this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
595 points (91.3% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
3223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] _pete_@lemmy.world 152 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I feel the original Chromecast was probably the last truly great original Google product, it was simple, it was inexpensive and it worked - you just plugged it in, joined your network and you were off, there really wasn’t anything like it at the time.

I really hate what they’ve become.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What's funny is that was actually the start of them becoming who they are now. There's a litany of evidence they stole the Chromecast technology

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The remote playback control over network patents? I can't see why those patents should be valid, everything there has prior art done in the 80's

What I'm more pissed about is how Google killed Miracast (it's technically still around but Google removed it from default Android and OEMs have to choose to enable it) and how they fought against 3rd party implementations to keep the Chromecast protocol closed.

I see there's ongoing work for a Matter based standard for casting, I really hope that ends up getting broad support. We need something better than DLNA (and Miracast is technically DLNA over WiFi Direct). We need an open casting standard supporting Chromecast-like remote interactive content (the device is essentially a remote controlled web browser)

[–] bam13302@ttrpg.network 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What changed? I thought that is still what they did.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 43 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Chromecast with Google TV made the "simple" casting worse for some apps like Netflix. Instead of it casting directly, it would spawn the Netflix app and make you use the remote to reselect the show you wanted to see.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Also they made it reliant on the Google Home app, which makes it really hard to change WiFi networks. It's a pain in the ass if you have multiple WiFi networks setup at your house.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remind me, what app did it use before? I have had Chromecast since gen 1, can't remember any other app, but that's probably my memory failing.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Honestly I don't remember. I had a gen 1 Chromecast as well and I think it was just a Chromecast app. Now it's all integrated with Google Home.

Edit: I tried googling it and under the Wikipedia page description it showed the following. But what's funny is if you go to the Wikipedia page, that text is no longer there.

Originally called simply "Chromecast", the app was released concurrently with the original Chromecast video model ...

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Why on earth would you have multiple WiFi networks in your home?

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I take my Chromecast on holiday, you basically have to factory reset it every time to change network. But my recollection is that you've always had to do that.

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

That makes perfect sense, and switching is definitely annoying then... But the person I responded to said they had multiple WiFi networks at home... E.g. Not on holiday

[–] tjhart85@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My solution: get a travel router and have it broadcast the same SSID (and use the same password) as you use at home.

All your devices should successfully connect to it and you don't need to factory reset them.

Many of them have the ability to navigate through a captive portal too (since I got mine all the hotels I've gone to have just needed a password, so i haven't needed to test that).

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago

I have a travel router as well, I just prefer to keep the SSIDs different. It is definitely paranoia, but if someone sees your travel router at a hotel, they know your not home, and your home can be found on wigle.net.

Its not that bad to reset the Chromecast, and I do it infrequently, so I'm happy with that.

[–] foggenbooty@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a trusted network, an IoT network (where the CC would go), and a guest network.

I know most people aren't going to have the time or knowledge set up network segmentation, but it's still good practice.

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No need for a physically separated network, that's what VLANs are for

[–] foggenbooty@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I mean, yes? I'm obviously using VLANs here. I'm not running a separate switch and AP for each network...

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I personally have a Comcast router/modem with its own network. I have a network switch that I plug into the router that I use for hard coded stuff. Mostly my PC and a couple other things that I want to run fast instead of convenient. Then I have a WiFi mesh network that I run for most of my other devices, including my phone.

So for my Chromecast, if I want to stream from my phone on the mesh network, I have it on one network. But if I want to stream from my PC, I have it on another network. While with most devices, changing the network you're connected to is simple, it's a massive pain in the ass with a Chromecast.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago

What you need to do is put devices which you want to access from multiple networks in a specific network / VLAN and then bridge it over

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So as far as I understand, you have

  • Outer router (Comcast), which has WiFi enabled
  • Inner router (your own), which has WiFi enabled, and further meshes with other WiFi mesh devices (or is the mesh separate?)
  • A plain switch, for stuff you want cabled and fast

Is that correct?

Why not get the WiFi in the Comcast router disabled, and use your inner network exclusively, such that both WiFi and ethernet devices are on the same network?

That's what I did with my network, and I even got the ISP to put their modem/router into bridge mode, so it's completely transparent.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I could, but I like having the router network as an option to connect to. I know the point of a mesh network is to improve WiFi connectivity overall, but every once in a while it will get a bit laggy when streaming a video. Probably because I've got like 90 some devices connected to it. I like having the option to switch my phone to the router network and go upstream of all the other stuff.

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That sound like you need a more serious setup, where you can control the network priorities and set a QoS, so the devices that you use interactively get priority over the other devices.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

My mesh network actually allows me to set devices as priority. I guess I've never tried it out and am too lazy to go start pulling cables.

[–] jpeps@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I got one of the newer ones after having a ton of the earlier models and I was disgusted by that change. Instantly returned it and bought one of the discontinued Ultras for 4K.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

I did the exact same thing. Its such a stupid step backwards in functionality.

[–] _pete_@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I feels like they either badly copy (see Gemini) or don’t think about what they’re offering (see Stadia’s busted business model) they’re content to milk the existing services they’ve already got and make them worse by cramming in more ads (see YouTube, Google’s search result pages) and they cut out or dictate the web through their monopolies (see AMP and Chrome) rather than working with other parties to make good products.

They feel like Hooli in Silicon Valley, basically the definition of a fat tech giant who doesn’t do any innovation of their own.

[–] ealoe@ani.social -3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Badly copy (see Gemini)

Tf are you smoking dude, Google has been working on AI long before ChatGPT was a twinkle in Sam Altman's eye. They didn't release any public models because they wanted to go about it safely and not just dump the world's best misinformation creator on the open market for anyone to use with little safeguards. All that went out the window when ChatGPT got all the press and google decided they wanted a piece of the hype, but pretending they "didn't do any innovation of their own" in regards to AI is ludicrous. They have been at the forefront of AI development for the last decade, and the fact you think otherwise shows your only knowledge about AI is from after ChatGPT headlines started coming out.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 months ago

That's what they did until OpenAI started making noise and management pushed out everybody working on safety and quality to cut corners and rush something out to compete (poorly)

[–] Head@lemmings.world 2 points 3 months ago

I still have and use one. Will it stop working now?