• @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1814 months ago

    In place of the Chromecast, the company will offer the newly announced $99.99 Google TV Streamer,

    They’re replacing it with a very similar product. Nothing to see here.

    • LaggyKar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      226
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      A more expensive, clunkier product, with a bunch of needless fluff in it.

      • fraksken
        link
        fedilink
        English
        294 months ago

        For which they will be able to offer subscriptions in a year or 2.

      • @Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        124 months ago

        Now with AI!

        I’m not sure why they didn’t just call it the chrome cast gen whatever though.

            • @MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              64 months ago

              I think overall it’ll never be able to create quality entertainment.

              But Ow! My Balls! isn’t quality entertainment. I’m sure it can create all kinds of clips of things smashing into groins for ultra low-brow entertainment. Probably today.

      • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months ago

        You mean twice the ram (1 gig more than the shield), 4 times the storage (32 gigs), and a better remote (chirping find my remote feature, programmable button, and less shitty volume buttons)?

        Yep. Sure sounds worse considering it also supports all the same features of the chromecast 4k and AV1 decoding.

            • SkaveRat
              link
              fedilink
              English
              604 months ago

              until they decide that their new device needs more sales, so they depricate the protocol and you can’t use it anymore

                • @MimicJar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  614 months ago

                  They killed support for the first gen Chromecast and the YouTube “app” has been broken for 3+ years. They’ll just stop supporting it one day and you’ll have to buy a new one.

                • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  54 months ago

                  That’s the only reason I had to replace my previous 2 steaming devices.

                  The streaming backend got updated and the app in my device no longer supported it. And there was no updated app made available for that device.

        • LaggyKar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          374 months ago

          None of which changes the fact that it’s more expensive and clunkier, and none of which feels necessary.

          • @MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -16
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The dongle still works. They reached market saturation with people who just want a dongle. They can’t realistically be expected to produce these forever.

            Edit

            Classic Lemmy. Point out that these are not charities and companies can’t keep producing niche products that you aren’t buying but maybe potentially want to buy someday and get thrown down votes. Down votes without a response tell me you’re just butthurt about the truth.

            Sorry folks whether you like it or not it’s the truth. Companies like to sell things and if these were actually being bought enough to make a profit they wouldn’t be discontinued. Your TV probably has this feature built in now. Want another? Buy it second hand, the market is absolutely flooded with these second hand because they’re just collecting dust in cabinets. If Google kept making these they’d just end up as unsold stock in a landfill.

            Your existing chromecast dongle will continue to connect because Google needs chromecast the protocol to continue to work to compete with Apples Airplay. It’s the same reason the Chromecast Audio dongle continues to work 5 years after it’s end of life.

            If you want to make sure you have them forever buy up your local second hand stock but otherwise no one has given a convincing argument why these need more e-waste getting produced at the factory.

              • @MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -94 months ago

                Facebook market place in my small town has dozens of these for less than $20. Why don’t you pick up a few of these and recycle our current supply instead of asking companies to produce more e waste incase we someday want to buy it.

                • @Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  94 months ago

                  The large used market exists because Google has been producing them. When Google stops producing them, that supply will dry up.

            • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              74 months ago

              Your existing chromecast dongle will continue to connect

              Will it, though?

              “Sorry this device is too old to support the newest software update. For your convenience we have bricked it. Please see your authorized dealer to purchase an upgraded device”

              • @MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                0
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Sure, give me a single example where a chromecast device was taken off the chromecast protocol. Even their original Chromecast Audio device which was discontinued and taken out of production over 5 years ago still functions to this day.

                • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  Cast protocol is only one of the many many things that you can stream through a chromecast device.

            • @variants@possumpat.io
              link
              fedilink
              English
              54 months ago

              I mean I’d hope so because eventually this one I have won’t work like the previous one so I’d like a similar product when that happens not this 99 dollar box thing. I guess I hope someone else will continue making cheap dongles I think walmart has their own thing

        • @moody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          224 months ago

          Most of the appeal of the Chromecast is that it’s a dongle you plug in once and never have to see again. It doesn’t need high performance and 32 gigs of RAM. It needs to play video. That’s its entire purpose. It’s controlled by any phone on your wifi, it doesn’t need a remote.

