Chromecast now open to developers with the Google Cast SDK | Hacker News Reader

Chromecast now open to developers with the Google Cast SDK

googledevelopers.blogspot.com

417 pointspcarff252 comments

I love my Chromecast and use it extensively. This is what Miracast should have been, something that "just worked" and seamlessly interconnected devices.

But instead Miracast is yet another classic example of "death of committee" where tons of big media and hardware companies wanted to get their features and DRM in, and as a direct result we now have dozens of completely incompatible Miracast devices.

I think this table accurately sums of the Miracast issue: http://i.imgur.com/I2QmeZe.jpeg

And that is my experience too. Samsung works only with other Samsung "allshare" devices, Sony works only with other Sony "Xperia" devices, and so on.

Ironically my Samsung TV has a YouTube app which can almost act like a Chromecast built in, and that is the only reliable way to stream content to the thing. I've never been able to get Miracast on either the Samsung or Sony to work reliably (both 2013 models).

My only slight complaint right now about Chromecast is that I cannot stream from VLC but hopefully with the release of this SDK that might change in time.

PS - If Chromecast becomes popular this really will isolate Apple's iTunes video. Most other video providers/renters work with Chromecast (Hulu, Netflix, Play Store, et al), or with apps on your TV already. Apple is the only large digital content provider which wants to force us to buy their proprietary device ("Apple TV") to watch their proprietary content. It really does decrease the value for Apple's content. In fact I'm just not going to buy Apple's DRM-ed video anymore, as I have to plug in a HDMI cable to watch it on my TV.

I also use mine extensively. The interface for Netflix alone makes it worth it, even if you already have another device that works with netflix. I'm really excited to see what new apps, etc come out, now that my biggest complaint has been solved (no public api).

    Apple is the only large digital content provider which wants to force us to buy their proprietary device ("Apple TV") to watch their proprietary content. It really does decrease the value for Apple's content. In fact I'm just not going to buy Apple's DRM-ed video anymore, as I have to plug in a HDMI cable to watch it on my TV.

People said that about iTunes, no?

I'd argue that the long term future of iTunes isn't fantastic. Individual music companies (Spotify, Rdio) are providing better experiences than Apple can.

Really? I don't like spotify compared to iTunes. I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music. Once I buy it from iTunes, it's mine to use as I please, it's not locked up in some stupid custom DRM-laden app (which is fairly ironic).

I can't imagine locking myself into a service for the rest of my life in order to hear music.

But Spotify doesn't lock you into anything.

If I don't pay the monthly fee then I can't listen to albums on my phone. That's pretty much the definition of lock-in.

iTunes videos are DRM-ed

Yes, we're discussing music not video.

Out of curiosity, what have you been using your Chromecast for?

I have drunk the Apple Kool-Aid: I have iOS devices, AppleTVs, and a home server running iTunes. Admittedly, the iTunes server is serving video and music that is ripped from legitimately-acquired spinning-discs, so perhaps I haven't tasted the iTunes Store Kool-Aid.

I purchased a Chromecast right at launch. As far as I could tell, the only things it did well was Netflix and stream YouTube. However, for my purposes, the AppleTV was better at both, so I literally put the Chromecast in a drawer.

When someone announced a jailbreak for it, I took it out of the drawer, rooted it, fiddled with it some more, then put it back in the drawer when I realized I was just wasting my time.

I'm not trolling, here; I really want to know how you use it. Is it that is works better with Android devices? Is it providing a better, open, AirPlay alternative? I just don't understand how it is in any way more useful than existing STBs--if not the AppleTV then, e.g., a Roku.

Your friends with Android phones can't cast to Airplay, but they can cast to Chromecast.

Cast what though, beyond YouTube and Netflix?

Play Music & Movies, Pandora, Hulu, Chrome tabs, HBO Go, Plex...

See http://chromecast.com/apps for the current list.

I really only use Google Play, Netflix, YouTube and tab casting though.

I know what's available- I have one myself, I just don't ever use it. I don't have a Hulu Plus subscription, nor do I buy music/video through the Play Store. Chrome tab performance is weak at best.

I guess I'm just hoping for a lot more than what I have right now.

Chrome tab performance may be weak due to a slow router. I bought a newer Asus and it helped quite a lot. I can play youtube videos within a Chrome tab and it works perfectly well, even with the router several bedrooms away.

That's the reason to be excited about the SDK release, but honestly, regardless of the number of apps even available, I just don't use that many services that I want to stream to my TV. The current crop does pretty well. I would like to see the ability to throw a Flash object to the screen so I can play any embedded video, and I hope to see interesting games and ambient apps, but that's about the extent I can think of.

HBO Go and Plex are two apps I am using very frequently with my Chromecast... That gets me both external and locally stored content without a dedicated HTPC to play the media.

Plex has been a pleasant surprise to me...im wondering how the release of this api is going to improve the usability of it

With the opening of the SDK, presumably anything - even so far in the comments on this HN posting there are already few individuals who are happy their local media streaming servers can be published, and it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that VLC plugins or something similar are too far behind.

i use plex and netflix extensively and i use more youtube than i thought.

If you stream sports, chromecast is a godsend if you don't want to hook up your computer to the TV.

Are there places to stream sports with reasonable amount of content without being tied to a cable company ?

And does it increase cord cutting ?

legally and in high quality? not really. I wouldn't throw a superbowl party without tv access, but if you want to watch your favorite team when you otherwise can't, its definitely possible.

search.twitter.com

Team Name stream

By "cast," you mean "tell the Chromecast to fetch/display content", rather than "show streaming video of my device's screen"?

This is part of what I'm asking: I don't get the usage model. I prefer using the STB directly with a remote (and no other client device), or pushing the client device's screen to the STB. If you're saying that you use "tabcasting" (which I guess is remotely-directed Chromecast web surfing), then fine. It's not something I'd ever use, but I understand that the equivalent doesn't exist on other STBs.

Please don't get me wrong: I would prefer if there were an open AirPlay equivalent that Android and iOS devices supported at the OS level. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

No, you can also stream to the chromecast. e.g. Google's "cast tab". I use it to watch stuff off my plex server or hulu (don't have a hulu plus account).

> I prefer using the STB directly with a remote

The idea is that your phone (or tablet or laptop or whatever) becomes your remote. If you want to watch something on Netflix you pull the phone out of your pocket, launch your Netflix app, and then hit the Chromecast button to send the output to the TV. It's not a separate UI, just a separate destination for the video content you've already selected. For me, the simple fact of never having to hunt for a remote is enough to justify the $35.

