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 5

post #161 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

You also seem to be mistaken.  Chromecast receives instructions from the mobile device and then receives the streaming media from your router.

Can it plug into an amplifier via optical and play 256k aac from iTunes Match?

This, this is how I use my Apple TV.

Flicking back and forth between HDMI and optical really shows a discernable difference in quality.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #162 of 226

Interesting how iHaters continually paint Apple fans as stupidly paying Apple too much for their products. However, taking a look at the pro-Chromecast comments, I see a ton of people who would willingly throw $35 away on a piece of half-baked hardware, software, and ecosystem along with misleading features and to-be-added-sometime-in-the-future features.

 

I've gotten a great deal of value out of my ATV, including many software updates and new apps. Quite literally, it may be the best $100 I've ever spent. The extra $65 above the cost of the Chromecast, at the end of the day, was well worth it considering the reliability, security, design, ecosystem, and real features.

 

The "Google is getting better at designing hardware faster than Apple is getting at services" meme is born out of sheer delusion.

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #163 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordio View Post

So does it need a phone, computer, or tablet to work?  If it doesn't work by itself, it's kind of stupid.

 

People want to turn on the TV, turn on the device, then browse.  No one wants to turn on TV, turn on google device, turn on a second device, use the second device to find video, then push it to the google device.

I see similar comments by many. This is device is not meant to be standalone. This is a device which shows what you see on your device on the TV. Currently iOS users have the facility to airplay what they see in their devices onto TV. This new device serves (a subset of) that purpose. Airplay can also mirror which chromecast doesn't do.

post #164 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

That's funny!

 


What's funny? Don't you understand Google's business model? How else do you think they're making money off this device if not for analytics and ads?
 
Trust me, you will need to sign into a Google account and once that has happened, they will harvest your data because you have agreed to it. 
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #165 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

Chromecast uses the Chrome OS. So you are forced to use Chrome OS. You can't just put Windows or iOS or another Linux into it.

The most idiotic post in this thread!

post #166 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

 

Then maybe Apple's prices aren't high enough? Would a 100% markup would make you feel even better about your purchase?

 

Just to be clear: I'm not saying I don't think I got my money's worth for my iPad. I'm just trying to understand the psychology of non-investors being really excited about paying substantially in excess of cost (and remember that profits come after the costs of all that great customer service, etc., etc.). 

 

Investors, I get. Apple fans, maybe it's something like keeping score between your team and rivals? Otherwise, it seems like a pretty basic violation of Economics 101 for customers to be excited about the products they buy producing high profits for the companies that sell them. 

You do realize that profits are used for future investments and leverage, right?

 

It's been said elsewhere, but I'll repeat it. Many of Apple's customers have invested significantly in the ecosystem. Knowing that "your company" has some cash in the bank makes those customers feel as if they will continue to get updates, support, and that the company that they have invested in will not just whither away and die. Where do you think Dell would be now if they were smarter and managed to make and reinvest more profits. Michael Dell has been reduced to either a beggar, or prey, depending how you would like to look at it. Unlike the banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry, if the tech industry declines, no one will be there to bail them out.

 

And how about this, name a tech company at Apple's scale that has been more innovative over the past 30+ years?  

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #167 of 226
So... Netflix 'free' for three months. Well, that's just the standard free trial available to all new customers.

Airplay? Nope. You can't stream the content stored on your device to this device, it downloads media from the net and streams, and only does so wirelessly... No Ethernet connection for a better quality/faster connection.

Either I'm missing something or this thing isn't even pretending to be Apple TV. It's a dongle that puts limited content from the Internet onto your tv.
post #168 of 226

First, yes, you have to plug it in to AC power at all times. from Google's own Chromecast website (in tiny faded print at the bottom of the page reproduced here exactly as it appears): Power cord required (not shown) The unboxing photo in a comment above shows its typical plug-in "brick" transformer (god i hate those space-eating bricks).

 

was Google's obscuring this important detail today and everywhere deceptive? of course it is, but hey, they Do No Evil!

 

Second, plainly it is just one more web-streaming gizmo. and you will still need to switch your TV input. the only new wrinkle is (eventually) using anyone's apps for its entire UI/remote control regarding streaming their app's content. but then, that's all it is able to do so it doesn't need any UI of its own.

 

Third, there are already about a dozen ways to stream Netflix and You Tube anyway. all the STB's and Smart TV's. one more is just not a big deal, really.

 

but yes i do believe Apple needs to improve the Apple TV UI a lot - although you don't need it at all to use Airplay, one really good thing about AirPlay too. starting with Siri voice UI for the iOS Remote App. and the new iOS 7 'fresh look'. we'll see if this is one of the announcements coming this Fall.

post #169 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

 

I have to admit I don't entirely understand why many Apple customers make a virtue of the company having high profits. I mean: I like my iPad, but I would like it even better if I hadn't paid a considerable portion of its price directly into Apple's enormous pile of cash. 