          For most users, this is an expensive downgrade.

          • Jeena
            link
            fedilink
            54 months ago

            The remote was the biggest upgrade for me on the Ultra though. I always struggled to find my phone and do stuff on it just to watch some YouTube or Netflix videos. And the Kids don’t even have a phone and they want to watch on the TV in the livingroom too sometimes. With the remote it’s easy for everyone to use it without fiddling with the Phone.

            My parents have the one without the remote and they basically never use it because my mom doesn’t have a mobile phone and my dad newer has it with him, it’s always not charged or in some other room.

          • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 months ago

            It’s controlled by any phone on your wifi, it doesn’t need a remote.

            Or you can use it’s remote and not need to use your phone for absolutely every little thing.

          • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            Yes! I hadn’t seen that highlighted anywhere in articles really, only saw it on the damn Google Store after looking just now.

            Seems an all around solid update on the previous device.

                • @Dasnap@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  My wife is used to FLauncher and will probably get annoyed if I change the Shield’s interface (again…) but maybe I’ll try it out on the Google TV Chromecast I have for holiday trips.

              • Jeena
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                I just hope this is still possible on the new one, I can see a future where they make it impossible but hopefully not yet.

                I agree that it’s a good upgrade too, the only dowside is that it’s not portable anymore, I used to take it with me on any travel to have my own home theater set up like I like it with me when I was living in Hotels and AirBnB’s for a year on business travel. Especially in Asia the TVs are in the local language and I never have any idea how to change the language from Korean or Japanese to English so I can use the TV. But putting in the dongle and turning on the TV was always possible.

                • @Dasnap@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  I doubt they’d block alternate launchers as they seem happy enough hosting them on Google Play.

                  Side-loading will be safe as Android being open is its whole deal. The EU are forcing Apple to be more open so there’s no way Google wants a target on their back.

          • LaggyKar
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 months ago

            You can get an Ethernet adapter for the Chromecast

            • @lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              Yeah, exactly. You needed to buy an extra adapter before. Now you don’t.

              • LaggyKar
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13 months ago

                This TV Streamer costs significantly more than a CCwGTV combined with an adapter.

            • @woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              224 months ago

              What do you mean regular Chromecast?

              Just regular Chromecast, not that Google TV stuff. That round dongle that does nothing but accept casting streams via that cast button in many Android apps.

              • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -64 months ago

                So the one from 2013? Sure. It was fine for that. This is a different thing, as not every device, service, or whatever supports casting. I wish they did, but they don’t.

                Secondarily, I don’t want to use a screen to control a screen. I prefer a physical remote that I can have muscle memory for.

                But I get why people liked the device. I did too. But fortunately or unfortunately, it’s been 10 years and technology has moved. Which is probably why they are giving this a new name being an generally good upgrade on the last Chromecast 4K.

                Christ, this one even has a built in Ethernet port and doesn’t put strain on my HDMI port by just dangling there.

                • @woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  114 months ago

                  So the one from 2013? Sure. It was fine for that. This is a different thing, as not every device, service, or whatever supports casting. I wish they did, but they don’t.

                  Well, the story is about Google ending that line of products.

                • @saltesc@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah, I have a smart TV and would appreciate some faster processing in there. Or if I can flash a simplified ROM, but dunno if those exist. As long as I get control over what it does, I’d take it. Can just Velcro it on the back of the TV so it’s invisible.

        • @Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          It’s also twice the price of the Onn 4k Pro (Walmart house brand) that’s built on the same chip and has the same features running the stock Google TV experience.

        • @sanpo@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -44 months ago

          They’re supposedly using pretty much the same chipset. So the most important part is still underpowered, these Android boxes generally work fine even with 2-3GBs of RAM.

