You mean twice the ram (1 gig more than the shield), 4 times the storage (32 gigs), and a better remote (chirping find my remote feature, programmable button, and less shitty volume buttons)?
Yep. Sure sounds worse considering it also supports all the same features of the chromecast 4k and AV1 decoding.
They killed support for the first gen Chromecast and the YouTube “app” has been broken for 3+ years. They’ll just stop supporting it one day and you’ll have to buy a new one.
My wife is used to FLauncher and will probably get annoyed if I change the Shield’s interface (again…) but maybe I’ll try it out on the Google TV Chromecast I have for holiday trips.
Just regular Chromecast, not that Google TV stuff. That round dongle that does nothing but accept casting streams via that cast button in many Android apps.
So the one from 2013? Sure. It was fine for that. This is a different thing, as not every device, service, or whatever supports casting. I wish they did, but they don’t.
Secondarily, I don’t want to use a screen to control a screen. I prefer a physical remote that I can have muscle memory for.
But I get why people liked the device. I did too. But fortunately or unfortunately, it’s been 10 years and technology has moved. Which is probably why they are giving this a new name being an generally good upgrade on the last Chromecast 4K.
Christ, this one even has a built in Ethernet port and doesn’t put strain on my HDMI port by just dangling there.
So the one from 2013? Sure. It was fine for that. This is a different thing, as not every device, service, or whatever supports casting. I wish they did, but they don’t.
Well, the story is about Google ending that line of products.
With a direct successor product that contains all the same features as the last Chromecast device. If you are mourning the loss of the casting only Chromecast, that died long ago production-wise.
The last casting only device (Chromecast Gen3) was originally released in 2018 (6 years ago). They stopped selling it in 2022. And it is still supported with updates. They supported the original with 10 years of updates. If all ya wanna do is cast, keep using it. I personally want more than a cast point.
Yeah, I have a smart TV and would appreciate some faster processing in there. Or if I can flash a simplified ROM, but dunno if those exist. As long as I get control over what it does, I’d take it. Can just Velcro it on the back of the TV so it’s invisible.
I have a smart TV as well, but refuse to connect it directly to wifi. As I tried that when I bought it and it insta-bricked itself and had to go through the hassle of returning a delivered TV.
A custom ROM for this device would be interesting. I know that the Chromecast 4K can do a custom ROM, but only if it was running an older os version before you flash it, as the bootloader couldn’t be unlocked after.
It’s also twice the price of the Onn 4k Pro (Walmart house brand) that’s built on the same chip and has the same features running the stock Google TV experience.
They’re supposedly using pretty much the same chipset. So the most important part is still underpowered, these Android boxes generally work fine even with 2-3GBs of RAM.
There’s already plenty of devices on the market with this chip, and it’s fine, but in real world as a user you won’t really see any improvement over something like a nearly 10 year old Nvidia Shield that’s still using a more powerful chipset.
You mean twice the ram (1 gig more than the shield), 4 times the storage (32 gigs), and a better remote (chirping find my remote feature, programmable button, and less shitty volume buttons)?
Yep. Sure sounds worse considering it also supports all the same features of the chromecast 4k and AV1 decoding.
My Chromecast has no storage and no remote. It’s fine.
Cool. Keep using it.
until they decide that their new device needs more sales, so they depricate the protocol and you can’t use it anymore
Deprecate the casting protocol? Sure Jan. The new device still supports casting.
They killed support for the first gen Chromecast and the YouTube “app” has been broken for 3+ years. They’ll just stop supporting it one day and you’ll have to buy a new one.
Oh no, my $40 device won’t work after ELEVEN years. I’m being abused!
Truly a golden era
You haven’t been paying attention to Google in the last few years, have you?
Chromecast ultras are already broken if you try to use your own DNS.
That’s the only reason I had to replace my previous 2 steaming devices.
The streaming backend got updated and the app in my device no longer supported it. And there was no updated app made available for that device.
Until services stop supporting it.
None of which changes the fact that it’s more expensive and clunkier, and none of which feels necessary.
And ethernet port!
You can get an Ethernet adapter for the Chromecast
deleted by creator
This TV Streamer costs significantly more than a CCwGTV combined with an adapter.
Yes! I hadn’t seen that highlighted anywhere in articles really, only saw it on the damn Google Store after looking just now.
Seems an all around solid update on the previous device.
Just gotta stick FLauncher, SmartTube, Jellyfin, and Stremio on it and it seems solid.
I changed from FLauncher to Projectivity Launcher a little while ago and definitely recommend it
My wife is used to FLauncher and will probably get annoyed if I change the Shield’s interface (again…) but maybe I’ll try it out on the Google TV Chromecast I have for holiday trips.
I’m in the same boat, so when I changed to Projectivity I made it look pretty much the same. It’s now just so much easier to manage.
And now I can install all those things without worrying about my internal storage filling to capacity!
Regular Chromecast work perfectly as YouTube jukebox.
What do you mean regular Chromecast?
Just regular Chromecast, not that Google TV stuff. That round dongle that does nothing but accept casting streams via that cast button in many Android apps.
So the one from 2013? Sure. It was fine for that. This is a different thing, as not every device, service, or whatever supports casting. I wish they did, but they don’t.
Secondarily, I don’t want to use a screen to control a screen. I prefer a physical remote that I can have muscle memory for.
But I get why people liked the device. I did too. But fortunately or unfortunately, it’s been 10 years and technology has moved. Which is probably why they are giving this a new name being an generally good upgrade on the last Chromecast 4K.
Christ, this one even has a built in Ethernet port and doesn’t put strain on my HDMI port by just dangling there.
Well, the story is about Google ending that line of products.
With a direct successor product that contains all the same features as the last Chromecast device. If you are mourning the loss of the casting only Chromecast, that died long ago production-wise.
Late 2022 is not long ago.
The last casting only device (Chromecast Gen3) was originally released in 2018 (6 years ago). They stopped selling it in 2022. And it is still supported with updates. They supported the original with 10 years of updates. If all ya wanna do is cast, keep using it. I personally want more than a cast point.
Yeah, I have a smart TV and would appreciate some faster processing in there. Or if I can flash a simplified ROM, but dunno if those exist. As long as I get control over what it does, I’d take it. Can just Velcro it on the back of the TV so it’s invisible.
I have a smart TV as well, but refuse to connect it directly to wifi. As I tried that when I bought it and it insta-bricked itself and had to go through the hassle of returning a delivered TV.
A custom ROM for this device would be interesting. I know that the Chromecast 4K can do a custom ROM, but only if it was running an older os version before you flash it, as the bootloader couldn’t be unlocked after.
It’s also twice the price of the Onn 4k Pro (Walmart house brand) that’s built on the same chip and has the same features running the stock Google TV experience.
They’re supposedly using pretty much the same chipset. So the most important part is still underpowered, these Android boxes generally work fine even with 2-3GBs of RAM.
From OP article
It’s supposed to use S905X3 with ARM Cortex-A55.
There’s already plenty of devices on the market with this chip, and it’s fine, but in real world as a user you won’t really see any improvement over something like a nearly 10 year old Nvidia Shield that’s still using a more powerful chipset.
Which is sad for a new device…
Does Nvidia even make new mobile chipsets still? At least… Relatively cheaply? I know there’s something of an Nvidia tax.
I don’t think so. Maybe they’ll have something new for the next Nintendo Switch?
In fact, the Shield is using the same chip as the Switch (same for the newer revisions).