or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google's Chromecast is a Roku alternative, not a cheaper Apple TV AirPlay option
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Chromecast is a Roku alternative, not a cheaper Apple TV AirPlay option - Page 3

post #81 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


You do know that the Roku was released before the Apple TV and Linux set tops have been around since the early 00's. What is Google copying that hasn't already been done a hundreds times before?

poster said "Apple's >>>>>real<<<< TV product".  Not Apple's current set-top-box AppleTV product.

"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 #82 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter View Post

Airplay is NOT the main reason I have an ATV (x3)

In fact, I never use airplay at all.

Really, it's quite nice, since the Lightning HDMI connector for the iPad is kind of crappy I use the Apple TV just for Airplay.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #83 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

poster said "Apple's >>>>>real<<<< TV product".  Not Apple's current set-top-box AppleTV product.

Oh, wait the latter doesn't exist, how can you copy something that isn't there?
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #84 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Yeah and Apple sends people over to your house to watch over cats while your on holiday.

So we are clear that Apple is product company, and Google is a advertising analytics company.   Right? 

 

Therefore, If Apple could make a well thought out iCatWatch product to take care of your cat and make good margin on it, they would think about making it.  If they could tie that product into premium "watch your cat" services for which would further drive the iCatWatch product sales and make it even more profitable, they may consider it.

 

Google on the other hand would be happy to send over people to your house to collect analytics on what type of things are in your house, look over your tax returns in your filing cabinet, see what is on your DVR, look inside your refrigerator, check out what food is in your cabinets, what type and size of underwear your wife wears, what brand of toilet paper you wipe with and in the process take care of your cat. To sweaten the deal they will even give you a free ChromeCast for every TV in your house, install it and will be happy to install the Chrome Browser on every computer you own too. Heck they might even pay you something for the honor of "watching your cat".

 

If Apple ever did come out with successful "iCatWatch" device, Google would no doubt would try to make a cheaper device and call it a "weCatWatch" to monitor your cat in your house along with everything else which is setup an monitored using the Chrome Browser via the Google Services cloud. 


Edited by snova - 7/26/13 at 3:57pm
"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 #85 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

So we are clear that Apple is product company, and Google is a advertising analytics company.   Right? 

Therefore, If Apple could make a well thought out iCatWatch product to take care of your cat and make good margin on it, they would think about making it.  If they could tie that product into premium "watch your cat" services for which would further drive the iCatWatch product sales and make it even more profitable, they may consider it.

Google on the other hand would be happy to send over people to your house to collect analytics on what type of things are in your house, look over your tax returns in your filing cabinet, see what is on your DVR, look inside your refrigerator, check out what food is in your cabinets, what type and size of underwear your wife wears, what brand of toilet paper you wipe with and in the process take care of your cat. To sweaten the deal they will even give you a free ChromeCast for every TV in your house, install it and will be happy to install the Chrome Browser on every computer you own too. Heck they might even pay you something for the honor of "watching your cat".   

Ugh, that's scary, I think I'm getting a dog now.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #86 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Oh, wait the latter doesn't exist, how can you copy something that isn't there?

how about showing some respect and actually reading what the poster said.

 

 

4. Wait for Apple to roll out their real television strategy

5. Attempt to copy Apple's real television strategy without getting sued too much

"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 #87 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

how about showing some respect and actually reading what the poster said.


4. Wait for Apple to roll out their real television strategy



5. Attempt to copy Apple's real television strategy without getting sued too much



I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.

Philips



Samsung



Sony


Edited by Relic - 7/26/13 at 4:10pm
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #88 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Ugh, that's scary, I think I'm getting a dog now.

The scary part is all I said is not that out of bounds for Google .  Think about what Google will "see" when you are wearing their Google Glass and their motivation for making such a device in the first place.   Keep in mind, Google is NOT a product company, they are an advertising analytics company.  

"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 #89 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.

Philips

you mean like what happened with the iPad?  iPad was not the first tablet.    Microsoft had tablets long before and even tried to preempt iPad release with the HP Slate.   Obviously Apple copied Microsoft, HP for tables and Phillips vudu TV because there were such huge success stories.. right?


Edited by snova - 7/26/13 at 4:16pm
"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 #90 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

you mean like what happened with the iPad?  iPad was not the first tablet.    Microsoft had tablets long before and even tried to preempt iPad release with the HP Slate.   Obviously Apple copied Microsoft and HP.. right?

