I fear the release the this new Nexus Player portends we're not going to see an update to the Chromecast anytime soon, if ever. That makes me sad.
I guess I'm just not the average user, but the Chromecast handily beats what this (and other options in this genre, i.e., Apple TV / Fire TV / Roku) have to offer. I don't want another remote control. And making my phone the best remote control is an awesome solution. And the Chromecast doesn't take up any room in my living room / entertainment center. And it's only thrity-five-goddamn-dollars.
I guess the downside is that I can't play crappy games on my big screen. Darn.
From what I heard, Chromecast and Google TV come from 2 completely different teams.
It is possible that Google will want to focus on only one of these 2, but it is also possible that they will push both ideas at least for some time.
I think Google stumbled on a very great idea with Chromecast. I don't want a smart TV with tons of features and a shitty interface that I have to navigate through with an awkward pad.
I want an extremely dumb TV that only displays what my other terminals (laptop, tablet and phone) tell it to display.
My girlfriend and I have two TVs (bedroom and living room) in the house, each with a chromecast hooked up. I have a media center computer running plex in the living room. We use my original Nexus 7 tablet as our "remote".
NO REMOTE IN THE WORLD will ever beat an app on a tablet or phone. I can search and browse so easily on my tablet to find what I want. I can start a video and then explore other stuff. It's the perfect setup.
If only I could pay the NFL for a streaming-only HD football package, I would have literally everything I need for consuming video. But I don't think that will ever happen (at least without having to get a cable/satellite subscription which I refuse to ever do again).
The Nexus Player supports Google Cast which may make it the best combination of Chromecast and media box functionality.
Apps on your phone should be able to control apps on the player, and the apps on the player can be used standalone. We'll have to see if apps from the Play Store gets Google Cast control, or if this only happens for the Chromecast-style web apps.
This has the advantage that you can select content on phone and then use the phone or remote on the player to control playback.
I was an enthusiastic early adopter of Chromecast. I hated it, and now use a Roku. I share my television with my girlfriend, I don't want to have to set up Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. on both our phones and have us manually 'cast' to the screen.
The Roku is so much better. Everything is centralised, and the remote is a better interface than a phone screen. So I'm excited for the Nexus Player, as I want my Roku to be more hackable than it is. A Nexus Player with XBMC will be a dream.
I was really excited about the Chromecast when it was first announced. But sadly Google have really hamstrung it every step of the way.
Luckily, Mozilla is developing a very similar device (Matchstick [1]), and looking to do it better. I am unable to find the link at the moment, but they already support like 3 or 4 times as many media formats as chromecast. And Mozilla has a pretty good track record with hackable, open projects.
Chromecast is a little different from a box like this. Chromecast is about bridging the gap between the Android phone/tablet and the TV as a display. These boxes are more about directly targeting that TV environment as its own ecosystem. For some apps like Netflix this is a redundant point, but for other apps it is a key difference.
Since the Nexus Player will have Chromecast support built-in (like all Android TV devices), software will hopefully continue to add support on their end.
What? A media-hub with NO wired ethernet? How am I supposed to take that seriously?
I don't care about what people saying about wifi having gotten "better". By every single measurable criteria, it is slower, is less reliable, has lower capacity and higher latency than wired gigabit ethernet and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
I demand wired ethernet on my devices, and I know a bunch of other who do too.
You and the bunch of other folks you know, sadly, aren't really much of a blip on the market for this. There is probably a bigger market that wishes this thing could hook up wirelessly to the tv.
I didn't even realize that it didn't have a wired hook up.
This is disappointing. I have a chromcast and it is laggy sometimes, and will simply just stop working. Hopefully the wireless card in the player is better than the chromcast.
I'm totally with you on that. Where I live the channel space is packed out with neighbouring WiFi. Even within line of sight and only 10 or so feet away I barely get more than 7-10Mbs on my Netgear N600 dual band device.
For $40 more you can get a new Xbox 360, although games might not be as cheap as on the Play store. That Xbox is just a 4GB one, but I don't see Google Player local storage mentioned in the linked page.
A silly price, considering their competitors cost the same, and have been in the game for much longer. Google is late and entered the market at the same price as established players, but with a track record of failure in this space (Google TV and Nexus Q).
They probably don't want to provide the information because it's embarrassing.
