or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google to take on Apple TV with $35 Chromecast streaming device for iOS & Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google to take on Apple TV with $35 Chromecast streaming device for iOS & Android - Page 4

post #121 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

 

There is no battery drain on Chromecast, either.  Once it starts playing, you can power off your phone, put it to sleep, do something else with it, etc.

 

Did anybody actually watch the presentation?  I watched it live instead of seeing this headline and making up my mind based on other things than it not saying "Apple."

Mirroring a chrome browser web page from iDevice to chromecast does consume iDevice battery. Google have said as much. However  I'm not sure mirroring will be used much.

post #122 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


AirPlay is peer to peer. This sounds like it requires ALL content to come from the cloud. If its on your device you have to share it with google servers first. Google cant make advertising dollars if they can't see the content you want to stream in peer to peer fashion

Which is exactly what they said they were attempting to address in the presentation. Users playing cloud content on their small screen iDevices. Chromecast is intended to provide a method to fling that content onto any TV in your house for better viewing/listening, allowing you to queue lots of different content for play on big tv while you continue to use your iDevice for other things.

post #123 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

 

What?

 

Have you even looked at it?  All Chromecast needs is an HDMI port. Same as Apple TV.

 

I get that, but the big difference is that you need some type of device to make the Google thing work.

 

Apple TV only needs a TV, and an account ... so for $100.00 you're up and running.

 

Google Chrome dongle thingy needs a device to make it work.

 

$35.00  dongle thingy (wow, not expensive)

$200.00  for some type of IOS device (shit getting expensive now, and damn need my google glass, tablet, iPad, computer, etc ... to watch TV)

 

Google = not so very cheap.

 

Apple TV = just works.

 

Have fun with Google dongle.

post #124 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

No extra drain on your phone.

No extra phone needed with AppleTV.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #125 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


No extra phone needed with AppleTV.

You don't need an extra phone. Just any android/apple smartphone or tablet. Why would you even get one of these if you didn't already have an iDevice?

 

Why would you buy an appleTV for airplay support if you had no airplay capable devices?

post #126 of 226
Funny thing that Google unveils new hardware when (almost) everyone is in vacations.
post #127 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Which is exactly what they said they were attempting to address in the presentation. Users playing cloud content on their small screen iDevices. Chromecast is intended to provide a method to fling that content onto any TV in your house for better viewing/listening, allowing you to queue lots of different content for play on big tv while you continue to use your iDevice for other things.
What a brilliant spin to justify exploiting you by spying on your local content. Barf. Do no evil. Right.

This is not the same as AirPlay. It's a local screen cast to the google cloud for analytics gathering and then rebroadcast back to the Big Screen.

That gonna go over really well with IT for doing confidential corporate presentations on the Big Screen TV or projector.
Edited by snova - 7/24/13 at 4:36pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #128 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

And you can bet that soon there will be Google Now integration with touchless-voice "Ok, Chromecast, play House of Cards"

They only get credit for features that are actually available. Your fantasies don't count as features.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #129 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post


What a brilliant spin to justify exploiting you by spying on your local content. Barf. Do no evil. Right.

This is not the same as AirPlay. It's a local screen cast to the google cloud for analytics gathering and then rebroadcast back to your TV.

That's funny!

post #130 of 226
Interesting.

Terrible name, though.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #131 of 226
Quote:


This is then the same functionality as Apple TV.  This is nothing new.  The only thing new is it is cheaper and plug in directly to tv.  But I doubt a $35 device can perform as good as Apple TV. 

post #132 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

You don't need an extra phone. Just any android/apple smartphone or tablet. Why would you even get one of these if you didn't already have an iDevice?

Why would you buy an appleTV for airplay support if you had no airplay capable devices?

You don't need any other device to own and use AppleTV. It is fully functional out of the box, standalone. All you need is a TV. AirPlay is ONE optional feature, but not the only feature: you can buy, rent, stream content to a TV from iTunes, iCloud, podcasts, Internet radio, and services like Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, ESPN, Vimeo and YouTube. It can also stream videos, music, and photos from your Mac or PC, which is a different feature from AirPlay (in this mode, AppleTV uses your computer as a content server, unlike AirPlay, which turns your AppleTV into a remote display for a device).

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #133 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post

This junk is just a crippled Youtube/Netflix and music player with no other capabilities.

Also, don't forget to plug it into a wall outlet:



(edit: found a better pic)

Plug it in to a power outlet? That changes everything from a convenience standpoint. I [obviously] mistakenly assumed that it got power from [being plugged into] the TV.

So, this, in a way a limited, lower-priced alternative to an AppleTV.


