this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
590 points (91.4% liked)
Technology
59565 readers
3433 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel the original Chromecast was probably the last truly great original Google product, it was simple, it was inexpensive and it worked - you just plugged it in, joined your network and you were off, there really wasn’t anything like it at the time.
I really hate what they’ve become.
What's funny is that was actually the start of them becoming who they are now. There's a litany of evidence they stole the Chromecast technology
The remote playback control over network patents? I can't see why those patents should be valid, everything there has prior art done in the 80's
What I'm more pissed about is how Google killed Miracast (it's technically still around but Google removed it from default Android and OEMs have to choose to enable it) and how they fought against 3rd party implementations to keep the Chromecast protocol closed.
I see there's ongoing work for a Matter based standard for casting, I really hope that ends up getting broad support. We need something better than DLNA (and Miracast is technically DLNA over WiFi Direct). We need an open casting standard supporting Chromecast-like remote interactive content (the device is essentially a remote controlled web browser)
What changed? I thought that is still what they did.
Chromecast with Google TV made the "simple" casting worse for some apps like Netflix. Instead of it casting directly, it would spawn the Netflix app and make you use the remote to reselect the show you wanted to see.
Also they made it reliant on the Google Home app, which makes it really hard to change WiFi networks. It's a pain in the ass if you have multiple WiFi networks setup at your house.
Remind me, what app did it use before? I have had Chromecast since gen 1, can't remember any other app, but that's probably my memory failing.
Honestly I don't remember. I had a gen 1 Chromecast as well and I think it was just a Chromecast app. Now it's all integrated with Google Home.
Edit: I tried googling it and under the Wikipedia page description it showed the following. But what's funny is if you go to the Wikipedia page, that text is no longer there.
Why on earth would you have multiple WiFi networks in your home?
I take my Chromecast on holiday, you basically have to factory reset it every time to change network. But my recollection is that you've always had to do that.
That makes perfect sense, and switching is definitely annoying then... But the person I responded to said they had multiple WiFi networks at home... E.g. Not on holiday
My solution: get a travel router and have it broadcast the same SSID (and use the same password) as you use at home.
All your devices should successfully connect to it and you don't need to factory reset them.
Many of them have the ability to navigate through a captive portal too (since I got mine all the hotels I've gone to have just needed a password, so i haven't needed to test that).
I have a travel router as well, I just prefer to keep the SSIDs different. It is definitely paranoia, but if someone sees your travel router at a hotel, they know your not home, and your home can be found on wigle.net.
Its not that bad to reset the Chromecast, and I do it infrequently, so I'm happy with that.
I personally have a Comcast router/modem with its own network. I have a network switch that I plug into the router that I use for hard coded stuff. Mostly my PC and a couple other things that I want to run fast instead of convenient. Then I have a WiFi mesh network that I run for most of my other devices, including my phone.
So for my Chromecast, if I want to stream from my phone on the mesh network, I have it on one network. But if I want to stream from my PC, I have it on another network. While with most devices, changing the network you're connected to is simple, it's a massive pain in the ass with a Chromecast.
What you need to do is put devices which you want to access from multiple networks in a specific network / VLAN and then bridge it over
So as far as I understand, you have
Is that correct?
Why not get the WiFi in the Comcast router disabled, and use your inner network exclusively, such that both WiFi and ethernet devices are on the same network?
That's what I did with my network, and I even got the ISP to put their modem/router into bridge mode, so it's completely transparent.
I could, but I like having the router network as an option to connect to. I know the point of a mesh network is to improve WiFi connectivity overall, but every once in a while it will get a bit laggy when streaming a video. Probably because I've got like 90 some devices connected to it. I like having the option to switch my phone to the router network and go upstream of all the other stuff.
That sound like you need a more serious setup, where you can control the network priorities and set a QoS, so the devices that you use interactively get priority over the other devices.
My mesh network actually allows me to set devices as priority. I guess I've never tried it out and am too lazy to go start pulling cables.
I have a trusted network, an IoT network (where the CC would go), and a guest network.
I know most people aren't going to have the time or knowledge set up network segmentation, but it's still good practice.
No need for a physically separated network, that's what VLANs are for
I mean, yes? I'm obviously using VLANs here. I'm not running a separate switch and AP for each network...
Yeah I got one of the newer ones after having a ton of the earlier models and I was disgusted by that change. Instantly returned it and bought one of the discontinued Ultras for 4K.
I did the exact same thing. Its such a stupid step backwards in functionality.
I feels like they either badly copy (see Gemini) or don’t think about what they’re offering (see Stadia’s busted business model) they’re content to milk the existing services they’ve already got and make them worse by cramming in more ads (see YouTube, Google’s search result pages) and they cut out or dictate the web through their monopolies (see AMP and Chrome) rather than working with other parties to make good products.
They feel like Hooli in Silicon Valley, basically the definition of a fat tech giant who doesn’t do any innovation of their own.
Tf are you smoking dude, Google has been working on AI long before ChatGPT was a twinkle in Sam Altman's eye. They didn't release any public models because they wanted to go about it safely and not just dump the world's best misinformation creator on the open market for anyone to use with little safeguards. All that went out the window when ChatGPT got all the press and google decided they wanted a piece of the hype, but pretending they "didn't do any innovation of their own" in regards to AI is ludicrous. They have been at the forefront of AI development for the last decade, and the fact you think otherwise shows your only knowledge about AI is from after ChatGPT headlines started coming out.
https://www.popsci.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GluePizzaAI.png?strip=all&quality=95
That's what they did until OpenAI started making noise and management pushed out everybody working on safety and quality to cut corners and rush something out to compete (poorly)
I still have and use one. Will it stop working now?