Google TV(tv.google)
tv.google
Google TV
https://tv.google/
447 comments
Highly relevant comic (although it's quite outdated now)
https://bonkersworld.net/naming-dartboard
https://bonkersworld.net/naming-dartboard
Heh, that’s cute. And it still seems reasonably close to reality - the only thing I think it’s missing OTOH is Google One.
Apple has Books, Pay, Wallet, Store, App Store, One, and TV. All they’re missing is Cast and Go!
Apple has Books, Pay, Wallet, Store, App Store, One, and TV. All they’re missing is Cast and Go!
It still beats hardware naming schemes: MAG, MPG and MEG for MSI and then a string of "pro" "extreme" "enhanced" and characters like "+" lobbed on to various words, usually in combination ... Do I want MAG pro extreme+ or MPG enhanced pro 2?
And then there's Intel which literally reused numbers for its Xeon series so you have to check the chipset/socket type otherwise you could be 10 years off.
And then there's RAM where vendors will put numbers like "3600" after say 2400Mhz RAM because it's that product's series number but knows full well that it's also a common clockspeed. You'd think they're just trying to trick you and do an upsell to fools but sometimes they also go the other way as well. I don't think they realize how confusing it is
So yeah, Google isn't doing that bad
And then there's Intel which literally reused numbers for its Xeon series so you have to check the chipset/socket type otherwise you could be 10 years off.
And then there's RAM where vendors will put numbers like "3600" after say 2400Mhz RAM because it's that product's series number but knows full well that it's also a common clockspeed. You'd think they're just trying to trick you and do an upsell to fools but sometimes they also go the other way as well. I don't think they realize how confusing it is
So yeah, Google isn't doing that bad
Also the Pixelbook Go - whoever named that must’ve been throwing two darts at the same time!
"One" is always the moment of self-realisation. "We have all these complex services, lets ... err ... try to make them look coherent by putting them under the "One" brand".
Yes but Apple has one of each google has multiple of each.
True. But Apple TV/Apple TV+ are cutting it pretty close.
But I think that is a temporary thing - I don't think Apple TV is going to be long term product - TVs are too smart now
TVs may be “smart” but they are becomingly increasingly user-hostile with regard to tracking and force-feeding advertisements. I want to have the option of using devices that respects my privacy. Hopefully, I’m not alone and there continues to be a market demand for sudh user-friendly products.
>TVs are too smart now
This is why I’m so reluctant to look into modern TVs. The quality on my mid-range 2014 Sony is pretty average at best by today’s standards, but at least it’s not smart enough to know what I’m watching and has no network connectivity.
This also means I can’t easily control it with a smartphone without something like Logitech Harmony which is just awful in UX, but still… it can’t track what I’m doing on the TV either.
This is why I’m so reluctant to look into modern TVs. The quality on my mid-range 2014 Sony is pretty average at best by today’s standards, but at least it’s not smart enough to know what I’m watching and has no network connectivity.
This also means I can’t easily control it with a smartphone without something like Logitech Harmony which is just awful in UX, but still… it can’t track what I’m doing on the TV either.
Do you think they are going to stop making them, or do you see them entering the smart TV market with their own TV?
No they won’t this is a low margin market. They will just offer Apps.
1) Phones were a low margin market. Laptops are the lowest of margins. Desktops too. Apple doesn't care about what the current margin of a market is because it slaps a premium on it to reach the margin its looking for.
2) Apple does not create apps for other platforms as a source of profit. They have never done that. To guess that they would do that now is a gigantic leap in logic.
2) Apple does not create apps for other platforms as a source of profit. They have never done that. To guess that they would do that now is a gigantic leap in logic.
Google has Google One but currently it's only Cloud Storage and some PlayStore benefits. In few years, you could expect few more google services in it.
> Google has Google One but currently it's only Cloud Storage and some PlayStore benefits.
And paid support for all Google consumer services.
And paid support for all Google consumer services.
I feel like you could add “Nest” as a row soon, and it would be up-to-date
That's hilarious. Who's the other speaker?
Sundar Pichai probably. Google's CEO.
I meant the other, other speaker. The one saying "Who cares? Your turn, Sundar"
A fictional google executive
Eric Schmidt.
Needs a stray dart on just the heading "Go" :)
They forgot to put music on that board
Google TV is a launcher for Android TV, so far as I can tell. Android TV is not being rebranded, as it is the OS - but Google TV is the "Google Experience" on Android TV.
To make this more complicated/interesting - Google renamed the Play Movies and TV app to "Google TV." I'm guessing so you can have Google TV on Google TV?
Will the Play Movies app on my existing Android TV open the Google TV launcher like shown off here, or is it still just a browser for the content I already have?
Is the change to Android TV just that this app becomes the launcher?
To make this more complicated/interesting - Google renamed the Play Movies and TV app to "Google TV." I'm guessing so you can have Google TV on Google TV?
Will the Play Movies app on my existing Android TV open the Google TV launcher like shown off here, or is it still just a browser for the content I already have?
Is the change to Android TV just that this app becomes the launcher?
Google is somehow worse than Microsoft at naming
Google has become worse than Microsoft.
GMail, GMaps, and GDocs, were simple and to the point. Then institutional rot happened.
GMail, GMaps, and GDocs, were simple and to the point. Then institutional rot happened.
I’d argue they didn’t face an existential threat. Causing the employees to stop focusing on the business.
Same thing that brought down intel.
Like intel (of the past). You can coast and the money will keep coming in. Up until it doesn’t.
Same thing that brought down intel.
Like intel (of the past). You can coast and the money will keep coming in. Up until it doesn’t.
Almost no one remembers and it's safe to forget previous Google TV. Meanwhile Xbox Series X/S is confusing and Xbox / Xbox 360 / Xbox One shouldn't be forgotten. So MS is worse for now.
I'm assuming parent was alluding to the "Live!" Windows days, where internet-enabled products suddenly became "{Product} Live!"
Eventually, everything of consequence ended up with the suffix, and they finally dropped it.
But say what you want about Microsoft. Somewhere out there there's a publicly accessible doc describing the naming. And probably a video too. *
* https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/partners/videos/micr...
Eventually, everything of consequence ended up with the suffix, and they finally dropped it.
But say what you want about Microsoft. Somewhere out there there's a publicly accessible doc describing the naming. And probably a video too. *
* https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-365/partners/videos/micr...
I raise you .net Live!
https://github.com/Azure-Samples/media-services-dotnet-live-...
https://github.com/Azure-Samples/media-services-dotnet-live-...
My mind is blown. 365 degrees.
Microsoft had terrible naming for Windows and Xbox products.
On the cloud side, Azure has way better service/product names than AWS: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/aws-prof...
On the cloud side, Azure has way better service/product names than AWS: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/aws-prof...
Can I run Google TV on any capable android device? Like an old phone plugged into a USB dock with an HDMI out?
> Can I run Google TV on any capable android device?
The promo talks about Google TV on mobile Android, but I gather that’s a reskin of the Play Movies and TV app, not the Chromecast/SmartTV launcher experience.
The promo talks about Google TV on mobile Android, but I gather that’s a reskin of the Play Movies and TV app, not the Chromecast/SmartTV launcher experience.
But, is that it actually it? The linked page shows a "Get it now" (for your phone) link which points to the Google Play Movies & TV app for me..
(And, the sites screenshots vs the play store screenshots differ - suggesting it hasn't rolled out to the region I'm in yet...)
(And, the sites screenshots vs the play store screenshots differ - suggesting it hasn't rolled out to the region I'm in yet...)
I swear I've read this comment like five times, because you seem to actually know what's going on... but it's left me only more confused.
What is a launcher?
If Android TV is an OS, then what is a launcher for an OS?
And I guess you're as confused as I am as to also what this has to do with the previous Play Movies and TV app.
What is a launcher?
If Android TV is an OS, then what is a launcher for an OS?
And I guess you're as confused as I am as to also what this has to do with the previous Play Movies and TV app.
I don’t know if Google TV is just a launcher, but I can answer the question "what is a launcher?"
On Android systems, a launcher is the home screen plus a little more. iPhone doesn’t have this concept as there's only one "launcher": the home screen. On android, however, you can install apps to radically change your home screen layout. Some are terminals, some are just A-Z lists of your apps, etc. A launcher on Android TV would be more significant because it would probably include movies, shows, and music instead of just apps.
On Android systems, a launcher is the home screen plus a little more. iPhone doesn’t have this concept as there's only one "launcher": the home screen. On android, however, you can install apps to radically change your home screen layout. Some are terminals, some are just A-Z lists of your apps, etc. A launcher on Android TV would be more significant because it would probably include movies, shows, and music instead of just apps.
The existing Android TV launcher will show movies, shows and other content. Apps can put recommendations on the home screen for the content they offer.
Having been a prolific Android TV user for years, this appears to be just yet another reskin. No new functionality.
Having been a prolific Android TV user for years, this appears to be just yet another reskin. No new functionality.
Thanks for the reminder about why I don’t use Android. I definitely don’t want to be screwing with my phone more than I already do.
You don’t have to, it’s completely optional.
For my phone I just prefer fewer things to mess with in general, and a smaller API surface, since I don’t want to be tweaking and untweaking shit on a device which is already so unergonomic. On my desktop I prefer Windows and Linux to mess with stuff.
Once again, you don't have to. The phone out of the box comes with default launcher which is completely functional.
Then you don't need to do anything. Just use the default.
Time travel with me back to 1993 for a moment...
DOS is your Operating System. You can use Windows 3.11, GeoWorks, or DeskMate as your Application Launcher.
DOS is your Operating System. You can use Windows 3.11, GeoWorks, or DeskMate as your Application Launcher.
What about Microsoft Bob, can I use that?
Sure, on the way there we can stop in '95 to pick up a copy of Bob... but you are on your own for getting it working.
If you are Bill Gates you find your wife in the process of creating Bob.
I just looked and I was very disappointed to find Bill doesn't have a son named Robert. :/
You don't even have to travel that far. Even on Windows10 you can install different shells(Cairo, bb4win, classic shell, etc).
Just so you know, classic shell is deprecated.
Open shell [0] is the up to date one.
[0] https://open-shell.github.io/Open-Shell-Menu/
Open shell [0] is the up to date one.
[0] https://open-shell.github.io/Open-Shell-Menu/
A launcher for Android is somewhat similar to a desktop environment on Linux.
[deleted]
A launcher on Android is an app that starts other apps. The launcher app is displayed when you click on the Home button.
The same could be said about Apple TV (the device, software) and Apple TV+ (the streaming service).
Apple decided Intel's process naming scheme was a good idea.
I came here to make some joke about how Intel renaming the 7980XE to the 9980XE would be like re-releasing the iPhone 5 as an iPhone 7... but then I realized they kind of did that. Even tacked on some sort of "Edition" tag at the end.
For Android, a launcher is a special type of application that is in charge of launching other applications.
If you search for "popular launchers" you should be able to find some examples
If you search for "popular launchers" you should be able to find some examples
No wonder you're confused, the website is a bit unclear until the end.
It's just like a Chromecast (HDMI dongle), but running Android TV.
The closest comparable thing may be Nvidia's Shield.
It's just like a Chromecast (HDMI dongle), but running Android TV.
The closest comparable thing may be Nvidia's Shield.
> What is a launcher?
“Launcher” is the Android term for a graphical shell, the thing from which you launch apps.
“Launcher” is the Android term for a graphical shell, the thing from which you launch apps.
There must be something deeper changing, because at the bottom of the page they say, emphasis mine, "Coming soon to FUTURE smart TVs."
Thank you. Can I put on the phone with my parents so you can you explain this to them? Also, make sure to mention "Chromecast" as well.
> To make this more complicated/interesting - Google renamed the Play Movies and TV app to "Google TV." I'm guessing so you can have Google TV on Google TV?
The e-mail I got from Google specifically mentioned that Google Play Movies and TV on Android mobile devices was being renamed (and in US only), so maybe it is still Google Play Movies on Android TV? It would still be weird, though, so who knows...
The e-mail I got from Google specifically mentioned that Google Play Movies and TV on Android mobile devices was being renamed (and in US only), so maybe it is still Google Play Movies on Android TV? It would still be weird, though, so who knows...
Not much better than watching Apple TV+ in Apple TV app on an Apple TV.
Ah, I see Google is copying the Apple TV naming strategy.
It took me quite a while to understand that this device is actually something I wanted. Their marketing is terrible and I had to read an article on another site to actually decipher the code words.
