Back to Article

  • sleekblackroads - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Google really gets the message sometimes. Will be such an amazing product with a few tweaks and services!!! Reply
  • diamondsw - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Ah yes... the constant refrain of "just wait, it'll be amazing soon!". Not to pick on Google fans - Apple fans have said the same about the AppleTV for years ("it will have apps soon, because it just has to!").

    It's always best to buy based on what the product does *right now*. If it's solving an issue now, then buy it, and anything else that comes later is gravy. But if you buy something hoping it will improve later, you're more often than not throwing your money away.
  • CynicalPhred - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Well sorry, I don't get it... This is basically a device that you have to push content to. You need to sit there with a PC, phone or tablet, choose the content on that and then send it to the Chromecast thus needing to run that device as well. I want something a little more independent. Some thing that can pull media from my various media servers or from the internet and which does that without forcing me to directly run a second device to do it. Reply
  • Guspaz - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Have you ever tried using Netflix with a TV remote? Being able to browse and select content to play with an iPad or iPhone and have it play on the TV without any effort sounds fantastic. That's a much better experience than using Netflix "independently". Reply
  • Samus - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    exactly. death to the tv remote. most people always have their phones on them, anyway, so why wouldn't you want a larger, more responsive 4-5" screen to use over a T9 remote (or heaven forbid one of those awful Samsung "flip" QWERTY remotes that's about as responsive as a 96-year old behind the wheel of a towncar. Reply
  • imutau - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Actually the Roku remote is pretty sound for using Netflix. Apple TV's remote is similar too. Besides on screen keyboards (which every remote that does not include a native keyboard will suck eggs at) it works fine for me.

    The most awesome thing is that it's only $35! That's less than a new PS3 game and a 3rd of the price of a Rokum or Apple TV. For what it does it seems like a really great device.

    But as some have mentioned if you have something that does this already like a Roku (configured with PLEX) or Apple TV (hacked to run XBMC) there really isn't a need for this.

    Some draw backs is the fact it is only WIFI AND that it can only do 720p playback. Also that the only local content it seems to stream with any consistency is .mp4. Also it doesn't seem to as yet be able to stream local content from a wireless device like a phone or tablet.

    I am sure once it gets opened a bit more where it will be able to run more apps from the Play Store it sounds like it will be a really great device. But for now I am willing to wait.
  • MaulBall789 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    @Guspaz, I already have a 42" Sony Google TV and through the Netflix app on my iPhone I can choose the program I want to watch and it will ask me if I want to view on my Google TV or iPhone. If I choose GTV it starts playing right away. Chromecast doesn't do anything to improve this, as far as I can tell, and so far only has Netflix and Youtube, same as the Google TV has had. That being said, I want to play around with this device to see what it's really capable of. Maybe I'm missing something. Reply
  • rwei - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    I just plugged in an old laptop and spent my $35 on a Logitech K400 wireless keyboard/touchpad. And the Netflix experience is great with that, as well as any other source of content I can think of, including my NAS and shared drives, plus browsing, chat...

    Don't get me wrong, the Chromecast looks to be a great product serving an unmet need at a tantalizing price point. But it's not going to revolutionize content consumption...

    What might is the Xbox One when it comes out. All of the above capabilities and true, full-featured integration with my desktop and phone (cable too if I had that), plus a 10-ft UI that doesn't even require a remote much of the time.

    Assuming Microsoft executes on its promise, which it does do to an impressive degree sometimes while delivering real head-scratchers at others. Which will this be...?
  • Marthisdil - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    And I use my media pc with XBMC on it...using a Lenovo remote with trackpad/keyboard and I don't have to do anything special. Ever try typing out letters/numbers in a search box on a tv remote that doesn't have a full keyboard? it sucks. Reply
  • darwinosx - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Google wants you to use Chrome so they can collect more data about what you do and sell it to advertisers while turning it over to the NSA. Reply
  • yun - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    That's ok, they already know more about me than I do! Reply
  • superflex - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Precisely. More government data collection.
    Time to target those evil viewers of Fox News or Duck Dynasty.
    FU Google.
  • StormyParis - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    You're in luck: get a $50 USB stick (MK808...) Reply
  • Aravot - Friday, August 02, 2013 - link