NO, that is my whole point. No one is blatantly copying, this is just progression of technology. The other poster was trying to be funny saying Google will ultimately copy Apple's, Apple TV TV, how do you say that, an Apple TV in a TV, anyway, I don't agree with these types of posts.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #91 of 143

I got a chromecast on a lark.

 

if you're doing what it is programmed for, it's a cool toy: streaming Youtube and Netflix to it from my computer worked easily and well. Throwing MST3K episodes from Youtube on there worked easily and the picture seemed pretty good.

 

Then I jumped over to Twitch.tv, a non-supported site to see if I could catch a replay of the Hearthstone stream from earlier today. There's no option to use it, so you have to throw a Chrome browser tab. No go, the video staggered and stuttered. It was not watchable.

 

What it does is give the services it supports a nicer interface: you can use your computer or phone to just throw it to your TV. That's pretty sweet, but it's limited.

 

It's a cute idea, for 35$ It was a nice try but I'll probably over time find it on one of the TVs I don't have a streaming box on yet. 

post #92 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


NO, that is my whole point. No one is blatantly copying, this is just progression of technology. 

Wow. Really? Hope no one you know has the pleasure of getting electrocuted in their bathrooms using progressive technology.   

"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 #93 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Wow. Really? Hope no one you know has the pleasure of getting electrocuted in their bathrooms using progressive technology.   

To late, been their done that, on the bright side it saved me a trip to my electrologist.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #94 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


To late, been their done that, on the bright side it saved me a trip to my electrologist.

plus it appears to have given you a talent for creative alternate viewpoints.

"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 #95 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

plus it appears to have given you a talent for creative alternate viewpoints.

Yeah, it was my own personal Dead Zone but without the weird haircut.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #96 of 143
DED even missed the point I find most unexplainable about the Chromecast device.

It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.
post #97 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999 View Post

 

ChromeCast is not meant to store anything, it's a web browser. Local Storage is going the way of the dodo folks, the future is in streaming. Everyone, even Apple, will eventually move to an all-streaming-with-optional-offline-caching model eventually.  The delay is no different than NetFlix seeking to a random position, approximately 2-3 seconds on a Google internet connection. 

 

If pirates want to run local content without mirroring, all they need is a URL to an H264 stream. There are already people in Plex working on an integration. Since integration means simply having an HTTP server that can send back a <video> tag pointing to an H264 stream, it takes on the order of  hours to produce an integration. 

 

Judging by the level of reaction in these forums, compared to say Nexus Q, Apple zealouts know this is a good product and are scared it could have huge adoption.

I'm an Apple zealot and I hope chromecast is widely successful.  Why should I be scared?  I'll be streaming content from the internet to my Sony TV using my iPhone as the control.  What matters most about Chromecast is that any iPhone app developer can include a chromecast button in their iPhone app to allow me to switch a streaming video from my iPhone to my TV.   That means I can browse through TV or movie content on the internet using my phone, select the content and hit play and it shows up on my TV.  Fantastic!  I couldn't care less whether its Apple or Google that provides this functionality.  Its going to be awesome.

 

Ironically Apple f'ed up with the Apple TV interface.  They make me navigate an onscreen menu using a 1980's style dumb ass remote. It is probably the most pathetic user interface Apple has ever produced. Then some bright engineer thought to fix the problem by virtualizing the dumb ass remote in an iPhone app. Sorry, but a virtualized dumb ass remote is still a dumb ass remote.

 

Google nailed it with this one.

 


Edited by ash471 - 7/26/13 at 6:55pm
post #98 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Can't wait for the Aereo TV service to be available with Chromecast....

 

post #99 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

The big question is how does Google plan to stream advertising to you on one of these things, They can not continue to give away hardware and not have some sort of revenue stream to make up the loss. Maybe this is hobby like Apple TV was for many years, But I do not believe Apple ever gave away hardware and hopes to make up the loss somewhere else.

Oh, they can, for sure. This is just a ploy to lure people into Chrome eco-system so they can suck more data from you. Nothing more. 

 

It's great for people who's already using Chrome but it's a trap for who isn't yet.

 

They know it will be a failure if they give you the full capability i.e. Android TV but if they give you something for a little price people won't think much. And it seems that their ploy is working.


Edited by matrix07 - 7/26/13 at 7:33pm
post #100 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

I'm an Apple zealot and I hope chromecast is widely successful.  Why should I be scared?  I'll be streaming content from the internet to my Sony TV using my iPhone as the control.  What matters most about Chromecast is that any iPhone app developer can include a chromecast button in their iPhone app to allow me to switch a streaming video from my iPhone to my TV.   That means I can browse through TV or movie content on the internet using my phone, select the content and hit play and it shows up on my TV.  Fantastic!  I couldn't care less whether its Apple or Google that provides this functionality.  Its going to be awesome.