It's not a Chromecast, as we used to understand them - it's a full Android TV device with a new skin/launcher called Google TV.
It is, essentially, an updated Nexus Player, a competitor to the Nvidia shield and cheaper no-name android stick devices. One can hope it will be easily rooted, thus allowing for some interesting potential uses.
It's not a Chromecast, as we used to understand them - it's a full Android TV device with a new skin/launcher called Google TV.
It is, essentially, an updated Nexus Player, a competitor to the Nvidia shield and cheaper no-name android stick devices. One can hope it will be easily rooted, thus allowing for some interesting potential uses.
I think, it is an industry wide problem
https://dcurt.is/apple-tv-all-the-way-down
https://dcurt.is/apple-tv-all-the-way-down
>Google Play Movies & TV is now Google TV but it’s not the same Google TV that runs on Android TV on the new Chromecast, it’s an app
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/30/21492549/google-tv-app-pl...
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/30/21492549/google-tv-app-pl...
i want a YouTube RED original series, where they just have the YouTube RED, YouTube TV, and Google TV product managers engage in a bareknuckle octagon brawl as a metaphor for internal Google PM battles to become the emperor and autocrat of all the googleproductmanagers
Halfway through the season they all change costume and put on deeper voices, but you can tell it's the same character underneath.
3/4 through the season, the producers kill off the most popular character. No reason is given.
3/4 through the season, the producers kill off the most popular character. No reason is given.
Actually it's two smaller managers, with one standing on the other's shoulders, in a trenchcoat.
YouTube Red was rebranded to YouTube Premium a while ago.
I keep waiting for Google to rebrand Google Books to Google Reader just to troll people
Google needs a marketing department. Badly! I mean, all that insanely cool technology and even the geeks on HN are confused how to use it.
Well, they still haven't announced Play TV and Chrome TV, so...
Duo Streaming, Television for Hangouts
[deleted]
> Play TV
Play Movies & TV (the Android app and service for purchased video content), has been around for a while, but it's just been rebranded as Google TV.
Play Movies & TV (the Android app and service for purchased video content), has been around for a while, but it's just been rebranded as Google TV.
> Google introduces Google TV, which might be a rebranding of Android TV back to Google TV
It seems to be not quite exactly that, Android TV seems to still be an active brand; Google TV is a new UI on top of Android TV. OTOH, since it implies Android TV, once all new devices with Android TV are also using the Google TV interface, I'd expect Android TV to stop being an actively-used brand.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidcentral.com/what-goo...
It seems to be not quite exactly that, Android TV seems to still be an active brand; Google TV is a new UI on top of Android TV. OTOH, since it implies Android TV, once all new devices with Android TV are also using the Google TV interface, I'd expect Android TV to stop being an actively-used brand.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidcentral.com/what-goo...
Waiting for Google TV+
[Replying to myself]
Oops, got the first link wrong on Android TV. Should have been this: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2014/06/android-tv...
Oops, got the first link wrong on Android TV. Should have been this: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2014/06/android-tv...
Chromecast milestones should be in this list as well, just to add to the chaos.
The real question I have is...did some googler get a promotion for shipping something when it was only one of these renames? Or is this how the marketing people "ship" things?
I owned the Logitech Google TV which I bought for about $300 early in its lifespan. After about a year they shipped some really bad updates to it that made it so slow that it was essentially unuseable and removed several key features, and then never shipped another update to it again. Logitech and Google both lost interest in it and after not long all of the apps like Netflix and even Google's own Youtube stopped working because of changes to the underlying services.
Will this be different? I doubt it. I'm not putting more money into Google hardware to find out that they'll break it and then lose interest.
Meanwhile my second gen Apple TV is working great.
Will this be different? I doubt it. I'm not putting more money into Google hardware to find out that they'll break it and then lose interest.
Meanwhile my second gen Apple TV is working great.
My Nvidia Shield TV from 2015 is still doing great
That's the crapshoot, isn't it.
Would you have been able to know in 2015 that the Nvidia product was going to be supported, but the Logitech one would be abandoned?
Real question actually. I doubt it, but that's a weakly held opinion.
Would you have been able to know in 2015 that the Nvidia product was going to be supported, but the Logitech one would be abandoned?
Real question actually. I doubt it, but that's a weakly held opinion.
Has logitech ever been been good at updates in general? Why would a peripheral company even be good at home entertainment? I'd agree that Nvidia's connection to home entertainment is just as vague, but they still sound much more reliable to me than Logitech.
And as much as people love bringing up Google deprecating stuff, I still trust them far more on updating this than any outside company.
And as much as people love bringing up Google deprecating stuff, I still trust them far more on updating this than any outside company.
Logitech has been in the home entertainment space for a long, long time (with their Harmony remotes, which did need software to make them work). In 2015 I'd certainly have placed more trust in a Logitech device in that space than an Nvidia one.
As a Squeezebox owner, I disagree. Their tech was good, but then the company that made them, Slim Devices, was acquired by Logitech. Everything got rebranded and then... they lost interest.
Which is a shame, but the Squeezbox world was perfect in that hardware and software worked perfectly together and it could integrate with services like Spotify, but you could actually also use it with your own music. Try that now, to have a central multi-room system for audio that is not dependent on external services.
To answer the original question: I don't trust any tech company that tries to blur the lines between physical products and digital services. That is, I don't trust any of them anymore.
Which is a shame, but the Squeezbox world was perfect in that hardware and software worked perfectly together and it could integrate with services like Spotify, but you could actually also use it with your own music. Try that now, to have a central multi-room system for audio that is not dependent on external services.
To answer the original question: I don't trust any tech company that tries to blur the lines between physical products and digital services. That is, I don't trust any of them anymore.
Are these the Harmony Remotes that required Silverlight?
IIRC, in the beginning they required a desktop application to be installed, and later Logitech released a new Silverlight-based version of said application on the web.
Of course, the application needed to communicate with the remote via USB, which I don't think was natively possible in the web browser at that time.
Of course, the application needed to communicate with the remote via USB, which I don't think was natively possible in the web browser at that time.
Logitech remotes have a greeat (and well deserved) reputation.
The harmony programming software is terrible. Thankfully you only need to fight with it until you get things set up nicely. The kicker for me is the fact that it asks you every time you use it if you'd recommend it to friends and family. I made it a point to say "no" every time.
Harmony remotes are merely the least bad option.
Harmony remotes are merely the least bad option.
Probably not. In fact Nvidia dumped the Nvidia Shield tablet but kept released new tv devices recently.
Spec-wise, that tablet also held up for longer than expected, even after being discontinued. Although that's also saying something about the abysmal Android tablet market.
The Nvidia shield is still amazing although I'll chime in saying my OG rechargeable remote has also failed. The new one takes AAA batteries. Bleh.
The Nvidia shield is still amazing although I'll chime in saying my OG rechargeable remote has also failed. The new one takes AAA batteries. Bleh.
> The new one takes AAA batteries. Bleh.
That's preferable in my opinion, because then you can just keep rechargeable AAA batteries on hand and switch them out. Cheaper than proprietary un/removeable rechargeable batteries, more accessible than those coin batteries. (At least here)
That's preferable in my opinion, because then you can just keep rechargeable AAA batteries on hand and switch them out. Cheaper than proprietary un/removeable rechargeable batteries, more accessible than those coin batteries. (At least here)
Your chances are better when you can control the firmware yourself.
But ... DRM.
But ... DRM.
likewise... been exceedingly happy with mine... though I'm on my third remote, went with a non-nvidia one this time.
Same. This recharger + 4 battery set has been invaluable with my remote.
https://www.amazon.com/Lithium-Battery-Charger-Rechargeable-...
https://www.amazon.com/Lithium-Battery-Charger-Rechargeable-...
WHAT!!!!???? I did not know this existed! Thank you.
I use a wireless Xbox One S controller as a shield remote. It works great; I also use it when streaming games from my PC to the TV. I tried the shield controller and was pretty unimpressed.
The newest nvidia remote is leaps and bounds better than the last.
I recently bought one of the new generation remotes. Order of magnitude better and only $30 (has a backlight and mix still!)
I prefer the remote control app instead, why find a remote when it can just be on your phone, y'know?
Because I can't feel the buttons with my thumb and have to look down, unlock my phone, switch to the right app, and then tap. It's a horrible experience.
Your phone is fine until you want to pause the movie to answer the door, but it takes tens of seconds just to reconnect to the TV dongle.
Or when you want to pause said movie because you're getting a call, which prevents you from pausing the movie. Happens to me all the time while Chromecasting.
Yet another reason to avoid using phones for phone calls!
Sounds like this deprecates it though :(
https://9to5google.com/2020/09/30/android-tv-replaced-google...
https://9to5google.com/2020/09/30/android-tv-replaced-google...
5 years is really not that long..
My Chromecast from 2013 still works.
Mine still "work" but something changed around 2017 and they became so unreliable I don't bother any more.
The Chromecast to Device connection is lost after about 10 minutes, making all controls not work. Can't pause, skip, select a new episode, etc.
The fix is seemingly random - maybe 50% of the time recasting from the app (Netflix, Hulu, etc) works. 30% of the time mucking around in the Google Home app will work, and 20% of the time I just have to unplug it.
Near as I can tell it's agnostic of client device, casting app, Chromecast gen (I've got 3 different versions around), or router.
We've kindof just given up and gone back to Roku.
The Chromecast to Device connection is lost after about 10 minutes, making all controls not work. Can't pause, skip, select a new episode, etc.
The fix is seemingly random - maybe 50% of the time recasting from the app (Netflix, Hulu, etc) works. 30% of the time mucking around in the Google Home app will work, and 20% of the time I just have to unplug it.
Near as I can tell it's agnostic of client device, casting app, Chromecast gen (I've got 3 different versions around), or router.
We've kindof just given up and gone back to Roku.
I had a similar problem, turns out my router was dropping bonjour/upnp packets. I think that was preventing my devices from properly discovering what services were available on my network. I never found a solution for the problem (OpenWRT+WRT3200ACM), but bought a different router and the problem magically went away (OpenWRT+R7800).
Could be any number of reasons why you are having issues unfortunately.
Could be any number of reasons why you are having issues unfortunately.
Interesting. Thanks for the information. Might be a project for a cold night this winter, or we just are pretty happy with Rokus now.
I'm certain the onset of the problem didn't coincide with a new router, and I've gone through a couple since it started so I assumed that wasn't the issue.
I'm certain the onset of the problem didn't coincide with a new router, and I've gone through a couple since it started so I assumed that wasn't the issue.
Yeah, who knows. In my case it worked for 1 to 72 hours after rebooting the router, then would drop 100% of the packets until the next reboot. It took some time to figure out what was going on.
I had the same problem, including the deteriorating performance when it used to be reliable (I don't know if the timing is the same but sounds about right), and the router fixed it for me as well. Maybe there were protocol / firmware changes that increased the demand on the router?
I went from a bargain router to a nicer mesh setup this spring and the problem just vanished overnight.
I went from a bargain router to a nicer mesh setup this spring and the problem just vanished overnight.
The fix for this is supposed to be go to into your Android settings and turn off battery optimization for Google Home and each app you cast.
It didn't work for me but loads of people reported success with it. It's a shame because I loved the Chromecast but had the exact same issue as you describe.
It didn't work for me but loads of people reported success with it. It's a shame because I loved the Chromecast but had the exact same issue as you describe.
Had the same problem. The solution seemed to be a stronger WIFI signal. Adding an extension cable to move the chromecast further away from the TV prevents the tv from blocking signals.
I bought two of them and loved them for a couple years, at least for the content it opened up.
However casting was unreliable. I never figured it out but I remember posting on HN about it years ago and other people had the same complaint.
Then the YouTube app on my android phone would hang or crash. My Android phone kinda rotted after 4 years or so. I had a dedicated one for chromecast.
Now I just use a wireless keyboard and an Ubuntu box connected to the TV. Works quite well, I can get all the apps and content I want through the browser.
However casting was unreliable. I never figured it out but I remember posting on HN about it years ago and other people had the same complaint.
Then the YouTube app on my android phone would hang or crash. My Android phone kinda rotted after 4 years or so. I had a dedicated one for chromecast.
Now I just use a wireless keyboard and an Ubuntu box connected to the TV. Works quite well, I can get all the apps and content I want through the browser.
Are you able to do Netflix in HD?
Yes, although the frame rate really sucks. I think that is a separate issue though. (You really notice it on action scenes)
I don't see why there would be any problem with Netflix in HD in the browser on Ubuntu ?
