Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Aug 2013 16:24 UTC
Google

Update: the functionality used by the application was reverse engineered and Google stated that it may change. Google has released a statement which acknowledges that playing local content will come back to ChromeCast once the API has stabilised. Storm in a teacup, apparently.

Heads up. Google's latest Chromecast update intentionally breaks AllCast. They disabled 'video_playback' support from the ChromeCast application.

Given that this is the second time they've purposefully removed/disabled[1] the ability to play media from external sources, it confirms some of my suspicions that I have had about the Chromecast developer program: the policy seems to be a heavy handed approach, where only approved content will be played through the device.

A company intentionally disabling cool stuff? Surely you jest.

Thread beginning with comment 570651
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

It seems the guy reversed an API Google specifically marked as "not ready" and prone to be modified.

We know we are in a "hard time" for ethical behavior and freedom respect, with attacks from left and right overstepping their legal obligations but, sure, it does not help to call "guilt!" before an unprejudiced analysis is performed.

OK, dug a little bit more about and this is what I found (scroll to Update):

"http://www.muktware.com/5857/google-breaks-chromecasts-ability-play...

Edited 2013-08-26 17:04 UTC

Reply Score: 13

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> it does not help to call "guilt!" before an unprejudiced analysis is performed.

It's true. For example, today we also have been able to read this:
Ballmer forced out after $900M Surface RT debacle
- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9241867/Ballmer_forced_out_a...
- http://hardocp.com/news/2013/08/26/steve_ballmer_was_forced_out

but that doesn't mean it's true!

Edited 2013-08-26 17:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Private API justifications are only made for Google when Microsoft is on the receiving end.

That's when half of this website suddenly supports closed platforms, they abhor them otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 0

acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Private API justifications are only made for Google when Microsoft is on the receiving end.


We all know you love Microsoft but why should you use every opportunity to try to make it look good?

Did you read the article? Who said was anything private involved? Please, go back and read it again. The API is not ready and prone to be modified and there was a warning about it, not less, not more.

Perhaps, you have some information that you could share with us, in which case I am all ears.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Their actions are speaking louder than the spokesman's words. Either their SDK is so alpha that they really shouldn't have ever made it public, or their spokesperson is simply out of the loop. It does look like the SDK was originally written to be open and play local content. Now it does not.

Reply Parent Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Is that any different to the constantly changing ABIs for Linux internal drivers?

Reply Parent Score: 3

pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

THANK YOU! I logged in just to make this exact comment.

There is zero evidence google did anything intentional here. The guy reverse engineered an internal API and then his app broke on a subsequent update. OMG, boo f-ing hoo! People angry about this obviously know nothing about what valid expectations are for the stability of an internal API you figure out on your own. As a developer I will say this: Get over it, you don't understand the situation.

90% chance they are still iterating on the API and that part just isn't ready yet (and therefore it evolved and broke dude's app..)

Having said all that, we have no idea what google is doing. Maybe it *was* intentional. Even so, they might be contractually obligated to prevent access to such APIs because of contracts they've entered into with TV manufacturers, content providers, etc.

I think part of what people are freaking out over is the definition of what this device *is*. Right now it is a device for streaming youtube and chrome tabs. We all know it will be much more but what? If it is google's plan for it to be an open streaming device, then that API will emerge when it is ready and all this boo-hoo-ing will stop. But understand that will imply limitations on what sort of content they will be able to provide via partnerships because some content partners won't like it.

However if it is their plan to make it replace your cable TV box, then there will lots of cool integrations with big name content partners but they will almost certainly lock out some 3rd party stuff that gives users too much freedom.

Either way, that is fine. It is just a product so get over it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Would it be too much to ask Google to define what it was before I bought it?

I was planning on buying it based off of what devs were saying was possible with the SDK. But it now looks like it would be a better idea to wait until the SDK is released before jumping the gun.

Reply Parent Score: 2