On a technical level: what the chromecast is doing is simply streaming content from local devices on the Wifi LAN. It has no UI of its own and won't fetch content by itself. The codec suite is limited when compared to Android: it supports H.264 baseline, VP8, MP3 and AAC. And I believe the container must be either MP4 or WebM.

Yes, the fact that Apple TV doesn't work with non-Apple devices makes it a non-starter among those who don't exclusively buy Apple products in perpetuity.

So the question is Chromecast vs. other cross-platform TV solutions, like Roku. Roku does have it's own device-streaming but it only works with media on your device. I own both and use both, but lean towards the Roku more often as using the phone/tablet as a remote isn't significantly better than just using a remote, and I don't have to worry about what happens when the phone dies, or if I have it on a charger having to get up and walk to it when I need to pause the program.

I have three Roku-powered rooms in my house. I read about Chromecast's capabilities but I cannot find how it would serve me better than Roku. My needs are:

* Stream Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/HBO Go to the TV.

* Stream videos off my NAS, such as DVD rips, home movies, etc. (For this I use Plex.)

* Occasionally, stream movies and pictures I took with my phone to the TV.

* Very occasionally, stream live events, such as the New Years ball drop, or the World Cup.

* Have an interface that is easy enough to use by non-technical people.

Chromecast, at least on paper, seems to do these things markedly worse. I appreciate it's simplicity and I'd probably get one to play around with if I did not have the Roku players already, but so far, it seems like the shabbier streamer. A Roku 2 or a refurb Roku 3 is about twice the price of Chromecast, yet seems to deliver much more value and much less headache. So my question is the same as above: why use Chromecast at all?

I've got three Roku boxes in my house as well and I have to agree with all of your points. I got a Chromecast as a gift at Christmas and played with it but I really just don't see it as being better than the Roku with the exception of two fronts:

1. Price. It's just cheaper. About 40% the price of the latest Roku.

2. Development. Maybe this is a personal one for me. I keep wanting to work on a Roku Channel (app) but I really don't want to take the time to figure out their proprietary language.

For what it's worth, BrightScript is pretty much just Visual Basic. It did take me a bit to get used to their various 'screens' and events.

also a brightscript/roku dev here. There's a nice code color plugin for sublime you can use and it's a bearable platform to develop on. Definitely use the console to just send the debug build up to the device and start debugging. It's really not that bad. Probably took me about a day to get used to it.

Honestly, as long as you stick within their control schemes you're fine. Trying to break out of the roku app controls leads to a total nightmare so be weary of that trap ;)

I don't know how it is on the newer versions, but BrightScript was always very, very slow. Much slower than you would expect. Most of the time it never matters, since you are calling out to compiled object code that exports APIs for complex tasks, but when it matters, it matters. For example, implementing CRC32 (no built-in shift operators!), or minmax for game AI (for Reversi of all things, it's not like there's that many possible moves) always required heavy optimization to achieve performance that was near acceptable.

It always boggled my mind why they didn't just take a JS implementation and port it, but I guess it's hard to justify throwing away IP which already exists because of a prior product.

The engineers at Roku and the community were always great though.

There's a certain point of "good engineer's" career where they want to make their own language/vm. I'm 99% sure this is what happened here. It's always a train wreck.

They really should have used lua. It would have been very simple to put in and it's robust enough and efficient for small memory devices.

While I appreciate the power/flexibility/efficiency of js it is no where near as efficient as lua. Lua keeps things as ints until they aren't needed etc. Very much build for embedded systems almost. I'm probably biased in that I've worked on a lua VM for mobile handsets for a few years.

I own a Roku, and find it works great when you're laying down on your bed and want to watch a movie on Amazon/Netflix. However, for entertaining, the easy access to Google Play Music and the ability to cast Chrome tabs was the reason that I chose Chromecasts everywhere, and stuck with the Roku just where I want to watch Amazon movies.

I haven't tried it before but it seems the Roku app on iOS lets you stream music to the Roku player. In addition to that, many new home surround sound systems come with Bluetooth streaming capability, though then of course you have to keep the phone close enough to the stereo to not break the connection.

The difference I see is that remote-based streamers are better when you know what you want to watch. Push-from-device based streamers are better when you are just browsing and come across something interesting.

I don't think it's for someone who already has 3 Rokus...

> Yes, the fact that Apple TV doesn't work with non-Apple devices makes it a non-starter among those who don't exclusively buy Apple products in perpetuity.

That's factually false. I daily use an Apple TV with my Synology NAS, for instance. There are AirPlay streamers for Android and for Windows. The protocol has been fully reversed (besides the DRM bits).

Now, I'm not saying that this was the design of the protocol. Obviously Apple doesn't care less about 3rd-party compatibility. I'm just saying that it's false that Apple TV nowadays is limited to the Apple ecosystem.

Great, but none of the apps that people care about like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Plex, etc. are using a reversed-engineered Airplay on Android.

However, the first 3 you mentioned are already native "apps" on appletv.

My usage falls into three categories:

- Netflix (a lot) - Tab Casting (occasionally) - Youtube (very seldom)

I suspect that AppleTV would work better for everything except for the tab casting for me. Even with the current limitations, I don't know of another settop box that does that as effectively as the Chromecast.

Having said that, I have still been mostly disappointed with the device so far, as tab-casting has been basically the only free solution to local streaming so far. I am optimistic that this will change soon if the SDK is really open, though.

Screen mirroring on Apple TV works well, assuming, of course, that you're on a Mac and the OS lines up.

That's a very expensive assumption for most people

Poll's a little old, but most HN readers use OSX: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3786674

After the previous update I use mine to cast media from my PC to TV through Real Player Cloud. The app is crap though and files need to be n mp4 format. I am glad they finally opened p the SDK so I can make something more tailored for my needs.

Netflix, HBO GO and Google Play Music. That's almost all I watch/listen to anyway, the two exceptions being Amazon Prime video and Spotify music, neither of which are supported yet on the Chromecast.

I bought when it still came with 3 months of Netflix credits, making the effective cost around $10. It's well worth that to me just to be able to control the music while I'm sitting at the dinner table. For video, it's not as clear a gain. It's nicer to browser Netflix and HBO on my phone than on the (clunky) "Smart TV" apps of my TV, but I rarely watch video alone, and browsing on the TV means everyone can discuss the options, while browsing on my phone means only I am seeing them.