 

Maybe all the people who feel this way are investors, which is a different and more obvious story. But why ordinary customers?

 

Apple's 'enormous pile of cash' has saved the company in the past. I vote for an Apple that is profitable and successful on the back of great products and services. Apple succeeds through invention and innovation and will continue to do so. I'm happy to buy into that.

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #170 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

First, yes, you have to plug it in to AC power at all times. from Google's own Chromecast website (in tiny faded print at the bottom of the page reproduced here exactly as it appears): Power cord required (not shown) The unboxing photo in a comment above shows its typical plug-in "brick" transformer (god i hate those space-eating bricks).

 

was Google's obscuring this important detail today and everywhere deceptive? of course it is, but hey, they Do No Evil!

 

Second, plainly it is just one more web-streaming gizmo. and you will still need to switch your TV input. the only new wrinkle is (eventually) using anyone's apps for its entire UI/remote control regarding streaming their app's content. but then, that's all it is able to do so it doesn't need any UI of its own.

 

Third, there are already about a dozen ways to stream Netflix and You Tube anyway. all the STB's and Smart TV's. one more is just not a big deal, really.

 

but yes i do believe Apple needs to improve the Apple TV UI a lot - although you don't need it at all to use Airplay, one really good thing about AirPlay too. starting with Siri voice UI for the iOS Remote App. and the new iOS 7 'fresh look'. we'll see if this is one of the announcements coming this Fall.

 

For your first point, I don't see what the big deal is, none of apple's product photos show the power cord.  Who's going to see it once you plug it in?  it all goes behind your TV.

 

For your second point, for many TVs you don't have to switch a thing.

 

For your 3rd point, and your later UI point, they are related.  The netflix app on the iPad has a better UI than any other device that plays netflix.  Now that is your UI for watching on TV.

 

Someone earlier said this was a "geek device" when really it's the complete opposite.  Most of Googles products are junk.  The Google TV had the worst possible UI.  I bought one and returned it in a week. But this thing has the absolute best possible UI.  And this is coming from someone who has an apple TV connected to every TV in our house as well as one in our conference room at work.

 

Set aside your bias and think about how brilliant this design is.  Apple simplified the remote, Google got rid of it all together.  You find your content the exact same way you would find it to play on your iPad or iPhone, then you play it on your TV with one button.  The TV doesn't have to be on.  It doesn't have to be on the right input.  You don't have to find our touch your TV's remote to start watching, to pause, to fast forward, to change the volume.  And you get the same 1080p quality you would get from AppleTV or any other Netflix device.

 

To be fair to Apple, building this with no remote wasn't possible even a couple of years ago.  It absolutely depends on most people already having smart phones or better yet tablets.

 

The main question is will other video content providers support it.  Vudu, Amazon, HBO, Showtime, etc, etc.  

post #171 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But that's number negative infinity on my list of priorities Apple needs to actually do with Apple TV.

 

Connecting storage to the ATV without needing a computer in between is near the top of the priority list for both SolipsismX and me. It would be a significant advantage for anyone who has a local library they play via the ATV.

post #172 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Flicking back and forth between HDMI and optical really shows a discernable difference in quality.

 

Then you REALLY need a better digital-to-analog converter. Bits is bits, so if you're hearing a difference you have a jitter problem.

post #173 of 226

I own two Apple TVs, the original, and the $99. I'm sorry, but these arguments over remotes are lame. The AppleTV remote is much much more difficult to use than a touch interface. Remotes get lost, often you have multiple remotes for multiple A/V boxes, it's just a mess. Then you buy a universal remote to solve it, but it's still irritating to try and navigate a rich content repository using directional buttons.

 

If Apple had shipped ChromeCast, people would be saying its brilliant. Use iPhone touch surface as the remote! Strip out all of the unnecessary HW. Shrink it down so small it literally fits behind the TV. Brilliant. Amazing. Magical! Johnny would be superimposed on a white background talking about how much love had gone into it. 

 

Instead, Google shipped it, and now people are trying to make excuses, classic cognitive dissonance and tribalism, even though it is patently obvious that a touch UI is better for browsing your media content then a standalone Apple TV with crappy remote. Also, all players have been gradually moving to a streaming model away from a "download" sync model. The only reason to download is to cache for travel, or if you've got a really shitty internet connection. Realistically, the future in TV is streamed content, and these kinds of devices are ahead of the curve.

 

The fact that this device runs ChromeOS also means it will continuously update and upgrade itself just like Chrome. It also means developing video frontends for it is pathetically easy. And it means people might even modify it to support AirPlay.

