Google Discontinues the Chromecast Line (theverge.com) 64
Speaking of Google launching a new TV streaming device, the company says it's "ending production of Chromecast" after 11 years of selling the streaming dongles. From a report: Even though Chromecast devices will now be available "while supplies last," Google says it will continue to push software and security updates to its newer devices without specifying which ones. The most recent update to the lineup was the Chromecast with Google TV released in 2022.
But now, Google says "technology has evolved dramatically" since the launch of the original Chromecast in 2013. "We invested heavily in embedding Google Cast technology into millions of TV devices, including Android TV," Google writes. "We are taking the next step in evolving how streaming TV devices can add even more capabilities to your smart TV, built on top of the same Chromecast technology."
But now, Google says "technology has evolved dramatically" since the launch of the original Chromecast in 2013. "We invested heavily in embedding Google Cast technology into millions of TV devices, including Android TV," Google writes. "We are taking the next step in evolving how streaming TV devices can add even more capabilities to your smart TV, built on top of the same Chromecast technology."
Google discontinues... (Score:5, Insightful)
.. everything eventually
Re:Google discontinues... (Score:4, Funny)
Their hardware helps the eWaste industry more than most.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: They didn't really discontinue it . . . (Score:2)
I've only used TVs as monitors for years. The irony is if you want an actual monitor itll have less functionality, usually no speakers and cost twice the price for the same screen size but if you're lucky maybe a slightly faster max screen refresh rate.
Re: (Score:2)
I find the quality of TVs rather poor compared to a monitor. If a monitor says it does 4K it does 4K@60 at 10-bit depths at least. Most TVs will scale content for (at the budget level) around 1080p@30 and even the more expensive panels won't go beyond 4K@30, with 10 bit colour depths even going down to 24Hz which is rather headache inducing for a monitor and they all get their content over HDMI rather than DisplayPort. All that image processing also introduces a decent amount of input lag.
Re: They didn't really discontinue it . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
My LG TV has some banding and brightness falls off at the very edges so it's not perfect, but for $330 you can't beat it for 42.5" 4k. And it has practically no lag, you can turn off almost all of the processing. It does 10 bit color at all resolutions, only HDR10 but what do I expect for the money? I bought it with one month's savings from not commuting, although I am going to have to start going in one day a week. I was using a Sony 1080p model before this, at 40", but I could count pixels in text. On the other hand it had a great backlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you want to sit so far away from your monitor that you need a 42 inch screen?
Why don't you want your display to fill most of your vision?
Why don't you want to turn your head occasionally, reducing neck strain from sitting in a single position?
Why don't you want to have one monitor that does the job of four monitors? I can have a browser window, a word processor, teams (ugh) and my email open and use all of them at once, and I do, every day. And it is actively faster and easier to have them all laid out. In fact, I have a laptop off to the side also providing a terminal or notes at a
Re: (Score:2)
Despite noscript and whatnot Costco just asked me to review my TV :D
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a snowflake when it comes to technology, got it.
Were you dropped on your head as an infant, or did the brain damage occur later?
Re: (Score:2)
If your work requires three screens, you are almost certainly doing it wrong.
The vast majority of my coworkers also use three screens, though a few use only two.
You certainly don't know what you're talking about. No "almost" weasel word is required.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone else does it so it must be a good thing to do. Got it.
You have not a single solitary clue but you will run your suck anyway. Got it.
Re: (Score:1)
Because the DPI is rather low, 4K@30 on a 42" vs 2x4K@120 on 2 27".
Sitting that close, neck strain is a problem if you have to continuously move your neck. And 4 low resolution programs open, do you even see the punctuation in your documents? I just can't understand, your font must be blurry, causing vision problems.
Re: (Score:1)
.. everything eventually
While that's a great meme, the reality is there's little purpose to them. It's virtually impossible to buy a non-smart TV these days. Google isn't adding smarts to TVs competing with other companies, they are not competing with the TV itself. It doesn't make sense to keep stringing along a product if it isn't making you money.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay but... what about people that don't want to buy a new TV?
Maybe I'm an outlier, but tvs last far longer for me than software support does. The TV in my living room has had several different streaming boxes and dongles that stopped being supported. I want to connect something new when that happens, not buy a whole new TV. It's cheaper and the lesser of two e-waste evils. That's the purpose these and devices like them serve.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay but... what about people that don't want to buy a new TV?
What about them? They probably have a Chromecast. You realise the Chromecasts on the market still work right? Also TVs do have finite lifespans. I didn't want to buy a new TV either, but I did it when the old one died.
Re: (Score:2)
But like I said... TVs last far longer than software support. (Also they can be repaired, but I'll ignore that since it's generally cheaper to just buy a new one nowadays.)
I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. When the software (taking about software on Chromecast and similar devices, as well as smart TVs) is no lon
Re: (Score:2)
...Until the software is no longer supported. You realize that was my point, right?
I prefer to talk about what is currently going on than some guess as to what may happen in the future. Google has no given any indication that a device will stop working and when it does... they literally already have a replacement product.
Re: (Score:2)
It's virtually impossible to buy a non-smart TV these days.
