Another device heads to the Google graveyard.

  • superterran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’d rather my TV run smoothly, crippling performance to save $40 is not something I’m interested in, personally.

    • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The response time to my phone is laggy/janky at times but the picture is crisp and clean once it’s going. If the picture itself has issues you have bad internet or a bad unit.

      I’ve got probably 6 or 7 chromecasts I use between my home and my parents’ home. Some are 5+ years old. Never had a single picture issue.

      • superterran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Comparing it to a Shield or Apple TV it’s clear how weak it was. In fairness, seems like they could just sell both but of course it’s important that Google have a performant offering

        • SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It didn’t need to compete with them. From a consumer perspective it just needed to be functional at a fraction of the cost, which it was.

          I hate google at this point but chromecast did exactly what it needed to do. Always have one in my backpack when I travel. Sometimes “good enough” is all people want.