How much of this is an "end" to Chromecast and a rebranding of Chromecast to "Google TV Streamer"? It seems like the bare-bones experience of a Chromecast being tied to a phone (or browser) is getting replaced with an Apple TV like experience. If this is the case, it might be a (rare) example of a good branding shift from Google.<p>I have had two Chromecasts (the original and an Ultra) and I feel like both were hampered by the phone requirement. Part of this is my house having kids without phone who would have liked to have access to Netflix, and part is due to my Apple TV use, which I use far more often.<p>I'm sure there will be some loss of functionality here, but hopefully it's with the benefit of a much better user experience.
Wow, even for Google, this seems like an exceptionally well-liked and popular brand name and device to kill.<p>The replacement ("Google TV streamer") seems to be a quite different device – most importantly, one that will be very visible next to a TV, and not out of sight behind it like its predecessor.<p>For anyone not particularly interested in having "AI" in their streaming stick (and this being Google, surely that will just happen in the cloud...?), I'm not sure if that's an improvement.
I had an original 2013 Chromecast plugged into my TV for ten years. It did its job admirably, until it started becoming more and more unstable and began rebooting randomly with each new OS version that Google pushed.<p>I finally replaced it about a month ago with an onn streaming box from Walmart for about 20 bucks--less than I paid for the original Chromecast a decade ago:<p><a href="https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-Streaming-Box-New-2023-4K-UHD-Resolution/2835618394?athbdg=L1200&from=/search" rel="nofollow">https://www.walmart.com/ip/onn-Google-TV-4K-Streaming-Box-Ne...</a><p>Works great, and still has Chromecast support. Most of the stuff I used to cast can be handled by Google TV having equivalent Android apps now, but I still like casting my local music from my phone to the TV when I'm reading. There's a $50 4K version out now, as well, if you have a higher resolution TV, but the TV I had the Chromecast plugged into caps out at 1080P, so, no need.
This is not the same thing. My Chromecast dedicated device would put a default nice picture, then wait for a cast.<p>Google TV and this new device displays advertisements, store, and more. I hate it.<p>It's the last google thing in my house. When it dies, google will be gone from my house.
As a lot of commenters are already pointing out, this is a bit different than Google’s past escapades with poor product management. In this case, they have a replacement hardware device, they have an operating system that is widely used by OEMs, and there is wide support for casting natively to TVs.
well, they no longer produce the "display-only" Chromecast in favor of their "Google TV" sticks with Remote etc.<p>Not that much of a shock here, the market moved on from simple wireless display dongles.<p>Unfortunately no sign of Google Cast protocol being opened for general purpose use. Would be great to be able to run your own custom Receiver-device without needing a Google certificate...
I'm suddenly reminded to ask this community whom I assume might know: Are there any good "dumb tv" solutions out there? I'm thinking 1-4 HDMI ports, and a maximum of RF tuning and input-switching on the firmware.<p>Products would be preferred suggestions, but I'm even at the point of considering DIY solutions, if something looks lego-ish enough!
This makes me sad as I have multiple chromecasts, it has its issues but for the price they're amazing. I guess they need to throw more money at AI search nobody wanted or likes instead.<p>I feel like nobody running product at google has any idea what they're doing.
Chromecast symbolizes the older Google I loved. The one that did a damn good job competing with Apple. Exciting projects like Google Glass that while weren’t successful were still optimistic. Not today’s Google, the parking garage cloud company. Readers digest ad agency Google. I will admit that without those ads we wouldn’t have the cool stuff, I just don’t see that stuff much these days. I see 90s Microsoft monopoly dressed in Apples aesthetic.<p>Real shame, I prefer controlling with my phone more than the shitty smart tv interfaces. Don’t even get me started with controlling said interfaces with my phone, it’s not as simple.<p>I use a tv from 2010 , Chromecast is the retrofit that lets me do modern streaming. Of course we’re far past the transitional stage the device served as every $100 tv is equipped with streaming.
They also announced Google Streamer, which is just Google Chromecast but more expensive I guess, and also with the Nest technology for smart home stuff, which they also killed iirc.<p>I have to say, I don't really see this product strategy as being good, or working. Google's product is just a mess, they are nearing Microsoft levels of incoherence. When you compare Google with Apple, it's such a night and day experience.
> With this, there are no changes to our support policy for existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security updates to the latest devices.<p>"no changes to our support policy" links to <a href="https://safety.google/nest/" rel="nofollow">https://safety.google/nest/</a><p>It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?