            • @sanpo@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              124 months ago

              It’s supposed to use S905X3 with ARM Cortex-A55.

              There’s already plenty of devices on the market with this chip, and it’s fine, but in real world as a user you won’t really see any improvement over something like a nearly 10 year old Nvidia Shield that’s still using a more powerful chipset.

              Which is sad for a new device…

              • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                Does Nvidia even make new mobile chipsets still? At least… Relatively cheaply? I know there’s something of an Nvidia tax.

                • @sanpo@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  24 months ago

                  I don’t think so. Maybe they’ll have something new for the next Nintendo Switch?

                  In fact, the Shield is using the same chip as the Switch (same for the newer revisions).

      • @Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        The low-power streaming box is dying. It’s not completely without reason, 4k playback is actually a bit demanding.

        We are in a place where the 2017 nVidia Shield is beginning to show its age and that leaves the AppleTV as the only powerful and capable consumer set top box on the market. This new option from Google will at least provide some competition and an option outside of Apple’s ecosystem.

          • @Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I absolutely love mine, but I’d be lying if I said it didn’t stutter sometimes when asked to perform more demanding tasks. The chip is also going to start having issues with formats in the coming years. I’d love for nVidia to put out something that used a rival to the A15 in Apple’s box. Native AV1 decoding and just raw speed is really needed to catch up to use cases in 2024 compared to 7 years earlier.

            • @DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              We’ll have to see if the processor is better than the shield. Google’s spec page shows it has 1 GB of RAM more than the shield but conveniently does not say what processor is in it

        • @Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          This $100 box from Google runs on the same SoC as the $50 streaming box from Onn (Walmart). The only major differences are the Google box as 4GB of RAM vs 3GB, a 1Gb Ethernet port instead of 100Mb (both have WiFi 6), and the Google box has a USB Type C port for power/data and would need an OTG adapter/hub while the Onn box has a Type A and a barrel plug for power.

          • @Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            TBH, the biggest issue there is the 100Mb port on the cheaper box. That is actually too low to stream a quality high-bitrate video file.

    • @woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      234 months ago

      They’re replacing it with a very similar product. Nothing to see here.

      Like they do with messengers every couple of years.

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      and before that they already replaced it with google tv with chromecast

  • @_pete_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1524 months ago

    I feel the original Chromecast was probably the last truly great original Google product, it was simple, it was inexpensive and it worked - you just plugged it in, joined your network and you were off, there really wasn’t anything like it at the time.

    I really hate what they’ve become.

    • The Quuuuuill
      link
      fedilink
      English
      304 months ago

      What’s funny is that was actually the start of them becoming who they are now. There’s a litany of evidence they stole the Chromecast technology

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The remote playback control over network patents? I can’t see why those patents should be valid, everything there has prior art done in the 80’s

        What I’m more pissed about is how Google killed Miracast (it’s technically still around but Google removed it from default Android and OEMs have to choose to enable it) and how they fought against 3rd party implementations to keep the Chromecast protocol closed.

        I see there’s ongoing work for a Matter based standard for casting, I really hope that ends up getting broad support. We need something better than DLNA (and Miracast is technically DLNA over WiFi Direct). We need an open casting standard supporting Chromecast-like remote interactive content (the device is essentially a remote controlled web browser)

      • @CameronDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        434 months ago

        Chromecast with Google TV made the “simple” casting worse for some apps like Netflix. Instead of it casting directly, it would spawn the Netflix app and make you use the remote to reselect the show you wanted to see.

        • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          84 months ago

          Also they made it reliant on the Google Home app, which makes it really hard to change WiFi networks. It’s a pain in the ass if you have multiple WiFi networks setup at your house.

          • @CameronDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14 months ago

            Remind me, what app did it use before? I have had Chromecast since gen 1, can’t remember any other app, but that’s probably my memory failing.

            • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Honestly I don’t remember. I had a gen 1 Chromecast as well and I think it was just a Chromecast app. Now it’s all integrated with Google Home.

              Edit: I tried googling it and under the Wikipedia page description it showed the following. But what’s funny is if you go to the Wikipedia page, that text is no longer there.

              Originally called simply “Chromecast”, the app was released concurrently with the original Chromecast video model …

            • @CameronDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              34 months ago

              I take my Chromecast on holiday, you basically have to factory reset it every time to change network. But my recollection is that you’ve always had to do that.

              • @FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                That makes perfect sense, and switching is definitely annoying then… But the person I responded to said they had multiple WiFi networks at home… E.g. Not on holiday

              • @tjhart85@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                My solution: get a travel router and have it broadcast the same SSID (and use the same password) as you use at home.

                All your devices should successfully connect to it and you don’t need to factory reset them.

                Many of them have the ability to navigate through a captive portal too (since I got mine all the hotels I’ve gone to have just needed a password, so i haven’t needed to test that).

                • @CameronDev@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  13 months ago

                  I have a travel router as well, I just prefer to keep the SSIDs different. It is definitely paranoia, but if someone sees your travel router at a hotel, they know your not home, and your home can be found on wigle.net.

                  Its not that bad to reset the Chromecast, and I do it infrequently, so I’m happy with that.

            • @foggenbooty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              23 months ago

              I have a trusted network, an IoT network (where the CC would go), and a guest network.

              I know most people aren’t going to have the time or knowledge set up network segmentation, but it’s still good practice.

            • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24 months ago

              I personally have a Comcast router/modem with its own network. I have a network switch that I plug into the router that I use for hard coded stuff. Mostly my PC and a couple other things that I want to run fast instead of convenient. Then I have a WiFi mesh network that I run for most of my other devices, including my phone.

              So for my Chromecast, if I want to stream from my phone on the mesh network, I have it on one network. But if I want to stream from my PC, I have it on another network. While with most devices, changing the network you’re connected to is simple, it’s a massive pain in the ass with a Chromecast.

              • Natanael
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                What you need to do is put devices which you want to access from multiple networks in a specific network / VLAN and then bridge it over

              • @FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                So as far as I understand, you have

                • Outer router (Comcast), which has WiFi enabled
                • Inner router (your own), which has WiFi enabled, and further meshes with other WiFi mesh devices (or is the mesh separate?)
                • A plain switch, for stuff you want cabled and fast

                Is that correct?

                Why not get the WiFi in the Comcast router disabled, and use your inner network exclusively, such that both WiFi and ethernet devices are on the same network?

                That’s what I did with my network, and I even got the ISP to put their modem/router into bridge mode, so it’s completely transparent.

                • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  14 months ago

                  I could, but I like having the router network as an option to connect to. I know the point of a mesh network is to improve WiFi connectivity overall, but every once in a while it will get a bit laggy when streaming a video. Probably because I’ve got like 90 some devices connected to it. I like having the option to switch my phone to the router network and go upstream of all the other stuff.

        • @jpeps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          Yeah I got one of the newer ones after having a ton of the earlier models and I was disgusted by that change. Instantly returned it and bought one of the discontinued Ultras for 4K.

      • @_pete_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        224 months ago

        I feels like they either badly copy (see Gemini) or don’t think about what they’re offering (see Stadia’s busted business model) they’re content to milk the existing services they’ve already got and make them worse by cramming in more ads (see YouTube, Google’s search result pages) and they cut out or dictate the web through their monopolies (see AMP and Chrome) rather than working with other parties to make good products.

        They feel like Hooli in Silicon Valley, basically the definition of a fat tech giant who doesn’t do any innovation of their own.

