[geekymartian]

Sorry, I'm going to be "that guy"

OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?

Examples (with beefy hardware and way more capabilities): http://dx.com/p/android-4-1-mini-google-tv-player-w-512mb-ra...

http://dx.com/p/reko-mk802-android-4-0-mini-pc-w-wi-fi-hdmi-...

They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware (yeah, only 36 bucks and youre done!) and you don't need to bother using another device to start playing stuff.

Plus, you can play your own files, access your network resources...

OH, HYPE

[samuelfine]

"OK, so it does exactly what the chinese players are doing since 2011?"

Those two links don't offer a lot of detail, so I'll have to make some assumptions. But, for starters:

- Chromecast is tightly integrated with existing devices, so you don't need a second workflow - you can "cast" content right from whatever you're doing, instead of needing to grab a remote, launch an app, and re-find whatver content you want to play.

- The Chromecast SDK means sites will be able to more easily create TV-friendly interfaces.

- As The Verge's review leads with: it’s surprisingly difficult to put a web browser on TV. Even if it's buggy (for now), if I'm going to browse on my TV, I'd rather use my laptop trackpad + keyboard than a TV remote.

"beefy hardware and way more capabilities"

Looks like Chromecast is on par, actually: 512MB RAM, 4GB storage. No dumbed-down processor details that I can understand, but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat. Not sure what "capabilities" you're referring to, but again, the SDK is open to pretty much anyone.

"They can login into pandora, netflix without extra hardware..."

Chromecast can also do this. And Rdio, Spotify, Flash video and pretty much any website.

"Plus, you can play your own files..."

Chromecast does this. Drag the file in to a new Chrome tab.

"...access your network resources..."

Can those dongles do that? I don't see software details. Regardless, I'd be shocked if there's not a Plex app for Chromecast in a matter of weeks.

The "HYPE" argument only makes sense if the product being offered is in some way worse. Chromecast is the same price, offers nearly all of the same features out of the box - and many additional features - with a workflow that's significantly more convenient for most users. That's not hype. At worst, it's better execution.

[geekymartian]

1) got my first android tv around 2012 and that was the second version of mk802, early models were available before.

2) grab a remote is better than grab a laptop and fire an application, plus you need to power it on, etc. but if you prefer that it's ok. Netflix and pandora apps are available in Android, no need to use a web browser.

3) " but based on all the reviews, it's capable of playing 1080p video no sweat" well, is not what the review says:

"If you’re using the Chromecast extension for Chrome on your laptop to project an otherwise incompatible video site (like Hulu or HBOGO), however, video quality can dump quite a bit depending on your setup. It’s using your laptop as a middle man to encode the video signal and broadcast it to the Chromecast, whereas the aforementioned compatible sites just send video straight to the dongle, mostly removing your laptop from the mix. When casting video tabs on a 2012 MacBook Air running on an 802.11n network, the framerate was noticeably lower and there were occasional audio syncing issues."

You even need an additional transcoder! the mini pcs can decode MKVs by themselves (and lots of formats more)

4) network resources, yes they can: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ws.plattner.ci...

Look, I got an apple TV and one of those "dongles" connected to my TV, and trust me, when I need to play an MKV is way more easier to use a remote to access the File NAS than firing up Beamer app (http://beamer-app.com/) from my mac to watch a movie.

Chromecast requires extra hardware to complete almost anything, so yes, I think it's less capable than the mini pcs at 36 usd that ship free.

[samuelfine]

1) Cool! That doesn't have any real bearing on Chromecast, though, and those devices don't have the extensibility that Chromecast does.

2) Anything that reduces the amount of hardware I interact with is a net positive, IMO. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "in Android". Netflix and Pandora are on the web and iOS devices, there is no shortage of ways to find their content. In my experience, browsing YouTube has been a giant PITA on every single device I've tried. I'd much rather browse videos on my computer and send ones I find to my TV as desired.

