Chromecast with Google TV
store.google.com
store.google.com
I bought it as a gift for someone once and they cancelled it and deleted the SDK.
Would that be a first?
-Winston S. Churchill (quote likely true but original provenance unknown)
Yes. Unsuccessful products get cancelled.
The successful services get to stay but the customers get hit with "insane price hikes":
https://www.geoawesomeness.com/developers-up-in-arms-over-go...
It seems like Google of all places would have been able to figure out how to support that with ads.
I just don't think that they wanted to. It didn't fit into how they thought people would be interacting with the Internet in the future, and I can't say they were all that wrong...
Making it smaller than Samsung, Amazon, and much smaller than Roku (market leader). It seems to have a hardcore audience that think the world of it (or who haven't tried anything else), but most of the market moved on years ago.
If anything this Google TV "Chromecast" is designed to make Chromecast relevant again.
There are so many knockoffs of knockoffs of Android STBs that you usually pick them up for < $30.
Chromecast has always had the issue that it's main users are the tech savvy who are comfortable controlling everything via smartphone. That's not a huge percent of the population.
By adding the remote and going for the play of helping you navigate cross app, they seem to be trying to extend out to less savvy users who need a more guided product.
Overall it seems like the longterm plan is to push their subscription services, since I can't imagine they make great money from the devices themselves. Increasing user base is the best way for them to achieve that goal.
They're distinct ecosystems though because Android TV/Chromecast use the Play Store for content/app delivery, whereas Fire TV/Samsung/Roku use their own respective stores.
If one supported both the Play Store and their own, the definitions might be more subject to question, but as it stands they don't officially allow that.
Pointing out both Android TV and Amazon Fire is Android OS based isn't particularly relevant to market mineshare. Linux too is used by both (and others), but it would be pretty strange to try to combine them all under a "Linux streaming stick" moniker.
I'm sure someone followed instructions they found on Medium and want to show it off to their friends. That's fine. Those aren't the majority of users though.
For half the price of a Chromecast, Android STBs are the 'hit'.
While there may be more appliances out there, & some popular ones, they are kind off all off on their own with some random native apps cobbled together out of whatever random sdk the hardware has. The apps almost never coordinate very well with your phone.
Cast is absolutely dominating. Playing a far better game than everyone else. Easy for developers to work with (so easy with the web platform support being built in). Software adoption within a web page makes all the sense & is so easy & flexible. We haven't even seen multi-phone "multiplayer" cast apps get popular but it's easy to do. No one else can compete.
Please let OpenScreenProtocol start getting some traction so we can continue advancing these capabilities & start freely building systems that can work together.
That's not an "hardcore audience" to me. https://www.androidtv-guide.com/
This go-around, "Google TV" seems to be just some first-party Chromecast hardware running an OEM skin over Android TV OS. Much lower CapEx. Far easier to justify as a Google project.
(And it's a logical strategic move, too. A lot of smart TV manufacturers are shipping crap Android TV implementations that plaster advertising everywhere; and the advice everyone gives to get around that is to get an Apple TV, because Apple's tvOS doesn't force ads on you. That gives the Apple ecosystem a foothold in otherwise-Google-ecosystem homes and businesses. Google is likely willing to spend a lot of money to prevent Apple getting that foothold.)
https://9to5google.com/2020/08/05/android-tv-homescreen-ad-c...
As long as Google makes its money selling ads every one of their services is just one lousy executive seeking "synergies with the ad business" away from ruining the experience.
... so now my post looks inaccurate
More info on Google TV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_TV
The new Google TV is more akin to iPad OS and iOS splitting, where the TV and Phone variant can have their own identity, but from the looks of it, its starting out as just a single android app, and not a full on shell fork.
Maybe the line is so blurred between shell/launcher and app now that its a distinction without merit. They can just keep nesting shells inside apps recursively, ad infinitum.
I have the Google TV app on my phone already (the Movies & TV app auto updated.)
https://www.xda-developers.com/android-tv-rebrand-google-tv-...
Given this happened twice, I sensed there was an issue with the complete model line and bailed. I actually boycotted LG products for a few years as a result of this experience.
I generally keep my TV much longer than I keep a laptop/computer.
Video records are a special class of data covered by the Video Privacy Protection Act. The tangible cost is the risk that your viewing history would be used to attack you. It happened before and that's what spurred the creation of that act.
Look at these ratings, theyre in direct contradiction with your guess of what they are as well as your thesis: Amazon and Google both have above 90% trust, Apple has 81%.
I've meditated on them a lot, and came to the conclusion there's a lot of class issues in tech spaces, and a borderline condescending paternal instinct towards users. Over 90% of people know their information isn't being 'sold'
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...