This is what I do with my Chromcasts:

1. Stream Netflix movies for myself and my child. My son can control Netflix easily with my Nexus 4 smart phone once I get the Chomcast connected.

2. Stream music from Google Play music. I pay $7.99 per month and can use my phone in my living room chromecast, my bedroom chromecast and my bluetooth enabled radios in the cars. Everywhere I go, my music can come with me.

3. I use it to cast Chrome tabs from my Macbook whenever I want to share pictures with families or show something interesting I've been working on to friends.

4. Whenever Netflix doesn't have a movie, I can sometimes find something on Google Play Movie.

I also own a Roku mainly because I find Amazon's movie selection to be vastly superior to what Netflix has to offer. I can usually find anything I want to watch on Amazon vs Netflix and Google Play Movies.

One feature I need/want from the Chromecast is the ability to view my phone's screen just like Miracast. I'm assuming they're still working on improving the reliability.

In order to properly stream content to the Chromecast, I had to upgrade my router to something that supported HD video streaming.

I played with Chromecast for about a couple weeks and just yesterday remembered I had totally forgotten about it. It's a typical Google product, released just after leaving Alpha state, marginally decent, of limited and disjointed utility, and generally poorly executed. Judging based on Google's history with, literally every single thing they have done, we are approaching peak internal support and attention with declining marginal focus and development. I expect Chromecast to languish and atrophy within this year.

...

"Hey, anyone want to watch a movie together? ... Ok, you guys just sit there in silent and awkward anticipation while you look at me flipping through various apps on my personal device." Google —— Please, someone explain what this "social" thing means

Funny scenario, but I can imagine. This is also my concern along with the rest of the things. Can we anticipate that we have so many apps installed on our phone and keep looking for the one we need to control every time? Especially, we'll buy every "thing" with an Android or ChromeOS or iOS on it for a price more than $100?

> Can we anticipate that we have so many apps installed on our phone and keep looking for the one we need to control every time?

Total tangent, but I've come to depend on the Android app Conjure[1], which acts kind of like Mac's Spotlight search for apps. You can type in a full app name, or show all apps that contain the letters you type in in that order, even if you skip letters (e.g. searching for "cre" would bring up ChRomE").

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iojess.con...

"Hey, anyone want to watch a movie together?"

Everyone pulls out their phones to flip through Netflix to make suggestions. You all agree on a movie and then someone hits play. Done.

What are you even talking about "social".

I mean social, as in pre-Facebook social, you know, >1 person interacting and engaging with each other, their environment, and sharing an experience in the real world, e.g., looking at the same screen, seeing the same thing, implicitly sharing their mutual interests through queues like "click on the details for {movie title}, I would like to see what it's about". I know it's confusing that I didn't mention pushing each movement and thought to Twitter and Facebook and Tumblr, but there used to be a time when social meant a singular level interaction between humans within physical proximity to each other.

Your rebuttal does nothing to improve my original point. You and all those around you are digging in their phones doing things unseen by everyone else, and also maybe even excluding those who do not have a device, or even just haven't downloaded that specific app.

I have a perfect solution to bridge that gap. But that's for another time.

One yet unrealized advantage of ChromeCast over AppleTV is that it has an open API available which developers can use to extend it to do more creative things. And the client support isn't limited to Apple only device - web, Android, iOS, desktop everything is supported as a client.

Besides it's only $35 and it works well.

Casting youtube to my TV, slides for presentations, casting tabs from my browser to watch various streaming video services.

It's not fancy, but it's unbelievably cheap and just works.

The model of using your phone as your impromptu remote is awesome. I can't wait to see what apps support it in the future.

Chromecast has the really nice advantage of the fact that when friends or family visit they can cast THEIR content to your TV without needing to sign in to your STB.

How is that an advantage over the Apple ecosystem? When I visit my parents I can stream random stuff to their Apple TV or their Airport Expresses without doing anything besides getting on the WiFi network.

Friends or family don't need to have bought into the Apple ecosystem.

Ok, but they need to have bought into the Google ecosystem. I can't stream from my favorite music app to a Chromecast...

That's not really an advantage.

Uh, no, that's not true at all. Chromecast works with Netflix, Pandora, etc... None of which are part of the "Google ecosystem". And you can cast from just about every device.

As someone who works day-in and day-out with Miracast devices, you're a little bit off. The problem isn't really with features and DRM leading to incompatibility. The HDCP portion of Miracast is pretty straightforward and isn't often the problem. The problem (as seen with the charts) is manufacturers that are sorta-kinda-using Miracast but not really. For example the Samsung AllShare devices were never advertised as Miracast capable, but they happen to work (sometimes). Same with the HTC Media Link. Customers get these dongles or TVs and expect it to work with other Miracast devices, even though they aren't really Miracast. Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are.

The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast, but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming. For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now). Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better.

> Give the standard 2014, 2015 and let's see where we are.

People said exactly the same thing about Miracast in 2013 and 2012. We still aren't anywhere with it. It is more broken than it is working, it is a giant mess.

> The Chromecast comparison is really a bad one - yes you can tabcast

You can fullscreen cast.

> but really it is designed around a "send this URL to play" experience which is much much easier to accomplish than real-time streaming.

Except for the tab casting and full screen casting..?

> For the real-time streaming, you only have a single sink device to worry about and it only works on desktops (for now).

You're strangely contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge that tab casting is a thing,then you pretend that tab casting isn't something it does and use that as justification for Miracast's superiority? Very confusing.

Also "only have a single sink device" is total gibberish. Even assuming the word "sync" it is still nonsense, both Miracast and Chromecast only support a single device on either end (sender and receiver).

PS - Chromecast works with other devices. It isn't just desktops. People already made apps that could send a full Android "desktop" to the Chromecast back in the early days before Google killed it with an update. I'm sure it will return with the release of this SDK.

> Your surface area is much smaller, so of course interop is going to be better.

It is an identical surface area between the two.

> "only have a single sink device"

I'm sure the OP was referring to source (sender) and sink (receiver) devices. And more specifically that the only current sink device is the Chromecast dongle.

That isn't accurate. The YouTube app on several TVs (e.g. Samsung) can receive Chromecast streams.

I've also noticed recently that I can cast to my PS3 from the Chromecast icon in the YouTube app, so long as the PS3 YouTube app is running. I see it alongside my chromecast as an option. Presumably, the PS3 Netflix app behaves the same way.

