or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google Photowall turns your TV into a crowdsourced pinboard, Loopy HD goes half-off
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google Photowall turns your TV into a crowdsourced pinboard, Loopy HD goes half-off

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Two interesting developments hit the App Store over the weekend, as Google's new Photowall app lets iPhone owners beam photos from their handset to their TV using the company's Chromecast streaming stick, while Loopy HD is now 50% off after being featured on The Tonight Show.

Google Photowall


Google Photowall



Google Photowall for Chromecast is a simple app that allows iPhone owners to turn their Chromecast-equipped television into a crowdsourced, interactive pinboard. After launching a photowall using the app, anyone connected to the same network can beam additional photos to the display instantaneously.

Users can also make simple annotations to photos before posting them using the app's built-in painting tools. At the end of the photowall session, users can have a video of every photo automatically generated and uploaded to YouTube for sharing.

Google Photowall for Chromecast version 1.0 is available now as a free, 2.9-megabyte download from the App Store.

Loopy HD


Loopy HD



Loopy HD is a software looping app that allows users to record and mix multitrack audio on the iPad using a simple interface. After the app was featured on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, developers A Tasty Pixel are offering a 50 percent discount on Loopy HD for a limited time.

Users can work with up to twelve loops at once, and the app offers MIDI control support as well as support for beat multiples and fractions. Users can import loops from their computer or record them live, and the app supports full stereo audio.

Additionally, Loopy HD will work with any Audiobus-enabled app as well as others that support audio copy-and-paste.

Loopy HD version 1.4.7 is available now as a $3.99, 14.4-megabyte download from the App Store.
post #2 of 67
Doesn't much of this already happen on the Apple TV via iCloud photo sharing?
post #3 of 67
Queue the "Don't want, will never use" anti-Google posts....
post #4 of 67
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post
Cue the "Don't want, will never use" anti-Google posts....

 

I see a single use for the Google thing: parties. That is, a single use case. There’s zero point to it otherwise, and most party-goers won’t care.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 3/24/14 at 9:30am

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I see a single use for the Google thing: parties. That is, a single use case. There’s zero point to it otherwise, and most party-goers won’t care.

Actually the only use I can see for this as a demo for what you can do with your Chromecast.  "Look we can all post photos to the TV!"  "Dude, I want to watch the game; I'll look at your stupid pictures on my own time online."

post #6 of 67
Seems really dumb.
post #7 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

Queue the "Don't want, will never use" anti-Google posts....

I don't want, and I will never use this.

 

I already have an Apple TV and I have zero intentions of buying an inferior chromecast. Why downgrade when you can upgrade?

 

I can already stream and mirror whatever i want to my tvs and to my computers using airplay.

 

The other day I was mirroring two ipads at once over to my computer, with both iPads showing up perfectly on the computer.

post #8 of 67

The lengths that companies like Google and Samsung go to come off as being "cool" is laughable.  They put lipstick on a pig and hope people will think it's the next supermodel.  Pathetic.

Google's app is great if you're hosting a party for misfit kids.  Other than that, it will be forgotten in a week.

post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I already have an Apple TV and I have zero intentions of buying an inferior chromecast. Why downgrade when you can upgrade?

Agreed. I am guessing there must be quite a few Androiders out there for whom an extra $64 (despite all the added functionality) must be the end of the world.

post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

I don't want, and I will never use this.

 

I already have an Apple TV and I have zero intentions of buying an inferior chromecast. Why downgrade when you can upgrade?

 

I can already stream and mirror whatever i want to my tvs and to my computers using airplay.

 

The other day I was mirroring two ipads at once over to my computer, with both iPads showing up perfectly on the computer.

Surprisingly, the target market of non-Apple products is not 'people who exclusively use Apple products'.

post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Agreed. I am guessing there must be quite a few Androiders out there for whom an extra $64 (despite all the added functionality) must be the end of the world.

Please describe all the added functionality that Apple TV has over ChromeCast.

post #12 of 67
edit
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Agreed. I am guessing there must be quite a few Androiders out there for whom an extra $64 (despite all the added functionality) must be the end of the world.
An Apple TV would be fairly useless without a several hundred dollar investment in a companion iDevice wouldn't it? Besides going after a somewhat different market the Chromecast doesn't have that limitation. It probably works right alongside whatever desktop or mobile device you already own, whether iOS, Android, Mac or some Windows-based desktop/laptop.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/24/14 at 10:52am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Surprisingly, the target market of non-Apple products is not 'people who exclusively use Apple products'.

So a product isn't intended for people who don't buy it? How insightful¡

To be clear: we are talking about an iOS app.
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

An Apple TV would be fairly useless without a several hundred dollar investment in a companion iDevice wouldn't it? Besides going after a somewhat different market the Chromecast doesn't have that limitation.

