# Google's Chromecast...



## ace2000 (Jul 25, 2013)

Haven't figured out why I exactly need one of these, but since I'm a current Netflix subscriber, it comes very cheap.  I'm in.

http://news.yahoo.com/googles-chromecast-other-tv-devices-dont-175514986.html


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 25, 2013)

I didn't order one yesterday when I saw this, but may do it today. For $35 it might even work to travel with. More demand on wi-fi and not all TVs have HDMI inputs. I was looking for an excuse to get a new big flat screen anyway.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 25, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> I didn't order one yesterday when I saw this, but may do it today. For $35 *it might even work to travel with*. More demand on wi-fi and not all TVs have HDMI inputs. I was looking for an excuse to get a new big flat screen anyway.



It does appear to be helpful for travel, probably has the same functionality of a Roku device.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 25, 2013)

How Chromecast, Apple TV and Roku compare

http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...e-tv-roku-comparison-20130724,0,1987616.story


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 25, 2013)

Ace, thanks for that link. It saved me $35 plus about a Grand for a new TV. My ROKU HD is just fine thanks.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jul 25, 2013)

Perfectly happy with our Roku.


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 25, 2013)

I have a Roku but I prefer the LG SP520 I got for $25 at Frys.  The USB support for devices and media files on Roku is spotty, I've been able to connect and play just about anything with the LG and it connects right up to my LG NAS to stream my movie collection.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 25, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> Perfectly happy with our Roku.



I can see that, I think the main advantage of Chromecast would be the YouTube stuff - the kids are always showing the funny ones off of their phones.  Plus, being able to control the TV content from your phone or tablet is pretty cool also.

Anyway, with my Netflix savings, the device ends up costing me $14.  Hopefully, I can stream my MLB.TV through it, then it would really pay!


----------



## M. Henley (Jul 25, 2013)

*The Gadget*

It allows your TV to access wifi, so I purchased one to use on our sunportch, where I have a good wifi signal.


----------



## Conan (Jul 25, 2013)

Thanks for the heads up - - my order's in (and the Netflix rebate that's good for current subscribers makes it almost free).


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 25, 2013)

For $35, what's not to like?

Cheers


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jul 26, 2013)

You'd Be Crazy Not to Buy Google's Chromecast ( Super Sad Update): http://gizmodo.com/youd-be-crazy-no...4491?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews



Looks like the Netflix deal is off.


Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jul 26, 2013)

For Music Fans Google Chromecast is No Apple Airplay: http://gizmodo.com/for-music-fans-g...7846?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Richard


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 26, 2013)

MULTIZ321 said:


> For Music Fans Google Chromecast is No Apple Airplay: http://gizmodo.com/for-music-fans-g...7846?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
> 
> Richard



Yup. And AirPlay is a fantastic feature.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

Since my home network is password protected, will this thing connect? Reading various reviews, it sounds like it needs an open network which is a deal breaker. 

Cheers


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

I see this as a niche item too complicated for most people. Also, many tvs don't have an hdmi port. Those that do usually have a cable box or a dvd player connected to it.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Since my home network is password protected, will this thing connect? Reading various reviews, it sounds like it needs an open network which is a deal breaker.
> 
> Cheers


 
I see no reason that it wouldn't connect to a password protected wi-fi network.  That would be kind of ridiculous if it didn't.

And yes, it appears the Netflix deal is now over. I back-ordered mine on Amazon but made the cutoff. I can handle that $14 pricetag.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 26, 2013)

My hunch is that the device may not be password protected any more than the TV tuner is, but the controller- smartphone, laptop, tablet is.

I am passing on this device at this time, preferring the ROKU, but if this thing is as hot as they say it is, the next generation will be ever more capable. I will wait.

Jim


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

Best write up on how to set the device up that I have found. Not true plug and play but pretty straightforward process. 

http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57595581-285/how-to-set-up-a-chromecast/

Some other sites have mentioned trouble in setup and operation but as with any new electronic device, phone, browser, app, whatever, version 1.0 is not usually not totally ready for prime time. 

I think for $35, no need to wait for the first update like I usually do when a gadget is first released. 

Cheers


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Best write up on how to set the device up that I have found. Not true plug and play but pretty straightforward process.
> 
> http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-57595581-285/how-to-set-up-a-chromecast/
> 
> ...



To quote from your link...  _Grab your dongle and stick it in._  How much easier could it get?


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> To quote from your link...  _Grab your dongle and stick it in._  How much easier could it get?



If you just plug it in, it doesn't work until you set it up. 

Only works after you download and install an Android app (no iOS ap noted but you can use a Chrome browser) and run thru a setup including entering a password and matching to your tablet, phone whatever, which according to a number of other sites may take multiple tries and resets. 

Not rocket science, but IMHO, not a true plug and play, especially if all you have are Apple devices. 

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Jul 26, 2013)

Regarding playing of local content:

"Outside of owning a Chromecast device (which is sold out everywhere), all you have to do is install the Chromecast extension on your PC, then find the file path of a local video file that you’d like to play, paste that path into the address bar in a Chrome browser, and then press the Chromecast button to cast it on over. It really is that simple."

I will definitely get one of these. It seems to be a near revolutionary device due to the Chrome browser sharing feature (which is still beta, apparently). I bet that this thing will have much more functionality 6 months from now.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

It is useless if you don't have an available hdmi port on your tv, and a smartphone or a tablet.  Google has created a niche product that cannot be embraced by the general public. Most people by a large majority watch tv "live" on their cable box. Technology writers tend to over hype everything.


----------



## Elan (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> It is useless if you don't have an available hdmi port on your tv, and a smartphone or a tablet.  Google has created a niche product that cannot be embraced by the general public. Most people by a large majority watch tv "live" on their cable box. Technology writers tend to over hype everything.



Yeah, it's also useless if you don't have electricity. I don't think most consider a TV with hdmi a niche product.

It may not work for everyone, but based on what I've read it's easily the most generic streaming option to date.


----------



## MichaelColey (Jul 26, 2013)

None of the TVs in our house have HDMI.  (They're all at least 10 years old.)

Many timeshares I've been to don't have HDMI, but virtually all have had composite RCA plugs.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 26, 2013)

As I wrote in my first post in this thread, if I were to ge one of these, it would entail getting a new TV. My current HDTV has a single HDMI port and it is taken by either the dvr or ROKU iirc. I doubt that I am unusual in this.

I think Chromecast is a great, maybe even 'killer' app, and will give Chrome a boost that may be the app that allows google Chrome to get more users than Firefox. Time will tell.

Jim


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

Elan said:


> Yeah, it's also useless if you don't have electricity. I don't think most consider a TV with hdmi a niche product.
> 
> It may not work for everyone, but based on what I've read it's easily the most generic streaming option to date.



I said AVAILABLE hdmi port. If you have one at all it is likely used by a dvd player or a cable box. Your choice will be to unplug one device to use the Google device, then plug your dvd player or cable box back in. Very easy. Something the general public will surely embrace because it is so revolutionary. Many new tv players have built in WiFi so you can stream Netflix or Hulu, or YouTube. That is the trend and the future of tv. As far as I can see it is 35 dollars flushed down the toilet for most people to buy the revolutionary Google device.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I said AVAILABLE hdmi port. If you have one at all it is likely used by a dvd player or a cable box. Your choice will be to unplug one device to use the Google device, then plug your dvd player or cable box back in. Very easy. Something the general public will surely embrace because it is so revolutionary. Many new tv players have built in WiFi so you can stream Netflix or Hulu, or YouTube. That is the trend and the future of tv. As far as I can see it is 35 dollars flushed down the toilet for most people to buy the revolutionary Google device.



My 6 year old Sony has 4 HDMI, 2 component and 1 s video inputs plus a couple of outputs. 

By the time I replace the TV, a Chromecast probably wind up costing $1 a month. Big deal.

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I said AVAILABLE hdmi port. If you have one at all it is likely used by a dvd player or a cable box. Your choice will be to unplug one device to use the Google device, then plug your dvd player or cable box back in. Very easy. Something the general public will surely embrace because it is so revolutionary. Many new tv players have built in WiFi so you can stream Netflix or Hulu, or YouTube. That is the trend and the future of tv. As far as I can see it is 35 dollars flushed down the toilet for most people to buy the revolutionary Google device.



