Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
primetime34 said:
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree. Amazon Instant Video is pretty much the only thing my TiVos and TV have over Chromecast for my intended use.
r00t4rd3d said:
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
List of working sites:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Chromecast/comments/1x5ik0/send_vimeo_ted_facebook_etc_from_the_desktop_to/
Creators Twitter:
https://twitter.com/@parterburn
Amazing, youporn works. Thanks!
I wish it would work for watchespn
uncrx2003 said:
I wish it would work for watchespn
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN!! WatchESPN, along with WatchDisney Junior, are the two channels that I have been wanting more than ANY other channel out there! I'm a huge college football fan and although I've got a pretty nice channel lineup and sports package via Charter, there are still games out there that just simply aren't offered around here on Charter. In addition to WatchESPN, I have a 4 yr old son and like how I used to be when I was younger and how most other kids his age are, he LOVES to watch cartoons, especially the likes of Disney Junior, Cartoon Network, Sprout, etc. The WatchDisney Junior channel coming to the Chromecast would just make my (and my son's) day. I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
:good:
jsdecker10 said:
I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
It works very well for me at this www.mistreci.al with movreel and uptobox thats what i needed
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
bhiga said:
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that many of the content providers who rely on Cable Company Sub payments are very hesitant to release content for use on Big Screens (which CCast support basically is) which could hurt their Subscription fees later on due to the Chord Cutters taking the cheaper route to their content.
One of the Major hold ups with Time Warner and CBS in that last contract battle was over rights to Internet streaming.
Time Warner wanted the rights to them but CBS wanted to hold on to it for further sales to companies like NetFlix and Hulu or even for their own sites (which the three major nets do now) To a OTA broadcaster it's easier to keep their content free because the content has already been paid for via the Advertising and the goal is to hook more viewers to the shows on their Network.
But someone like ESPN, HBO and SHOWTIME, they are highly dependent on Cable Subs and therefore can't just put the content out there so will likely require a Cable Subscription/Login to view because if they did it on their own without such a subscription or tried to do subscriptions on their own it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face plus add the cost of a Subscription support department they have to pay to maintain their own sub service. So those companies are likely to remain a Cable Sub only service.
This is the one thing Chord Cutters will have to deal with, Sure you can get the OTA stuff and some stuff from low rated networks trying to lure people to their content but the stuff you REALLY want will almost always require a Cable Sub to get.
I have been in quite a few meetings where this is discussed and while the greed makes them think about offering their own ala carte subscription model they quickly realize that no one is going to pay as much for HBO on HBO's website as they currently get from the Cable companies themselves.
And if the Cable companies decide they are not worth having on their system anymore these companies like HBO stand to lose their shirts!
So they back down quickly.
Just a quick comment on the Amazon Prime thing....
I think this may be a sign that things between Google and Amazon are not as rosy as they probably should be.
You would think Amazon Prime was all over this from day one but apparently not.
Now that the SDK is public I expect to see something from them in the future.
Good points. It's not easy to understand the policies and actions of all the parties involved unless you know something about the business model from their point of view.
BTW, it's "cord cutters", not "chord cutters", as in cable = cord. Chord usually refers to music or geometry, but in any case nothing to do with this topic.
Re: Amazon - I wonder if they are coming up with a media box solution too. Could explain their reluctance.
WhisperCast?
Of course Canadians ignore them because they offer no media content here. Which is strange as they're selling these walled-garden Amazon tablets with beautiful screens in Canadian stores, and nothing but Netflix & YouTube to watch on them.
Related
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
I can't see how they could tell the source of the music even if they had access to it. They'd be on very shaky ground legally if they tried to gain access to it anyway. How could they dictate where people store their music?
I am sick and tired of the mafiaa tactics though. They're trying to maintain a stranglehold on their antiquated business models whilst stymying innovation, pretending they care about the artists when all they are really doing is dipping into everyones pockets to make money for themselves.
