Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Takes Aim at Apple with New Nexus 7, Google Play Games and Chromecast
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would practically kill for an iPad with two front facing speakers and 2+GB ram. That's because I know what higher specs can give us, whereas you're doing nothing more than playing the always ignorant "Apple is behind on specs, say they don't matter...until they do" game.
Geez, I think a lot of folks here missed the point or didn't actually figure out what the Chromecast was. It's really more like an external for GoogleTV, just like the AppleTV is sort of an iPad with video out, or a Mac mini running iOS.
The Chromecast isn't meant to be the software interface; essentially it's just a wifi connection to the cloud where the media resides. You use some other interface on an iPhone, Android tablet, Mac application or whatever to control it. We all probably have stuff that controls boxes connected to our TVs; I use an iPhone or my Mac to control my Tivo which gets its content from either its ethernet connection to the internet or my server or the Comcast cable. I like the idea; a sort of smart wifi card for my TV.
It's not really fair to say it's an Airplay or AppleTV buster; they do very different things. What you use and need depends on where you already go to get your content. AppleTV is great as a front end for iTunes store media; I don't have any of that so it's not worth it to me; I can already get Netflix or Hulu+ or other stuff with a variety of gadgets from a PS3 to TiVo box to iPhone. And with the exception of the PS3 I just use an iPhone app to control any of them.
And Airplay never made much sense for me because I rarely stream FROM an iOS device; my content is stored elsewhere.
But if I need an Airplay mirroring solution without an AppleTV, I use other stuff to get around the built-in Apple restrictions. Eg, Air Server to beam from iOS to say a PC or Mac. Or AirFoil for music. Or Playback to send my Mac photos, music, EyeTV shows, etc to play on the PS3 and HDTV.
Crikey, just get yerself a Raspberry Pi for $30 and load RaspBMC on it and plug it into your HDTV's HDMI port and do all of the above.
None of this is particularly new. The big PITA that none of these players can solve is balkanization of content over a huge range of sources. If Apple, Google, Netflix, Comcast, Directv, Hulu, Vudu, Dish, Time-Warner and Bob's Bait Shop and Media Company all have one show on each you wanna get, we're screwed as consumers.
Makes me wanna go back to rabbit ears.
The Chromecast isn't meant to be the software interface; essentially it's just a wifi connection to the cloud where the media resides. You use some other interface on an iPhone, Android tablet, Mac application or whatever to control it. We all probably have stuff that controls boxes connected to our TVs; I use an iPhone or my Mac to control my Tivo which gets its content from either its ethernet connection to the internet or my server or the Comcast cable. I like the idea; a sort of smart wifi card for my TV.
It's not really fair to say it's an Airplay or AppleTV buster; they do very different things. What you use and need depends on where you already go to get your content. AppleTV is great as a front end for iTunes store media; I don't have any of that so it's not worth it to me; I can already get Netflix or Hulu+ or other stuff with a variety of gadgets from a PS3 to TiVo box to iPhone. And with the exception of the PS3 I just use an iPhone app to control any of them.
And Airplay never made much sense for me because I rarely stream FROM an iOS device; my content is stored elsewhere.
But if I need an Airplay mirroring solution without an AppleTV, I use other stuff to get around the built-in Apple restrictions. Eg, Air Server to beam from iOS to say a PC or Mac. Or AirFoil for music. Or Playback to send my Mac photos, music, EyeTV shows, etc to play on the PS3 and HDTV.
Crikey, just get yerself a Raspberry Pi for $30 and load RaspBMC on it and plug it into your HDTV's HDMI port and do all of the above.
None of this is particularly new. The big PITA that none of these players can solve is balkanization of content over a huge range of sources. If Apple, Google, Netflix, Comcast, Directv, Hulu, Vudu, Dish, Time-Warner and Bob's Bait Shop and Media Company all have one show on each you wanna get, we're screwed as consumers.
Makes me wanna go back to rabbit ears.
Yeah ignore me for correcting a blatantly incorrect post.
My bad. I misunderstood your post. Thanks for pointing it out Renzatic.