Seriously? If your TV has an HDMI port, it's *available*. It's up to you to determine what you plug into it.  You could move your dvd to composite or component. Furthermore, there are HDMI to composite solutions available. 
  Some of us opt to focus on solutions rather than dwell on the problems. YMMV.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I said AVAILABLE hdmi port. If you have one at all it is likely used by a dvd player or a cable box. Your choice will be to unplug one device to use the Google device, then plug your dvd player or cable box back in. Very easy. Something the general public will surely embrace because it is so revolutionary. Many new tv players have built in WiFi so you can stream Netflix or Hulu, or YouTube. That is the trend and the future of tv. As far as I can see it is 35 dollars flushed down the toilet for most people to buy the revolutionary Google device.



The key is being able to quickly display your computer or phone content onto your TV (and then controlling it from your computer or phone).  For some, I guess that would be a waste, for me I'd pay $35 easily.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> My 6 year old Sony has 4 HDMI, 2 component and 1 s video inputs plus a couple of outputs.
> 
> By the time I replace the TV, a Chromecast probably wind up costing $1 a month. Big deal.
> 
> Cheers



Perhaps you don't mind changing the inputs on the tv every time you want to use a different device dedicated to that input. Most people don't find it anything but an annoyance assuming they know how to do it at all.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> The key is being able to quickly display your computer or phone content onto your TV (and then controlling it from your computer or phone).  For some, I guess that would be a waste, for me I'd pay $35 easily.



I am sure there is a market for this device. A small one. TV manufacturers understand that WiFi must be included and are doing it on new models at a record pace. Some are including NFC as are newer smart phones and WiFi is now  on almost  all smart phones.  WiFi direct is also quickly being incorporated into many devices .  In a short time the Google device will be obsolete. But 35 bucks is cheap enough to buy it now and throw it away later if you don't want to wait.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Perhaps you don't mind changing the inputs on the tv every time you want to use a different device dedicated to that input. Most people don't find it anything but an annoyance assuming they know how to do it at all.



What change? Right now there are two vacant HDMI slots and a vacant set of component inputs. Not everybody needs a plethora of gadgets to make their life seem fulfilled. 

I find it interesting that you think "most people" don't know how to plug something into an empty HDMI slot. 

Cheers


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 26, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> What change? Right now there are two vacant HDMI slots and a vacant set of component inputs. Not everybody needs a plethora of gadgets to make their life seem fulfilled.
> 
> I find it interesting that you think "most people" don't know how to plug something into an empty HDMI slot.
> 
> Cheers



You make my point for me. Each hdmi slot has a number. You must change your tv input to the numbered slot that you plug the Google device into. If you are watching cable on component 1 and Google is on hdmi 3 you have to change the input on your tv from component to hdmi 3 to use the Google device. When you want to watch cable again you must change the input on the tv again. It is most definitely not simply a matter of plugging something into an empty slot. 

For some people this is not a problem. For most people it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You make my point for me. Each hdmi slot has a number. You must change your tv input to the numbered slot that you plug the Google device into. If you are watching cable on component 1 and Google is on hdmi 3 you have to change the input on your tv from component to hdmi 3 to use the Google device. When you want to watch cable again you must change the input on the tv again. It is most definitely not simply a matter of plugging something into an empty slot.
> 
> For some people this is not a problem. For most people it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.


Maybe this was an incomprehensible burden 30 years ago when you suddenly went from having a TV/Cable source and a VHS source but now most have been living with cable and DVD for long enough that the stretch to Cable / DVD / Google would not be a stretch.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You make my point for me. Each hdmi slot has a number. You must change your tv input to the numbered slot that you plug the Google device into. If you are watching cable on component 1 and Google is on hdmi 3 you have to change the input on your tv from component to hdmi 3 to use the Google device. When you want to watch cable again you must change the input on the tv again. It is most definitely not simply a matter of plugging something into an empty slot.
> 
> For some people this is not a problem. For most people it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.



I have a relatively new TV with multiple hdmi ports. I use one of them. One. It connects to my receiver and it handles the switching amongst the various hdmi devices. It really doesn't matter which device does the switching, but it's not a burden under any definition of the term for anyone. If its confusing, it's not because of the device...though perhaps you are referring to those who never set the time on their VHS system because they couldn't figure out how to set the time.

Oh, and there are many different hdmi splitters available for those who only have a single port. There's no reason to complain that you want this new device yet can't figure out how to connect it to your TV. If your TV handles hdmi then you can get it. You just might need another device, like a splitter.


----------



## Elan (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You make my point for me. Each hdmi slot has a number. You must change your tv input to the numbered slot that you plug the Google device into. If you are watching cable on component 1 and Google is on hdmi 3 you have to change the input on your tv from component to hdmi 3 to use the Google device. When you want to watch cable again you must change the input on the tv again. It is most definitely not simply a matter of plugging something into an empty slot.
> 
> For some people this is not a problem. For most people it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.



I have an a/v receiver so it is quite simple. But even without, it's simply a matter of pushing the "input" button on the TV remote for most folks. Nearly everyone has a DVD player and a STB, so they're already having to toggle between two sources as is. Why does a third source complicate things beyond comprehension?


----------



## persia (Jul 26, 2013)

My stars a niche product for people with electricity, it will never catch on.



Elan said:


> Yeah, it's also useless if you don't have electricity. I don't think most consider a TV with hdmi a niche product.
> 
> It may not work for everyone, but based on what I've read it's easily the most generic streaming option to date.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 26, 2013)

A TV input even I can figure out. Just start some device and keep pressing the TV/VCR button until a picture and noise appear.

Difficult to figure out? I'll tell tell you what's difficult to figure out, it's facebook on phone, tablets (iOS & Android) and PC. They don't all work the same and some not at all for my old head.

Jim


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> For some people this is not a problem. For *most people* it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.


So are you really saying that for *"most people"* it is a "burden and or completely incomprehensible" to watch a dvd or blu-ray disc on their TV?  After all, that would require switching the input on their TV as well.

I think you may be overstating things _just a bit_.

Kurt


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 26, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You make my point for me. Each hdmi slot has a number. You must change your tv input to the numbered slot that you plug the Google device into. If you are watching cable on component 1 and Google is on hdmi 3 you have to change the input on your tv from component to hdmi 3 to use the Google device. When you want to watch cable again you must change the input on the tv again. It is most definitely not simply a matter of plugging something into an empty slot.
> 
> For some people this is not a problem. For *most people* it is a burden and or completely incomprehensible.



Stunning you have discovered that *most people* who are astute enough to have devices plugged into their TV but then are completely clueless how to use their TV remote to choose the device. You must be amazed people know how to use a push button phone after using a rotary dial for years. 

Cheers


----------



## M. Henley (Jul 27, 2013)

*Don't Know*

Not sure.  My network is set up as a private, password protected and a public non-password protected, but with restrictions on certain access points.




x3 skier said:


> Since my home network is password protected, will this thing connect? Reading various reviews, it sounds like it needs an open network which is a deal breaker.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 27, 2013)

What gets me is that while the stick is small, it still needs power. So you either have to run a USB cable from the stick to the power supply or connect the stick via a USB cable to a USB port on your HDTV set. Shoot, the power supply looks bigger than the stick. How much power does this device really use? Could they not have powered it with a button type battery and made the stick a little larger. Or perhaps made it rechargeable?

In the limited reviews I have read, it does appear to support protected Wi-Fi networks.

For someone without a smart TV, I think this is a cheap simple alternative to upgrading their set. Though for someone already with a HDTV that supports YouTube and Netflix already, there isn't really any point in spending the 35 bucks.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 27, 2013)

M. Henley said:


> Not sure.  My network is set up as a private, password protected and a public non-password protected, but with restrictions on certain access points.



The link I posted earlier shows how to connect to a password protected network. Looks straightforward even though there maybe a glitch or two in the setup as reported on some other reviews.

Cheers


----------



## SmithOp (Jul 27, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Perhaps you don't mind changing the inputs on the tv every time you want to use a different device dedicated to that input. Most people don't find it anything but an annoyance assuming they know how to do it at all.



My Phillips TV cycles through all the channels and then all the inputs with the channel button on the remote, it's as easy as pushing the up or down channel button.

I think you meant to say most people "over a certain age" 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MichaelColey (Jul 27, 2013)

PigsDad said:


> So are you really saying that for *"most people"* it is a "burden and or completely incomprehensible" to watch a dvd or blu-ray disc on their TV?  After all, that would require switching the input on their TV as well.
> 
> I think you may be overstating things _just a bit_.