That isn't a Chromecast stream. It is an open standard called DIAL (http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/)

Specifically, only Tab casting/full screen casting works to Chromecast. Go ahead and cast your tab/screen to your Samsung TV. I'll wait.

Just as a gee whiz, DIAL is also what is used to send video from the NetFlix phone app to the NetFlix PS3 app.

Correct, thanks.

> You can fullscreen cast.

Since when? Source?

Basically since the Chromecast was released.

The Chromecast came out on July 24, 2013, and several dozen articles note the feature before the end of July (26-28th). Just click the little down arrow on the Chromecast button (part of the Chromecast extension) then "Cast entire screen (experimental)."

July 26th, 2013: http://www.droid-life.com/2013/07/26/tip-chromecast-can-cast...

July 26th, 2013: http://www.androidauthority.com/chromecast-share-entire-desk...

July 27th, 2013: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2380302

July 26th, 2013: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1j3sd1/chromecast_c...

Oh my god, I can't believe I missed that...

Does this mean I can stream any app and my desktop or just a full screen chrome window?

Unfortunately (at least for me) it seems like it doesn't work via LAN, but somehow uses Internet connection to stream to somewhere and then back, kinda sucks and slow

Full screen streaming works beautifully for me, it's how my wife and I watch Amazon Prime movies. It's just like watching TV. I've read that the computer needs to encode the video it's streaming to the chromecast, so if your computer is slow, the streaming will be slow. That may be why you were getting poor results.

You can stream any app and your desktop, yes.

>People said exactly the same thing about Miracast in 2013 and 2012. We still aren't anywhere with it. It is more broken than it is working, it is a giant mess.

I'm glad your time-machine is working and you've experienced the 2015 ecosystem.

>You're strangely contradicting yourself. First you acknowledge that tab casting is a thing,then you pretend that tab casting isn't something it does and use that as justification for Miracast's superiority? Very confusing.

I'm not pretending tab casting isn't a thing. What I mean by "sink" is a device that receives the stream. Chromecast can do this because it controls both ends, the software you install on Chrome and the Chromecast device (the sink). Your surface area for testing and coverage is much smaller, vs a standard that is in hundreds of devices. Even then the feature is still not on mobile devices officially and is experimental.

>PS - Chromecast works with other devices. It isn't just desktops. People already made apps that could send a full Android "desktop" to the Chromecast back in the early days before Google killed it with an update. I'm sure it will return with the release of this SDK.

Yes, I've used Koush's Allcast app and it is nice. I'm not saying it won't happen (Android to Chromecast) - it will. But still you aren't getting what I'm saying here - there is only one target device you have to build for (Chromecast) not hundreds of TVs, BluRay players, and dongles.

>It is an identical surface area between the two.

I mean test and interop surface area. It is surely not identical. Your test matrix for Chromecast is n. For Miracast it is n^2. That is the real problem. Not your straw man about "DRM"

> here is only one target device you have to build for (Chromecast) not hundreds of TVs, BluRay players, and dongles.

Just chiming in, Google actually has plan to work with TV makers to integrate Chromecast technology into future smart TVs, and hopefully other peripheral devices too.

So you're saying that the chromecast (created by google) works well with android (created by google) and chrome (created by google)? And you love this, because it's so much better than Miracast where Samsung only works with Samsung, Sony only works with Sony, etc?

I agree it's a shame that a standard like Miracast has incompatible implementations. However, creating another protocol just makes that situation even worse.

Netflix on iOS works well with the Chromecast.

Johnle - Indeed. It works better with Chromecast than Netflix on Android in my experience!

I wish I could be in this club. Instead Netflix/Chromecast will complain, more often than not, about not being able to stream content. The only workaround seems to be to perform a factory reset and even that is temporary.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromebook-central/oYV...

http://www.ibtimes.com/chromecast-update-refreshes-google-do...

It's a lot easier for things to "just work" when one company controls the entire stack.

That being said, as others have pointed out, ChromeCast and Miracast solve different problems. One is something more of a Wireless DLNA solution while the other is real-time streaming.

I'm trying to figure out why my Chromecast's video sucks so badly. On my 1080p HDMI TV the pictures it uses look great but if I try to cast something to it, it looks like badly scaled crap. I selected "hyper high res" mode or what ever they called it which helped but many it still looks pretty crappy.

I've had the entirely opposite experience here. Miracast just works for me. I have the Netgear receiver and I've used it with several different phones - Samsung, HTC, and LG. In fact, I know your chart is wrong because my LG Nexus 4 works fine with it.

Meanwhile Chromecast is a joke. It doesn't work at work because our employee network requires a username and password and our guest network requires a click through agreement. It doesn't work at the hotels I stay at because again, they have a click through agreement. It works about half the time on personal WiFI APs where the person wasn't security conscience enough to turn on client isolation. The thing is nearly useless for me.

Miracast uses WiFi Direct so works trouble free and lag free. Chromecast is some bizarre crappy second computer that has to connect to the network, but has very little capability to actually connect in the real world.

I made my local video transcoder server and browser to play any kind of video on the Chromecast, it was working real good, now I can publish it (was not allowed before)

I'd love to see a link when you publish it!

I think a lot of people would find this very useful. Could you post the link on this thread along with submitting it on HN?

There have been some changes on the API, I need to look onto it.

I have made my application public: https://github.com/mustafaakin/cast-localvideo

Plex (https://plex.tv/) was the magic bullet that unlocked the potential of my Chromecast. I can only recommend it and am looking forward what other applications that come out now ill make it even more useful.

Does it work with subtitles?

It does have the option to hard encode subtitles when it is converting media and there is subtitle options available but I have never used either of those features.

Yes, but it takes a while to get set up right. I think this will make it work:

https://forums.plex.tv/index.php/topic/90563-roku-not-playin...

Plex is so awesome, I can't properly describe it. I've subscribed to the PlexPass simply to show my appreciation to the developers. For me, it's Plex + a Roku 3 though.

What are you doing with Plex + Chromecast that expands the capabilities of a Chromecast?

I can stream my library of videos (no Netflix etc. here in Switzerland) from any of my devices to my Chromecast.

Chromecast is missing one thing, imho: a controller for my kids.

I'm not giving my kids the Nexus 7 every time they want to watch something on the TV screen. The Chromecast suddenly goes from a $35 to a $235 device. Instead I have a uHost android-stick that uses an accelerometer-based airmouse... it's not good, but it works and cost me $50.