This PC is also from 2012 or so, so I think I should upgrade and maybe the frame rate will improve... I haven't isolated the issue. It's fine for most shows.
But I suspect Netflix encoding quality also sucks, because most people don't care as much as I do, so I haven't debugged it.
I don't see why there would be any problem with Netflix in HD in the browser on Ubuntu ?
This PC is also from 2012 or so, so I think I should upgrade and maybe the frame rate will improve... I haven't isolated the issue. It's fine for most shows.
But I suspect Netflix encoding quality also sucks, because most people don't care as much as I do, so I haven't debugged it.
> I don't see why there would be any problem with Netflix in HD in the browser on Ubuntu ?
Because there isn't a browser released on Linux that has the right DRM capabilities to run Netflix's DRM, and thus Netflix on Linux is limited to less-than-HD, hence why I asked if you were able to get it working.
Because there isn't a browser released on Linux that has the right DRM capabilities to run Netflix's DRM, and thus Netflix on Linux is limited to less-than-HD, hence why I asked if you were able to get it working.
I just use Firefox on Ubuntu and it seems fine? Doesn't seem SD. Maybe I'm missing something -- is there a way to check?
The thing I notice is more the frame rate than the resolution. The resolution looks HD to me -- I can tell the difference with offline videos.
Hm I suppose it is possible I am getting some degraded quality from Netflix. I always thought it was because of the old PC and/or their bad encoding quality.
I mainly watch non-demanding video on Netflix, like a cooking show or standup comedy ... YouTube is definitely HD for me.
https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/netflix-caps-video-qu...
The thing I notice is more the frame rate than the resolution. The resolution looks HD to me -- I can tell the difference with offline videos.
Hm I suppose it is possible I am getting some degraded quality from Netflix. I always thought it was because of the old PC and/or their bad encoding quality.
I mainly watch non-demanding video on Netflix, like a cooking show or standup comedy ... YouTube is definitely HD for me.
https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/netflix-caps-video-qu...
The last time I checked, Netflix was capped at 720p on non-Android Linux machines, but it's been a while since I've actually checked. I think the sentiments and conclusions in this thread[1] reflect the state of streaming HD content from Netflix on Linux, still.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/c26pc0/netflix_1080...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/c26pc0/netflix_1080...
I use a useragent changer to look like Edge and that seems to be all it takes to get the full-scale HD on Linux. Doesn't seem like Netflix go out of their way to disable it, though useragent sniffing is... Something you should never be doing.
Interesting. I'm going to give this a shot, thanks.
Search for the video "Test Patterns". There's several different resolutions and framerates some with HDR too. That should help you figure out what you're getting.
The only issue I have with OG Chromecasts is that YouTube channels with 1080p60 videos tend to make the system stutter like crazy. Other than that the original Chromecasts I bought still work pretty much flawlessly.
This infuriates me. Google must know about this, and can surely lower the bitrate for these old Chromecasts, yet have chosen not to. Every time I encounter this on my old Chromecasts it reminds me of how they ruined the Nexus 7 with its final major os update. Blatantly trying to get people to buy new devices. Do no evil, my arse.
Chromecast Gen 1 never supported 1080p@60 and was advertised upto 1080p@30 or 720p@60. So I don't know how is it okay to expect a device that continues to function after 7 years(I have 2 still functioning) to support something it was never intended to in the first place.
Can't YouTube serve up the videos in formats that the original Chromecasts can consume? Surely either YouTube can know which Chromecast is making the request, and serve up an appropriate quality, or allow the Chromecast to request a lower quality version of the video. To be clear, I don't expect to be able to see videos in higher quality than was available at the time of purchase. I expect to be able to 'watch YouTube' as was advertised on the device's box.
The 1080p60 bug can be fixed by cutting the plastic lid off the Chromecast and adding a fan.
> The 1080p60 bug can be fixed by cutting the plastic lid off the Chromecast and adding a fan.
I can't tell if you are serious.
I can imagine circumstances where this would work, but... they involve the chromecast having a temp sensor and software to lower the clock speed to prevent overheating, resulting in skipped frames, but at the same time somehow not be able to lower the bitrate of the video stream.
Seems... mildly improbable.
I can't tell if you are serious.
I can imagine circumstances where this would work, but... they involve the chromecast having a temp sensor and software to lower the clock speed to prevent overheating, resulting in skipped frames, but at the same time somehow not be able to lower the bitrate of the video stream.
Seems... mildly improbable.
There is an extra element here... All of what you said is true, but the actual issue is not with the video decoding, but with the thread that feeds data from the network to the video decoder. That thread has some long running stuff running on it, which causes the task to enquire data to the video decode hardware to be delayed.
It used to work years ago, but as more and more software bloat has been added to run in this thread, the delays have increased to the point of stutteryness.
Some videos are jumpy because they have fewer seconds buffered in the hardware decoder.
It used to work years ago, but as more and more software bloat has been added to run in this thread, the delays have increased to the point of stutteryness.
Some videos are jumpy because they have fewer seconds buffered in the hardware decoder.
So, in that scenario, how does the fan help?
Fan leads to the CPU throttling less, so the long-running events on the main thread run faster and delay the tasks that load data into the video decoder less.
Pretty much every single processor made in the past decade, if not two, has a core temperature sensor along with overheating regulation. Even the Raspberry Pi.
So the overheating regulation is part of the firmware, rather than whatever software is running?
Typically embedded linux systems use the linux CPU frequency scaler, which uses various inputs including CPU temperature to scale the CPU clock frequency.
I have an occasional issue where the chromecast just doesn't show up on wifi. You have to power it off and then on again. Has happened with a couple of different ones in a couple of different houses (i.e. different wifi networks).
i feel so sorry for your wireless network. They used an ancient chip that totally soaks airtime.
I hear you. Google nerfed my Nest Hello last year without explanation, while letting my other Nest products pretty much die on the vine, even if I want to pay $X/month to enable my multiple $150+ cameras to be useful.
There is just so much wasted potential there. We have a "legit" security system that my wife wants to turn on expensive $50/month monitoring on, and I have been fending her off saying look we have all these motion detectors and cameras in the house, Google will pull this all together and do it 10x better, but it seems that day is never coming.
There is just so much wasted potential there. We have a "legit" security system that my wife wants to turn on expensive $50/month monitoring on, and I have been fending her off saying look we have all these motion detectors and cameras in the house, Google will pull this all together and do it 10x better, but it seems that day is never coming.
Remember that Android TV and Google TV (the original one) are completely different products.
Reason Shield TV is still doing great is because they didn't cut any corners and future proofed in a way no one expected it from nvidia. It's great. It complely replaced my 6700K + GTX 1080 powered HTPC because streaming games from my PC to shield was easier than using windows from 10 ft away.
I was a little worried that it stops getting updates, but now I just have no reason to upgrade it because it's getting all the updates and performing great. I got the new dongle tho because it cost as much as new remote for shield...
Only weak points of 2015 shield to me: game pad was trash, remote control was large and yet easy to lose and bend.
Reason Shield TV is still doing great is because they didn't cut any corners and future proofed in a way no one expected it from nvidia. It's great. It complely replaced my 6700K + GTX 1080 powered HTPC because streaming games from my PC to shield was easier than using windows from 10 ft away.
I was a little worried that it stops getting updates, but now I just have no reason to upgrade it because it's getting all the updates and performing great. I got the new dongle tho because it cost as much as new remote for shield...
Only weak points of 2015 shield to me: game pad was trash, remote control was large and yet easy to lose and bend.
As far as I understand, a second generation Apple TV can't even play Youtube videos.
I thought that it didn't play certain resolution YouTube, as even the newer generations only just got 4k support for due to codec issues?
No, YouTube does not work at all on the second generation Apple TV since 2015.
While (I think) it has rudimentary YouTube support, it does not have an AppStore, or any sort of “ecosystem” around it that would need as much maintenance as an Android device or the APLE TVs running fully fledged tvOS these days, so I don’t think it’s an entirely fair comparison.
In the UK it doesn’t have iPlayer, which is probably the most popular VoD app after YouTube.
My Dell laptop still works great.
I'd blame Logitech in that case, because my 1st gen Chromecast is still going strong to this day.
The Google TV predates the Chromecast by about a year. It's probably why Google lost interest in it. That's my point: Google's product ADHD will happily drop your chromecast too, especially with the launch of this new Google TV product.
Goodness me, this is an exemplary example of the type of website that I just cannot abide.
Style over content, and the presentation just plain getting in the way of the information, to the point that the user ends up leaving rather than finding out what the site is attempting to convey.
Awful. Just awful.
Style over content, and the presentation just plain getting in the way of the information, to the point that the user ends up leaving rather than finding out what the site is attempting to convey.
Awful. Just awful.
I hate this whole genre of site design/parallax abuse. The Nexus 5 page does the same thing. It's a commercial that gives you a trivial amount of control over playback, not a website.
Yeah this was really bad. I actually like the way parallax looks, within reason.
This was not within reason.
This was not within reason.
Know of any libraries that will achieve this kind of parallax scrolling-to-reveal rather than just scroll between pages?
No libraries off the top of my head. I know w3[.]css[0] has one example page[1] with a parallax , but I don't know if that's what you're looking for.
LineageOS[2] has a site with a decently readable source code. They also don't have exactly what you are looking for, but the <img> with id="rotate-on-scroll" (The spinning phones) and the related script[3] look like they could somewhat related -- you could probably change the transform in the script to accomplish what you're looking for.
[0] https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/
[1] https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/tryw3css_templates_parallax....
[2] https://lineageos.org/
[3] view-source:https://lineageos.org/ (lines 1247-1263)
LineageOS[2] has a site with a decently readable source code. They also don't have exactly what you are looking for, but the <img> with id="rotate-on-scroll" (The spinning phones) and the related script[3] look like they could somewhat related -- you could probably change the transform in the script to accomplish what you're looking for.
[0] https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/
[1] https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/tryw3css_templates_parallax....
[2] https://lineageos.org/
[3] view-source:https://lineageos.org/ (lines 1247-1263)
Thanks for the pointers.
Achieving the parallax seems to be easy enough, but combining it with all these aminations seems a bit more tricky. The animations are more complex than animate.css's approach of just animating when the component is displayed - you can play the animation in reverse by scrolling up rather than down.
I've seen the New York Times and BBC produces stories told in that parallax / animated type way and it's very effective. I'm guessing therefore that they use a standard parallax approach and them one or more animation libraries together; I was hoping there was one neat library that brought it all together but maybe that's asking for too much.
Achieving the parallax seems to be easy enough, but combining it with all these aminations seems a bit more tricky. The animations are more complex than animate.css's approach of just animating when the component is displayed - you can play the animation in reverse by scrolling up rather than down.
I've seen the New York Times and BBC produces stories told in that parallax / animated type way and it's very effective. I'm guessing therefore that they use a standard parallax approach and them one or more animation libraries together; I was hoping there was one neat library that brought it all together but maybe that's asking for too much.
I'm on firefox, and the scrolling is jarringly jittery and rough, making it feel like something is broken. Ignoring the lack of useful information, even the aesthetics are broken.
For me even in Chrome.
Also, I wasn't even sure if I should have expected a "Specifications" section, which was the reason for me to scroll all the way down to the end.
Absolutely horrible.
Also, I wasn't even sure if I should have expected a "Specifications" section, which was the reason for me to scroll all the way down to the end.
Absolutely horrible.
I agree, but I actually really liked the interior design photos. That sofa! That TV stand! So sparse and yet luxurious at the same time. (I am NOT being sarcastic. That furniture is drool worthy, and the photography is first rate.)
The group of websites that cause me the most frustration is fancy restaurants. The trend seems to be ending now thankfully, but so many of them have animations, massive graphics and other bits and pieces that make them slow to load, a pain to use and not work on mobile. I just want to look at a menu and then book a table.
This kind of design has its place but this probably isn't it.
I am curious what they've used to achieve the endless scrolling type parallax. A while back I looked for libraries to achieve this and didn't find anything other than fullPage.js which doesn't seem to have an option for this (only full page transitions).
I am curious what they've used to achieve the endless scrolling type parallax. A while back I looked for libraries to achieve this and didn't find anything other than fullPage.js which doesn't seem to have an option for this (only full page transitions).
Animate on Scroll
https://michalsnik.github.io/aos/
https://michalsnik.github.io/aos/
It also would barely run on my 2019 MacBook Pro. I left before figuring out what Google TV is.
I agree. A simple "More info" or "How does it work" link at the top or bottom would have kept me there.
