I own the 4K Chromecast and it's pretty good. But in my opinion "Chromecast" was always a bad brand name. I guess it originated in the browser, but it's so far removed from that now; "Chrome" no longer makes sense.

I agree, but they're not just rebranding. They also doubled the price, ostensibly because they changed the form factor and added "AI". I don't need a visible device or AI just to stream YouTube or other video apps.

They explicitly call it "premium" in the launch page. Time to move upmarket in the hopes of actually making a profit.

Roku sells dongles at the same price point, without many other services with which to subsidize the hardware. I am sure Roku monetizes the users in the same ways as Google can, so I do not understand how Google cannot make a profit from them.

> Google cannot make a profit from them

*enough profit

Remember that Google has sunset many products because those profits pale in comparison to search and advertising.

Sure, but I do not see how that improves by focusing on the “premium” hardware. Unless the box is actually cheaper, I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit.

People just want to watch Netflix or Disney with minimum friction. A box that is twice the price of the competition, with questionably useful AI features does not seem a winning play.

> I would expect the AI capabilities to cost more (either on cloud infrastructure or higher performance chips). Worsening their margin per unit.

This is a problem for the next exec after the one behind this has happily parachuted to his next position before the chickens come home to roost on things like "long-term costs" and "fit with the overarching corporate strategy".

How does search make them money? They are paying everyone to be their default search. Isn't search just an input of data to push ads based on the search as well as taking the user with more metrics based on the search query?

It can, but it has to support all the ads infrastructure that is about to collapse.

About to collapse? How so?

>I am sure Roku monetizes the users in the same ways as Google can, so I do not understand how Google cannot make a profit from them.

The same way Roku does not make a profit from them.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ROKU/roku/profit-m...

Probably true, but it's not like "Google TV Streamer" is any better.

There’s gonna be about 12 more names/products before they settle on something.

Nest TV, Gemini TV...

Gemini Ultra Nest TV with Chrome Cast Ultra™

Yeah that's just an awful name, could've just gone with a streamlined version of what they have, e.g. "Google Cast".

"Google TV Streamer" pretty exactly describes what this thing does. It's from Google, and it streams things to your TV.

"Chromecast" was more puzzling. What's "Chrome"? Isn't that a browser? What does this have to do with anything? And what is "cast"? Does it broadcast something? Etc.

You could say the same about "Chromebooks" -- but that doesn't matter anymore. Thanks to Chromebooks dominating schools and Google's general ubiquity, almost everyone knows what Chrome is if you've used a computer in the past decade.

The only market who wouldn't know is the same crowd that would never use a smart TV anyway.

On the other hand, "Google TV Streamer" also describes Chromecasts and is immensely less memorable or distinctive.

It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap.

To be fair, "MacBook" is basically a portmanteau of "Macintosh Notebook", so it's really not that far removed from "Apple Laptop".

But the point is that they're giving up distinctive, widely-recognized branding for a bland, flavorless alternative

Google TV was also the name of their failed settop box strategy like a dozen years ago.

I think they gave out one from Logitech (with a keyboard!) at an I/O one year.

> It'd be like if Apple decided to rebrand Macbook to be "Apple Laptop". Sure, it's accurate. It's also crap.

You get used to it. They also called the Apple smartwatch "Apple Watch" from the beginning, and nobody is complaining. So "Apple Laptop" or "Apple Phone" would be just as good.

Wait til you hear about Play Store. Been over a decade and I still cringe.

Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end. Seems like the obvious choice. Is it boring? Sure.

Does it immediately tell you absolutely everything you likely need to know if you're not already buying an Apple TV? Yes.

Google TV is already the name of their software platform (based on the Android TV OS) that TVs run

Yes but that's really the same as this just in a separate box. Makes total sense to bring it under the same naming tree.

I'd call it "Google TV Box" though. Streaming is too contrived and not everyone knows what it means. Xiaomi use the Box naming too and that seems to go down well.

Or maybe Google TV Hub if it has Matter and/or smart home functionality.

Agreed. My initial guess was that the Google TV Streaming name had something to do with a Twitch-like streaming platform.

> Confused as to why "Google TV" didn't win out in the end.

The reason Google TV didn't win (and the reason why it kind of did) is that Google TV already won for something else closely related, which this is being associated with:

https://tv.google/

Google TV did win, didn't it? "Modern" Chromecasts (the ones that include a remote and which have a local UI) have Google TV, and are sold as such.

https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv

(If not, then: What am I missing?)