II suspect that the next AppleTV will have HDMI in as well as HDMI out -- so it can connect between the cable STB and the TV,
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #134 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAKings33 View Post

This is a great bit of hardware. Anyone that actually bothered to do their research into what this is and what it can do will more than likely agree.

 

I spent 10 minutes looking into it and ordered one.  It seems like a clever idea (certainly way better than that horribly designed google tv), you don't stream the ipad content to the chromecast, you basically just pass off the url and the chromecast does streams it directly from the server.  At $35 that includes 3 months of netflix streaming, apparently even for existing customers, it effectively only costs $11.03.  Certainly cheap enough to give it a shot.

 

A couple of questions.  Will Vudu support it and does it support 3d?

 

I'm also curious how you initially configure it to use your wifi network and if there's a way to get it to work in hotel rooms where you basically log in with a browser.  This is always a problem when I bring my AppleTV on a trip.

post #135 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Plug it in to a power outlet? That changes everything from a convenience standpoint. I [obviously] mistakenly assumed that it got power from [being plugged into] the TV.

So, this, in a way a limited, lower-priced alternative to an AppleTV.


II suspect that the next AppleTV will have HDMI in as well as HDMI out -- so it can connect between the cable STB and the TV,

 

 

From what I understand, the Chromecast is actually powered by USB. The powercord is just in case there is no USB available on the TV.

post #136 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

 

 

I'm also curious how you initially configure it to use your wifi network and if there's a way to get it to work in hotel rooms where you basically log in with a browser.  This is always a problem when I bring my AppleTV on a trip.

From TheVerge.com

 

"Google tells us the next part is fairly simple, too: the Chromecast dongle generates its own Wi-Fi hotspot, and you can connect to it with an Android, iOS, Windows, or Mac OS X app to pair it with your home Wi-Fi network. There's also a little button next to the microUSB port that resets the pairing process."

 

Not sure about public wifi networks.

post #137 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It does tie up a device to do the actual streaming though. My Apple TVs are totally stand alone for things like Netflix or browsing my Photo Stream. Unless I happen to want to stream something from my iPad or Mac to the TV, like the entire Mac desktop, oh wait the Google thingy can't do that can it?

 

It doesn't tie up the device.  The point is you can find your content on your iPad or iPhone, then have it play on your TV with the same quality it would play on an AppleTV.

 

As great as the appletv UI is, I've used my iPad to add content to the netflix queue, then went back to the apple tv to play it because it's faster to search that way.  I've often wished there was better integration between the two without using airplay, which ties up the iPad while it's streaming and isn't the most efficient way to do things.

 

The other thing this potentially does is support more content sources (at least until the AppleTV supports apps).  It doesn't replace appletv because it likely will never support iTunes content and won't mirror a desktop which is useful for conference rooms.

post #138 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

 

I spent 10 minutes looking into it and ordered one.  It seems like a clever idea (certainly way better than that horribly designed google tv), you don't stream the ipad content to the chromecast, you basically just pass off the url and the chromecast does streams it directly from the server.  ...

Actually, IIRC if you used the iOS (iPhone/iPad) YouTube App (before Apple removed it)  and enabled AirPlay to the AppleTV in the App, the AppleTV would fetch the content directly from YouTube instead of your Phone.    So the iOS (iPhone/iPad) app essentially became a controller.  Likely the YouTube App architecture was designed by Google and not Apple, or guidelines forced down onto Apple. Anyhow, as you know that original YouTube app was dropped in iOS6.

 

Personally, from an engineering point of view I think its a bad design. Its inefficient and burns up your broadband for content you already have on the LAN. Just do a peer to peer transfer on the LAN like most ever OTHER AirPlay feature.  Sending Local Content up to the Cloud and then receive it back is just bonkers.  The only reason Google designed it like this is to gather analytics on you. Its stupid.   $35.. yeah.. great deal indeed.  They should be PAYING you to use this device.  Not the other way around.


Edited by snova - 7/24/13 at 5:21pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #139 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

 

...

As great as the appletv UI is, I've used my iPad to add content to the netflix queue, then went back to the apple tv to play it because it's faster to search that way.  I've often wished there was better integration between the two without using airplay, which ties up the iPad while it's streaming and isn't the most efficient way to do things.

 

The other thing this potentially does is support more content sources (at least until the AppleTV supports apps).  It doesn't replace appletv because it likely will never support iTunes content and won't mirror a desktop which is useful for conference rooms.

For searching content on NetFlix, have you tried using the Apple Remote iOS App on iPhone/iPad.  Much faster than using the IR remote. In the Netflix search field you can use your Soft keyboard on the iOS device. 