    I am using Android powered mini-PC MK808, bought it from ebay for $45 including shipping, works perfectly. Reply
  • BryanDobbins - Saturday, August 17, 2013 - link

    like Lillian said I am startled that any body can profit $7923 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site... Reply
  • Mikuni - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    inb4 $50 or more for Europe. Reply
  • arnd - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Interestingly, the /proc/cpuinfo output shows that the 88de3005 uses a single Cortex-A9 CPU core, rather than Marvell's own PJ4 core that is in the dual-core 88de3100 (Armada 1500). Reply
  • rudolphna - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    lololololol I love your wireless network names/computer names. Skynet, l33tn3ss? Molybdenum? Lol awesome man. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Ha, I'm glad someone liked those :)

  • dvinnen - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    I was planning to get one of these for traveling for work but you made it seem like a pain plus having to use a hotspot. It makes sense I guess and I didn't really think out that I wouldn't be networked to it over hotel wifi. I'll probably still get one to play around with though with it being so cheap. Reply
  • dvinnen - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Looking at it, the WiFi chip supports bluetooth 3.0. If google enabled controlling it via bluetooth it would be awesome for travel. Not sure that is possible though with he bluetooth spec Reply
  • Brazos - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    I assume this would work if plugged into a HDMI port on my AVI receiver (so I can enjoy sound thru my stereo)? Only problem might be the wireless connection due to it's location in the rear of the receiver. HDMI extension cable? Reply
  • Brian Klug - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    That's exactly what I did, even on the floor/close to it (bottom shelf of the media cabinet) it works fine.

  • savagemike - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Would love an article on the miracast week you've had. Been thinking about trying that out and would love to hear more about the pitfalls.
    Given the new golden-child Nexus 7 (2013) apparently supports it that would be a great context for an article.
  • joeballow - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    I do plan on getting one, but I wish they made a wired version with ethernet instead of wifi. I live in a crowded apartment building and prefer to hard wire anything that isn't mobile. It seems they could hit the same price point by dropping wifi and adding ethernet unless wifi is already integrated into the chip? If that's the case I'd pay $10 more for a wired/wireless version. Reply
  • LeftSide - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Just got mine in the mail. It's quite useful for $35, and if more developers get on board it could be great. Reply
  • Alketi - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    Brian, if your attached pictures are any indication, you WANT a bright LED behind your TV screen.

    It provides a constant level ambient lighting, which allows your eyes to adjust, rather than be carried solely by the brightness of each TV/Movie scene.
  • Brian Klug - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Well that's true, but not when I'm in my bedroom and the TV/lights are off and I'm trying to sleep, and the Chromecast lights up a corner of the room. Seriously, the thing is BRIGHT!

  • ioconnor - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    What does this thing do? All I got from skimming was that it wasn't some other product. And that whatever it is suppose to do might not be done. Yet.

    Better yet go back to talking about computers. That I can understand.
  • Kepe - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - link

    Eh.. Perhaps you should read the article properly before commenting you don't understand it. Reply
  • kirsch - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    The licensing implications of Tab casting are interesting to me. Hulu (or more likely Hulu's content providers) cannot be happy and may force Google to somehow disable Chromecast on their website. Or I can dream, and maybe they will realize the futility of making an artificial distinction between clients and will stop the BS. Reply
  • savagemike - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Hulu et al have a bit of a problem though. Since the tab casting is mirroring it never sees the Chromecast directly and should have no way to see anything but the Chrome browser. The Chrome browser is among the most popular in the world.
    So Hulu and the rest have one play. They can stop their sites from being visible on one of the most popular browsers in the world. Even if they decided to make that play thinking they'd drive people off Chrome to other browsers Google (or whomever) could quite easily make a similar extension for Firefox which also plays well with WebRTC. So hulu would probably end up having to block Chrome and Firefox. That would be insanity for any web company.
    In any event I would imagine a firefox extension to work with Chromecast will show up sooner or later.
  • DesktopMan - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    The license restrictions on those services sound insane. Chrome tab casting is pretty much wireless HDMI, does Hulu not work over HDMI in clone mode? What about Miracast? Reply
  • edwpang - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    The USB power meter is pretty useful. What the brand name of it?