While "most" may be a bit overstated, I think there is a pretty significant percentage of the population who are technophobes.  And it doesn't always have to do with age or even intelligence.  Our main TV has about 8 inputs on it, about half of which are used (Antenna, DVD Player Player, PS2, front RCA jacks, etc.).  She has no idea which input to choose for different things.  She usually has our son change it if she wants to watch something.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 27, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> What change? Right now there are two vacant HDMI slots and a vacant set of component inputs. Not everybody needs a plethora of gadgets to make their life seem fulfilled.
> 
> I find it interesting that you think "most people" don't know how to plug something into an empty HDMI slot.
> 
> Cheers



My wife, who detests all this technology creeping into her PC & even Television time, just said the other day how much she like our Direct TV / Roku / Over the air / Blueray setup. It took a couple weeks but now she understands the PC / Air / HDMI 1 / HDMI 2 / HDMI 3 "Source" settings and how they get her to the programmng she wants. 

I never thought I'd hear that & that forever I'd be having to get the TV's to the proper device selection but she surprised me!  If she can figure it out & say she likes it then I do think almost anyone can. It is rare to find any but the absolute bottom line, stripped TV today without 3-4 HDMI inputs. The days of only 1 or 2 seem to be behind us now. 

I like the idea of the Chromecast and at $35 it would be well worth checking it out.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 27, 2013)

If you're really serious about buying the Chromecast, do yourself a favor and consider spending $15 more and get a Roku instead.


----------



## Elan (Jul 27, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> If you're really serious about buying the Chromecast, do yourself a favor and consider spending $15 more and get a Roku instead.



Why is that?


----------



## Elan (Jul 27, 2013)

MichaelColey said:


> While "most" may be a bit overstated, I think there is a pretty significant percentage of the population who are technophobes.  And it doesn't always have to do with age or even intelligence.  Our main TV has about 8 inputs on it, about half of which are used (Antenna, DVD Player Player, PS2, front RCA jacks, etc.).  She has no idea which input to choose for different things.  She usually has our son change it if she wants to watch something.



Yeah,that's true, but that phobia is typically accompanied by a reluctance to learn. My wife is a technophobe as well, but I refuse to let her cop out on learning how to run our a/v system.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 27, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> If you're really serious about buying the Chromecast, do yourself a favor and consider spending $15 more and get a Roku instead.





Elan said:


> Why is that?



I'll take that!

My buddies review of the Chromecast

http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/ac...TOP+Magazine+-+The+Pulse+of+Mobile+Technology)

*Cons:* Very few streaming sources; Tab casting offers pixelated video for now

So the big USP where you can throw your laptop screen to the TV is pixelated.  Until the rest of the world gets on the Chromecast bandwagon it is lagging.

The Roku has many many channels including Netflix, Hulu, PBS, Pandora, Shoutcast, Plex 

http://www.roku-channels.com/top-25-roku-channels

So for something that is useable today, Roku it is.  I'm sure Roku is looking at this extra competition carefully though.  That said, they are still out selling Apple TV.


----------



## Elan (Jul 27, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> What gets me is that while the stick is small, it still needs power. So you either have to run a USB cable from the stick to the power supply or connect the stick via a USB cable to a USB port on your HDTV set. Shoot, the power supply looks bigger than the stick. How much power does this device really use? Could they not have powered it with a button type battery and made the stick a little larger. Or perhaps made it rechargeable?
> 
> In the limited reviews I have read, it does appear to support protected Wi-Fi networks.
> 
> For someone without a smart TV, I think this is a cheap simple alternative to upgrading their set. Though for someone already with a HDTV that supports YouTube and Netflix already, there isn't really any point in spending the 35 bucks.



I presume Google was looking for a set and forget solution, so that ruled out a battery. They could have gone with MHL so that the stick was powered from the HDMI port, but few TV's feature MHL.

I have a smart TV, a BD player that streams, a Wii that streams and an a/v receiver that streams, but none of them (with the possible exception of the AVR) is particularly fast or easy to get to stream. The Chromecast would seem to address that issue as it uses the simple Android interface on my Nexus 7 or phone or Windows on a PC. Furthermore, the Chromecast doesn't rely on any of the half-baked streaming options that currently exist (DLNA, miracast, airplay, etc.).


----------



## Elan (Jul 27, 2013)

SMHarman said:


> I'll take that!
> 
> My buddies review of the Chromecast
> 
> ...


 I've read about the poor performance in tab streaming, but I've also read that performance is related to the ability of the host device & network. That's why Google said that streaming from Chrome on a tablet isn't a good idea. I've also read that this issue will be addressed in an update to the chrome software.
 I guess I would agree that if one had no streaming capability currently, and needed such tomorrow, a Roku might be a better choice. Since I'm not in that boat, I'd go for the Chromecast given the potential upside.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jul 27, 2013)

Google's New TV Gadget, the Chromecast: http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/07/googles-new-tv-gadget-the-chromecast/278149/







  - What I'm Chromecasting

Richard


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 28, 2013)

Elan said:


> I've read about the poor performance in tab streaming, but I've also read that performance is related to the ability of the host device. That's why Google said that streaming from Chrome on a tablet isn't a good idea. I've also read that this issue will be addressed in an update to the chrome software.
> I guess I would agree that if one had no streaming capability currently, and needed such tomorrow, a Roku might be a better choice. Since I'm not in that boat, I'd go for the Chromecast given the potential upside.



What potential upside do you see with this device?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 28, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> What potential upside do you see with this device?



Being able to easily display your Chrome browser and it's contents on your TV.  Plus, the $35 price tag (only cost me $14 with the Netflix promotion).

And the biggest upside is the open programming APIs.  You'll see Chromecast doing all the things Roku and Apple are doing plus more.  Watch what happens here in the next few months.


----------



## Elan (Jul 28, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> What potential upside do you see with this device?



What ace2000 said. The ability to tabcast opens up lots of possibilities, and as more app developers work with the tools, I can potentially see things like gaming from a tablet to the TV, possibly even multi-user control. I'm no software guru, but if any company is known for thinking outside the box and providing tools for users and developers to be creative, it's Google. As I said earlier, if this thing works as well as reported, it will have way more functionality 6 months from now.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 28, 2013)

Elan said:


> What ace2000 said. The ability to tabcast opens up lots of possibilities, and as more app developers work with the tools, I can potentially see things like gaming from a tablet to the TV, possibly even multi-user control. I'm no software guru, but if any company is known for thinking outside the box and providing tools for users and developers to be creative, it's Google. As I said earlier, if this thing works as well as reported, it will have way more functionality 6 months from now.



Yup, that's what I thought you meant. Patience isn't always common here, so that's why I wanted to clarify the point. 

I'm sure at some point Google is going to have its device on par with features as the others in the market, and it's likely they will each offer something unique to differentiate it from the others. 

I think of it this way: If you've invested in the Google ecosystem with Android then it makes sense to consider this device. If you've got an iPhone or iPad then it's more likely the Apple TV will be best in the long run. And for those who just want streaming services from a company that doesn't really care which phone or tablet you own, then buy Roku. If you need something to work well today, and are not patient, then for the price sensitive Roku is the best option.


----------



## Fisch (Jul 28, 2013)

*Already Rooted*



Ken555 said:


> What potential upside do you see with this device?



It's already been rooted.  So pretty soon you should be able to use any streaming tv or movie service with this device.  It will just take the kids a little time to make a few apps or change the source code.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 29, 2013)

Fisch said:


> It's already been rooted.  So pretty soon you should be able to use any streaming tv or movie service with this device.  It will just take the kids a little time to make a few apps or change the source code.



This was inevitable. However, many consumers want a supported device and solution. Anyone doing this who is not technically inclined can easily get themselves in trouble. I tend to confine my recommendations based on commercially supportable solutions, as obviously those who know more will have a lot of fun customizing it. I would hope we can all agree that those who root their device are in the minority.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 29, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> And for those who just want streaming services from a company that doesn't really care which phone or tablet you own, then buy Roku. If you need something to work well today, and are not patient, then for the price sensitive Roku is the best option.



I'll agree with your statements above, but change a few things...  For those who just want streaming services from a company that doesn't really care which phone or tablet you own, then buy *Chromecast*.  It works on both platforms.  Apple TV is limited to just the Apple devices.

The feature advantage you describe that Roku currently offers today will go away very quickly.  And the Roku is priced higher - I don't see why you are calling it the "price sensitive" one.  

Chromecast is a Roku killer, watch and see.  We can come back next year and see who's right.  There is no way I'd be putting my money into Roku.  I'm betting on the company with the number one browser and the open programming APIs.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 29, 2013)

Need to clarify...



ace2000 said:


> Apple TV's *streaming* is limited to just the Apple devices.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 29, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> I'll agree with your statements above, but change a few things...  For those who just want streaming services from a company that doesn't really care which phone or tablet you own, then buy *Chromecast*.  It works on both platforms.  Apple TV is limited to just the Apple devices.
> 
> The feature advantage you describe that Roku currently offers today will go away very quickly.  And the Roku is priced higher - I don't see why you are calling it the "price sensitive" one.
> 
> Chromecast is a Roku killer, watch and see.  We can come back next year and see who's right.  There is no way I'd be putting my money into Roku.  I'm betting on the company with the number one browser and the open programming APIs.



