[ad_1]
Google has quietly released a new Chromecast device at its big event this week. And quietly, I mean the company did not mention it at all. It was just sitting in the bottom of the bag that someone gave me when I left the room. But hey, it's new and it's pretty. It's just a disappointment. Google still has not made Chromecast more useful.
The new generation of Chromecast is identical to the old version of Chromecast, with the exception of a design upgrade and some new software features. It's also still $ 35.
What is it?
A dongle that plays videos on your TV
The hardware itself retains the same puck-plus-HDMI cable as before, but instead of the shiny plastic shell on which the Chromecast logo is engraved, there is now a matte case with a small Google "G" to forward. In addition, the HDMI jack no longer clings magnetically to the washer for easy storage. It's something you probably never noticed anyway. The new Chromecast also exists in white and charcoal.
On the software side, Chromecast now supports 1080p video at 60 frames per second. It's remarkable for two reasons. The first is the reminder that the old Chromecasts supported 1080p at 30fps and 720p at 60fps. The very slight bump in specs is difficult in a world where 4K video is the standard on set-top boxes nowadays. Google has sold a 4K compatible device called the Chromecast Ultra for a few years, but this little dongle will cost you $ 70.
The second notable thing is that adding 1080p resolution to 60fps does not matter to the vast majority of people, since 60fps video streaming is especially useful if you want to watch videos. of gameplay on your TV on YouTube. You can also find content at 60 fps on sites such as Netflix, but they are usually limited to 4K HDR videos. So you can get a Chromecast Ultra if you want a full experience.
There are other little things. The new Chromecast offers multi-room audio support, but only on Google Home speakers and speakers equipped with Chromecast Audio support, which seems extremely limiting. With the new Chromecast, you can turn your TV into a photo frame with Google's new Live Photos feature, which appears to be a minimal addition to the standard screensaver. Google also indicates that there is "a 15% improvement in hardware speed", which I did not really notice when I used it.
All this contributes to … not much. The Chromecast still fails to do what a decoder or a full-fledged streaming stick could do. You must always extract content to a computer or phone and play it on your TV. You still can not turn it on and access applications directly on your TV. In other words, you can do things that the very first Chromecast could do, but a little faster. The cast seemed really cool in 2013, when Google released the first generation of the device. The new Chromecast works perfectly, but I feel that Google has not done more.
It's not like society did not consider it. Earlier this year, Google created an Android TV dongle that looked a lot like a Chromecast, but turned any TV into an Android TV, with support for 4K 60fps, as well as 2GB of RAM. 8GB of storage. That's basically what the latest Roku Streaming Stick and Amazon Fire TV drives can do. It is not far from the Google version of Apple TV, a more expensive streaming device that allows you to reliably broadcast videos on your TV with AirPlay. The only problem is that the Android TV Dongle is only available to developers.
Again, the main selling point of Chromecast has always been that it was cheap. For $ 35, you do not need to buy a full set-top box, since a Chromecast would let your phone do the heavy work and project your videos on a bigger screen. But for a month or two, this idea of the less-neconomic for less money has gone unnoticed. Roku released the Roku Express, a full streaming device that supports 4K video and costs only $ 30. Amazon is now selling a 4K compatible Fire TV key at $ 50, while the non-4K version costs only $ 40. You can also spend more money and get an Nvidia shield, with gaming and casting capabilities, as well as Google Assistant, priced at $ 180.
I'm not trying to say that the new Chromecast is nil. According to objective criteria, it is better than the old Chromecast. Looks like Google has missed an opportunity to improve, especially now that it is relying more and more on the smart home equipment market with the new Home Hub. But as far as I know, Google earns a lot of money selling $ 35 Chromecasts that are not as useful as they could be. This probably makes some customers think that it also works as a decoder.
Correction: An earlier version of this article indicated that the second generation of Chromecast could not stream video with 1080p resolution. In fact, it could broadcast a 1080p video, but only at 30 frames per second and at 60 frames per second, it was limited to 720p. The new Chromecast is 1080p at 60fps.
READ ME
- New design
- 1080p at 60fps and multi-room audio (only with Google Home and Chromecast compatible devices)
- Still cheap at $ 35
- Always useless for anything other than casting
Source link
