But I agree that Chromecast gets things just right. I want the ability to "throw" an image or video from my PC, tablet, or phone to my big dumb screen on the wall--whatever proprietary smarts the TV manufacturer is trying to make me interact with--and that's exactly what Chromecast does.
However, it's terribly advertised, and it still annoyingly says "beta" all over stuff. I feel like I bought it out of some kind of anonymised side-door at the back of the warehouse.
Maybe it's different where you are, but where i live the chromecast is literally useless due to the restriction and nobody has one.
Why the Chromecast has the ability to run it's own Wi-Fi network to only connect to another is a design decision I don't understand. The other parts of it are great, but it's a shame that for such a small and portable device, it's such a pain in the ass to use away from home.
I can certainly see how for some people it's not useful, but its of people do have reliable internet access where they'd want to use it and aren't limited by that requirement.
They have some products which were nearly perfect. For instance, the Chromecast is more or less finished. It's not intended to be a game console or something to have apps in on a television. It's an extremely cheap device that allows you to stream a tab or from apps. That vision is well-executed, because it is cheap and works well for streaming. Of course, some people will have gripes about the Chromecast, but the fact that a device that looked incredibly boring at the start is now a pretty big success indicates that for many people it's exactly the product that they want.