 

Ironically Apple f'ed up with the Apple TV interface.  They make me navigate an onscreen menu using a 1980's style dumb ass remote. It is probably the most pathetic user interface Apple has ever produced. Then some bright engineer thought to fix the problem by virtualizing the dumb ass remote in an iPhone app. Sorry, but a virtualized dumb ass remote is still a dumb ass remote.

 

Google nailed it with this one.

 

So you compare Chromecast, which doesn't have an interface of its own, with Apple TV interface instead of its AirPlay capability. Nice. No wonder you're so confused.

post #101 of 143
I think the ChromeCast is great. If its still on sale come christmas time, it's affordable enough to give one to every relative that you hate.
"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 #102 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

DED even missed the point I find most unexplainable about the Chromecast device.

It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.

It's useless for slow internet connection unlike AirPlay that use your router speed.

post #103 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom95521 View Post

Content providers do not want their web media viewed on HDTV? HDCP has been cracked. Blu-Ray copy protection cracked. How long are they going to keep their head in the sand? That ship has sailed. Netflix/Amazon streaming not enough profit? Don't label chromecast as the bad guy. Apple needs to innovate instead of whining about the competition.

Tom

Try getting your head out of your blow hole and go get yourself a good education so you can contribute something intelligent to the community!
post #104 of 143

I think Google made a tactical error not going with the Android TV -- although, I don't know how well it performed and what the costs were -- so I suppose they might have had good reason.

 

Scraping the web to bypass the Carriers? I'm OK with that.

Scraping licensed TV streams and adding your own ads? Aren't they opening themselves up for litigation by clearly "enabling." Just scraping would have "other uses" and could be called just a feature -- but adding your own ads shows intent. And when you have an income stream, you instantly create observable financial damages. Other than being a bit overt and tacky -- are they crazy?

 

"choppy video and out of sync sound" -- well that killed that killer app. Nobody really wants to sit in their living room and watch compression artifacts and dubbed movies.

 

Seems like they are just offering Apple some lead time when they roll out their own offering. If I had money, I'd buy Apple stock -- they just cornered another market.

post #105 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

doesn't a power cord defeat the purpose of a dongle?

Well, it does save the cost of an HDMI cable.

post #106 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

So you compare Chromecast, which doesn't have an interface of its own, with Apple TV interface instead of its AirPlay capability. Nice. No wonder you're so confused.

I thought the exact same thing. If you hate using the UI, just AirPlay. Not to mention airplay goes from device to device and not through the cloud (wifi)- so it's substantially more responsive and faster. But who wants that- you can save sixty bucks for a product that does the same thing worse and with only 1/10th the features!

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #107 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

You lost me at, "I gave my MBP away..." 1smile.gif

My MBP cost $4000, as if I'd "give it away".
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 #108 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

So you compare Chromecast, which doesn't have an interface of its own, with Apple TV interface instead of its AirPlay capability. Nice. No wonder you're so confused.

I'm not confused.  I understand the Apple TV interface perfectly.  It's a piece of shit.  To type in the password it puts up a keyboard on the screen and then makes me push a button to move from one letter to the next until I reach the desired alphanumeric character and select it.  There is nothing confusing about that.  It is a total piece of shit interface.  

 

Secondly, the brilliance of Chromecast is that it uses the iPhone or Android device to provide the interface and then it streams the content from the cloud.  Why is that a bad comparison.  Airplay only works by streaming from the portable electronic device (e.g., iPhone) which drains the battery.  

 

Pause for a second and maybe the clarity of my argument will sink in.   I think you'll realize that Chromecast just kicked Apple's ass in a area that Apple has historically been king.....user interface and simplicity.  


Edited by ash471 - 7/26/13 at 11:24pm
post #109 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


I thought the exact same thing. If you hate using the UI, just AirPlay. Not to mention airplay goes from device to device and not through the cloud (wifi)- so it's substantially more responsive and faster. But who wants that- you can save sixty bucks for a product that does the same thing worse and with only 1/10th the features!

Him saying "I'm an Apple zealot" almost had us all fooled thinking he was just one of us guy- you know, logical... Except its the typical banter of a troll.

