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 570703
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The point?
by WereCatf on Tue 27th Aug 2013 09:03 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I never quite understood why people are suddenly so ecstatic over this Chromecast-thing. I mean, DLNA already allows for local streaming of content and the only thing Chromecast seems to bring to the table is allowing the user to make the thing play things from the Web, too. Is there something else? Wouldn't it be more-or-less the same thing if you just bought one of the cheap Android- or Linux-based sticks and wrote a Firefox-plugin that allows for remote-control of it?

Reply Score: 7

RE: The point?
by Neolander on Tue 27th Aug 2013 09:22 in reply to "The point?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I never quite understood why people are suddenly so ecstatic over this Chromecast-thing. I mean, DLNA already allows for local streaming of content and the only thing Chromecast seems to bring to the table is allowing the user to make the thing play things from the Web, too. Is there something else? Wouldn't it be more-or-less the same thing if you just bought one of the cheap Android- or Linux-based sticks and wrote a Firefox-plugin that allows for remote-control of it?

Since DLNA-capable TVs are still relatively rare, I think Chromecast's main purpose could be to make your average TV capable of wireless streaming, which would be an interesting feat in itself.

However, it also seems Google chose to go the NIH route and come up with yet another new streaming protocol for the Chromecast, which is not so nice. Can someone more familiar with the issue confirm this ?

Edited 2013-08-27 09:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: The point?
by galvanash on Tue 27th Aug 2013 18:43 in reply to "RE: The point?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

More or less yes.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGlhbC1tdWx0aXNjc...

(this link is a bit old though - things might have changed since it was written)

As far as Google re-inventing the wheel... The only thing out there similar in scope and capabilities is Airplay, and Apple isn't sharing ;)

ps. Yes, Netflix designed the specification for the most part, not Google.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: The point?
by Radio on Tue 27th Aug 2013 11:49 in reply to "The point?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Because Chromecast works flawlessly, which is more than can be said about DLNA and even the more recent Miracast.

Chromecast -or its protocol, DIAL- is also made for streaming content from the web. Local content streaming is just an add-on.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: The point?
by mistersoft on Tue 27th Aug 2013 11:57 in reply to "The point?"
mistersoft Member since:
2011-01-05

or, if you can stomach approx double the cost of a chromecast stick, then just use twonkybeam http://twonky.com/product/beam/ with a WD TV Live or similar

and you don't even need to write the browser plugin.
Think they stopped developing the actual Twonkybeam browser plugin (but you can probably still find it somewhere)
or there's the iOS and android apps.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: The point?
by galvanash on Tue 27th Aug 2013 19:03 in reply to "The point?"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I never quite understood why people are suddenly so ecstatic over this Chromecast-thing. I mean, DLNA already allows for local streaming of content and the only thing Chromecast seems to bring to the table is allowing the user to make the thing play things from the Web, too. Is there something else?


Not really. Its a fairly clean and simple protocol, but the meat of it lies in the fact that the payload for initiating streaming can be more or less arbitrary and is application defined - it is DRM friendly even though the protocol itself does not implement DRM. In other words it is suitable for "tunneling" DRM in a handoff from one device to another in a way that is transparent to the protocol.

Wouldn't it be more-or-less the same thing if you just bought one of the cheap Android- or Linux-based sticks and wrote a Firefox-plugin that allows for remote-control of it?


Sure I guess - but you would be limited to streaming using apps that run on the stick... Are the media companies going to actively target supporting your adhoc solution? Nope.

As neat as the thing is (and it is neat), at the end of the day it is about being backed by at least some content providers - because it is DRM friendly. It may ALSO be a neat gadget for media geeks to stream their local content - but that is purely a pleasant side effect of the protocol design (which is actually pretty nice imo).

I think at the end of the day (assuming Google doesn't cripple it) it is a very nice product. If it can be used for local content by hackers AND works to placate the content providers it is a win-win imo. I despise DRM, but my hatred for it is not going to make it go away...

Reply Parent Score: 3