 

Simple. Cheap. Effective.  Every once in a while you've got to swallow your pride and admit a competitor did something good.

post #174 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

 

... And this is coming from someone who has an apple TV connected to every TV in our house as well as one in our conference room at work.

 

Set aside your bias and think about how brilliant this design is.

 Apple simplified the remote, Google got rid of it all together.  You find your content the exact same way you would find it to play on your iPad or iPhone, then you play it on your TV with one button.  The TV doesn't have to be on.  It doesn't have to be on the right input.  You don't have to find our touch your TV's remote to start watching, to pause, to fast forward, to change the volume.  And you get the same 1080p quality you would get from AppleTV or any other Netflix device.

 

To be fair to Apple, building this with no remote wasn't possible even a couple of years ago.  It absolutely depends on most people already having smart phones or better yet tablets.

 

you lost me.  1/2 the time I dont use the Apple bundled remote at all. I just use my iPhone or iPad and the Apple Remote App, or I can stream without a remote via AirPlay.

 

Hold your horses on the remote volume control bubba.  Are you assuming your can control the volume? HDMI is a digital signal. HDMI and/or SPDIF has no overall amplitude control to my knowledge. The volume is controlled on the TV's build-in amplifier (once its converted to analog) or via attach Home Theater AV receiver.    If you think it through you will realize that you will need your TV or Home Theater remove to adjust volume.  It simply unpractical unless you dont ever need to adjust volume or don't ever need to turn you TV back off when you leave the room.   

 

Also, sometimes I use AppleTV to listen to music on my Home Theater receiver via SPDIF. It would really piss me off it it turned on my TV automatically and changed the TV input just to listen to music from my iPhone or from my Mac via Airplay. My DVD Player does this, and it drives me mad.

 

I think there has been a lot of speculation about what this device does, how it does it, and all without anyone actually doing a hands on review. (Myself included). I think it would be prudent to wait for unbiased reviews both for haters and fans alike.

"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 #175 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

I own two Apple TVs, the original, and the $99. I'm sorry, but these arguments over remotes are lame. The AppleTV remote is much much more difficult to use than a touch interface. Remotes get lost, often you have multiple remotes for multiple A/V boxes, it's just a mess. Then you buy a universal remote to solve it, but it's still irritating to try and navigate a rich content repository using directional buttons.

 

If Apple had shipped ChromeCast, people would be saying its brilliant. Use iPhone touch surface as the remote! Strip out all of the unnecessary HW. Shrink it down so small it literally fits behind the TV. Brilliant. Amazing. Magical! Johnny would be superimposed on a white background talking about how much love had gone into it. 

 

Instead, Google shipped it, and now people are trying to make excuses, classic cognitive dissonance and tribalism, even though it is patently obvious that a touch UI is better for browsing your media content then a standalone Apple TV with crappy remote. Also, all players have been gradually moving to a streaming model away from a "download" sync model. The only reason to download is to cache for travel, or if you've got a really shitty internet connection. Realistically, the future in TV is streamed content, and these kinds of devices are ahead of the curve.

 

The fact that this device runs ChromeOS also means it will continuously update and upgrade itself just like Chrome. It also means developing video frontends for it is pathetically easy. And it means people might even modify it to support AirPlay.

 

Simple. Cheap. Effective.  Every once in a while you've got to swallow your pride and admit a competitor did something good.

Im sorry, but no.  ChromeCast does nothing new compared to AppleTV  (minus sending your iPhone/iPad/PC/Mac local content to the Google Cloud for analytics purposes). Its odd to me that an owner of two AppleTV, such as yourself does not know what the AppleTV can already do. 

 

1. You don't need the Apple supplied IR remote. 

2.  You can use your iPhone or iPad to controller AppleTV via the Apple Remote App.

3.  AppleTV can learn ANY IR remote. Already have an IR remote, any remote? no problem.  It will learn any IR signal you send it and map it to Apple TV remote bindings.

4. You can already stream (pull) from WAN content using AppleTV without Smart Phone, Tablet or Computer.

5.  You can stream (pull) LAN content from you PC or MAC to AppleTV, using AppleTV as the client to browse, control and play the content.

6. You can stream (push) LAN content from your PC, MAC, iPhone or iPad to AppleTV. Using your PC, MAC, iPhone or iPad to browse, control and play the content. 

7. Can use AppleTV as secondary/third/etc Display for Mac (AirParrot for Windows/Mac or upcoming Mac OS X Mavericks)

8. Can use AppleTV as Big Screen to play Video Games running on iPhone or iPad.  iPhone or iPad becomes custom game controller. 

 

 

Lets look at ChromeCast.

1. Does not Support

2. Supports

3. Does not Support

4. Supports

5. Does not support

6. Does not support directly from LAN. Instead you must send your content to Google Cloud first and then broadcast it back to the Chromecast after they have ran analytics on your content.   Nice.. Google. Do no evil. 