After lawyers, these people are the worst bottom feeding scum on the planet. I wouldn't piss on one if they were on fire, but i would dance on their graves.
ElectroGeek said:
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm... will be illegal/impossible on several fronts. I'll try explaining from both the legal and technological point of view. We'll start with the legal.
LEGAL
First, they need to prove that the music is:
1. Copyright belongs to them
2. Under your current ownership
3. You didn't get it legally
To do that, they will need to prove that the entire song has been obtained from an illegal source, and that you are currently using/having it.
TECHNOLOGICAL
The limitation is on two ends here:
1. They need to identify the song
2. They need to identify that you've gotten the song illegally
So, long story short, there is a chance for that to happen, because they might be able to prove where you downloaded the music from.
Stay safe. Stay behind 7 proxies.
So to be clear, you could be facing a lawsuit. Need some more info on this. I want to use these services, but...
D2G blur-stock & rooted
DirkGently1 said:
I can't see how they could tell the source of the music even if they had access to it. They'd be on very shaky ground legally if they tried to gain access to it anyway. How could they dictate where people store their music?
I am sick and tired of the mafiaa tactics though. They're trying to maintain a stranglehold on their antiquated business models whilst stymying innovation, pretending they care about the artists when all they are really doing is dipping into everyones pockets to make money for themselves.
After lawyers, these people are the worst bottom feeding scum on the planet. I wouldn't piss on one if they were on fire, but i would dance on their graves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dance on their grave while pissing your pants?
ElectroGeek said:
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Question is i guess is: How would the cloud server even now if its Legit or not ?
although i hope that it would all be legally paid for
DanWilson said:
Dance on their grave while pissing your pants?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't be the first time....
This is on-topic:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/27/robertson_predicts_cloud_music_victor/
Let's hope EMI lose this case.
I do not think it will happen.
When I first read about the Amazon Cloud service, almost every news article said that Amazon themselves might be getting sued for the service. I did/do not understand this either. Seeing as it is my music, and Amazon is offering a storage space for it, why could it bring any lawsuit to Amazon?
mallend said:
I do not think it will happen.
When I first read about the Amazon Cloud service, almost every news article said that Amazon themselves might be getting sued for the service. I did/do not understand this either. Seeing as it is my music, and Amazon is offering a storage space for it, why could it bring any lawsuit to Amazon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because big media don't want you to do anything with the music that you paid for without being able to charge you more for doing it.
Don't forget that you don't own that music. You're only paying for the right to use it under their terms and conditions.
Any other news on this. Any press etc.
D2G blur-stock and rooted
Anybody have any more news on this topic?
Droid 2 Global [ROM]Hexen 1.0.1 (Final)
Back in the good old days of LP's and cassettes, nobody ever threatened a lawsuit if you made a cassette copy of a record or of another cassette.
Edit: That is, unless you made a couple of hundred copies and were selling them on the street corner.
TravisBean said:
Back in the good old days of LP's and cassettes, nobody ever threatened a lawsuit if you made a cassette copy of a record or of another cassette.
Edit: That is, unless you made a couple of hundred copies and were selling them on the street corner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they did, but it wasn't widespread, and the business model wasn't that good. Now we have organized crime in Asia doing it.
Privacy experts 'roast' Kindle Fire for 'watching you' online - worse than Google OR Facebook
One of the most unexpected features of Amazon's new Kindle Fire was that it shipped with an all-new web browser, Amazon Silk - speeded up '20 times' by the power of Amazon's 'cloud' computing servers.
But the processes the Kindle Fire uses to 'speed things up' are already setting off privacy alarm bells.
British security company Sophos's Chester Wisniewski wrote in a blog, 'If you think Google AdWords and Facebook are watching you, this service is guaranteed to have a record of EVERYTHING you do on the web.'
'Every page they see, every link they follow, every click they make, every ad they see is going to be intermediated by one of the largest server farms on the planet.'
