Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Integrates Cast Into Chrome, No Extension Required (venturebeat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the all-in-one-solution dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via VentureBeat: On Monday, Google announced Google Cast is now built right into Chrome, allowing anyone using the company's browser to cast content to supported devices without having to install or configure anything. The Google Cast extension for Chrome, which launched in July 2013, is no longer required for casting. The report adds: "Here's how it works. When you browse websites that are integrated with Cast, Chrome will now show you a Cast icon as long as you're on the same network as a Cast device. With a couple of clicks, you can view the website content on your TV, listen to music on your speakers, and so on. In fact, Google today also integrated Hangouts with Google Cast: Signed-in users on Chrome 52 or higher can now use the 'Cast...' menu item from Chrome to share the contents of a browser tab or their entire desktop into a Hangout." The support document details all the ways you you can use Google Cast with Chrome.

43 comments

  1. Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by Etcetera · · Score: 2

    (And "What does God need with a starship?")

    Brave is trying to make a profitable business with certain things relating to security, but who in their right mind thinks that this is somehow an improvement upon or necessary for secure web browsing? 26,000 engineers? Grandma? Millennials? Who?

    No one's thinking of security, or they'd have kiboshed this and a dozen other features, and put the enablement or access of them in a different binary that the OS mediates access to as needed.

    Is there seriously not enough interest in a basic, capable web browser that doesn't implement this stuff that an OSS project can't be started up to focus on it?

    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    1. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      It's convenient.

      If you don't like the holes that it may or may not open, turn off auto-update, sandbox an environment, then test it and submit a bug report, get your cash bounty, and quit whining "get off my lawn" non-sense.

      I for-one like how simple it is getting to use my devices like this. Those "smart" TV's and "smart" media players have menus/interfaces that can kiss my ass.

    2. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Those "smart" TV's and "smart" media players have menus/interfaces that can kiss my ass.

      If they could kiss your ass, then they could also kiss other things, and the profit margins on smart TV's would be much, MUCH higher than they currently are...

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The juxtaposition of stories on the /. front page answers the question. Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server?

      FBI Director Says Prolific Default Encryption Hurting Government Spying Efforts

      Google: solving problems.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re: Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They push backspace to a plugin, but make this a core "feature"? What was wrong with it being a plug-in?

    5. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by nnull · · Score: 1

      Don't you just love that your browser is now punching through your firewall when you browse the internet? Come on, everyone loves it!

    6. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... Chromium?

    7. Re: Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by red+crab · · Score: 1

      I am waiting for the day when they push even the URL bar back as a plugin; you will need to type some keywords in Google search to reach a site. Seriously it flummoxes me as to why people use Chrome.

    8. Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there seriously not enough interest in a basic, capable web browser that doesn't implement this stuff that an OSS project can't be started up to focus on it?

      There already is a browser like that. It's called Pale Moon and it's awesome.

      Or if you don't care about extensions, try QupZilla.

  2. Desktop sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hang on, I've been sharing my desktop over Hangouts for the past year or so.

  3. Re:dont forget to sign-in by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Fine, go ahead and use Lynx all you want. Everything else is spying on you (including /.)

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  4. Sure, but why is Chrome still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    ...worse than Firefox in every imaginable way.

    1. Re:Sure, but why is Chrome still... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Come back when Firefox is properly multithreaded and not plagued by memory leaks.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    2. Re:Sure, but why is Chrome still... by sirber · · Score: 1

      Come back when Firefox is properly multithreaded and not plagued by memory leaks.

      Hey hey! 2016 is here! You can enable e10s in Firefox 48. Also, haven't had memory issues since firefoxs 45. The browser stays around 300 and 500 MB RAM.

      --
      Be or ben't
    3. Re:Sure, but why is Chrome still... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Well, you haven't had memory issues, but a significant percentage of user have had memory issues for years and years, and nothing seems to have helped those users. That speaks of a codebase that's extremely crufty and hard to maintain.

      I'm glad to hear Firefox is finally get some sort of multithreading. But it just feels like too little, too late.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    4. Re: Sure, but why is Chrome still... by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I've /never/ had a problem with memory when I compile it myself, optimized for my system environment and CPU capabilities.

      When I use the prebuilt binaries from Mozilla it is a terrible experience.

    5. Re: Sure, but why is Chrome still... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If you're on Windows, you can try Waterfox instead of going through the hassle of compiling it yourself. As a bonus, a bunch of the less-desirable features that Mozilla has been shoving into Firefox are removed.

      On Linux, I would assume most users aren't using Mozilla's binaries (rather they would be using binaries compiled by the maintainers of their distro). Even so, I'd use IceCat (IceWeasel) as it also strips out some of the crap I don't want built into my browser.

      Or use Palemoon instead, which doesn't seem to have issues with memory leaks as far as I can tell.

  5. browser or spice? by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    "The browser extends profits. The browser expands marketshare. The browser is vital to web traffic."

    Sundar Pichai: Remedy this situation, restore browser production, or you will live out your life in a pain amplifier!

    "The Web is the Browser! The Browser is the Web! "

    Browser Worker: Sire, we can't leave all these browser plugins.
    CEO Lars Boilesen: Damn the Browser!
    Andreessen: He cares more about his men than the Browser. I have to admit, against my better judgement, I like this CEO.

    "He who controls the browser, controls the universe!"

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:browser or spice? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      "He who controls the browser, controls the universe!"