  • Ritup - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    You can find it here, a good friend designed that.
  • Donkey2008 - Monday, July 29, 2013 - link

    To the author - Was "Molybdenum" the name of the device stock or did you come up with that name for it? I have a reason for asking. Reply
  • Brian Klug - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Came up with it, the first one I named Chromey, the second one Molybdenum since, well, periodic table and stuff, I dunno.

  • Donkey2008 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Cool. I work for a company that does moly exploration and I rarely find anyone who knows what molybdenum is or even how to pronounce it (mole-ib-denim).

    For those who don't understand, molybdenum is better known as "Chrome Moly" (thus the Google reference). Fun, off-topic fact of the day. Derp.

    Oh, and Skynet...LOL.
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    CroMo steel is used pretty regularly in the bike industry. :) Reply
  • bountygiver - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    According to what google has been doing, a first party chromecast app for windows 8/RT is not likely to come, but I hope someone can make one as it can be really useful if it is integrated in windows Share/PlayTo(on win8.1). Reply
  • jjj - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    This is exciting because it's open and easy for devs to add the functionality while users don't have to wait on Google or install apps on the device to gain functionality. Many more things to say about it but won't do that now, except that i hope they won't censor content and it's a pity they released it when it still looks at best like a beta.Things like local media playback not just tabs, phone to phone , more apps supporting it (including some other Google services like Docs) would have been nice to have at launch.
    Google managed to keep it simple and it's cheap but it's in beta and it's not easy to explain what the thing is to the consumer and they haven't found a great way to do so. Nice to see that Google pulled a Google in a time when they seem to have lost it and it has a strong chance of taking off fast. Now if they would also get rid of that huge "NSA Inside" label on the box....
  • darwinosx - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    It's Google TV code not android. Yet another thing not mentioned in this review. Reply
  • savagemike - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    It's hard to get rid of a label born of pure accusation. Leaving aside that they have disclaimed the accusation the problem at hand is this. Whatever Google has or has not done - what you are asking them to do now is to get people like yourself to stop saying they have done it. And they have no way to do that. Reply
  • bleached - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Third party apps are already playing content through drop box, Google Drive, etc. Reply
  • CommandoCATS - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Heh, funny you should note that the Chromecast might be the first Motorola/Google product, since ironically it doesn't work correctly with any of the Motorola OMAP4/Jellybean 4.1 devices (Bionic/RAZR/MAXX/Droid 4).
  • Brian Klug - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Weird, even after getting the Play Store updates?

  • CommandoCATS - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Yup, it seems to be something with the WIFI implementation on those phones. It will sometimes find the device, but be unable to complete the setup (fails after entering AP information). I was able to complete setup just fine with a laptop, and then it will mostly work, but the Chromecast app still doesn't think it's set up. Apparently some features will still be missing, but I haven't explored it fully yet. Reply
  • CommandoCATS - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Also, apparently Play Music will not work (from the Motorola device) when it is configured in this manner (from another device). Reply
  • Brian Klug - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Wow, that's weird, I'll have to see if I can find my Droid 4 or something, that's bad news.

  • darwinosx - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    A video streaming device that doesn't do 5 ghz? That makes no sense.
    Roku does much more and the Chromecast isn't all that small when you add the HDMI cable and power supply. Which Google went out of their way to pretend didn't exist.
    This review was really too uncritical of the shortcomings of this device.
  • Brian Klug - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Roku removed 5 GHz then added it back after they realized what a colossal mistake that was, and costs considerably more than $35.

  • Alketi - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Anyone pick up on the model number Easter eggs?

    Chrome cast model #: H2G2-42
    Power plug model #: MST3K-US

    Gotta love Google. :)
  • shwetshkla - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    plz explain.. :/ Reply
  • cbrownx88 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    yes please do explain! Reply
  • critical_ - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    H2G2 = HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy
    42 = Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything in H2G2
    MST3K = Mystery Science Theater 3000
  • r3loaded - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Chromecast looks nice, but I'm not sure why everyone's raving about it. For me, it's nearly useless. I don't have Netflix, I don't have any media bought off Google Play and there isn't a lot on YouTube that's worth displaying on a big screen.

    What I do have is a mass load of music and ripped Blu-rays (main movie in an MKV container with just the English audio track) stored on my home server, accessible as an SMB share. From what I can gather, I won't be able to play any of my locally stored media on a Chromecast. I don't see why a device that's supposed to do media streaming can't even do something this basic.

