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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
[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.
#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?
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordio
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
... 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
[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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
#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?
Ha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
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.