> Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).
Exactly. I think we're a long way from malice here, or even incompetence. That the ChromeCast has an SDK at all at this stage seems like a pleasant surprise; I feel certain the API will become more stable over time. If this were truly intended to be a closed device, unavailable for use except by specific media partners, why would there be a public SDK at all?
In the absence of a statement from Google that the ChromeCast by design doesn't support the functionality used by this or other video streaming apps, I'd consider it premature to assume intentional breakage.
If you think about why did google enable local content streaming(but with bad/no sound - how hard is for google to get the bloody sound working before an important launch?) and whitelisting and used hdcp(secure content) on this device , google's strategy becomes clear:
They want to frighten content owners into submission. Let the content owners know that if they won't support chromecast , google will open it, and content companies will suffer.
On the other hand ,if content owners play ball, google will provide highly secure platform(and i wouldn't be surprised if tab casting will turned off - it's currently labeled experimental). This is the preferred road for Google, since there's more money that way.
In light of this potential strategy , there's probably malice in the last changes.
In the future, when video playback isn't restored and Google makes a public admission that they don't intend on restoring it, would you mind if I remind you of how you were naive and foolish?
When Google's next hardware product comes out, can we stop thanking them and instead point out how they have a history of releasing products that give users no control over what runs on them?
Google has far more technical expertise than any ISP, so it stands to reason that they'll be using that to push down on users more than any other ISP has in the past. We may yet regret clamoring for Google Fiber to be everywhere.
> When Google's next hardware product comes out, can we
> stop thanking them and instead point out how they have a
> history of releasing products that give users no control
> over what runs on them?
Consumer hardware devices that Google has released so far are: Nexus {One,S,Galaxy,4,7,10,Q}, Glass, Chromebook Pixel, Chromecast.
All of the Nexus devices (except for the abandoned-before-launch Q) have official support for flashing custom firmware. The Chromebook Pixel comes with "developer mode", which turns it into a standard unverified laptop. Glass can be unlocked, and Google employees demonstrated how to install Ubuntu on it at Google IO.
Other than the Chromecast, which devices do you feel restrict the user from controlling which code they run?
Past performance isn't the only indicator of future performance. What will you say when it's revealed that the Chromcast is Google's first foray into locked hardware, and that they liked how it was well-received by consumers?
I can't think of any tech company in Google's league that matches them in terms of device openness.
The Nexus phones and tablets officially support flashing of custom ROMs.[1,2]
The Moto X will have an unlockable bootloader on carriers that allow it.[3]
Google gave a tutorial on how to root Glass (see the I/O talk "Voiding Your Warranty: Hacking Glass" [4]).
All Chromebooks have a developer mode that can be accessed using a hardware switch or key combination. See e.g. [5,6] for the Samsung ARM and Pixel Chromebooks.
Google even provides instructions for disassembling the Chromebooks ([5,6], at the bottom).
I don't think it's wise to ignore Google's history and extrapolate the future based exclusively on an SDK preview.
[EDIT: Downvoters, I would be curious to know your motivations.]
The ultimatum is for Google to restore undocumented functionality or publicly state they don't support openness. And we're all fools to think Google will go to the ends of the earth to support everything imaginable! Replace Google with Apple in the GP to understand the entitlement and just how foolish we aren't.
Sorry, but I just don't see it. All I see is a complaint and a demand for a feature. IMO, that's not entitlement. Entitlement would use words like "owe" and "responsibility".
I don't feel entitled to anything, I just take a perverse amount of pleasure in pointing out how much shit people are full of.
I'm just trying to encourage some honesty from an intellectual perspective -- why confuse ourselves when the outcome will be no different than the last? Why do we willfully continue to lock ourselves into an ecosystem, be it Google, Facebook, or Apple?
Only if you don't mind to be reminded of your own foolishness when similar functionality is enabled through SDK.
I don't understand this animosity towards Google, it's like every little change to the status quo triggers a hate-fest here on HN accompanied with wild accusations (only to be debunked soon after). They pushed a system update that broke undocumented APIs, they could be patching a security vulnerability for all you know, there is no need to commence spreading FUD about some other unrelated initiative.
> I don't understand this animosity towards Google, it's like every little change to the status quo triggers a hate-fest here on HN accompanied with wild accusations
If Google were to correct me then I would gladly eat my hat.