    I suppose I can have fun displaying web pages on the TV...
  • JNo - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    I agree. If it helps, apparently Chrome tabs can play a lot of media file types if you drag them in. You can then use Chrome Tab Casting to view it. However, I can only imagine a significant degradation in quality if the source was a decent quality 1080p file.

    So for me too, this is more of a solution looking for a question.
  • setzer - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Well, I have the same "problem", another is that I use subtitles, which means that every time I want to have subtitles on some movie I have to re-encode the movie even if it was in some supported format.
    Also my tv (and well, most recent tvs) already is capable of accessing websites and stream content with DLNA so i'm really unsure what is the point of a device like chromecast...
  • matt30 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    It can if you encode it correctly. Chome plays MKVs. Reply
  • setzer - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Well, that's the thing, chrome may play mkv's but the chromecast thingie only supports a limited amount of codecs, so unless you have all the streams (audio,video,subs) in a supported format you need to re-encode the streams.
    And if you need to re-encode there is not much of difference between re-encoding for chromecast or to a DNLA supported codec which is probably already supported by your tv.
  • savagemike - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    You have to realize there is a broader market for this stuff then straight up geeks. Half the population is using smart phones - which doesn't even say anything about tablet usage. How many of that set do you think also has a media collection on dlna servers? You think that is about half the population?
    This simply might not be a product directed at you.
    Also it is probably a matter of weeks before plex has this enabled. I would imagine by Christmas there will be several avenues available for media geeks with home collections to use chromecast. And that is completely aside from the mirrored screen casting features.
  • mitcoes - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Thanks for the article. Excellent first version of this product but as I decided not to be more an early adopter I'll wait for the Chromecast 2 or 3 with all the features it should have the first version.
    As WiFi 5Ghz VP9 hardware decoding ethernet, Miracast 1080p or even 4k mentioned here - artilce + comments - . The price is the best.

    And If I where a TV brand I would put inside my models something compatible - same software - but with this better features I wrote before as it seems this time Google TV is betting to be the new TV standard with or without chromecast and as we know standards - even if they are worse - usually win
  • ThortonBe - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Love the Grasshopper screen shot. Reply
  • rDeck - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    "After spending a week tearing my hair out over Miracast (which frankly has the worst interoperability in the entire industry)"

    Could you provide some insights on your experience with the bad interoperability of Miracast?
    I would be interested, because so far only very few devices are certified for Miracast, but those which are certified worked quite well for me until now...
  • rDeck - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Oh, except that Samsung "AllShare" dongle I just remembered. They somehow upgraded the firmware of it to support Miracast somehow, but despite having it certified, they officially don't really support Miracast... Reply
  • Popolon - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    You can find the same kind of device by chinese maker, called something like 'miracast keys' for $10 or a little more since few month. Google only rebranded them and rise a little the price. Reply
  • amicrozen - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Thanks for the detailed review so quickly.
    Google is on the right track, but I will wait for it to mature.
  • zepi - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    So this is googles Nth attempt to own content distribution channel over internet to peoples TV sets. Q and google tv etc...

    They seem to want it real bad.
  • YellowWing - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Brian - You might try adding the Google version of the Chrome Remote Desktop extension to get full screen going. I would definitely give it a try. Reply
  • relentlessfocus - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Not a biggie but its a shame it doesn't support 5ghz wifi. Slightly complicates things for those of us who have escaped 2.5ghz limitations Reply
  • MKBL - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    I'm confused. Right now I have a laptop with broken screen connected to a TV through HDMI. This setup handles most streaming efficiently, and I wonder if Chromecast will replace it with better efficiency. Maybe I'm facing my moment of being a tech-norant at age of 41, but I don't get the concept of the Chromecast. Does it receive all media data through laptop or tablet/smartphone that controls it remotely, or will it be streamed directly to Chromecast, which then decode it once the remote control - selecting channel/source, etc. ? If it is the former case, what is the difference between having a laptop connected and Chromecast connected to TV? I understand that the size is huge difference, and the price as well, but someone like me with extra laptop or media box like Zotac Z-box already, is there any benefit of having Chromecast? I'm not rejecting it, I am just confused. Reply
  • savagemike - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    You will see no benefit.
    Chromecast uses both methods you describe. For the apps with it built in the controlling device is doing nothing but acting as a control channel. The content is streamed directly from the cloud source by the chromecast device.
    For the beta tab-casting feature using a Chrome browser on a computer - the source computer is encoding everything and streaming it to the Chromecast. It is actively mirroring it's content to the Chromecast itself.
    To the Chromecast device itself these thing are indistinguishable I imagine.
    In any event if Google could hand out laptops with no screens for $35 this would be an even more amazing product.
  • Wolfpup - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Dumb question, but AppleTV basically does this same thing, but using OS X or iOS, right? Like Airplay can stream arbitrary content from OS X or iOS? (Though I guess not Windows?) Reply
  • Sm0kes - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Correct, this looks to compete directly with Airplay. I think the excitement around this stems from the fact that 1.) it's cheaper than anything airplay enabled 2.) and more "open" (as opposed to being locked to a single platform).