Last edited:
Read above. More ram means less page reloads, more tabs in Safari. More robust apps, like longer, higher detailed documents in Pages, larger images with more layers in Photoshop Touch or other painting apps, more complex games, more room for the OS to offer up nicer features. I could go on.
A faster processor means it can do all these things that much faster along with offering up...yup...more robust apps. A smaller die processor means better battery life and cooler temps at lower voltages without sacrificing performance.
Front facing speakers means I could finally watch Netflix and Hulu without having to cup my hand behind my iPad just so I can hear what I'm watching.
There are plenty of reasons why higher specs are a good thing. You all claim that the iPad isn't just a consumption device? That it's good for productivity? Well, higher specs makes it a better productivity machine.
----------
Er...he was talking to you, not about you.
Last edited:
Er...he was talking to you, not about you.
Thanks. I misunderstood and thought it was directed at me. Corrected my post.
But the iPhone outperforms most other phones with way better specs. The 5s will (not may) outperform the s4 and it wont need an octacore processor to do so.
So, if all tangible evidence shows that specs don't mean much, again what really is higher specs doing? Sounds like a pissing contest, except apple is pissing gold.
The new Nexus 7 is tempting, but I'm so tied up in Apple's ecosystem that I may as well wait for the iPad mini retina.
Yeah, and performance and benchmarks are just another form of specs. Admittedly, saying "I have an x gigamegabit processor and blar amounts of ram" only works so far as a comparison. One platform might be able to do a little more with a little less. But there's always a point where more hardware pulls you ahead. This is especially true with ram, where the more you have, the better off you are.
Also, a little education moment. Having an octacore processor won't directly benefit Android compared to the dual core iOS just by someone popping it in to the latest and greatest phone. Not unless Android is set to take advantage of it, or has apps that need to juggle that many threads at once. And if Android were taking advantage of it, that means it's multitasking heavy apps, which means it'd only last about an hour on a charge. More processors doesn't automatically equate to better performance, though it does mean it does have the potential to host more complex apps. Really, I can't think of many reasons to have even more than two cores in a mobile device. Not until they have access to tons more ram. With Android and iOS both being build around having one app at a time onscreen, it'd be better for Google and Apple to concentrate on sequential performance to get a nice boost.
Google just demoted your television set into a second screen, a slave to your phone or tablet or laptop. With the $35 Chromecast you can with one click move anything you find on your internet-connected device YouTube video, Netflix, a web page as well as music and pictures and soon, Id imagine, games onto your big TV screen, bypassing your cable box and all its ridiculous and expensive limitations.
Unlike Apple TV and Airplay, this does not stream from your laptop to the TV; this streams directly to your TV its plugged into an HDMI port over wi-fi via the cloud er, via Google, that is. Oh, and it works with Apple iOS devices, too.
Im just beginning to get a grasp on all the implications. Here are some I see.
* Simply put, Ill end up watching more internet content because its so easy now. According to todays demonstration, as soon as I tell Chrome to move something to my TV, the Chromecast device will sense the command and take over the TV. Nevermind smart TVs and cable boxes; the net is now in charge. Theres no more awkward searching using the worlds slowest typing via my cable box or a web-connected TV. Theres no more switching manually from one box to another. If its as advertised, Ill just click on my browser and up it comes on my TV. Voila.
* Because Google issued an API, every company with web video my beloved TWiT, for example is motivated to add a Chromecast button to its content.
* Thus Google knows more about what youre watching, which will allow it to make recommendations to you. Google becomes a more effective search engine for entertainment: TV Guide reborn at last.
* Google gets more opportunities to sell higher-priced video advertising on its content, which is will surely promote.
* Google gets more opportunities to sell you shows and movies from its Play Store, competing with both Apple and Amazon.
* YouTube gets a big boost in creating channels and building a new revenue stream: subscriptions. This is a paywall that will work simply because entertainment is a unique product, unlike news, which is sorry to break the news to you a commodity. I also wonder whether Google is getting a reward for all the Netflix subscriptions it will sell.
* TV is no longer device-dependant but viewer-dependant. I can start watching a show in one room then watch it another and then take it with me and watch on my tablet from where I left off.