LOL LOL, you think I'm a troll? Go read my other 416 posts and you'll see I'm anything but a troll.  I own a Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, 4 iPhones, Apple TV, 3 iPod touches and 2 iPod nanos, Apple Cinema display and an Apple Thunderbolt display.  I've made tens of thousands of dollars in appreciated Apple stock.  I haven't purchased a windows machine since 2002. I fought the IT department in my law firm for 5 years until they finally cracked a year ago and let me and another attorney connect our MBAs to the firm system (two years ago I was assured that it would NEVER happen).  You think I'm a troll....hilarious.

 

Regarding the merits of my argument.... I do use Airplay.  There are two MAJOR problems with Airplay: (i) it drains the battery, (ii) prevents me from having access to my phone while I'm streaming.  Most of what I want to stream is not stored on my phone.  Why should my phone be used as a server.  Google figured out how to do it better for 1/3 the price.  I'm no Google fan, but call a spade a spade.  Google kicked Apple's ass.

post #110 of 143
Is this as stupid as a chrome book, by the way a chrome book OS feels like worse than android (tablet, smartphone?) for a lot more $$. This chrome casts sounds like it is heading there.
post #111 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.

Philips



Samsung



Sony

The problem with all of the existing "smart TVs" is they use the TV as the interface.  That approach is totally wrong.  The TV is a horrible user interface because it doesn't have a good input mechanism.  Mark my words, someday everyone will realize the brilliance of Chromecast: It uses the iPhone as the interface for the TV but doesn't use the iPhone for the source of the streaming content.  

post #112 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Is this as stupid as a chrome book, by the way a chrome book OS feels like worse than android (tablet, smartphone?) for a lot more $$. This chrome casts sounds like it is heading there.

No, Chrome Book is a laptop that relies on a server for computing power.  Google was totally wrong about the market for light clients.  This is quite different.  TVs are usually stationary and near an internet connection.  More importantly, there is a lot of video content that is being streamed over the internet.  I think Netflix is the largest user of internet bandwidth in the U.S.  Chromecast is a simple and economical way for every TV with an HDMI port to receive that content while using your phone as the remote control.  I think Chromecast is going to kill it in the marketplace for streaming video.  Hopefully this will spur Apple to open up the Apple TV to 3rd party developers and add the cloud streaming feature.  

post #113 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Is this as stupid as a chrome book, by the way a chrome book OS feels like worse than android (tablet, smartphone?) for a lot more $$. This chrome casts sounds like it is heading there.

An Acer Chromebook starts at 200, how is that expensive?
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #114 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

No, Chrome Book is a laptop that relies on a server for computing power.  

No it doesn't, the Chromebook has a CPU, memory, SSD storage just like a normal laptop, it relies on a internet connection however, which is what I think you meant to say.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #115 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Regarding the merits of my argument.... I do use Airplay.  There are two MAJOR problems with Airplay: (i) it drains the battery, (ii) prevents me from having access to my phone while I'm streaming.  Most of what I want to stream is not stored on my phone.  Why should my phone be used as a server.  Google figured out how to do it better for 1/3 the price.  I'm no Google fan, but call a spade a spade.  Google kicked Apple's ass.

 

I posted elsewhere that Google's approach for streaming Netflix content is superior, IMO.  The approach of having the iPhone tell the Apple TV what it wants to play, but letting the ATV actually go out and fetch the content and do the "heavy lifting" makes perfect sense, and I've posted about this over a year ago.  The big issue for me is the number of network hops that have to happen.  If I want to play a Netflix show and want to use my iPhone/iPad to find the show I want, I then hit play and send it over AirPlay to my TV.  If I'm lucky, my ATV is hard-wired via ethernet to my router.  Even then, my iPhone is doing a wireless hop to the router which then goes across the internet to get the content from Netflix.  OK, no way around that...no big deal so far.  But then my iPhone has to re-transmit the content it's getting wirelessly again back to my router, which then transmits it to my ATV.  If I'm not so lucky, the router-to-ATV connection is wireless as well.  The Google approach would be superior for any internet-based content (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, etc.).  The battery savings is a definite plus as well, but I do think that's being blown a bit out of proportion.  Someone would need to do some measuring to see just how much battery drain the Netflix streaming plus Airplaying causes in the course of an hour or two.

