Review: Google's $35 Chromecast has promise, but plenty of room for improvement

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    allenbf wrote: »
    You forgot to add "in my opinion."

    Because in my home we have a Mac, an old PC, 3 iPhones, 2 iPod touch, 2 iPads and an Android device. Also an Apple TV. I will be buying 3 more Chromecast(s) to go along with the one I have now. My point? Money isn't an issue for me, and I have iOS devices, still buying Chromecast.

    It's simple to use, serves all of our needs. And as we are cutting the cord shortly, this is an inexpensive way to make every TV in my home a smart TV. It isn't about the $$, though. Chromecast is dead simple to use, my six year old has been using the hell out it for the last few days.

    Just my .02.
    That's fine Allen. Id love for you to tell me what chromecast does that ATV doesn't. Because I can tell you a number of things an ATV can do that chromecast can't. You might not need those features, but the only reason you got it was because it was cheaper and filled whatever need you had.
    We'll see what happens in 14 months after Google abandons it completely (just based on their track record). ;)
    alandail wrote: »
    I ordered the chromecast the day it was released and will probably order a couple more when they support more apps.  It's already my preferred way to watch netflix.  I can flip through my play list in my iPad far, far, faster than I can navigate it on my Apple TV.  And will be my preferred way to watch Vudu, Amazon, HBO, etc, etc. if/when they all support it.  Right now I have Apple TV for some streaming content, blu rays player for other content, a smart tv for content.  None of the UIs are as good for navigating content as simply using my iPad.
    This is the same idiotic drivel you keep regurgitating. So you owned an Apple TV but you didn't know you could AirPlay? Just use the Netflix app/UI on your iPad and AirPlay it. How is that ANY different than what you are doing with chromecast? Either you're trolling, or you're ignorant to Apple TVs capabilities. Your choice. Because you blew $35 for a device that does what a device you own already (if you're being truthful about owning Apple TVs). I don't think you're trolling- although its getting to the point where you sound like one because you said this same stupidity in the last chromecast thread and a dozen posters all agreed that your post was very misinformed. You still don't get it.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    freerange wrote: »
    Wow - with all those cons you still gave it 3.5 stars? And you left out the biggest one, its actually based on google android platform - deduct 2 stars just for that reason alone.
    I was wondering that too. 3.5 out of what? But you're showing your bias and ignorance here too. It's not based on Android, it's Chrome and available on all platforms which is actually the key argument many are making in favor of the device over Apple TV. I don't see the argument since we all have already chosen platforms and Chrome is a power suck on all my Mac devices but at $35, I guess they're appealing to a different consumer altogether.
  • Reply 23 of 43
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member


    fascinating to watch the gadget heads gush over Chromecast.


     


    for committed Windows/droid people, you can understand since Apple TV is not really an option for them (i know there are some workarounds, but few bother) and this watered-down version might be the first convenient option they've seen.


     


    there is simply no denying it is less capable/flexible than the Apple TV/Air Play part of the Apple ecosystem, especially after iOS7 is released, for those who can use that fully via Apple products. so what really are its advantages?


     


    - its tight integration with the Chrome browser. if that is your browser of choice you get to enjoy CC's maximum convenience.


    - it's $65 cheaper. if you're genuinely low-income every dollar counts.


    - you don't need Apple products.


     


    it's the last item of course that is driving the hype. Apple-avoiders are ecstatic to finally have a third-rate media-extender dongle that offers some of the conveniences of the Apple ecosystem.


     


    (for reference, i consider the ATV to be a second-rate media-integrator STB. its UI/Remote still need lots of improvement and effective integration with CATV/TiVo services. there is no first-rate STB yet, period.)


     


    3.5 stars for that? you have to be kidding (god, we have entire generations addicted to grade inflation now) ... 2 stars at most.

  • Reply 24 of 43


    Yeah, this could be useful when travelling.  Not sure I'd ditch my Roku 2 yet though.  

  • Reply 25 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wigby View Post



    But you're showing your bias and ignorance here too. It's not based on Android, it's Chrome and available on all platforms which is actually the key argument many are making in favor of the device over Apple TV.


     


    From GTVHacker:


    "Is it really ChromeOS?


    No, it’s not. We had a lot of internal discussion on this, and have concluded that it’s more Android than ChromeOS."


     


    Not that the internals really matter.

  • Reply 26 of 43

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    fascinating to watch the gadget heads gush over Chromecast.