They’ve been getting more sluggish for years. When the Ultra launched I could stream something to the TV from my laptop or phone nearly instantly. Now it’s a 20 second wait and only 80% chance of success. Why the fuck can’t products by Google improve performance over time? What perverse incentives do they have to slowly and steadily make them worse than they were out of the box?
This makes me so sad.<p>The old Chromecast experience -- choose media on phone, play on TV -- is all I ever wanted. I hate using a remote to browse -- my phone is much better. I hate having my TV logged into an account -- my family, kids, guests all use the same TV and I don't want them using my account, nor do I want to see their account when I'm using it.<p>The Chromecast protocol is the only thing that the entire ecosystem of Android streaming apps integrates nicely with. I wish Google would open it up to third parties to create Chromecast-replacement devices... but of course they won't. They aren't doing what's best for users, they are doing what's best for their engagement metrics and revenue. And thus, our experience actually gets worse.
Call me cynical but it’s a shell game as far as I can see: same product but new name, probably cheaper parts, more expensive so more profit per unit…except they won’t sell as many units, but on paper it will look good so the market will reward them. I can’t tell though if investors and analysts are too stupid to see it this way or maybe they don’t care either? I guess it’s better to not care because you make money so instead of calling it out when you see it, just give it pass and everyone makes more money. I know Google isn’t the only company that does this it’s just a sad commentary on tech and the market that it works.
In this case "premium" just means "expensive, right? What new features are there? AI summaries? I don't think there is anyone that would think AI summaries would be worth paying extra. But I do think people would pay more if there was a version that completely removed any and all AI integrations.
The 30 dollar price point was the big deal. A 100 dollar price point opens up competition to a lot more devices.
As a consumer, this is completely unexciting.
I’m incredibly anxious about this.<p>Chromecast is core to how my family’s television usage works. I got a free Chromecast recently and it’s a much worse UX than the ones I got many years ago.<p>What I wish for is for the ubiquitous Cast button found everywhere to be open and neutral and for there to be a whole market of devices that’ll work. It feels frustrating and kind of ugly that there’s an Apple version and a Google version, etc.
They only reason I went with a Chromecast over a Nividia shield was the price. Now that the gap has narrowed the shield looks much more enticing. The pro version can run a PLEX server and has 2 USB 3.0 ports for storage. And Gforce Now is actually quite nice for games where a milliseconds don't matter all that much.
Is there a replacement device out there for the ability to cast a tab or your full desktop to a TV? We use this functionality all the time and I would rather not deal with HDMI cords.
Is there any substitute for chrome cast audio? I love being able to play in sync audio to the group of receivers I choose throughout the property, using any amplifier. I’m not even using the digital optical input and I love them
I got a free Chromecast ultra when I got a free Google Stadia box kit a few years ago.<p>I didn’t use the Chromecast ultra much but I thought it was pretty neat. Kinda sad to see it go.<p>Honestly the Google Stadia controller is probably the most comfortable and well designed controller I’ve used. I still have it and use it for PC gaming stuff. I don’t play video games much anymore so I don’t know if the other controllers nowadays are better but that was my experience.<p>The point I’m trying to make is that it seems Google has talented engineers and designers. So I wonder why so many of its products fail and why it cancels so many things…
Here's the replacement product: Google TV Streamer<p><a href="https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.google/products/google-nest/google-tv-streamer/</a>
What reasonably priced alternatives are there for streaming from a phone/laptop to a screen via HDMI port? Ideally a portable solution that I can use when traveling and staying in hotels or AirBnBs (as I can currently do with my Chromecast unless the hotel WiFi has an annoying sign-in process). Even more ideally, something that's free/open-source and can be guaranteed not to collect and send data to third parties.
" Android TV has expanded to 220 million devices worldwide and we are continuing to bring Google Cast to other TV devices, like LG TVs."<p>This line in particular puts a bad test in my mouth, because my $2k LG G2 OLED has the worst support for casting I've ever experienced. In fact the software in general is so bad I was excited to pre-order the new Google TV Streamer this morning, so I don't have to deal with it again.
Too bad, the Google TV Streamer seems to be targeting a higher price and performance (not gonna say no to that..), which the Chromecast did a decent job at a relatively low cost, and made some low-end "smart TV" usable with a quick drop-in replacement.<p>Hopefully they'll try to reach back that low-end market in some way.
