Shared publicly  - 
 
AllCast Beta 4

Heads up. Google's latest Chromecast update intentionally breaks AllCast. They disabled 'video_playback' support from the ChromeCast application.

Given that this is the second time they've purposefully removed/disabled[1] the ability to play media from external sources, it confirms some of my suspicions that I have had about the Chromecast developer program:
The policy seems to be a heavy handed approach, where only approved content will be played through the device. The Chromecast will probably not be indie developer friendly. The Google TV team will likely only whitelist media companies.

I'd strongly suggest holding off on buying a Chromecast until we can see how Google chooses to move forward on third party applications. There are also other (open) platforms and stacks that one could buy/support as well. (LeapCast, NodeCast, etc)

Here's the apk, but please note it probably won't work.
http://download.clockworkmod.com/test/Cast.apk

[1] There used to be a sample app that provided similar functionality.
594
293
Aashish Sharma's profile photoBrian Lambert's profile photoJake Weisz's profile photoBradley Shaw's profile photo
375 comments
 
Not AllCast, not AirCast, just Cast. Simple and effective.

[inb4 medical app that tracks the decay of a cast]
 
Fail...!! for Google at Chromecast and Google TV.
 
Dang they sure hate on us and its people like us that make them what they are. 
Steve R
+
3
1
2
1
 
That's as bad as AT&T locking the bootloaders. Seems nobody will let you do what you want with your own device anymore.
 
I really hope they don't lock it down. That would be very disappointing. 
 
+Koushik Dutta  Silly question, but are the Chromecast updates mandatory, ie: can you choose not to update?
 
Glad I have a Roku and Pivos Xios.
 
Ouch. Is it easy to downgrade, or does it force the update?
 
Only this way - with blocking certain uses and assuring that the device only can be used with certain content providers - the device can be offered for this low a price. If you want more openness, you can propose to Google to offer a $70 version without restrictions. I doubt that really many people will buy it. 
 
Who does Google think they are? Apple?
 
So Allcast gets broken in an update and you call it an intentional and a directed blow to indie developers?
 
I'm sure this come down to content deals, but still all I wanted to do was play home videos from my phone on the TV without uploading to youtube. I am sure there are other ways to do it, but this is disappointing. 
Bob Marcy
+
2
6
7
6
 
"Don't be evil."

Sigh, I could have sworn I heard that. Perhaps it was only a gust of wind, a whisper guttering out like a candle in the darkness. 
 
+Josh Roseberry there's no other reason to do what they did. They want to control the flow of content. From my other conversations with various Googlers, they're only prepared to deal with media companies. Do the math.
 
I was about to buy one because of the work you were doing.  I will hold off now. Thank you.
 
It's possible to make a custom 'ROM' to Chromecast and flash on it? It would solve the problem, isn't it?
 
Just tried beta 4. It doesn't work. It just flickers and doesn't register the chromecast to fling the content.

Galaxy Nexus
CM 10.2 Nightly 8/23

I also tried it with local files and it does the same.
 
Well, looks like I'm just going to spend a little more and pick up a Roku of some sort. I was JUST about to plunk down on a Chromecast, too. 
 
I thought from the announcement on they're using Chromecast as a selling point for Google Play, Youtube and Netflix content anyway, not as ''play everything easily from where you want''. Of course people will jump with the ''evil'' statement of disappointment like Google owed them anything :

- the mobs imaginations goes wild
- then blames vendor of not delivering, although nothing was announced officially.
Justin S
+
1
1
2
1
 
Cyanogencast time? Could a Cyanogenmod version be flashed on a Chromecast device?
Roberto V
+
1
3
4
3
 
Damn. Your work was a major reason I bought 2. This sucks +Google .
 
I'm glad it was so cheap...considering I went be able to do a lot with it, it'll probably end up on a shelf
 
Anyone want to buy my chrome cast? Its useless now
 
+Steve Spencer I could potentially switch to using webrtc and get around it yet again.
Constant game of cat and mouse. I got tired of that with Android phones, and just buy them unlocked now.
 
Keep in mind folks, that the media companies are the ones at fault. Google would probably love to open this up for developers, but also have to navigate the litigious happy media companies to get the Chromecast viable. It sucks, but that's how these back assward media companies roll.

