Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Comparison Chart of Chromecast, Apple TV and Roku Content Options

Unfair Comparason

I don't understand why these devices are being compared. The Roku and Apple TV are direct competitors, fair enough, but the Chromecast is completly different. It has a different way of doing things. It's not a set top box. And you can get most of the things on this chart (excluding iTunes) through the tab sharing feature on Chromecast anyway, so the chart is unfair. At $35 I don't really see why you wouldn't buy it if you use mobile devices regularly, anyway.
 
The more interesting question is what people actually want and need for such TV connect devices like Chromecast and ATV. Seems like this list would include things like:

1. Internet based movie and TV content (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc)
2. Browser display (Chrome, IE, Firefox, Safari, etc)
3. Photos from devices (iPhone, Droids, etc)
4. Music from devices (any source)
5. Videos from devices (any source)
6. Photos, music, videos from PCs, Macs, etc,
7. Buying/renting content (iTunes, Amazon, Goggle, etc)
8. ???

Once you have item 2, in a non restricted format, it opens up so much more like network TV web sites for content.

The key for items 3-6 is any source. If you’ve got it on your device somehow, you want it on the TV.

Each of these devices can do some of the above but not all. Lots of limitations exist.

Then you get into the next level of device, which is Internet TV, which is really what many are waiting for. Network TV, local news and weather, CNN, cable channels, etc. Level 1 is a basic device that does it. Level 2 adds DVR features.

Just imagine for a moment what would be possible if Apple bought DirecTV and added an icon to ATV. You subscribe to their content via Apple, and there are your channels, one after the other… No dish, no cable box, no satellite box, no satellites, just HDTV at your finger tips.
 
fallenjt said:
So did a computer monitor + Roku put some heat under Samsung or LG Smart TV? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

The fact that TVs now have built-in streaming apps in them suggests otherwise. Also Google and Apple are fiercely competitive w/ each other right now, almost mimicking each others products as new ones are released. No one is directly competing with Roku. It's like the garden slug no one cares about, but is still beneficial to the ecosystem.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Merge Chromecast's formfactor w/ Roku's feature set with Apple's AirPlay and you'd have the perfect streamer.

But as-is all 3 are lacking in either content or portability.
Click to expand...

And lose the Apple TV optical audio out? No, thanks! (Another thing the chart omits mentioning...)

The Apple TV is 100% portable if need be - it weighs next to nothing and takes up very little space. If you stop pretending the Chromcast power adaptor doesn't exist, all of a sudden there is very little difference in overall size and weight.

----------
MegamanX said:
Thing is you know a lot more are coming. I fully expect hulu support, amazon video support and others to come.
Click to expand...
How did it work out for people who bought (expensive) Google TV devices expecting those things?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

----------
Jimmy James said:
1. My computer is older
2. You can only stream compatible formats. With Air Video I can stream any file format to my idevice and my computer will do the conversion on the fly. I have a lot of old content in non-compatible formats. AirPlay is mostly irrelevant to me.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what mirroring is -- it simply displays what is on your computer monitor on you Apple TV -- formats don't enter into it.

What's more, under OS X Mavericks, you will be able to use an Apple TV connected display just like any external monitor -- so you can drag any window(s) you wish there and it will look exactly like having a 1080P external monitor plugged in directly.
 
Ted13 said:
How did it work out for people who bought (expensive) Google TV devices expecting those things?

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't think you understand what mirroring is -- it simply displays what is on your computer monitor on you Apple TV -- formats don't enter into it.
Click to expand...
You mean the same Google tvs that got all those items supported?
Yes Google TV can do amazon hulu and I believe crack as well.
 
Xenomorph said:
I told a co-worker to get an Apple TV. They have an older set, and went with the Roku. It's connected with those wonderful Yellow/Red/White cables.

After using their Roku, I went out and got my mom one (and logged her into my Netflix account). My wife then got me a Roku.

They're really nice. The remote is Bluetooth, and not line-of-sight IR like the Apple TV, that's another plus.

I have no idea why they don't have YouTube, though. :(
Click to expand...

You can get YouTube unofficially through one of the private channels.
 
tito2020 said:
More apps are coming to chromecast will blow out any streaming device stay tuned
Click to expand...
Not sure 4GB of internal storage is enough to handle apps.

The thing about this device is that it accomplishes the same thing that a video cable does. If we wanted to watch web videos from our phone on TV that badly, we would've been doing it all this time.

The reason we want set top boxes is because we want to sit back and select content on our TV, instead of constantly looking down at our phone, selecting something to watch, putting the phone away, sitting back and watching on TV, then picking the phone up again to select or search for something else.
 
Ted13 said:
And lose the Apple TV optical audio out? No, thanks! (Another thing the chart omits mentioning...)

The Apple TV is 100% portable if need be - it weighs next to nothing and takes up very little space. If you stop pretending the Chromcast power adaptor doesn't exist, all of a sudden there is very little difference in overall size and weight.
Click to expand...

Where am I pretending the Chromecast doesn't have a power adapter? If you are referring to my initial response when the Chromecast was first announced, I corrected that misperception. So if you are going to be critical of others you need to get your facts straight.

As for optical out, for a TV streamer I don't see where it's all that vital if you have HDMI. If we were talking about an audio streamer hooked up to an amp or receiver then I'd understand.
 
Could be that some people only want Netflix? It's the only streaming service I'd use, based on content. But I need bluray and DVD so none of those devices appeal to me :).
 
Maybe it's the other way around? The reason you haven't been watching movies form your phone is BECAUSE you needed a video cable. Take away the need for a cable and maybe you'd start watching.

