Thus, I don't blame Mozilla if they implement something like Pocket, which is a tiny api that has no effect on memory or performance.
Just like if Mozilla implemented sponsored tiles, which doesn't effect the privacy of individuals.
And if you're still of those complaining about the australis UI and using that as excuse for people to switch to Pale Moon - please, go and install "Classic Theme Restorer" like the rest of us.
A browser needs to be able to render web pages.
Why should it only be able to render it to the physically attached screen?
you can disable it. it's listed as "Media Router" on the flags page: chrome://flags#media-router
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
A browser should NOT be rendering to any screen, it calls system API's to do that on its behalf. If you want to have it render to something other than the mainscreen then install drivers or addins to do it for you. system bloat like this makes for stability and security nightmares as soon you are supporting a myriad of different remote protocols, functionality and stuff that has fuck all to do with what a web browser is meant to do.
Why? They provide a good service at the right price.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why? They provide a good service at the right price.
Yes, the price, in dollars and cents, is zero. However, the cost to the user, in things such as privacy, lock-in, targeted advertising, etc, is more than zero. Some people seem to have 'privacy to burn', so to speak; to them, the cost is trivial. Others prefer to buy products and services for specified sums of money, rather than for unspecified quantities of personal data. Me? I like to know how much I'm paying, in what currency, and how long the payments will last, before I 'purchase' something.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.