        • @ealoe@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -34 months ago

          Badly copy (see Gemini)

          Tf are you smoking dude, Google has been working on AI long before ChatGPT was a twinkle in Sam Altman’s eye. They didn’t release any public models because they wanted to go about it safely and not just dump the world’s best misinformation creator on the open market for anyone to use with little safeguards. All that went out the window when ChatGPT got all the press and google decided they wanted a piece of the hype, but pretending they “didn’t do any innovation of their own” in regards to AI is ludicrous. They have been at the forefront of AI development for the last decade, and the fact you think otherwise shows your only knowledge about AI is from after ChatGPT headlines started coming out.

  • @Gloria@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    854 months ago

    “Yes I know the customer learned that product name and has a good connotation with it, but how about we change the name to something completely different?”

    • The Quuuuuill
      link
      fedilink
      English
      224 months ago

      “Our current product offering is less than $50. We were thinking the next iteration should be $300”

        • The Quuuuuill
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Me and my partner have already agreed the Onn. Dongle is what we’re getting when google inevitably “accidentally” bricks the Chromecast we got last year

  • CALIGVLA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    774 months ago

    Really, rebranding from Chromecast to Google TV Streamer? Who the fuck was the genius that greenlighted this?

    • @kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      504 months ago

      Hi, I’m the project lead on Chromecast and I’m here to talk about what my team’s been up to maintaining this popular product

      The board: yawn

      Hi, I’m the project lead on the new Google TV Streamer that we’ve just launched, let’s look at these exciting new adoption numbers and talk about how we plan to keep this incredible momentum going

      The board: Wow! Amazing stuff plz take this large bonus

    • @BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      474 months ago

      I knew someone who worked at a really well loved local restaurant. One day a new manager came in and IMMEDIATELY wanted to change the name. According to him, you should change a restaurant’s name every 2 years

      Why would you ruin the recognition you already have? He was also planning on changing the name to be the exact same as a business down the street. I think he was an idiot

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Because the dude comes from a corporate world where everybody’s known for stagnation, not quality, so changing the name gets rid of an association with stagnation BUT also gets rid of an association with quality if that’s the reputation you’ve built up and these types can not understand that because they’ve never worked in a place putting quality first

  • @thezeesystem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    674 months ago

    Me - Ok Google, give me a open source way to turn my raspberry pi into a 4k streaming box.

    Google - Got it. Playing Tyler Swift on living room tv

    Me - wtf?

    • Justin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      KDE Plasma Big screen looks promising. Combine it with TV friendly apps like Jellyfin and plasma tube, and it should be pretty competitive and actually receive updates.

      • Jeena
        link
        fedilink
        74 months ago

        Thanks for mentioning KDE Plasma Big Screen it’s an interesting attempt. It’s written in Qt, like many of the TV UIs today anyway. I need to check it out.

        • Justin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          Yeah, I’m thinking of trying it out once my fan less N100 box arrives from china. Should have much better AV1 performance and subtitle rendering performance than my Google TV.

          I had a “fun” experience the other month with my Google TV where it was refusing to connect to my Jellyfin server. Turns out Google hasn’t updated the HTTPS CAs in over 2 years, and it was no longer compatible with the latest Let’s Encrypt X2 certificates which was announced back in 2020. Android TV has some good apps, but it is a software, ads, and security nightmare.

    • Avid Amoeba
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      HardKernel makesa a few ODROID models that come with available Android TV builds. Some have the same chipset as the AMLogic on the CCwGTV 4K and they aren’t terribly expensive. If I wanted an open source Chromecast replacement I’d go for that.

  • @I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Did y’all even click the article?

    It will be rebranded, basically, to become the Google TV streamer. The tech is not going anywhere.

    “In place of the Chromecast, the company will offer the newly announced $99.99 Google TV Streamer, which launches on September 24th.”

    • surfrock66OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      It’s a different device. Already, the existing google tv workflow is different than the chromecast, which was phone control first. Now, it brings up an app which favors navigation with the remote. If I want a set top box, I’ll put a kodi box in…I wanted a dumb dongle which could be controlled from a phone. It’s fundamentally a different product.