'People who cringe at the privacy and data-mining implications of the Facebook Timeline ought to be just floored by the magnitude of Amazon’s opportunity here.' -Chris Espinosa, a senior employee at Apple
Read the entire article here
Looks like Amazon isn't just going after the Barnes and Noble market, but also Facebook's corner on sales of customer information to marketing companies. I think after Amazon has a captive audience, there is a distinct possibility that in the future the company will block unless a subscription fee is paid for accelerated Silk access to "non-approved" sites.
I know there will always be people that say "I don't have anything to hide" but fortunately the majority of people do not share the same nonchalant exhibitionist attitude and value privacy.
After reading this, I would definitely never buy an AF.
You know they also announced you could shut it off, right? If you are concerned with them watching you, disable it and use the browser normally.
Yep, your porn viewing habits shall be safe with a simple flick of a switch...
Now grandma catching you doing things in your skivvies ... well now, that's an entirely different issue.
bobzdar said:
You know they also announced you could shut it off, right? If you are concerned with them watching you, disable it and use the browser normally.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read the article?
Users who are seriously worried about the power of Amazon's cloud to track, watch and deliver advertising can simply turn the split-browser function off - although the company warns that this will slow things down.
And there goes the 20x browser speed.
Imbroglio said:
Did you read the article?
Users who are seriously worried about the power of Amazon's cloud to track, watch and deliver advertising can simply turn the split-browser function off - although the company warns that this will slow things down.
And there goes the 20x browser speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you just trying to complain for the sake of complaining? If you want the speed boost provided by the caching you'll have to be okay with Amazon having access to your browsing history because that's the way caching works(guess what? your ISP already has that access, so it's not really a loss of privacy).
joenathane said:
Are you just trying to complain for the sake of complaining? If you want the speed boost provided by the caching you'll have to be okay with Amazon having access to your browsing history because that's the way caching works(guess what? your ISP already has that access, so it's not really a loss of privacy).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did not know that I am required to submit my opinions to you before posting them here or be subject to your personal attacks. You have my insincerest apologies.
Imbroglio said:
Did you read the article?
Users who are seriously worried about the power of Amazon's cloud to track, watch and deliver advertising can simply turn the split-browser function off - although the company warns that this will slow things down.
And there goes the 20x browser speed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Facebook, google and, pretty much every other company tracks your data too. It's really not anything new.
Sent from my LG Optimus V using Tapatalk
I don't think it'll be any worse them what google already does with Android.
Sent from my NookColor using xda premium
Kind of sad that everyone is okay with this... I mean I understand, it's already been done by other companies so...-- so what?
But it just feels dirty that everyone is okay with this... Just another step being taken towards to losing our freedoms and privacy, oh well.
Gin1212 said:
Kind of sad that everyone is okay with this... I mean I understand, it's already been done by other companies so...-- so what?
But it just feels dirty that everyone is okay with this... Just another step being taken towards to losing our freedoms and privacy, oh well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no such thing as privacy in the digital age. If you have a cell phone you can be tracked at all times(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html), if you watch digital cable/Netflix/Hulu someone knows what you are watching at all times, credit/debt card there is a record of everything you buy, Facebook/MySpace/Dating websites... and so-on, son-on, etc, etc...
Anyway, in the case of Amazons silk browser, you can turn off the caching and use it like a regular browser if you have "privacy concerns", so there is absolutely no reason to raise an alarm here and run after Amazon with pitch forks and fire.
joenathane said:
There is no such thing as privacy in the digital age. If you have a cell phone you can be tracked at all times(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html), if you watch digital cable/Netflix/Hulu someone knows what you are watching at all times, credit/debt card there is a record of everything you buy, Facebook/MySpace/Dating websites... and so-on, son-on, etc, etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Big BROTHER is alive and well...Orwell was a genius!!!
joenathane said:
There is no such thing as privacy in the digital age. If you have a cell phone you can be tracked at all times(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/business/media/26privacy.html), if you watch digital cable/Netflix/Hulu someone knows what you are watching at all times, credit/debt card there is a record of everything you buy, Facebook/MySpace/Dating websites... and so-on, son-on, etc, etc...
