Comment by reificator | Hacker News Reader

Comment by reificator | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> But people like their locked ecosystems and are not willing to invest in interop.

I think that's a mischaracterization. Given two identical experiences, one that locked you in and one that didn't, I'd imagine most people (though sadly not all) would choose the more open one.

The locked in experience here is simply substantially more seamless and out-of-the-box ready than the open alternative. Given that the point of a handover system is to make using multiple devices seamless, it's obvious that being "more seamless" is an advantage.

I setup a Chromecast for my mother who doesn't have cable or anything at home, and it took several explanations spread out over a year before she finally started using it on her own, but now she's using it daily. Any harder to use and it wouldn't have been helpful at all.

She's not exactly a luddite either, this is actually the first thing I've tried to teach her that she's struggled so hard with. Hopefully it's not a sign of aging...

Not at all, the casting model is fundamentally different from a device like a Roku. It's like the difference between subject-verb-object languages and subject-object-verb languages.

You want some video to appear on the TV, so instead of driving some thing that's attached to the TV, you cause that thing to pull the video, using your phone or other device. It has never "clicked" for me.

Don't think of it like "causing that thing to pull the video using your phone or other device".

Think of it like pushing the video you're watching to the other device. You're taking the thing you have and throwing it onto the TV.

This exactly. The fact that internally the TV is pulling the software and content itself is mostly an implementation detail (I say mostly because once you've 'thrown' the video to your TV you can do other things with your phone).

It's less confusing if you don't think too hard about it.

Except that is exactly wrong. The use of "cast" in the name, and explainations like this, are exactly why it's so confusing, because they are wrong.

You should be saying that the phone is a remote control.

That is both what's actually going on, and a paradigm everyone understands. And it's a stupid short and simple phrase to say. They've ingested it before they even got a chance to subconsciously go into "I don't want to try to figure this out." mode.

I would also say while giving that explaination something like "It's not you. Google intentionally makes this confusing because they want you to think you are casting or projecting something for who knows what marketing reasons." Takes the bad feelings of not understanding something off their shoulders and lets you both comiserate over a 3rd party, Google, and any stress is is laid on them instead of you or themselves. "You find this confusing and difficult, and guess what, so does your sysadmin son! Google is annoying but you & me will get it anyway."

> You should be saying that the phone is a remote control.

> That is both what's actually going on, and a paradigm everyone understands. And it's a stupid short and simple phrase to say. They've ingested it before they even got a chance to subconsciously go into "I don't want to try to figure this out." mode.

I just finished saying that this strategy did not work for me for nearly a year, but please, tell me more.

Explaining it as a remote control is way more confusing because it doesn't behave like any remote control you've ever seen. Every other remote control (short of niche techie phone apps or expensive Logitech remotes that these users have never seen before) is a system where they press buttons to navigate menus or change things directly on the TV. This system requires them to select something on their phone instead, which is very confusing with the remote analogy.

> I would also say while giving that explaination something like "It's not you. Google intentionally makes this confusing because they want you to think you are casting or projecting something for who knows what marketing reasons."

I don't think it's marketing reasons. I think that unless you're super technical, it's just flat out an easier metaphor for people to understand.

Hell, even with an understanding of what's actually going on, I still don't think it's inaccurate. The lie is just that you're taking the source URL and credentials and casting them to the TV, rather than casting the content itself. But you are definitely moving state from one device to the other, and that's the metaphor the device is built around.

Weird, my mom doesn't understands it either.

Although there concept is simple: your phone is the remote, you need to connect to the TV. The app you would normally play it on, shares it to the TV.

I don't know how to explain it more simple

More simply? Forget about the word "remote" because it doesn't work like any remote in the history of the universe and it confuses the hell out of people to say it's one.

Here's simpler:

Start watching something on your phone. Now hit this button, this is the button to send what you're watching to the TV. Now choose the TV. See, it's stopped playing on your phone and picked up on the TV from right where you were.

What do you think she had specific trouble with? Really curious from an 'inmate in the asylum' perspective.

Other than the need for the two devices to each be connected to the same Wi-Fi network and the non-obviousness of being able to use your phone for other things once you start casting, I find it generally seamless, bit again I'm an 'inmate in the asylum' :)

Don't worry I've got the next cell over from you.

I think it's sort of like what the other reply was talking about. Thinking about getting something onto the TV by opening something on her phone and then hitting some buttons was confusing.

I started presenting it as a process where you take something on your phone and push it to the TV, and I think that helped.

Isn't it functionally just like a traditional remote control, but you can preview the "channel" on the remote. Selecting the channel (which is a URL, but they don't need to know that), tell the TV to tune to that channel?

No. Remote controls let you change channels up or down, or navigate through menus on the TV. If you explain it like a remote control it will confuse people who don't really understand the underlying technology.

Instead just tell them to watch something on their phone. Then press this button and it sends it over to the TV instead. End of instructions. This was what finally made it click for my mother.

What does she watch with it? YouTube?

That, Prime Video, some knitting thing, probably more than that tbh. We don't share a TV so I don't have a clue what she watches.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com