Personally I feel no such animosity towards Google, however any perceived hostility towards Google is purely coincidental -- my hatred is towards bait&switch and other parasitic corporate practices.
He was not using the SDK. Google went back into their code and changed it just to break an app built by a developer. And, to be fair, Koushik, just alerted people who were planning on buying chromecast because of his app to hold on as his app may never be white listed.
I think he was saying that this is a case of Hanlon's razor[1]. i.e. this situation could be easily explained by simple api churn (and the fact that the OP was using an undocumented api), so it may not be appropriate to ascribe malice without evidence.
The larger implication (not withstanding using documented or undocumented API) is violation of general assumption that Chromecast will be open and idie friendly than the Apple TV.
Even if the OP had used a documented API, the developer warning is clear that any and all API can be changed.
You should have seen the reaction to this on Reddit/r/Android.
I thought Google made it clear from the beginning that this was intended to be a beta release until testing was done. Looking at Reddit I was shocked to see the number of people who think Google is trying to force them into buying from the Play Store.
Looking at the actual code, it looks a lot like a random hack thrown into beta code to disable a feature that isn't ready for use yet. It doesn't look like those 3 lines of code are a long term solution to anything. It is hard to attribute a motive to code, but I don't think the motive of that snippet is less openness.
His response is a little bit trite when you read his previous post where he more or less taunts Google about how he reverse engineered the protocol to avoid the whitelist. In some way it almost feels like a setup - perhaps this is all a strategy by Koush to flush Google out on this issue, and I suspect they've been forced to confront it now before they were really ready.
I've been suspicious of the Chromecast developer policies since release. From my personal interactions with their developer relations, they've been quite tight lipped about who would be receiving approval for a release to a broader audience:
"Unfortunately, at the moment our standard answer is: Thank you so much for reaching out about developing for Chromecast. It’s still early days, so we are just previewing the Google Cast SDK and hope to be sharing it in its entirety with developers soon. We look forward to seeing to releasing the public SDK later on so that mobile and web developers can start to create compelling, multi-screen experiences. We're not currently working with additional partners until we release a public SDK. We are trying to find a better answer, but we have nothing yet to announce."
Google TV (yes, Chromecast is from the GoogleTV team) has a storied history of releasing closed off products, only allowing access to select partners and media companies. I was fairly certain that Chromecast would be no different. My suspicions were confirmed today. Here's what's happened since release, for context:
Chromecast ships with whitelisting. Why go through the trouble of having a whitelist to do development? It took extra development effort to lock the platform down, and build out the whitelisting infrastructure. A walled garden was planned since inception. They intend to use that wall.
Chromecast shipped with no default media player app, or any way to play your own content. As I demonstrated, this is actually very easy to implement. The fact that it did not ship with this by default was likely calculated. They don't want you playing your own content.
Chromecast had a "GoogleCastSample" app that could be leveraged as a default media player. Many developers started using this. One week after release, GoogleCastSample was disabled.
Chromecast's tab casting also supported local content. I, and a few other developers, managed to reverse engineer the Chromecast tab protocol to piggy back this to deliver local content. This was not simply "broken" with an update. It was intentionally disabled. See code explanation here, if you want: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/HbrpBbVG...
What this all points to: The Chromecast is just a Google TV in a smaller form factor. Yet another box from your TV that delivers the same old tired array of big media apps that you can find on any other cable/tv box. I already have 5 of such boxes (2 Xbox, 2 Apple TV, 1 Roku).
I don't need another box to do this. I want a mainstream, open platform, that I can connect to my TV. That would be new. That would be different.
The motivations behind this behavior are obvious. Google needs to do this to placate media companies, who will perpetually push stringent requirements before granting access to their coveted content. This will not change until content delivery companies (Netflix, Amazon, and Google) start creating their own content. And in fact, this is starting to happen already.
Google has responded to a request for comment from The Verge.
We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.
Which is a disingenuous answer since he's not even using the SDK. The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks.
> The ChromeCast at least notionally supports an open protocol (DIAL). Only it doesn't, because if you try to use it with software other than Google's, it breaks.
I believe that's just called "it doesn't support that protocol".
> We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.
Then why are they offering it in retail stores like best buy? Sucks that you buy something for feature X and few days later an update comes through getting rid of it. Does anyone know how hard is it to reverse this update?
would you have the same reaction if Microsoft/Apple actively blocks a user functionality that the device and software is capable of... official or unofficial the developer demonstrated that a scenario can work..why go out of way to block it.. looks like this is a new trend for Google - maps on Windows Phone, youtube app on Windows Phone....