     


    Indeed. I used to be one myself. I know where that road leads.

  • Reply 27 of 43
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    From GTVHacker:
    "<strong style="background-color:transparent;font-family:Arial, serif;line-height:22px;">Is it really ChromeOS?</strong>

    <span style="background-color:transparent;font-family:Arial, serif;line-height:22px;">No, it’s not. We had a lot of internal discussion on this, and have concluded that it’s more Android than ChromeOS.</span>
    "


    Not that the internals really matter.
    You're right, internals don't matter when they're hidden under an os running an app. That's like saying "well, iPhone is really more of an ARM device than iOS."
  • Reply 28 of 43
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    1 star for AppleInsider reviewing a Google device.
  • Reply 29 of 43
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macslut View Post


     


    True, and a valid point. 


     


    However, something to think about with the Apple TV... It does allow an ethernet connection and does allow for a few GBs of buffering.  Both of these could help improve the experience.  The Apple TV has 8GB of flash, although a little of it is used by iOS and the apps.  Still, it can easily download a full HD 1080p movie over a connection that it wouldn't otherwise be able to do real-time.  I've been in situations where the connection was poor, and we've watched a broadcast show or ate dinner while the movie downloaded in full or near full before watching.


     


    Likewise, I've been in situations where weak wifi was the problem connecting to the internet and being able to plug in via ethernet was an easy/cheap solution.


     


    Personally, I don't get the saving of a few bucks in getting the Chromecast instead of an Apple TV or even a Roku, but that's for many other reasons as well.



     


    What? People still use ethernet?  I thought Apple was all about designing for the future.  Why should the Apple TV should have built in ethernet which only a small minority of people will use?  Instead of ethernet, the Apple TV should have a USB port for attaching a storage device.  Any backward fool who still uses ethernet can buy an Apple USB ethernet adapter for only $29, unless those poor fools are too cheap to buy one.

  • Reply 30 of 43
    alandailalandail Posts: 755member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post



    This is the same idiotic drivel you keep regurgitating. So you owned an Apple TV but you didn't know you could AirPlay? Just use the Netflix app/UI on your iPad and AirPlay it. How is that ANY different than what you are doing with chromecast? Either you're trolling, or you're ignorant to Apple TVs capabilities. Your choice. Because you blew $35 for a device that does what a device you own already (if you're being truthful about owning Apple TVs). I don't think you're trolling- although its getting to the point where you sound like one because you said this same stupidity in the last chromecast thread and a dozen posters all agreed that your post was very misinformed. You still don't get it.


     


    using netflix to airplay a movie from an iPad doesn't give you the same quality as having the video streamed directly, either via AppleTV or via Chromecast.  I've also tried airplay from my macbook pro, it also wasn't the same quality as having the device stream the the video directly.


     


    And I told you, look at my post history.  I've been posting on here since 2004 and my post history goes back to 2007.

  • Reply 31 of 43
    scott rscott r Posts: 38member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


     


    What? People still use ethernet?  I thought Apple was all about designing for the future.  Why should the Apple TV should have built in ethernet which only a small minority of people will use?  Instead of ethernet, the Apple TV should have a USB port for attaching a storage device.  Any backward fool who still uses ethernet can buy an Apple USB ethernet adapter for only $29, unless those poor fools are too cheap to buy one.



    Once again, the people who moan about the MacBook Pro Retina not having built-in ethernet still don't get it.  The MacBook Pro Retina is a laptop, which is a *portable* device.  Designing it to be as thin and light as possible is important, and that means that some ports needed to be removed.  The majority of people buying a laptop want to use it wherever they go (kitchen counter, living room sofa, bed, etc.) and will only use it at an ethernet-equipped desk part of the time.  So you get yourself a Thunderbolt-to-ethernet (or USB-to-ethernet) dongle and *leave* it at that desk, or pack it in your laptop bag.  No biggie.  So far, I've never been in a position where I had a strong need to plug my MacBook Air into ethernet, so I'm certainly glad that Apple didn't make my Air thicker just so they could build that port in.  I'm sure there are a lot of MacBook Pro Retina owners who feel the same.