7. Does not support

8. Does not support

 

ok.. so how does it look? 2 out of 8.  However it does allow you to mirror you local content to the Google Cloud for analytics.

 

So in conclusion if the reason you want ChromeCast is to send your iPhone/iPad/PC/Mac local content to the Google Cloud for analytics purposes, then you are right. The AppleTV does not do that. If that feature is worth $35 to you and the other 6/8 features have no value to you then you should consider getting one.  Enjoy.


Edited by snova - 7/25/13 at 12:51am
"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 #176 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Connecting storage to the ATV without needing a computer in between is near the top of the priority list for both SolipsismX and me. It would be a significant advantage for anyone who has a local library they play via the ATV.

you are right.  I just get by running iTunes inside a Windows VM that serves out  Music, TV Show and Movies.  Kind of lame but it works.  Another way to do it is to run multi-user running iTunes natively on a desktop PC or Mac that is always on. 


Edited by snova - 7/25/13 at 12:58am
"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 #177 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

[feature spec lists deleted. Remember when the iPhone launched? it didn't do MMS! It didn't support vCard! Can't open office documents.]

 

 

6. Does not support directly from LAN. Instead you must send your content to Google Cloud first and then broadcast it back to the Chromecast after they have ran analytics on your content.   Nice.. Google. Do no evil. 

 

 

#6 is Absolute and Utter Nonsense. You have no clue how ChromeCast works. It does not upload your private LAN video to Google Servers only to redownload them back to the device. In mirroring mode from Chrome Tabs, it uses WebRTC peer-to-peer, standard web technology built into both Chrome and Firefox (so in theory, Firefox could cast to ChromeCast, as could Safari if the last version of WebKit before Google forced had WebRTC in it)

 

Look, I understand this may be a difficult subject for Apple zealots to get, but I'll try to explain to you very simple:

 

1) ChromeCast is basically a miniature ChromeOS device that runs a Chrome browser

2) It has two modes: cloud streaming, and mirrore.d

a) in cloud streaming mode, the cloud service (youtube, google play, netflix, etc) basically sends back an HTML5 snippet with a <video> tag in it and whatever HTML/CSS/JS to define the UI. ChromeCast streams and plays this back. 

b) in mirroring mode, a browser extension installed into Chrome on your LAN uses WebRTC to perform screen-sharing of a given Chrome Tab, and sends this to the ChromeCast via local-network peer-to-peer. The only thing Google servers see are the STUN and TURN discovery protocols which allow the two peers on the network to find one another, but they do not send any private content to Google.

 

That's it. The device is very simple, that's why it costs $35. HTML5 video streaming from the internet, or WebRTC screen sharing from Chrome browsers (or any browser supporting WebRTC)

 

And yes, I know exactly how Apple TV works, I hacked my first generation device and installed all kinds of shit on it, like XMBC, It was, and is, a lame device. Shitty menuing on gimped remote, with a CPU too slow to decode Hulu content, and requirement to download stuff to the internal storage. The $99 device fixed a lot of this, but the original Apple TV was basically Apple's "Google TV", a really half-hearted attempt, and Apple knows this, which is why it is jokingly referred to as a "hobby"

 

ChromeCast is not meant to be a "do everything" device. It's very simple. $35 gets you a tiny device that can playback HTML5 video streams (H264 or VP8) controlled via standard HTML/CSS/JS snippets and remote-controlled by any device on any platform. Plus, a catch-all usecase which is browser tab sharing via standard webrtc protocol.

 

All of the other purported stuff that Apple TV has, maybe you need it, I personally don't. If I want something radically more complex, I'll use my PS3 or X-Box console rather than something too shitty to be a real game console, and too expensive, complex, and too tied in with a single platform to be a low end device.

 

If Apple wants to win me back in the TV space, they need to ship something either radically cheaper, or radically better. 

post #178 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

#6 is Absolute and Utter Nonsense. You have no clue how ChromeCast works. It does not upload your private LAN video to Google Servers only to redownload them back to the device. In mirroring mode from Chrome Tabs, it uses WebRTC peer-to-peer, standard web technology built into both Chrome and Firefox (so in theory, Firefox could cast to ChromeCast, as could Safari if the last version of WebKit before Google forced had WebRTC in it)

 

Look, I understand this may be a difficult subject for Apple zealots to get, but I'll try to explain to you very simple:

 

1) ChromeCast is basically a miniature ChromeOS device that runs a Chrome browser

2) It has two modes: cloud streaming, and mirrore.d

a) in cloud streaming mode, the cloud service (youtube, google play, netflix, etc) basically sends back an HTML5 snippet with a <video> tag in it and whatever HTML/CSS/JS to define the UI. ChromeCast streams and plays this back. 

b) in mirroring mode, a browser extension installed into Chrome on your LAN uses WebRTC to perform screen-sharing of a given Chrome Tab, and sends this to the ChromeCast via local-network peer-to-peer. The only thing Google servers see are the STUN and TURN discovery protocols which allow the two peers on the network to find one another, but they do not send any private content to Google.

