Google Claims ChromeCast Local Streaming Only Broken Because of SDK Changes 82
sfcrazy writes "You may be familiar with the story that a ChromeCast update disabled the playback of local content, but Google has confirmed that it will allow every kind of content. Google Statement: 'We're excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.' So no need to fear!"
Re: Most unsurprising explanation is the most like (Score:2, Informative)
I suspected it was some mistake, but I still think they're evil.
Well, Edward Snowden pretty much confirmed that. [cryptome.org]
Re:Most unsurprising explanation is the most likel (Score:5, Informative)
Much as everyone on here loved to crow about how Google were being evil and locking the device down, isn't this the far more likely reason? An undocumented API has changed. Now can we stop overreacting? Locking down this device isn't really their style.
No, their style will be to cancel the device/services with some warning and litle explanation.
Cancel the system that's bringing YouTube (and its ads) into the living room? Seems very unlikely. In general, Google only discontinues services that aren't very successful (no, Reader wasn't very widely used, in spite of the heat generated by its fans). Successful services that are generating revenue are expanded. Successful services that aren't generating revenue are monetized. Unsuccessful services are discontinued if it looks like they're not going to become successful.
The Chromecast seems to be very successful, and to have an obvious and successful revenue model in place (YouTube). I don't think it's going anywhere.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but don't speak for Google.)
Re:A distinction without a difference (Score:5, Informative)
Except when your SDK is in beta and explicitly states that apps are not to be distributed without your approval until the SDK comes out of beta.
In this case, I'm not sure if it's even an SDK change - it's a removal of an exploit that was used to allow a non-whitelisted unofficial app to behave like a whitelisted one.