Anyway, in the case of Amazons silk browser, you can turn off the caching and use it like a regular browser if you have "privacy concerns", so there is absolutely no reason to raise an alarm here and run after Amazon with pitch forks and fire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I understand this, nor do I think Amazon should be punished for it. Merely stating that the future is a scary thing and little by little -- we are accepting these terms for "safety" reasons.
Gin1212 said:
And I understand this, nor do I think Amazon should be punished for it. Merely stating that the future is a scary thing and little by little -- we are accepting these terms for "safety" reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But most that complain are the ones that want the simplicity and speed that giving up those "freedom" (as called by others) and "safety" provides us.
People want speed... along came cookies so information you had to enter to get the site info was already saved....
People wanted more speed... so along came caching of sites and data... so next time you wanted access it was readily available... (this is what proxy servers initially did)
People wanted even more speed and "safety"... proxy servers were modified and hacked to make "Big Brother" think you were accessing a site from somewhere else...
Fast Forward to today... Internet use has boomed... along with it people are learning more.... SORT OF...
MOST people only understand enough for the alarms to go off in their heads when they see someone advertise they are proxying items to increase speed.
When they proxy a previous site what they are doing is storing a page that was accessed so next time someone wants that page they can save however hops on the internet it takes to get to that page... sometimes as many as 30 hops...
NOTE: a "hop" is a device on the internet that routes the data traffic to the next device to eventually get to the information requested by the user.
I find it ironic that an Apple exec was complaining - that's rich:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/20/apple-iphone-users-beware-location-tracking/
Imbroglio said:
I did not know that I am required to submit my opinions to you before posting them here or be subject to your personal attacks. You have my insincerest apologies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It wasn't a personal attack it was a simple counter point, stop being butt hurt.
Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk
BTW, you guys know that Skyfire and Opera have done this for a long time already, right? Same caveats, they're seeing your data traffic etc.
Koushik just posted this on his g+ page:
Heads up. Google's latest Chromecast update*intentionallybreaks AllCast. They disabled 'video_playback' support from the ChromeCast application.Given that this is the second time they've purposefully removed/disabled[1] the ability to play media from external sources, it confirms some of my suspicions that I have had about the Chromecast developer program:The policy seems to be a heavy handed approach, where only approved content will be played through the device. The Chromecast will probably not be indie developer friendly. The Google TV team is only prepared with media companies.I'd strongly suggest holding off on buying a Chromecast until we can see how Google chooses to move forward on third party applications. There are also other (open) platforms and stacks that one could buy/support as well. (LeapCast, NodeCast, etc)
Link: https://plus.google.com/110558071969009568835/posts/ZeHgRXS6AZs
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4
That's really sad, but I'm happy I didn't bought my Chromecast yet.
I'll buy a Raspberry Pi, Roku or a good android usb stick instead.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4
I have one. Back to Roku.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
We've known this from the beginning. And btw, it isn't that it is not indie developer friendly, it is that is not going to be hackable friendly. Google has to keep the device locked down if they want to big media companies to bring their content to it. That doesn't mean smaller companies can't develop for it. I don't see any reason Google will not approve of indie developer apps. It's just they aren't going to kill the product by making it completely open. Netflix and every other media company would leave in about a second if they did that.
bozzykid said:
We've known this from the beginning. And btw, it isn't that it is not indie developer friendly, it is that is not going to be hackable friendly. Google has to keep the device locked down if they want to big media companies to bring their content to it. That doesn't mean smaller companies can't develop for it. I don't see any reason Google will not approve of indie developer apps. It's just they aren't going to kill the product by making it completely open. Netflix and every other media company would leave in about a second if they did that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why are you talking about hackable friendly?
Koushik didn't hack the device, he just released an app for the device. And he did it without using Chromecast SDK. So if what Koushik said is true then yes, it is not indie developer friendly.