I am partially an UI/UX designer and it took me a minute to figure out I have to scroll...
Agree completely, It's extremely jarring.
This page gave me a lobotomy.
God bless the google tech lead whose promotion this iteration of google tv would end up supporting.
Jokes apart, I am not buying that this time is different. as much as it pains me to say, google needs a little power to the product managers to push through a consistent vision of consumer product side.
Jokes apart, I am not buying that this time is different. as much as it pains me to say, google needs a little power to the product managers to push through a consistent vision of consumer product side.
To me this is a top down problem. VPs and execs should be putting a stop to this. There needs to be a clear product vision from the top for there to be a clear product vision in the middle and bottom. This is what Steve Jobs was so good at. He could just say, this is dumb we aren't doing this. Google needs an exec team that understands products at the consumer level, not the engineering level and sees products as long living endeavors. The Apple Watch did not do great when it was released, but Apple kept making updates, kept improving it. They committed to the project and the vision and had the confidence to stick with it even if it lost money in its early days.
Not just lose money but was ridiculed. The Apple Watch and Airpods made Apple the laughing stock when they came out but fast forward a few years and the Apple Watch is the most successful smart watch out there and every other tech company is trying to mimic the success that the Airpods had down to getting rid of the headphone jack.
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."
Exactly the point. The first iPod was exactly what the slashdotters called it - mostly useless. It took them 2 years to get useful functionality (USB and Windows support) and another 2 years to leave everything else behind in the dust on aesthetics and UX.
Yes! Better to iterate, even dramatically, on a clear product vision and brand than to keep pitching "same but different" products like Google TV, Android TV, and YouTube TV (or Google's various text and video chat apps). Users get confused and fragmented and they won't want to commit to your new products.
I'm in full agreement with you. However, it is hard for management to change how the company operates in such a massive way when the shareholders have been nothing but happy with the company's performance. Google have to have left a ton of revenue on the table by giving up on products rather than developing them to be useful and giving their customers confidence that the product they depend on won't be depreciated.
Why do you think the shareholders are nothing but happy with its performance? It’s by far the slowest growing FAANG, and over the past 5 years has basically tracked the Nasdaq, suggesting it is performing no better than any random tech company.
Wow, and on the heels of the disastrous price hike in Youtube TV because well gee those content guys are so MEAN they want all the dollarz. I also like Google Chat you know its like that thing we got rid of years ago, went through about six evolutions and came back to but without the interoperability with other systems that actually made the first one useful.
It makes me wonder if there is anyone working at Google who understands what the term "value added" even means.
Maybe they should just buy Roku and crap on that. After all Roku is moving into an analytics for sale company away from a streaming company. Why? Because everyone wants to be a portal but they can't afford to be with the studios demanding extortionate sums for their content. So instead of getting money for bringing you the content (because they have to pass on more than they can afford to the content owner) they sell their observation of people watching content to people who want to make content that people watch which is "their data" because it happened on "their device."
It makes me physically ill sometimes with how messed up this whole system came to be.
It makes me wonder if there is anyone working at Google who understands what the term "value added" even means.
Maybe they should just buy Roku and crap on that. After all Roku is moving into an analytics for sale company away from a streaming company. Why? Because everyone wants to be a portal but they can't afford to be with the studios demanding extortionate sums for their content. So instead of getting money for bringing you the content (because they have to pass on more than they can afford to the content owner) they sell their observation of people watching content to people who want to make content that people watch which is "their data" because it happened on "their device."
It makes me physically ill sometimes with how messed up this whole system came to be.
Big Roku fan here. Was an early adopter, have had many versions of the device over the last dozen years and been a brand evangelist to my friends and family.
I also try to avoid being a panelist in behavior datasets. For this reason there are financial planning services I won't use and I won't buy a Vizio TV.
So, I'm very curious about your assertion that Roku is doing analytics for sale. I hadn't seen that before, so any further insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
I also try to avoid being a panelist in behavior datasets. For this reason there are financial planning services I won't use and I won't buy a Vizio TV.
So, I'm very curious about your assertion that Roku is doing analytics for sale. I hadn't seen that before, so any further insight would be appreciated. Thanks.
From last year: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/11/20908128/smart-tv-survei... but my source was a long time Roku employee who eventually quit after the monetization started getting "out of hand" (his words, not mine).
Are they actually selling the data directly to 3rd parties? Or just using it for targeted advertising? The latter is obviously occurring but not sure about the first.
My understanding (and to be clear, this is hearsay, I did not seek to independently verify it) is that they will sell viewing information to a channel provider. (so Amazon could find out how often you opened up Netflix vs Amazon Prime Video, or you started on Amazon, closed it, and then opened up Netflix, etc).
What’s the difference in terms of impact to the users? Even if they are not selling “AznHisoka watched x minutes or y show on this date,” they are using it to influence your behavior through ads.
I'm not asking from an user perspective, just curious from a business perspective. The data, if sold, could be useful from a content creation perspective. IE. if you know what shows X usually watches, it could help you with creating new shows.
Obviously, it's useful for advertising as well. But if they're not selling the data directly, it doesn't help with the content creation use case.
Obviously, it's useful for advertising as well. But if they're not selling the data directly, it doesn't help with the content creation use case.
[deleted]
Oh Google. So this is a reskin and rebrand of Android TV, launching for the first time on the new "Chromecast with Google TV". Not to be confused with a different Google TV from 10 years ago. It's unclear if they are sunsetting Android TV or supporting 2 branches of Android based TV interfaces. Side note, I have a TV with Android TV and it is chock-full-o-bugs. Only in the Google-verse.
Ars Article:
Google merges Chromecast and Android TV with the “Chromecast with Google TV”
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-merges-chrome...
Google merges Chromecast and Android TV with the “Chromecast with Google TV”
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-merges-chrome...
right, but that headline doesnt answer the underlying question. This chromecast runs Android TV, so what is Google TV? Is it an interface on top of Android TV, or the successor to Android TV as we know it? It says its coming to future TV's, so what about the Sony TV I just bought? There's so many questions about what this software even is.
The new Android TV interface premieres on the Chromecast with Google TV. It’s coming to third-party set-top boxes and TVs as well, although you’ll have to wait until 2021 before it reaches non-Google hardware. This doesn’t replace Android TV, to be clear — it sits on top. Google is just separating the ‘skin’ for Android TV from its underlying platform.
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-tv-android-tv-116260...
So Google TV is a skin that sits on top of Android TV which has a separate skin called Android TV which isn't being used in new products but will continue to be supported in current products. And my Android TV I have right now is an Android TV with Chromecast, but the launch product for Google TV was Chromecast with Google TV, which I can plug into my Android TV when Android TV running Android TV is EOL but Android TV running Google TV is still supported so that I don't need to buy a new TV with Google TV. That clears it up, thanks!
I suspect that people with older Android TV's who cant upgrade the os or play services, will be able to install the Google TV app to circumvent the lack of updates, similar to Play Services separating from Android.
My phone app (Movies & TV) updated to Google TV automatically.
I'm just kidding myself, theres no way itll work that cleanly.
My phone app (Movies & TV) updated to Google TV automatically.
I'm just kidding myself, theres no way itll work that cleanly.
When not even a site full of techies can tell what you’re tech-product is after studying its product-page intensely... You know you’re in for a hell of a marketing phase later on.
I think the techies are trying to backward-track the product development roadmap.
For customers, it's essentially a chromecast + remote + new interface to choose apps (which is pretty generic)
For customers, it's essentially a chromecast + remote + new interface to choose apps (which is pretty generic)
Putting on my consumer hat, I really don't know why I need this over Android TV. Is it an upgrade? Does it have new features? Unclear. My Android TV already had Google Assistant on the remote and could "Hey Google, Play Tiger King."
"Android TV" isn't really a thing for consumers. You buy a media box or TV which is powered by it. If you like that device, great. If not, buy a Chromecast.
Android TV is definitely a thing for TV customers. My TV was sold to me as an "Android TV with Chrome cast built in". Now I'm worried this is going to turn into the usual Google abandon ware.
It appears that Google TV is a centralized chromecast database. Normally with chromecast if you want to stream HBO, you need the HBO app which supports chromecast. If you want to stream netflix, you need the netflix app which supports chromecast. With Google TV, you link your account into it and then you just go to one app to find all of your streams.
> Not to be confused with a different Google TV from 10 years ago
The Google TV 10 years ago was rebranded as Android TV, so the Android TV reskin and slowmo rebrand is literally the linear successor.
(Of course, they are also rebranding Play Movies & TV on Android as Google TV, which makes me wonder what the Google Play Movies & TV app on Android TV is going to become Google TV on Google TV?)
The Google TV 10 years ago was rebranded as Android TV, so the Android TV reskin and slowmo rebrand is literally the linear successor.
(Of course, they are also rebranding Play Movies & TV on Android as Google TV, which makes me wonder what the Google Play Movies & TV app on Android TV is going to become Google TV on Google TV?)
But at 50$, it's a really decent price point for getting a smart tv + controller experience.
I go back and forth. It is a good price for a little computer you attach to your tv that can sideload apps and do a lot of the same audio/video things your phone can do. But then, the beauty of the original Chromecast was that it was a wireless external display for your phone, so you didn't need to manage apps and logins on yet another device, just hit the cast button to play music, video, pictures or games on your tv. It was incredibly versatile and really had all capabilities of your phone, with zero setup or fuss. I know you could just use the new Chromecast like the old chromecast by Chromecasting, but sometimes more is not more. I also really hope that little chromecast icon isn't going away in media apps anytime soon.
I agree that for us the old one was perfect, but for less tech savvy people, using their phone to control the TV never worked. For my parents this is perfect.
Almost a 1:1 copy of the Apple TV app just with a worse copy of website https://www.apple.com/apple-tv-app, not new but ever so disappointing Google adds so little new to ideas they decide to adopt
I just bought one. I'm a chromecast user on my main tv (that I control with my phone or nearby google home).
I bought this for the remote. There's not really anything to "improve" here. It's a dumb box that aggregates streaming apps.
The real differentiator is google assistant (and associated google home ecosystem - if you've bought into that)
I bought this for the remote. There's not really anything to "improve" here. It's a dumb box that aggregates streaming apps.
The real differentiator is google assistant (and associated google home ecosystem - if you've bought into that)
I'm interested in Google Home functionality, and I like the Google assistant the most when comparing it to Siri and Alexa. It seems to better process non-generic questions and commands better than the other two.
What I'm not keen on is a cheap box that doesn't have enough RAM, so that it'll end up lagging. I don't understand why there isn't a premium model. I also don't want to dangle a weight from my HDMI port. That's probably how the HDMI ports broke on my last TV. I also would like to have volume buttons on the remotes. A mute button is nice but not enough. I'd rather trade the youtube and netflix buttons for real volume control buttons.
What I'm not keen on is a cheap box that doesn't have enough RAM, so that it'll end up lagging. I don't understand why there isn't a premium model. I also don't want to dangle a weight from my HDMI port. That's probably how the HDMI ports broke on my last TV. I also would like to have volume buttons on the remotes. A mute button is nice but not enough. I'd rather trade the youtube and netflix buttons for real volume control buttons.
Same for me, I hope it won't be laggy at all and the UI is good to use. So far I like my setup with a chromecast and my phone as the remote/tv library (youtube, netflix, amazon video, disney etc.).
I especially like that I can start watching something and at the same time I can browse around for something else to watch.
It looks like the remote has volume buttons on the right side by the way.
It looks like the remote has volume buttons on the right side by the way.
It looks like there’s some lag
https://www.theverge.com/21495609/google-chromecast-2020-rev...
That’s good news on the remote though
https://www.theverge.com/21495609/google-chromecast-2020-rev...
That’s good news on the remote though
Yes, the flattery appears most sincere with this one:
Google's take on the TV app from Apple that runs on Apple TV, iOS, and Mac, serving as a common UI to content from apps that buy into the partner ecosystem.
Awkward how unclear that site is: this new app from Google is to be the UI pre-installed on future Android TVs, but for now, you can get as a thing running on a $49 Chromecast puck.
Google's take on the TV app from Apple that runs on Apple TV, iOS, and Mac, serving as a common UI to content from apps that buy into the partner ecosystem.
Awkward how unclear that site is: this new app from Google is to be the UI pre-installed on future Android TVs, but for now, you can get as a thing running on a $49 Chromecast puck.
Apple's website scrolls much more smoothly for me as well (although that might be since I'm using Safari).