I keep waiting for Google to complete the Nexus line with a bare-bones 4" low-quality phoneless device for kids - an answer to the iPod.

How about use an older Android phone with the sim pulled?

Phones without SIMs can still call 911...

Not if you disable the dialer and replace the lock screen.

Sounds less like a technical issue and more like a parenting one.

Plus having another way to dial 9-11 from the living room could be good if you don't have a land-line.

You've obviously never given a toddler a cellphone to play a video. They'll find a way to do it, so you have to watch them like a hawk. For older kids, this is less of a problem.

On the other hand, they can use the AppleTV remote quite easily without much worry. So, the lack of a viable (dedicated) remote for the Chromecast is an issue for some.

For us, I have an AppleTV in the living room that the kids can use, but a Chromecast in the bedroom that only my wife and I use. Although, I have had a problem before where my 3 year old figured out how to tell Netflix on an iPad to play a movie to our Chromecast. She had no idea why her movie wouldn't play and got very frustrated!

> They'll find a way to do it, so you have to watch them like a hawk.

I'm curious why this wasn't really a problem when we had landlines in our houses. Is it just because these devices are a lot more fun to play with than phones were and the kid eventually dials 911 accidentally?

No, it's because there's usually an emergency call button of some kind (so the towers can route your call based on location, iirc), you're not actually entering the sequence "911". No touchtone phone I've seen has a big red "911" autodial button.

Also, the devices are used for entertainment, even if you did give a toddler a touchtone phone as a toy, you'd disconnect it from the line.

The emergency call button brings up a standard dialer keypad. It does not dial 911 for you. It would be crazy if it did, since emergency numbers vary wildly by locale.

Could be useful for travelers, so I guess fear of butt dials/kid dials must be the reason it isn't implemented.

Here in the UK, our emergency number is 999. Or you can dial 112, as that's the European standard, and we'd be daft not to implement it even if we hadn't agreed to do so. Alternatively, try dialling 911, which I understand also works and which was introduced to help children who grew up with US TV.

In any case, the phone won't actually dial the number even if you do type it in -- if you dial what it thinks is an emergency number, it initiates the emergency call setup, which is what lets you dial without a SIM and on a different providers' network. So a dedicated button is all that's required.

This does mean that there's a possibility that my phone and the PSTN disagree over what constitutes an emergency network, but as the phone gets its numbers from the SIM, which comes from my provider, which is regulated by the same people as make the rules for the PSTN, it seems likely that all the options will work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_telephone_number

Where on earth did you get that idea? I've never owned a smartphone with a button like that.

Should be possible to do a custom build without support for the phone part. I've never tried this, but based on the fact that some early Cynaogen ports (As far as I can recall) didn't support dialling via the phone, it should be possible to create a build without the drivers/blobs for enabling the phone part?

For $55 you can get a Chinese android phone(and there are new chips that might take the price down to $35). Google can't reduce this price any further.

I'm curious about these $55 Android phones, what are they called? Also what are the new chips that could bring them down to $35? Even just the names would be enough to point me in the right direction and would be appreciated.

When the question is "where can I find suppliers of generic Chinese ________?", the answer is always "Alibaba".

http://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-android-phone.html?Sea...

Do they actually just let you order now? I know for the longest time most of the stuff there you could only just send and "inquery" and they'd ignore you if you were looking to just buy a single unit of something. I usually hit DX.Com for "I want something cheap and Chinese and partially-functional".

Yes, that's basically what AliExpress is -- Alibaba wholesalers willing to ship as few as 1 unit.

Phone(Malata I60 ) [1], chip [2].

[1] http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-Malata-I60-Android-4-1-Dual-Core-M...

[2] http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=13208...

You can get a Kyocera Rise (ICS) from Amazon for $35.

That's what I mean. Get a Google-blessed phoneless version of one of these things - something like a Galaxy Discover or other crappy 3.5" phones but without the anemic processor or pointless rear-camera.

Call it the Nexus 3, sell it for $100 - same price point as the iPod Nano, but with actual wifi and a real OS instead of being a pure media player. Sell a nice little boxed set at Costco of a Nexus 3, ChromeCast and a charging dock for the Nexus 3 device at Costco for like $140.

Why does it need to be phoneless? Just don't put a SIM in it

Sounds like there may be a market opportunity for a simple chromecast remote...

Personally, I'd just like to have a way to use my Logitech Harmony Remote with Chromecast.

FWIW, the Moto G comes pretty close to this. A lot of the cheap Android tablets do as well.

Unfortunately the Moto G still a phone. It can still make emergency (911) calls without a SIM card. There's no way to disable that functionality, even in the various Android distros.

You can disable the dialer and lock screen (or use a lock screen replacement from the Play Store).

I have never encountered a lock screen replacement that actually replaced the lock screen. I've seen some that run in front of it, but every time they'd just pass off to the real thing.

Disabling the dialer does not disable emergency dialing as far as I could tell.

The only way to dial emergency numbers is through the dialer or the lock screen. If you disable both then you can't dial emergency numbers. Then, if you still want to lock your screen you can use a third-party app.

You could see 911 calls as a feature. What if you are knocked unconscious and your kid has to dial 911? the new 'remote' could be a bonus emergency phone.

You can turn off radio by going into an airplane mode, then enabling Wi-fi. At least that's how I use my Galaxy Nexus as a media player after I got my Nexus 5. (and same method works for Nexus 5, so I'm assuming it'd also work on Moto G...)

Cheapest iPod touch (229$) is more expensive than a MotoG.

Also remember that the controller doesn't need to be an Android device. You could actually get an iPod Touch (perhaps a used one) for this. Or a used / refurbished first gen Nexus 7?

The Chromecast supports HDMI CEC in order to turn on the TV and switch inputs, so I don't understand why it doesn't support allowing the TV remote to control the Chromecast. Most TVs support CEC, and HDMI sources can request to be sent the TV remote button press events.

You couldn't control everything the chromecast can do with simple controls, such as selecting which content to play.

That said you could pause, rewind, fast forward, and unpause, I suppose. But you'd still need some other device to select content.

buy your kids a under $50 android tablet and keep the Nexus 7 away from them!

any machine running chrome works.

Grab a roku instead. If i'm on my nexus 7 i can cast to the roku using plex, netflix, or youtube (and probably others, but i'm in canada so my streaming service selection is a little limited). It's the exact same experience as using my roommate's chromecast. And Roku has a standalone remote that can be used instead of a smartphone/tablet/computer.