My 4-year-old Google TV box (Logitech Revue) -- with Android 3.1 -- is really showing its age. The app store is pretty empty and it only supports things like Amazon Video and HBO Go because Android still had Flash back then.
The missing key is an HDMI input. My TV is always tuned to the Google TV input whether I'm watching live cable TV, a Netflix movie or casting a YouTube video. I have a single remote control (the Google TV one) for all of them. It changes channels and settings on my cable box with HDMI CEC.
All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.
Speaking of HDMI CEC, I think you may like a Chromecast
>> All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.
The Chromecast can turn on a TV (and the TV can turn on the audio receiver) via HDMI CEC. I was surprised when the Chromecast icon was displayed when the TV was off. Lo and behold, it just worked.
I realize the controller is sold separately, but I did find it a little odd that the controller says "ASUS" at the top instead of "NEXUS" since it seems to be the official controller.
Intel is almost giving away Bay Trail-T CPUs to try and claw marketshare away from ARM-based CPUs/SoCs. As an example, Intel's advertised price for an Atom Z3735F (quad core, 1.33–1.83 GHz, 2.2 W SDP, 2 GB RAM max., Intel's Gen7 graphics) is $17, but I've read that the "real life" price dips under $10 in volume. This is an absolutely mind-boggling price for a quad-core x86-64 CPU with really quite good integrated graphics.
An exciting (to me, at least) development is that OEMs are starting to produce sub-$100 HDMI sticks with Bay Trail-T CPUs and 16 GB–32 GB of eMMC storage inside. Assuming the firmware isn't crippled, those sticks should be able to run unmodified copies of any modern x86 operating system. On Linux and FreeBSD, there is stable, functional, non-proprietary GPU support, which is a huge win over the vast majority of ARM-based systems. (Even the "OPEN hardware and software platform" Matchstick is currently chained to a binary blob because of the Mali GPU. Maybe one day the reverse engineered Mali driver will be awesome, but it's not there yet.)
I thought that was strange as well. Any phone or tablet app in the Play Store that uses native code will not be compatible. I'm guessing they did this to make it more attractive to game developers. PlayStation, XBox, and PC are now all x86 platforms. Makes it easier for top game studios to also target Google Player if it runs the same architecture.
Probably so they can use Player as a way of getting Atom ready for phones. The Atom chips use more power, but it doesn't matter because they'll not be running off battery.
To me it makes total sense. Intel's Atom has facilities to do hardware accelerated H.264 video decoding[0]. They're both low power chips (ARM and Atom) so can both be passively cooled, ARM is just more focused on minimalism, whereas the Intel Atom is a little bit more feature rich (which is great if you happen to be utilising one of those features, as in this case).
There is so little innovation going on in the apple tv-esque space. All of these devices look and act exactly the same (Fire, AppleTV, this thing, Roku, etc)
Stares at the lack of Amazon Instant Video on Android and rolls eye. I stopped giving amazon money for videos and music until they have it on Android as they already have it on Fire, and iOS.
That seems unfair. The Fire TV had some innovations (voice search, game controller support, advanced parental controls.) This Nexus thing seems to have copied most of those.
The lack of Ethernet is a deal breaker for me. Ethernet is the only thing my chromecast is missing. I don't want games or apps, just a stable internet connection.
I've had the pleasure of using one of these for the past month and it's been really great. I have a Chromecast that I used all the time before, but because I can cast to the Android TV (Player), I don't use the Chromecast anymore (I only have one TV).
The whole UI feels very snappy, and videos load very quickly.
The game pad feels great in my hands. No complaints there.
The selection of games on Google Play isn't huge (yet?). I currently see 16 games listed on it for download/purchase. My favorite so far is Leo's Fortune. I enjoyed it on my Nexus 5 when it came out, but after playing it on Android TV, I won't even play it on the phone anymore because I've experienced how much better the game is with a controller. I suspect that's going to be the case with a lot of games that come out for Android in the future. Touch interface only games have a lot of limitations.
Besides Netflix, you can also use Plex (PlexPass subscribers only right now) and that works pretty flawlessly as well.
I've been very happy with the whole setup and I'll be recommending it to all who are in the market for a set top box.
This is a legitimate question, not a troll. Are there actually any mobile games out there that you would want to play on your tv with a controller?
Pretty much every mobile game I have ever tried has been a cesspool of micropayment dark patterns, or else something that really just serves to kill time when there is nothing else to do (riding the bus, waiting at an office, etc.)