* I can throw out the device with the worst user interface on earth: the cable remote. Now I can control video via my phone and probably do much more with it (again, Im imagining new game interfaces).
* I can take a Chromecast with me on the road and use it in hotel rooms or in conference rooms to give presentations.
Those are implications for me as a user or viewer or whatever the hell I am now. Thats why I quickly bought three Chromecasts: one for the family room, one for my office, one for the briefcase and the road. What the hell, theyre cheap.
Harder to fully catalog are the implications for the industry make that industries affected. Too often, TV and the oligopolies that control it have been declared dead yet they keep going. One of these days, one of the bullets shot at them will hit the heart. Is this it?
* Cable is hearing a loud, growing snipping sound on the horizon. This makes it yet easier for us all to cut the cord. This unravels their bundling of channels. Ill never count these sharks out. But it looks like it could be Sharknado for them. I also anticipate them trying to screw up our internet bandwidth every way they can: limiting speeds and downloading or charging us through the nose for decent service if we use Chromecast from their greedy perspective too much.
* Networks should also start feeling sweaty, for there is even less need for their bundling when we can find the shows and stars we want without them. The broadcast networks will descend even deeper into the slough of crappy reality TV. Cable networks will find their subsidies via cable operators bundles threatened. TV like music and news may finally come unbundled. But then again, TV networks are the first to run for the lifeboats and steal the oars. I remember well the day when ABC decided to stream Desperate Housewives on the net the morning after it aired on broadcast, screwing its broadcast affiliates. Theyd love to do the same to cable MSOs. Will this give them their excuse?
* Content creators have yet another huge opportunity to cut out two layers of middlemen and have direct relationships with fans, selling them their content or serving them more targeted and valuable ads. Creators can be discovered directly. But we know how difficult it is to be discovered. Who can help? Oh, yeah, Google.
* Apple? As someone said on Twitter: Apple should have made this.
Yes, Apple could throw out its Apple TV and shift to this model. But its disadvantaged against Google because it doesnt offer the same gateway to the entire wonderful world of web video; it offers things it makes deals for, things it wants to sell us.
* Amazon? Hmmm. On the one hand, if I can more easily shift things I buy at Amazon onto my TV screen just as I read Kindle books on my Google Nexus 7 table, not on an Amazon Kindle. But Amazon is as much a control freak as Apple and I cant imagine Jeff Bezos is laughing that laugh of his right now.
* Advertisers will see the opportunity to directly subsidize content and learn more about consumers through direct relationships, no longer mediated by both channels and cable companies. (That presumes that advertisers and their agencies are smart enough to build audiences rather than just buying mass; so far, too many of them havent been.) Though there will be more entertainment behind pay walls, I think, therell still be plenty of free entertainment to piggyback on.
* Kids in garages with cameras will find path to the big screen is now direct if anybody wants to watch their stuff.
Unlike Apple TV and Airplay, this does not stream from your laptop to the TV; this streams directly to your TV its plugged into an HDMI port over wi-fi via the cloud er, via Google, that is. Oh, and it works with Apple iOS devices, too.
Im just beginning to get a grasp on all the implications. Here are some I see.
* Simply put, Ill end up watching more internet content because its so easy now. According to todays demonstration, as soon as I tell Chrome to move something to my TV, the Chromecast device will sense the command and take over the TV. Nevermind smart TVs and cable boxes; the net is now in charge. Theres no more awkward searching using the worlds slowest typing via my cable box or a web-connected TV. Theres no more switching manually from one box to another. If its as advertised, Ill just click on my browser and up it comes on my TV. Voila.
* Because Google issued an API, every company with web video my beloved TWiT, for example is motivated to add a Chromecast button to its content.
* Thus Google knows more about what youre watching, which will allow it to make recommendations to you. Google becomes a more effective search engine for entertainment: TV Guide reborn at last.
* Google gets more opportunities to sell higher-priced video advertising on its content, which is will surely promote.
* Google gets more opportunities to sell you shows and movies from its Play Store, competing with both Apple and Amazon.