Also bear in mind that we are used to navigating our way around phones and tablets. Finding media to play or watch is easy for us so having to pick up a phone or a tablet to kick it off wouldn't be a big deal for any household.

I think when/if other services come to chromecast it could be very useful indeed.

FightTheFuture said:
...
The thing about this device is that it accomplishes the same thing that a video cable does. If we wanted to watch web videos from our phone on TV that badly, we would've been doing it all this time.



..
Click to expand...
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Where am I pretending the Chromecast doesn't have a power adapter? If you are referring to my initial response when the Chromecast was first announced, I corrected that misperception. So if you are going to be critical of others you need to get your facts straight.

As for optical out, for a TV streamer I don't see where it's all that vital if you have HDMI. If we were talking about an audio streamer hooked up to an amp or receiver then I'd understand.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying you were, but Google sure pretends the power adaptor doesn't exist in their marketing materials.

And optical out is vital for video as well, for anyone getting 5.1 sound through a receiver without HDMI pass through. I am in that boat with an excellent Denon receiver, that I will not replace until it dies.

----------
MegamanX said:
You mean the same Google tvs that got all those items supported?
Yes Google TV can do amazon hulu and I believe crack as well.
Click to expand...
Official Google TV page
If it can get Hulu or HBO Go or ESPN or MLB or ... pretty much anything that isn't Netflix or Amazon it is being kept secret. My point stands - anyone expecting all the services now on AppleTV to magically appear on Chromcast is fooling themselves.
 
We just got the Vizio E320i-A0, a small (32") LCD TV with built-in Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon, etc., (but no Google Play or iTunes). As noted in The Wirecutter's review, it cost the same as TVs from other vendors. Having built-in WiFi plus functions integrated into the TV's remote and the set tremendously increased the value of this option.
 
Ted13 said:
Official Google TV page
If it can get Hulu or HBO Go or ESPN or MLB or ... pretty much anything that isn't Netflix or Amazon it is being kept secret. My point stands - anyone expecting all the services now on AppleTV to magically appear on Chromcast is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

End of the day it is ESPN, MLB and Hulu job to get it working. They have access to the dev kit. Hulu excuse for Google TV is crap. They chose not to do it. This time I expect a hell of a lot more pressure from the users demanding they be added. Chances are it will not be to much work as from what people have seen they can relatively minor modifications to their android apps.

I fully expect them in the coming months as Chromecast demand far out strips Google TV.

Plus if it is on the web I can just tell it to go to chromecast. No paying for Hulu plus for basic Hulu.
 
Ted13 said:
I wasn't saying you were, but Google sure pretends the power adaptor doesn't exist in their marketing materials.
Click to expand...


Actually you did. Your exact quote:
If you stop pretending the Chromcast power adaptor doesn't exist, all of a sudden there is very little difference in overall size and weight.
Click to expand...
(https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=17644067#post17644067)

You wrote "you" meaning mean, not "Google". I'll accept it was a typo and you meant "Google" though as you are correct it does try to pretend the adapter is self-powered and make it tough to find out how it is powered. On first seeing Chromcast my first thought was that it was self-powered, but then I realized the truth.

But I still like the more transparent form factor over the Roku or Apple TV's puckish slab and still content of you melted the features of Roku and ATV together in the form of Chromecast dongle it would be a near perfect product.
 
anthony11 said:
These things are so design-flawed that you need more than one. Playing local media is a major problem with many of these devices, which want one to pay for evanescent streaming content instead of playing persistent local content. My [aging and vendor-abandoned] Boxee Box does an AFP/SMB/NFS mount of a media directory and will play anything there. Roku refuses to play divx-family AVI's and ATV won't do any local content.
Click to expand...

My Apple TV works great streaming whatever I have in iTunes on my Mini in the next room. I run everything through iVI which converts, tags and imports it into iTunes and I'm done. Works great for me.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
You wrote "you" meaning mean, not "Google". I'll accept it was a typo and you meant "Google" though as you are correct it does try to pretend the adapter is self-powered and make it tough to find out how it is powered. On first seeing Chromcast my first thought was that it was self-powered, but then I realized the truth.

But I still like the more transparent form factor over the Roku or Apple TV's puckish slab and still content of you melted the features of Roku and ATV together in the form of Chromecast dongle it would be a near perfect product.
Click to expand...

I apologize for my bad phrasing.

The thing about the puck form factor it allows the AppleTV to have ethernet, optical audio, IR remote and a built in power supply allowing for the use of simple power cord -- and to work independently of a smartphone or tablet whose battery may be dying at an inopportune moment.
 
Ted13 said:
The Apple TV is 100% portable if need be - it weighs next to nothing and takes up very little space. If you stop pretending the Chromcast power adaptor doesn't exist, all of a sudden there is very little difference in overall size and weight.
Click to expand...


The power adapter is only needed if your tv doesn't have HDMI 1.4, otherwise the dongle can be powered from it.
 
lazard said:
The power adapter is only needed if your tv doesn't have HDMI 1.4, otherwise the dongle can be powered from it.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be carrying it around to your own TV - at home portability is irrelevant. And I absolutely guarantee that 99% of hotel TVs don't have HDMI 1.4. Nor do 99% of conference room projectors. Places where portability comes into play, you will need the power adaptor.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
Merge Chromecast's formfactor w/ Roku's feature set with Apple's AirPlay and you'd have the perfect streamer.

But as-is all 3 are lacking in either content or portability.
Click to expand...

You're onto something here. All we need is some sort of quick hdmi switch that can auto-switch between the 3 when accessing each box or when content is streamed. Anybody think this is possible?

Doesn't help the form-factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back