Tag Archives: chromecast

Chromecast Suggestions

Posted on by

The Google Chromecast made a splash this summer by being a simple and cheap accessory to play back content on your TV.

The Chromecast is priced right at $35, and availability outside of the Play store helps; in fact, the ease of adding it to an Amazon order was key in my buying decision. The packaging presentation is thoughtful, much like an old iPod or Airport Express. Inside the box you’ll find an astonishingly short HDMI extension cable and micro-USB power cable of average length. I used both in my installation, which allowed for a cleaner look that’s invisible from the front.

Set up and use is easy, though I’m surprised the requisite Chromecast extension for Chrome is not pre-installed or more obviously linked when it detects an available Chromecast. But this isn’t a review, so onward to the suggestions.

One of the first things you’ll notice is that casting any video stream other than YouTube is inelegant and frustrating. It seems like Chrome and/or Chromecast should be able to detect any video on a webpage and send the URL to Chromecast for playback. Instead, you can cast the entire webpage, using full screen (on your computer and the Chromecast) to enlarge the video. This may be a limitation of Chromecast being a new product, but it does seem obvious and limits the usability of the device. Playback even with this method was surprisingly smooth over 802.11G, if some what low-res.

The bigger problem is a philosophical one for Google. The idea of Chromecast – and Google TV before it – was to allow you to stream anything, bypassing barriers from cable companies and the like. And yet, ironically, one of the first YouTube videos I attempted to cast was blocked, with a message that read “This video is not available for remote playback.” Really Google, really?

Choose your own cliché (dogfooding, goose and gander…), but the bottom line is that Google is compromising the end-user experience. Video playback restrictions are not unique to Google; Apple also has to dance around the attempts of content providers and hardware manufacturers to punish customers prevent piracy. The irony here, though, is that Google is restricting itself despite the vertical integration of the hardware, service and content.

Chromecast achieved a popular launch (Netflix offer notwithstanding), and while limited, it is well executed. The challenge for Google now is to iterate, expanding the device’s capabilities while deciding if they are prioritizing the user or themselves first.

Google Announces Chromecast: Nailed It

Posted on by

About a month ago Benedict Evans shared his ideas about where the Apple TV could go from a hardware standpoint:

“Now, consider a new ‘Apple TV’ that’s an HDMI dongle, powered by HDMI so you can just plug it in. … And to get the cost down, all it does is Airplay“

Fast forward to today where Google has announced Airplay 2.0 Chromecast:

“Google is making another foray into the living room with the Chromecast, a small $35 dongle that allows users to stream videos from a phone or tablet to their TV using Chrome.“

On the surface, it looks like Chromecast hits the mark:
– $35 price tag
– Plugs into HDMI
– Multiplatform (iOS, Android, Chrome browser)
– Quiet development with release shortly after announcement

But look closer, and some obvious pain points become clear:
– First and foremost, it needs to be plugged in via micro USB cable for power. This ups the complexity and ugliness while reducing the simplicity and portability.
– A router is required for use. Again this reduces the simplicity and portability. Setup remains a question that will have to be answered once it starts shipping.
– Requires third-party developer buy in to implement a new API via the also released Google Cast SDK
– The video stream appears to be an improvised use of a video chat (WebRTC) instead of Miracast, Wireless HDMI or DLNA.

This looks like a solid debut with plenty of excitement from the press. Even though it will launch with limited app support (Youtube & Netflix mostly) you have to start somewhere (Apple with iTunes, Roku with Netflix). I like the idea that once you send something to Chromecast, it takes over the stream leaving the device free to operate or continue browsing for the next video to play. The difficulty in improving a 2.0 product lies in partnerships though; getting developers to implement the API, and getting TV manufacturers to properly support next generation standards such as CEC and MHL, along with deploying WiFi Direct across many products.

My biggest fear for Google is that while they “nailed” the basics in 1.0, the visual of a dangling cord and power adapter the size of the device itself will make Chromecast to easily laugh off with a picture and the sarcastic phrase “Nailed It!”

Overall a big pivot in the livingroom strategy of Google that looks to be in the right direction. As is always the case though, time will tell if Chromecast will overcome the hurdles to success. Early praise and interest is easy for Google hardware, long-term success is more elusive.