It probably works right alongside whatever desktop or mobile device you already own, whether iOS, Android or some Windows-based desktop/laptop.

No. The Apple TV is perfectly capable of streaming content off iTunes for windows. In addition, it can be controlled with its own remote and functions as a stand-alone device. It is exceedingly rare for me to do anything on my Apple TV that would require "a several hundred dollar investment".
post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

An Apple TV would be fairly useless without a several hundred dollar investment in a companion iDevice wouldn't it? Besides going after a somewhat different market the Chromecast doesn't have that limitation. It probably works right alongside whatever desktop or mobile device you already own, whether iOS, Android, Mac or some Windows-based desktop/laptop.

I guess you must have missed the news that AppleTV has been Windows/PC-compatible since Day 1 (i.e., eight years ago).

 

You're welcome.:)

post #17 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I guess you must have missed the news that AppleTV has been Windows/PC-compatible since Day 1 (i.e., eight years ago).

You're welcome.1smile.gif

Why did you leave out Android, or address the need to own an Apple device of some sort if AppleTV is going to be of much use? Neither of those is a limitation of the Chromecast.

...AND you're welcome too. 1biggrin.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

No. The Apple TV is perfectly capable of streaming content off iTunes for windows. In addition, it can be controlled with its own remote and functions as a stand-alone device. It is exceedingly rare for me to do anything on my Apple TV that would require "a several hundred dollar investment".

iTunes isn't very useful either unless you own or have owned an Apple device is it?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why did you leave out Android, or address the need to own an Apple device of some sort if AppleTV is going to be of much use? Neither of those is a limitation of the Chromecast.

...AND you're welcome too. 1biggrin.gif

Sigh. There you go again, with your predictable obduracy. Your original post was based on the premise that one needs some kind of 'iDevice' to run AppleTV that one had to spend 'hundreds of dollars' on.

 

You've been told  -- twice -- that one doesn't. In fact, when not used as a standalone device (which is a great deal of its use) most of the home media type uses of Apple TV -- photos, music, videos -- are often done from one's laptop or desktop rather than an iDevice.

 

Instead of being grateful for the info, you're simply trying to hide the fact that you've been told of something about which you posted an ignorant question.

 

As to Android, who gives a s***. They're welcome to their detritus of apps and accessories.

post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

iTunes isn't very useful either unless you own or have owned an Apple device is it?

Groan.

 

Stop.

post #21 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sigh. There you go again, with your predictable obduracy. Your original post was based on the premise that one needs some kind of 'iDevice' to run AppleTV that one had to spend 'hundreds of dollars' on.

You've been told  -- twice -- that one doesn't. In fact, when not used as a standalone device (which is a great deal of its use) most of the home media type uses of Apple TV -- photos, music, videos -- are often done from one's laptop or desktop rather than an iDevice.

Instead of being grateful for the info, you're simply trying to hide the fact that you've been told of something about which you posted an ignorant question.

As to Android, who gives a s***. They're welcome to their detritus of apps and accessories.

I'm well aware that an AppleTV isn't completely useless without an Apple device, just more useless than a Chromecast. That's exactly what I said in the first post.

I tried explaining why Android users would choose one over an AppleTV which you assumed, and perhaps just from simple ignorance about it, was primarily because of the extra $54. For an Apple device owner price might be the reason. That's far from the biggest reason for users of other platforms IMO. You apparently aren't grateful for my information either even tho I've tried twice to explain it to you. Here's a chart if it's easier for you to understand visually.

Edited by Gatorguy - 3/24/14 at 11:54am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

iTunes isn't very useful either unless you own or have owned an Apple device is it?

How is this in any way relevant to the conversation? The Apple TV is an Apple device!
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

How is this in any way relevant to the conversation? The Apple TV is an Apple device!

You'll have to follow the conversation to see the relevance.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You'll have to follow the conversation to see the relevance.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue with the intentionally obtuse.
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaeen View Post

Whatever. I'm not going to argue with the intentionally obtuse.

I didn't realize you were arguing any particular point. If you can restate it and I have anything to add I will. Otherwise I won't bother.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 67

If I wanted to give Google full access to my personal photo library, I'd have already signed up for Google+.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm well aware that an AppleTV isn't completely useless without an Apple device, just more useless than a Chromecast. That's exactly what I said in the first post.

I tried explaining why Android users would choose one over an AppleTV which you assumed, and perhaps just from simple ignorance about it, was primarily because of the extra $54. For an Apple device owner price might be the reason. That's far from the biggest reason for users of other platforms IMO. You apparently aren't grateful for my information either even tho I've tried twice to explain it to you. Here's a chart if it's easier for you to understand visually.
So, does it come with a remote control to allow it to stream some content without ANY other device, just a chrome cast hooked up to your TV? Or do you need to sling it from somewhere? My understanding is that someone with no computer or smart phone can still use an AppleTV.