     


    The Apple TV, OTOH, is designed to be a primarily stationary device. You hook it up to a TV in your home and you leave it there.  So far, Apple has been consistent in equipping their other stationary devices (Mac Mini and even the latest iMac) with ethernet ports.  On a stationary device, Apple has decided correctly that the benefit of on-board ethernet is more important than making the device thinner.  That said, it wouldn't shock me to see them remove ethernet and make an even smaller ATV (though I hope they'd still at least allow for a method to buy a separate dongle to support it), perhaps to make it even smaller and easier to hide behind your TV (even though it's already small enough to do that), or to market it as being more portable (in the latter case, hopefully they'd continue to sell a larger ethernet-equipped model).

  • Reply 32 of 43
    scott rscott r Posts: 38member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by alandail View Post


     


    using netflix to airplay a movie from an iPad doesn't give you the same quality as having the video streamed directly, either via AppleTV or via Chromecast.  I've also tried airplay from my macbook pro, it also wasn't the same quality as having the device stream the the video directly.


     


    And I told you, look at my post history.  I've been posting on here since 2004 and my post history goes back to 2007.



    I've tested this out myself (with Netflix) and came to the same conclusion.  The picture quality is *significantly* worse (it looks low-res and not HD), and I experience numerous stutters as well (and my ATV is hard-wired via ethernet).  The iPhone Netflix app also does not have a built-in AirPlay button, so you have to double-click and navigate to the OS-level AirPlay button, and you have to select the "Mirroring" option.  My experience with AirPlay Mirroring in general have been pretty poor (normally picture quality is perfectly fine and HD-quality but there are stutter/dropped-frames issues).  But what's odd about the Netflix iPhone app is that once you put it into this Mirroring mode, the app on the iPhone switches to what I'll call "remote control" mode where the video is now *only* playing on the TV and the iPhone display just shows the Netflix logo and the pause/play/FF/Rewind controls.  So the GUI in the iPhone app *acts* like an app that fully supports AirPlay (non-Mirroring) but you had to select Mirroring to be able to get there.  And, like I mentioned, the PQ on the TV switches to low-res crap-quality, complete with stuttering.


     


    In short, it's really not usable that way.  I don't know if Netflix is going out of their way to hobble the PQ when you attempt to use AirPlay or what.  FWIW, I just tried Hulu+ and it works the *exact* same way (i.e., have to select Mirroring, but iOS app switches to logo-only and remote control mode, and PQ suffers immensely).


     


    If you do want to use your iPhone/iPad to navigate the Netflix library and play the show of your choosing on your ATV, my workaround is to use the iOS app to find your show, then add it to your Instant Queue and then fire up the Netflix app on the ATV and select your Instant Queue, or start it up for a minute or so on your iPhone so that it then shows up on the ATV's "Recently Watched" queue.


     


    I'd love to see the Netflix iOS app (and Hulu+ and everything else) behave more like the Chromecast in this regard (built-in AirPlay button and optimal PQ as it allows the ATV to do the actual streaming/decoding of content).


     


    Update: I just tested the YouTube app and it seemed to work just like I'd want it to.  It has a built-in AirPlay button and PQ looked pretty good (hard to judge for sure as YouTube isn't usually ultra-high-quality in the first place) and it played smoothly (not stuttering).  It would be interesting to do some testing where you look at your router's traffic and determine whether the YouTube app's video is still traveling thru the iPhone first or if it's handing it off to the ATV (a la Chromecast's method).  If the latter, then that tells you that the Chromecast-style functionality is already possible with the existing iOS SDK and you just need to get Netflix and Hulu+ on board with implementing it into their apps.

  • Reply 33 of 43
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Scott R View Post


    I've tested this out myself (with Netflix) and came to the same conclusion.  The picture quality is *significantly* worse (it looks low-res and not HD), and I experience numerous stutters as well (and my ATV is hard-wired via ethernet).  The iPhone Netflix app also does not have a built-in AirPlay button, so you have to double-click and navigate to the OS-level AirPlay button, and you have to select the "Mirroring" option.  My experience with AirPlay Mirroring in general have been pretty poor (normally picture quality is perfectly fine and HD-quality but there are stutter/dropped-frames issues).  But what's odd about the Netflix iPhone app is that once you put it into this Mirroring mode, the app on the iPhone switches to what I'll call "remote control" mode where the video is now *only* playing on the TV and the iPhone display just shows the Netflix logo and the pause/play/FF/Rewind controls.  So the GUI in the iPhone app *acts* like an app that fully supports AirPlay (non-Mirroring) but you had to select Mirroring to be able to get there.  And, like I mentioned, the PQ on the TV switches to low-res crap-quality, complete with stuttering.


