Hacker News Reader

Comment by infogulch | Hacker News Reader

I always wondered why they branded Chromecast with Chrome, it has almost nothing to do with a browser besides the funny gimmick where you could show a web page through it. Maybe an implementation detail.

I suppose I get it now. It was originally just branding to promote a Chrome monopoly, and now it's an artificial exclusive feature. I love the idea of Chromecast but it's sad that it's still so closed off.

View on HN

Also Google is just sort of terrible at consistent branding.

On Android its part of Google Home, and it seems to be just called Cast these days.

Chromecast isn't an open protocol; Miracast seems to be [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracast

What does the Condé Nast CMS have to do with Chromecast (or other bits of Chrome branding strategy)?

Nothing specifically. I was expanding the specific comment on an instance of Chrome-only compatibility into a general comment on other things Google has been doing to expand it's Chrome monopoly. Maybe the topic deserves a top level comment, sorry if it's placement offended your sensibilities.

Oh, please don't let my fragile sensibilities get in the way of your entirely off-topic disquisition. I just wondered if I had missed some nuance.

Closed off how if I may ask? Is it not free for anyone to implement in their applications?

To implement Cast support in an application, you have to link a closed source binary to your project. Google only provides binaries for iOS and Android (via Play Services), and has a closed source implementation in Chrome.

doesn't cast implement the dial protocol, which is open?

http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/

Where are the open source Chromecast receivers?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com