      Oh Dear Lord He's RIGHT!!!
      http://scaleofuniverse.com/
      Oh, Flash Required...
      Bwahahahaha...
      Seriously, putting Quantum Foam at the lowest level was a nice touch, but had they looked more closely they would have seen that the foam is made of turtles...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  6. Bloat by JazzXP · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To me this is something that should have stayed as an extension. I'd say only a minority of people will use this feature (I have a Chromecast and I can't see it getting much use). Why do we need this built in to what is meant to be a fast and lightweight web browser?

    1. Re:Bloat by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny that the same people who refuse to add bookmark dividers/separators into Chrome because of "extra UI complexity" have no problem adding bloated cruft like this.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Separators won't give them any money, while the purpose of this new feature is to sell more Chromecast devices.

    3. Re:Bloat by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's not "funny", it's probably The Suits seeing Cast as (somehow) profitable, and dividers not.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fast and lightweight web browser" Joke of the day.

    5. Re:Bloat by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      What you call bloat, others call functionality. If Mozilla tried this in Firefox, this discussion would be 300 comments long, so it's refreshing that its competitor gets called out for 'unnecessary' stuff. :)

      If you have a Chromecast, why wouldn't it see much use? Not everyone wants to plug a 3m HDMI cable from their 12" laptop to their 50" telly every time they want to watch a youtube presentation.

      What would concern me as a FOSS-weenie is yet more closed-source stuff being added to the Chrome platform. If it got added to Chromium with an API to make it simple to plug in non-Google streaming protocols, it could be used with more backends. But since world domination is the key...

    6. Re:Bloat by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Chromecast adds zero UI complexity because it doesn't appear to anyone who doesn't own a chromecast device.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The fact that it's still difficult/impossible to get Google's pet 'cast stick working on other non-Google platforms and browsers is an embarrassing sign of just how much ol' Alphabet cares about the Internet at large... that is to say, not at all, except when it profits them, which is exactly what people knew but didn't care to notice. We bitched their more open competitors into the dirt, and now we're stuck with these shenanigans. If it's not them, it's Apple, or the combination of them pushing a bunch of extra crap into the web. They have armies of supporters ready to say we should let the mould the web like MS would have moulded it a decade ago (if they cared), and we're busy arguing about minor customization bullshit in the one remaining browser that keeps a check on this BS.

    8. Re:Bloat by dknj · · Score: 1

      I think that is his point. What UI complexity is added to anyone who doesn't want a divider shown? But dividers doesn't sell more chromecast devices. /thread

      -dk

    9. Re:Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chromecast is the WORST of all the streaming media players in the market today. It is also the one with the HIGHEST total cost of ownership.

      For the same price you can get an Amazon Fire TV Stick or a Roku Stick. Both will not only do what Chromecast does, but they also support thousands of apps and services that Chromecast will NEVER get. And they both do this WITHOUT the need for another device.

      With Chromecast you need either a smartphone, a tablet or a computer. Without the secondary device, the Chromecast is a completely useless device. With the Roku or Amazon stick, you won't need another device to use them.

    10. Re:Bloat by Vliegendehuiskat · · Score: 1

      In general I think this is a good thing. It makes technology nicer and easier to use for the masses and in a pretty secure way too. In general they don't know how to install extensions in browsers, but they are smart enough to plug something in. The cast stuff is great for those people. It also means that the cable-companies will loose subscribers and that less hd-receiver boxes will end up taking space in the landfill after about one year of subscription. The casts are smaller and will simply have a higher longevity than most other junk. Also in 10 years, no one will have a cable subscription anymore and we will be much closer to a scifi scenario in which you can push anything from your phone to any screen, everywhere you are. If it requires a closed source ecosystem and some bloat to get there, so be it. At some point in time either Alphabet will provide an API or someone will reverse engineer it.

    11. Re:Bloat by ioErr · · Score: 1

      There's a "Cast..." item wasting space in my context menu but I don't own a Chromecast.

  7. Good way to use a tv without a cable subscribtion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, great news for porn users.

  8. Re:Good way to use a tv without a cable subscribti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Also, great news for porn users.

    Until you miss click and send it to your mum's TV.

  9. and broke nn% of the cast-supporting sites... by acroyear · · Score: 1

    The API to actually detect whether or not chromecast is available changed in the switch from extension to built-in.

    Quite a few software systems, particularly packages with few dedicated developers including Subsonic, are now broken.

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
    1. Re:and broke nn% of the cast-supporting sites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Google gives a shit. All they care about is cash floooooooow.. get it? Give them money and maybe they will fix it. Nah, of course they wont. Google dont give a shit.

  10. Two words: GOOGLE SPYWARE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome's primary business purpose is to collect as much data as it can from the user. Everything else is just a means to hide the spyware.

  11. doesn't work on Chromium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See this Chromium bug.

    Why would you have the "Media router" flag enabled by default when it breaks functionality??

  12. Re:dont forget to sign-in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    False dichotomy. I can already stream video to whatever I want without going through a third party. I'm sorry that you're too clueless to be able to do that yourself.

    And nobody is spying on me. When I visit Slashdot, it is of my own volition. They aren't collecting my data when I do anything that doesn't require pulling data from their servers, including streaming video over my LAN.

  13. Re:Cast to Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a "god damn full fledged computer" why not just use that directly?

  14. Re:Cast to Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if I have people over passing a keyboard and mouse around to control the screen doesn't really make much sense. This shit isn't exactly rocket science. Everyone has a phone already.

  15. Re:Cast to Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right, it's not rocket science. So why did you overcomplicate the matter by having a full fledged computer hooked up to your tv that you refuse to directly use?