That's funny, I am using Chrome and found the Google one scrolled smoother than the Apple one.
The tv page was fine for me but the iphone and ipad pages are horrendous. I don't know why there is this trend in web design to make the page a video except you have to scroll to progress it.
Hopefully they don't copy the Apple TV app's bugginess and unreliability too. While the Apple TV+ content is great, getting there isn't.
Ok, maybe I'm the only one, but I'm actually excited about this.
It appears to be an aggregation service. Instead of individually searching across N platforms for content (hulu, disney+, youtube, crunchyroll, netflix, etc), you can now just use a single app (Google TV) which will allows you to search and stream across all platforms you are subscribed to.
Furthermore you can cast stuff directly to chromecast from Google TV as well as watch locally on your device.
It appears to be an aggregation service. Instead of individually searching across N platforms for content (hulu, disney+, youtube, crunchyroll, netflix, etc), you can now just use a single app (Google TV) which will allows you to search and stream across all platforms you are subscribed to.
Furthermore you can cast stuff directly to chromecast from Google TV as well as watch locally on your device.
This has already been possible for years upon years on Roku.
kind of. You can search across all apps on roku, but there is no "dashboard" for all your current shows despite app.
Hasn't this been possible for years on whateverthatgooglethingiscalled?
(I genuinely thought it was still called Google TV so I was rather confused by this post - I couldn't work out what was new.)
(I genuinely thought it was still called Google TV so I was rather confused by this post - I couldn't work out what was new.)
> Hasn't this been possible for years on whateverthatgooglethingiscalled?
The only aggregation on existing Android TV seems to be “Continue Watching” across apps.
The only aggregation on existing Android TV seems to be “Continue Watching” across apps.
It's also been on Apple TV and Amazon's Fire TV for a long while now. Agreed, it's not novel. However, maybe Google's recommendations are better? Google tends to have the best AIs.
I don't own a Roku, just a Chromecast
You might be interested in JustWatch, which does this as a phone app.
this is Google catching up to Roku, Amazon, and Amazon (and maybe Xbox and Playstation as well.)
Except that Roku is playing games and you can't get an HBO Max app now.
If it's anything like Apple's TV app, it'll probably be awful.
The idea is sound: Let's use a common interface to all the content offered by the apps you already have installed.
But in practice (on Apple at least), it's awful. There's no telling whether you'll actually be able to view the content you see, or if it's just going to lead to some screen where you need to buy the content individually. Want to watch Family Guy? Oh it turns out YouTubeTV (your TV provider) has it but it's not donated to the AppleTV app, so you get a purchase link to buy an episode for $5, even though YouTubeTV actually has the same episode in your DVR library.
Want to watch the $sportsteam game that's on? Oh there's a link right there to watch it in the $sports_app app! Except that link takes you to a page that explains that you don't have the subscription necessary to actually watch the game. Or oops, it's blacked out in your area.
Or maybe you finally select something that's actually available to watch, so it links you out to the app that contains that content, only to have the app fail to support the appropriate intent/deep link, so you just end up on that app's home screen.
It ends up being this very hit-or-miss experience where anything you want to watch has like a 70% chance of actually succeeding, so you don't trust it, and it ends up being worthless.
Yes I'm bitter.
The idea is sound: Let's use a common interface to all the content offered by the apps you already have installed.
But in practice (on Apple at least), it's awful. There's no telling whether you'll actually be able to view the content you see, or if it's just going to lead to some screen where you need to buy the content individually. Want to watch Family Guy? Oh it turns out YouTubeTV (your TV provider) has it but it's not donated to the AppleTV app, so you get a purchase link to buy an episode for $5, even though YouTubeTV actually has the same episode in your DVR library.
Want to watch the $sportsteam game that's on? Oh there's a link right there to watch it in the $sports_app app! Except that link takes you to a page that explains that you don't have the subscription necessary to actually watch the game. Or oops, it's blacked out in your area.
Or maybe you finally select something that's actually available to watch, so it links you out to the app that contains that content, only to have the app fail to support the appropriate intent/deep link, so you just end up on that app's home screen.
It ends up being this very hit-or-miss experience where anything you want to watch has like a 70% chance of actually succeeding, so you don't trust it, and it ends up being worthless.
Yes I'm bitter.
Look. I am not willing to pay for movies and mainstream shows.
Why should like me get such aggregation services that require 4 different subscriptions that add up to 600 Euro per year?
I never got these aggregation services - and there are already MANY of them. Here in Germany the Telcos are having setup boxes that are more powerful than this Google TV thing as they aggregate subscriptions AND are able to stream live TV via Cable. Just google Magenta TV and GIGA TV.
Why should like me get such aggregation services that require 4 different subscriptions that add up to 600 Euro per year?
I never got these aggregation services - and there are already MANY of them. Here in Germany the Telcos are having setup boxes that are more powerful than this Google TV thing as they aggregate subscriptions AND are able to stream live TV via Cable. Just google Magenta TV and GIGA TV.
Are you willing to watch movies and shows? But not pay for them?
The success of Netflix proves people are willing to pay. What people are not as willing to do, is constantly pay more and more as studios try to wring more and more profit out of people. When you attempt to overcharge or to make the experience too burdensome, people don’t want to keep paying for it. “I want a reasonably priced service that is convenient” is not the same as “I want everything for free”.
My issue with these services is that they enable user profiling.
I have no issues with Amazon (or Netflix, which I don't use) knowing what I stream, but I do have an issue with Vodafone or Telekom knowing which TV channels I'm watching at what time.
That's why I prefer DVB-C.
I have no issues with Amazon (or Netflix, which I don't use) knowing what I stream, but I do have an issue with Vodafone or Telekom knowing which TV channels I'm watching at what time.
That's why I prefer DVB-C.
I think the practice of killing off streaming services and projects that aren't "core" is a huge liability for Google. Why should I invest time and money in a service or product that might be killed off in a few years?
We need to reward companies that keep things alive for longer. I got an iPhone recently (over a somewhat cheaper Android) precisely because Apple provides OS updates for longer than any other smartphone maker. Sometimes over 5 years.
Especially as tech products have started to somewhat plateau in functionality, I value longevity over features or performance.
We need to reward companies that keep things alive for longer. I got an iPhone recently (over a somewhat cheaper Android) precisely because Apple provides OS updates for longer than any other smartphone maker. Sometimes over 5 years.
Especially as tech products have started to somewhat plateau in functionality, I value longevity over features or performance.
Fully agree. I paid to purchase hundreds of songs on Google Music and now I have to migrate to Youtube Music which won't let me play those songs without ads and without keeping my phone's screen on unless I pay for a subscription.
I already paid to own those songs. Why do I now have to pay a monthly subscription to keep using them?
Thanks but no thanks, Google.
I already paid to own those songs. Why do I now have to pay a monthly subscription to keep using them?
Thanks but no thanks, Google.
> Why do I now have to pay a monthly subscription to keep using them?
You don't. You can download paid and uploaded content from Google Play Music and use it anywhere. This has been supported since before Play Music even had a paid subscription service.
You don't. You can download paid and uploaded content from Google Play Music and use it anywhere. This has been supported since before Play Music even had a paid subscription service.
Yes, but then they have to somehow manage those files. They paid to have those songs readily available on any of their devices easily through Google Play Music. Now they have a bunch of random mp3 files that can't easily be played on any device. No exactly the same thing.
Sure you can argue that the TOS said this or that when they bought the music.. but the fact remains: if they had bought the music on nearly any other music streaming service, they'd still have access to it easily on any device.
Sure you can argue that the TOS said this or that when they bought the music.. but the fact remains: if they had bought the music on nearly any other music streaming service, they'd still have access to it easily on any device.
> they had bought the music on nearly any other music streaming service, they'd still have access to it easily on any device.
No, if they'd bought it on a wide number of other services, they'd also have had to switch to new services with different terms and features. Play Music isn't the only major store to have shut down over the years.
> Now they have a bunch of random mp3 files that can't easily be played on any device
Other than dedicated streaming devices, and devices that only handle dedicated physical media, pretty much any device that can play music can easily play mp3 files, random or not.
Also, the supported automated migration path (YouTube Music) does, in fact, play songs from the personal library ad-free without a subscription:
“You can play uploaded songs in the background on your mobile phone or on the web, ad-free and offline - even if you are not currently a YouTube Music Premium subscriber.”
https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/thread/52908732?hl=e...
So other than you have to click a button to migrate, and you have to use an app and service with a different name, there's no substantive change here.
No, if they'd bought it on a wide number of other services, they'd also have had to switch to new services with different terms and features. Play Music isn't the only major store to have shut down over the years.
> Now they have a bunch of random mp3 files that can't easily be played on any device
Other than dedicated streaming devices, and devices that only handle dedicated physical media, pretty much any device that can play music can easily play mp3 files, random or not.
Also, the supported automated migration path (YouTube Music) does, in fact, play songs from the personal library ad-free without a subscription:
“You can play uploaded songs in the background on your mobile phone or on the web, ad-free and offline - even if you are not currently a YouTube Music Premium subscriber.”
https://support.google.com/youtubemusic/thread/52908732?hl=e...
So other than you have to click a button to migrate, and you have to use an app and service with a different name, there's no substantive change here.
Have you spoken with Google's tech support about this? There's actually a support app for YouTube music that I found to be top rate, much, much to my surprise.
They might be able to find a way to satisfy your wants? Maybe download them or similar?
They might be able to find a way to satisfy your wants? Maybe download them or similar?
I detest turning on my TV and getting ads from the TV itself (recommendations). I detest it even more of there is some show/celebrity I don't want to see but every day for a week/month whatever it's shoved in my face.
I'm happy Apple TV (the device not the service) starts up with no ads. Android TV / Google TV is all ads (for shows). I managed to manually turn them off but now my is super ugly. You can't set a startup image or anything since it's reserved for ads. (well, short of writing my own launcher)
I don't know what I'm going to do for my next TV. I'd love to get a dumb TV but casually glancing through options it looks hard to find a dumb TV with high end features for a reasonable price. Most of the display oriented monitors seem to be 4x-10x the price and/or use 10yr old tech.
I'm happy Apple TV (the device not the service) starts up with no ads. Android TV / Google TV is all ads (for shows). I managed to manually turn them off but now my is super ugly. You can't set a startup image or anything since it's reserved for ads. (well, short of writing my own launcher)
I don't know what I'm going to do for my next TV. I'd love to get a dumb TV but casually glancing through options it looks hard to find a dumb TV with high end features for a reasonable price. Most of the display oriented monitors seem to be 4x-10x the price and/or use 10yr old tech.
"...detest it even more of there is some show/celebrity I don't want to see but every day for a week/month whatever it's shoved in my face."
I literally stopped using Google Play Music for podcasts because that Adam Ruins Everything guy is always at the top of their recommendations. No problem with the guy or his content, just, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, seeing that guy, every time I switch podcasts, with no way not to see it.
Doesn't matter now anyway, Google Play Music is another service that lost the PM wars
I literally stopped using Google Play Music for podcasts because that Adam Ruins Everything guy is always at the top of their recommendations. No problem with the guy or his content, just, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, seeing that guy, every time I switch podcasts, with no way not to see it.
Doesn't matter now anyway, Google Play Music is another service that lost the PM wars
I was slightly confused by this as well but I think I got the gist. It's a chromecast interface/OS so that Google knows what you're watching on Netflix, Amazon Prime and other apps
From portals to search engines and back to portals again. The circle of life.
Did Google manage to convince Netflix to allow them to monitor what you watch on Netflix? This is one of the biggest holes in Apple TV (the app, on Apple TV, the box) - it knows most of what you watch and can make recommendations for Hulu, HBO, Prime, etc. and manage your queue except for Netflix.
Not exactly. When you install an app on android tv you can create a "channel". App developers get one channel "for free" and more channels requiring implicit consent from user.
Netflix chose to use recommendations as their first channel. Google TV acts as aggregator for those channels.
Netflix chose to use recommendations as their first channel. Google TV acts as aggregator for those channels.
Google should merge this with Stadia so they can sunset them at the same time
> Play games on Stadia / Coming in 2021
https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_com...
https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_com...
Google just deprecated Android TV as well: https://9to5google.com/2020/09/30/android-tv-replaced-google...
Google's product team is just clueless, yet I am sure they are 'laser focus' on the metrics.
It is laughable yet sad.
It is laughable yet sad.
I rather like my Shield TV (2017). Nvidia has been pretty good about keeping it up to date, so I wonder how this changes things.
