[drzaiusapelord]

I've been having a lot of success with the Chromecast lately. The more I think about it, the less I want an intelligent TV or yet another device (which needs updates and config) and controller (which needs its batteries replaced and fished out of the couch cushions) attached to it. A dumb receiver like the Chromecast seems to be the superior solution. I have no shortage of smart devices, I don't need another. I just need an easy wireless way to get whats on my smart devices onto my dumb TV.

Hard to beat at $35, or $29 at Best Buy right now due to a sale. That's practically sales tax on the AppleTV plus the more or less required AppleCare.

[JoshTriplett]

Agreed. I don't want a smart TV or a media-player box, I want a smartphone/tablet/PC and the ability to easily get its content onto a TV.

And if you're inclined to tinker, the Chromecast is a ton of fun: it's actually running a full browser engine, and you can send it a page to view. That page can then use things like WebRTC streaming.

[andybak]

Two things I would like to put forward in counterpoint:

1. Communal browsing of content - you sometimes want to browse available content on the big screen so everyone can join in. That means menus and UIs on the TV not the device

2. Controls with physical buttons have two advantages. A well-designed remote is much easier to learn and use without needing to look at it. Secondly - games controlled via a touchscreen when you're actually looking at the TV are a fairly unpleasant experience.

I do want a smart TV with a physical controller. I also want Chromecast/Airplay etc. Different beasts.

[billyhoffman]

I think that being able to "fling your screen" like Chromecast or Airplay is a future I'd like.

[hershel]

But what about latency ?