     


    In short, it's really not usable that way.  I don't know if Netflix is going out of their way to hobble the PQ when you attempt to use AirPlay or what.  FWIW, I just tried Hulu+ and it works the *exact* same way (i.e., have to select Mirroring, but iOS app switches to logo-only and remote control mode, and PQ suffers immensely).


     


    If you do want to use your iPhone/iPad to navigate the Netflix library and play the show of your choosing on your ATV, my workaround is to use the iOS app to find your show, then add it to your Instant Queue and then fire up the Netflix app on the ATV and select your Instant Queue, or start it up for a minute or so on your iPhone so that it then shows up on the ATV's "Recently Watched" queue.


     


    I'd love to see the Netflix iOS app (and Hulu+ and everything else) behave more like the Chromecast in this regard (built-in AirPlay button and optimal PQ as it allows the ATV to do the actual streaming/decoding of content).


     


    Update: I just tested the YouTube app and it seemed to work just like I'd want it to.  It has a built-in AirPlay button and PQ looked pretty good (hard to judge for sure as YouTube isn't usually ultra-high-quality in the first place) and it played smoothly (not stuttering).  It would be interesting to do some testing where you look at your router's traffic and determine whether the YouTube app's video is still traveling thru the iPhone first or if it's handing it off to the ATV (a la Chromecast's method).  If the latter, then that tells you that the Chromecast-style functionality is already possible with the existing iOS SDK and you just need to get Netflix and Hulu+ on board with implementing it into their apps.



    this is all accurate. but of course there is no practical reason not to simply use Apple TV alone to watch any of the services it already provides apps for. why bother with AirPlay then? and you don't want to tie up your iOS device needlessly either running such an app. which is one advantage of Chromecast's no-app method when ...


     


    i use SlingPlayer a lot, running its app on my iPad with TV display via AirPlay since there is no Apple TV app for it. the PQ is HD as delivered by their adaptive compression software, the same PQ you get when you watch it via your browser SlingPlayer plug-in instead on a computer, which is also what Chromecast will display on a TV i assume. can't do anything else with the iPad while doing this. but once Mavericks enables full screen AirPlay display of an individual app window via Apple TV, i won't have to bother with the iPad anymore. so that will be the quick end of that Chromecast practical advantage.

  • Reply 34 of 43
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    haggar wrote: »
    What? People still use ethernet?  I thought Apple was all about designing for the future.  Why should the Apple TV should have built in ethernet which only a small minority of people will use?  Instead of ethernet, the Apple TV should have a USB port for attaching a storage device.  Any backward fool who still uses ethernet can buy an Apple USB ethernet adapter for only $29, unless those poor fools are too cheap to buy one.
    AppleTV has a micro USB port just like the Chromecast.

    Does what you say also apply to the Chromecast? Add USB storage and Ethernet via Usb dongle or are we trying to find reasons to hate Apple only today?
  • Reply 35 of 43
    scott rscott r Posts: 38member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    this is all accurate. but of course there is no practical reason not to simply use Apple TV alone to watch any of the services it already provides apps for. why bother with AirPlay then? and you don't want to tie up your iOS device needlessly either running such an app.



    I'm talking about practical reasons.  It's a lot faster to navigate through the iOS Netflix app to find something I might want to watch, as compared to using a remote control to navigate thru the TV GUI.  Plus, it allows others to watch something else on the TV while I'm searching for the next thing to watch.  Once I find what I want, I'd like to select it on my iPhone but direct it to the TV.  At that point, I don't want it tying up my iPhone at all, and there's no reason why it should need to (you are correct that I don't want to use AirPlay).  I'll add that I don't even care about having the play/pause/FF/rewind buttons on my iPhone at that point.  Once the show starts on the TV, I'm perfectly happy (and prefer) using my old fashioned remote control to pause/FF/rewind.


     


    To summarize, what I'm asking for Netflix and Hulu to do (and possibly Apple, if their SDK doesn't already support this) is to add what seems to be a very small change to their app logic.  And if Apple needs to tweak their SDK and/or Apple TV firmware to support this, then I suspect that it's a pretty small bit of logic there as well.

  • Reply 36 of 43
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


     


    What? People still use ethernet?  I thought Apple was all about designing for the future.  Why should the Apple TV should have built in ethernet which only a small minority of people will use?  Instead of ethernet, the Apple TV should have a USB port for attaching a storage device.  Any backward fool who still uses ethernet can buy an Apple USB ethernet adapter for only $29, unless those poor fools are too cheap to buy one.