Would you have the same reaction if you were using undocumented APIs in Windows...
Microsoft is bad at many things, but until recently, they were very good at backward compatibility. They knew people were using undocumented APIs, so they went out of their way to preserve bug-for-bug compatibility in a lot of cases.
On the other hand, they also went out of their way to use undocumented APIs and API changes to give Word an advantage over Word Perfect....
MS has only been good at backwards compatibility when it is in their best interest. Usually because a major partner was the one using an undocumented API with millions of users. In this case it was a person hacking some code together on a product less than a month old with probably only a few thousand people using the app that broke.
To be glib: the remedy implemented in the market for buying a device in a retail store that doesn't quite do what you want is just to return it and get your $35 back.
Once you get to prices this low, the idea of "service" becomes somewhat different. It does what it does. We won't get traction with Google by whining about this sort of thing.
Again, in retail expecting "money back" because of a mistake in understanding the product is a normal part of doing business. "This shirt doesn't fit me." "Sorry, my husband wanted one in the other color." "I thought I could stream torrented files with it".
The point is that the distinction doesn't matter, so any argument (for or against) predicated on what the buyer expects or what the seller advertised is limited to the ability to refund the purchase price -- it's a dumb argument, basically. It does what it does.
I've been using my Chromecast to play local content since day one. Then again, I have a whitelisted application that I'm using and I'm not distributing it. There is nothing really stopping developers from developing such services... local content plays fine. Google just doesn't want you distributing them until the dust settles and they lock down their API. If it takes them more than a month or so to do so, or if they then prohibit such uses of the Chromecast, then maybe you have a story, but until then -- geez.
Feel free to use / copy / fork, whatever. Basically, you can send any URL to the receiver, and the receiver then loads that URL in its video element.... that URL can be local, remote, whatever... requires that you have a webserver to serve your local content.
We've had a long time to prove the disaster that is users controlling updates. The majority of people are far and away better off having automatic updates. It's also one of the big selling points of the devices though so I don't think it should catch anyone by surprise. You're free to install another OS on your device though (which is a good sign the device is yours).
We've had a long time to prove that using automatic updates to remove features is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I seem to remember a certain company using forced updates specifically to remove users' ability to install other OSes on their devices...
Just because you can install another OS on your chromebook today doesn't mean you will be able to in the future. Get out now, or you are making a gamble.
> We've had a long time to prove that using automatic updates to remove features is a recipe for disaster. In fact, I seem to remember a certain company using forced updates specifically to remove users' ability to install other OSes on their devices...
They didn't remove a feature... They removed an undocumented setting for an SDK that has warnings all over the place that the API is not final and to not release an app until it is.
From my response to somebody else in this discussion: " Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means."
Then shame on the developer for releasing an app for mass consumption based on private and non finalized APIs, and then blaming Google when things break. I understand that ragging on corporations is fun, but c'mon. Perspective , please.
The problem the consumers are having was generated completely and totally by the developer of the app, not Google. If you as a developer write an app using non finalized APIs, and release it, and the app breaks because that API changed, it is completely and utterly your fault.
But they didn't remove a feature. No where is it advertised that what the OP was doing was supported. There are plenty of warnings about how it's only an SDK preview though and that you should not release an app that uses it until the SDK is officially released.
It's the same with android. They made adblock stop working several times, slowly tightening restrictions on it. And OS updates remove root, which will break a slew of apps.
It doesn't feel like your device unless you install something like CM.
Android, however, has a large and vibrant (albeit poorly organized and highly confusing) community of open source distributions that aren't subject to this kind of nonsense. The Chromecast is still new and unhackable, though hopefully this will change.
I think I'm starting to see the writing on the wall for CyanogenMod. I can see one day Google going after them if they remove some functionality from their ROM's that Google really wants in, and their ROMs become used by say - tens of millions of people.
But Google would be really, incredibly stupid to do that. The Reader outrage will seem tiny compared to the outrage they will get if they mess with CyanogenMod, who's used by the most core users of Android, and most vocal ones in the Android community.
CyanogenMod also has a lot of good will with those users, while Google's good will is diminishing by the day. Jeff Jarvis said recently that Google has only done well when it has done stuff for the users, not against them. If I were Google's CEO I would imprint that in my brain before doing something really stupid in the future.
