Roku Sticks It to Chromecast with $50 Streaming Stick http://news.yahoo.com/roku-sticks-chromecast-50-streaming-200248492.html
Roku Sticks It to Chromecast with $50 Streaming Stick
- Thread starter whitewolf8214
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 39
- Views 4K
Maybe in the future, for now it doesn't do what the Chromecast is made to do. It doesn't let me send material (and now soon to be almost any material) from my laptop, smartphone or tablet to the TV. It is in no way a competitor yet.
I've never used a Chromecast or this new device so I may be wrong here. I believe the difference is that the Roku stick is an actual Roku while the Chromecast relies on a smartphone. I think you can install channels directly to the Roku stick just like you would to a regular Roku and control it with an included remote. From what I understand, the Chromecast doesn't actually have the apps built in. You have to use and android smartphone or iOS device to play the media and then send the picture over your home network to the Chromecast to get it on your TV screen. I think it works similarly to Apple's Airplay with an Apple TV.
I would much rather have a dedicated device handle the streaming than tie up my iPhone and wear it's battery down while I watch Netflix even if it does cost a few extra bucks.
I would much rather have a dedicated device handle the streaming than tie up my iPhone and wear it's battery down while I watch Netflix even if it does cost a few extra bucks.
Thats fairly accurate.
The chromecast does have one potentially large separating feature in the ability to "cast" tabs from your chrome browser. It could potentially open up a much wider library of content to use. One big problem though. It doesnt work very well at this point.
Right now Ill just stick with my Roku box and Xbox one. I have the chromecast as well, but lately its just laying there begging for more use.
Not exactly. You cannot send just any content from your tablet or smartphone to chromecast, only the apps. It takes a PC will good horsepower to send browser content to chromecast.
Roku has about 1000 channels, Chromecast has about 30.
Roku streams directly, Chromecast requires you to stream the program from your laptop of smartphone and beam it to your TV.
It would appear though that RoKu was concerned about Chromecast eroding their market share, and have produced this new lower cost entry into the market to try to fend it off before it grows too big.
Actually, my understanding is that unless you are casting from the chrome tab, the chromecast itself is doing the streaming, just like the Roku. It just requires the smartphone to start it, like a remote.
One would think, but there has to be more to it than that. Sending content from my well powered Sony hybrid is no better really than sending it from my Dell Venue Pro. For general web page display it is adequate (more or less). For streaming video, its all but unusable with all of the blocking and stuttering.
An i5 with a hardware ethernet adapter works perfect for streaming. Perhaps my WiFi is just overloaded to handle both the internet download and the retransmission to Chromecast. But, my laptop did not have the CPU power even with a hardware ethernet connection to stream Showtime Anytime. I had to use my desktop.
I have one... and if you stop playing it on your phone it stops playing on your TV.
The Chromecast takes over the streaming and your phone or PC is essentially the remote. This is for the apps. If you are broadcasting from your browser it all goes through the PC. This is why you can do youtube without stuttering on a low power PC or smartphone, but you cannot broadcast from the browser without a lot more horsepower.
It might depend on the app. When you play a YouTube or Netflix video and move away from the remote control panel on your phone, it becomes a notification line on your phone you can tap to pause/play or advance or tap the main part of the application to go back to the full screen control app. The stream doesn't get interupted when you play a stream from the Chromecast, the stream comes from the Wifi connection and not the phone connection.
That won't be true for much longer. http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/0...dds-built-in-chromecast-streaming-for-videos/
Also the SDK is now open for all developers so already we are seeing people add Chromecast support to their apps. I know Vudu is for sure adding it even to their website on the PC. So eventually the list of supported apps will rival the number of Roku channels... hopefully with less religious content.
Last edited:
I do as well, and while I havent used most of the few apps available for it, with Netflix at least, you can start it on the phone, power the phone off, and the chromecast still stream.
Casting from a chrome browser does require the controlling device to be on however.
Chromecast requires a computer, smartphone, or tablet for control/input. For apps, it will continue to stream directly from source even after you turn off the controlling device. For direct beaming, you will need a PC to be on during the entire video. I have a ivy bridge i3 with native intel graphic that could stream chrome tab to chromecast perfectly. My sandy bridge i7 with discrete AMD graphic graphic is laggy when streaming to chromecast. The beta version of Chrome browser for Android allows you to stream embedded video in website to chromecast, but I haven't tried it yet.
The Roku stick is just a cheaper and smaller Roku.. I think.
The Roku stick is just a cheaper and smaller Roku.. I think.
Since the new Roku stick requires a USB connection for power essentially makes it non-compatible with older, pre-2012 HDTVs.
The chromecast does as well. I would imagine like the chromecast that the roku will include a power brick for the wall.
Even if it doesnt, take the usb cable and plug it into any of the many most of us have cluttering up the house.