 

That's it. The device is very simple, that's why it costs $35. HTML5 video streaming from the internet, or WebRTC screen sharing from Chrome browsers (or any browser supporting WebRTC)

 

And yes, I know exactly how Apple TV works, I hacked my first generation device and installed all kinds of shit on it, like XMBC, It was, and is, a lame device. Shitty menuing on gimped remote, with a CPU too slow to decode Hulu content, and requirement to download stuff to the internal storage. The $99 device fixed a lot of this, but the original Apple TV was basically Apple's "Google TV", a really half-hearted attempt, and Apple knows this, which is why it is jokingly referred to as a "hobby"

 

ChromeCast is not meant to be a "do everything" device. It's very simple. $35 gets you a tiny device that can playback HTML5 video streams (H264 or VP8) controlled via standard HTML/CSS/JS snippets and remote-controlled by any device on any platform. Plus, a catch-all usecase which is browser tab sharing via standard webrtc protocol.

 

All of the other purported stuff that Apple TV has, maybe you need it, I personally don't. If I want something radically more complex, I'll use my PS3 or X-Box console rather than something too shitty to be a real game console, and too expensive, complex, and too tied in with a single platform to be a low end device.

 

If Apple wants to win me back in the TV space, they need to ship something either radically cheaper, or radically better. 

Thanks for clarifying that point so eloquently to us simple minded Apple folk.  

 

Let me guess, I bet you think all Apple devices are overly simplistic, inflexible, restrictive and overpriced. As a result, you have no idea why consumers buy them by the hundreds of millions of units.  Right?

If so, has it ever occurred to you that maybe you don't fit into Apple's customer demographics?

Moreover, have you thought about why their value proposition connects with so many consumers but not with you?

 

Why do you think that is?  


Edited by snova - 7/25/13 at 3:04am
"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 #179 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Sloppy seconds for Google again.

Ha!
"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 #180 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

you lost me.  1/2 the time I dont use the Apple bundled remote at all. I just use my iPhone or iPad and the Apple Remote App, or I can stream without a remote via AirPlay.

 

Hold your horses on the remote volume control bubba.  Are you assuming your can control the volume? HDMI is a digital signal. HDMI and/or SPDIF has no overall amplitude control to my knowledge. The volume is controlled on the TV's build-in amplifier (once its converted to analog) or via attach Home Theater AV receiver.    If you think it through you will realize that you will need your TV or Home Theater remove to adjust volume.  It simply unpractical unless you dont ever need to adjust volume or don't ever need to turn you TV back off when you leave the room.   

 

Also, sometimes I use AppleTV to listen to music on my Home Theater receiver via SPDIF. It would really piss me off it it turned on my TV automatically and changed the TV input just to listen to music from my iPhone or from my Mac via Airplay. My DVD Player does this, and it drives me mad.

 

I think there has been a lot of speculation about what this device does, how it does it, and all without anyone actually doing a hands on review. (Myself included). I think it would be prudent to wait for unbiased reviews both for haters and fans alike.

 

There is a huge, huge difference between using a remote app on an iPhone or iPad to control a UI that is on a different screen vs simply using the iPhone or iPad's netflix app to navigate to and play your content.

 

And remote control volume uses the CEC standard.  You aren't controlling the volume with amplitude modulation, which is an awful way to control volume on a TV.  You are actually controlling the actual volume.  The volume control gets to the TV via CEC over HDMI instead of from IR from your remote.

 

I watched the intro video and read the specs to see what it does.

post #181 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

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

Ha! My first thought at hearing the term "flinging"... was that the MS software guy responsible for Zune "ejaculating" music to other Zunes -- now works for Google.
"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 #182 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

 

There is a huge, huge difference between using a remote app on an iPhone or iPad to control a UI that is on a different screen vs simply using the iPhone or iPad's netflix app to navigate to and play your content.

 

And remote control volume uses the CEC standard.  You aren't controlling the volume with amplitude modulation, which is an awful way to control volume on a TV.  You are actually controlling the actual volume.  The volume control gets to the TV via CEC over HDMI instead of from IR from your remote.

 

I watched the intro video and read the specs to see what it does.

That makes more sense.

"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 #183 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

...

Set aside your bias and think about how brilliant this design is.  Apple simplified the remote, Google got rid of it all together.  You find your content the exact same way you would find it to play on your iPad or iPhone, then you play it on your TV with one button.  The TV doesn't have to be on.  It doesn't have to be on the right input.  You don't have to find our touch your TV's remote to start watching, to pause, to fast forward, to change the volume.  And you get the same 1080p quality you would get from AppleTV or any other Netflix device.