I was very confused then I remembered I was subscribed to _YouTube TV_ not _Google TV_.
Then I was confused again- is this an actual TV? Oh it's a dongle- no, wait, that's a Chromecast with Google TV.
Anyway, I guess this is a new content app like Hulu.
Then I was confused again- is this an actual TV? Oh it's a dongle- no, wait, that's a Chromecast with Google TV.
Anyway, I guess this is a new content app like Hulu.
I think this may be closer to an Android TV replacement? but with seemingly less features.
Is my 65" TV I splashed out on going to stop getting updates now...
Is my 65" TV I splashed out on going to stop getting updates now...
Its Android TV with a different UI, and its replacing Android TV https://9to5google.com/2020/09/30/android-tv-replaced-google...
Yes, of course - if not now, in two years. Smart TVs rarely get updates for longer than that.
Talk about a product with a foot in the grave already.
It honestly makes me angry how much human capital was wasted on making this. Everything about this is a UX nightmare, from the scrolljacking site, to the apps-in-apps UI, to the abomination of a remote. This is such a waste.
It honestly makes me angry how much human capital was wasted on making this. Everything about this is a UX nightmare, from the scrolljacking site, to the apps-in-apps UI, to the abomination of a remote. This is such a waste.
No kidding. I feel for the engineers who spent sleepless nights getting this to launch ...
Imagine you had to invert a binary tree on a whiteboard just to create something like this...
This might be the wrong place to complain about this issue. But "smart" TVs need to be replaced with "dumb TV + set top box" bundles. As it is now, the best panels are obsolete after a year.
You can always plug a box into the TV, even if it’s a smart TV.
The software can still update. Does the hardware needed to play a video really become obsolete in 1 year? Why, do hardware decoders improve that fast? People aren’t using these panels for games
The software can still update. Does the hardware needed to play a video really become obsolete in 1 year? Why, do hardware decoders improve that fast? People aren’t using these panels for games
My smart tv constantly gets in the way. If I boot up a game device it starts with a footer bar with apps and such that won't disappear for up to a minute. I have to press back on the remote if I want it to go away faster. If I accidentally press or long press a button on the remote the whole TV will be hijacked for a voice command or something. A year or so ago the TV decided that if it wasn't getting any inputs it should switch to a video app I never installed and automatically play. The days of getting a giant monitor must be over as the profits from bundling crapware with TVs must have driven down the costs so much that they no longer cannot contain them.
I stick to high end Sony TVs because I trust them to not pull this kind of garbage.
I bought a cheap Toshiba that only has a built in chrome cast that you can ignore. It's a good option.
i'm getting the $200 sceptre brand 4k tv from walmart. it is just a display. they still exist
> But "smart" TVs need to be replaced with "dumb TV + set top box" bundles.
That's how it used to work about 20-15 years ago before flat panels become popular and still does to the some degree - at least in Poland. You had a CRT tv and DVB-S receiver and service providers were teasing all the time with revolutionary tech that will come soon and change our life; we were promised home banking, shopping, VOD, interactive channels and content, even Internet browsing with phone line used as upload channel.
Years later, we got a new flat tv and gave up on satellite tv as ISP finally upgraded infrastructure to FTTH from classic copper and it made sense to have all services in one cable and pay for it at single provider. The Samsung UHD ICU 100 receiver comes with ISP branded linux software that handles tv features like EPG, show recording etc., parental control, USB external storage playback, there are also 3 VOD choices - ISP own one, Netflix and HBO in separated "apps", weather and radio interactive channels (radio comes with predefined stations you can't change). You can check bill, change the tv plan (channels are handled by company that still operates with DVB-S; once it was possible to buy channels separately, now you gotta aim at full packet offer). There are "ads" - of shows from VOD services but nothing else; no idea if device pukes anything if you decide to not opt-out from tracking but so far, I'm satisfied. The smart tv itself become obsolete quite fast - applications doesn't load anymore, Netflix notoriously crashes upon launching, but with this receiver it's like it got a second chance.
Summing up, some ideas advertised become the reality but on a different medium - VOD, interactive channels and content is here, done by FTTH (and of course DVB - all comes what you need and what you can have, where do you live) but some stuff never arrived or become pointless to implement (Internet browsing, home banking and shopping).
That's how it used to work about 20-15 years ago before flat panels become popular and still does to the some degree - at least in Poland. You had a CRT tv and DVB-S receiver and service providers were teasing all the time with revolutionary tech that will come soon and change our life; we were promised home banking, shopping, VOD, interactive channels and content, even Internet browsing with phone line used as upload channel.
Years later, we got a new flat tv and gave up on satellite tv as ISP finally upgraded infrastructure to FTTH from classic copper and it made sense to have all services in one cable and pay for it at single provider. The Samsung UHD ICU 100 receiver comes with ISP branded linux software that handles tv features like EPG, show recording etc., parental control, USB external storage playback, there are also 3 VOD choices - ISP own one, Netflix and HBO in separated "apps", weather and radio interactive channels (radio comes with predefined stations you can't change). You can check bill, change the tv plan (channels are handled by company that still operates with DVB-S; once it was possible to buy channels separately, now you gotta aim at full packet offer). There are "ads" - of shows from VOD services but nothing else; no idea if device pukes anything if you decide to not opt-out from tracking but so far, I'm satisfied. The smart tv itself become obsolete quite fast - applications doesn't load anymore, Netflix notoriously crashes upon launching, but with this receiver it's like it got a second chance.
Summing up, some ideas advertised become the reality but on a different medium - VOD, interactive channels and content is here, done by FTTH (and of course DVB - all comes what you need and what you can have, where do you live) but some stuff never arrived or become pointless to implement (Internet browsing, home banking and shopping).
I bought my TV from Costco, it has Roku built-in and I think it gets the same software updates. The full integration has some advantages, like having a single remote that stops the playback when I turn the TV off.
But now that Roku has decided they want in on the content business and the ad business you are stuck with them (as am I). I don't want a device that has to make deals with content providers to take a cut TBH. That's why HBO Max is still not on Roku.
Why are you stuck with them? Does your TV not have HDMI ports or something?
That should already be possible via HDMI-CEC.
Unfortunately some devices don't support it, but I would guess most streaming sticks/boxes do.
Unfortunately some devices don't support it, but I would guess most streaming sticks/boxes do.
Gotta disagree with this, I'm very happy with the integrated Roku in my TCL TV. And the TV still has HDMI ports, so I don't see how it's obsolete if I ever want to stop using the Roku.
My parents have an Android TV, they have to regularly reboot it to fix its (wired) network connection. Nothing else on the network has a problem.
Meanwhile I have a second-hand Apple TV and it's great, but if it weren't great I would keep my television and replace it with a Fire/Roku/Whatever device.
I suppose they could keep their smart TV and hook up a less shitty external device to do the smart things, but then the smart TV is just a dumb TV that takes 5x longer to boot and presumably wastes extra electricity in the process.
If I had any faith in these Android-based televisions to get long term software support and be at all reliable maybe it would be different, but based on track records in the ecosystem I absolutely don't. The life span of a television panel is many times as long as the effective useful period of an android device.
Meanwhile I have a second-hand Apple TV and it's great, but if it weren't great I would keep my television and replace it with a Fire/Roku/Whatever device.
I suppose they could keep their smart TV and hook up a less shitty external device to do the smart things, but then the smart TV is just a dumb TV that takes 5x longer to boot and presumably wastes extra electricity in the process.
If I had any faith in these Android-based televisions to get long term software support and be at all reliable maybe it would be different, but based on track records in the ecosystem I absolutely don't. The life span of a television panel is many times as long as the effective useful period of an android device.
Depends on the implementation. My parents samsung tv has become unbearably slow and a factory reset doesn't fix it. I assume updates are to blame. Others are also reporting that their smart tv started showing adverts after years of owning it.
Since the panel is expensive and the brains are cheap, it makes more sense to have them split.
Since the panel is expensive and the brains are cheap, it makes more sense to have them split.
There's a simple solution: don't connect your TV to the internet and just use its HDMI ports for a separate streaming box.
Tech-illiterate people do not want multiple boxes and multiple remotes to just watch Netflix.
The inconsistency is the worst part about the scroll linked effects on this website. Sometimes scrolling causes a huge change to the content, almost like scrolling to the next slide in powerpoint. Other times scrolling simply moves the text a little bit.
"Chromecast with Google TV requires a TV with an HDMI port"
How come nearly all video dongles want you to plug them into an HDMI port on your TV? Wouldn't it make more sense to plug them in to an HDMI port on your A/V receiver?
Unless you have a fairly recent TV and receiver, the TV can only send up to 5.1 DTS or Dolby compressed audio to the receiver, due to bandwidth limits of ARC. You need a system with eARC if you want to handle more, like Dolby Atmos, DTS-HD Master Audio, and the like, or uncompressed 5.1.
Also, with all video sources going through the receiver, it is one less remote to deal with. The only function you need on the TV is power on/power off, and one of your other remotes almost certainly will know or be able to be taught the TV's on/off code.
Another advantage of that approach is that you don't have a need, after initial setup, to look at any of the control or setting or information screens of your TV, which means if you've got a Smart TV that has started festooning those screes with ads, you don't see them.
How come nearly all video dongles want you to plug them into an HDMI port on your TV? Wouldn't it make more sense to plug them in to an HDMI port on your A/V receiver?
Unless you have a fairly recent TV and receiver, the TV can only send up to 5.1 DTS or Dolby compressed audio to the receiver, due to bandwidth limits of ARC. You need a system with eARC if you want to handle more, like Dolby Atmos, DTS-HD Master Audio, and the like, or uncompressed 5.1.
Also, with all video sources going through the receiver, it is one less remote to deal with. The only function you need on the TV is power on/power off, and one of your other remotes almost certainly will know or be able to be taught the TV's on/off code.
Another advantage of that approach is that you don't have a need, after initial setup, to look at any of the control or setting or information screens of your TV, which means if you've got a Smart TV that has started festooning those screes with ads, you don't see them.
Because of HDMI-CEC. The dongle can control things on the TV via this technology. This product specifically has a remote that I believe only interacts via HDMI-CEC.
I don't know if it's possible for the HDMI-CEC to pass through a receiver to the TV itself for this purpose.
I don't know if it's possible for the HDMI-CEC to pass through a receiver to the TV itself for this purpose.
Yes, that’s a feature in many receivers. My older Chromecast turns on the receiver, sets the receiver input, and turns on the TV. I’m guessing this new one would work perfectly fine, too.
You definitely can plug it into a receiver's HDMI input port and work well. That quote only means if you still have a TV that only takes analog inputs or something, then you won't be able to plug the Chromecast in.
even if plugged into a receiver, the new chromecast doesn't passthrough/bitstream hd audio (dts-ma/dts-x, true-hd/atmos). which means I probably will not be getting it.
So the Google TV dongle is $49.99 in the US but why on earth is it £59.99 in the UK??!!
Edit: Clarify it's the dongle
Edit: Clarify it's the dongle
youtube tv is sold in the US, not in the UK. youtubetv subsidizes the cost of the dongle in the US and not in the UK. much like netflix also subsidizes the cost of the dongle. Apparently, google is valuing its ability to push youtube tv with it a lot.
Maybe they can’t sell as much data from UK users? This, the fire stick, and Roku all have their cost subsidized by ads/selling your data.
Is anyone else struck by how similar this looks to Apple TV? It looks like a straight up clone, down to the remote and interface. Only difference is that it looks like it dangles from your TV and has Assistant instead of Siri.
Honestly at this point I am jumping ship altogether although I think I will get the next Xbox console as my TV app device manager especially with the Game Pass. I hate the concept of streaming games but the idea of having most Microsoft games on a game pass is worthwhile they got some solid flagship games that are easily replayable.
Nice, that just makes it just as likely for me to get an Xbox instead of any other device.
Like many others, I got very confused by this branding.
Its a Chromecast (4k60 HDR HDMI Dongle) that is running Android TV (Which they appear to be calling Google TV). And a remote control with voice controls. [1]
Not sure I see any reason why someone should get this over an Nvidia Shield. Which at least has a track record of long term support. Certainly a lower price point though, so maybe a market there?
[1] https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_spe...
Its a Chromecast (4k60 HDR HDMI Dongle) that is running Android TV (Which they appear to be calling Google TV). And a remote control with voice controls. [1]
Not sure I see any reason why someone should get this over an Nvidia Shield. Which at least has a track record of long term support. Certainly a lower price point though, so maybe a market there?
[1] https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_spe...