That doesn't really matter, everyone know what a Chromecast is, that is worth far more than a descriptive name.

It was a good brand name when it launched, but not for how it evolved.

It was a device that made it possible to cast video from your Chrome browser. When it was released in 2013 it reinforced the superior utility of Chrome which had just began to dominate browser market share.

Embedding the Google Cast protocol directly into video streaming apps and having the Chromecast brand name coexist alongside the Android TV and Google TV brand names made things confusing.

The earlier Chromecasts did run a cut down Chrome on cut down ChromeOS. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:chr...

> since it has the full-screen menu-based interface and remote

Most impotantly, it has ads!

Yeah that's really what kills it for me. Why do I have ads on a device I paíd for??

This drives me nuts. When I first got the original fire tv it was fast and had no ads. I could easily recommend it. Now it’s stuffed to the brim with ads and is incredibly slow. When this one dies I’ll likely not buy a hardware device from Amazon ever again.

Yep that's what I have now. Same story. It started with ever bigger ads for prime shows, then ads for shows on other streamers I don't subscribe to. And now half-screen apps for chocolates and perfumes etc. In Spain by the way.

Also now I have to pay extra to skip ads on prime :(

I'm thinking of getting an Apple TV but considering how expensive it is I'm waiting for the next version. I don't want to pay top dollar for the 2022 version.

At least on a Roku you can block the ads with a PiHole

Yeah sadly this doesn't work on a Fire TV Stick. It ignores DHCP and uses its own DNS resolver. Probably DoH or something, I didn't dig that deep into it.

Exactly. They already killed the OG Chromecast with the "with Google TV" Chromecast.

Now they are just killing the Chromecast branding for now. But they've been known to kill a brand only to resurrect it a few years later.

Chromecast is a terrible brand. It immediately confuses the customer. Why does my Chromecast not have Chrome on it? Who thought of that?

Chromecast originally allowed to send a Chrome tab to your TV. The brand definitely made sense.

I have one of these and I am going to be blunt: I just can't figure out the privacy. At. All. I have kids (and their many friends) running through the house using TVs and streaming etc and I don't want them browsing through my YouTube viewing history or filling it up with their dumb kid shows nor accessing things I don't think are appropriate at random times.

But for whatever reason when I plug in the 4K with Google it's the annoying nagbot that refuses to do anything unless I'm logged in (not to mention my password is not exactly easy to type using the remote) and then it drags in my whole YouTube history and the device is useless and nags you to hell when not logged in.

It's so much easier and less insane to just use Roku. I can throw YouTube videos at the Roku without being logged in and the device works just fine. Google seems to be constantly changing things and I have no interest in playing wack-a-mole with whatever thing they decide to change this week.

Roku's just work and they rarely change. That trust just does not exist with Google's products.

I feel that way about casting in general.

The prompt to login whenever you cast to an arbitrary TV feels like a footgun. I don't want whatever community I'm watching with to know what the algorithm thinks I like. The distance between "annoying" and "embarrassing" is directly correlated to who is in the room to observe.

Exactly! For the Chromecast at our cabin, the fact that people cast from their own phone is a feature. No shared logins between families staying there, no need to log in and out from some additional device.

Yup, I agree. They really should not have called this "with Google TV" thing a "Chromecast" in the first place. The earlier Chromecast devices were so simple and extremely pleasant to use. They did their thing extremely well. It really felt like a bait and switch when I unboxed this and plugged in. It doesn't even show up as a cast destination in YouTube when not logged in while every single Roku in the house is there and does what the old Chromecasts used to do. To be fair a remote for pause and volume seemed like a natural addition, because that had been a bit clunky with the older Chromecasts when doing like family watching. I also really liked the Chromecast Audio while it worked. After this "with Google TV" thing Chromecast moved from one of my regular recommends to family etc to never being mentioned.

I have had a few generations of Chromecast, including the OG from ten years ago.

The latest one in my bunch has a remote and menus and stuff, and is what I presume y'all are talking about. I've seen it referred to as CCWGTV.

"Privacy" seems easy-enough and is not so dissimilar from "privacy" on any other shared computer: Just set up profiles. One for you, one or more for kids, one for guests, or whatever makes sense.

For your own profile, set a PIN. (The included d-pad remote makes PIN entry easy-enough.)

Aaaand... done?

Mine also does old-school phone-driven Chromecast stuff just fine with zero profiles logged in -- while it is just sitting there at the profile-select screen. In this mode, it accepts Youtube and Spotify and whatever else I throw at it.

---

Am I doing something wrong?