We had this coming. Over the years, the various chromecasts in our house are slowly getting worse. I had the sense they are cutting costs on the software and servers powering these devices.<p>Spend way too much on the chromecasts and home devices. I guess they will continue to work for a few years, hopefully.<p>After this, no more google devices for me.
Whenever I submit Google Home/Chromecast bugs/feature requests I include some snark in my sign-off like "I know you don't care about this product and it will be killed soon, but if I'm wrong please consider the suggestions above."
>When we launched Chromecast (...) connecting your TV to your phone, tablet or laptop was clunky and hard<p>I would argue that this still holds true today. Is there any reliable way to do the screen mirroring/photo sharing from an Android phone to a Samsung smart TV without additional devices? My Pixel works great with Chromecast or a similar dongle(e.g. Xiaomi Box) but I really couldn't make it work without them. I tried a couple of options from plain Android sharing, through Samsung's SmartThings, to some sketchy apps that ask for your CC for trial but none of them worked before I gave up and asked my host for a HDMI cable.
Their new streamer has MediaTek MT8696 SoC, same processor as Fire Stick 4k max 2021. Also WiFi 5. Not worth it for $99, this is worth $50 the most.<p>Nvidia Shield and Onn still have better value for their niches.
Sigh, of course. At least this isn't quite Google's usual product shutdown; Chromecast sorta more or less will love on.<p>But "Google TV Streamer"? No, I don't want that. I just want a relatively dumb device that allows me to stream stuff from my other devices to my TV. Chromecast has always been that, and has always worked fairly well. I don't need or want yet another media center platform.
TIL to get a Stadia controller to work with Chromecast Ultra for longer than one session, you <i>still</i> must buy an 8bitdo USB wireless adapter with a pairing button.<p>Controller support would have been a selling point of the existing line of affordable devices.<p>Hopefully this is not the case with the $20 Onn Android TV device with USB ports FWIU instead of another $100*n TVs for updates through when now?
I don't have a Chromecast, but I do have an Nvidia Shield for more than 5 years now. I use that a lot but in recent months is getting unreliable for some reason (I think it's lack of memory), apps get stuck and sometimes the apps crash (the OS remains fine, I just have to reopen them).<p>Still, from what I can see, it's the best device available barring Apple TV.<p>I've been searching around, but ready made there isn't anything that's better (on paper) and the DIY route, the only alternative I can see is LineageOS in the Banana PI. [1] AFAIK, that's not great because it doesn't have hardware acceleration, which for a device to do heavy media consumption in a 4K TV, is not an option.<p>I would be really happy to know about some better alternatives.<p>[1] <a href="https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/m5/" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/m5/</a>
Support for critical security issues ends September 2027, as it is 5 years from product release, not when production or sales ends...<p><a href="https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/10231940" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/product-documentation/answer/1023...</a>
I wish they'd sort out the actual experience of casting, maybe it's OK with a Chromecast - but with AndroidTV and an Android Phone, it's a complete gamble how well it's going work, and there are always so many options you can choose (most sub optimal).
Seems really dumb not to continue using the name Chromecast, even if it has a remote now. It is essentially the same product and the best one on the market in its class.<p>So, pretty typical product/marketing shitshow from Google, unfortunately.
Looks like I'll be moving towards Roku, most of my friends use it and I've been using a Chromecast because I was gifted on. But the experience w/ Roku seems to be superior to Chromecast nowadays anyways.
I wonder how they'll fuck it up.<p>I have one and I've never used the 'cast' feature. I only run the apps for the streaming services i watch plus VLC.<p>Somehow I think this will be impossible in the new and improved version...
musing: It feels like Google has a reputation of creating a bunch of products and killing them off within 3-5 years.<p>It seems like this helps with initial adoption of the product (backed by Google!) but erodes trust in the brand every time they axe a cult-favorite ("why would I invest time in ${x} when they'll probably just kill it off in a couple of years anyway..?")<p>Would it be better if Google launched these products subsidiaries without (obvious) links to Google?<p>Total Arm-Chair QB exercise, but one I feel might be interesting to get feedback on...
Chromecast is actually super useful for my immigrants parents. Since some foreign languages' input method on remote is horrendous, Chromecast helps them selecting youtube video easily.
I have some Chromecast enabled speakers. They used to work great through Google Home, but at some point they stopped being able to sync.<p>Expensive and quality speakers that are basically bricks at this point.