    Obviously, it'll take time for the developers and hackers to really dig in, but it's definitely a promising little device.
  • steven75 - Monday, August 05, 2013 - link

    It does a subset of the things ATV does, since ATV can:
    -Be used standalone without any other device
    -AirPlay local files from device-to-device (pictures/videos/apps)
    -Full 1:1 screen mirroring, no browser needed
    -Act as AirPlay receiver for multiple streams simultaneously (multi-room A/V)
    -More support from content owners: Hulu, HBO Go, MLB/NBA/NHL, etc

    Those things are definitely worth the extra $64 to me. YMMV.
  • matt30 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    It seems that only the beta channel of Chrome has the option to share your entire desktop. You might want to test that.

    Also, I don't think the "second mode" as you called it, works purely over LAN. In part I think that's the source of the delay. Try casting a tab then cutting your internet. If I'm right the tab casting should stop despite the fact that there is still a LAN.
  • Sm0kes - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Interesting. I can't imagine google would be encoding via the cloud? Reply
  • matt30 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    I'm sure the content is encoded locally but I suspect something funny might be happening with the routing. Reply
  • savagemike - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Why do you suspect this if you apparently don't have a unit to test it on? Reply
  • matt30 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    The latency and use of webRTC to transmit screen information. Reply
  • Marthisdil - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Only reason I was going to buy a Chromecast is because after accounting for 3 free months of Netflix, throwing away $11 on a gadget I wouldn't use much was OK with me.

    Since they got rid of the 3 free months, there's no reason for me to blow $35 on something I won't use much. Especially since my XBMC pc hooked up to my receiver and TV gives me a lot more functionality - at no additional cost to me - that does all the same, and more, than Chromecast.
  • Dentons - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Clearly they don't need to offer 3 free months of Netflix any longer. There is tremendous, even say overwhelming demand. With the Netflix offer, it was a steal. Right now, Chromecast is backordered for a month at most sites, and it's still a very good value for money.

    Many of us have products that do some of the things Chromecast does, but Chromecast does some things with an ease not found in many far more expensive solutions.

    I too have an existing media machine, one that is far more expensive than Chromecast. I still like the Chromecast. It's easy, it's wireless, it's cheap, it just works.

    Even if you have an existing media machine, don't knock Chromecast until you've tried it. And that's now, before it even has wide support. A device with this much demand and an open SDK is destined for greatness.
  • BugblatterIII - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Miracast works fine for me with my S3 and my gf's Note II. One gotcha is it doesn't like rooted devices; you have to hide root for it to work. Also if the receiver's too close to the TV (well my plasma at least) it doesn't connect; bringing it a foot in front of the TV gets around that. This is with the Netgear PTV3000. Reply
  • darwinosx - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    How is this device "awesome"? It's mediocre in every way. It's only value is cost and the low end Roku is close in cost and walks all over it. Reply
  • matt30 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    You must own a Roku. Derp. Reply
  • JoeJoe509 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Hmmmm dang. Kinda disappointed with the lack of 5Ghz Wifi especially with most reviews claiming that you need a strong signal. I know 5Ghz doesn't reach very far, but it's usually still faster even with a weaker signal. Reply
  • Tuvok86 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Great!! Finally I can experience Youtube buffering on my living room TV as well!! Reply
  • Ananke - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Interesting...another worthless device on the market, at least it is cheap this time around. I thought, and I thought, and I thought...yep, the best might be to use it as wireless mp3 transmitter from your phone to your receiver, unless your receiver doesn't come with that functionality already, of course. Along with the disappointing Nexus 7 concept /anybody let me know how to use Nexus on a 14 hour flight as a video player for the kids, if it doesn't come with microSD AGAIN???/
    It is so sad that the contemporary software and electronics just plain sucks, from a user perspective. And why the kids are so excited about some castrated stuff like this, I still cannot comprehend :).
  • DesktopMan - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link