I know others have mentioned it but really the behavior of the scroll on this website is some of the worst I've seen in recent web design. It's completely inconsistent in how it behaves - sometimes it actually scrolls, other times it is shrinking and moving panes around on the screen. It's impressive that they were able to do it yes, but it is one of the most jarring experiences scrolling a website I've ever seen and did make me feel a bit dizzy and felt like scrolling wasn't actually working.
Maybe I'm just getting old lol
Maybe I'm just getting old lol
Why would I want the same dumb Google Assistant in my tv?!
It would help if they would put some actual effort into the services behind Google Home/ Mini let alone Google Assistant before expanding hardware options.
It would help if they would put some actual effort into the services behind Google Home/ Mini let alone Google Assistant before expanding hardware options.
After a lot of scrolling through marketing hyperbole... What is it?
It's an Apple TV/Roku/Fire TV but from Google?
I'm really confused as to whether this is Google's blessed Android TV spin (like Android TV with a different home screen), or a rebranding of Android TV.
Actually makes sense from the perspective of Google's mission of "organizing world's information", as finding stuff to watch these days reminds of pre-google web.
Problem of course is that in practice Google nowadays is really about "organizing world's ads", so I am sure they will find more than one way to screw this up by insulting the intelligence of people using it.
Problem of course is that in practice Google nowadays is really about "organizing world's ads", so I am sure they will find more than one way to screw this up by insulting the intelligence of people using it.
FYI if you are planning to anyways pay for Netflix for the next 6 months then you can pick up one of these for effectively ~$10 through a bundle (https://store.google.com/us/config/chromecast_google_tv_netf...).
You guys take the longevity of a $50 consumer device super serious.
Yes. Of course. Because there's no inherently consumable parts. There's no reason that this shouldn't work 10 years from now (like original Chromecasts do, or first-gen Roku devices, or even 1080p TVs). Why bother buying into something with a limited lifespan?
Why shouldn't we? It's a consumer device that happens to have a perfectly good general purpose computer inside it. There's no reason why it shouldn't continue to work until the hardware itself fails.
And so does the environment when you throw it in the trash after 7 months.
It’s not about the price in USD, it’s about the price in CO2 production and human suffering from mining and manufacturing.
So is this open, like Android TV / Nvidia Shield, and allows side-loading?
Or is this a closed device, like a Chromecast?
Or is this a closed device, like a Chromecast?
Looking at the Samsung TV ads fiasco, First Gen Google TV, new Google TV, Apple TV,
It seems the whole TV viewing experience, both hardware and software is still mess, just like it was 10 years ago. I guess Steve [1] described it best, the lack of Go to Market Strategy.
I sometimes wonder why cant we build a Tuner that works on all International market.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/29/3704270/how-apple-can-bu...
It seems the whole TV viewing experience, both hardware and software is still mess, just like it was 10 years ago. I guess Steve [1] described it best, the lack of Go to Market Strategy.
I sometimes wonder why cant we build a Tuner that works on all International market.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/29/3704270/how-apple-can-bu...
Can’t wait to jump on this and binge on my favorite hyper personalized ads!
When I scrolled through the page and saw 'TV personalized for you' my brain instantly appended 'ads' after 'personalized'. I had to read that sentence twice. Personalized is such a red flag.
Why Google? Why? How is this different than Chromecast? What is the upgrade path from Chromecast.
There should be some law against Google launching products that invalidates existing products in their own lineup. Google PMs are high on adwords/adsense revenues trying to score points via product launches to get higher bonuses. That is an apt summary of Google's internal political economy.
Time to get an Apple TV and get off the Google ecoystem. sigh.
There should be some law against Google launching products that invalidates existing products in their own lineup. Google PMs are high on adwords/adsense revenues trying to score points via product launches to get higher bonuses. That is an apt summary of Google's internal political economy.
Time to get an Apple TV and get off the Google ecoystem. sigh.
> How is this different than Chromecast?
It's software that is included on the newest Chromecast. (And will soon be included in Android TVs.)
> What is the upgrade path from Chromecast.
It is included in the newest Chromecast, which is also the upgrade path for existing TVs that won't get it.
> There should be some law against Google launching products that invalidates existing products in their own lineup.
There should be a law against improved versions of existing products?
It's software that is included on the newest Chromecast. (And will soon be included in Android TVs.)
> What is the upgrade path from Chromecast.
It is included in the newest Chromecast, which is also the upgrade path for existing TVs that won't get it.
> There should be some law against Google launching products that invalidates existing products in their own lineup.
There should be a law against improved versions of existing products?
I had no idea Google has its own tld.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.google
I purchased Android TV devices for my family and I when Android TV was first released because Google claimed it was going to be the next big thing. The software development and app store seemed to basically be abandoned by Google shortly after. Even the apps for Googles own services (youtube) seemed to be thrown together and worked very poorly. I don't think I would ever consider Google for a service/device like this again...
Finally out of beta!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK_M_nVWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK_M_nVWA
I'm hoping this just means an OS update for those of us with NVidia Shield TV devices (or other Android TV devices). Better app/search integration would be nice, but I'm not giving up local/network playback options, and really don't want to see the apps languish (netflix, hulu, amazon prime, etc) too much.
Something, something, cold dead hands.
Something, something, cold dead hands.
This webpage is worse than Apple ones for side scrolling and just bad at conveying information in general. The videos are too distracting, and it doesn’t seem to be very clear what the product is.
Not the page’s fault (maybe), but it kept triggering reader mode on my phone multiple times as I scrolled down.
Not the page’s fault (maybe), but it kept triggering reader mode on my phone multiple times as I scrolled down.
> "TV personalized for you."
Um, well... coming from Google this is more of a turn-off, not a selling point.
Um, well... coming from Google this is more of a turn-off, not a selling point.
The interesting thing i found is that it supports keyboard, mouse, ethernet and power via type c dongle.
Is it me or is the decision to use the URL tv.google instead of google.tv a seemingly pretentious one?
The internet has come full circle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK_M_nVWA&ab_channel=infin...
(Hoax video from 2007 about how to get Google TV)
(Hoax video from 2007 about how to get Google TV)
I will openly admit to hating Google but found the scrolling effect on this website quite beautiful.
However, it would have to jump out of the TV and make me a bacon sandwich before I allowed Google to track what I was watching that evening.
Even then I would delete the app having ate the bacon sandwich.
However, it would have to jump out of the TV and make me a bacon sandwich before I allowed Google to track what I was watching that evening.
Even then I would delete the app having ate the bacon sandwich.
It looks cool, but it is ridiculously frustrating to actually find info.
Also, I agree, except the bacon sandwich is going to have to be a BLT, and it would have to bring me a Coke as well.
Also, I agree, except the bacon sandwich is going to have to be a BLT, and it would have to bring me a Coke as well.
I wonder when they would start shipping Google TV software on smart TVs.
Every high-end TV today comes with some sort of OS pre-installed. So a set-top box in 2020 is not a very popular device. Even Apple figured it out and released Apple TV app on most smart TV platforms.
Every high-end TV today comes with some sort of OS pre-installed. So a set-top box in 2020 is not a very popular device. Even Apple figured it out and released Apple TV app on most smart TV platforms.
Do we know if this is it for all future Chromecasts?
Because the only reason I'm using one is due to the lack of a remote, it lets me treat my TV like the big dumb monitor that it is.
If they're going all in on remotes, then I need to move back to DLNA.
If they're going all in on remotes, then I need to move back to DLNA.
I think you can just ignore the interface / remote and still Chromecast to this, not unlike current Android TV implementations (integrated into Smart TV's and the NVidia Shield).
Would love if someone with more experience with Android TV could clarify though. I daily a Chromecast Ultra not Android TV.
Would love if someone with more experience with Android TV could clarify though. I daily a Chromecast Ultra not Android TV.
That's how my LG TV works. The TV shows up in the cast menu just like a chromecast does. Using youtube as an example, it opens up the youtube app and starts the video. You can either use the remote as usual to interact with the video, or the you phone exactly like you would if it were just a chromecast. You can also queue up multiple videos from your phone.
I have a chromecast as well, and I really expected to use it over the built-in apps. But the built-in TV apps really blew me away, much better user interface than I was expecting. I'm hoping this new chromecast/Google TV thingy is as good, I'd really like to disable network connectivity to the TV if possible (but right now the apps are just too nice to give up).
I have a chromecast as well, and I really expected to use it over the built-in apps. But the built-in TV apps really blew me away, much better user interface than I was expecting. I'm hoping this new chromecast/Google TV thingy is as good, I'd really like to disable network connectivity to the TV if possible (but right now the apps are just too nice to give up).
Ah good, hopefully backdrops can be enabled too. I do enjoy the random selection of artwork.
Why do I need dedicated remote buttons for Youtube and Netflix if this thing is so smart? Regardless of the reason, why do I not get buttons for all the other apps it integrates with, or reprogrammable buttons?
I got motion sick while trying to read this webpage. Apparently scrolling counts as motion to the brain and all the crazy flying icons set it off. I don’t normally get motion sickness, either.
I've tried to click in the `live` menu item expecting to watch some live stuff, that actually started really well with a soccer game only to realize that this is not actually live at all.
I scrolled all the way through that and don't know what it does.
I’m a bit sad they didn’t take Apple’s approach and use USB to recharge the remote. With Apple TV I just plug it into the wall once every 6-9 months for 30mins. No battery waste.
I don’t get it
It took me a while to realize this was a new device and not an app.
It's also an app (can be installed on phones).
Does someone want to set up a stadiacountdown.com for Google TV?
The fact I had to basically google "What happened to stadia" means I suspect we can probably reuse whatever server was hosting stadiacountdown.com
Next week... Chrome TV+
Interesting to see a Netflix button on a Google product - is having a third party logo (and a competitor in one market at that) a first for them?
I have no idea what this is. Do they sell an actual TV? Or is it just a Chromecast-like dongle? Does it work on every TV or do I need a smart TV? What does it do?
I just got an email from Google saying
> The Google Play Movies & TV app on Android mobile devices in the U.S. is now Google TV.
I'm not in U.S., though, so I guess no rebranding for me...
> The Google Play Movies & TV app on Android mobile devices in the U.S. is now Google TV.
I'm not in U.S., though, so I guess no rebranding for me...
Is there any reason I need this if I already have a Roku?
I'm considering buying it to cover the things that aren't on roku like twitch
not that I can tell; I was wondering the same thing.
HBO and twitch
After Google bricked my previous version of Google TV, and the one I gave to my dad as a gift, it's gonna be a big, fat NO THANKS from me, dawg.
What would be the comparison with NVidia Shield, aside from the top NVidia shield being about 3 times the price and has wired network?
Nvidia has DLSS upscaling, remote play to a PC with a GeForce graphics card, and generally faster hardware.
I think for 99% of people though this new Google dongle will do everything they need but cheaper.
I think for 99% of people though this new Google dongle will do everything they need but cheaper.
This shows up as:
Google TV (Previously Play Movies & TV)
I have had the earlier app for years now, never used it though
[deleted]
Why does Google get to have a tld?
Yet another Google product that will be abandoned within 2 years. Don't buy the hype.
Why the Google hate in this case? I'm in love with my chromecast I've had for the past 6 years with no issues, and this seems like a great upgrade for less than I paid.
Chromecast is the only google media receiver that survived. Over the last few years we have had:
* Google TV (A different product to this Google TV) * Nexus Q * Android TV * Youtube TV * Probably 10 other things that started and shut down without anyone noticing.
* Google TV (A different product to this Google TV) * Nexus Q * Android TV * Youtube TV * Probably 10 other things that started and shut down without anyone noticing.
Would this support 3rd-party live TV streaming services, such as Sling, Fubo, Hulu?
How do they do those movements in the site? Like which framework or vanillajs?
No thanks, I like my TV dumb.
Will this support 4K HDR?
Seems like it will. It's listed along with Dolby Vision on their Tech Specs page:
https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_spe...
Thanks I missed the little dropdown arrow
Can it run plex?
Client or client + server?
Client or client + server?
It will run the client, but not the server
scroll jank as a service
"TV personalised for you.
Movies and shows are grouped in ways that reflect your interests."
I can't be the only one who _wants_ to be surprised, out of their usual bubble of interest, at least sometimes.
How can one tell this to all these "clever" things?
Movies and shows are grouped in ways that reflect your interests."
I can't be the only one who _wants_ to be surprised, out of their usual bubble of interest, at least sometimes.
How can one tell this to all these "clever" things?
I can chromecast youtube to my TV already.
