chromecast OMG!!!

[tgmoore71]

Is this for real:
http://blog.vudu.com/?p=10711

[LuzRinggold]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

Yes, it's for real.

If you currently have no other solution for streaming Vudu to your TV then I guess it's a good solution. Personally, I didn't like the Chromecast device and I don't like the idea of having the extra overhead and problems of having a computer between me and my television viewing experience. But those who don't have a Roku device or some BETTER solution will welcome Vudu on Chromecast.

[jjohns]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

Yes, it's for real.

If you currently have no other solution for streaming Vudu to your TV then I guess it's a good solution. Personally, I didn't like the Chromecast device and I don't like the idea of having the extra overhead and problems of having a computer between me and my television viewing experience. But those who don't have a Roku device or some BETTER solution will welcome Vudu on Chromecast.

It's a shame you didn't like it, but "BETTER solution" is very subjective.

I own both a Chromecast and a Roku 3. Both are great devices, but personally I prefer the Chromecast experience. The lack of Vudu support is the only major thing it was missing (for my usage), so I think this is absolutely great news!

Once the Vudu app support is available, then the Chromecast will cover almost all of my streaming needs and I will probably send my Roku off to a well-earned retirement.

[YankeeGator6]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

I prefer the Roku, but having the Chromecast option is a great thing to get people into Vudu and UV. The price point is too good to resist for most people.

[MaxH]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

It's a nice portable solution, but Vudu's biggest advantage over its competitors is that they try to have better audio and video quality, and that's usually not possible with a wifi connection and an underpowered processor. I always appreciate having more choices, but I don't think I'll be using this one most of the time.

[LuzRinggold]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

It's a shame you didn't like it, but "BETTER solution" is very subjective.

I own both a Chromecast and a Roku 3. Both are great devices, but personally I prefer the Chromecast experience. The lack of Vudu support is the only major thing it was missing (for my usage), so I think this is absolutely great news!

Once the Vudu app support is available, then the Chromecast will cover almost all of my streaming needs and I will probably send my Roku off to a well-earned retirement.

Chromecast didn't offer anything I ready have on Roku, and it doesn't support most of the websites I would have liked to have used it on (i.e. ESPN3, ABC, CBS, and a couple other websites). We also have several other streaming channels on Roku that are NOT available on Chromecast.

What I think would suck about using Chromecast in place of Roku is that if you want to pause or change what you are watching then you have to go into the room where the computer is and do all that instead of simply using a remote. Even if your computer is in the same room, it's just not as nice as having a remote control.

But I do like the idea that Vudu is trying to support as many devices as possible. I only with they would look at the many requests that we have made for additional features like more sorting capabilities, ability to create and arrange collections of movies, ability to manage the FAMILY rating ourselves, and better parental controls.

[jjohns]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

It's a nice portable solution, but Vudu's biggest advantage over its competitors is that they try to have better audio and video quality, and that's usually not possible with a wifi connection and an underpowered processor. I always appreciate having more choices, but I don't think I'll be using this one most of the time.

Agreed that a strong wifi signal is very important for doing high quality streaming. If I have one complaint about the Chromecast hardware, it's the fact that it only supports 2.4 GHz wifi. I'm rather hoping a second generation Chromecast with 5 GHz support will be announced later this year (perhaps at Google I/O in June).

[huskerbear]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

With chromecast don't you have to fire up a tablet or computer, search for what you want then send it to chromecast? Sounds TONS easier to just grab the Roku remote.

[LuzRinggold]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

With chromecast don't you have to fire up a tablet or computer, search for what you want then send it to chromecast? Sounds TONS easier to just grab the Roku remote.

It doesn't work with a tablet, you need a computer to use it. Yes, Roku is easier and more convenient.

Comcast is however a little cheaper and another option for those or (for whatever reason) cannot use Roku.

Like someone said, options are better than no options. That way we can all pick what works for us and a solution isn't being crammed down our throat.

[jjohns]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

Chromecast didn't offer anything I ready have on Roku, and it doesn't support most of the websites I would have liked to have used it on (i.e. ESPN3, ABC, CBS, and a couple other websites). We also have several other streaming channels on Roku that are NOT available on Chromecast.

What I think would suck about using Chromecast in place of Roku is that if you want to pause or change what you are watching then you have to go into the room where the computer is and do all that instead of simply using a remote. Even if your computer is in the same room, it's just not as nice as having a remote control.

But I do like the idea that Vudu is trying to support as many devices as possible. I only with they would look at the many requests that we have made for additional features like more sorting capabilities, ability to create and arrange collections of movies, ability to manage the FAMILY rating ourselves, and better parental controls.

As I've said a couple times before, I'm pretty sure your issues with those websites would have been resolved by turning off hardware acceleration in your Chrome browser. I know for a fact that the CBS website videos work just fine when cast to Chromecast.

I agree that having to go to another room to use a computer to control the video (pause, rewind, etc) would get annoying. I'm sure this feature would be a lot better using a laptop in the same room. Honestly, I rarely even use the desktop Chrome browser extension. It's nice to have as an option, but I wouldn't want to rely on it. Most of my Chromecast usage comes from using the apps that support it on my smartphone.

[jjohns]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

With chromecast don't you have to fire up a tablet or computer, search for what you want then send it to chromecast? Sounds TONS easier to just grab the Roku remote.

The Chrome browser extension requires the use of a desktop version of Chrome. It won't work on a tablet (or smartphone). However many services have native support in their Android and iOS apps.

