• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    In place of the Chromecast, the company will offer the newly announced $99.99 Google TV Streamer,

    They’re replacing it with a very similar product. Nothing to see here.

    • Thann@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 months ago

      Similar product that costs 4 times as much and has AI features…

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The low-power streaming box is dying. It’s not completely without reason, 4k playback is actually a bit demanding.

        We are in a place where the 2017 nVidia Shield is beginning to show its age and that leaves the AppleTV as the only powerful and capable consumer set top box on the market. This new option from Google will at least provide some competition and an option outside of Apple’s ecosystem.

        • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I cannot believe NVIDIA has essentially abandoned its SHIELD micro console line. My Shield Pro has been an amazing sideloading fiend.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I absolutely love mine, but I’d be lying if I said it didn’t stutter sometimes when asked to perform more demanding tasks. The chip is also going to start having issues with formats in the coming years. I’d love for nVidia to put out something that used a rival to the A15 in Apple’s box. Native AV1 decoding and just raw speed is really needed to catch up to use cases in 2024 compared to 7 years earlier.

            • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              We’ll have to see if the processor is better than the shield. Google’s spec page shows it has 1 GB of RAM more than the shield but conveniently does not say what processor is in it

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          This $100 box from Google runs on the same SoC as the $50 streaming box from Onn (Walmart). The only major differences are the Google box as 4GB of RAM vs 3GB, a 1Gb Ethernet port instead of 100Mb (both have WiFi 6), and the Google box has a USB Type C port for power/data and would need an OTG adapter/hub while the Onn box has a Type A and a barrel plug for power.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            TBH, the biggest issue there is the 100Mb port on the cheaper box. That is actually too low to stream a quality high-bitrate video file.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re replacing it with a very similar product. Nothing to see here.

      Like they do with messengers every couple of years.

  • _pete_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    ·
    4 months ago

    I feel the original Chromecast was probably the last truly great original Google product, it was simple, it was inexpensive and it worked - you just plugged it in, joined your network and you were off, there really wasn’t anything like it at the time.

    I really hate what they’ve become.

  • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    4 months ago

    Really, rebranding from Chromecast to Google TV Streamer? Who the fuck was the genius that greenlighted this?

    • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 months ago

      I knew someone who worked at a really well loved local restaurant. One day a new manager came in and IMMEDIATELY wanted to change the name. According to him, you should change a restaurant’s name every 2 years

      Why would you ruin the recognition you already have? He was also planning on changing the name to be the exact same as a business down the street. I think he was an idiot

    • jdeath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      they make 6.1 million dollars per day for their executive savvy

  • thezeesystem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    4 months ago

    Me - Ok Google, give me a open source way to turn my raspberry pi into a 4k streaming box.

    Google - Got it. Playing Tyler Swift on living room tv

    Me - wtf?

  • Gloria@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Yes I know the customer learned that product name and has a good connotation with it, but how about we change the name to something completely different?”

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    RIP to a real one.

    Back in the day when streaming was cheap as hell and made sense as all things were on Netflix, having a Home Mini with and a Chromecast was bliss.

    I used to have a shortcut for the phrase “I’m so tired”, it would start playing Star Trek TNG from Netflix on the Chromecast monitor and it just werked. Saved me from a bad trip once too, I was really uncomfortable on 135ug so in a desperate attempt to hold onto reality I said “alexa…uhmm…uh…hey google play RoboCop” and it just worked.

    Only thing is it played the wrong RoboCop (2014) but that only distracted me from spiraling further, like “hold up Samuel L Jackson was in this?”

    It feels weird to say but I was a genuinely happy customer. Then the home mini stopped working as well, started triggering by itself, didn’t hear words right, then the Chromecast had trouble updating firmware and rebooting. Then Netflix platformed that douchebag chapelle.

    Now all that’s left of it is the pihole I used to block ads for it.

  • I_Clean_Here@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Did y’all even click the article?

    It will be rebranded, basically, to become the Google TV streamer. The tech is not going anywhere.

    “In place of the Chromecast, the company will offer the newly announced $99.99 Google TV Streamer, which launches on September 24th.”

