Last week, Google unveiled the Chromecast: a $35 HDMI stick that can
stream content directly to your TV. It sold out nearly immediately due
to the low price, but can it replace other streaming devices like the Roku or Apple TV?
How it works:
The Chromecast has a dead simple setup process, all things considered.
For instance, you don't have any remote control. You need a smartphone,
tablet, or PC to use it. In any other situation, this would cause some
set up problems for a device with no native input.
Fortunately,
the Chromecast pairs directly with your control device for the initial
setup. It sends you to a webpage where you'll either download an app or
browser extension to conduct the initial pairing. Once you've entered
your Wi-Fi password, though, it just sits on your network waiting for
you to send something to the big screen.
How it's different: The
Roku, Apple TV and similar devices provide a set up process nearly as
simple as the Chromecast. It's easy enough to enter Wi-Fi information,
although other boxes typically require you to sign in to your various
accounts to stream content. The Chromecast doesn't ask for any account
info because you're already logged in to the apps you're using on the
remote device. In that sense, the Chromecast is a little nicer. However,
logging in to accounts is also a problem you'll only deal with once on
boxes like the Roku. In my own experience, setting up the Chromecast was
simple. However, others (including our own Adam Dachis) have reported
some difficulty getting it to work while using both a Mac and a Nexus 7.
Your mileage may vary.
The Supported Apps Are Great, Especially YouTube
How it works:
Once you have everything set up, any connected device in the house can
send videos to the TV. Users don't have to log in, enter any code, or
join a group. Once your Chromecast is on the Wi-Fi network, every device
on that network is effectively a remote.
If you're
using a supported app, it works great. Right now, the Chromecast only
officially works with Netflix, YouTube, Google Play Music and Movies.
These apps have a button in the Action Bar that will connect to the
Chromecast and allow you to start streaming content. It doesn't actually
transfer video from your device to the TV, though. If it's available
via a server, the Chromecast will elect to get it straight from the
source directly, which aids performance.
Most of the
apps work just fine, but YouTube especially shines. Multiple users can
connect to the Chromecast (though it will interrupt a video if you are
watching as they join). Each person can play and pause the stream as
well as add videos to the active playlist. This highlights a distinct
potential advantage of Chromecast. Remotes aren't just remotes. They're
interactive mini-apps within the main apps themselves. If developers can
leverage this, the Chromecast could offer much more than the typical
set-top box. Unfortunately, only YouTube takes advantage of this
extended capability.
How it's different: Other
boxes typically have some form of app support. However, utilizing
smartphones and tablets offers a lot of flexibility. YouTube brings some
distinct advantages with the group playlist functionality, but beyond
that, most set top boxes will still be better for now, if for no other
reason than because they have more services.
Hulu, HBO GO, ESPN, and a
variety of other popular apps are completely unavailable, except by
screensharing a browser tab.
Browser Streaming Is Not As Good
How it works:
When Google can't quite build an ecosystem from scratch, the company
has a habit of offering a complex workaround that technically covers the
empty bases but isn't the best experience. This is what the browser
streaming feature does. For starters, you can't use your phone to stream
a browser tab. Mobile devices don't have the ability to stream anything
to the Chromecast if an app doesn't have the functionality built-in.
The result
is that laptops have an entirely different experience with the
Chromecast. YouTube sharing via the site doesn't have the same group
playlist functionality as using the apps. You can stream anything that
Chrome can see, but it can get jittery if your Wi-Fi connection isn't
that strong. If your connection slows or hiccups, the tab casting can't
buffer, so your video will just skip over a portion. As long as your
connection is solid, it's fine, but if not, the video can get unusable.
It's also not ideal for watching videos on the couch. Forgoing the remote control can kind of
work when you're replacing it with a phone or tablet, but a laptop is
big, clunky, and not designed to be a handheld controller for something
else. If you're comfortable with that, then it's great, but it's overly
cumbersome.
Also, one
note on playing local files: you can do it. Sort of. By opening a local
video in Chrome and casting that tab, you can stream files you've
downloaded to your TV. However, this is less than ideal. This also means
that you're essentially watching a video of a video. This can result in
a loss of quality. For a YouTube clip, that's not the worst thing. For
that 1080p Blu-Ray rip you made, it's borderline painful.
How it's different:
The Chromecast's solution is a stopgap. Google has made the SDK
available for developers to plug into the Chromecast directly, but until
they do (assuming many will), tab casting fills the void. For streaming
content that's not available via an app, you have to pull out a
laptop. This means that the remote that you're going to need will be
dictated by which service you use to watch a particular video. Local
file playback is similarly up in the air. In most cases, it may just be
simpler to plug your laptop directly into the TV. Except, that defeats
the point of most set-top boxes: to make things easier. HTPCs have their
purpose, but if you want something like the Chromecast to begin with,
chances are this isn't going to be very satisfying for regular use.
The Chromecast Is Worth Exactly What it Costs
Ultimately,
the Chromecast has a lot of potential. It's not quite Google's version
of Airplay. Services that support native playback are actually using lightweight HTML5 apps and streaming content directly from servers. Flinging a video from your iPod to the Chromecast isn't quite in the cards yet.
However,
getting Netflix and YouTube is worth $35, if you can't already play them
on your TV some other way. Additionally, Google Play is actually a
pretty great service. On average, movie rentals from Play Movies are slightly cheaper than Amazon, and Play Music is actually a pretty great subscription option.
Until Google gets its apps on to other devices, the Chromecast is the
best way to get their content on to your TV if you don't have an HTPC
connected directly.
However,
the Chromecast is unlikely to dethrone any particular streaming box in
its current form. We can collectively check back in a year or so to see
if developers pick up the platform, but for the moment it needs more
proper app support to gain any real ground. That being said, Google has
it priced perfectly.
.jpg)
