Google Chromecast replacement announced, Google TV Streamer

[sweetchaos]

Google officially announced the Google TV Streamer, which will launch next month for US$100.

Official Link:

Google TV Streamer (4K)

Google TV Streamer is the next-generation, 4K TV streaming device from Google.

store.google.com

The Google TV Streamer is indeed positioned as a replacement for the Chromecast, offering similar functionality but with several improvements and new features. Here's how it compares to the previous Chromecast:

1. Improved Hardware: The Google TV Streamer features more powerful hardware, which should result in better performance and smoother operation compared to the Chromecast.

2. Enhanced Interface: It runs the latest version of Google TV, providing a more comprehensive and user-friendly interface for browsing and accessing content.

3. Remote Control: Unlike the basic Chromecast, the Google TV Streamer comes with a voice-enabled remote control, making navigation and content selection easier.

4. Smart Home Integration: The new device includes a Google Home panel, allowing users to control smart home devices directly from their TV.

5. Thread Support: The Google TV Streamer includes built-in Thread radio for improved smart home device communication, which wasn't available in the Chromecast.

6. Higher Storage Capacity: It offers 32GB of storage, which is more than the previous Chromecast models.

7. Casting Capabilities: The Google TV Streamer retains the ability to cast content from mobile devices and computers, maintaining the core functionality of the Chromecast.

8. 4K Streaming: Like the Chromecast with Google TV (4K), the new Streamer supports 4K resolution.

9. Dolby Vision and Atmos: The device supports these advanced video and audio formats, similar to the higher-end Chromecast models.

10. Ethernet Support: It includes an Ethernet port for wired internet connection, which was only available on some Chromecast models.

While the Google TV Streamer offers these improvements, it's worth noting that it's priced higher than the basic Chromecast models. However, it provides a more complete streaming experience with its dedicated interface and remote control, making it a more direct competitor to devices like the Apple TV 4K.

In essence, the Google TV Streamer does everything the Chromecast did, but with enhanced features and performance, making it a more versatile and capable streaming device.

Discuss!

 

[Oso Polar]

In essence, its CPU is 22% faster (which will not be noticeable), it has twice more RAM (it theory should make it faster), has 4 times more storage (the change that really matters, previous one never had any free space) and has Ethernet. It also has some smart home features (IMHO they are just useless garbage added in it to annoy people and promote Google's dumb "smart" products). Also, on pre-order it is just about 10 times more expensive than previous 4K Chromecast with Google TV - which was about $11 dollars AFAIR considering the price of Netflix subscription that came with it. I guess I'm not in a hurry to upgrade.

 

[win]

Day late and a dollar short when Apple TV has been out forever and has a way better ui. Not to mention apple as a company isn't a rent-seeking zombie corporation like google is.

 

[dweeeeb2]

It will probably also support xbox streaming, but I have no info about it other than its Microsoft's big push for gaming everywhere.

 

[somebodyelse]

Not to mention apple as a company isn't a rent-seeking zombie corporation like google is.

Given the rulings about anticompetitive behaviour by both their app stores I'd say that one is up for debate. You might argue Google is more rent-seeking than Apple, but Apple goes more for vendor lock-in than Google.

 

[Morla]

It's the thread support for me. Much easier to share controls (lights, etc) than with mobile or nest hub.

 

[VientoB]

Will it replace the Chromecast Audio, though?

 

[threni]

I bought an old - perhaps the original - chromecast back when I had a sucky non-smart tv. Since getting an Android-powered Sony TV it's been in a drawer; probably I'll never use it again. I must admit, I'm puzzled about the use case these days. Isn't every tv built in the last 10 years capable - internally - of supporting apps, youtube/netflix/etc? Faster CPU? Surely it's either fast enough to stream video or it's not? Storage? To store what? How many movies/tv shows are you going to fit into 32 gigs? One thing which was poor on the my chromecast was streaming video internally (rather that pointing it at a URL on the net). I guess that might be better with a faster device but my Android tv - which is best described as being like the world's largest mid-range phone - cope with having a video playing app installed, pointing at a raspberry pi with a locally attached 2.5" hard drive.

 

[VientoB]

I still use two Chromecast Audio in my house. Like a Wiim but smaller and older (and were cheaper). They shouldn't have discontinued them they're great.

 

[Oso Polar]

I'm puzzled about the use case these days. Isn't every tv built in the last 10 years capable - internally - of supporting apps, youtube/netflix/etc? Faster CPU? Surely it's either fast enough to stream video or it's not? Storage? To store what?