This is really just a rebranding. For the past few years, we've already had a Chromecast with Google TV, which is pretty much the same thing. This is just a hardware refresh, adding AI freatures and doubling the price.<p>I'm hoping this hardware is faster. The previous model was very laggy compared to the Apple TV or Nvidia Shield. But probably not. It just looks like the Chromecast team is tyring to shoehorn in AI features because it's 2024. I guess the description summaries could be helpful, maybe.
Chromecast was an endless source of frustration for me from having the first prototypes while at Google, to the latest devices.
It solves such a simple problem that no one else seemed to want to tackle - put a video on the TV - and yet, it never quite worked reliably.<p>We used it every evening for years and 19/20 times it streams effortlessly and instantly... 1/20 times I'm restarting browsers, TV's, WiFi until we give up and watch on a laptop.<p>Back to the HDMI cable. In retrospect, I should have never left it.
I think I am going to stock up some chromecasts with google tv 4K, reasons:
- they are going to be lower price than before
- which will make new streamer to be 3x price
- they are losing the dongle feat which is amazing, zero footprint
- smart home features, sorry, they are a scam
- core functionalities are the same, 4k, dolby atmos/vision
- its a streamer, don't need 32gb of rom
- don't need AI, another scam<p>I honestly don't see the point on upgrading or even buying over prev. version
A bought several chromcasts pver the years, mainly because they provide a simple and uniform way to retrofit multi-room sound into my collection of sound systems from different brands an eras.
Surprised not to see more comments on this topic here.<p>Yes, video streaming can be done easily nowadays. But finding a multi-room audio solution that works across different brands and also on offline devices was my main reason for getting into chromcast.
I used to love Chromecast and I love the concept but since 2020 My ISPs have sent me non-configurable routers, they broadcast 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz Wifi on the same spectrum. This bricked my older devices that can't figure out how to find the 2.4Ghz only network.<p>I never bought the newer Chromecast and its just been sitting idle, hopeless dangling off of an HDMI port since. My world has moved on as literally everything else can get shows displaying on a TV including the TV.<p>I guess it was coming.
I don't care much about Chromecast hardware, but I wonder if the protocol and application support for casting in apps will survive. I imagine third-party hardware vendors could step in to produce compatible devices.<p>Example use-case: I was recently in a hotel, travelling just with my phone. The hotel TV supported Chromecast, and I was able to connect my phone and watch some movies from Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, and YouTube apps. This was super convenient.
was there ever any information (released by Google or other parties) as to why Google decided to remove the functionality to "Cast" *any* tab, and not a tab from a site that was whitelisted by Google?<p>who pressured Google to do this? or did they "pressure themselves" to do it?<p>the BEST feature of early Chromecasts was the ability to cast any video from any page. it was revelatory!<p>and then that feature was silently removed.
I slowed my Google use after they killed off Google Reader.<p>Yeah, that's right. I showed up here to mention I'm still bitter over Google Reader.<p>No, I'm NOT "getting over it" (contrary to the cease and desist letter I got from Google recently).
Like others are saying, this just looks like a rebrand. Hopefully this competes in performance with the 2019 Nvidia Shield TV Pro which is to date still the only streamer that performs well enough for high quality audio and video, but is starting to age (and no longer works with things like google home audio groups). If anyone knows of a comparable plex streamer let me know :)
It sounds like Google wants to get more edge compute in people's homes so they have a new vector to deploy AI products on, but they're still so far from actually deploying an innovative product that they can't announce anything to actually drive up hype.<p>Then, the rebranding is only because they've abandoned the original "minimal footprint" ethos of ChromeCast.
This is very annoying. Even with the prevalence of smart tvs some tvs just don't come with all streaming apps I want and Chromecast was a great inexpensive option. They are discontinuing it in favor of a product that appeals to a totally different market in mind at 2x-3x the price. Roku still mostly fills that niche but I don't see the logic in this move at all.
Someone needs to tell their marketing copy writer that "more premium" is not good English (doesn't mean anything).<p>> Today, we’re introducing Google TV Streamer, a more premium device built for the new era of entertainment and smart home needs.<p>> , bringing its best features to our next-generation 4K TV streaming device — but as a faster, more premium version.
<i>"The time has now come to evolve the smart TV streaming device category — primed for the new area of AI, entertainment and smart homes. ... With Google TV Streamer, you can not only indulge your entertainment needs, but also have a hub for your whole smart home."</i><p>Your home, controlled by Google. What could possibly go wrong?
