Original URL: https://www.theregister.com/2013/07/27/why_chromecast_is_important/
Google Chromecast: Here's why it's the most important smart TV tech ever
Netflix, YouTube are just the tip of the iceberg
Posted in Personal Tech, 27th July 2013 04:19 GMT
Analysis The more details that emerge about Chromecast, Google's new streaming media dongle, the more it sounds like you get what you pay for – and let's face it, $35 isn't a lot. But don't be fooled. There's more to Chromecast than meets the eye.
When the hardware hackers at iFixit did their teardown of the device, their conclusion was that it was "essentially a luxury item with limited use." And in my own review of Chromecast on Thursday, I was able to stream audio and video from Google Play, Netflix, and YouTube, and little else. In short, it couldn't do much that my existing gear couldn't do already.
But that's today. What about tomorrow – or a year from tomorrow?
A closer look at the inner workings of Chromecast reveals that it's a technology with impressive potential. In fact, if Google succeeds in building an ecosystem around it, it could prove to be one of the most important smart TV technologies to come along so far.
It's essential to understand that when you buy Chromecast, you're not just getting a dongle that can "do YouTube." That's what sets it apart from most of the other smart TVs, set-top boxes, Blu-Ray players, and other devices that can already stream YouTube content.
In fact, unlike a Blu-Ray player that comes with a YouTube app baked into its firmware, Chromecast can't really stream YouTube at all – not on its lonesome. It's really just a receiver. To stream content, it relies on a "sender" app running on an Android or iOS device or in the Chrome browser. Both halves together make the whole.
How important is the sender app? Consider the Google Cast SDK documentation, which explains, "Given the nature of the interaction model, tabs, windows or popups cannot be created, and there should be nothing on the receiver device screen requiring input. All interaction with the application must be done through a sender application."
With Chromecast streaming, you never see any buttons or input boxes or menus on your TV screen. All of that user interaction takes place on the sender device. Thus, the UI you use to find and display content on your TV is the exact same UI you use to find and display that content on your Android or iOS device or in your browser. The only difference is that when you press the Cast button, the content comes up on your TV.
But the Chromecast dongle isn't just mirroring what you see on your sender device's screen. While you're viewing the content on your TV, you're free to use your fondleslab to browse the web, send emails, play games, or even dim the screen and set it aside; the content keeps playing on your TV.
It does so because you're not streaming content from your tablet to your TV. What the sender app sends is just a command that tells Chromecast to grab the content stream and render it itself, via a custom receiver application that's loaded and run on the Chromecast dongle. Netflix content is streamed to a Netflix receiver app running on the dongle, YouTube content streams to a YouTube receiver app, and so on.
The dongle itself is running an embedded version of Chrome OS, and Chromecast receiver apps are all web apps. Therefore, any content that can be rendered in a browser using HTML5 and Google's supported media types and DRM technologies should also be supportable with a Chromecast receiver app. (Despite being based on Chrome, Google's Native Client technology is not supported on Chromecast at this time.)
All of this is significant for a number of reasons. First, it means Chromecast is flexible. The word "platform" is thrown around too lightly these days, but Chromecast is certainly closer to being a media platform than most of the dedicated media player devices on the market today.
Unlike a Blu-Ray player, Chromecast streaming is not limited to the specific set of apps that come preinstalled when you buy the dongle. Instead, it can support a nearly infinite number of streaming sources, and you don't need a firmware upgrade to add new ones: just download the app to your Android or iOS device. When you press the Cast button, Chromecast automatically loads and launches the appropriate receiver app.
Equally important, independent developers don't need to wait around for the Chocolate Factory to support their services. They can add Chromecast support to their apps and media services themselves. In effect, the number of streaming media sources Chromecast can support is limited only by developers' willingness to adopt the technology.
Built for both consumers and developers
There are lots of possibilities here that have yet to be explored. One common complaint about Chromecast is that it doesn't support streaming from local media sources. But it very likely could. All it might take is for a streaming media server such as Plex to add support for Chromecast to its existing Android and iOS apps. (And in fact, the Plex people have tweeted that they have already ordered several of the devices.)
Google's decision to use a secondary device for the Chromecast UI shouldn't be overlooked, either. Smart TVs and set-top boxes tend to put all of the controls on the TV screen, but customers so far have generally been disappointed with these interfaces. Letting users send content to their TVs using UIs that they already use and understand – UIs on their mobile devices – could prove to be the magic trick that gets the mainstream public interested in internet TV.
Finally, don't expect Google's $35 dongle to be the end-all of Chromecast. It seems more than likely that the technology will be built into future generations of Google TV–enabled smart TVs, at minimum, and other device makers could eventually get on board as well. Given that today's dongle is inexpensive and relatively low-powered, the barrier to entry appears low.
But a few outstanding issues remain. Browsing and searching for content on a mobile device may be much preferable to doing the same on an awkward TV-based UI, but actually playing content – pausing it, rewinding it, fast-forwarding it, and so on – is easier with a traditional remote control. I'd like to see Chromecast support more living-room-friendly control devices for the parts of the TV watching experience that don't require much compute power (or brainpower).
The Google Cast SDK, which developers will use to build both sender and receiver apps for the device, is a bit worrying, too. The version 1.0 release notes claim, "You may not publicly distribute or ship your Google Cast application without written permission from Google," which suggests not so much a restrictive license as no real license at all. It's not entirely clear how much leeway developers have when building their apps, and although I've contacted Google for clarification of this policy, I've received no response.
And then there's the question of just how willing media companies will be to work with Google on streaming. Many will be eager, certainly. At the launch event, Android VP Sundar Pichai said Pandora would be the next service to gain Chromecast support, and a Hulu rep told The Reg via email that Hulu is "actively working with Google" to get Hulu Plus working with the tech.
But what about some of the other, larger players? Is Amazon likely to want to play ball in Google's court? Is Apple? What about Vudu, the video streaming company owned by Walmart?
The possibility that another company could emerge with a competitive technology to Chromecast seems high. The other big streaming media companies could do it, and so could equipment makers such as Roku or Sony. How that competition might affect Chromecast's ability to gain traction in the market is difficult to gauge, but it's sure to have an impact.
Still, Google has two big things going for it in this race, as in so many others. It has deep pockets and has demonstrated a willingness to learn from its mistakes. Google took a bath on the Nexus Q, its first attempt at a TV streaming device, pulling the plug and reducing the preorder price to zero less than two months after it was announced.
Its latest attempt, Chromecast, looks much more promising. Preorders reportedly sold out almost instantly, proving that Google's inexpensive two-inch dongle has captured the imagination of a great many consumers.
Whether Chromecast will achieve its full potential depends on many factors – but if you think the lack of bells and whistles on the dongle is its weakness, you'd better think again. Look past the cheap hardware and you'll see a streaming media technology that's very well thought out and has much to offer. The mistakes Google hasn't made with Chromecast are just as significant as the things it got right this time.
Given the number of missteps smart TV vendors have made so far, that alone makes Chromecast well worth watching – pun intended. ®