    Why would Google default to VP8 on YouTube? All videos are available as h264 which has generally been proven as superior. Yes VP8 their codec but that's not a good reason.

    Also, Chrome tab casting really should be using h264 since pretty much every device can encode it in hardware (GPU or dedicated) these days.
  • martinofyre - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    Yeah, dont get it either, iMediaShare, does most of this?
    OUYA, missed the point, poor execution, now this. Too complicated, most people want it to be idiot proof like most apple stuff, too much pushing and pulling, people will give up before finishing reading about it.
    Its simple, display phone or tablet on tv, no extra hardware. You shouldn't need anything but your phone or tablet.
    This is not the death of the smart tv.
  • matt30 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    iMediaShare is just a DLNA server. And it doesn't stream in HD. Reply
  • burger2227 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    WTF does it do? If I did not know any better, I would have thought this was a bad review of the Nexus Q! How does it work? How well does it work? That's a review, not this crap. Reply
  • Heartdisease - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    Nexus as a hotspot & make it work on the hotel tv? I assumed so until you mentioned cloning on a laptop. Reply
  • Heartdisease - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    Don't know what happened there. Can I use just my Galaxy should precede the former. Reply
  • Marthisdil - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link

    It's $35 worth of useless to me. I'd have spent the money on it if it included 3 months of netflix (then the true cost would have been $11).

    But it offers no extra functionality for me, or anyone I know, that doesn't already have a smart tv or a media pc connected to their tv
  • dev_d1 - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - link

    This stick may not be of much value once the android community figures out how to receive chromecast signal on Rockchip quad core android mini PCs. Granted its cheaper, but the mini-PCs can do so much more than just receive and display whats being cast. Reply
  • IdBuRnS - Thursday, August 01, 2013 - link

    I bought one yesterday. Casting chrome tabs is slow, trying to play video from those tabs is unwatchable.

    Sweet, it's just another Netflix/Youtube device in my house...
  • IdBuRnS - Monday, August 05, 2013 - link

    And I returned the Chromecast to BestBuy yesterday. Reply
  • random2 - Saturday, August 03, 2013 - link

    There's a whole host of devices that do just this and more. They are called media players and they work great:) Reply
  • epoon2 - Sunday, August 04, 2013 - link

    When would google sell ads on Chromecast ? Reply
  • medi02 - Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - link

    Article starts with author stating that he doesn't hate Nexus Q.
    But what if I don't know what Nexus Q is?
  • AnnonymousCoward - Friday, August 09, 2013 - link

    This article is missing a concise opening on what the Chromecast functionally does. Reply
  • siyangqiu - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    For $35, you can also get a Rikomagic device off of Amazon. The difference is that while the $35 one is a bit sluggish, it does run full Android 4.0.4 (or newer if you get a newer version that also costs a bit more) with Play Store and everything. Think of it as an Android tablet without a touchscreen or battery. Just plug it into your TV, add in a usb mouse/keyboard (preferably wireless) and you are good to go. It also supports Airplay and MiraCast. Reply
  • siyangqiu - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Also, it comes pre-rooted and the community has already hacked together CWM and Cyanogenmod 10.1. Reply
  • - Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - link

    I have a question. I want to stream Netflix to my HDTV, but I want to have subtitles because my husband is hard of hearing. When I stream from my cable router via my Samsung Blu-Ray, I cannot get subtitles when I push the Subtitles button on the remote. BUT I can get subtitles (closed caption) on my iPad when streaming from Netflix. If I get a Google Chromecast, will I be able to get the movies WITH subtitles on my HDTV? It is also a Samsung product, and it supports subtitles on Netflix DVDs. Any advice appreciated! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now