 

But that's where the Chromecast advantages end.  The superiority of using your iPhone as the UI for Netflix is not an advantage, because you can already choose to use the approach described above.  The ATV has the advantage that, in addition to using the iPhone as the Netflix UI, you can *also* use a traditional remote and your TV to navigate the Netflix UI.  I do agree that *most* people nowadays have a smartphone of their own, but even when you do,: a) You don't always want to use it (I may be in the midst of using my normal remote and don't want to have to put it down, fire up my phone, fire up the Netflix app on my phone, etc., when all I wanted to do on my TV is pick back up on the most recent Arrested Development episode I left off on); b) You may have a guest over who wants to surf through some Netflix options and you don't want to go through the hassle of getting their phone set up to access your WiFi).

 

And let's not forget that there are real advantages to the Apple AirPlay mirroring functionality.  You can put your iPhone/iPad screen up on the TV, send photos there, videos you've shot, etc.  And there are games that are coded to use the ATV as a 2nd output, showing gaming controls on the iPhone but the "action" on the TV.  The Chromecast approach won't work for that.  The best they can do is casting a web browser tab, and I believe that only works from a laptop.

 

Lastly, you should know better than to repeat the false claim that you can't use your iPhone for other things when you're AirPlaying.  That's only true of AirPlay *Mirroring*.  I can AirPlay my Pandora station over to my ATV, leave that app on my iPhone and do other things, and Pandora keeps playing on my ATV.  The same is true with AirPlaying a movie using Plex, and I'd imagine any other use case that doesn't involve AirPlay Mirroring.

 

Circling back to the one advantage of the Chromecast...if anyone here bought one, I'm curious to know what happens if you start up a video on Netflix, cast it to your Chromecast, then go on to watch a different Netflix video on your smartphone.  I'm assuming that works fine, but here's what I'm wondering about: The video playing on your TV is now "on its own".  How do you pause it?  Can you regain control of that first video on your smartphone or has it been cast loose into the wild? I know that if you *didn't* start looking for and playing a different video on your smartphone that you'd be able to use your smartphone for pause/playback controls.

post #116 of 143
For those interested apparently DIAL is the tech used to deliver content on the Chromecast. YouTube and Netflix are the two maintaining and developing it with other companies also involved in planning and implementation. .

http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott R View Post

 

I posted elsewhere that Google's approach for streaming Netflix content is superior, IMO.  The approach of having the iPhone tell the Apple TV what it wants to play, but letting the ATV actually go out and fetch the content and do the "heavy lifting" makes perfect sense, and I've posted about this over a year ago.  The big issue for me is the number of network hops that have to happen.  If I want to play a Netflix show and want to use my iPhone/iPad to find the show I want, I then hit play and send it over AirPlay to my TV.  If I'm lucky, my ATV is hard-wired via ethernet to my router.  Even then, my iPhone is doing a wireless hop to the router which then goes across the internet to get the content from Netflix.  OK, no way around that...no big deal so far.  But then my iPhone has to re-transmit the content it's getting wirelessly again back to my router, which then transmits it to my ATV.  If I'm not so lucky, the router-to-ATV connection is wireless as well.  The Google approach would be superior for any internet-based content (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, etc.).  The battery savings is a definite plus as well, but I do think that's being blown a bit out of proportion.  Someone would need to do some measuring to see just how much battery drain the Netflix streaming plus Airplaying causes in the course of an hour or two.

 

But that's where the Chromecast advantages end.  The superiority of using your iPhone as the UI for Netflix is not an advantage, because you can already choose to use the approach described above.  The ATV has the advantage that, in addition to using the iPhone as the Netflix UI, you can *also* use a traditional remote and your TV to navigate the Netflix UI.  I do agree that *most* people nowadays have a smartphone of their own, but even when you do,: a) You don't always want to use it (I may be in the midst of using my normal remote and don't want to have to put it down, fire up my phone, fire up the Netflix app on my phone, etc., when all I wanted to do on my TV is pick back up on the most recent Arrested Development episode I left off on); b) You may have a guest over who wants to surf through some Netflix options and you don't want to go through the hassle of getting their phone set up to access your WiFi).

 

And let's not forget that there are real advantages to the Apple AirPlay mirroring functionality.  You can put your iPhone/iPad screen up on the TV, send photos there, videos you've shot, etc.  And there are games that are coded to use the ATV as a 2nd output, showing gaming controls on the iPhone but the "action" on the TV.  The Chromecast approach won't work for that.  The best they can do is casting a web browser tab, and I believe that only works from a laptop.

