Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/08/chromecast-streaming/

UPDATED: Google says they will provide the API for local streaming:
Quote:
We're excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.
Quote:
Over the weekend, developer Koushik Dutta posted on Google+ and Reddit that his AllCast app had been disabled by an update to the Chromescast. The update shutdown the 'video_playback' API that had allowed third parties to stream videos stored on their Android devices to the Chromecast.
This is a deal-breaker for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,401 Posts
$35 paperweight?

Mine is still sitting besides the TV... Was hoping I can just push videos to my living room TV from my PC in my room. But my Co-Star has been taking care of that so I'll stick to that.

Thought about returning it, but I'll stick with it for the long haul.. see what comes out of it.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
5,227 Posts
I never understood what all the hype was with the Chromecast to begin with and now it can do even less. Winning strategy, Google!
rolleyes.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
Quote:
We're excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.
^
Confirmed: ChromeCast will be able to play local content, go ahead and order yours
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,248 Posts
so, are they neutering it like they did the nexus Q or are they locking it down until they are ready?
IE, neutering it until people forget it exists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Google said they will continue to provide APIs for streaming local content.. They just made a change and hadn't told the developers.

Just chill people.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,157 Posts
Google stopped being innovative a couple of years ago. Now it tries to keep its weight with flashy immaterial things like autopilot cars (kids thought of them from the 50s and safety reasons will never allow them widely) or glasses (creepy as crap).

It's like how IBM was after its first success. Too big too fail, too large to be innovative.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

Google stopped being innovative a couple of years ago. Now it tries to keep its weight with flashy immaterial things like autopilot cars (kids thought of them from the 50s and safety reasons will never allow them widely) or glasses (creepy as crap).

It's like how IBM was after its first success. Too big too fail, too large to be innovative.
Automated cars are not immaterial.... and safety reasons is one the major reason to do them. Virtually every major car company is researching automated cars and many expect them to be in production in 5-10 years.

Automated cars should reduce accidents (as the majority of human error), improve road way usage, reduce travel time, save money, and vastly increase human productivity (what would you do if you have a 10-20 more hrs free a week)?

Glasses has a purpose for Google... more data. Augmented reality and HUDs are found in sci-fi media and serious research for a reason. Ask the military what it could do with infantry HUDs....

IBM's first successes were in the early 1900s and are still innovating.

All points refuted. So what does your rant have to do with the topic again?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

Google stopped being innovative a couple of years ago. Now it tries to keep its weight with flashy immaterial things like autopilot cars (kids thought of them from the 50s and safety reasons will never allow them widely) or glasses (creepy as crap).

It's like how IBM was after its first success. Too big too fail, too large to be innovative.
they developed a system and now that it's more mature it's about tweaking it, not throwing all your progress out the window. just because kids have low attention spans and want new toys doesn't mean they should acquiesce when the demands are unreasonable or pointless (ie bad change for changes sake). that's the mindset that gave us windows 8
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,736 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

Google stopped being innovative a couple of years ago. Now it tries to keep its weight with flashy immaterial things like autopilot cars (kids thought of them from the 50s and safety reasons will never allow them widely) or glasses (creepy as crap).

It's like how IBM was after its first success. Too big too fail, too large to be innovative.
Are you sure you understand what innovation means?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,464 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

IBM's first successes were in the early 1900s and are still innovating.

All points refuted. So what does your rant have to do with the topic again?
Watson? Watson was a pretty big innovation. Just thought I'd add to your point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Automated cars are not immaterial.... and safety reasons is one the major reason to do them. Virtually every major car company is researching automated cars and many expect them to be in production in 5-10 years.

Automated cars should reduce accidents (as the majority of human error), improve road way usage, reduce travel time, save money, and vastly increase human productivity (what would you do if you have a 10-20 more hrs free a week)?

Glasses has a purpose for Google... more data. Augmented reality and HUDs are found in sci-fi media and serious research for a reason. Ask the military what it could do with infantry HUDs....

IBM's first successes were in the early 1900s and are still innovating.

All points refuted. So what does your rant have to do with the topic again?
Why does ducky even have moderator powers, he does it with mere words and logic
biggrin.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,157 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Automated cars are not immaterial.... and safety reasons is one the major reason to do them. Virtually every major car company is researching automated cars and many expect them to be in production in 5-10 years.

Automated cars should reduce accidents (as the majority of human error), improve road way usage, reduce travel time, save money, and vastly increase human productivity (what would you do if you have a 10-20 more hrs free a week)?

Glasses has a purpose for Google... more data. Augmented reality and HUDs are found in sci-fi media and serious research for a reason. Ask the military what it could do with infantry HUDs....

IBM's first successes were in the early 1900s and are still innovating.
Read again what I said.

