Google Chromecast: Does It Deserve a Place In Your Living Room?

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.

Source: http://lifehacker.com

Google Unveils the Chromecast, an HDMI Stick for Streaming Video

Google took the wraps off of the Chromecast today, a tiny thumb drive-sized stick with an HDMI port on one end that's Wi-Fi enabled and designed to make it simple to push video from your home network, smartphone, or the web right to your TV screen.

The Chromecast looks a bit like a cross between a Google TV, a Nexus Q, and someHDMI sticks that run XBMC that we've seen before, and that's a compliment. The Chromecast can be controlled remotely from any Android device, iOS device, or computer running Chrome, as long as you're using a Chromecast enabled app (in the demo, we saw YouTube, Netflix, Pandora, and Google Play Music, Movies, and TV).

The video or music plays directly from the web without going through your phone or tablet first. Even if you decide to do something else with your phone, or if someone else needs to control playback with their phone instead, your movies or music keep playing without interruption. You can toggle between your phone and the TV easily, or build shared playlists with friends if their devices are in the same room as well,similar to the way the Nexus Q worked.

The Chromecast will also work directly with Chrome on the desktop, which will get a "cast" button for the toolbar that will push whatever's in your current tab directly to the TV. You'll be able to continue using your desktop while your tab is being projected, even if you open a new tab and keep working.

In the demo, one person used their Android phone, iPhone, and laptop to push YouTube video, music from Pandora, and even music from Google Play Music to a TV in the same room, much like AirPlay, and even controlled volume and playback from the phone. Then they left the YouTube app entirely and opened up Gmail on their phone, all without interrupting the video experience on the TV. You can put your phone to sleep, charge it, or just put it to the side without stopping the video. Pick up your phone and you can control playback from the lock screen or directly from the screen.

The Chromecast is available to purchase now from the Google Play Store (and it'll be available at Amazon and Best Buy soon), and it'll set you back $35.

Source: http://lifehacker.com

Google introduces Project Loon: Balloon-Powered Internet for Everyone

WHAT IS PROJECT LOON?

Many of us think of the Internet as a global community. But two-thirds of the world’s population does not yet have Internet access. Project Loon is a network of balloons traveling on the edge of space, designed to connect people in rural and remote areas, help fill coverage gaps, and bring people back online after disasters.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE

What are people googling - in real time

A list of popular google searches at the moment.

CLICK HERE

Google Maps for iOS surpassed 10M downloads in less than 48 hours

 

It's official: Google Maps for iOS is a huge hit.

Jeff Huber, senior vice president of commerce and local at Google, revealed on his Google+ page on Monday that the new mapping app experienced more than 10 million downloads in less than 48 hours.

"We're excited for the positive reception of Google Maps for iPhone around the world," Huber continued. "Congratulations to the Maps Team on the recognition for the passion and hard work they poured into it, for this release and over the last 7+ years."

See also: Google Maps for iOS message: What Google really meant to say

Google Maps for the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad debuted late last Wednesday.

The launch of the app follows the firestorm this past fall surrounding Apple's beleaguered efforts to release its own mapping platform. Complaints ranged from inaccurate directions to completely erroneous locations altogether.

Apple CEO Tim Cook apologized for the problems, admitting that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company "fell short" with the new mapping platform included in iOS 6.

The iPhone maker followed up by highlighting alternative mapping apps in the App Store, and it was only a matter of time before Google trotted out its own.

For iOS users who still don't have the app but want to download it, Google Maps for iOS is available for free from iTunes now.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com

‘Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on [patents] exceeded spending on research and development of new products’

Tonight—a big technology patent deep-dive by The New York Times (non-paginated), with some super-interesting reporting [and I rarely say that about anything with 'Patents' in the title] and lots of Apple sourcing. (Interactive: Three Apple patents that were involved in recent lawsuits and a new version of the patent war map.) Some interesting notes:

• Vlingo, which is the engine behind Samsung’s S-Voice Siri competitor, almost went bankrupt defending itself from Nuance. Winning one case cost it $3M and forced it to sell itself to Nuance.
• In 2006, Apple settled with Creative over the original iPod MP3 player design.  Steve Jobs said “Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent.” Jobs immediately gathered execs afterwards and did soemthing different with iPhone. While Apple had long been adept at filing patents, when it came to the new iPhone, “we’re going to patent it all,” he declared, according to a former executive. Apple’s engineers were asked to participate in monthly “invention disclosure sessions.”
• In the last decade, the number of patent applications submitted by Apple each year has risen almost tenfold.
• “If we can’t protect our intellectual property, then we won’t spend millions creating products like the iPhone,” a former Apple executive said, noting that some of Apple’s patents, like the “slide to unlock” feature on the iPhone, took years to perfect. The concept “might seem obvious now, but that’s only after we spent millions figuring it out,” the executive said. “Other companies shouldn’t be able to steal that without compensating us. That’s why the patent system exists.”
• The “Siri Patent” #8,086,604 took 10 attempts to get approved. Today, though the patent was not among those Vlingo and Nuance fought over, it is known as the Siri patent because it is widely viewed as one of the linchpins of Apple’s strategy to protect its smartphone technologies.
• “When I get an application, I basically have two days to research and write a 10- to 20-page term paper on why I think it should be approved or rejected,” said Robert Budens, a 22-year patent examiner and president of the examiners’ labor union. “I’m not going to pretend like we get it right every time.”
• Some experts worry that Apple’s broad patents may give the company control of technologies that, over the last seven years, have been independently developed at dozens of companies and have become central to many devices.“Apple could get a chokehold on the smartphone industry,” said Tim O’Reilly, a publisher of computer guides and a software patent critic. “A patent is a government-sanctioned monopoly, and we should be very cautious about handing those out.”

Apple, for its part, issued the following statement to the NYT:

“Apple has always stood for innovation,” the company wrote in a statement in response to questions from The New York Times. “To protect our inventions, we have patented many of the new technologies in these groundbreaking and category-defining products. In the rare cases when we take legal action over a patent dispute, it’s only as a last resort.
“We think companies should dream up their own products rather than willfully copying ours, and in August a jury in California reached the same conclusion,” the statement said.

http://9to5mac.com

Google’s Driverless Cars Permitted by New California Law

Self-driving cars will soon motor around the most populous U.S. state, at least on a test basis, after a law written with the help of Google Inc. (GOOG) was signed by California Governor Jerry Brown.

The law signed yesterday allows trials of autonomous vehicles on the state’s roadways as long as there’s a licensed human in the driver’s seat to take over if needed.

“Today we are looking at science fiction become tomorrow’s reality,” Brown said at a signing ceremony at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California.

Google, the operator of the world’s largest Internet search engine, has modified a Toyota Prius that drives itself using video cameras, radar sensors, a laser rangefinder and detailed maps. The vehicle includes a failsafe mechanism that lets the driver take control by grabbing the steering wheel or hitting the brakes, much like the override on a cruise control.

While major carmakers are working on self-driving prototypes and rolling out semi-autonomous features such as parking assistance, lane-departure warning systems and adaptive cruise control, it’s Google’s car that inspired the push for regulatory clearance first in Nevada last year and now in California.

“Anybody who gets into a car and finds the car driving itself is going to be skittish at first,” said Brown, who took a test ride. “But they will get over it.”

The law directs the Department of Motor Vehicles to develop regulations governing the licensing, bonding, testing and operation of autonomous vehicles.

Google’s shares were little changed at $749.16 in New York yesterday, one day after reaching a record $749.38, the highest since its initial public offering in August 2004. The stock advanced 16 percent this year before today.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com