 

as for supporting more content sources? You lost me.  You can Airplay Mirror system wide already from iOS (iPhone or iPad) and Macs.   Any App. How does this solution give you MORE content sources? Are you sure your Broadband Upload speed is fast enough to handle transmission of local content back to the Google Cloud? 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #140 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post
 Sending Local Content up to the Cloud and then receive it back is just bonkers.  The only reason Google designed it like this is to gather analytics on you. Its stupid.   $35.. yeah.. great deal indeed.  They should be PAYING you to use this device.  Not the other way around.

To let Google/NSA know what you are watching?

post #141 of 226
Quote:

Thanks for that link.

Truly one pathetic presentation: using so many keywords and phrases Apple uses, (simplifying to core elements, 5.1 surround sound emerges you into...,'which we can't demo on stage, so you'll need to..after the presentation') and so on and so forth. There's a guy (Jay jr.) in the corner whose job is to do the demo/beamer controlling, but he's looking towards the audience, which makes it look like he's watching everybody. Google core to the max.

And don't clock in at 17'20''. Really, don't.

Then there's nightmode reading and, oh, whatever. They first create a crap product, and then come out with the new and improved. Hang in there Google.

Of all the things Google copies from other companies, adding a bit of taste (or downright copy it) would make watching their presentations, well..., less revolting.

In short, spec-sheet whores.

Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #142 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trd105 View Post

 

 

From what I understand, the Chromecast is actually powered by USB. The powercord is just in case there is no USB available on the TV.

This.

For what it is, it is a nice little device. Does it compete with Apple TV? not really in my opinion.

post #143 of 226
Quote:
Google executives showed it picking up streaming content from both an Android and iOS phone,

 

I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.

 

I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.

 

"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.

 

If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.

post #144 of 226

Nice little hardware, and good strategy too. But I refuse using it because I don't want to be in Google's hand. Great that if you already have Google services and don't mind they mined you.

post #145 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

For searching content on NetFlix, have you tried using the Apple Remote iOS App on iPhone/iPad.  Much faster than using the IR remote. In the Netflix search field you can use your Soft keyboard on the iOS device. 

 

as for supporting more content sources? You lost me.  You can Airplay Mirror system wide already from iOS (iPhone or iPad) and Macs.   Any App. How does this solution give you MORE content sources? Are you sure your Broadband Upload speed is fast enough to handle transmission of local content back to the Google Cloud? 

 

yes, I've used the apple remote app, it's still easier to just use the netflix app that is optimized for finding netflix content using a touch UI.

 

And I was referring to more sources that stream directly from the web.  For example, vudu.  SUre, you can airplay mirror for apple tv, but you have to leave your device on. The few times I tried airplay mirroring to stream content for apps on the iPad the quality wasn't as good as streaming to the device directly. I like the idea of being able to use the netflix, vudu, HBO Go, etc. apps directly on my iPad and just push a button and the tv streams the show directly.  The iPad could be the best remote ever if app video apps worked like this.

 

And I'm pretty certain somebody is misreading something somewhere.  There really is no way mirroring involves sending your content to google to have them send it back to your tv.  It has to stream directly from your device to the TV.

 

Certainly there are things Apple TV does that this doesn't do.  But the criticism it needs a smart phone or tablet to control doesn't make much sense when people also like using their phone as the remote for apple TV. In our home, we are awful about misplacing remotes.  we always know where our iPhone and iPad is.

 

Again, for a net price of $11.03, I found it interesting enough to try one out.  I'm not replacing my AppleTV, I have a spare HDMI connector on the TV I'm going to use it on.

 

I also don't expect to see commercials on content I don't get commercials on now.  If they put commercials on netflix, I will toss it in the trash.  I suspect it's reason for existence is to get people watching more youtube content and other google streaming content on their tv.  it's only a matter of time before streaming video is a viable replacement for satellite or cable tv.

post #146 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

 

I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.

 

I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.

 

"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.

 

If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.

 

The UI for doing this on blu ray players is generally awful.  I've tried pretty much every brand.  And the supported streaming sources varies as well.

 

For this, the UI is your normal iPad apps.  It's so simple, it's brilliant.

post #147 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Actually, IIRC if you used the iOS (iPhone/iPad) YouTube App (before Apple removed it)  and enabled AirPlay to the AppleTV in the App, the AppleTV would fetch the content directly from YouTube instead of your Phone.    So the iOS (iPhone/iPad) app essentially became a controller.  Likely the YouTube App architecture was designed by Google and not Apple, or guidelines forced down onto Apple. Anyhow, as you know that original YouTube app was dropped in iOS6.

