I saw this earliar and I am totally excited. Apps shouldn't be too hard to port from android. I am assuming Watch ESPN and the BTN should on board pretty quick. Chromecast is really making me consider cutting the cord with cable. I am still going to wait to see what happens with Fox Sports 1. I have the NBC Sports App to watch the national NHL broadcasts. If Fox can release a similar app with regional rights for their FSN stations then I am totally on board with dumping Uverse.
The issue is that Watch ESPN and BTN2Go are only available to those who have a cable subscription (or those who have friends willing to share passwords). Given this, cutting the cord is still difficult if you have a desire to watch sports. If these apps ever become stand alone I'll cut the cord in a second but given the corporate interests Disney, Fox, Time Warner, etc have in making us buy all of their channels, not just the ones we want, I won't hold my breath waiting.
The first domino is HBO (a small dominoe though). HBO is on the cusp of offering subscriptions sans a traditional cable tv connection. Hulu/Netflix/Amazon can get you through most non-sports television. I was using my parents comcast account to access Watch ESPN prior to ESPN signing on with AT&T.
You are right ABC/CBS/Fox/Time Warner have way too many lobbyists with the media providers such as Comcast. DirecTV, Verizon, and AT&T.
HBO is owned by Time Warner. Just like Comcast owns NBCUniversal. I don't know where you're getting the information that HBO GO is going to be offered for sale without a cable subscription, but these companies aren't going to do anything that makes them less money overall. Cable companies are not in the business of making it easier for you to not buy cable service.
HBO's CEO is the one who said something about it being a possibility.
It's inevitable, after all. Just like downloading music online was back in the 90's. Everyone could drag their feet, kicking and screaming, making it harder than it had to be. But it was always just a matter of time. Cable and satellite providers, TV networks and entertainment conglomerates, they can either embrace change and find new ways to profit from it, or they can fight tooth and nail and come to find that the future will still arrive.
The FOX Sports app (I believe it's being called FOX Sports 2GO) won't be standalone, just like ESPN and BTN never will be because they'd be killing their cash cow (subscriber fees from cable).
One more step towards Google taking over the world.. and I'm not the least bit upset.
I'll be getting me one of these.
Google is Skynet, but at least they are making some cool things for us to enjoy before the Great War against the machines.
So it's like a cheaper Apple TV?
Yes. I'll be honest, I don't know much about Apple TV, but from what I've read, they make the comparisons and this seems to be much more flexible and easier to use.
And this is multi-platform, so it can be used with Apple devices. Airplay only works with Apple devices.
Apple TV has apps similar to an iPad. However, you are still tied to iTunes. I love chromecast for completely undercutting the cost and offering multiplatform support (minus blackberry and windows mobile, seriously does anyone actually still have a blackberry or a windows phone...)
Does it simply mirror your Chrome web browser on your PC to a TV? If so, why are apps needed for netflix?
Could I just stream a game from a random internet site on Chrome on my PC and have the image on my flat screen? That would be awesome and basically goodbye cable!
No. What you would do in the case of Netflix is go to the Netflix site, select a movie, then, instead of playing it in your browser, you tell it to send it to your chromecast device. It plays directly on the device and then you are free to close that tab.
From what I read, it looks like anything you can browse/watch in Chrome you can put on the screen. Hulu, Vine, etc all work through the browswer.
Yes, any video format works if you're playing it on your laptop through the Chrome browser. The app support is relevant for tablets and smartphones.
I have already been doing this for years with ye olde desktop... Now we have a device that is basically a 'bluetooth/wifi' stream enabler. Cool for most people who don't own a computer with a vga/hdmi cable.
I did this as well, but we stopped using the HTPC. If you already have an HTPC, you won't get much out of this other than being able to use your phone as the remote instead of a mouse or whatever input device that you use for your HTPC.
Why did you stop using your htpc? What kind did you have?
This also has the advantage of working with Android and iOS phones and tablets. And being able to put these devices on mutlple TVs in your house and picking which one to stream to. And, as you mentioned, through wifi instead of needing to reach it with a VGA/HDMI cable. For only $35, and you get 3 free months of Netflix knocking the effective price down to $11. It's been possible to play media from your computer on TVs for a while, the big news here is doing it wirelessly from multiple devices for really cheap.
If you use media center on a PC you can get extenders (Xbox or other) that do HD quality wirelessly too. I have 2 set up to extend my htpc.