I mean, you're saying you can see Google going after Cyanogenmod, then you list out the reasons it would be really stupid for them to do it. I think Google are aware of these reasons, too.
In all honesty, I do not think that Cyanogenmod is used by any more than a statistical blip of users, when the whole of Android is considered. I really doubt Google cares very much about these custom ROMs, and won't start caring until everyone starts flashing them on their phones. Which will not happen any time soon.
removing root is because of possibly binary incompatibility. System updates from Google or manf need to be in a consistent state to ensure a proper upgrade. They don't know what you did to your phone.
Just got my Chromecast that I ordered in July and am profoundly disappointed. For a device with such high potential, it really did not deliver on the promise.
Here's what I expected:
1) AirPlay alternative via Google Chrome/Chromecast.
2) Reasonable picture quality and fit.
3) Possibly an office alternative to Apple TV for presentations.
While yes, this thing can project your browser tab on to the TV, there is severe lag, washed-out colors, and most importantly I have not been able to play HTML5 videos in full-screen mode. Could be user error...
Amazon Prime Instant Videos do not play in full-screen mode either. But then again, I didn't really expect SilverLight to work with Google's products all that well.
Picture quality is terrible. I only tried it on a 720p TV, as tab mirroring reportedly only supports 720p. Colors are washed out and lighting is off. Not a big deal, but I also did not get 720p all the time, connection seemed to fade in and out. This is on a completely not busy N router and nothing else streaming.
What really got me though was spotty support in YouTube and Drive Presentations going off-screen. YouTube has a nice library of international films. I really like watching old Soviet movies from my childhood. They are free to watch and I was stunned when Chromecast reported that the videos I was trying to watch are not supported, even though there is a chromecast icon in the player itself.
Lastly, Google Presentations ended up being cut off when projected in fullscreen (yes here it's fully supported, but not on all videos... go figure.). This last bit basically killed my hypothesis that we could get these for ever conference room and project from both Macs and PCs. I was really hoping this would work...
Using YouTube with Nexus7 and Chromecast actually works a lot better than using a Mac. That said, I have not been able to play a movie I had bought on the Play store and downloaded to the device using the store app... again, maybe user error.
I posted the register link on this story, seeing Koushik's comments it looks very much like there is an intent at work here. That intent being that the 'crown jewels' of this device is sitting between what you see and the source of that stream. I would guess that Google would consider doing what Hulu did and inject 30 second commercials into that stream. Perhaps that doesn't work if you call the streaming API directly?
A number of folks seem to make these 'linux/android to HDMI dongle' type systems, I guess we're stuck making our own version of one.
> 1)It's $35. I spend more than that on a week's worth of lunch.
That's not a real argument though is it? The issue is that Google are intentionally trying to further a closed ecosystem and the people who don't want to be part of it/their system.
It doesn't matter if the price is $0 or $500, if Google has an anti-freedom/choice ideology then there will be pushback on that. That pushback might be technological (e.g. CM mod) or political (EFF et al) but it will occur.
The price point is just a distraction that I'd suggest people don't get drawn into. Google doesn't owe you anything, but you also don't owe Google anything, and are entitled to bitch if you're unhappy with the amount of choice you have.
There is always going to be a cost comparison that can be used to belittle something. The classic is "less than x days of coffee." Next step up is apparently "less than x days of lunch." What is the next one, "less than your car insurance" perhaps? $50,000? That is less than some cars cost! $100,000,000? That is somewhere around ten shuttle launches! A several billion dollar shuttle program? Please, just check out these national debt numbers?
These types of price comparisons between unrelated things are almost always worthless. You could make me feel ripped off over two dollars; I sure as hell can feel ripped off over $35.
I am not making a slippery slope argument. Comparisons between the shuttle program and the national debt are real, not some absurd hypothetical I've dreamed up that I think exists down some sort of slope with poor traction.
The point I am making is that price comparisons between unlike things are worthless.
This is your friendly reminder that jlgreco's is not a deductive argument and that most of the logic we base our everyday decisions on would be called logical fallacies. It's time for a Fallacy Fallacy, I think.
This is also your friendly reminder that jlgreco wasn't even employing "slippery slope" logic. He wasn't arguing that employing a cost comparison will lead inevitably to employing further cost comparisons. He simply pointed out that one cherry-picks the level that best makes one's argument.
This is your friendly reminder that your post makes no sense.