* YouTube gets a big boost in creating channels and building a new revenue stream: subscriptions. This is a paywall that will work simply because entertainment is a unique product, unlike news, which is sorry to break the news to you a commodity. I also wonder whether Google is getting a reward for all the Netflix subscriptions it will sell.
* TV is no longer device-dependant but viewer-dependant. I can start watching a show in one room then watch it another and then take it with me and watch on my tablet from where I left off.
* I can throw out the device with the worst user interface on earth: the cable remote. Now I can control video via my phone and probably do much more with it (again, Im imagining new game interfaces).
* I can take a Chromecast with me on the road and use it in hotel rooms or in conference rooms to give presentations.
Those are implications for me as a user or viewer or whatever the hell I am now. Thats why I quickly bought three Chromecasts: one for the family room, one for my office, one for the briefcase and the road. What the hell, theyre cheap.
Harder to fully catalog are the implications for the industry make that industries affected. Too often, TV and the oligopolies that control it have been declared dead yet they keep going. One of these days, one of the bullets shot at them will hit the heart. Is this it?
* Cable is hearing a loud, growing snipping sound on the horizon. This makes it yet easier for us all to cut the cord. This unravels their bundling of channels. Ill never count these sharks out. But it looks like it could be Sharknado for them. I also anticipate them trying to screw up our internet bandwidth every way they can: limiting speeds and downloading or charging us through the nose for decent service if we use Chromecast from their greedy perspective too much.
* Networks should also start feeling sweaty, for there is even less need for their bundling when we can find the shows and stars we want without them. The broadcast networks will descend even deeper into the slough of crappy reality TV. Cable networks will find their subsidies via cable operators bundles threatened. TV like music and news may finally come unbundled. But then again, TV networks are the first to run for the lifeboats and steal the oars. I remember well the day when ABC decided to stream Desperate Housewives on the net the morning after it aired on broadcast, screwing its broadcast affiliates. Theyd love to do the same to cable MSOs. Will this give them their excuse?
* Content creators have yet another huge opportunity to cut out two layers of middlemen and have direct relationships with fans, selling them their content or serving them more targeted and valuable ads. Creators can be discovered directly. But we know how difficult it is to be discovered. Who can help? Oh, yeah, Google.
* Apple? As someone said on Twitter: Apple should have made this.
Yes, Apple could throw out its Apple TV and shift to this model. But its disadvantaged against Google because it doesnt offer the same gateway to the entire wonderful world of web video; it offers things it makes deals for, things it wants to sell us.
* Amazon? Hmmm. On the one hand, if I can more easily shift things I buy at Amazon onto my TV screen just as I read Kindle books on my Google Nexus 7 table, not on an Amazon Kindle. But Amazon is as much a control freak as Apple and I cant imagine Jeff Bezos is laughing that laugh of his right now.
* Advertisers will see the opportunity to directly subsidize content and learn more about consumers through direct relationships, no longer mediated by both channels and cable companies. (That presumes that advertisers and their agencies are smart enough to build audiences rather than just buying mass; so far, too many of them havent been.) Though there will be more entertainment behind pay walls, I think, therell still be plenty of free entertainment to piggyback on.
* Kids in garages with cameras will find path to the big screen is now direct if anybody wants to watch their stuff.
I guess where I'm confused is what proof you have that higher specs somehow is necessary. Why does apple need higher specs when they outperform all other phones in every tangible test?
Yes that's my point. So again why does apple need better specs? Just cuz?
Well when you put it that way, android just might be taking advantage of it
I think we agree. You just worded it so it looked like apple is lagging behind and needs to catch up. Again, just cuz?
google-apple war
interesting that the google-apple war hasn't stopped Apple or Google from working together to deliver cross platform to chrome cast
interesting that the google-apple war hasn't stopped Apple or Google from working together to deliver cross platform to chrome cast
They're both corporations trying to make as much money off the consumer as possible. Only fanboys think Google would throw away money because apple is evil
Not sure what you mean. You can perfectly airplay your content regardless where it is stored (locally, on NAS or in the cloud).