Last night I found the Science Channel Full Episodes channel on YouTube. I was stoked... Then I went to cast it but it stated, "this device is not supported". What???? That's the choice of the Science Channel, not Google. 
 
It's practically free for me with the 3 free months of Netflix. But this kinda blows. I'm sure this won't deter Koush for he's going to hack the Chromecast firmware.
 
Well there goes the plan of beating apple TV 
 
+Brian M. Ross definitely a lot of politics. Hulu was blocked on the original Google TV for example. Media companies have Google bent over a box.
 
+Tadej Rudec they sure implied that the included functionality would be expanded very quickly. So far that hadn't happened at all 
 
+Koushik Dutta I'm sure plenty of folks would love to have you keep pushing out workarounds, but I understand if it isn't fun for you in the long run. Here's hoping they don't pursue breaking it for much longer...
 
I'll keep my Plex setup for now then. Thanks for the heads up Koush.
 
+Nick Atkins Proof of that ? They implied they have a limited SDK available and that's it.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great of +Koushik Dutta stating this because there's probably no one who knows Chrome Cast capabilities better then him in the moment and he talks from the standpoint of extended usage from the stock device.

But suddenly saying that the thing is worthless now, although it still plays the same content as it was at the release (where everyone was going bonkers about it) is - sheepish. 
 
No need to throw the baby out with the plastic dishes... I still love my Chromecast. But I would love it to do much more. I think if Google can eventually convince these media companies the value, then they probably will open up the platform.

Hulu, Pandora and HBO Go have already stated they will support it... Now it's just a matter of time and momentum. 
 
+Nick Atkins But they want the expansion to be in a way they can control, rather than a completely open system. And the probable reason for this is to get the media companies on board, so that they can sell the system to the mass-market as a simple and cheap way to access internet tv. The media companies probably see the ability to play local files as a threat, since you could use it to play pirated content, and so they are refusing to play ball unless google can control what you can and can't do with chromecast.
 
I've been increasingly disappointed by Google lately. :(
 
Damn! I bought 3 thinking one day I could use Koushiks AllCast. Sucks they intentionally broke it... 
 
Roku on the other hand is very open to indie devs. I think Google just convinced me to stick with them
kris r
 
Well this is disappointing as mine just shipped.
 
Everybody chillax!! Koush will make it all better in 1,2,3..
 
+Azzedine Bouleghlimat that is pretty much right on. I disagree with +Koushik Dutta about not buying it though. Closing the system for this product means more support from actual content providers in the future. If I wanted to stream pirated content I have an Xbox for that. 
 
Time to sign a petition. If I own the content, I should be allowed to cast it thru my Chromecast instead whipping out all of my external hard drives. 
 
Thanks for the info Koushik. I'll buy a raspberry pi, roku or any other android usb stick instead. 
 
+Julio Lagara no you shouldnt . No such functionality was ever promised. AllCast is nice but its existence only hinders chromecasts ability to acquire future deals
 
+Koushik Dutta  What is the feasibility of equivalent of cynogenmod for Chromecast. I read somewhere the software/firmware on Chromecast is minimal chrome on minimal android. Should allow for rooting/disabling updates and other things right?

Google, if they chose to do so, could have easily appeased Media companies and honored their partnership terms and still make the whole thing opensource, allowing modders/hackers to modify the default (tightly regulated) behavior of the device to their choice. Media companies would be happy since the percentage of people doing so would not be big enough to undermine their overall business plan. And the devs/hackers/modders would be happy with the flexibility. 
 
So one app got blocked, that was released before it was even allowed to and you guys are acting like it's the end of the world... Chill out and have some Damn patience! maybe this will change down the road.. Who knows! Jeez! 
 
This is reminding me of Apple Eau more than Google
 
If chromecast isn't open, it's really no different than any cable box. Why would I want one? I can already play content through on demand, Xbox, etc.
 
I don't get what the big deal is... We're just streaming content that we already have anyway... It's not like we're getting it by way of Allcast. I can still mirror via my ptv3000. +Google should know that you can't stop innovation.
 
Well, smart TV sucks big way. But they can play my mkv files over DLNA at least. 
 
+Khalifa Jubril what are you talking about? He is allowed to release the app because he is not using Chromecast SDK. He did reverse engineering 
 
I understand controlling internet content but personal ones? If I'm on my cellphone recording a wedding. Or on Google Glass recording the baby's first steps and want to cast it to my TV.. That's personal content that I would love to share on the spot using video playback to the chromecast. 
 