So if this is the only electronic device in the house other than a wifi router to the internet (from your telecom), then which device is more useful or which is not useful at all?
Jimbo
Reply
Jimbo
Reply
post #28 of 67

Gatorguy:

I-Tunes is plenty useful if you don't have an IOS device. As a matter of fact, before Amazon and Google came out with their offerings, what else was anywhere near as good for downloading songs and movies?

 

anantksundaram:

The $64 for all that extra functionality? That extra functionality only exists if you have an IOS device. If you do not have an IOS device that is compatible with AppleTV, then there isn't anything that AppleTV does that Chromecast or Roku doesn't do as good or better. Which is why Amazon abandoned their plans to come out with an AppleTV/Roku type set top box and is instead coming out with one much more like Chromecast. And also why Roku redesigned their streaming stick to emulate Chromecast.

 

Yes, you can stream content from I-Tunes to your Apple TV even if you don't have an IOS device. But you can also do the same from your Chrome browser to Chromecast. Apple TV has a standalone remote? Yeah ... that is real important. (Especially since Roku has the best remotes.) It is a standalone device? Sure ... a standalone device that does what while standing alone exactly? Basically, Chromecast demonstrates that for the things that 90% of people actually do, standalone devices aren't necessary. Chromecast takes advantage of the latest technology to do what 90% of people would actually use an Apple TV or Roku or any of the other set top boxes for and put it in a much smaller, cheaper device, cheaper even than the Roku LT that doesn't even have HDTV output.

 

And Chromecast isn't even a mature product. AppleTV has been around since, what, 2007? Meanwhile, Chromecast is less than a year old, and Google has just got around to releasing its SDK to developers. After a couple of hardware and OS updates and after developers have played around with it for a couple of years, the gap between the Chromecast and the current AppleTV will certainly close. Google did not put Miracast (Android's version of AirPlay) into Chromecast because it is more of a "Chrome" product than an Android product (hence it being called Chromecast instead of DroidCast). But there is already a device (EZCast) that combines (rips off) Chromecast and includes Miracast, so an official Chromecast implementation of Miracast implemented using their SDK and released through Google is being worked on as we speak.

 

Sorry, but unless you own I-Phones, I-Pads and I-Pods, there is no reason to prefer Apple TV over Chromecast. And as Google Chrome does run on IOS devices, the $64 is a compelling reason to prefer Chromecast over Apple TV even if you do, especially if you have multiple TVs. 4 TVs, 4 Apple TVs = $400, the price of an Ipad 4. 4 Chromecasts that you can get for as little as $25 apiece from some outlet? Exactly.

post #29 of 67
I have just bought a Chromecast. It is great for slinging YouTube videos to tv from both my iOS devices and Android devices. Vevo is not so good as it buffers a lot in between videos. BBC iPlayer works well. Sending photos requires purchase of apps which take some time to display the images. Photowall though requires you giving Google permission to access your photos and post a video of your Photowall to YouTube. I do not want my personal photos posting to YouTube so refused access to these permissions. Come on Google, the app looks great but why is it necessary to post my Photowall on YouTube? This is exactly why I will never switch to Google for my main devices.
Edited by Crosslad - 3/24/14 at 3:30pm
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
... and I have anything to add I will. Otherwise I won't bother.

 

I hope that's a promise.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement View Post
 

That extra functionality only exists if you have an IOS device. If you do not have an IOS device .... blah blah blah

Oh boy. Another clueless post, from someone that perhaps has absolutely no clue about (nor has used)AppleTV.

 

All you need is iTunes on your Mac or PC (i.e., no iOS devices needed) to be able to stream your photos, videos, and music. Get the facts or please bother to actually try it out, man.

post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post

I have just bought a Chromecast. It is great for slinging YouTube videos to tv from both my iOS devices and Android devices. Vevo is not so good as it buffers a lot in between videos. BBC iPlayer works well. Sending photos requires purchase of apps which take some time to display the images. Photowall though requires you giving Google permission to access your photos and post a video of your Photowall to YouTube. I do not want my personal photos posting to YouTube so refused access to these permissions. Come on Google, the app looks great but why is it necessary to post my Photowall on YouTube? This is exactly why I will never switch to Google for my main devices.

 

Considering that my iMac has a PPI of more than 2x that of my HDTV, I don't do a lot of "slinging."  The only time I really choose to watch video streamed to my TV is when I want to lie down on the couch as opposed to sitting at my desk.  There's nothing that looks better on my TV than on my iMac.  Heck, if it weren't for superior extras on the Blu-Rays I buy, I'd have gone to all digital for purchasing movies (I almost never buy BDs that don't include excellent extras -- there are just too many films I want to own).