I see this as mainly Google's attempt to get people to conveniently/easily watch YouTube videos and ads on your TV -- their whole preso was YT-centric.

I dislike YT more each time I visit because of the ever-encroaching ads -- and the feeling that YT/Google is watching me (instead of me watching YT).

I suspect that for most consumers, AirPlay (and such) are a relatively minor part of the TV viewing experience.

What this and AirPlay services fail to address is that most users will continually switch among, cable TV, local TV, sports networks, home videos, iTunes A'V, etc. The operative words are "continually switch". Thus, this adds nothing to the bulk of the TV experience -- except another device to be used as a remote.

The well equipped TV consumer needs something like this:


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 7/25/13 at 3:59am
"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 #184 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


What's funny? Don't you understand Google's business model? How else do you think they're making money off this device if not for analytics and ads?
 
Trust me, you will need to sign into a Google account and once that has happened, they will harvest your data because you have agreed to it. 

...and the danger is? When you sign into your Apple account your data is harvested because you agreed to it. Somehow I just can't seem to get myself upset over an ad that may or may not be of interest to me.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #185 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post


What's funny? Don't you understand Google's business model? How else do you think they're making money off this device if not for analytics and ads?
 
Trust me, you will need to sign into a Google account and once that has happened, they will harvest your data because you have agreed to it. 

...and the danger is? When you sign into your Apple account your data is harvested because you agreed to it. Somehow I just can't seem to get myself upset over an ad that may or may not be of interest to me.

I'll bite: you don't think there is a difference here? Google obviously uses that data to make money and create services for signed-in users. Apple doesn't try to make money off users who are leaving data; they create products and services for its users, who may opt to pay for it, if they even ask a price for it. A lot of stuff from Apple is 'free', well, free of charge, as they want to create a good experience. With Google, looking at the 'experience' they create for its users, not so much.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #186 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I'll bite: you don't think there is a difference here? Google obviously uses that data to make money and create services for signed-in users. Apple doesn't try to make money off users who are leaving data; they create products and services for its users, who may opt to pay for it, if they even ask a price for it. A lot of stuff from Apple is 'free', well, free of charge, as they want to create a good experience. With Google, looking at the 'experience' they create for its users, not so much.

Why is this an issue? Google isn't the only company that knows xyz about you. The only reason people bash Google for it is because Google competes with Apple on some devices.

I guarantee that if Apple and Google were still on great terms (and they may be, we don't actually know) none of you would worry a bit.

It's so silly. So you get a great service in exchange for seeing an ad about an aquarium? Seriously, who give a F.
post #187 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

It's so silly. So you get a great service in exchange for seeing an ad about an aquarium? Seriously, who give a F.

That's valid. And your opinion. I just don't like ads. I don't watch TV (not because of ads), but do use the internet, and think almost every ad is pathetic, over the top, deceitful and not even necessary if the product can stand on its on. I've never seen an ad from Rolls Royce, yet they get sold.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #188 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

That's valid. And your opinion. I just don't like ads. I don't watch TV (not because of ads), but do use the internet, and think almost every ad is pathetic, over the top, deceitful and not even necessary if the product can stand on its on. I've never seen an ad from Rolls Royce, yet they get sold.

Hey as long as folks form their own opinion by THINKING, I don't care. Perhaps you have. Some here don't.

For me, multi platforms is brilliant. I am not interested in being locked in to either, I want the best tools where and when needed.

Just my .02
post #189 of 226

My initial thought on this was, "hey, for $11 after my Netflix credit, I'll definitely give this a shot."  But after thinking/reading more about it, I don't think it's even worth $11 to me.  I already have Apple TV's (and computers running XBMC and Plex which can also receive AirPlay streams) and have an iOS-dominated household, so this doesn't seem to offer me anything I don't already have.

 

I do applaud them for the approach of letting the mobile device effectively "hand off" the stream to the ChromeCast device, so that the ChromeCast does all of the heavy lifting.  Since the release of the ATV2, and learning that it was running iOS inside, I wondered why Apple didn't design it to work the same way when streaming content like Netflix, YouTube, etc.  Yes, the ATV has dedicated apps for those, but if you begin your YouTube searching on your iPhone and then push the video to the ATV, the ATV should be smart enough to get the stream from the internet itself, rather than the multi-hop approach of having the iPhone send it to the router, which then sends it to the ATV.

 

Regarding the need for USB power, I've read in a couple of places that if you have an HDMI v1.4 port, it can get power from that.  If true, newer TVs can power it all by themselves.  That said, they're definitely being deceptive by hiding the fact that for *most* people, that tiny dongle isn't going to be so tiny, since you're going to have to plug in extra cables and a wall wart.

