Google Chromecast Review - An Awesome $35 HDMI Dongle
by Brian Klug on July 29, 2013 9:45 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Media Player
- Android
- Mobile
- HDMI
- Chrome
- Tablets
- Chromecast
Through Chrome
It’s impossible to expect every service to port their frontend to the Cast SDK, and for some services licensing issues might make that very difficult (Hulu, Amazon Prime, Vudu), or imposible, to say nothing about those who face technical restrictions (Flash). For that, there’s the other side of Chromecast, which works similar in practice to other screen mirroring standards (WiDi, Miracast, AirPlay Mirroring), and streams the content of a tab, and its audio, directly to the receiver. The plugin adds a Cast icon to Chrome, and there’s a tiny down arrow at the far right for selecting between current tab, audio mode, and if you’re lucky full screen (I don’t know why some see the full screen option and others don’t, neither my Retina MacBook Pro nor Windows 7 desktops see this option, but I’ve seen others show it).
There are three different options in settings for video quality, and since the video is encoded in software on the host, choosing between them will affect CPU use dramatically. I’ve backed out bitrates for the three settings: 5.0 Mbps for extreme (720p high bitrate), 3.0 Mbps for High (720p), 1.7 Mbps for Standard (480p), all seem to be VP8, especially given the fact that this is essentially WebRTC in practice.
There’s latency of about a second on the connection, and of course the occasional artifact during motion and a dropped frame or two (depending on connection quality), but it works surprisingly well.
HDMI Capture of Chrome Casted Tab
For a lot of services that don’t have Cast support this is the only way to get video across, it’s essentially AirPlay Mirroring but of a tab (or full screen if the setting is visible under that drop down). I’d love to see this functionality added to Chrome for Android or iOS if that’s possible as well, though those platforms really need VP8 hardware encode to make it tenable.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
Marthisdil - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Only reason I was going to buy a Chromecast is because after accounting for 3 free months of Netflix, throwing away $11 on a gadget I wouldn't use much was OK with me.Since they got rid of the 3 free months, there's no reason for me to blow $35 on something I won't use much. Especially since my XBMC pc hooked up to my receiver and TV gives me a lot more functionality - at no additional cost to me - that does all the same, and more, than Chromecast.
Dentons - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Clearly they don't need to offer 3 free months of Netflix any longer. There is tremendous, even say overwhelming demand. With the Netflix offer, it was a steal. Right now, Chromecast is backordered for a month at most sites, and it's still a very good value for money.Many of us have products that do some of the things Chromecast does, but Chromecast does some things with an ease not found in many far more expensive solutions.
I too have an existing media machine, one that is far more expensive than Chromecast. I still like the Chromecast. It's easy, it's wireless, it's cheap, it just works.
Even if you have an existing media machine, don't knock Chromecast until you've tried it. And that's now, before it even has wide support. A device with this much demand and an open SDK is destined for greatness.
BugblatterIII - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Miracast works fine for me with my S3 and my gf's Note II. One gotcha is it doesn't like rooted devices; you have to hide root for it to work. Also if the receiver's too close to the TV (well my plasma at least) it doesn't connect; bringing it a foot in front of the TV gets around that. This is with the Netgear PTV3000.darwinosx - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
How is this device "awesome"? It's mediocre in every way. It's only value is cost and the low end Roku is close in cost and walks all over it.matt30 - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link
You must own a Roku. Derp.JoeJoe509 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Hmmmm dang. Kinda disappointed with the lack of 5Ghz Wifi especially with most reviews claiming that you need a strong signal. I know 5Ghz doesn't reach very far, but it's usually still faster even with a weaker signal.Tuvok86 - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Great!! Finally I can experience Youtube buffering on my living room TV as well!!Ananke - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Interesting...another worthless device on the market, at least it is cheap this time around. I thought, and I thought, and I thought...yep, the best might be to use it as wireless mp3 transmitter from your phone to your receiver, unless your receiver doesn't come with that functionality already, of course. Along with the disappointing Nexus 7 concept /anybody let me know how to use Nexus on a 14 hour flight as a video player for the kids, if it doesn't come with microSD AGAIN???/It is so sad that the contemporary software and electronics just plain sucks, from a user perspective. And why the kids are so excited about some castrated stuff like this, I still cannot comprehend :).
DesktopMan - Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - link
Why would Google default to VP8 on YouTube? All videos are available as h264 which has generally been proven as superior. Yes VP8 their codec but that's not a good reason.Also, Chrome tab casting really should be using h264 since pretty much every device can encode it in hardware (GPU or dedicated) these days.
martinofyre - Wednesday, July 31, 2013 - link
Yeah, dont get it either, iMediaShare, does most of this?OUYA, missed the point, poor execution, now this. Too complicated, most people want it to be idiot proof like most apple stuff, too much pushing and pulling, people will give up before finishing reading about it.
Its simple, display phone or tablet on tv, no extra hardware. You shouldn't need anything but your phone or tablet.
This is not the death of the smart tv.
IMO