With the chromecast, I have no interest in another box that plays video content. Having a dedicate box to play casual android games on my tv isnt very appealing to me either.
Now we need a $20 google audiocaster. It would kill the airplay speaker market for android devices. You can hack it with a $20 hdmi to 3.5mm audio adaptor, but then it becomes a $55 device.
I'm somewhat surprised there is no ethernet in this player. For some places, wifi just doesn't work in their environment.
I've been anxiously awaiting this. We're thinking of shipping an enterprise product on the Amazon Fire TV, but it's relative lack of control is quite limiting. Hopefully this is priced similarly.
I've tried nearly every android TV stick, and while they are pretty close to what we need, and infinitely customizable, we had trouble getting consistent hardware. It seemed like each batch would behave slightly differently.
I don't get this. I have a Chromecast + nexus 7 as a remote and its already my preferred way of watching Netflix etc. Much better than a clusmly remote.
I hope this doesn't mean there backtracking on Chromecast.
Google Cast sounds a bit too good to be true, just like the Chromecast was. I hated the Chromecast 'cause it simply didn't have enough content for me and the performance was terrible.
I'll have to wait and see how the performance for the Google Cast is. I'd like it to at least be as good as my ability to airplay HD MKV files to an Apple TV.
[+] [-] moskie|11 years ago|reply
I guess I'm just not the average user, but the Chromecast handily beats what this (and other options in this genre, i.e., Apple TV / Fire TV / Roku) have to offer. I don't want another remote control. And making my phone the best remote control is an awesome solution. And the Chromecast doesn't take up any room in my living room / entertainment center. And it's only thrity-five-goddamn-dollars.
I guess the downside is that I can't play crappy games on my big screen. Darn.
[+] [-] on_and_off|11 years ago|reply
I think Google stumbled on a very great idea with Chromecast. I don't want a smart TV with tons of features and a shitty interface that I have to navigate through with an awkward pad.
I want an extremely dumb TV that only displays what my other terminals (laptop, tablet and phone) tell it to display.
[+] [-] dchuk|11 years ago|reply
NO REMOTE IN THE WORLD will ever beat an app on a tablet or phone. I can search and browse so easily on my tablet to find what I want. I can start a video and then explore other stuff. It's the perfect setup.
If only I could pay the NFL for a streaming-only HD football package, I would have literally everything I need for consuming video. But I don't think that will ever happen (at least without having to get a cable/satellite subscription which I refuse to ever do again).
[+] [-] Touche|11 years ago|reply
Phone batteries get low every day. Having to walk to where your phone is charging to change the channel is a bad experience.
Using the phone as a remote is anti-social. I can't pick out what to watch with the person who's sitting in the chair across the room.
Chromecast is good for accidental discovery. You come across an interesting talk on YouTube, Chromecast is good for that.
Chromecast is also good for content that "lives" on your phone, like podcasts.
But Chromecast is bad for picking out a movie or TV show to watch, especially in the company of others.
[+] [-] ianburrell|11 years ago|reply
Apps on your phone should be able to control apps on the player, and the apps on the player can be used standalone. We'll have to see if apps from the Play Store gets Google Cast control, or if this only happens for the Chromecast-style web apps.
This has the advantage that you can select content on phone and then use the phone or remote on the player to control playback.
[+] [-] untog|11 years ago|reply
The Roku is so much better. Everything is centralised, and the remote is a better interface than a phone screen. So I'm excited for the Nexus Player, as I want my Roku to be more hackable than it is. A Nexus Player with XBMC will be a dream.
[+] [-] thefreeman|11 years ago|reply
Luckily, Mozilla is developing a very similar device (Matchstick [1]), and looking to do it better. I am unable to find the link at the moment, but they already support like 3 or 4 times as many media formats as chromecast. And Mozilla has a pretty good track record with hackable, open projects.
[1] - http://www.matchstick.tv/developers/index.html
[+] [-] hoopism|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] king_jester|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonny_eh|11 years ago|reply
Since the Nexus Player will have Chromecast support built-in (like all Android TV devices), software will hopefully continue to add support on their end.
[+] [-] tegeek|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potyl|11 years ago|reply
At least Chromecast had updates and worked. My Nexus Q never worked as expected.