 

Lastly, you should know better than to repeat the false claim that you can't use your iPhone for other things when you're AirPlaying.  That's only true of AirPlay *Mirroring*.  I can AirPlay my Pandora station over to my ATV, leave that app on my iPhone and do other things, and Pandora keeps playing on my ATV.  The same is true with AirPlaying a movie using Plex, and I'd imagine any other use case that doesn't involve AirPlay Mirroring.

 

Circling back to the one advantage of the Chromecast...if anyone here bought one, I'm curious to know what happens if you start up a video on Netflix, cast it to your Chromecast, then go on to watch a different Netflix video on your smartphone.  I'm assuming that works fine, but here's what I'm wondering about: The video playing on your TV is now "on its own".  How do you pause it?  Can you regain control of that first video on your smartphone or has it been cast loose into the wild? I know that if you *didn't* start looking for and playing a different video on your smartphone that you'd be able to use your smartphone for pause/playback controls.

ok, I was wrong about the not being able to use the phone.  Still disagree about the remote. Nobody uses the ATV remote to control home theater or TV.  The ATV is always an additional remote that you have to find.  The whole idea of navigating a menu on a TV is archaic and unnecessary.  Apple was just following the TV industry.  Every "smart TV" out there does the same stupid on screen navigation system.  

 

And even if Airplay can serve as a workaround for some scenarios, the fact is Apple set up a menu system that encourages developers and users to do it the wrong way.  For instance, it may be possible to rent a movie on iTunes, play it on my iPhone, and stream it to my ATV.  However, when I bought an ATV, I tried doing it the way Apple intended, which is to turn on your ATV select a movie from the menu and start watching.  No one will ever make that mistake with Chromecast because it isn't capable of doing it the wrong way.

 

This isn't a huge problem for Apple.  It can be easily fixed.  They just need an app that provides the ATV menu and navigation.  It could be part of iTunes or a standalone app.  If Apple were smart, they would instruct you to download the app when you set up your ATV and then push the app to all your devices associated with the AppleID.            

 

Apple should also drop the price of ATV.  My guess is Chromecast reduced the cost by combining several of the components onto a single circuit board.  Apple needs to do the same and get the price down to at least $50.

post #118 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriousUnseen View Post

But iPhones and iPads aren't the best in my opinion so I can't get an Apple TV. Which is unfortunate because I was actually excited about that device.

Well that's utter nonsense.
post #119 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

ok, I was wrong about the not being able to use the phone.  Still disagree about the remote. Nobody uses the ATV remote to control home theater or TV.  The ATV is always an additional remote that you have to find.  The whole idea of navigating a menu on a TV is archaic and unnecessary.  Apple was just following the TV industry.  Every "smart TV" out there does the same stupid on screen navigation system.  

And even if Airplay can serve as a workaround for some scenarios, the fact is Apple set up a menu system that encourages developers and users to do it the wrong way.  For instance, it may be possible to rent a movie on iTunes, play it on my iPhone, and stream it to my ATV.  However, when I bought an ATV, I tried doing it the way Apple intended, which is to turn on your ATV select a movie from the menu and start watching.  No one will ever make that mistake with Chromecast because it isn't capable of doing it the wrong way.

This isn't a huge problem for Apple.  It can be easily fixed.  They just need an app that provides the ATV menu and navigation.  It could be part of iTunes or a standalone app.  If Apple were smart, they would instruct you to download the app when you set up your ATV and then push the app to all your devices associated with the AppleID.            

Apple should also drop the price of ATV.  My guess is Chromecast reduced the cost by combining several of the components onto a single circuit board.  Apple needs to do the same and get the price down to at least $50.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you want to use the Apple TV EXACTLY like the chromecast- you can. With no remote. Why do you keep bringing up a remote as if its a disadvantage. It's totally useless if you're using it for streaming only. It's only function is as a set top box. Chromecast streaming and airplay streaming- in terms of difficulty is 100% identical. The only difference is that the ATV will have better quality and less lag as its device to device instead of in the cloud. You are totally clueless.

To summarize:
-Chromecast is a streamer with no remote
-Apple TV is a streamer with no remote
-Apple TV is also a set top box with a remote

-Chromecast streams via cloud which has more lag than Apple TV which streams device to device.

So ya, it's ONLY advantage is the price point. Unless you are a windows/android house, then it's better for streaming than the ATV.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #120 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well that's utter nonsense.
I think he's just trolling, I mean who gives up a Macbook Pro, even if you don't like using OSX in which I can't imagine why, it can still handle pretty much every OS you can throw at it.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google's Chromecast is a Roku alternative, not a cheaper Apple TV AirPlay option