Except:
1. many of those new smart-TVs are pretty dumb
2. without updates any smart TV will become dumb
It doesn't make sense to keep stringing along a product if it isn't making you money.
Actually Google doesn't discontinue streaming devices, they just replace a model (Chromecast) with a new, more powerful one (Streamer).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this particular "killed by Google" has justification as even low end TVs are "smart" these days, and the Chromecast would be redundant.. The only market for this device is people who still own a "dumb" TV set. There's no point in mass manufacturing a product which there is now little demand for.
You missed the part where Chromecast is replaced by the similar but more powerful Streamer. Nothing is killed this time.
Re:Google discontinues... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Google discontinues... (Score:3)
Yep.
https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com]
So long and thanks for all the confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
The original Chromecast was a really tough sell for non-techies. I remember giving a few to family members back in the day and then having to replace them with Rokus (which personally, I'm not much of a fan of) because the whole cast from your phone thing was just too perplexing and inconvenient.
I know at some point Google basically just turned them into Android TV sticks and they gained a remote control. I was kind of surprised they retained the "Chromecast" brand beyond that point, because to me it seemed tainted by the perception that you'd be buying a streaming device which required your phone in order to operate it.
Re:So long and thanks for all the confusion (Score:4, Interesting)
the Chromecast 4k with the Android TV OS is a simple to use device, which i also gifted my entire family with. It is way better to use than regular TV's OS, and they were very thankful for it. It is kind of a shame to see Google discontinuing it.
Re: (Score:2)
the Chromecast 4k with the Android TV OS is a simple to use device
I'm talking about what Chromecast started out as. It was originally just a stick you'd plug into your TV which required you to cast all the content from another device. The current generation Chromecast is just a Google TV device, which Walmart sells something similar now for about twenty bucks. [walmart.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand they are only changing the form factor, but it could have been called Chromecast 4k with Android TV 2.0.
The only bad part is the new price. Chromecast was good because it was cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
based on the pictures i saw on another article, the new device looks double the side of the current chromecast dongle. It will also support multiple ports, so i figured that is the reason behind the more expensive price tag.
Most people will only need the HDMI port and USB-C/Power input, and the smaller size is also one of the reasons i liked it so much. I hope this does not become another smartphone industry war, where each new device is bigger and bigger than the previous, even though 99% of their consumer
Re: (Score:3)
The only additional port is the Ethernet port.
The old chromecast had a $20-30 external USB to Ethernet adapter, that was also a power supply at the same time, that you could purchase separately.
I agree most people won't be using the Ethernet port, and that it is not worth doubling the price.
But Google probably looked at Apple and said, if they can sell an overpriced Chromecast by having a larger form factor, why can't we?
The new processor / flash / RAM doesn't justify the pricing either. Moore's law applies
Re: So long and thanks for all the confusion (Score:2)
How were they confusing?
Open streaming app (or Chrome on a computer)
Select media to watch
Tap Chromecast icon
Select which TV/Device to cast to
I was converted the instant I started using it, going from connected laptops to only using Chromecast and the occasional gaming console for all media viewing.
My TV literally only has a Chromecast Ultra, two consoles and a HDMI for random devices to connect. No cable, no OTA and no damn Internet directly to the TV.
Thatâ(TM)s why Iâ(TM)ve loved it so much, I co
Re: (Score:2)
How were they confusing?
The concept of requiring another device to browse for media and control the experience (especially pausing to get up to use the bathroom) never clicked with the family members I gave the Chromecasts to. They'd constantly forget what they were supposed to be doing, and really did lament that it didn't just have some sort of remote.
I'd imagine the fact that Google did eventually redesign it with a remote and UI was an indication that they weren't alone in finding the original design to be frustrating to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, I got the Firestick instead of the Chromecast only because of the remote.
My kids can use it by themselves. I don't have to give them my phone (or any phone). Nobody outside Slashdot wants to be forced to use a phone (much less a computer) to watch TV.
Being able to continue a youtube video from a phone to the TV is a nice feature. But that's not how most people want to be selecting their show on Netflix most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So long and thanks for all the confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Cast from your phone is amazingly inconvenient. I was lent one by a friend, potentially for as long as I wanted, but having to control the TV from a phone is not easy. A remote control is easy. A phone needs to be unlocked, looked at directly, tapped in the right place, etc. And if you're in a dimly lit room watching TV, well... the remote control wins every contest there for ease of use.
Ie, the doorbell rings, and now you want to pause the streaming TV. That's 10 seconds of fumbling right there.
I *assume* they improved that over time so that it wasn't just "casting" from a different device.
Re: So long and thanks for all the confusion (Score:2)
Biggest problem with the new ones is they're tied to an account. I can no longer stream my Netflix account to my mom's Chromecast because her Chromecast needs a Netflix account to work. My ancient Chromecast works with any casting source.
pitiful android tv (Score:3)
The problem with android tv is that the processors in the tv are pitifully underpowered. A dongle makes upgrading a lot easier and cheaper.
