I have to agree with this. Tried taking the Chromecast with me on holiday. At a base level, the Chromecast requires constant connection to an external Wi-Fi router. So even if you want to stream content that you have LOCALLY on your device, you can't, not without a lot of messing around.

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.

While there's other stuff you can do with a Chromecast, and it would make sense to make it usable locally for screen mirroring, the main selling point is internet streaming, which isn't limited by the requirement for an internet connection.

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.

Ya, it's so useless it's one of the best selling gadgets on Amazon! Not saying you're lying, but to rule something out as "useless" just because it doesn't work for you (and the closure of your acquaintances) just makes you look stupid!

A lot of people live in places where a telescope is literally useless (for astronomical purposes, anyway). Does that make it a worthless product?

False analogy. First, the parent didn't state that it was, in ask scenarios, a useless product. S/he said out was useless where s/he lives due to a design decision. Secondly, we can't control the atmosphere, but Google can certainly control the design of the Chromecast.