[+] [-] jonlucc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patja|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|11 years ago|reply
I don't care about what people saying about wifi having gotten "better". By every single measurable criteria, it is slower, is less reliable, has lower capacity and higher latency than wired gigabit ethernet and I doubt that will change anytime soon.
I demand wired ethernet on my devices, and I know a bunch of other who do too.
[+] [-] taeric|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thedangler|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teh_klev|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wfjackson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Steko|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freehunter|11 years ago|reply
They probably don't want to provide the information because it's embarrassing.
[+] [-] pbnjay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangrossman|11 years ago|reply
My 4-year-old Google TV box (Logitech Revue) -- with Android 3.1 -- is really showing its age. The app store is pretty empty and it only supports things like Amazon Video and HBO Go because Android still had Flash back then.
The missing key is an HDMI input. My TV is always tuned to the Google TV input whether I'm watching live cable TV, a Netflix movie or casting a YouTube video. I have a single remote control (the Google TV one) for all of them. It changes channels and settings on my cable box with HDMI CEC.
All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.
[+] [-] bdcs|11 years ago|reply
>> All these new boxes make you switch inputs and remotes all the time. I have too many remotes already.
The Chromecast can turn on a TV (and the TV can turn on the audio receiver) via HDMI CEC. I was surprised when the Chromecast icon was displayed when the TV was off. Lo and behold, it just worked.
[+] [-] chambo622|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nogridbag|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tachyonbeam|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwg|11 years ago|reply
An exciting (to me, at least) development is that OEMs are starting to produce sub-$100 HDMI sticks with Bay Trail-T CPUs and 16 GB–32 GB of eMMC storage inside. Assuming the firmware isn't crippled, those sticks should be able to run unmodified copies of any modern x86 operating system. On Linux and FreeBSD, there is stable, functional, non-proprietary GPU support, which is a huge win over the vast majority of ARM-based systems. (Even the "OPEN hardware and software platform" Matchstick is currently chained to a binary blob because of the Mali GPU. Maybe one day the reverse engineered Mali driver will be awesome, but it's not there yet.)
[+] [-] brucehart|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nodata|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|11 years ago|reply
[0] PDF(!): http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...
[+] [-] dchuk|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldfat|11 years ago|reply
Stares at the lack of Amazon Instant Video on Android and rolls eye. I stopped giving amazon money for videos and music until they have it on Android as they already have it on Fire, and iOS.
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pikachu_is_cool|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataminded|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apayan|11 years ago|reply
The whole UI feels very snappy, and videos load very quickly.
The game pad feels great in my hands. No complaints there.
The selection of games on Google Play isn't huge (yet?). I currently see 16 games listed on it for download/purchase. My favorite so far is Leo's Fortune. I enjoyed it on my Nexus 5 when it came out, but after playing it on Android TV, I won't even play it on the phone anymore because I've experienced how much better the game is with a controller. I suspect that's going to be the case with a lot of games that come out for Android in the future. Touch interface only games have a lot of limitations.
Besides Netflix, you can also use Plex (PlexPass subscribers only right now) and that works pretty flawlessly as well.
I've been very happy with the whole setup and I'll be recommending it to all who are in the market for a set top box.
[+] [-] thefreeman|11 years ago|reply
Pretty much every mobile game I have ever tried has been a cesspool of micropayment dark patterns, or else something that really just serves to kill time when there is nothing else to do (riding the bus, waiting at an office, etc.)
[+] [-] wnevets|11 years ago|reply
Is there really a big market for this thing?
[+] [-] cfontes|11 years ago|reply
OUYA was almost dead. Now it's done.
[+] [-] mahyarm|11 years ago|reply
I'm somewhat surprised there is no ethernet in this player. For some places, wifi just doesn't work in their environment.
[+] [-] omnibrain|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jewel|11 years ago|reply
I've tried nearly every android TV stick, and while they are pretty close to what we need, and infinitely customizable, we had trouble getting consistent hardware. It seemed like each batch would behave slightly differently.
[+] [-] gagege|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taeric|11 years ago|reply
Is this just a case where Amazon got a reference implementation out the door before Google did?
[+] [-] UK-AL|11 years ago|reply
I hope this doesn't mean there backtracking on Chromecast.
[+] [-] Pxtl|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kin|11 years ago|reply
I'll have to wait and see how the performance for the Google Cast is. I'd like it to at least be as good as my ability to airplay HD MKV files to an Apple TV.