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?
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.
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.
... and I have anything to add I will. Otherwise I won't bother.
I hope that's a promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensmovement
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.
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.
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.
[B][/B]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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
If I wanted to give Google full access to my personal photo library, I'd have already signed up for Google+.
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?
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.
I hope that's a promise.
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.
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.
Now, my iMac is 27". Obviously you're in a different situation if you have an 11" Air, or something.
[B][/B]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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://itunes.apple.com/app/pixocast-watch-your-mobile/id814298961?mt=8
You people who don't use Apple products exclusively are poo-poo heads!
Ha! I said poo.
iDefine my needs by what Apple makes.
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.