Use case - to have an *independent* full featured media player that is not a crappy smart TV whose apps stop being supported after a couple of years. And which work differently on each TV model. Storage for apps! Well, some space to use for caching data will also help but mostly for apps. On the previous generation, Chromecast with Google TV, there were 8 GB of storage. Except about 4 GB were already occupied by OS itself. The remaining space is not enough to install many apps - may be a dozen or so, and that's it.

 

[somebodyelse]

Isn't every tv built in the last 10 years capable - internally - of supporting apps, youtube/netflix/etc?

Good luck finding a 10 year old TV where those apps are still working - usually something will stop the apps working much sooner than that. TV manufacturers are worse than phone manufacturers at long term support, and then there's the issue of hardware codec support, strangely not mentioned in any of the coverage of the new Chromecast.

 

[win]

isn't every tv built in the last 10 years capable - internally - of supporting apps, youtube/netflix/etc?

I have a samsung frame TV, and whenever I have to navigate its menus it's painfully slow. In fact, other than the cool art mode feature it has, I really would prefer it to be a dumb TV.

 

[threni]

Good luck finding a 10 year old TV where those apps are still working - usually something will stop the apps working much sooner than that. TV manufacturers are worse than phone manufacturers at long term support, and then there's the issue of hardware codec support, strangely not mentioned in any of the coverage of the new Chromecast.

I was talking about smart/android tvs though. Sure, I had a dumb tv which supported iPlayer but which eventually stopped working. But an Android tv isn't going to suddenly stop supporting Android apps and there are a zillion video players, some open source, which aren't going anywhere.

 

[threni]

Use case - to have an *independent* full featured media player that is not a crappy smart TV whose apps stop being supported after a couple of years. And which work differently on each TV model. Storage for apps! Well, some space to use for caching data will also help but mostly for apps. On the previous generation, Chromecast with Google TV, there were 8 GB of storage. Except about 4 GB were already occupied by OS itself. The remaining space is not enough to install many apps - may be a dozen or so, and that's it.

Android apps don't work differently on different tv models, and having just the one tv I wouldn't care if they did. This new device is about 20% of the price I paid for my tv, and who's to say IT will be working/supported in ten years!

 

[popej]

But an Android tv isn't going to suddenly stop supporting Android apps

First you wont get security updates. Then you will notice it becomes slow with new apps. Then you will notice, that some new standards like AV1 aren't supported by hardware. Finally you will find that your Android is 32-bit version, while everyone moved to 64-bit.

It is nice while it works, but if not, then you can buy inexpensive TV box. Sure, it will have the same problems in a few years

 

[PjV]

We have 3 Chromecast TV dongles, 2 at home and 1 for travelling.
I don't see myself replacing any of those, there are 0 features I'm missing now....
Only if one dies (or the travelling dongle is lost), then I might buy the new one

 

[somebodyelse]

I was talking about smart/android tvs though. Sure, I had a dumb tv which supported iPlayer but which eventually stopped working. But an Android tv isn't going to suddenly stop supporting Android apps and there are a zillion video players, some open source, which aren't going anywhere.

If it supported iPlayer it wasn't a dumb TV. Not all manufacturers use Android as the OS. Even for those that do, @popej has explained the problems as they age.

 

[ZolaIII]

OTG support for DAC or USB thumb drive or disc and it will be longer supported and clean in comparison to most if not all TV boxes. It's still modest Amologic SoC inside with modest performance gains and deticated fixed deciding logic. If you want to play games and in generally have small tablet easy enough to carry around which can be found for around 320~350 $/€ last year's Lenovo Legion Y700 is worth looking at.
Personally I will wait for something similar with AV1 decoding support (QC S 8 Gen 2 or MTK Dimensity 8300 minimum).

 

[popej]

Rumor is that Google streamer is based on Amlogic S905x5 with AV1 support.

Since my Smart TV became to old to conveniently use streaming apps, I have tried some cheap Android boxes attached to AVR. Chromecast with Google TV is the most usable of them all, probably the only one, where HDMI-CEC works as it should. The new release seems to be a big improvement: more RAM, Ethernet, probably new hardware decoders, maybe finally current Android version. Not the reason to upgrade immediately, but tempting.

 

[Rednaxela]

It’s a beauty.

I take it the microphones can’t be physically switched off? This would be something that would worry me. At least initially. Until realizing there’s around ten iDevices in the house that don’t offer this either.