I've used chromecast to power all my "dumb" tvs for years and being able to use my laptop or any phone that's on the wifi has been amazing to avoid using a clunky roko or firetv interface. Sad to see one of the most personally useful pieces of google tech ending.
I wonder if sales are down that much now that every new TV has Roku or something similar built-in. The Chromecast's form factor was fantastic, but it really left a lot of features on the table compared to Amazon, Roku, and even Onn (Wal-Mart's house brand) streaming sticks.
Makes sense. Chromecast is built into most tvs. That way they can eliminate the hardware costs and focus fully on software. The tv manufacturers will be happy to work with them as they, hopefully, will get a share of the ad revenue too.<p>Also this is the first product they killed that I agree with.
I picked up the Google TV 4K and generally like the experience, but in 2024 the performance feels really sluggish. I was considering getting an Apple TV as a result, but maybe this new "streamer" device will be competitive.
Any idea whether it has access to the play store or apks can be sideloaded? The heavy AI integration makes me nervous it won't be the case.<p>It annoying no longer is behind the TV, just copying Apple (an irritating but effective marketing ploy).
It's a shame Google had to ruin the Chromecast with the Google TV platform. It's so bloated and obnoxious and just a shame that we have to keep getting "suggestions" crammed down our throat disguised as ads.
If brands can be put on the balance sheet as "goodwill", how much money was burnt by obliterating this brand name - one almost as generic as Kleenex, for its product category (small streaming-first HDMI dongles)?
Chromecast always a little slow / finicky. But I doubt Google can fix for twice the price, not because they can't squeeze in better components, but just can't expect them to do it right.
I thought this bit from the replacement device marketing was funny:<p>> And thanks to Gemini technology on Google TV, you can now get full summaries, reviews and season-by-season breakdowns of content, so finding your next marathon-watch just got easier.<p>They know it needs to be "AI powered" but they can't figure out anything that actually needs modern AI, so it's relegated to doing ordinary internet searches.<p>It's interesting, though, because there are existing sources for this content, like IMDB and wikipedia.<p>I wonder if the real point is more about selling ads while avoiding having to cut a deal with those existing sources. An LLM can essentially "launder" content so that, in general, it's hard to determine the sources for any given response. (There are plenty of individual examples where you can tell exactly what the primary source was, but those are the exception.)<p>I suspect the quality of the LLM-generated content will be worse than existing sources, but since the real point is to avoid sharing ad revenue, not providing good content to the user, that will probably be fine. It content doesn't need to be good, just good enough.<p>Welcome to the AI future! It's a lot grubbier than I expected.
That’s what happens when you always get too fancy with names. Chromecast, duo, wave, plus, Stadia, all sht names. Keep it simple like messages, [company name] TV, cloud = win
The way they forced reconnecting to the same Wi-Fi network that was used to configure it the first time rendered it useless even if you changed just the SSID!
Like a lot of Google products, the branding story has been very confusing. Small possibility that this is a step toward cleaning up some of the historical mess:<p>Chromecast<p>Chromecast Ultra<p>Chromecast with Google TV<p>Google TV<p>YouTube TV<p>YouTube Premium<p>YouTube Music<p>YouTube Red<p>etc.
<a href="https://killedbygoogle.com/" rel="nofollow">https://killedbygoogle.com/</a><p>Can you see my surprised face? Me, too, neither.<p>Google is a serial murderer of its own parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins.<p>There is no product too small, or large, for Google to murder.<p>It is beyond my ken why any person, organization, company, or government would do business with Google or use Google's products.<p>You're just biding time for Google to murder your profits.
the branding is confusing, chromecast, chromecast with google tv, chromecast dongle, android auto, chromecast audio,etc.<p>does this mean airplay will be the only game in town from now on, that is, to cast your audio or screen from your phone to smart speaker or TVs.