I have my smartphone near me far more often than my Roku remote. Plus, you can control the streams volume from your phone or tablet with the Chromecast; that can't be said of the Roku remote (unless using the remote's headphone jack).

[jjohns]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

Like someone said, options are better than no options. That way we can all pick what works for us and a solution isn't being crammed down our throat.

Absolutely agree with this.

For some people, Roku is certainly the better option. For others, like myself, Chromecast is better.

Options are definitely a great thing.

My only real issue with your original comment was that it implied that Chromecast was inferior to all of those other options, like the Roku. To each their own. I wouldn't say either is superior; just different. It's up to each person to determine which device suits their needs best.

[LuzRinggold]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

Absolutely agree with this.

For some people, Roku is certainly the better option. For others, like myself, Chromecast is better.

Options are definitely a great thing.

My only real issue with your original comment was that it implied that Chromecast was inferior to all of those other options, like the Roku. To each their own. I wouldn't say either is superior; just different. It's up to each person to determine which device suits their needs best.

Sometimes different = inferior...like in this case. For example, my digital flats screen TV is different from the first TV I ever owned, which didn't have a remote control and was black and white...it was an inferior TV in comparison. I think Chromcast is inferior...but to each his/her own...which brings us back to "options".

[BlakkMajik3000]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

It doesn't work with a tablet, you need a computer to use it. Yes, Roku is easier and more convenient.

Comcast is however a little cheaper and another option for those or (for whatever reason) cannot use Roku.

Like someone said, options are better than no options. That way we can all pick what works for us and a solution isn't being crammed down our throat.

The first part of your first statement is blatantly false.

The Chromecast works with any Android or iOS device. Using a computer is completely optional, and only necessary if you wish to cast tabs from the Chrome web browser to the Chromecast.

To call the Roku easier is strictly a matter of opinion.

The Chromecast suits many peoples' needs perfectly. The idea behind the Chromecast is to ask the question, how often do you lose the remote vs. how often you lose your phone? Since your phone/tablet is less likely to get lost, why not just use that as your remote?

In my living room, I have an Xbox 360, PS4, PS3, and Chromecast hooked up to my TV. The consoles pretty much only get turned on to play games, except in the case of the PS3, as I use that for Vudu. However, my Chromecast gets substantially more use.

In the bedroom, I have a Sony blu-ray player, Roku 2 (XD or XS, can't recall right now), and Chromecast. Guess which one gets used the most? The blu-ray player an the Roku might as well be back in the box. I love that I can be watching something on the TV in the media/living room, decide it's time for bed, and switch it to stream to the bedroom.

Some people do not like the Chromecast because it doesn't have "mirroring" (yet) like the iOS to Apple TV solution. I don't personally see the overall value in mirroring my device's screen to my TV. I like that I can initiate content from my phone/tablet, let the Chromecast stream it, and I can use my device for other things if I so choose. For example, the other day my daughter wanted to watch something on Netflix and her tablet needed to charge. Hit the Chromecast button on Netflix on her tablet and continued it on the TV. I then put her tablet on the charger and connected my NVidia Shield to the Chromecast. So she got to continue watching Super Why and I continued my rampage in GTA: San Andreas without nary a hitch. And that's just one of many instances where I thought "man, this Chromecast thing is great!".
/end rant

Some people complain about the lack of apps currently, but that will definitely change with the SDK now being open to all devs. I've been waiting for quite awhile for some Vudu functionality, so the news it's finally on it's way means my Chromecast will soon cover 100% of my streaming needs.

[LuzRinggold]

Re: chromecast OMG!!!

The first part of your first statement is blatantly false.

The Chromecast works with any Android or iOS device. Using a computer is completely optional, and only necessary if you wish to cast tabs from the Chrome web browser to the Chromecast.

To call the Roku easier is strictly a matter of opinion.

The Chromecast suits many peoples' needs perfectly. The idea behind the Chromecast is to ask the question, how often do you lose the remote vs. how often you lose your phone? Since your phone/tablet is less likely to get lost, why not just use that as your remote?

In my living room, I have an Xbox 360, PS4, PS3, and Chromecast hooked up to my TV. The consoles pretty much only get turned on to play games, except in the case of the PS3, as I use that for Vudu. However, my Chromecast gets substantially more use.

In the bedroom, I have a Sony blu-ray player, Roku 2 (XD or XS, can't recall right now), and Chromecast. Guess which one gets used the most? The blu-ray player an the Roku might as well be back in the box. I love that I can be watching something on the TV in the media/living room, decide it's time for bed, and switch it to stream to the bedroom.

Some people do not like the Chromecast because it doesn't have "mirroring" (yet) like the iOS to Apple TV solution. I don't personally see the overall value in mirroring my device's screen to my TV. I like that I can initiate content from my phone/tablet, let the Chromecast stream it, and I can use my device for other things if I so choose. For example, the other day my daughter wanted to watch something on Netflix and her tablet needed to charge. Hit the Chromecast button on Netflix on her tablet and continued it on the TV. I then put her tablet on the charger and connected my NVidia Shield to the Chromecast. So she got to continue watching Super Why and I continued my rampage in GTA: San Andreas without nary a hitch. And that's just one of many instances where I thought "man, this Chromecast thing is great!".
/end rant

Some people complain about the lack of apps currently, but that will definitely change with the SDK now being open to all devs. I've been waiting for quite awhile for some Vudu functionality, so the news it's finally on it's way means my Chromecast will soon cover 100% of my streaming needs.

If I loose my remote then I can use my Roku app on my phone as a remote. Problem solved!

Yes, my opinion is that Chromcast is not as good of a solution as Roku. Thanks for understanding my position.