Have you considered a really cheap android Tablet. I've seen some at wal-mart for right at 50 Dollars. I'm sure its not a very good tablet. but if all you are doing is using it to throw content to the chromecast it would probably get the job done.

Anyone know if the API is powerful enough to let you build an app that can project video and have it play synced audio via headphones connected to the controlling device? Being able to listen to the audio via remote headphones is a killer feature of the Roku 3 IMHO and I would love it if I could do this via my chromecast as well.

(Yes, I am aware that the Chromecast typically plays buffered video from the video source without running data through the controlling device and that having synced audio running on the device therefore is contrary to the design. I'm asking whether this limitation is surmountable by clever programming against the API.)

I haven't looked into the API in-depth, but I can imagine some (fairly hackish) ways to accomplish this that wouldn't require much support from the native API. I hope someone does it.

You can send messages back and forth from the receiving app running on the Chromecast and the sending device, so theoretically you could so such a thing if the (fairly small but not insignificant) latencies involved aren't a problem.

That'd be easy enough even before the release of the SDK - open the video on the Chromecast, audio on the sender app, use the websocket connection between them to keep them in sync, Bob's your uncle.

Making it so that you only downloaded the video on the Chromecast and the audio on the sender app would be a little more difficult, but not insurmountable.

How does the Chromecast work for someone like me that has their movie collection stored on a NAS? I currently use XBMC in my living room, but for the bedroom I'd love to have something like the Chromecast if I could use it to stream content (MKV, x264) from my NAS plus maybe some Netflix/Pandora. Is that possible with the Chromecast?

If not, does this SDK open up more possibilities for playing local content vs. streaming?

Plex Media Center.

NOTE: Requires MONTHLY FEE to enable streaming to ChromeCast

You only have to be a paid Plex supporter for early access. This will be a free feature soon.

Plexpass is only $29.99 a year or $74.99 lifetime.

Personally I think everyone using Plex on a daily basis should be a paying member and support future development.

Or a one time $75 payment.

I grabbed an app called "Avia" which will do streaming of local-to-the-device content. Chromecast support is a $3 in-app (i.e. per-device, not per-account) purchase once you download the app, which is itself free.

It works. Note that the chromecast has very limited codec/container support, so lots of my library has to be transcoded.

Does it/can it work headless? It would be great if it had a nice interface on the phone and could send my NAS content to the Chromecast.

It has no "head" to begin with, so yes it works headless.

http://elan.plexapp.com/2013/12/06/plex-on-the-chromecast-it...

Not a free option but Plex, the commerical spin off of XBMC, does this now.

They have publicly said it would be free in the future at some point. The intro period is just paid only.

This app[1] for android is being updated to add support for chromecast, and from what I remember by checking the SDK it is quite simple to do as well, something like preparing an HTML5 video page and sending the link to play.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.koushikdut...

I've been patiently waiting for an XBMC tie in. I've tried PLEX, but IMO it doesn't compare to the experience that I get with XBMC.

I think it will require the XBMC community to embrace it and push it in. I'm not sure if they could do this via a skin, if we'll have to wait for an XBMC release after Gotham, or if someone will figure a way to have Chromecast act as a second monitor.

Any of those and I feel that my home media center will be complete, but until then I'm stuck waiting.

I'd be interested to see what comes out, but the strength of the chromecast is the ability to browse and such and your phone, and just click a button to instruct the chromecast to play certain content. I'm not sure it makes sense to replicate the xbmc interface on your TV - it's not really inline with what the chromecast is trying to do.

More apps should be on their way now that the SDK is officially released, here's one demo from 6 months ago sending XBMC files, browsed via upnp, to Chromecast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neLkKbfl42E&feature=youtube_...

Oh man, all I can imagine is a party game played with Google Glass and Chromecast. This could be fun.

Only one client can be connected at a time as far as I could see. That limits the gaming part.

You'd just have one computer/server/Glass connect to the Chromecast, and the other Glass units connect to that.

Glass + Hangouts + Chromecast?

Perfect. That's the same number of people that have google glass.

Perfect. That's the same number of people that come to my parties.

Having a Me Party? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE8CdH6fdE

afaik, the youtube, netflix, etc, apps actually connect to a server, not the device. so you could easily have all the devices connect to a webserver, only one would need to tell the comcast to start that webpage...

Which would seem like a better design in general, since this is just a streaming device, correct?

It actually supports multiple senders connected to the same receiver simultaneously. Some apps already use this so you can control the receiver from different phones.

I don't think that's correct. Multiple devices can queue videos using the YouTube app with the Chromecast.

In the case that one client can be connected to the receiver (I don't know enough to know if this is a correct assumption), the receiver acts on content that is streamed to it. If other people playing the same game, pushed their interactions to a server that also is serving the receiver, the receiver's content would be updated with all the players interactions. Clients could be updated with pubsub socket connections, and the receiver has a stream from the server. I bet there is good potential for gaming with Chromecast.

<inigo>Party</inigo>

Werewolf could be a lot of fun with Glass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)

Open? GFY. There's nothing open about it. https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/terms

2.4 Your application may be de-registered by Google with or without notice at Google's sole discretion including, but not limited to, for violation of these Terms. If you have any questions or concerns regarding such a de-registration, you may contact us at https://developers.google.com/cast/support/

If Chromecast supported Amazon Video, I'd probably use it more than my HTPC.

You can tab cast Amazon Instant Video from Chrome. I've been successfully using it for months.

The downside, though, is that the video is still playing on the laptop simultaneously.

Yes, but you can dim down the LCD and the audio is piped to the chromecast. It's a 'hack', but it does work.

And devouring your battery as it does so. Native Amazon Video support is a must-have for me to use it full-time.

tab casting is (still) not supported in linux

I tab cast in Linux fine.. needed the latest build of Chrome at the time currently running 27.0.1453.12 dev.

Indeed. After the Ethernet port, Amazon Instant Video and Slingplayer are the two use cases that make Google TV better than Chromecast for me (and there's always CheapCast, I suppose).

I would love minecraft to have this feature. My son is always making me watch him on Minecraft. It would be so cool to have him just cast it to the television.

You can already cast your computer screen.

How? I only know of Chrome tab casting.

In Chrome, click the cast icon, then the little arrow at the top and choose "Cast entire screen (experimental)".

http://i.imgur.com/0XfrYuH.png

It doesn't work super well, but it's there.