 

They also kept touting the ability for 1080p surround sound video, but since this is WiFi only (as opposed to the ATV which has an ethernet port) and it's going to be stuck behind your TV, I wonder if this thing might be stutter-city for a lot of people.  Does it have on-board storage memory to alleviate this through buffering?

 

The biggest takeaway for me is that this smells like Google pulling the plug on Google TV.  Wouldn't the functionality of this make sense to integrate into Google TV?  I would have liked to have seen them announce a software update to Google TV adding this feature, along with the release of this new ultra-cheap dongle.  If Google TV is officially dead, then that was a short-lived experiment.  We can complain about how the ATV lacks features we'd like to see, but one of the reasons why I remain in the iOS ecosystem is that Apple maintains support for their products for at least a few years before making something extinct.

 

In the end, I'm more excited about what software updates (and possibly hardware improvements) might be coming to the ATV next.  WiFi direct and Bluetooth game controller support could open it up to become the king of gaming consoles (for the record, I'm not a gamer, and I fully realize that the CPU/GPU specs on an ATV don't compare to an XBox 360 or PS3, but I think the hardcore gamers are a minority in the overall market and the same casual gamers / families who jumped on the Nintendo Wii and made it a huge success, despite it having poor graphics compared to the 360 or PS3, would also be satisfied with iOS-capable games on their big screen via an ATV).

 

Lastly, I will say that I'm happy that Google and others do try to compete with Apple.  If no one bothered to try, Apple would have less incentive to improve their products.  Hopefully the idea of handing-off the video streaming (for Netflix, Youtube, Pandora, etc.) will make its way into a subsequent ATV software update.

post #190 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

"Unlike other solutions," one said in the course of the presentation, "we will not force you to have the same operating system on all your devices."


That's dishonest because that's exactly what they're doing.  This thing only works with Apps that have integrated Chrome into them to support it.


AppleTV is not a dongle that lets you connect to the TV, it's a small computer itself. 


Typical google, I guess they think being disingenuous isn't "evil". 

I think there's a big difference between a app and a OS.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #191 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I'll bite: you don't think there is a difference here? Google obviously uses that data to make money and create services for signed-in users. Apple doesn't try to make money off users who are leaving data; they create products and services for its users, who may opt to pay for it, if they even ask a price for it. A lot of stuff from Apple is 'free', well, free of charge, as they want to create a good experience. With Google, looking at the 'experience' they create for its users, not so much.

So the great danger everyone's afraid of is a lesser user experience?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #192 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I'll bite: you don't think there is a difference here? Google obviously uses that data to make money and create services for signed-in users. Apple doesn't try to make money off users who are leaving data.

Of course Apple is trying to make money by monetizing their user's data. They just haven';t been overwhelmingly successful with it yet. With iRadio and targeted ads, their own maps app gathering user location data, better data-mining via iTunes and persistent rumors of a soon-to-launch Apple Ad Exchange they may get there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-considers-launching-ad-exchange-2013-5

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/apple-said-to-shift-ad-focus-to-support-new-music-service.html

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/06/150m_itunes_accounts_help_apple_create_targeted_iads
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #193 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I'll bite: you don't think there is a difference here? Google obviously uses that data to make money and create services for signed-in users. Apple doesn't try to make money off users who are leaving data.

Of course Apple is trying to make money by monetizing their user's data. They just haven';t been overwhelmingly successful with it yet. With iRadio and targeted ads, their own maps app gathering user location data, better data-mining via iTunes and persistent rumors of a soon-to-launch Apple Ad Exchange they may get there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-considers-launching-ad-exchange-2013-5

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/apple-said-to-shift-ad-focus-to-support-new-music-service.html

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/06/150m_itunes_accounts_help_apple_create_targeted_iads

1) I'm not in the US, and haven't seen an iAd. Ever.

2) iRadio isn't available yet. We're talking about the here and now.

3) User location data gathering through iPhones is being done by crowd sourcing, not user specific after first logging into the Apple.com domain, which was the start of the discussion.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #194 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

1) I'm not in the US, and haven't seen an iAd. Ever.

Well there you go. . . Evidence they haven't been very good at monetizing user data yet. But they're trying harder.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #195 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott R View Post




>>>snipped because I agree with everything you wrote... until..




Lastly, I will say that I'm happy that Google and others do try to compete with Apple.  If no one bothered to try, Apple would have less incentive to improve their products.  Hopefully the idea of handing-off the video streaming (for Netflix, Youtube, Pandora, etc.) will make its way into a subsequent ATV software update.

Sorry... but no. Apple never has followed any other tech company with innovation or the timetable that a different company chooses to bring to market their devices/tech... until THEY themselves are ready with THEIR products. That is when and if they think they can truly add something for a better user experience.