Personally, from an engineering point of view I think its a bad design. Its inefficient and burns up your broadband for content you already have on the LAN. Just do a peer to peer transfer on the LAN like most ever OTHER AirPlay feature.  Sending Local Content up to the Cloud and then receive it back is just bonkers.  The only reason Google designed it like this is to gather analytics on you. Its stupid.   $35.. yeah.. great deal indeed.  They should be PAYING you to use this device.  Not the other way around.

AppleTV can stream YouTube content directly from the Web. It does not require an iPhone, iPad, or computer to function.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #148 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

The UI for doing this on blu ray players is generally awful.  I've tried pretty much every brand.  And the supported streaming sources varies as well.

You mean you didn't find a use for the yellow and red buttons on Blu-ray players? 1wink.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #149 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

 

I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.

Yes, Google NEVER targets "optimal".  Their business model is to distract as many people away from valuable content and redirect towards advertisements and data mining via everytime-you-look-click-and-type.  They started with successful and value added search algorithms and morphed into an ugly hit-whore monster.  How is it not obvious to more people that Google does not have what it takes to create innovative/useful devices or software.  It is MUCH cheaper for them to disrupt those that do innovate...throwing whatever sticks at the moment...just enough to keep competitors at bay and maintain ad revenue.  Then rinse and repeat.

post #150 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

The TV turns on automatically when you start streaming from your iDevice. Assuming your iPad/phone is already on, there's nothing to turn on.

 

Most TVs don't automagically turn on.

post #151 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

You can wire up several rooms in your house for 1/3 the cost of Apple TV

Apple TV is overkill for this application. Maybe if it starts supporting games and becomes a game console, but for just streaming console, the idea of using your smartphone to control a $35 streamer is a much better value proposition.

The average number of TVs per household seems to be about 3 and I doubt people will rush out to put a streaming device on each one. The biggest problem I see is the use of phones and tablets as the remote. You'd set it up to watch a Netflix movie with a tablet and then put it to sleep, the phone rings and you need to pause it so you have to slide to unlock and pause the thing and then the same when you get back off the phone. Same every time you want to adjust volume or fast forward or change the content. Having a dedicated remote where you watch the big screen while navigating just seems like it would be less hassle and more efficient.

For heavy media streaming, the Apple TV has more support too and a more stable ethernet connection. Chromecast mirroring is also just the browser:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4554130/google-chromecast-vs-apple-airplay-how-do-they-compare

This means no game streaming or keynotes like the Apple TV can do. Chromecast has its uses and the price is attractive but I'd still opt for the Apple TV for the extra functionality and dedicated remote or even a WD box that can stream content from a standalone hard drive.
post #152 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Most TVs don't automagically turn on.

If they support HDMI CEC then they do.

post #153 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

 

If you have all Apple products including a Mac why not just use the free Chrome browser on OS X to stream to Chromecast? No need to buy an Android device. 

 

Why not just stream to the AppleTV.

 

People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.

 

Most web videos are low resolution and suck.  (including most of YouTube)

People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.  

 

ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.

 

More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?

You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you?  LOL.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 7/24/13 at 7:20pm
post #154 of 226
upside: interesting hardware%u2026

downside: more YouTube delivered commercials?

Nah%u2026%u2026%u2026.
post #155 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

 

Why not just stream to the AppleTV.

 

People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.

 

Most web videos are low resolution and suck.  (including most of YouTube)

People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.  

 

ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.

 

More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?

You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you?  LOL.

I'm assuming you missed the post I was replying to where the guy said he was going to buy a Chromecast and also thought he needed to buy a Nexus tablet as well. 

post #156 of 226
Flinging, lol

Flinging crap - ads to yer tv

Sounds as if old Squirter himself has been transmogrified into some kind of new nerd.
1biggrin.gif
post #157 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

And it can stream from iTunes servers - including PCs, Network Attached Storage devices, Macs and iOS devices.

 

NAS? Are you sure? Without a computer or other device to act as a conduit between the NAS and the ATV?

post #158 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I suspect that the next AppleTV will have HDMI in as well as HDMI out -- so it can connect between the cable STB and the TV,

 

From your keyboard to Tim Cook's eyes... PLEASE let it be so!

post #159 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

AppleTV on the other hand can act independently of other devices. …it can stream from iTunes servers - including… …Network Attached Storage devices…

NOPE.

But that's number negative infinity on my list of priorities Apple needs to actually do with Apple TV.
Quote:
And in the future, AppleTV can grow up into a gaming console.

Already is one.
post #160 of 226
I'll stick with Apple TV knowing I'll get updated content that is licensed and updated and software that will make the Apple TV even better than it already is. I don't have mixed platforms so I really don't give a darn about Android compatibility anyways.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google to take on Apple TV with $35 Chromecast streaming device for iOS & Android