Again, it's not that this was impossible before. It's just never been this cheap and easy before. Your solution requires an Xbox and only works with media center PCs. This costs just $35 and works with the vast majority of tablets and smartphones too.
Like I said below, if all you want to do is stream, this is cheap and does that. But you get so much more with an HTPC and extenders.
At first, yes, all the launch apps appear to do is redirect streams to TVs. But the big deal about ChromeCast is the SDK. Once the developers like Plex get to work it shouldn't be long until ChromeCast can do everything your HTPC can do and still have the ability to skip the PC and do everything from a smartphone or tablet.
My tv already plays all of those services without an add on. And for anything else I can stream from my laptop straight to my tv.
And I'm guessing Amazon will continue to claim that they don't quite have an app ready for it, but if you buy a Kindle Fire, you'll be quite able to watch Prime content on it.
I also have a PC hooked up to my TV and can do all of that. Netlfix, HBO, Hulu all have add ins. Even amazon I can just open a browser. I've had it for about 8 years now.
Almost all devices come with support for those apps now as well. Where this will excel is the price and being able to control it with whatever device you are using while you are watching TV as opposed to a mouse or whatever.
I already have a remote to control Media Center. I also have an app on my phone that can be a remote. The only time I pull out a keyboard is for admin tasks, which isn't very often. I'm just saying this doesn't offer anything that you don't already have with just a PC hooked up to your tv and you get a lot more from the PC. I use it as a 4TB DVR. Cost is nice for chromecast, but I would pay for a PC in the house anyway, I just use it for a tv too.
Obviously, for those who already have the HTPC setup, this isn't something that they are going to want. For those who were looking to build an HTPC setup, this might be a better option if it does everything they were hoping to do.
If all you want to do is stream, this seems like a good cheap option. I just don't get why so many are excited about streaming to a tv when that capability has been around for a long time. Maybe just b/c of the google name.
This looks a lot like a google version of Apple Tv. If that's the case I say bravo.
I am SO pumped for this, and I'm so glad that someone posted it here!
Edit: Wow, they already have a month-long backlog of orders. My estimated ship date is August 21, and I'm a Prime member.
Google still says the ship date is 8/7. Plus, I don't think you get the free Netflix with Amazon.
At least it said it right under the product description.
I had a quick question since I am just in the market for a movie streaming device. Which one do you guys recommend? I was looking at this http://reviews.cnet.com/best-streaming-media-boxes/ and it seems like Roku is great. However, I want to be able to stream from websites and ideally also stream from my XFinity cable account (HBO, sports, etc). Is ChromeCast the way to go? Can Roku stream from websites?
Based on what Chromecast has available right now, it's probably not the best option for you. It's hard to say what it really will support because they say that you can stream anything from your browser, but who knows if it's actually as good as it sounds.
I can see three ways that you go with this:
1) Wait it out and see what the reviews are for Chromecast and also what offerings become available in the next few weeks. Then, decide what is best for you.
2) Buy it, play with it, and decide if it fits your needs. Right now, at $35 with the free $24 worth of Netflix (assuming you already have Netflix) it is going to be a net cost of $11. If it doesn't fit your needs, you're out about $17 after tax and S&H.
3) Just go with a Roku. It's proven to work with everything you're looking for. It may or may not turn out that Chromecast is a better way to go, but the only way that I think you will regret this decision is if you wanted to save that $65 or whatever the difference is.
What I would suggest is option #2 because it may do everything that you want and be cheaper than the Roku. If it doesn't, like I said, you're out $17 and you might even be able to resell it to someone for $15-20 if you decide that you'd rather have the Roku. However, that's up to you, as I don't know what your financial situation is.
I have a good buddy with roku and he is happy. I haven't seen a chromecast yet, but like joeyb says, roku is a better device right now.
Thanks Joey... can I stream video form the web via the Roku (i.e. is there a browser)? I am sharing a cable account with a friend and my only way to view it is on my computer browse.
I've never used a Roku, so someone else will have to answer that question definitively, but I don't think that it has a browser.
No, Roku doesn't have a standard web browser. You can only watch stuff through their apps/plugins/whatever-they're-called. They have a lot though.
Is there any device (besides connecting the computer directly to the TV) that will allow me to stream from my cable account or a random website?
into Miracast? It is basically the non-Airplay streaming standard and most newer devices support it.
Roku does not do LIVETV, everything is video, BUT......