      My hope is that casting decouples as a concept from being a google protocol. Even though Amazon is backing it now, I hope MatterCast can become an open casting standard. My vision is having MatterCast be an installable add-on to Kodi, and then an ultra-light image can be made for super low-end devices supporting audio and video (or both).

  • @LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    RIP to a real one.

    Back in the day when streaming was cheap as hell and made sense as all things were on Netflix, having a Home Mini with and a Chromecast was bliss.

    I used to have a shortcut for the phrase “I’m so tired”, it would start playing Star Trek TNG from Netflix on the Chromecast monitor and it just werked. Saved me from a bad trip once too, I was really uncomfortable on 135ug so in a desperate attempt to hold onto reality I said “alexa…uhmm…uh…hey google play RoboCop” and it just worked.

    Only thing is it played the wrong RoboCop (2014) but that only distracted me from spiraling further, like “hold up Samuel L Jackson was in this?”

    It feels weird to say but I was a genuinely happy customer. Then the home mini stopped working as well, started triggering by itself, didn’t hear words right, then the Chromecast had trouble updating firmware and rebooting. Then Netflix platformed that douchebag chapelle.

    Now all that’s left of it is the pihole I used to block ads for it.

    • @ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      I pretty much exclusively used my chrome cast to bypass smart TV bullshit and stream my movies and TV shows stored on my pc and phone to my TV.

  • Jeena
    link
    fedilink
    English
    484 months ago

    The Chromecast was one of the few things I really liked made by Google. I always have one in my travel bag and it’s basically like bringing your own home theater to the hotel with you. I had a time where I lived in hotels and AirBnB’s for almost a year and this thing was god send.

    They have some other device which they want to sell which will replace it, but that one is big and clunky, not meant for traveling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSSI_Ht6Mis

    • @poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 months ago

      Connecting a classic (non-Google TV) Chromecast to a new WiFi (or heaven forbid a hotel WiFi with a capture portal) was always such a pain. And casting over networks without mDNS is flaky at best and otherwise downright impossible.

      By contrast, I’ve loved taking along my Chromecast with Google TV to hotels, along with:

      • A VPN client installed it already,
      • An Android phone that can create a WiFi AP while connected to the hotel WiFi,
      • A Bluetooth speaker and my Bluetooth headphones paired to it so I get great audio as well.

      This has been a complete gamechanger and a genuine upgrade over yesteryear’s Chromecasts.

    • @BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I take my raspberry pi 400 and a mouse with me ($70). I don’t like to travel with expensive things. Once connected to a hotel tv, i have a full pc. I watch movies in 720p to have more fps. In case I have something important to do but no TV, I vnc to my phone.

  • ඞmir
    link
    fedilink
    English
    424 months ago

    Literally all my friends know the name “Chromecast”, why would you rename it

      • ben
        link
        fedilink
        English
        264 months ago

        To justify the salaries of their product managers

      • Balder
        link
        fedilink
        English
        64 months ago

        It seems so, some people in the thread complained their parents don’t use ChromeCast because it needed the phone to use. Apparently seniors are also better if you want to sell an expensive subscription when the opportunity arises.

    • @2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54 months ago

      Chromecast naming scheme did get weird - it’s difficult for someone who doesn’t follow these things to know if they want the chromecast ultra or chromecast with google tv. I agree though they should have just called the new product something like “Chromecast Box 2025”.

  • @C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    394 months ago

    Not surprised. Like chromecast audio, chromecast couldn’t really serve an adequate amount of ads. Basically it’s only value was it forced you to use stock youtube app to stream preventing any adblocking, but if you cast your screen, then it can’t stop adblocks, so it makes sense to discontinue this product. There’s some open source projects out there that might be worth looking into, NymphCast is one I saw, uses a rasberry pi.

    • @viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      34 months ago

      You can just install bubbleUpnp on any android device and cast every app or website to your TV, including non-stock youtube (using it with Tubular, previously known as Newpipe).

  • SkaveRat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    384 months ago

    “okay, what successful product are we going to kill next?”