If what you're saying is true, they would have long ago released the iPhone Mini, Lite, and Max from their labs. They didn't for a reason. Don't be so naive to think that Apple doesn't have prototypes for years of just about every screen size and combination of tech available to them... including OSX running on an iPad.

Same thing with the AppleTV: it will be "relaunched" when Apple is ready and has all of the loose ends tied up to turn it from "just a hobby" to the next must-have device to add value not only for it's users, but adds value to the Apple Ecosystem.

With all of the Apple Fanboyism out of the way, for $35.00 I know of a few people that will jump on these and I'll be able to tinker with them i.e "try to make them work" once on the market. Most of those people in mind are twisted and masochistic Winbox/Android users and haven't a clue about tech, but only want to watch YouTube (egads!) on their TV. Nor do they have the necessary patience to save up for Apple gear.... which truly does come the closest to "It Just Works™" **... and I've stopped trying to persuade them.

* As opposed to Google who only plagiarizes the saying (which they did in the preso!)... and when it "It Just (Doesn't) Work"... has there fallback term "Beta" waiting for the naysayers who point this out (like: how dare they!)

* 99% of the time for all of the devices that Apple has sold and are being used today, iOS or Mac. Costumer satisfaction results points to that "assumption"; my experience of almost 30 years says it's darn close to fact.

NOTE: as a devoted Apple fan myself, there is nothing I hate worse than when people come to a forum and start spouting of nonsense before researching their bogus claims... and that be whether about Apple or any other company and their products, announcements... whatever. 1devil.gif

Please DON'T do that! 1oyvey.gif

Please DO read and COMPREHEND MY SIG! 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #196 of 226
As an avowed Apple Fanboy, I do believe in being fair.

This article at MacTrast (silly name but it is Apple-centric) sheds a little light on the "Who's Watching Who and How Much". Unfortunately i don't have the time to research the validity of the facts.... thought I'd just throw it on here to see what someone else productively does with it.

Uncommon Comparisons between Apple's vs. Google's App Stores

*** See "Risky Business" at the bottom as it pertains to "Info Mining and Security"; specifically "Ad Networks".*

* It hurts a little! 1hmm.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #197 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post

 


What's funny? Don't you understand Google's business model? How else do you think they're making money off this device if not for analytics and ads?
 
Trust me, you will need to sign into a Google account and once that has happened, they will harvest your data because you have agreed to it. 

Keep the laughs coming. Thanks!

post #198 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

 

Hold your horses on the remote volume control bubba.  Are you assuming your can control the volume? HDMI is a digital signal. HDMI and/or SPDIF has no overall amplitude control to my knowledge. The volume is controlled on the TV's build-in amplifier (once its converted to analog) or via attach Home Theater AV receiver.  

If your TV or HDMI device supports HDMI CEC then an HDMI device can control power on, input selection and volume among other things.

post #199 of 226

Some observations:

 

First, they claim that you have to have the same operating system on all of your devices to use an AppleTV. This is flat out wrong since you can use iOS, or Mac OS X or, you can just use the AppleTV itself without requiring any other operating system. From what I can tell of this device, it requires you to have a compatible app or Chrome running.

 

Second, while you can run this on Windows... you need to use Chrome.  If I'm on a Mac, or Windows and don't have Chrome, this thing is useless.  Obviously it's easy enough to download, but I don't need Google spying on me, thank you.


Third, the AppleTV is as powerful as an iPod touch and can do much more than what it's doing now. The Google solution is more akin to a dongle with WiFi and HDMI. I'm not sure how powerful this is.

 

Lastly, if I'm following this correctly, there's a HUGE difference between the AppleTV and the Chromecast device... AirPlay.  While Google is calling this "casting", I can almost guarantee you of what it's really doing. Ready? They release an API that puts a button in your video app.  You can then tell it what video and where to start playing.  This is sent to the Chromecast device which then goes out to the Internet and continues playback.  This is a HUGE difference as compared to an AppleTV which streams directly from your device to the AppleTV and does not require an Internet connection.

 

This has huge implications! For one thing, the app I make uses AirPlay to allow my app (which is not a video app) to stream content to a TV as if it were an external screen.  I can also use my TV as an external monitor with my Mac computers.  All of this is down without an Internet connection at all, just WiFi.  This is incredibly useful when you want to demonstrate things at a conference or tradeshow.  It is also allowing more advanced applications in OS X Mavericks, and chances are good Apple is cooking up a more powerful AppleTV OS that they can just install onto the existing devices.

 

So is there a difference between a $99 and $35 device? I believe the answer is yes. Unfortunately, most consumers will be fooled into thinking they are the same thing because the marketing and specs look the same.

post #200 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

I bought mine. You get three months of free Netflix too.

 

Wow, 3 months free Netflix covers more than half of the cost.  I'll go get mine. 

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