Maybe those 90% haven't read stories like this one (which is about Facebook):
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582
Or maybe they've never heard of a data broker? To be clear, I don't think Google sells user data, but do they share it with anybody like Facebook has a history of doing? That I'm not clear about. I think they may share it with other Alphabet companies. I think they do buy data from brokers.
Roku - the leading company in the space - made $1.19 billion in revenue. I doubt anyone thinks that Google will approach Roku’s market share.
Roku is all about obtrusive advertising. Why would Google be any different? Do you think Google put a hard coded Netflix button on the remote out of the goodness of their heart?
> Google has a more trustworthy image than Apple! Imagine that
By what metric?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/11/amazon-beats-apple-and-googl...
No one thinks that Apple has sold tens of millions of TVs.
https://macdailynews.com/2020/09/02/strategy-analytics-apple...
The global population of TV and video streaming devices has now exceeded 1.1 billion, with Apple TV / tvOS holding 2% share, according to the latest market share analysis from Strategy Analytics’ TV Streaming Platforms service.
And this is from MacdailyNews. Definitely not an anti Apple rag. Apple has been calling the AppleTV a “hobby” for over a decade.
There is a reason that Apple is making deals left and right to get AppleTV (the app) on competing platforms and now they are making deals with Roku to support Airplay.
Back in 2015 Apple said they had already sold 25 million: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...
Anecdotally they’re common in households where people have iPhones. IMO, they currently have the best user experience to control a TV.
Besides that, Apple talked about how hard it is to be “HDMI 1”. Especially now that all of the TVs have “smarts” and most people still have cable. Not to mention that an Apple TV is $149-$200. I have two ATV4Ks that were both free when AT&T was doing their deal. We don’t even use it on one of our TVs that have Roku built in.
Besides that, sales before 2015 are almost irrelevant. That was before it had an App Store. A lot of the new streaming services don’t even support it. Roku wasn’t being integrated into low end TVs left and right.
There is no better experience for most people than a TV with Roku built in. One remote controls everything.
AFAIK, every TV with integrated Roku support is still getting updated.
Even if that’s not the case, you can pick up a Roku stick from Walmart for $30. That’s not to even mention game consoles.
But maybe, they'd like to put highly targeted ads on your TV.
Whether they can sell that capability to advertisers ? I don't know.
I’d guess it could tie into the ad business by showing attribution when ads for media result in conversions that play on the Google TV, although I’m not sure how big the opportunity is there.
You turn on your average smart TV or device, it’s also allowing you to buy movies on the device.
If you are binge watching TV, your TV knows. It knows what you watch, when you watch, etc.
VOD rentals from Google Play Movies isn’t making money. I doubt anyone is making money on it. Everyone is charging the same thing. I assume that’s because there is no room to reduce prices.
Apple, Amazon, and Google care so little about revenue from digital movies that if you buy a movie from one service and link your account to Movies Anywhere, all of the other services just count it as purchased on their services. It’s a feature not a product that couldn’t be above break even.
If you search for a movie on Apple and it is available free on another service you subscribe to, Apple will just tell you.
The only play for Google here is advertising and collecting user data.
There is no realistic alternative where Google is any more than a bit player when you have Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney, and all of the other players with real content. Google already gave up on originals on YouTube.
But long story short, like you're saying the Apple TV's UX is on another level from the (previous) Chromecast since it lacks its own UI and controls. It's definitely one of the painpoints that I've noticed my parents having difficulty with.
Whereas Apple TV has an easy to use UI (other than individual streaming apps sometimes making their own media player UI, like Disney+ and Amazon Prime, which are awful).
I'm glad they finally introduced this but it's a bit too late for me .
Given the amount of Netflix chatter my Pi Hole blocked from my Roku when I wasn't even using Netflix, data harvesting seems to be a big part of their operation.
Currently on Apple TV I’m just using each service’s app (Netflix, Plex, Amazon) to watch different shows, but one UI that kept track of everything would be neat.
The current article link (https://store.google.com/product/chromecast_google_tv) just goes to Google Store homepage for me (Finland).
@dang, could we please change the thread link to the one above?
That kind of offer isn't itself surprising, but it being available to existing Netflix subscribers is unusual.
> You may apply the value of the offer to a different Netflix streaming plan.
From the terms of the offer, it does look like you can apply the value of the offer to a 4k plan at a reduced duration.
* Offer value may be applied to a different Netflix streaming plan under the same account; exchanges in this manner may alter the duration of the offer. Netflix price plans subject to change and the duration of the offer value may be prorated accordingly.
The ability to bundle in 6 months of Netflix for $40 is so random. Why not offer a YoutubeTV bundle? Where is the product synergy?
It's nice that Stadia will come later but that the fact that it's not available at launch is a huge missed opportunity.