I'm still not seeing docs on how to send content to Chromecast without using the Android, IOS, or Chrome APIs for doing so. Pointers? How would I build a commandline app to send content to Chromecast, for example?

(see the list under Components: https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/developers)

Oh man, here comes CrunchyRoll and all the other anime streaming websites. Netflix's & Amazon's anime collection is about to be put to shame. Also, I'd really like it if the developers behind KeyholeTV[1] would get on board. Maybe I should write it...

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KeyHoleTV

drooling for crunchyroll support

Weird, I'm a registered ChromeCast developer and didn't get an email. Did any other developers get one?

I've just got the email.

I haven't gotten any email yet.

I'll point out that while the article touts its "blazing-fast Intel Core-i7", the likely reason that they chose an i7 is not that it is blazing-fast, but because currently, generally speaking[1], the i7 line is the only one that includes IRIS graphics, which is an IGP that is pedestrian by the standards of discreet GPUs, but quite impressive in terms of integrated graphics solutions. While all of the i7 processors that contain IRIS graphics are very fast from a compute perspective, that's not likely the reason they chose Intel's premium line.

That is to say, the i7 is still a compromise in performance, but has the great advantage of having pretty good graphics (which they need for high def video streaming) without requiring a huge discreet GPU, which in turn allows for a very small overall package. I'm not saying that it's a bad tradeoff, actually I recently bought a laptop that makes this exact tradeoff, but I think that it's a little bit intentionally disingenuous to tout its top end CPU performance when it's likely that this was only a secondary or tertiary factor for choosing this CPU.

I know it's marketing, and of course they're going to put i7 on the front of the tin because it's associated with premium-ness. Just pointing out why in this case it's kinda BS.

[1] Apple managed to convince Intel to integrate IRIS graphics into i5 branded processors for the late-2013 Macbook Pros, but it's the only place that I've seen non i7 line processors with IRIS.

The biggest deal breaker for Chromecast is that it only supports 2.4Ghz, which makes it unusable for most people who live in apartment buildings where 2.4GHz is mostly congested these days.

Great - now maybe they can get Google+ Photos castable...really annoying that I can't push videos from Google+ but instead have to move them to Youtube.

The sdk looks nice, but there's certain requirements, like putting the chromecast icon on EVERY screen off the app that is a little bit of a turnoff.

It's not a Chromecast specific icon, it's intended to be used to select which output device to use from a list. This is mentioned in the FAQ where it's referred to as the "Cast" icon.

I agree this might be nice for certain apps, say the Youtube app, where the whole purpose of the app is to show video to the user.

I write a bunch of apps right now that have the ability to show video has one of the many functions of the app. Having to put an icon like this on every screen would take up a lot of screen real estate and I think confuse a lot of our users.

As someone who uses a Chromecast, always having the cast icon is a big plus. Yeah, it takes up real estate. But having to go digging in options to start the cast would defeat the one-click simplicity.

I used to love my Chromecast. It was one of those "it just works" pieces of technology. Unfortunately, after it auto-updated, it now has a bug where it will disconnect from WiFi after 30 minutes. Anyone know of a fix or has seen this behaviour before?

I got Chromecast in December and it has never "just worked" for me, ever. It always has a very hard time finding the Chromecast, so trying to start up a video on my tv takes several minutes. I'm ready to ditch the entire thing and get a Roku, because my experience with the Chromecast has always been really terrible.

Nice to know I'm not the only one. It does not get along with my router (WNDR3700). It will only connect after rebooting the router and even then devices can't always find it when it's connected.

Even when I did get it to work, it would bog down a lot.

I see this behavoir and I'm betting its an overheating problem. It only happens to me while streaming video

Out of curiosity, how are you powering yours?

Over the USB port on my TV, but I've also powered it with a wallwart

That'll be great. Currently there are services like Amazon instant video,Vimeo, Rdio, Spotify, Put.io are not on chromecast. They usually have Smart TV apps but Chromecast can be the new de facto of TV app development.

Amazon still don't even have an Android app, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

I believe that's intentional. They have a kindle fire app.

Intentional, but a pretty short-sited plan in my mind. Makes Amazon Video useless to me.

Especially as they do have an iOS app. Not making an Android one because you have a competing tablet that happens to share the same underlying OS is a weird strategy.

Waiting for Amazon instant video. For my usage that is the only thing missing.

Plex, however, is on Chromecast.

And works VERY well, I started using the Chromecast over my AppleTV with Plex and I quite like it. PlexConnect is nice and I still use it on the upstairs TV but I feel like I'm having to restart PlexConnect once a week because it crashes or something goes wrong and the Chromecast just works. That said PlexConnect is awesome and you should check it out if you have an AppleTV (No jailbreak required).

"VERY well" is debatable. I found that much of my media seemed to require on the fly transcoding to play (disappointing), and subtitles didn't work well. Performance was often poor as well for higher bitrate source material.

In addition, your chromecast MUST be connected to the internet to play anything (not just local lan, must have actual internet access). Maybe they are planning on version2 showing ads when nothing else is playing or something. Who knows.

My chromecast now sits unused in some drawer somewhere.

I'm a big fan of both the Chromecast and Plex. However, if you browse the Plex store reviews there are a ton of people complaining about needing the Plex Pass to stream to Chromecast. Part of me wants to be mad that they're "double dipping" charging $5 for the app and then the Plex Pass on top of it. The other feels guilty that they're already providing a fantastic desktop media server for free, and I feel like a greedy jerk.

Thankfully the Plex app will not require the Plex Pass soon.

For what it's worth, the app is free if you are a PlexPass subscriber.

Not free for iPhone though?

Excellent news. I own a Chromecast, but I feel that it's overly hyped.

There isn't a lot of content that I would want on my TV. For me, it would be good for showing videos/pictures to a group of people. But I don't see much use beyond that. Maybe it's me. I'm an odd guy.

It would be really cool if Android could add support for mirroring the screen via Chromecast. That way, the end users wouldn't have to wait for individual developers to add support for Chromecast; they could see on a TV exactly what they see on their screen, and in the same quality.

Now how about a Chromecast w/ dual-band networking or, even better, an ethernet port? The 2.4ghz band is next to useless in high density environments like my Brooklyn apartment.

Anyone that has looked into the SDK - is it possible for other manufacturers to create their own Chromecast device, and embed it in their TV, or other device?