If Google decide to don't make it open in order to keep big media companies supporting the device, I'm sure that lot of potential customers will decide to not buy the Chromecast.
Let's see what happens.
Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 4
titooo7 said:
Why are you talking about hackable friendly?
Koushik didn't hack the device, he just released an app for the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That isn't true. He used a hack to get around the whitelist app restrictions. He wasn't using the API in a standard way. He's making a lot of assumptions based on Google closing 2 holes in the latest update. I see no reason Google will disallow apps that work using the official API when it is final.
---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------
titooo7 said:
If Google decide to don't make it open in order to keep big media companies supporting the device, I'm sure that lot of potential customers will decide to not buy the Chromecast.
Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt that is true. Maybe some geeks around here. But not the general public. They will buy it to stream Netflix, Pandora, etc from their phone. There aren't many people actually wanting to stream downloaded movies from their phone/tablet. That is not the target audience buying it at Best Buy.
bozzykid said:
I doubt that is true. Maybe some geeks around here. But not the general public. They will buy it to stream Netflix, Pandora, etc from their phone. There aren't many people actually wanting to stream downloaded movies from their phone/tablet. That is not the target audience buying it at Best Buy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is definitely one of the reasons i bought it. At least for a future possibility anyway.
Sent from my Nexus 10
You knew it was only a matter of time before someone figured out a way to fill their wallets off users by annoying them to death..
http://bgr.com/2014/02/12/chromecast-ads-coming-soon/
I will copy and paste a reply I left about this on Reddit
I can see it now for apps like Plex when Casting goes free (whenever that happens)
"We will Cast your content right after this short advertisement"
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree, the trouble is that video content doesn't really work like software. Every new episode would be a "major" release. It's not like you can release a movie in 2-minute segments. Well, maybe if you're J.J. Abrams...
I don't mind ads as long as I have the option to pay to get rid of them. Even Netflix could opt for a cheaper ad-supported tier if they wanted to.
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
[HOWTO] Chromecast/Netflix outside USA without VPN
Ad Blocking - DD-WRT Wiki
bhiga said:
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or that too.
Brightcove is pretty big VOD provider, but yeah, that would work as long as the stuff you want to watch isn't hosted there.
YouTube could be uber sneaky and host the ads on YouTube itself so then it would be all-or-nothing.
On the plus side, YouTube could become the resurrection of AdCritic. I miss that site...
Talk about a blast from the past. Have you seen -
http://creativity-online.com/
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware, and consumers just don't want to pay much for software (which is why the old PC software business model is gradually failing, and you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Google aren't the only ones considering advertising. Mozilla just announced that they're going to start putting ads in Firefox, inserted in the page of recent sites that appears when you open a new tab.
DJames1 said:
you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The worst thing I've encountered so far with the subscription model is how it virally forces others to buy in.
Case-in-point, I got an Adobe InDesign file that I needed to look at. Fine, I have InDesign CS6. I load it up, and it tells me I can't open it because it was made in InDesign CS7.5
At least Microsoft has Office viewers. I was stuck with the InDesign thing - either go back and ask for a flattened version or subscribe, luckily I had the opportunity to just ignore it.
Like freedom, free software truly isn't free - at least not as long as people need to eat and pay bills. Renewable energy and homesteading may be the zero-cash way, but then we won't have enough time to code!
Maybe we need to come up with some "business productive" games. People-powered OCR Hangman?
Well I'll repeat something else I said
I'm guilty of being an old timer. I came into Android with 1.5 (CupCake).. The Market and Android community used to be a thriving community of freeware, innovation and great discussion.. I just hate what it turned into. It's like a gold rush and the end user is the gold and everyone is trying to sell you their bridge. I just hate how it got like this. I don't mind paying for stuff but it seem anymore it's a constant and quality has taken a back seat. It's like people stopped doing this for fun and a hobby and started trying to make a business.. Anything that is anything that is in demand someone will find a way to charge you for now a days.