The best plugins for live TV for Roku and a lot of others (not Apple TV) are available through a pc product called Playon. It's cheap, often comes with a free Roku and works well. It uses plugin scripts (cheap, donation or free) for almost all the cable channels.
It'll also manage logins to other subscriptions like ESPN Insider and CBSSports (BTN). Charter will block BTN all the time and ESPN if they feel like it unless you have Cable TV. Use a VGA or hdmi cable to your tv and log onto espn and charter from your pc instead.
Two of the best scripts are superusvoxtv (Look up its website on the internet. They have excellent support.) and basic cable. You can also find MLB and lots of other sports including european channels among the Playon plugins. Playon also has DVR software call PlayLater. Get a lifetime license, it's well worth the money. The picture quality has improved a lot in the last 6 months or so.
I've got one and it works great for Netflix, Amazon, etc. I haven't used it for web streaming, but have tried local streaming with PLEX.
I think the feature I like the best for the Roku is its new search feature. If you want to see a show/movie, you just type into a global search and it will pull up every "channel" that has it and what the charge is.
Interface is really straightforward and there are apps to control it with your phone and tablet (Android or iOS).
I think the Chromecast is intriguing and want to learn more about it, but I was planning on implementing a Miracast solution for some of my mirroring needs.
Why in the world would you stream BTN2Go or HBOGo or WatchESPN from a non-TV device to your TV, when you have to have the TV subscription in order to get those apps? Why wouldn't you just watch the channel in all its full-resolution, direct on cable/sat rather than through the internet glory?
Oh, because you want to 'steal' the content?
Yeah...it's possible, but I doubt Google is going to "revolutionize" that particular aspect of the industry with a $35 device.
Well, Netflix and Google Play Movies are already on board, so you get a ton of free and legal content right there. Plus Pandora is coming soon, and who knows what other services will add it on (you woud have to think Amazon is going to want to add this to their streaming content on Kindle Fires soon).
EDIT: Forgot about Hulu. Anything you can legally watch in your browser can easily be sent to your TV now.
Every one of those services stream everywhere they play, though. There is no "native" way to watch. Not apples to apples with BTN, ESPN, and HBO.
I missed the point of your original post (and now I can't edit my last post, drat), but you're still wrong. For NOW, you have to have cable subsciption to get the services you mention, but the point is to hopefully be able to buy them on their own in the near future. This will make it easier for people that don't need those services to cut the cord now, and eventually if a critical mass builds up they'll be offered online-only. But until that happens, yes, you might as well just watch on your cable box.
...this $35 device isn't the one that is going to turn the tides, even if it's Google. It could, down the road, be the benificiary, but I just don't see it tipping the scales. I could be wrong.
The one benefit could be those of us who follow fringe sports (most college sports not football or basketball) on the Watch ESPN app. For example, the only you could watch Michigan's softball regional live was through the Watch ESPN app. ESPN sent a crew to cover the regional but did not broadcast the games on any of their channels.
If HBO cuts the cord to content providers as they have been hinting at lately, then the scales could be turned.
Comcast cable online code in my family and get the big ten 2go. I can't view it unless I plug my laptop into my tv. so its useful to me.
If not, that is precisely my point. You are "stealing" the content. I'm guessing you're supposed to have your own subscription to be legally watching.
stealing I suppose but Comcast raped me for years with poor online service, just getting even in my mind.
First of all, it's not streaming from a non-TV device; it is streaming from their servers straight to the TV. (Unless, of course, by non-TV device, you are referring to the Chromecast itself)
Second, BTN and ESPN may not have regional coverage for the game you are trying to watch. If you have to stream the game, it's better to do it on the TV rather than your computer. This is especially important if you are interested in smaller sports like baseball, hockey, or lacrosse that probably aren't going to be on TV, but may be streamed.
Third, HBO's CEO said something back in May about the possibility of not requiring a cable subscription for HBOGo's use. It's probably not happening in the near future, but who knows. You can also stream shows like The Sopranos or The Wire, which aren't necessarily available through on-demand. If you don't have HBO on-demand at all, then streaming newer shows to your TV is also a big perk.
1) Technology - I didn't realize that is the way it works. Thanks!
2) Regional coverage - Fair enough. On my DirecTV, all the regional feeds are available, but it's a good point that this is not true for everyone. Though, in my defense, nobody that was posting about this miracle device, to whom I was responding, mentioned this specifically.