Re: pitiful android tv (Score:3)
The problem with Android TV is that I donâ(TM)t want Google on my TV. My TV is from 2009 and just fine without any smart features, and remains fully functional compared with some much newer smart TVs that have stopped being supported by some apps. I bought an Apple TV 4 (HD) when it came out just under nine years ago and been very happy with that for my streaming content and casting from phones and laptops. I can see this TV going strong for many more years, and apparently I wonâ(TM)t be ever b
Re: (Score:3)
drawing to an inside straight (Score:5, Funny)
I've been trying for more than a decade at this point to figure out why a company like Google, that at one point had every media personality and government official and tech worker and even every everyday joe kissing their asses and evangelizing for them as incredible gods of innovation, would squander all that by starting and abandoning product after product after product, until there's nothing left of them but [checks] Yahoo.
But I've finally figured it out! The only reasonable explanation is that every Google product was made as a result of Google losing a bet.
Re: (Score:3)
At many companies, you make most of your profits from past products and support contracts and if those products are properly supported then you generate goodwill so that customers might consider buying newer products. Google seems to be the opposite way around; dumping anything old (except search) and pushing new ideas hoping for a massive success.
Of course some companies try similar things, like having their best teams working on new products, pushing older products and releases to offshore teams; even if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
evangelizing for them as incredible gods of innovation, would squander all that by starting and abandoning product after product after product
Turn it on its head. Why continue running a product that has lost its relevance. Why force something to stick to an original form? Do you still ride a horse to work, or do you have a car?
The likes of the Chromecast had a very real purpose a decade ago. These days not so much. It's virtually impossible to buy a TV these days which doesn't have all apps natively on it. I think I still have a chrome cast somewhere only because I accidentally put it in a drawer instead of the bin when our last TV died. Nostalgi
Re: (Score:2)
Success is its own reward... in this case, a bad reward.
They thought they knew why they were succeeding, so they pushed harder and harder with limited understanding of why they were ever successful and eventually, they left the 'successful' stage from poor management that were unable to see the reality of the situation. It is common across all human endeavours... even personal and individual endeavours.
We are all blind and stupid... some more than others.
Re: (Score:2)
Chromecast is not a 1:1 replacement for miracast.
Chromecast gets the content directly from the Internet, without using your phone. So it's much better for most uses starting with watching Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically true, the Miracast was point to point with your device only. Either the stream went to your device first or originated there (pre-downloaded). While the first Chromecast would get the stream from the original source, it still required the use of a third device to select and control the streams, so Chromecast was not standalone (TV + Chromecast + Chrome device). I think to most users it sort of felt like the same thing.
I think streaming was changing at the same time. Miracast made more sense i
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only that. Miracast was designed as a WiFi-only protocol. It's mostly useful if you have a couple pictures on your phone that you want to show on your big TV to your friends/family. It sucks as a way to show a 2h movie, because it would completely drain your phone's battery. Chromecast (and casting in general) solved that problem.
To that day, I'm not sure if there would be a way for my wired desktop holding my pre-downloaded movie collection to stream them to my TV using Miracast.
Google turns good devices into e-waste (Score:2)
But Google Knows Best, so f' the environment and let them spy on you more.
Re: Google turns good devices into e-waste (Score:2)
Well, yes. How else would you make people who are comfortable with what they've got to switch? You've got to force them.
Until, one day... (Score:2)
...they will shut the servers down and all the devices will get bricked because they will no longer be able to call home.
Chromecast protocol is alive and well (Score:2)
Chromecast functionality is now built into Chrome and Android TV. Just because they aren't selling a $35 dongle doesn't mean you can't get one from a third party with the same or even better level of support. They've successfully bootstrapped the protocol so well that they don't even need to make the device anymore.
There are enough dongles in the market already (Score:3)
I'm still doing good use of my 1st and 2nd gen chromecasts.
Having said that, is not like those devices were perfect. The first 4 iterations were dificult to use for non-techies due to lack of remote. The always online requirement limited usefulness when out and about (say, hotel room or vacation cottage with no internet). And everytime I get an internet "blip" my pihole has nightmares due tot he chromesats calling home (the guugle programmers never undesrtood that, after 1 minute, they sould poll ~ every second, istead of doing it constantly).
But, the main point is, nowadays, there are plenty of cheap and cheerfull dongles, from Amazon, Roku, walmart's Onn , to various chinese nonames. Then slightly more powerfull little boxes.
The chromecast is neither as impressive, nor as needed when it debuted 12 years ago.
Farewell chromecast.
Re: (Score:1)
No it isn't.
Old TV that aren't smart, will not be able to be cast on, which is one thing that people like, to not have a smart TV, and be able to unplug the chromecast, and reduce attacks vectors when it required, not mentioning the shit amazon, roku or others chineses no name you were mentioning. We expect quality, and that what Chrome Cast bring us, not sure about your difficulty to use the device as a user, maybe you should had contacted Google Support for some help, but my grand parents were absolute no
Is this dupe a record? (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Don't care.. (Score:2)
I'll cancel all my subscriptions (Score:2)
The day I have to replace my ancient Chromecast with a newer one that needs to be tied to a Google account is the day I unsubscribe from all video services.