Chromecast could very well do what you suggest. I'm not betting on Ruku! It has nothing to do with who is right, or wrong...this isn't a contest between us.

My comments are strictly isolated to what is available today and for today's buyer. Roku is a great product and offers more than Chromecast...today. I don't usually compare unannounced products or features with existing solutions...

Roku offers more for just $15 more than Chromecast. So for those who want a more comprehensive solution...today...should look at the Roku.

FYI, Apple's streaming from other Apple devices is just one feature. I only use that feature when I'm traveling and have a video on my iPad I want to watch (and the Internet is too slow for me to simply stream it from the Apple TV). Personally, I don't consider streaming from one device to another to be such a great feature but I know a lot of others really like it.


----------



## x3 skier (Jul 31, 2013)

Good comparison review of Chromecast from the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8637922888475686.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks

Cheers


----------



## Elan (Jul 31, 2013)

In roughly one week there are nearly 300 reviews of the Chromecast on Amazon (avg rating of 4.0 out of 5.0).


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 31, 2013)

*Chromecast not so great*

Google Chromecast offers more questions than answers
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/31/technology/innovation/google-chromecast/index.html


Others agree with me that chromecast is not suitable for general audience.


----------



## vacationdoc (Jul 31, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> Good comparison review of Chromecast from the Wall Street Journal
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8637922888475686.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks
> 
> Cheers



Thanks for this link.  I ordered my chromecast  last week so am still waiting.  As an old senior I consider investing in new technology a "tuition" fee so I  can at least have some idea about what my grandchildren are using.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 31, 2013)

vacationdoc said:


> I ordered my chromecast  last week so am still waiting.



Just got a message from Amazon that mine was shipped today.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 31, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Others agree with me that chromecast is not suitable for general audience. Now, I have to go answer my rotary phone.



Might want to look into that blinking clock problem on your VCR also...


----------



## Elan (Jul 31, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Others agree with me that chromecast is not suitable for general audience.



  How many other tech products rack up 300 4 star (avg) reviews on Amazon in the first week of availability?  

  These reviews (I've read a lot of them) range from users who own Roku's, Apple TV's and other streaming devices to those who are using the Chromecast for their first experience with streaming.   

  I respect your opinion that Chromecast is a fail, but the data thus far contradicts that opinion.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 31, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Might want to look into that blinking clock problem on your VCR also...



Mine doesn't blink. It looks like --:--


----------



## Elan (Jul 31, 2013)

A developer has the Phone to Chromecast feature functioning, but the APK (app) is not available yet:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/31/phone-to-chromecast-video-pictures/


----------



## slum808 (Jul 31, 2013)

*Got mine all set up*

I ordered a Chromecast from Bestbuy the day after release. Free shipping and 3 months netflix for $35. It arived on Monday and I set it up last night. I first tried to set it up using my Motorola Xoom. It warned me that it may not work, and it didn't. It wouldn't connect to my WPA protected Wifi. 

I took out the laptop and used the chrome browser to try a second setup. Got it setup in less than five minitues. With my laptop I can tabcast from chrome, and I verified Netflix and Youtube work. From my Xoom tablet, the netflix app and google play will both stream in HD. The Chrome android browser on the tablet would not tabcast. 

One of the reason's I purchased the Chromecast was because Google play blocks the mini HDMI output of their DRM movies. My 42" Panasonic Plasma has two HDMI ports and i about 7 years old. I think the Xoom is not handshaking with the TV right so the only way I could watch my Google play videos was to hook up the laptop and stream from the browser. This does not allow HD streaming. 

So now the Chromecast solves this problem for me. BTW it comes with a USB cable and ac/dc inverter (cell phone charger), to power the unit. I'm trying to figure out how to take this on vacation with me. It needs to be hooked up to the same network as the laptop/table/phone is. I'm not sure if it can hook up to the resort networks because of the way they authenticate.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 6, 2013)

Google Chromecast: What it Does (and Will Do) - by Will Greenwald/ PCMag.com

Google's $35 streaming stick is an interesting little piece of equipment. Here's what you can do with it.

Be sure not to miss the comments too.


Richard


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 6, 2013)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Google Chromecast: What it Does (and Will Do) - by Will Greenwald/ PCMag.com
> 
> Google's $35 streaming stick is an interesting little piece of equipment. Here's what you can do with it.
> 
> ...



From the article, it appears the Roku content edge will rapidly slip away.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> From the article, it appears the Roku content edge will rapidly slip away.



Other than the info on the APIs (which I think you mentioned earlier in this thread) what did the article include that leads you to this conclusion? 

Regardless, I agree that all the platforms available will likely have similar content available in the future, be it in the next few months or next few years. I would suggest balancing content with features, and how well the device integrates with whatever devices the buyer already owns. Price isn't likely to influence many, though I could be surprised, since as I already noted the entry level Roku (a nice box, tho) is just $50 - interestingly, this article only referred to the latest Roku 3 at $100. I haven't compared the exact feature set of the Roku models with the Chromecast, but I'm not yet sure if it should be compared with the top of the line Roku (if so, then it's a better value). 

As an aside, content changes over time without us even being aware of it. I haven't used my Apple TV in a while but am using it this week as I travel, and I noticed a few new channels - including SkyTV News, which I think is a nice addition. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 7, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Other than the info on the APIs (which I think you mentioned earlier in this thread) what did the article include that leads you to this conclusion?



The open API is obviously a huge advantage for the future of Chromecast.  Besides that, these two paragraphs mention what's coming soon (quoting from the source).

_Those useful features are expanding. Currently, Google's own movie and music stores can work with it, along with two other online services and a Web browser. *More are on the way, as companies like Pandora, HBO, and Hulu are looking into making their services Chromecast-compatible.*

We already have a laundry list of apps we'd like to see on the Chromecast, but for now here's what you can, or at least will be able to do on it. It's a short but sweet list, and while local media playback doesn't seem to be in the cards without enterprising hackers making it happen (and it should eventually happen, since Google released the API for Chromecast), there's still a lot you can do with your favorite movies, TV shows, and music with Chromecast.​_


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 7, 2013)

Few more on the way soon... it won't take long before Chromecast has the content advantage.

http://gigaom.com/2013/07/29/chromecast-vimeo-redbox-instant-plex/

_Chromecast, the streaming video adapter introduced by Google last week, is quickly gaining support from a number of media platforms. Case in point: Vimeo told us it wants to support Chromecast, and we have learned that Redbox Instant is going to support the device as well._


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 7, 2013)

Google tv bombed,google plus bombed,google glasses will bomb, Google chromecast will bomb. Google is sinking money into driverless cars and will never make a penny from it. Google will eventually lose money on traditional search because imbedded search is the new wave. When a person is reading about their hobby, interest, or business interest they don't need or want to search the whole world and get one million irrelevant results. 

Enjoy!


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 7, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Google tv bombed,google plus bombed,google glasses will bomb, Google chrome will bomb. Google is sinking money into driverless cars and will never make a penny from it. Google will eventually lose money on traditional search because imbedded search is the new wave. When a person is reading about their hobby, interest, or business interest they don't need or want to search the whole world and get one million irrelevant results.
> 
> Enjoy!



Just curious... when are you predicting the world to come to an end?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 7, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Just curious... when are you predicting the world to come to an end?



One million years after Google is no longer the hottest thing around -we should be starting the countdown soon

Remember when Microsoft was the hottest thing, then apple ,then not apple, then apple again, then Google, then Facebook, then myspace,yahoo,altavista,instagram,twitter,pandora, and before that Michael Jackson and Elvis and Lindsey lohan and on and on. Every writer becomes a publicist for the next great thing . A golden gloss of bs is part of every article and story. The truth is lost. Chromecasr is ok. Period. The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west where it will someday soon set on Google and chromecast -like everything else.


----------



## Elan (Aug 7, 2013)

Sounds like Sergey Brin must've pissed in someone's Wheaties one morning....

  Chromecast is already a success.  It has changed streaming from previous implementations, so it has furthered technology.  That makes it a success, even if sales terminate tomorrow.  