I'm not entirely sure, but I think so, I remember someone saying that it was already possible with some models of an LG tvs. I think it's called the DIAL protocol.

Other manufacturers can add the software to their device, in cooperation with google.

I have a WDTV Live, and it comes up in the list of devices on the YouTube app on my Android phone.

You can (and many tv and STB manufacturers already have) implement the DIAL protocol[1] to make your device show up in the list of targets to cast to.

[1] http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/

Can I use my own photographs for the idle screens yet? I looked through the docs briefly, but everything seemed focused on video (which I guess makes sense).

I really want this feature too. When I'm browsing Youtube videos, I get so sick of Felecia Day's face.

Are you able in to interact with the content cast to 2nd screen? eg. I send a image gallery, can I browse through it using my cast sender? I assume not.

Yes, sender and reciever has a bi-directional communication channel, you can do whatever you want.

Correct. Think of a virtual webwebsocket: https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/reference/receiver/c...

The sender is written for any of the platforms supported (iOS, Android, Chrome) and the receiver in javascript.

Nice! thx.

Seriously, this is about bloody time. I cannot believe how long we've had to wait for the public SDK to get released.

It's like going to a meal at a restaurant and every member of your party is served 2 or 3 hours apart.

Here's a video about the announcement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJItrPj7Ivk

It's interesting to me how entitled people feel to get a public SDK. Presumably there was a reason that Google chose to not release it until now; the usual reason is that Google doesn't want people building apps on unstable APIs, because that means a bad experience for both consumers and developers. I'm personally happy that they spent the time to actually make the SDK solid.

The problem is that it makes for a crap product roll-out. If you remember the Chromecast announcement, the SDK was presented as coming imminently.

It really wasn't cool when they selected preferred providers to be the only ones allowed to release anything built with the SDK. This weird limbo period really pissed lots of early buyers off.

>the usual reason is that Google doesn't want people building apps on unstable APIs

But they let lots of preferred groups build apps. Very complex ones, not just the the simple "put my photos on my TV" apps even. The SDK has obviously been in good shape for months.

AND THEN they simply broke their initial Netflix promise because it was simply too popular.

It was clear from some of the early experiments with the SDK that it was "good" enough for many early apps. And if later improvements showed up, then that's great.

Back before December, they made another announcement that made it sound like it was going to be out any day. And then it slipped and slipped some more. Just release it and say it's beta. After all it's Google and most of the stuff they ship is barely better than a beta anyway.

The problem is that a chosen few got help to put their apps on there and be first-to-market, while everyone else was left in the dark with no documentation and not even an expectation of when the SDK would be released. Up until today it supported a tiny subset of what it claimed - MPEG-DASH playback had to be done via dash.js, which can't even run smoothly on the device, SmoothStreaming playback was completely impossible unless you rolled a complete HTML5 player from scratch using MSE.

Meanwhile, the Netflix app isn't even a proper HTML5 app - it's literally flashed onto every device sold and opened via a command. The Hulu app's player is named "chromekey_player.js" so presumably they were able to start before the Chromecast was even called the Chromecast.

While Google are under no obligation to provide an even playing field, it wasn't a great start for the platform - hopefully things will be better now.

Fantastic! Now please sell it to Canadians!

You can get one for about $14 CAD extra at Amazon.ca: http://www.amazon.ca/Google-Chromecast-Streaming-Media-Playe...

So what would it take to create a simple static screen buffer in a linux app and display it on the Chromecast?

I'm curious about this too, it says Chrome OS but nothing about Linux in general.

I was on the fence before, but this seals the deal. At its price point it's a no-brainer now.

Sure would be cool if there was a way to make URLs, e.g., 3:20, linked in YouTube videos. That would be such a cool feature; you know, now having to manually type a URL from a video into an address bar. That would be innovation that Google is known for.

Now all it needs is HDMI pass through and it will be a wonderful little device.

I enjoy that it can quickly switch to my Chromecast stream, but once I am finished with whatever YouTube video I am watching I want to just as easily go back to the previous video input.

My issue with Chromecast is it isn't supported on all Chromebooks.

My primary machine is a Chromebook (Acer C720). I tabcast and screencast and all that jazz and it tends to work great unless I'm trying to push HD video. Knocking it down to 480p at the tabcast side lets it work fine.

Nice to see that they've made the Android sender apps dependent on Google Play Services rev 15, but not actually released that yet.

Guess I'll keep on waiting for the _actual_ release.

Is it possible to cast something not screen on your device? In other words, is it possible to project one thing on the TV while showing something else on the casting device?

Yes, that is the way most apps work. Netflix for example shows the video on your Chromecast and the controller interface on your phone. You can leave the app and the video will continue to play.

What I don't get is why Chromecast isn't merely an Android app? There are plenty of HDMI-out capable android devices already...

About time, having only a few apps has been ridiculous. Avia and Plex have been making a lot of money from their monopoly position.

Chromecast never hit the UK market, now I have an LG Smart TV with everything built in.

They missed the boat for me.

When will it ship to Canada ? I just tried buying a chromecast on amazon and it wont let me.

when Chromecast first launched some enterprising individuals found an undocumented API (?) that allowed them to stream whatever content they wanted. Google promptly pulled that functionality with an update. Does this bridge said gap?

What's always bugged me is why is there no Chrome browser on the Chromecast?

Now i can play games on tv this is great news.cant wait for apps to be out.

IT'S HAPPENING

No NDK love it seems.

Now if Chromecast just didn't suck so horribly. I mean, who doesn't like blurry resolution and dropped connections.

Maybe your Chromecast has a weak WiFi connection? Try moving it a bit with an HDMI extender (one comes in the box with it).

The Chromecast can do 1080p and full quality audio. It's not a limitation of the device.

One, how the heck did I end up with a negative score for my comment? Didn't even know that was possible.

Two, granted, the fuzzy content usually clears up somewhat nicely after a few seconds of progressive reconstruction of the stream, but am I the only one that has noticed rather striking image quality issues? So it's technically "1080p" but if that image has been optimized and compressed and is washed-out looking, which I find is the case, then what does it matter.

I was also referring to the main "screensaver" images on Chrome. Can those not be higher quality and resolution? They sure as heck don't seem 1080p and they are static images, why can't they be high resolution? I want eye-candy damn it? Ever seen the seemingly higher resolution images on Apple TV? Especially when you tie it to Flickr? (no, I'm not in the Apple cult)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com