The Chromecast is going away after more than a decade in Google’s hardware portfolio, with the company phasing it out to make room for the new Google TV Streamer. In 2013, the timing was perfect for the Chromecast’s success. Most TVs of that era had rudimentary entertainment apps that were often slow, so beaming content from your phone to a TV made a lot of sense.
But times have changed. With the Chromecast with Google TV in 2020, Google pivoted in the opposite direction with a much more traditional, lean-back entertainment experience. Casting took a back seat to carousels of content recommendations, and native apps returned.
And yet, even right after the announcement, some of our commenters were frustrated that Google had settled for just a 22 percent boost in CPU speed. There’s a good chance this thing will still benchmark underneath the fairly ancient Shield. Why not just drop a Tensor chip into it?
It comes down to cost and keeping the Streamer at a price that’s acceptable for average consumers.
Chris WelchWe don’t know if there’s functionality that would actually convince people to buy pricier price points than this, but the market is generally telling us right now people are probably not ready for it, Govil-Pai said.
I have been quite skeptical initially of the Chromecast, but after I purchased one to stream HBO to my non-so-smart former TV I have grown to appreciate its utility and simplicity. While I understand the reasoning behind the decision to discontinue it (nowadays TVs ship with Google TV and Chromecast protocols built-in; I myself have abandoned my old Chromecast when I upgraded the TV last year), it still feels a bit sad and disappointing.
As for its replacement… It looks like one of the ugliest devices I’ve seen, and its name matches its bland design. The Chromecast was inconspicuous, easy to hide behind the TV screen and to connect. This thing sticks out like a sore thumb, is more expensive, and needs a power cord on top of that!
I’ve seen many people complaining in the comments that this new device is underpowered. While I’m not technical enough to comment on that, from the interview above it does seem that Google has adopted a contradictory market strategy in this case: it allegedly wants to match a gold tier performance
, to offer a premium device basically, but it shied away from top specs to cut costs and keep the price relatively low.
The Streamer has some intriguing additions, such as Matter support and a Thread border router for smart home controls, but these seem like rather advanced features that few people are actively interested in – and those that are already have smart home hubs. If I recall correctly, Samsung even has Thread routers in some of their Smart TVs, removing the need for an extra hub altogether.
Google is positioning the Streamer in an awkward middle ground, not cheap enough to be an impulse purchase with good utility, yet not powerful enough to fulfill the promises of Gemini AI experiences – and that’s a recipe for failure. It would have made more sense to keep the Chromecast around for the ‘average consumer’ who just wants to add some apps and a slicker interface to a cheap TV, and design a powerful Streamer for AI enthusiasts. But I guess even Google is uncertain whether generative AI will generate enough interest to attract new customers and provide meaningful value to them.
Post a Comment