  In case anyone hasn't yet observed this, Google does a lot of things that aren't profit driven.  I'm not claiming they're a magnanimous, not-for-profit entity, but with many of their products, particularly hardware, they effectively throw stuff on the wall to see what sticks.  They can do this because they have a huge alternate revenue source that requires little ongoing overhead.   In that regard, I bet Google is an awesome place to work.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> The open API is obviously a huge advantage for the future of Chromecast.  Besides that, these two paragraphs mention what's coming soon (quoting from the source).
> 
> _Those useful features are expanding. Currently, Google's own movie and music stores can work with it, along with two other online services and a Web browser. *More are on the way, as companies like Pandora, HBO, and Hulu are looking into making their services Chromecast-compatible.*
> 
> We already have a laundry list of apps we'd like to see on the Chromecast, but for now here's what you can, or at least will be able to do on it. It's a short but sweet list, and while local media playback doesn't seem to be in the cards without enterprising hackers making it happen (and it should eventually happen, since Google released the API for Chromecast), there's still a lot you can do with your favorite movies, TV shows, and music with Chromecast.​_



Ah, right. I thought I had read that previously, so it wasn't a surprise to me. Of course, they've got a long way to go:

http://www.roku.com/channels/#!browse/movies-and-tv/by-popular

So if you were predisposed to prefer a Google solution and are patient, then the Chromecast is definitely the choice. But if you were indifferent which product you purchased and were looking for a comprehensive solution that works well today, then Roku is a definite option (along with Apple TV, but that doesn't offer as many channels and usually appeals to some for other reasons). For $15 more than the Chromecast, I think Roku is a great option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Google tv bombed,google plus bombed,google glasses will bomb, Google chromecast will bomb. Google is sinking money into driverless cars and will never make a penny from it. Google will eventually lose money on traditional search because imbedded search is the new wave. When a person is reading about their hobby, interest, or business interest they don't need or want to search the whole world and get one million irrelevant results.
> 
> Enjoy!



If I were you, I wouldn't bet on this prediction. IMO, you are way off base.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 7, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Ah, right. I thought I had read that previously, so it wasn't a surprise to me. Of course, they've got a long way to go:
> 
> http://www.roku.com/channels/#!browse/movies-and-tv/by-popular



Ken, thanks for the list.  There's stuff out there that I didn't even know existed.  Not that I need anything else to watch...


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Ken, thanks for the list.  There's stuff out there that I didn't even know existed.  Not that I need anything else to watch...



I feel exactly the same. After all, we've had so many cable channels for years and even that was overwhelming; the options for streaming channels are much greater.

BTW, it seems Amazon has the entry level Roku for just $40 now, but I think that model is just 720 - is the Chromecast 1080? (I even looked at Google's site but couldn't find tech specs on the device...do you have a link?).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## SMHarman (Aug 7, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Ken, thanks for the list.  There's stuff out there that I didn't even know existed.  Not that I need anything else to watch...


This is another great site for Roku
http://www.roku-channels.com/


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 7, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> BTW, it seems Amazon has the entry level Roku for just $40 now, but I think that model is just 720 - is the Chromecast 1080? (I even looked at Google's site but couldn't find tech specs on the device...do you have a link?).



It's definitely 1080p...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Chromec...3308425&skuId=9071056&st=chromecast&cp=1&lp=1

High-definition entertainment
Chromecast supports up to 1080p video resolution, so you won't lose picture quality from high-def sources


----------



## Elan (Aug 8, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> It's definitely 1080p...
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Chromec...3308425&skuId=9071056&st=chromecast&cp=1&lp=1
> 
> ...



  I recall reading that tab casting from the Chrome browser is limited to 720P at this time.  All else is 1080P.

  The inexpensive Roku that the Chromecast is most often compared to is 720P max.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 8, 2013)

Elan said:


> I recall reading that tab casting from the Chrome browser is limited to 720P at this time.  All else is 1080P.
> 
> The inexpensive Roku that the Chromecast is most often compared to is 720P max.



Jim,

I just read the same thing last night. Don't remember the source to provide a link.

Best regards,

Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 11, 2013)

Stream Everything to Your Chromecast With This Clever Workaround - by Lily Hay Newman/ Gizmodo.com

Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 17, 2013)

Chromecast App Update Aims to Fix Discoverability Issues - by Phil Nickinson/ Android Central.com

OK, folks. If you've got a Chromecast but have had issues getting it to connect to certain devices, it's time to update your Chromecast app. Google's put forth some new code that should fix some discoverability problems.







Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 17, 2013)

Will Google Use Chromecast to Put Banner Ads on Your TV? - by Janko Roettgers/ Gigaom.com

Snippets found in the Chromecast home screen Javascript code reveal that Google may have plans to use the streaming stick to bring banner ads to your TV screen


Richard


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 18, 2013)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Will Google Use Chromecast to Put Banner Ads on Your TV? - by Janko Roettgers/ Gigaom.com
> 
> Snippets found in the Chromecast home screen Javascript code reveal that Google may have plans to use the streaming stick to bring banner ads to your TV screen
> 
> ...



Google is not making money on a $35 dollar chromecast device.  Google gives their android tablet and phone operating system away for free to manufacturers. Google is one of the wealthiest companies in the history of the world.  You know why - selling targeted ads.  So, Google tracks everything you do, then creates a profile of you, and sells that to advertisers.  They also claim the right to read your e-mails.  And of course, they use and track your search queries and the cites you click on as a result of your google search.  So when people say the " Googled it" and chuckle with glee at this cute company that uses the cute name for its search engine  and cute name for its operating systems like "jelly bean" - they should really say I have been spied on by Google a giant business that knows more about me then my family so they can sell that information to anyone without my knowledge.

To answer your question "may" there be banner ads using chromecast?  The answer is there will most likely be ads following you around based on everything you do on chromecast as they most likely track your every "television" watching session.  Also, content manufacturers don't like their stuff given away for free by anyone. So, someone must pay for this content.  It will be chromecast users one way or the other.  But of course so many Google users just don't get it.  Because Google really doesn't want you to understand what their doing.  So they say "were the good guys who do no evil"! I guess they think invading peoples privacy is not evil.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 18, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Google is not making money on a $35 dollar chromecast device.  Google gives their android tablet and phone operating system away for free to manufacturers. Google is one of the wealthiest companies in the history of the world.  You know why - selling targeted ads.  So, Google tracks everything you do, then creates a profile of you, and sells that to advertisers.  They also claim the right to read your e-mails.  And of course, they use and track your search queries and the cites you click on as a result of your google search.  So when people say the " Googled it" and chuckle with glee at this cute company that uses the cute name for its search engine  and cute name for its operating systems like "jelly bean" - they should really say I have been spied on by Google a giant business that knows more about me then my family so they can sell that information to anyone without my knowledge.
> 
> To answer your question "may" there be banner ads using chromecast?  The answer is there will most likely be ads following you around based on everything you do on chromecast as they most likely track your every "television" watching session.  Also, content manufacturers don't like their stuff given away for free by anyone. So, someone must pay for this content.  It will be chromecast users one way or the other.  But of course so many Google users just don't get it.  Because Google really doesn't want you to understand what their doing.  So they say "were the good guys who do no evil"! I guess they think invading peoples privacy is not evil.



And think, some people around here seem to prefer this company over horrible Microsoft and Apple...


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 18, 2013)

dioxide45 said:


> And think, some people around here seem to prefer this company over horrible Microsoft and Apple...



You are free to choose to use, or not, Google. They are clear as to what they do and how. They do use generic information to target ads but they do so after clearly informing you and fro no cost to you. 

Compare that to the SOP of MS or Apple among others that get big money for their products but do it without profiling, targeted ads, etc. Whops! Wat a minute. Turns out they DO those things - and far more - but in sneaky and undocumented ways. Yes, after making you pay for their often sub-standard products they still use the same type of information that Google collects openly but on the sly. And far more identifiable to YOU rather than generalized groupings. They are always SO SORRY when caught at it but it hasn't stopped them in the past and you can be sure they aren't planning on stopping in the future. 

So deal with a group that is now perhaps the largest tech machine in the world that operates with an "open and free is better" approach or the secretive, "pay us what we demand and we'll do what we want" groups that have been trying to have total control from day one.  I know which one i prefer but, at least for now, you are free to make your choices. Unfortunately if one of those total dominance groups ever really takes over (as MS almost succeeded at in the 90's) choice will be gone and you'll pay whatever they demand.  Hopefully the open source and lower cost approach has now become the norm and those closed control freaks will be the niche players going forward. 

Based on the way Android and Google have skyrocketed to the top over the past 5 years from a virtually zero start it appears the open path is the preferred one for most users.


