The Chromecast continues to be perhaps the best value in tech | Hacker News Reader

The Chromecast continues to be perhaps the best value in tech

writingabouttech.com

64 pointsbane38 comments

Sure, assuming it even works. It has gigantic swaths of incompatibility with many televisions and they don't seem to care about it. It works for a while then fails to display anything, no matter how much you reset it or anything -- until you move it to a new TV, then back to the original one, upon which time you'll get a few more hours/days of use. The 'support' sends you through the same canned troubleshooters then tries to authorize RMAs, which don't work either - it's some sort of software bug or (more likely) some sort of DRM lockdown bullshit incompatibility.

Fear of this sort of "DRM lockdown bullshit incompatibility" is what stops me from buying devices like Chromecast. I have a high-end receiver and a high-quality mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. If I plug these together, iTunes hangs (sometimes requiring a reboot of the entire Macbook!) when I start playing a movie I paid for, seemingly because of the DRM lockdown bullshit. I then have to connect the HDMI cable to the TV directly, which prevents true surround sound from working (because most TVs cannot output AC3, only stereo).

All this happens despite all my equipment being about the same age (2-3 years). It all says "HDMI" on it, it all supports DRM to some extent, and yet it doesn't work together.

It plugs into the HDMI slot, how are you having compatibility issues? If your tv takes an HDMI cable, that's all you need.

HDMI isn't like composite video -- it is more than just a physical connection, it is a highly complex set of protocols with DRM and version numbers and everything.

I haven't run into Chromecast issues with my TV, but I have seen dozens of cases where two devices that ostensibly both supported "HDMI" refused to work together while the individual devices would work fine with (most) other devices. So I find it perfectly plausible that the OP's situation is very real even if I haven't experienced that particular one myself.

This isn't remotely limited to the chromecast though. The HDMI video signalling protocol is old and robust and works well and near-universally. The HDCP spec and CEC remote control features, on the other hand, are cesspools of complexity that work pretty much nowhere sanely.

It's a great shame that it doesn't use an open API.

Having a standard way of telling devices to play media would be very useful.

As it is I backed the Matchstick on Kickstarter because I wanted a more open device.

These links might be of some help :

https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2#protocol-description

https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2-client

Yeah, except for the fact that Chromecast sender apps perform a cert check now, so open implementations don't work. https://github.com/thibauts/node-castv2/issues/2

Open server implementations don't, open clients do. I wrote this issue.

devices to play media would be very useful.

rtsp://foobar.net/pictures/pic.jpg

rtsp://192.168.1.15/Public/video.mp4

And I know at least mpris2 exists as a standard media controller API. I don't think it has file picking though.

I live in the middle of a big city. From my apartment there are at least 50 different wifi routers visible. The Chromecast simply cannot maintain a stable connection under these circumstances. My parents do not have internet.

These are two situations where this device is, entirely needlessly so, completely without value.

That said, when it works it is a charm.

Yeah, hopefully a 5ghz version will be released soon. 2.4ghz is awful in dense areas.

Google desperately needs to release a wired version as well as upgrade the existing wi-fi versions to let you stream direct to the dongle instead of using the internet as an intermediary.

I agree with the need for a wired option. It's one of the things I had hoped for in the Nexus Player and might have been enough to get me to buy one (even though I haven't run into any issues with WiFi with my Chromecast, it would be preferred).

As far as the second part, I'm admittedly not a Chromecast "expert" by any means (only had it for a month now and only use it occasionally) but it seemed to me that I had both options depending on what I'm "casting".

When I'm using on online media source like Netflix or Youtube, I prefer using my phone or laptop as more of a remote control so it's not constantly draining the battery in order to actively stream as a wireless extender. Still, I can cast my screen directly if I want to do that. I haven't done that too much since it seems less useful in my personal usage cases but the option is there.

The only thing I'd love to see is something more along the lines of Miracast where you have the option of sending content over an ad-hoc connection between your device and the Chromecast. I considered something like a Chromecast for conference rooms at work but since you need to be on the same WiFi network, that's not really an option since the accessible WiFi network at the office has restrictions and limitations that would make Chromecast unusable. It would be nice if I could purchase several of these inexpensive devices that could easily enable streaming from online media providers but could also receive content directly from devices within range (like the laptops and tablets of people in a meeting) without needing to install separate access points just for Chromecast.

Supposedly a USB OTG cable + ethernet adaptor will work.

But that is a big hack.

It doesn't help in areas where wifi is hopelessly congested.

If anyone from Google is listening, please release a version with an ethernet cable. Wi-fi is not reliable everywhere.

I'm surprised the $99 nexus player doesn't come with ethernet either. I guess it doesn't meet their 'toothbrush' rule.

Ethernet over USB OTG works on it though.

For about the same price, I feel the Raspberry Pi provides much better value in tech. It's way more versatile.

I looked at the Chromecast, but as others have mentioned, the frequent reports of fragility, along with the DRM-laden aspects deterred me. I've bought the Netgear Push2TV (PTV3000) but haven't received it yet. And then Samsung have their own variant, which I believe is WiDi standards-compliant. Is the compelling thing with the Chromecast just the price, then?

It's a bit fragile. I'll lose connections every once in a while or whatever -- usually just reconnecting to the current thing the chromecast is doing will solve it. But for ~$35 and the unbelievable ecosystem of support it has, it's really hard to beat.

I use mine frequently (basically daily) with youtube, plex and podcast addict and pretty often to mirror tabs from chrome and mirror my android device.

Most of the time the issues are with my home wifi setup and not with the device. But it's not so complicated a platform that there's lots of fiddling to do. I've tried various other systems to get my media to my tv and bar none, chromecast is the best one.

I like the Chromecast.I brought 3 when they had a sale at staples for $30/each a few months back. It really is the best value for a TV device that supports Netflix and Youtube that you can control with your phone. I also have been having fun hacking on it the past few months using node.js. I just wish more apps supported it.

I'm actually surprised google launched the new nexus player device instead of doubling down on chromecast. I'd think a boxed-set of a chromecast and a minimalist cheap $60 4" wifi-only device would have fit more with the existing android ecosystem, and would give the users similar functionality to the nexus player.

I really wish I be able to set the DNS servers on ChromeCast.... wink

Just set it upstream on your router.

I may set it at my router but the chromecast will always use google dns..(8.8.8.8)

Good to know, so mitm it is then. (If I ever have to play with one of these horribly locked down things).

I just wish I had an LCD TV at my home..

" I decided I wanted a cloud-powered digital photo frame in my house, to retroactively justify my tendency to over-photograph every event, and because I had a ton of digital photos but no way to display them in my house. "

wow, just wow....

What was your wow bit? The fact that cloud is a term no one understands (okay, no two people can agree on), that it can't actually power anything, or that up until Chromecast there was no way to display your photos in your house?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com