Good riddance. I tried a "Chromecast with Google TV" because it was so cheap, and seemed to support everything. It was easily the <i>worst</i> experience I've had with a set-top-box:<p>1. Sometimes it took 2-3 minutes to wakeup from the sleep state.<p>2. The remote is so curved on the bottom (literally a semi-circle) that I struggled to pick it up and the only ways to reliably pick it up successfully resulted in inadvertent button presses<p>3. The remote is overly minimalist. 8 buttons total. Missing buttons include a play/pause button, which is easily the most vital button for a device dedicated to playing media. <i>Sometimes</i> the center button acts as play pause but other times not. It has taken me 30s to pause what I'm watching when I'm already holding the remote (add in #2 and it can take me over a minute to pause)<p>4. Sometimes media playback just crashes and I need to start over.<p>5. Tons of ads. I was expecting this from a Google product, but thought I'd mention it anyways<p>TL;DR: If you want a STB, just pay the extra $20 for a Roku, everything about it works absurdly better. If the Roku cost $100 more, I'd still recommend it for anyone not on the most extreme of budgets.
Lots of shade here. The Chrome served to make dumb tvs smart. It did its job. It changed the world of TVs. We don't use it anymore because TVs are smart out of the box. Google could spend the next 20 years trying to service and repurpose these things or cut technical debt and move onto the next.
> With ambient mode, you can turn an idle TV into a work of art. [...] or create one-of-a-kind screensaver art with generative AI [...]<p>Assuming a TV consumes 70 Watts, why would they want to encourage using it as a picture frame? Either they care about the environment or they don't.
Honestly I'm pretty happy with a 2010 iMac with LibreElec and no streaming subscriptions payed. I keep dodging bullets, like this one.
What I miss and I might get to write myself is a plug-in for Kodi to act as a Chromecast.<p>On the other side, Chromecast is something that's been essential in my family's home for years, so it's worrisome what alternatives my, for example, mother will have.
I really disliked my Chromecast...despite being able to output 4k, the OS was sluggish and it barely had storage to hold the streaming apps I was interested in using. I ditched it for the Apple4K.
the only reason i kept using Chrome was because of Chromecast...<p>what are some good alternatives to Chromecast? (can cast from phone or desktop browser)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!<p>The worst thing about modern TVs are all their smart shit.
I just want a monitor, no speakers, no nothing, just HDMI input and a large, good image, it's what it should do.
Sound should come from the stereo system.
Input should come from input devices, such as chromecast and gaming consoles.<p>I hate this future.
Not really a surprise. I'd have been more unhappy a number of years back but mostly use an Apple TV these days. Not quite a 1:1 replacement for everything though.
Have they lost their minds?<p>Chromecast is a great device to have with you on the road. Now it's this massive brick?. Why would I want this?<p>It's just another reason to not get invested in anything Google related. Whatever you do you'll always end up with a discontinued product or a brick in the end.
Damnit. I'm so tired of buying Google products only to have them cancelled. I literally just bought chromecasts for my entire home less than 6 months ago.<p>That's it. I'm NEVER buying another google device again.
Chromecast used to be a great product. I had my gen 1 Chromecast for the last 10 years until recently when it got fried by this piece of crap TV I plugged it into.<p>It was exactly what I want in a device: Do one thing and do it well.<p>I decided to replace it with a new "Chromecast" device to find out that it bears next to no resemblance to the original. Today's Chromecasts are just wannabe Roku devices with actual casting being relegated to the status of unwanted stepchild. It forces you to sign in to a Google account, which the original did not force you to do. The original was a small stick that could be powered by the USB coming from the TV itself, whereas the new one is a larger white puck that needs a wall wort and can't be powered by a regular (non-C) USB connection. My final disappointment was that VLC fails to cast to it, even though it worked perfectly with the original.<p>All I want is a way to cast any video I want to my TV. This is apparently a huge ask in 2024. I looked up alternative devices on Amazon and they all seem inferior or have deal breakers like trying to Do Everything(TM), not supporting 4K, using some weird protocol, requiring a login, etc.
So they are ending Chromecast, and also just launched the "Google TV Streamer" which seems to do the same thing, but "faster, more premium" whatever that means.<p>Seems to be a reason to charge people more for the same thing but slap the AI label all over it. But that's just first impressions.<p>Edit: and apparently the TV Streamer thing is twice the price of the Chromecast.
Just this morning, I was chatting with a colleague about how much I love Chromecast and how relieved I am that it hasn't been discontinued. Then, an 3 hours later, I read this news, and it really bummed me out.<p>Honestly, I'm not sure which company frustrates me more right now. Updating apps on Google Play has become a nightmare compared to Apple, where review times can stretch to two weeks (sic). Plus, the google search is practically useless.
I've opened an issue on Killed By Google: <a href="https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/1544">https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/1544</a>