Hacker News Reader

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.