Seems like 35$ for this device was too good to be true. Hopefully there will be some custom ROM sometime, anyway i wanted to get one soon, but now i will hold out as streaming anything to my TV would have been the killer feature for me.
I got news for Google. What stopped me from rooting my iPhone was a pretty vibrant app store... that I would lose access to. Given that I already have multiple ways to do Netflix and Youtube on my TV, I'll root my chromecast and run something open that lets me do what I want AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY CAN.
Leapcast(https://github.com/dz0ny/leapcast), nodecast are both on the way becoming the replacement for CC. All we need is someone to port video acceleration to chromium browser. :)
My Chromecast arrived today. I set it up on my living room TV, and to my surprise, my Nexus pad is also presenting the wireless TV in the kitchen as a playback option. Is this a documented feature?
The OP developed an app that allowed you to stream raw media files directly to the chromecast. This is not possible by default, instead you're limited to youtube, netflix and mirroring a tab in your browser.
OP's application doesn't use SDK but instead works at a lower level. This new update broke his application and he is making the argument that it was a directed update. They specifically removed a part of their code that allowed for this functionality.
Yes, but only for codecs supported by Chrome (basically mp4 and the occasional avi). Anything that needs transcoding (or any file with high bitrate/multichan audio) will cause extreme stuttering unless you have a machine with a fairly beefy processor and GPU.
Casting a tab is like using logmein to watch a movie on another computer. Casting either the RAW or the local file directly is like playing something off a NAS
Yes you can do that. The problem is that currently tab projection is limited to 720p.
If anyone knows how to get around this, please reply to this with the solution. Googling for anything Chromecast related gets mostly pop-tech articles.
I'm not sure if sarcasm, but I have issues with defining "EVIL" as "removing a feature to allow custom streaming". I also have issues considering falling down the stairs an "EPIC" fail, or reading companies looking for SUPERSTAR NINJA programmers, or things that are LITERALLY the worse ever happened to someone.
The meaning of the "don’t be evil" motto is "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains."
How changing an undocumented function, that was used to circumvent an SDK that is clearly marked as beta and "could change significantly" can be classified as evil is beyond me.
The problem is that people are using the "don't be evil" whenever they see something that simply bothers them.
Damn, they closed a bug in android that allows me to remove advertisement from apps! Google don't be evil!
They shut down a product that was offered for free for almost a decade! Google don't be evil!
So what adjective will people use if Google starts charging if you search more than 10 times a day, or obscuring the maps a few miles from the destination asking for a fee to see the rest, or blackmailing people based on data extracted from the mail? Google don't be.... evillest maybe?
Ripping functionality out from under paying customers is not something that just "bothers" people. Hiding behind terms of use on SDKs isn't something that mellows the sting of this to users who probably don't even know what "SDK" means.
This situation invokes to comparisons to certain companies that had rather poor reputations in the 90s. Companies the slogan was almost certainly meant to differentiate Google from.
If hyperbole to shareholders is a-okay with you but hyperbole from angered consumers is out of line, then we just are not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I hope people inside Google do not share your attitude or Google truly is doomed to become what they assured us they wouldn't. This attitude towards consumers is extremely toxic.
1) I responded to you. Obviously. You just replied to my response to you.
2) Because your comment was in response to one of mine, it is impossible for me to downvote it. I can only downvote comments that are in response to others.
I was hoping somebody would say that. That is exactly my point.
With Godwin's Law the standard argument is that hyperbole somehow diminishes the plight of those that suffered, but that argument really does not encompass the full breadth of the War On Hyperbole.
Here, for example, I've made an exaggeration with a comparison to sterilizing pets. Is the concern that I am diminishing the plight of pets and their reproductive lives? No, I don't think so, that would be silly. Rather, the objection is to the rhetorical device itself, not merely to the tasteless application of it.
Except it's not only informationless hyperbole, it's also just a tired catchphrase at this point. Witness the thread from yesterday on the verge story covering the same post that is this submission[1]. You'll notice a "Don't be evil" and an "Open always wins" comment there too. Mix in some beowulf clusters and netcraft confirmations and we can be well on our way to generating these threads via markov chains. No humans needed!
It's not so much that I mind Google doing this, as I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways.
> I wish people would stop pretending that Google is somehow more "open" or different from other companies that restrict the functionality of their devices in similar ways.
This is the first device Google has done this with though, isn't it?
> Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).