I did not say in a theoretical plane automatic cars don't work and I didn't say in a theoretical plane glasses aren't innovative.

I said that in practice governments will deny autopilot cars because they will be considered unsafe and you know it.

People will be just scared of them. Plus, glasses are already considered creepy by the public.

Theory is fine but think deep and you'll know both ideas are doomed to be unpopular.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
65,162 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

Read again what I said.

I did not say in a theoretical plane automatic cars don't work and I didn't say in a theoretical plane glasses aren't innovative.

I said that in practice governments will deny autopilot cars because they will be considered unsafe and you know it.

People will be just scared of them. Plus, glasses are already considered creepy by the public.

Theory is fine but think deep and you'll know both ideas are doomed to be unpopular.
Read again what I said... or what the governments say... or what car companies say....

California and Nevada have already passed laws regulating the use of automated cars. That means that are ALLOWING semi-autonomous cars on public roads.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1298
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Bills/AB/AB511_EN.pdf

Why would the government consider autopilot cars unsafe? What proof do you have? The US government and other institutions have released studies supporting autopilot cars. The the government agency DARPA Grand Challenge is asking companies to build driveless vehicle. Car companies (who have a powerful lobby) also are investing in the technology. European car companies are doing the same. So in practice, autopilot cars are moving forward. Have you done any research to fact check your opinion on this topic?

"People are scared" and "creepy" are your supporting reasoning? There are also plenty of people who are interested in the technology. It actually is an obvious evolution from looking down at a smartphone while walking. The "creepy" factor will basically disappear though continued miniaturization and mass adoption. Camera phones were considered creepy at one point....

Remember it's not like Google is doing these projects just for fun. They do their research.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,157 Posts
As I said, all this theory and baby steps aside, we'll see if it will ever 'take off'. I don't think it will in the next 50 years. People are just scared.

It will probably take a huge shift in technology, e.g. some kind of 'shielding tech', not just autopilot tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,699 Posts
automated cars are still kind of idiotic. what we should be looking at is investing more in efficient mass transportation. unfortunately, americans hate investing in infrastructure and would rather use their gas guzzler suv then take the subway (or even invest in a reasonable sedan)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,743 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

automated cars are still kind of idiotic. what we should be looking at is investing more in efficient mass transportation. unfortunately, americans hate investing in infrastructure and would rather use their gas guzzler suv then take the subway (or even invest in a reasonable sedan)
That is crap. The problem is that growth is faster than infrastructure development and it takes huge resources to get Mass Transit operational on a scale the size of the US.
It works so well in other countries like the UK because they are small and not Heavily dependent on transit. The layout and design of many US cities are impractical to implement cheap mass transit.
You really think people like sitting in 2 hour traffic jams? I live in DC and commute 60 minutes to work. If there was an option of mass transit that didn't take 3 hours over my 1 hour car ride I'd do it in a heart beat.

Poor mass transit only adds to the problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,437 Posts
Not surprised they locked Allcast down for now, the first party media content providers like Netflix and HBO are probably aren't that happy about it.

The AndroidCentral article on the same subject:
Quote:
The Chromecast is not Android. It's also not Chromium. It was never offered as an "open" product. What it is is a $35 device that lets you play content from YouTube, Netflix and the Chrome browser with very little setup or difficulty. Google has said that other cool stuff will be coming to the Chromecast, but they never once said it would be open and hackable.

In fact, making a device like this open and hackable will hurt its future. Content providers are afraid of Android. When people can take a few hours and do things like crack open an app so it works in ways it wasn't intended, the people who control the flow of entertainment get scared. They aren't afraid of the Xbox, or the Apple TV, because people aren't modifying the software on these right and left. They care about revenue, and things that can take away any of it get them jumpy. Google has to try and appease these folks, and whether we like it or not that means clamping things down.
Same reason as how you couldn't get 1080p streaming from Netflix Android app without the DRM APIs added in 4.3, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

·
The Forever Noob
Joined
·
154 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

As I said, all this theory and baby steps aside, we'll see if it will ever 'take off'. I don't think it will in the next 50 years. People are just scared.

It will probably take a huge shift in technology, e.g. some kind of 'shielding tech', not just autopilot tech.
What, you mean like airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts, reinforced beams? People will be wary at first, as people always are when anything new happens, but after cab companies and trucking companies start using them more and more, people will get accustomed to it and give it a go. It'll take longer than a decade I think, but nowhere near 50 years. Well, except maybe for the US as apparently they still don't even have ABS on all of their cars.

On-topic, Chromecast seems nice. Often times I'll be browsing stuff on my tablet, and want to watch a video I find on a big screen. And streaming local content is just a plus, so definitely worth $35 in my opinion.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top