    • surfrock66@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a different device. Already, the existing google tv workflow is different than the chromecast, which was phone control first. Now, it brings up an app which favors navigation with the remote. If I want a set top box, I’ll put a kodi box in…I wanted a dumb dongle which could be controlled from a phone. It’s fundamentally a different product.

      My hope is that casting decouples as a concept from being a google protocol. Even though Amazon is backing it now, I hope MatterCast can become an open casting standard. My vision is having MatterCast be an installable add-on to Kodi, and then an ultra-light image can be made for super low-end devices supporting audio and video (or both).

  • C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not surprised. Like chromecast audio, chromecast couldn’t really serve an adequate amount of ads. Basically it’s only value was it forced you to use stock youtube app to stream preventing any adblocking, but if you cast your screen, then it can’t stop adblocks, so it makes sense to discontinue this product. There’s some open source projects out there that might be worth looking into, NymphCast is one I saw, uses a rasberry pi.

  • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 months ago

    Don’t know anything about newer Chromecast but I really love my older one. Its just a dumb stick with no apps built in that I can cast stuff from my phone to. The only recent annoying thing with it is that the YouTube app changed the behaviour when you’re connected, so now instead of tapping on a video to bring up a menu asking whether to play it now or add it to the queue it now just defaults playing it now when you tap on it. Makes setting up a queue of videos really annoying now cause you have to tap on the three dots to add it to the queue now.

  • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 months ago

    Literally all my friends know the name “Chromecast”, why would you rename it

      • Balder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        It seems so, some people in the thread complained their parents don’t use ChromeCast because it needed the phone to use. Apparently seniors are also better if you want to sell an expensive subscription when the opportunity arises.

    • 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Chromecast naming scheme did get weird - it’s difficult for someone who doesn’t follow these things to know if they want the chromecast ultra or chromecast with google tv. I agree though they should have just called the new product something like “Chromecast Box 2025”.

  • Antergo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    They actually have a great product, and they’re canceling it? The new ones were kind of expensive already, but every app supported it and it was very nice

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Maybe they’re coming out with something new and more expensive, or they’ve entered a licensing deal with another -cast-able company so they can charge you or get licensing fees without the manufacturing overhead.

      Or maybe they’re just being Google and cancelling yet another thing that people like to use.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        They are, I saw an article for it the other day. Some compact set top box running Android TV that costs way more than any Chromecast ever did.

        Casting is nice but I’m thinking now is a good time to consider switching to something like Apple TV if you need a dedicated streaming device since there’s basically no price difference anymore.

  • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    Hmm, so, last month I began to have issues with my Chromecast for the first time. I have an old 3rd gen Chromecast attached to my bedroom television (not a smart tv) for the purpose of casting obnoxiously long video essays to fall asleep to. After like a decade of essentially hassle free operation, it suddenly stopped being able to maintain a connection to my phone. I cast a video, and after approximately 10 minutes, the cast disconnects and I get a message on my phone saying “this video cannot be played in the background”. I’ve tried ever troubleshooting technique I can think of.

    I know I shouldn’t attribute to malice what can be explained by other causes, but boy, seeing this news today sure makes me think about things like planned obsolescence.

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Planned obsolescence is built into googles processes.

      They’ve created an environment where your primary method of advancing in your career is only creating new things and there’s little to no options when choosing to support existing things. Some things have survived by chance and/or something to keep employees busy, but it’s unintentional.

  • exanime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is why I’d never invest in anything Google.

    It’s already rolling the dice to see if they enshitify things fast enough to ruin it for me, but now you know they will just kill whatever you have been using on a whim

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Isn’t Chromecast built into most devices now? Why would someone need a dongle to do what the TV can do natively? Otherwise something like an Nvidia Shield is a better option anyway.

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Old, dumb or smart TVs without a connection to the internet but still want to either cast to or browse on.

        I use mine to avoid using the Samsung UI which I also piholed the hell out of for Samsung ad services…

      • abcdqfr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because some smart TVs will up and brick themselves by irreparably filling their storage with various updates to the point of no longer being able to install or even update anything on the TV whatsoever THANK YOU Samsung)

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ll stick to my Nvida Shield thank you very much. They are slow as hell with updates but when they do they even update the old 2017 devices.