I have firetv dongle(two of them) that can run youtube too.
Roku is also pretty popular in this space.
Some also uses apple tv(not an Apple fan here)
what google tv buy me? what's its unique selling point? that was not very clear to me.
I have firetv dongle(two of them) that can run youtube too.
Roku is also pretty popular in this space.
Some also uses apple tv(not an Apple fan here)
what google tv buy me? what's its unique selling point? that was not very clear to me.
I’m not quite sure but isn’t this similar to YouTube TV
[deleted]
Will my brand new Sony Android TV update to this?
Ok, I'm asking: what features does this (or the apple one, or the nvidia shield, or the roku stuff) give you that can't be given by a Raspberry Pi + libreelec + kodi?
The ability to use streaming apps like Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO, etc etc etc?
Besides, a lot of these streaming sticks are cheaper that an RPi. The question is why should you use a Pi over the streaming stick, not the other way around.
Besides, a lot of these streaming sticks are cheaper that an RPi. The question is why should you use a Pi over the streaming stick, not the other way around.
do you know that netflix, amazon prime video etc are viewable throug kodi?
have a look at https://github.com/peak3d/inputstream.adaptive
But that still doesn't answer the question of why use it. It's going to be inherently less stable than using first party apps, and the Pi is still more expensive in the first place. I just don't see a compelling case for it.
Playing DRM media, I would assume.
Normal people can buy it.
I prefer this name, glad they brought it back
It looks like a shameless ripoff of Apple TV. I wouldn’t have been surprised if it were made by Huawei (or similar); but for Google to stoop to that level? Tsk tsk tsk
Haven't they had a thing like this for years? Is this different to the thing before or just a renaming?
Yeah, if you put this interface next to the Apple TV interface they look _extremely_ similar. That and the remotes are also extremely similar as well.
Dunno. I just looked at an image search of Android TV, Apple TV compared to the new Google TV.
- are they really that similar?
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong Apple TV screens - or they are an older version but Apple TV and Android TV look as similar to each other as either does to Google TV.
(Windows Media Center UI predates all three and was the first place I saw the "mix of horizontal and vertical" scrolling thing. It was a nice system for it's time)
- are they really that similar?
Maybe I'm looking at the wrong Apple TV screens - or they are an older version but Apple TV and Android TV look as similar to each other as either does to Google TV.
(Windows Media Center UI predates all three and was the first place I saw the "mix of horizontal and vertical" scrolling thing. It was a nice system for it's time)
I blame the mbas
Another user data harvesting platform.
They need to hire somebody like "Google program advocate manager for TV" to get their branding fixed :-)
//sarcasm
And it will be killed in 3 years.
Yet another service which will most likely be abandoned... Wait, there is a .google top level domain now?
thank you google but no :) I don't trust you even more of my data
I looked at the site, but I have no idea what it is or what it costs. Total marketing failure.
I got a little woozy with all of the unexpected zoom-outs. Really no idea what was going on until the end.
Well done on getting that far, I gave up the fight against the interface well before the end!
It costs three years of your life and commitment until they shelve it with 90 days notice.
My first and third gen chromecast still works. Google TV is just 4th gen chromecast. I expect this to work several years.
I would not spend a dime on this, to be honest I'm impressed Stadia isn't shelved yet, but just give it time.
I'm guessing the target market here is TV manufacturers, the same way chromecast is built into tvs these days. They're more high touch and are going to get sales calls about it regardless, so the site just needs to convince them to accept the meeting invite.
Similar reaction here.
https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_com...
That page is a bit better at explaining things.
https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv_com...
That page is a bit better at explaining things.
So... the new dongle is powered by a chip that has some Bluetooth component. Does that mean I can finally connect to it from my phone via Bluetooth and play music that way?
The lack of that feature is my biggest gripe with the current dongle. The Cast protocol is a pain in the butt in terms of apps that support it.
The lack of that feature is my biggest gripe with the current dongle. The Cast protocol is a pain in the butt in terms of apps that support it.
>Does that mean I can finally connect to it from my phone via Bluetooth and play music that way?
I don't know about this device, but what you are describing is the antitheses of how chomecast is intended to work (or at least it was, from the beginning of chromecast to the last time I checked).
The idea is that you never stream anything from your phone, but rather your phone is a remote control and service authentication device for the chromecast.
I don't know about this device, but what you are describing is the antitheses of how chomecast is intended to work (or at least it was, from the beginning of chromecast to the last time I checked).
The idea is that you never stream anything from your phone, but rather your phone is a remote control and service authentication device for the chromecast.
I get the impression its a new OS for smart tvs.
I had the same reaction and was hoping the conversation here would answer those questions ... so far I'm out-of-luck!
I guess they're the only one using the .google domain
Why does google get it's tld?
Who is this website designed for? I'm on Chrome and it took me about a dozen presses of the space bar to get an idea of what Google TV is/does and then a bunch more to get some specifics and a price. I assume it looks different on mobile, maybe better / more useful?
Remember the old book/saying "Don't Make Me Think"? (Krug, 2000. Wow, it's 20 years old now?!)
This site made me think in ways that seem really unnecessary.
Serious question, why is this site designed like this, I honestly don't understand the goal here. It's like a slideshow? People in general are so interested in this they do actually page through it? I feel like it took some real effort to finally learn things that should've been on page 1.
Remember the old book/saying "Don't Make Me Think"? (Krug, 2000. Wow, it's 20 years old now?!)
This site made me think in ways that seem really unnecessary.
Serious question, why is this site designed like this, I honestly don't understand the goal here. It's like a slideshow? People in general are so interested in this they do actually page through it? I feel like it took some real effort to finally learn things that should've been on page 1.
I don't mind scrolljacking when it's compelling.
My only problem is I've scrolled through the whole thing and I'm still not clear if Google TV is a website, a piece of hardware, a bundle of content, or what...?
It's clearly not just hardware because it says "Chromecast with Google TV". But then it definitely involves an app because it says "Use the app" and "Coming soon to smart TVs."
But I still am not exactly clear how it integrates with the streaming apps? In fact I have no idea whatsoever. Do I watch HBO and Netflix through Google TV? Or is Google TV just a glorified playlists app that lets me get recommendations across services, that then links out to watch them in separate apps? Is it a free app or a paid subscription service? Does it give me access to exclusive content? Or network TV?
I'm left with no idea why I would use this or not because I still don't know what it is.
My only problem is I've scrolled through the whole thing and I'm still not clear if Google TV is a website, a piece of hardware, a bundle of content, or what...?
It's clearly not just hardware because it says "Chromecast with Google TV". But then it definitely involves an app because it says "Use the app" and "Coming soon to smart TVs."
But I still am not exactly clear how it integrates with the streaming apps? In fact I have no idea whatsoever. Do I watch HBO and Netflix through Google TV? Or is Google TV just a glorified playlists app that lets me get recommendations across services, that then links out to watch them in separate apps? Is it a free app or a paid subscription service? Does it give me access to exclusive content? Or network TV?
I'm left with no idea why I would use this or not because I still don't know what it is.
Google TV, as far as I understand it, is a bunch of features across Google services to make TV better.
Like watchlist in Search, the new Google TV app, and the launcher on this Chromecast.
(Disclosure: I work for Google, but I don't work on this)
Like watchlist in Search, the new Google TV app, and the launcher on this Chromecast.
(Disclosure: I work for Google, but I don't work on this)
I find this kind of scrolljacking presentation page incredibly annoying. I get it, it's beautiful and impressive, but it feels like a present that's wrapped with 15 different layers of paper.
I find it depressing knowing Google's track record for these kinds of things, and this probably won't be around in 5 years, at least under this name.
I think this presentation style works for expensive products, like an iPhone or something. For yet another money-making service from Google? Nope.
They send a memo out to the 17 groups working on various TV related projects about consolidation. Then those 17 group heads worry about who is going to be irrelevant by the end of process. Furious game of throne style events take place. And you get what you see. It will all be shutdown and written off by Christmas so don't worry about what it is too much.
If it doesn't get shutdown by Christmas its probably because they working out how to integrate it into Google Docs.
If it doesn't get shutdown by Christmas its probably because they working out how to integrate it into Google Docs.
It's designed for regular scrolling. Spacebar jumps break the flow. The goal here isn't to give you information fit for a short one-pager -- it's to create a story and bring you along. It works surprisingly well in Opera (chrome-based).
No, it's jarring for anyone using a mouse with scrollwheel as well. The motion ends up being very choppy. In fact, I'm convinced that this style of web page is designed by designers using apple touchpads (eg. MBP) who think everyone else uses them as well.
I agree that it's jarring and choppy with a scrollwheel. (I'm in no way condoning the design.)
You can file it under dark patterns, but I think it may be an accepted limitation - you have to consciously scroll in order to read the individual pseudo-slides. Overscroll? Go back til it's right. You can't just skim this 'presentation'. It's like a user has to 'pull' the information. And the variety of information types (as opposed to a typical webpage that may feature just one type of animation) keeps someone scrolling to 'see what's next'. The user is forever pushed to keep going 'just a little bit more'.
Scrolling it with a touchbar made me nauseous.
apparently it’s designed for people who already know what google tv is
Maybe it's like a hard video game. It takes some real effort to get to the goal, but after you do, you feel particularly good about it!
[deleted]
I'm on Firefox mobile for Android and I had to scroll over and over with elements moving all over the place so I abandoned it to come and read comments so I can find out what it is really about.
Hey at least it now supports Atmos and at a nice price point. Just pissed about the pricing in the UK.. $49.99 is NOT £59.99.
one day they 'll release Google Google
Now you will see more ads on a bigger screen.
But will it have the new South Park episode tonight?
People still watch TV? I haven't turned mine on in years.
I have a large monitor in my living room that shows content from various entertainment services. What's the nearest equivalent you've got to that?
I also have several other screens that show the same entertainment services (with minor inexplicable differences).
Some are called "TVs", some are called "tablets", "laptops" or "phones" but they all seem to do roughly the same job in this regard.
(I also keep reading about a thing called a "notebook computer" but no human being I know has ever used that phrase. Is it different to a "laptop"?)
I also have several other screens that show the same entertainment services (with minor inexplicable differences).
Some are called "TVs", some are called "tablets", "laptops" or "phones" but they all seem to do roughly the same job in this regard.
(I also keep reading about a thing called a "notebook computer" but no human being I know has ever used that phrase. Is it different to a "laptop"?)
I recently bought a half dozen large TVs, and I stream randomized playlist folders of non-television-programming video content to them from a server I keep in the garage.
Some just 24/7 display live streams from YouTube of famous places.
TVs are cool. Television is garbage.
Some just 24/7 display live streams from YouTube of famous places.
TVs are cool. Television is garbage.
> live streams from YouTube of famous places
any chance you have a curated list of these you'd be willing to share? thank you
any chance you have a curated list of these you'd be willing to share? thank you
Email me.
Not the OP, and I don't have a list, but I like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/user/Rambalac
Something tells me this is not a serious comment
This was a good chance for google to cancel something before they actually launched, rather than after ~2-3 years of ignoring it.
Great idea with 1 fatal flaw: it requires my TV to be connected to the internet. NOPE.
Besides the fact that many TV manufactures are owned by Chinese government subsidiaries, it's simply not safe to connect a TV to the internet. Who's collecting and selling the data? Why are they taking screen captures and sending them off to who-knows-where? Your TV spies on you[1].
Instead, my TV stays offline and I use an Apple TV. At least I know they're not selling my data to advertisers, and the experience is quite good.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-warns-about-snoopy-smart-t...
Besides the fact that many TV manufactures are owned by Chinese government subsidiaries, it's simply not safe to connect a TV to the internet. Who's collecting and selling the data? Why are they taking screen captures and sending them off to who-knows-where? Your TV spies on you[1].
Instead, my TV stays offline and I use an Apple TV. At least I know they're not selling my data to advertisers, and the experience is quite good.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-warns-about-snoopy-smart-t...
I'm confused. This Chromecast device has it's own internet connection. Your TV can still remain disconnected. Are you replying to something else?
2010-05-20: Google introduces Google TV at Google I/O (https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/announcing-google-tv... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASZbArr7vdI)
2014-06-24: Google introduces Android TV at Google I/O (https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/introducin... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3dCUPeyhag), a rebranding of Google TV
2017-02-28: Google introduces YouTube TV (https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/finally-live-tv-made-fo...)
2020-09-30: Google introduces Google TV, which might be a rebranding of Android TV back to Google TV, but I'm not sure.