     


    I agree with Scott R on this.  In my house, portable devices use WiFi and stationary devices use Ethernet.  I have a very large house with tons of electronics in every room.  If everything used WiFi, that would be a problem, not to mention it's easier sometimes to plug in Ethernet than it is to get a reliable WiFi signal to parts of the house.  All of this depends on the house though.  Our house has multiple Cat 6 cables into every room, and it has radiant heating in the floors which block WiFi signals.


     


    IT Admins in office environments who know what they're doing will also plug desktops into Ethernet if the lines are present or easy to run instead of WiFi.


     


    Apparently Apple agrees with this as their stationary products all have Ethernet, while the only products to ween off Ethernet are the portable ones.

  • Reply 37 of 43
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    As an aside Chromecast accepts webpage (tab) casts from cheap ol' Chromebooks without missing a beat. Google suggests only their $1000+ pixel works. Can even see AI posts great on a 60" plasma without reading glasses, a welcome change.:lol:
  • Reply 38 of 43
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Scott R View Post


     


    To summarize, what I'm asking for Netflix and Hulu to do (and possibly Apple, if their SDK doesn't already support this) is to add what seems to be a very small change to their app logic.  And if Apple needs to tweak their SDK and/or Apple TV firmware to support this, then I suspect that it's a pretty small bit of logic there as well.



    read the Mossberg review of the Chromecast.  


     


     


    "One big advantage Chromecast has over AirPlay is that, once you start streaming something from your device to the TV, you can switch apps and do other things on the device, like check email, without interrupting the stream.


    With AirPlay, in most cases, you can't do that, although there are some exceptions, like HBO GO. Apple says this capability is up to the developer.


    A big reason for this difference: On tablet and smartphone apps, Chromecast isn't beaming directly from the device, but is using your tablet or smartphone to trigger delivery of the content from the cloud to Chromecast, freeing up the device. Apple says AirPlay also supports this method, but most app developers don't seem to be using it, so the iPhone or iPad is usually tied up beaming the content to the TV."

  • Reply 39 of 43
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Scott R View Post


    I'm talking about practical reasons.  It's a lot faster to navigate through the iOS Netflix app to find something I might want to watch, as compared to using a remote control to navigate thru the TV GUI.  Plus, it allows others to watch something else on the TV while I'm searching for the next thing to watch.  Once I find what I want, I'd like to select it on my iPhone but direct it to the TV.  At that point, I don't want it tying up my iPhone at all, and there's no reason why it should need to (you are correct that I don't want to use AirPlay).  I'll add that I don't even care about having the play/pause/FF/rewind buttons on my iPhone at that point.  Once the show starts on the TV, I'm perfectly happy (and prefer) using my old fashioned remote control to pause/FF/rewind.


     


    To summarize, what I'm asking for Netflix and Hulu to do (and possibly Apple, if their SDK doesn't already support this) is to add what seems to be a very small change to their app logic.  And if Apple needs to tweak their SDK and/or Apple TV firmware to support this, then I suspect that it's a pretty small bit of logic there as well.



    searching Netflix via any kind of connection sucks. can only find keywords in titles or actors. i like mysteries, so do millions of others. is there a mystery genre? no (not for iTunes either). search for the word "mystery" and you just get movies/shows with that in their title. which is <5% of them all.


     


    but sure, having a physical or virtual keyboard to work with is best whenever text entry is needed. for the rest of the time, i programmed my IR remotes with the TV volume control - the one i use most often - to also replace the Apple TV IR remote buttons. Apple should have included volume controls on its remote too, but so far has failed to do so. having to use two IR remotes instead is clearly a second-rate UI.

  • Reply 40 of 43
    scott rscott r Posts: 38member

    Thanks for the quote.  Here's Mossberg's review:


     



     


    I've read something along these lines in a couple of places now.  I hope that it's true, but I'm still unsure because Mossberg could have misunderstood something and I haven't seen any established Apple news sites, developers, or insiders actually clarify it once and for all.  And, if true, it still leaves me wondering why Netflix and Hulu+ aren't making use of this option.  I'd be curious to know which apps do make use of it.  Based on my testing, maybe the YouTube app?  If so, that would be funny since YouTube is owned by Google, and Google touted the Chromecast method as being special, so if they're already using that method with their iOS YouTube app and how it utilizes AirPlay to connect to the ATV, then that aspect of it isn't really special at all, and they know it.

Sign In or Register to comment.