I am surprised that they gave a button to Netflix as well on the remote. Though it does make sense considering YT and Netflix is what I use mostly on even Fire TV when not watching sports.
There isn’t quite the integration between Netflix and the TV app as there is with other providers only because Netflix didn’t want it. But if you search for a movie in the TV app and the movie is available from both Apple and Netflix, they will show you it’s available in Netflix instead of trying to get you to buy it.
Apple sells hardware. You can’t sell streaming hardware that doesn’t work well with Netflix.
I doubt Apple sees AppleTV+ by itself as a profit generator any more than Amazon sees Amazon Prime as a revenue provider. It just makes the bundle more attractive which gets more people into the ecosystem.
Apple and Amazon have all types of bundle deals/discounts if you buy other streaming services within their apps.
Which is pretty neat when you work on a competing product (and way better than having them use their dominant position to help prop up a new product).
I worked on a music streaming service for a long time. We had a stellar relationship with Google.
It felt a bit weird that they did not push Play Music more .. in my opinion it was at one time a great music service. Still, we did not complain.
Apple on the other end sees everything iTunes related as mission critical and working with them was a nightmare.
So, not surprised to see AndroidTV (which afaik has no relationship with youtube people) partnering with netflix.
The Apple TV app works with third party providers along with Siri.
And Apple participates in Movies Anywhere. If you buy a movie from a participating studio from either Amazon, Google or Vudu, among others, it’s counted as a purchase in iTunes. The same is true in the other direction.
My TV also came with such buttons and it’s one of the reasons I absolutely refuse to use that remote.
If you use smooth scrolling by middle mouse click then movement it works OK.
It feels like there were maybe two to three paragraphs of text total on that page. I want to read the text. I do not want flying, fading out images all over the place.
This low-information-density design trend is an incredibly user-unfriendly experience for desktop users.
The real solution is that the smarts should be in a Chromecast or Apple TV or Roku, that way it's easy to replace or upgrade.
probably not worth the time it would take, but this kind of behavior from companies like google is just so toxic.
The advertising suggests it organizes all services into one screen. That is promising. But I am willing to bet it only covers certain streaming services and wouldn't cover Plex (or apps like it).
I'll read reviews with interest.
On the other hand, it probably does support streaming from any Cast enabled app, so it probably won't be any worse than a classic chromecast, even if direct on device content is probably highly limited.
The real question is if it supports installing Android TV apps, to extend the built-in UI or if it is limited casting and the content from the app.
Another screenshot shows a "My Apps" row on the homescreen, so I suspect it might actually support installing additional apps. I tend to doubt they get to integrate with the launcher in any meaningful way though.
Android TV did allow that, but they seem to want to be able to support things like a single playlist across the android Google TV app and the various new Google TV devices.
Disc: Googler.
Google TV seems to be the most complete solution now. Next to Apple TV and Shield.
Also I really don't enjoy the Roku Ads and feel like that's just going to get worse.
This sounds like typical Google where the development of this product and Stadia were so separated that they completely missed the huge opportunity. What a frustrating miss. Stadia has been advertising like crazy and you'd need to buy the EOL Chromecast Ultra to play on a TV and they'll miss one of their strongest cross-promotions going into the holiday season. They could have been undercutting PS5 and Series X with a $50 device that played the same AAA games with the Bluetooth controller you already own. This company is a zombie.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21494161/google-chromecas...
On top of that I really appreciate how efficient webOS seems to be. Since the apps are just HTML/JS the updates are very unobtrusive, sometimes downloading a few kilobytes only. Not at all the horror show that is Android app updates.
Not sure where to find the real product page.
Edit: Link: https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv
Chromecast is nearly perfect for me because I don't need to clutter my TV or a device with apps I could always just use my phone apps that already were logged into everything to play videos.
So I guess they are still upgrading and paying attention to older models ?
It is a rebranding and the new direction of Android TV. (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-merges-chrome...)
> “But while Android TV is the foundation of the new Chromecast, the whole experience feels very new. Because unlike TVs from Sony and set-top boxes from Nvidia and other brands that run the traditional version of Android TV, Google has created a new “Google TV” layer atop the operating system that completely replaces the old home screen experience.”
From https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21494298/chromecast-googl...
What’s unique about this? It sounds entirely underwhelming.
And I especially say that as someone who enthusiastically bought a Nexus Player, only to get rid off it a few weeks later.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
Chromecast with Google TV is more in line with Apple TV, FireTV, and the now discontinued Nexus TV.
How is this different?
Usually, the actual TVs that run Android are marketed as "Android TVs". It looks like streaming devices like Nvidia Sheild do so too when they're in fact not "Android TVs".
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=se.hedekonsult...