 

Now, my iMac is 27".  Obviously you're in a different situation if you have an 11" Air, or something.

 

ETA: Well, I couldn't go ALL digital since some stuff isn't available AFAIK.  But at least mostly.


Edited by AaronJ - 3/24/14 at 3:49pm
post #32 of 67
Considering that my iMac has a PPI of more than 2x that of my HDTV, I don't do a lot of "slinging." The only time I really choose to watch video streamed to my TV is when I want to lie down on the couch as opposed to sitting at my desk. There's nothing that looks better on my TV than on my iMac. Heck, if it weren't for superior extras on the Blu-Rays I buy, I'd have gone to all digital for purchasing movies (I almost never buy BDs that don't include excellent extras -- there are just too many films I want to own).

Now, my iMac is 27". Obviously you're in a different situation if you have an 11" Air, or something.

ETA: Well, I couldn't go ALL digital since some stuff isn't available AFAIK. But at least .


To be honest since getting an iPad a few years back, I rarely use my Mac mini as it is in another room. 95% of what I do at home can be done on my iPad. Streaming it to my tv means the whole family can watch it rather than just me.
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post


To be honest since getting an iPad a few years back, I rarely use my Mac mini as it is in another room. 95% of what I do at home can be done on my iPad. Streaming it to my tv means the whole family can watch it rather than just me.

 

Good point.  I am almost always watching stuff alone, so that didn't really occur to me.  Heh. :)

post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

 

I hope that's a promise.

 

Oh boy. Another clueless post, from someone that perhaps has absolutely no clue about (nor has used)AppleTV.

 

All you need is iTunes on your Mac or PC (i.e., no iOS devices needed) to be able to stream your photos, videos, and music. Get the facts or please bother to actually try it out, man.

 

What are the extra functionalities that Apple TV has over Chromecast?

post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


An Apple TV would be fairly useless without a several hundred dollar investment in a companion iDevice wouldn't it? Besides going after a somewhat different market the Chromecast doesn't have that limitation. It probably works right alongside whatever desktop or mobile device you already own, whether iOS, Android, Mac or some Windows-based desktop/laptop.

no, wrong. The apple tv works perfectly well right out of the box. give it an internet connection and you are on your way. Yes. the functionality will increase if you use iTunes from a computer, or have an iDevice. 

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 

 

What are the extra functionalities that Apple TV has over Chromecast?

why don't you do your own homework and compare each devices offerings side by side. 

 

I can't believe I seen the question posed, nor can I believe I had to tell someone that.

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy View Post
 

why don't you do your own homework and compare each devices offerings side by side. 

 

I can't believe I seen the question posed, nor can I believe I had to tell someone that.

 

Because there are a lot of arguments here about how much more functionality Apple TV has over Chromecast without giving any evidence. 

 

I can't believe how many times I see people pose something as axiomatic without being able to support it. 

 

And the responses of go look it up yourself generally means the poster doesn't know the differences themselves.

post #38 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy View Post
 

why don't you do your own homework and compare each devices offerings side by side. 

 

I can't believe I seen the question posed, nor can I believe I had to tell someone that.

 

Because there are a lot of arguments here about how much more functionality Apple TV has over Chromecast without giving any evidence. 

 

I can't believe how many times I see people pose something as axiomatic without being able to support it. 

 

And the responses of go look it up yourself generally means the poster doesn't know the differences themselves.

 

I'm guessing that you already know, but they are quite different in their capabilities, primarily in that Chromecast is a single-output, remote streamer. As far as I'm aware, you can't send any local content to Chromecast unless you can somehow make it play in Chrome, and you can only send to the TV, or through the TV (provided it is switched on). That rules out streaming music and videos from iTunes, for example, even to your TV, and doesn't permit streaming audio or music to a separate audio system, such as one can do with the digital outputs on the AppleTV. For those for whom these capabilities are not important, Chromecast is probably a fine solution.

post #39 of 67
Pixocast not only allow slideshow photos from iOS, but also stream videos in camera roll.

https://itunes.apple.com/app/pixocast-watch-your-mobile/id814298961?mt=8
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrid Foster View Post

HaHa-

You people who don't use Apple products exclusively are poo-poo heads!

Ha! I said poo.

iDefine my needs by what Apple makes.

 

Well, to be fair, Apple doesn't make either an HDTV nor a Blu-Ray player.  So, I'm stuck with Samsung for now.

 

Though when I soon replace my somewhat aging Samsung HDTV, I think I will be moving to a different company.  They just annoy the hell out of me these days.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google Photowall turns your TV into a crowdsourced pinboard, Loopy HD goes half-off
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google Photowall turns your TV into a crowdsourced pinboard, Loopy HD goes half-off