3) This may happen - but my point was simply that this device is not going to be what makes it happen. It would unquestionably benefit, but if/when unbundling happens, then yes, this thing will have much more value.
And, hey, I'm not saying this thing is worthless, I just don't think it suddenly signifies a bold unbundled future as some above made it seem (how's that for a straw man?).
To be fair, none of those reasons apply to me.
I was just about to update my post when you responded because I didn't originally see your title where you said that we are probably overestimating the potential. For $11, I don't expect much out of this that I can't already do other than to give me some convenience.
However, I disagree that it doesn't have a lot of potential. From a development perspective, there are huge groups of individuals that work hard on HTPC apps and Google might have just come up with a product that will drive support from content providers rather than a developer base having to support everything themselves.
From what I've seen of the SDK, I could potentially go home tonight and write a server web app in about an hour that would stream any media (home videos, my music library, my pictures, etc.) that I store on my home PC to my TV. That assumes that this device can stream from network locations, but even if it can't, I would just have to find/write a server software to stream in whatever protocol the support.
...perhaps you are right.
Why do you think this is so dramatically different than Google TV / Nexus Q? Is it just price point / ease of 'installation'? Or the market is more ready now than it was? Or something having to do with the technical guts?
Compare this to something like Boxee. Boxee had a hard time with Hulu and other sites changing their formats or explicitly blocking them. The burden of making the system work was on the developers. In this case, Google is giving the content providers a framework to work with and the burden of making it work is on them. Considering how well this has been received by consumers, I think that content providers will jump on the bandwagon very quickly. For those that don't (most likely the ones you listed above), there will be unofficial support from the community and it won't be a huge issue.
no, this device alone will not make it happen. However, the combination of users streaming content through x box 1, ps 4, apple tv, chromecast, samsung link, etc is starting to reach a global mass.
says out of inventory. I'm getting one, eventually. hopefully it runs with an ipad, looks like it might but with Apple tv you would think they would block it.
I briefly looked at the specs and such.
The device is USB powered. I do not have a USB port on my TV. Is this an issue?
No. It comes with the wall charger.
I bought one through bestbuy. Free shipping and comes with the 3 free months of Netflix.
If I understand all of this correctly it could be the end of DirecTv's NFL stranglehold. Doesn't Verizon stream games to your mobile device? If that's the case then this should let you stream NFL to your TV.
*Disclaimer-I don't have Chromecast, Verizon, DirecTV, or watch NFL.
I was thinking about this last night and I think there is some misconception about what they are saying Chromecast can do. Just because you have an app or website that you can stream video from doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to send it to Chromecast. The developer of the app/website will have to add support for you to actually send the information to Chromecast. In the case of websites that stream video via flash, a developer can probably put together a plugin that will do this for you, but there's a chance it can break if the code on the site changes and there's no guarantee that there is a way to get the necessary information to do so.
In the case of Verizon, they will not support this as it will violate their contract with the NFL, so that plan most likely isn't going to work.
Well temporarily out of stock but free 2 day shipping for prime members. I am curious what the chromecast sdk will offer. As long as Verizon still gives me big ten free I won't buy it for now but when they finally remove it since I don't pay for it I will get the chromecast.
ipad won't let you mirror big ten network, Amazon prime through the ipad. can I mirror those through the ipad to the chromecast? or is it not supported?
ordered from Best Buy this morning after following this for two days. As a 'Silver' member, shipping is free and it looks to ship first week of August. Given the three months of Netflix whether or not you already subscribe, the eventual approximate cost of $11+ is a great bargain, with plenty of potential.
I have HD televisions in the home. I have Roku 2, Roku 3 and Apple TV. The Roku 3 is the best of the bunch. I will be experimenting with the Chromecast on a secondary television where we really only watch Netflix. I am curious to see what Chrome will stream to the Chromecast. However, we cut cable two years ago, and really only miss ESPN. With the sites on the internet that show UM sports (for free), I've been able to avoid having cable TV (Charter), while maintaining highspeed internet. With an exterior mounted antennae, we have HD signals available from CBS, ABC and NBC, along with Fox17 and some other worthless feeds. You could nearly buy three Chromecasts for the cost of an Apple TV. However, for those of you who have not experienced these sorts of streaming boxes, the clear best value and most loaded unit is the Roku 3 (has remote with head/earphone jack for those moments when media noise is not an option).
This Chromecast purchase is a no-brainer for me.