P.S. I don't mind subscription services like Netflix etc. Dumb stuff like Plex Pass is a joke though. You're subbing monthly to unlock in-app features. Doesn't make any sense..
DJames1 said:
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we really know that?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...tions-despite-strong-nexus-5-chromecast-sales
Biggest seller or a best seller in Q4 2013, depending how you take that article.
The packaging probably costs nearly as much as the product.
True, when it's easy for lots of people to make apps, the market gets crowded and confused.
Doesn't help that the rating system doesn't take into account that people use ratings maliciously to complain or penalize the developer for things often that are user error or out of the dev's control.
PlexPass gives other things like their cloud thing, but yeah, it is kind of "pay to be in the beta club" but hey, if it works for them, funds their continued development, and people are willing to pay, I don't have to like it, but I can't really criticize them either.
And with the $75 PlexPass lifetime, it's the same cost as a mid-range piece of software.
On Google profits, I'm sure Chromecast sold well, we can see from the lack of rootable units on shelves...
Of course they won't tell us how much they're making (or losing) on each sale. I bet most of the profit was Google Play.
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
bhiga said:
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/7070288
Job's open.
My issue is not with the ads being there, this is a Google device so ads were to be expected be it from Google or someone else. My issue is with it being video ads, my DSL line is shaped during the day and I don't need this hogging the bandwidth preloading videos while I am trying to browse the web. I wish my country would get "first" world in terms of broadband just so this [email protected] stops bugging me...
/fingers crossed Eureka guys ad-block this .
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google is losing money on the Chromecast hardware, at least not deliberately. But I do think they priced it not to make any money on the hardware.
Think about it:
- Google is not a hardware company. They deliberately try to stay out of the hardware business because they realize that the margins are really low. They make their money on fees and services. They only introduce hardware products as an enabler to get new things started.
- They are undercutting everybody else on price to have the cheapest brand-name media streamer. It's in the same price range as the cheapest Chinese no-name Android TV sticks.
- They introduced the Chromecast with an offer for 3 months free Netflix, which is 2 months more than Netflix normally offers. That's a $16 value for which Google undoubtedly compensated Netflix, although probably at a discounted rate. When Chromecast sales took off the first day, Google canceled that offer immediately, indicating both that they had allocated a limited budget for it, and that the price of the Chromecast would not bear it without losing money.
I'm very confused. So someone created a SDK for developers to include ads on Chromecast apps and people here are upset by this? Please tell me why.
We should keep in mind here, it's not Google inserting ads here, it's Brightcove who is enabling developers to insert video ads compatible with Chromecast. As the title of the linked article says, "Third Party Provides Way For Developers To Add Ads To Chromecast"
I doubt Google will see any of this revenue as Brightcove built this technology using the Cast SDK for their engine.
The key part here, and I could be totally off-base, is that it sounds like a library that a developer would add to their app - essentially using Brightcove's "Cast" function and player. That makes sense since Brightcove has an HTML5 player already in use by sites on the web.
For example, instead of developing my own HTML5 page that Chromecast would go to in order to play a video, I would just trigger the Brightcove "Cast" function, passing it the location and my key/ID. Chromecast would then run the Brightcove player app which plays the video content I chose with inserted ads. The fact that it's being advertised as "seamless" tells me the ads are being stitched into the video content and delivered as a single stream, rather than a playlist drawing from separate sources.
Aside from ad revenue, the huge plus for developers here is that Chromecast-enabled apps wouldn't even need to use the Cast SDK directly, because they're using the Brightcove casting engine. That means the specific Chromecast-enabled app wouldn't need to be on the whitelist or register with Google because it's really the Brightcove app that Chromecast is running. Brightcove is responsible for making sure the engine keeps up with Chromecast updates and changes so that's another burden off the developer.
A "no ads" version of an app that uses the Brightcove player may use the same request to Brightcove, just with a flag saying not to insert the ads. The "gotcha" here is that because Brightcove is the player for the video content the app uses, blocking Brightcove or the Brightcove app would block all casted video from the app.