----------



## Elan (Aug 18, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Google is not making money on a $35 dollar chromecast device.  Google gives their android tablet and phone operating system away for free to manufacturers. Google is one of the wealthiest companies in the history of the world.  You know why - selling targeted ads.  So, Google tracks everything you do, then creates a profile of you, and sells that to advertisers.  They also claim the right to read your e-mails.  And of course, they use and track your search queries and the cites you click on as a result of your google search.  So when people say the " Googled it" and chuckle with glee at this cute company that uses the cute name for its search engine  and cute name for its operating systems like "jelly bean" - they should really say I have been spied on by Google a giant business that knows more about me then my family so they can sell that information to anyone without my knowledge.
> 
> To answer your question "may" there be banner ads using chromecast?  The answer is there will most likely be ads following you around based on everything you do on chromecast as they most likely track your every "television" watching session.  Also, content manufacturers don't like their stuff given away for free by anyone. So, someone must pay for this content.  It will be chromecast users one way or the other.  But of course so many Google users just don't get it.  Because Google really doesn't want you to understand what their doing.  So they say "were the good guys who do no evil"! I guess they think invading peoples privacy is not evil.



  I'd say most "get it".  We're just not paranoid about it. 

  How many documented cases are there of Google (and one is incredibly naive to think that Google is unique in their methods) using personal data in malicious ways?  Until that number becomes significant, I'm not going to stay awake at night.  

  Here's a tip.  If you don't want someone to know something about you, don't put it on the internet.  For most things, the traditional pre-internet methods still exist.  Use them if you have cold sweats at night worrying about an employee at Google filtering through zetabytes of data just to do _you_ personal harm.


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 18, 2013)

Elan said:


> I'd say most "get it".  We're just paranoid about it.
> 
> How many documented cases are there of Google (and one is incredibly naive to think that Google is unique in their methods) using personal data in malicious ways?  Until that number becomes significant, I'm not going to stay awake at night.
> 
> Here's a tip.  If you don't want someone to know something about you, don't put it on the internet.  For most things, the traditional pre-internet methods still exist.  Use them if you have cold sweats at night worrying about an employee at Google filtering through zetabytes of data just to do _you_ personal harm.



Like Rhett Butler who said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." I say the same thing about privacy, targeted ads and all the other handwringing over what Google, Apple, NSA et al may know. BFD.

Cheers


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 18, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> You are free to choose to use, or not, Google. They are clear as to what they do and how. They do use generic information to target ads but they do so after clearly informing you and fro no cost to you.
> 
> Compare that to the SOP of MS or Apple among others that get big money for their products but do it without profiling, targeted ads, etc. Whops! Wat a minute. Turns out they DO those things - and far more - but in sneaky and undocumented ways. Yes, after making you pay for their often sub-standard products they still use the same type of information that Google collects openly but on the sly. And far more identifiable to YOU rather than generalized groupings. They are always SO SORRY when caught at it but it hasn't stopped them in the past and you can be sure they aren't planning on stopping in the future.
> 
> ...



First, Google is NOT absolutely clear about what they do. It took a lawsuit for people to discover Google thinks it has the right to read you e-mails. Second, free is never free. Third Google attempts to hold its domination in as nasty ways as Microsoft once did and they ARE NOT OPEN. Fourth, Microsoft does not make its money from advertising and windows 8 is automatically set to "do not track". Here is a quote from an article about Google is doing everything it can , unfairly if not illegally, to keep Youtube off Windows phone.  Google is requiring the windows phone youtube app to be written in HTML5 which it does not require of itself or Apple.  The quote is from a Microsoft Lawyer that appeared in the article.  A lawsuit may be on its way.

"Google's objections to our app are not only inconsistent with Google's own commitment of openness, but also involve requirements for a Windows Phone app that it doesn't impose on its own platform or Apple's."

He added: "It seems to us that Google's reasons for blocking our app are manufactured so that we can't give our users the same experience Android and iPhone users are getting. 

"The roadblocks Google has set up are impossible to overcome, and they know it."


 I choose to stop using Google and Google products so I can protect my privacy and stop them from profiting from my personal life.  It took awhile to learn the extent of Google's lack of transparency.  The lawsuit disclosing their true position on e-mail privacy was not widely reported in the media. It finally opened my eyes to the full extent of their invasion of privacy.  Google does not make that privacy intrusion at all clear to gmail users. I want Google to live up to its supposed "commitment of openness" and allow Windows phones to have youtube. I hope there is a basis for a lawsuit against them on that matter.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 18, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Based on the way Android and Google have skyrocketed to the top over the past 5 years from a virtually zero start it appears the open path is the preferred one for most users.



No, by and large people vote with their wallets, and free is hard to beat. Some may say they prefer open standards but ask anyone why they bought and 9:10 will say it was the least expensive option (that offered the features they wanted), not that it was the best, not that they did their research (other than perhaps which Android hardware unit, not if Android), etc.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 18, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> No, by and large people vote with their wallets, and free is hard to beat. Some may say they prefer open standards but ask anyone why they bought and 9:10 will say it was the least expensive option (that offered the features they wanted), not that it was the best, not that they did their research (other than perhaps which Android hardware unit, not if Android), etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



The vast majority of people I talk to have in fact "done their homework" and end up picking Android because that is what they feel offers the best combination of features and, yes, price. But some Androids are priced at or above Apple - they still sell very well. In fact the more closed minded seem to be the "it's Apple so I bought it" group. They can't tell you why they picked it or why it's more money in many cases - just "It was Apple and my Grandmother really liked hers..."


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 20, 2013)

*Before You Buy Chromecast - Understand Google*

As I posted earlier, the "do no evil" company is an advertising company that likes to track everything you do.  Here is the text of an article from the San Jose Mercury News that shows their ultimate ideas about what a person is worth to them. And why they don't mind being "FREE".

MOUNTAIN VIEW -- If we're all going to be wearing Internet-connected headsets in the future, why not charge advertisers for what we see, and how it makes us feel?

That seems to be the idea behind a patent awarded to Google (GOOG) last week for a head-mounted eye-tracking system that could enable "pay per gaze advertising," or a method of charging advertisers when a wearer views certain images online or in the real world. By measuring pupil dilation, at least in theory, the system could also determine the wearer's "emotional state" at the time of viewing.

Google 



(FILES)This January 11, 2011 screen file image shows the Google logo in Washington, DC. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images) (KAREN BLEIER)
hasn't announced any plans for the patent, and sources said no plans are in the works. While the idea sounds like it could work with Glass, the wearable Internet gadget that Google has been developing for consumer use, the company's current rules forbid any advertising on Glass.

"We hold patents on a variety of ideas. Some of those ideas later mature into real products or services; some don't," said a Google spokesman. "Prospective product announcements should not necessarily be inferred from our patents."

But the patent file, first spotted by a blogger for Fast Company last week, contains an intriguing description of a system for "receiving scene images from a head-mounted gaze-tracking device," which would track eye movement through a lens or small prism in front of the wearer's eyes. In theory, the system would then identify the images, presumably using some kind of recognition software, and generate a log of "identified items" that the person has seen.

One potential use for the information would be to charge advertisers every time a wearer views a scene that includes an ad -- whether it's an online commercial or a billboard in the real world, according to the patent. The system could also trigger the display of an online ad tied to whatever the wearer is seeing in the real world.

The patent says the system could even measure how long a person looked at the ad and what image within a scene drew the wearer's attention. And, if that's not enough, it could measure pupil dilation to determine the wearer's "emotional state" at the time of viewing.

"Further, the inferred emotional state information can be provided to an advertiser (perhaps for a premium fee) so that the advertiser can gauge the success of their advertising campaign," the patent summary explains.

"For example, if the advertiser desires to generate a shocking advertisement to get noticed or a thought-provoking advertisement, then the inferred emotional state information and/or the gazing duration may be valuable metrics to determine the success of the campaign with real-world consumers."

While the idea raises questions about privacy and other social concerns, the patent documents state that "to protect individual privacy, personal identifying data may be removed from the data and provided to the advertisers as anonymous analytics." It adds that "users may be given opt-in or opt-out privileges to control the type of data being gathered."


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 20, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> As I posted earlier, the "do no evil" company is an advertising company that likes to track everything you do.  Here is the text of an article from the San Jose Mercury News that shows their ultimate ideas about what a person is worth to them. And why they don't mind being "FREE".



Tell me why I should be overly concerned about this?  If they want to target advertise to me, I don't have a problem with it.  The benefits to me outweigh the negatives.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 20, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Tell me why I should be overly concerned about this?  If they want to target advertise to me, I don't have a problem with it.  The benefits to me outweigh the negatives.