3) Tab mirroring is in beta, as Google has said, which is not the same as an app streaming directly from the web. (No middleman device required.) It's already pretty good, but does need improvement. In the meantime, Netflix - which has "native" support - is great, with none of those issues. The rest are simply good, and will become great once Google improves their mirroring feature.

4) That's a feature that 95% of users won't ever need. If the other dongles you mention do that, fantastic. I'll concede that Chromecast isn't doing that now, but I think we can agree it's definitely not a major selling point. (Not to mention, there's no reason someone couldn't write a Chromecast app to do something exactly like that. Just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't or won't.)

I play my MKVs from a local Plex server to my Roku ($80). Chromecast ($35) will likely replace that soon, either via the Plex Web Client (which organizes all my media in a nice, friendly format, no ugly directory tree browsing required) or a "native" app. Plus, a remote control is extra hardware. I'm never more than 5 feet from my phone, and I regularly lose my TV remotes.

Those dongles you linked to seem to be running Google TV. Chromecast runs a stripped down version of Chrome OS. Two sides of the same coin, but Chromecast is far more integrated and extensible. Seems worthy of some praise to me.

[netcan]

Since you've self admitted to being "that guy," here's how I think that guy is wrong.

Almost any tech product, has predecessors. When the iphone came out That Guy was all over it. It wasn't the first phone that had web browswing, emails and music. It didn't even have whatever it didn't have at the time. Basically, just a nokiaberry with reality distortion. Nothing new.

That guy obviously missed the point because within a few days every website was getting iphone web traffic. Sites that had one nokiaberry hit every 3 months were now testing on iphone. When the app store opened, all the users were installing (even paying for) apps. People made sure they had a data plan. The important thing about the iphone is not that it could do web browsing, its that it could do web browsing in an easy, pleasant way.

I don't know if chromecast is any good. But pointing to an android-on-a-stick is missing the point. There are lots of ways of getting youtube or netflix onto your TV. Consoles, set top boxes, laptops, smart TVs, android sticks. They're all clumsy and most people don't use them. The hard part that is missing is doing interaction (eg, text search) in a way thats easy and pleasant and fits into people's slob time.

[invisible]

Googlecast (the software side of Chromecast's magic) is the real winner here. Having a device that can stream ANY content in a couple simple API calls is unlike anything on the market currently.

Chromecast supports everything chrome does (audio, video, web sockets, canvas, web audio, etc.) and it all just works unlike most of the TV dongles on the market today (which usually have issues with google play, Netflix, and/or Hulu).

[geekymartian]

Agree about the software, but don't show the device as "magic" please.

[invisible]

You're going to critique me using the word magic? Wow.

Magic in software refers to the ease-of-use and simplicity. I thought that was apparent in this community.

[geekymartian]

As I said, I agree with your comment that the software is the good part (or magic as you call it). The magic word comment was about the TC writer expression about the hardware of the device, which is not that magic in my opinion.

[jonknee]

For starters it's available from stores that people trust (Google Play, Amazon and BestBuy), has cross platform support (Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android) and is a polished product.

Also, you linked to "Android in a USB stick" products, that's not what Chromecast is.

[corresation]

Sometimes less is more. We already have a lot of interfaces around us, so why add yet another? In this case it's an extremely simple mechanism of streaming audio/video to a TV. Having dealt with a number of disastrous (but purportedly very flexible) oddball interfaces on every different device...no thanks.

Further there is a recurring mistake that people are making when they say that this can only play from the "web" (for instance http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/07/25/chromecast-catch..., though he is hardly alone is saying something like that). The web is ubiquitous, and anything that can host a stream can become "the web". Expect file servers to add Chromecast sourcing in no time.

[VikingCoder]

I plug a Chromecast in to the projector in my business.

TA DA. Anyone can project to it, just by downloading one browser extension.

Can you do that?

[geekymartian]

Right out of the box, no I can't. Downloading an android app to do some sort of airplay I could probably do it. My comment was just to let ppl know that for the same 35 bucks you probably could have been doing the same thing since last year. The SDK part is interesting in the other hand, and I will get a Chromecast to see how that works.