Of course Brightcove probably shares in the ad revenue, so maybe they won't allow developers to use their engine without ads, in which case the theorized advantages to the developer go away for a "no ads" version as they'd still need to register and use the Cast SDK directly.
But likely Brightcove may take the gamble that enough people are cheap and use ad-supported versions that it covers the paid apps that aren't showing ads. Or maybe part of their developer agreement makes the developer pay for non-ad versions somehow. Just theorizing from the business perspective...
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you Sir, these are true words. I agree you to 100%
styckx said:
Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The PC software model had very few ongoing costs. You boxed up a CD and after that, the costs you incurred were mostly just support costs. Streaming video is not cheap. If you plan on charging once in a lifetime, then you will be out of business very quickly.
@DJames1 - those are good points, I'd like to counter with what the market will bear.
After the Google TV and Nexus Q flops, I don't think that Chromecast could have done better at a higher price point, even if it started out with more apps and features. I think that they had to plan for this price point and knew that going in.
As for the initial Netflix deal, I don't know if anyone besides the accountants know how that worked. Not a personal criticism, just saying - Netflix has a vested interest in DIAL succeeding. It makes secure delivery easy for them. Their revenue models for this sort of thing aren't trivial, see Roku's license deal for example.
Netflix will give newcomers a free month for watching Philip DeFranco on YouTube.
So between their giveaway budget for promotions, surely compensated in part by the content providers and anything paid back by Google in the form of free advertising, I think that entire initial allocation for Netflix with Google was all virtual money, if such a thing exists. Iow, lots of return on investment on both sides but actual investment costs in real dollars - closer to zero.
@bhiga - agree. This reminds me of the AirPush SDK, and quite a few others who seek out devs with revenue schemes.
Pretty simply, after seeing the requirements and the limitations for normal html5 development on the Chromecast, and paying my $5 admission fee.... it's ridiculous.
So if anyone wants to jumpstart their development of an app for Android or Chrome and they already have a Receiver app hosted on an https site (apparently even Google Docs will do), I'll publish your app myself.
Here's a list of things I'd need to know for publishing a Receiver and Sender app. Message me there, or here, if you're interested. I try to keep my Hangouts invites visible.
Things to note:
In Chrome, both a Sender URL and a Receiver URL are required. The sender can be site specific (e.g. if your application is hosted at mysubdomain.site.com/folder/page.html, the sender URL will get shortened to mysubdomain.site.com.)
For the above reason, you can't send Web requests from locally hosted sites. Google needs direct access to them, so they forbid it.
The Receiver URL must be a single page, however. This is what gets displayed on the screen. Because of the restrictions of the Chromecast, even Google considers it safe to assume your content should be hosted in a single 1280x720 rectangle.
All Receiver URLs must go to an https site. There's a way to use Google Drive/Docs to house a Receiver via https. You'll probably have to search around the Chrome store for a reliable Google Drive html editor if you need to go this route, so I would recommend Drive only as a last resort.
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's ridiculous that all apps, regardless of target audience, must pass through Google's censors, yes. Previously the only way to have an app available was to publicly list it on their website. No developer account, no app testing... Period. Unlike the Google Play Store, this account is mandatory to do anything.
idone said:
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep.
Not just to publish but to start developing, debugging, or testing.
Google Corporation has recently sent me a threat over email, added a strike to my Google+ account for daring to post this message online.
So I guess I'll amend my words. I'll "partner" with anyone who wants to publish or develop or test a Chromecast app. In said partnership I'll assume no ownership of your stuff. You make it, I'll do everything in my power to make sure you can run it on any Chromecast you want.
If Google hates me, I must be doing some good.
Final update:
Google recently realized their loophole here and closed it, adding a clause to their developer agreement that states that helping anyone with unfortunate circumstances can get you removed from their whitelist.
I guess my developing days are over, and remember: buy a Kindle Fire Stick instead!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk
Yet another reason I regret buying a CC