Why would anyone trust Google with their very personal information, information formerly unknown to even your closest friends.  What you see and how it impacts your emotions, what food you eat, what you drink, how many times a day you eat, have a beer or who knows what else. 

Furthermore, even if you trust Google with all your personal information it may be sold or given to individuals or companies, or individuals posing as companies or individuals within Google or other businesses that you have no reason to trust.  Perhaps your employer, a friend, a spammer or hacker that wants all your personal information to steal your identity.

Remember that Snowden fellow.  He wasn't supposed to have access to all that secret information and somehow he got it.

Is having so called "targeted ads" so important to risk this and even more.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 20, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Why would anyone trust Google with their very personal information, information formerly unknown to even your closest friends.



You'd have to clarify what you mean by "personal information".  I'd guess there are thousands of companies out there that have some of my "personal information".  

As far as targeting an ad at me based on a shopping site that I visited yesterday... no big deal to me.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 20, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Why would anyone trust Google with their very personal information, information formerly unknown to even your closest friends.  What you see and how it impacts your emotions, what food you eat, what you drink, how many times a day you eat, have a beer or who knows what else.
> 
> Furthermore, even if you trust Google with all your personal information it may be sold or given to individuals or companies, or individuals posing as companies or individuals within Google or other businesses that you have no reason to trust.  Perhaps your employer, a friend, a spammer or hacker that wants all your personal information to steal your identity.
> 
> ...



IF avoiding Google and any of it's software/hardware meant you would be free from any type of targeted ads or personal data sharing then I'd be all over it too. However Google is not only far from alone in doing it - almost every major software / company / manufacturer does it - while only Google is more open about it than most.  Merely avoiding Google does nothing when Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, your government, your wireless company, every "loyalty card" you sign on to, et al are all gathering the same stuff. If you use a computer on the Internet you have granted access to far more than we would have thought possible 20 years ago. And we're doing it willingly.  To say Google is the only big bad wolf at the door is disingenuous.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 20, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> IF avoiding Google and any of it's software/hardware meant you would be free from any type of targeted ads or personal data sharing then I'd be all over it too. However Google is not only far from alone in doing it - almost every major software / company / manufacturer does it - while only Google is more open about it than most.  Merely avoiding Google does nothing when Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook, your government, your wireless company, every "loyalty card" you sign on to, et al are all gathering the same stuff. If you use a computer on the Internet you have granted access to far more than we would have thought possible 20 years ago. And we're doing it willingly.  To say Google is the only big bad wolf at the door is disingenuous.



I avoid Facebook. Microsoft makes its money from selling its software and now its devices. Google is the big bad wolf. The proof is in the income for Google and its valuation. All based on advertising.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 20, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I avoid Facebook. Microsoft makes its money from selling its software and now its devices. Google is the big bad wolf. The proof is in the income for Google and its valuation. All based on advertising.




Just so we're all on the same page, can you give one example of something evil that Google could do that the others can't?  Preferably an example of something that you're nervous about.

Then we'd all make our own judgement.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 20, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> Just so we're all on the same page, can you give one example of something evil that Google could do that the others can't?  Preferably an example of something that you're nervous about.
> 
> Then we'd all make our own judgement.



Just read the post on Google patent.


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 21, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Just read the post on Google patent.



Yep, just read it again.  Don't see any cause for alarm in my mind.  Can you share some specifics of what could possibly happen that concerns you?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 22, 2013)

:hysterical:





ace2000 said:


> Yep, just read it again.  Don't see any cause for alarm in my mind.  Can you share some specifics of what could possibly happen that concerns you?



:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 22, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:





I'll take your reply to mean that you can't give any specifics on your concerns...


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 22, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> I'll take your reply to mean that you can't give any specifics on your concerns...



This is what I posted earlier about my specific concerns:

Why would anyone trust Google with their very personal information, information formerly unknown to even your closest friends. What you see and how it impacts your emotions, what food you eat, what you drink, how many times a day you eat, have a beer or who knows what else. 

Furthermore, even if you trust Google with all your personal information it may be sold or given to individuals or companies, or individuals posing as companies or individuals within Google or other businesses that you have no reason to trust. Perhaps your employer, a friend, a spammer or hacker that wants all your personal information to steal your identity.

Remember that Snowden fellow. He wasn't supposed to have access to all that secret information and somehow he got it.

Is having so called "targeted ads" so important to risk this and even more. 





Now I will stop playing this game with you.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 22, 2013)

Nothing in your post or the patent is any different than what many others are doing. I fail to see how Google is doing something that the others aren't. So far multiple requests for specifics have resulted in nothing.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 22, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Nothing in your post or the patent is any different than what many others are doing. I fail to see how Google is doing something that the others aren't. So far multiple requests for specifics have resulted in nothing.



You don't understand what a patent is. Google, and nobody else has the right to do what they have patented. Nobody else is doing what Google patent is for because a patent must be ORIGINAL. I can't believe you are this obtuse, so I assume you are playing a little game.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 22, 2013)

Nonsense. The patent has to do with Google Glasses - a non-existent product. If it ever exists you're free to use it & accept whatever baggage it carries or not. Simply having created a patent doesn't mean it's used or a problem for you or me. Yes, if they were sharp enough to think of it other's would do it or similar too. You're delusional to think otherwise. 

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 4


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 22, 2013)

timeos2 said:


> Nonsense. The patent has to do with Google Glasses - a non-existent product. If it ever exists you're free to use it & accept whatever baggage it carries or not. Simply having created a patent doesn't mean it's used or a problem for you or me. Yes, if they were sharp enough to think of it other's would do it or similar too. You're delusional to think otherwise.



+1 

Besides, software patents are the easiest in the world to avoid. The recent Apple vs Samsung patent wars resulted in lots of money to the lawyers, some minor mods to either companies devices, temporary restrictions on sales, licenses being negotiated, etc and life goes on. 

If you never accept a cookie, you can semi isolate yourself from the Google (or any other commercial enterprise for that matter) Bogeyman. I really don't care what they know about me. Why should I?

Cheers


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 22, 2013)

x3 skier said:


> +1
> 
> Besides, software patents are the easiest in the world to avoid. The recent Apple vs Samsung patent wars resulted in lots of money to the lawyers, some minor mods to either companies devices, temporary restrictions on sales, licenses being negotiated, etc and life goes on.
> 
> ...



First, it is not limited to Google glasses. I guess the billions of dollars spent  software creating and getting patents is just a waste of time. Those people at Google, ibm, microsoft, oracle, instagram, facebook, are just delusional fools. They should really read the tug bbs. Then they wouldn't waste their money on patents.


----------



## x3 skier (Aug 23, 2013)

pgnewarkboy said:


> First, it is not limited to Google glasses. I guess the billions of dollars spent  software creating and getting patents is just a waste of time. Those people at Google, ibm, microsoft, oracle, instagram, facebook, are just delusional fools. They should really read the tug bbs. Then they wouldn't waste their money on patents.



Based on the fact that there a plethora of smartphones, social media sites, browsers and other things related to the Internet and cellular telephony with similar if not identical features and if it is essential must be licensed, patents certainly haven't exactly stifled competition or offered a clear monetary advantage so maybe they did waste a lot of money getting patents which is entirely different from software or hardware development and marketing. 

A patented software program can easily been duplicated in function. How much real difference is there between a Samsung Android top of the line phone and an Apple iPhone 5? Patents for hardware design are a totally different animal. In fact the US Patent Office and the Federal Court system are evaluating the Patentability of software in the first place.

Regardless, I still don't care what Google, Yahoo, NSA, etc. knows about me.

Cheers


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Aug 24, 2013)

Chromecast Gets Another OTA Update and a New Version of SDK to Go With It - by Jerry Hildenbrand/ Android Central.com





Your Chromecast is getting bumped to version 12940, and the SDK gets a new point release bringing it to 1.0.1


Richard


----------



## ace2000 (Aug 24, 2013)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Chromecast Gets Another OTA Update and a New Version of SDK to Go With It - by Jerry Hildenbrand/ Android Central.com
> Richard




_The quick pace of changes and updates doesn't surprise us at all, as we think Google has big plans not just for the Chromecast but the Google Cast protocol as a whole._


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 26, 2013)

I wonder if this product was released too early. Not that I condone reverse engineering anything and expect it to work, but it seems like there has been some confusion amongst the developer community and Google in terms of what will be permitted and what won't be included with Google's SDK and what exactly will be open with their APIs.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/25/4...deos?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews


Sent from my iPad


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Oct 5, 2013)

*Hulu App Adds Chromecast Support*

Hulu App Adds Chromecast Support - by Quentyn Kennemer/ Phandroid.com

"Chomecast has been a bit of a bumpy ride since Google initially launched it a couple of months ago. Between a limited selection of officially-equipped apps and Google seemingly intentionally blocking third-party development, it’s been a $35 purchase that hasn’t been quite as sweet for some as it’s been for others. Thankfully, things are getting a tad bit sweeter today.

Google and Hulu have announced that Chromecast support has been added to the Hulu Plus for Android app. It’s simple, really — one tap of the “cast” button will allow you to beam whatever you’re watching on Hulu to your TV in a jiffy."

Richard


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Oct 12, 2013)

For Once, Amazon's Best Seller Isn't a Kindle Device; It's a Chromecast - by Quentyn Kennemer/ Phandroid.com

"Every now and then I like to look at Amazon’s best selling products in a few different categories, and one of my obvious interests is electronics. That category seems to always be dominated by Amazon’s Kindle products, be it a Kindle Fire, a Kindle Paperwhite, or even a regular old Kindle. It’s always Kindle. But today it’s not. No, today, it’s Chromecast."







Richard


----------



## Nickfromct (Oct 14, 2013)

I bought Chromecast a few weeks ago when Best Buy sent me a $10 coupon off of any purchase. So far, I'm pleased streaming Net Flix from my phone and computer to my HD tv. The quality of the video has been excellent. So far, so good.


----------



## Elan (Nov 22, 2013)

Sounds like Google's ready to release the Chromecast SDK.  Once that happens, I'm guessing this thing will be even more fantastic, given that many of the developers will be the same ones that have helped develop Android.

http://liliputing.com/2013/11/more-...way-google-hosting-hackathon-in-december.html


----------



## theo (Nov 22, 2013)

*O.K., but....*



Elan said:


> Sounds like Google's ready to release the Chromecast SDK.  Once that happens, I'm guessing this thing will be even more fantastic, given that many of the developers will be the same ones that have helped develop Android.
> 
> http://liliputing.com/2013/11/more-...way-google-hosting-hackathon-in-december.html



Interesting, but entirely unclear to me even after reading the article just what exactly it might be that the "SDK" seeks to *do* beyond the exisitng Chromecast capabilities.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 22, 2013)

theo said:


> Interesting, but entirely unclear to me even after reading the article just what exactly it might be that the "SDK" seeks to *do* beyond the exisitng Chromecast capabilities.



+1

I bought a Roku from Ollie's Discount store and love it, especially British programs from the Acorn Channel.

Cheers


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 22, 2013)

theo said:


> Interesting, but entirely unclear to me even after reading the article just what exactly it might be that the "SDK" seeks to *do* beyond the exisitng Chromecast capabilities.



From reading the article, I get the impression that the current Chromecast does not permit third party apps to be developed. The SDK seeks to change that when Google will open up third party app development.

_"But until the official SDK is available, Google has basically stopped developers from widely distributing apps that do those things."_


----------



## Fisch (Nov 22, 2013)

I got a Chromecast on Monday.  Kicks ass.  Easy to watch Netflix, You Tube, HBO to GO, Amazon Prime, and Hula.  In fact you should be able to watch mosy any video you can watch through a Chrome Browser.

Bought a second one for my daughters room.  IF you dont already have a Smart TV, or other means to play those services to your tv:  grab one.

With how easy it hooked up, I might bring this on vacation to places with WiFi.


----------



## Elan (Dec 4, 2013)

I got a Chromecast yesterday.  $30 on Amazon, with a $6 Google Play credit.  

  It was literally about 5 minutes from slicing the tape on the box to streaming Netflix.  Dead simple to hook up.  I streamed Netflix for a while, switched to Pandora and then Google Play Music.  All worked great.  When I was done listening to tunes, I went into the office where my desktop resides and opened Chrome.  I added the Chromecast extension to the browser, then cut and pasted the path to a Harry Potter movie I had on the hard drive into the browser address bar and clicked the Chromecast streaming icon.  Went back into the bedroom where the Chromecast TV is, and the movie was playing flawlessly.  No pixelation and no stuttering.  

  But the best thing is that I didn't have a clunky remote to deal with.  Just the intuitive touch interface of my Nexus 7.  And better yet, once the media started the Nexus 7 was free to do anything else.  

  Being able to turn any dumb TV into a smart TV that's this easy to use for only $35 is pretty impressive.  I highly recommend the Chromecast.


----------



## Conan (Dec 4, 2013)

My only disappointment with Chromecast is although it's easy to pack, it won't work in most hotels/timeshares.  

Chromecast allows you to enter a WiFi password, but on many hotel/timeshare systems there's no password required.  Instead, when logging on with a computer device, there's a screen where you accept the terms of service and so forth.  Chromecast doesn't have the ability to display that screen (because it's not a browser per se), so in that circumstance it's not possible for the Chromecast to connect to the Internet.


----------



## linsj (Dec 4, 2013)

Conan said:


> My only disappointment with Chromecast is although it's easy to pack, it won't work in most hotels/timeshares.
> 
> Chromecast allows you to enter a WiFi password, but on many hotel/timeshare systems there's no password required.  Instead, when logging on with a computer device, there's a screen where you accept the terms of service and so forth.  Chromecast doesn't have the ability to display that screen (because it's not a browser per se), so in that circumstance it's not possible for the Chromecast to connect to the Internet.



I was about to buy a Chromecast only for traveling when I read your comments. Think I'll save my money.


----------



## slum808 (Dec 4, 2013)

Conan said:


> My only disappointment with Chromecast is although it's easy to pack, it won't work in most hotels/timeshares.
> 
> Chromecast allows you to enter a WiFi password, but on many hotel/timeshare systems there's no password required.  Instead, when logging on with a computer device, there's a screen where you accept the terms of service and so forth.  Chromecast doesn't have the ability to display that screen (because it's not a browser per se), so in that circumstance it's not possible for the Chromecast to connect to the Internet.



Does anybody know if an Apple TV or Roku would work in this situation?


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 4, 2013)

slum808 said:


> Does anybody know if an Apple TV or Roku would work in this situation?



I posted this reference on an earlier question a few months back.  If you have a router, you should be able to make this work.  I see no reason why this method wouldn't work for Chromecast also, but haven't tested it.

http://blog.roku.com/blog/2011/09/08/how-to-travel-with-your-roku-player/


----------



## Elan (Dec 4, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> I posted this reference on an earlier question a few months back.  If you have a router, you should be able to make this work.  I see no reason why this method wouldn't work for Chromecast also, but haven't tested it.
> 
> http://blog.roku.com/blog/2011/09/08/how-to-travel-with-your-roku-player/



  In reference to using a travel router with it's own secure network (which is nice to have when traveling anyway), then yes, that's been confirmed to work with Chromecast.  Since I have such a router, I will try this out when I get time.


----------



## slum808 (Dec 4, 2013)

ace2000 said:


> I posted this reference on an earlier question a few months back.  If you have a router, you should be able to make this work.  I see no reason why this method wouldn't work for Chromecast also, but haven't tested it.
> 
> http://blog.roku.com/blog/2011/09/08/how-to-travel-with-your-roku-player/



Thanks, 
I was hoping to avoid having to bring the router along. Think I'll just stick to hooking up the laptop to the tv.


----------



## ace2000 (Dec 4, 2013)

You can buy a router that will fit in the palm of your hand for about $30 (probably cheaper).


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 4, 2013)

slum808 said:


> Thanks,
> I was hoping to avoid having to bring the router along. Think I'll just stick to hooking up the laptop to the tv.



Alternatively, you can call the Internet support dept at the resort and tell them you want to get your Apple TV/Chromecast/whatever on the Internet. They know it doesn't have a browser. You'll have to tell them the MAC address (which should be printed on the unit) and they can update their network so that your device won't require the standard browser login page. 

I've done this several times when traveling without my router (or when the resort doesn't provide an ethernet connection in the unit) and while it sometimes takes longer than it should, in the end it works well.


----------



## Fisch (Dec 10, 2013)

*Chromecast Upgrades*

http://www.androidcentral.com/google-announces-new-apps-local-content-streaming-chromecast?utm_source=ac&utm_medium=twitter

Google is adding more content.  Makes the $35 price even more desireable.


----------



## persia (Dec 10, 2013)

Get one of these: http://www.microcenter.com/product/403037/ZSR4174WE_Wireless_N_Router

You can set up a wifi network that the chromecast and your computer connect to. You then configure the wisp router to connect to the Hotel wifi that requires a login/gateway page. Accept the terms of service from a browser on the computer and off you go.


----------