Remember this is a 1.0 consumer product, but in reality its a beta for their ultimate goal of getting this this completely integrated with the TV.  I.e. next years models could have #chromecast  built in.  Thats why they need want to get a handle on how its used. 
 
Good information here, but OP went way too far by suggesting that people "hold off" on buying it, it still has all the functionality that it launched with.

When did Google say that this was also to be used to play local content on any device? Who made that assumption/promise?

When things start off one way and then the people who run it decide to make "necessary" changes for what they decide to be beneficial for the system as a whole, does anyone have the right to go out and say "hold" off" on buying/using said thing 
 
A person can say hold off on buying it if he was the same one saying go ahead and purchase it because I can get it to play local content. If a person was only buying it for that purpose, than damn right he had the right to say don't purchase it.
 
+Brandon Peters the OP gave advice to his target audience, not to the general consumer.

May be worth reading up on the OP.
 
:(   so much sadness. i was having so much fun pushing my gallery videos up on da big screen.
 
+Koushik Dutta well it is quite different actually. The day chromecast was announced there was mass appeal and it had nothing to do with being an open system as you suggest. It was because of the ability to cast content from devices you already own to the big screen. Casting content from chrome. The simplicity and the $35 price tag. That's the appeal. Not openness which is a concept that only you pushed. Google made no such claim or advertisement. Apparently the chromecast does have the ability and infrastructure for local content if need be. If chromecast fails to appeal to content providers then its likely that Google would provide such abilities themselves, but for now the customer is the content providers and we are customers for the content providers. I for one am hoping Google succeeds. Your analogy that you already have on demand for content also applies to local media. You already have devices that can do that too. Chromecast is special because of price and how the user uses it.
 
This is very disappointing, but I must say I have been suspecting it from the beginning. To leave out something as simple as photo viewing at launch had me wondering what they were really up to. If they continue to block simple functions like viewing my photos and watching my homemade videos on my television, then the Chromecast will probably end up failing in the long run. Sad sad sad :-( 
Lately Google had been pulling a lot of its moves from the Apple playbook it seems. 
 
+Alex French no allowing you to play local content would make it fail as the chromecast wouldnt get support from content providers. This happened with Google TV and Google learned from its own mistakes. Google makes no profit off a $35 device and no profit is to be made from pirating either. The money is in the content and who provides the content again?
 
So I will buy a MiraCast Dongle.
 
Its disappointing, but im not ready to give up on it yet. Why would the media companies care if you could play local content on chromecast? You can on xbox, roku, wii, all of em. 
 
Take a guess as to how many people even care about this whole allcast thing? Probably a small piece of the pie compared to the happy customers currently streaming legal content with their chromecasts right now. So go buy your alternative dongles. Doesn't matter. You weren't the type of customers that pay for content anyway.
 
+Koushik Dutta I did read it, I read your posts and I use most of your apps, so I am also part of your target audience, I am also a general consumer, you can keep the assumptions to yourself.

Just because I disagree with what you said doesn't automatically mean I'm not your "target audience" or is it that your target audience is supposed to agree with everything you say?

If that's the case, then you are right, I am not your target audience, have a good day :-) 
 
Can we prevent Chromecast from updating? 
 
It really is important to remember that certain elements of this product are currently in BETA.  The development team is working on a raft of features to include within the product itself.  Given the pace that Google does releases, especially with a beta product, it is natural that there will be elements that fail to operate correctly.  It could have been intentional that this feature was "turned-off" and its possible that it will not be turned back on, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a done deal at this point.  

It's a balancing act.  There are elements that are being introduced in parallel with existing functionality.  Perhaps there were conflicts in the code for playing local content that ended up conflicting with some of the new platform elements that would be leveraged by future partners.  Perhaps a significant security hole was found within that portion of the code that would cause privacy advocates to cry "foul" if it was uncovered.  I don't know, but to assume that this is because they want to cut off the hands of the developer I think is a bit premature - especially since the development community is one that Google relies upon so heavily!

I just would suggest you exercise a bit of patience here.  I think playing locally is still very important to the offering (my opinion) especially given the tab-cast option that is already built in.  Googlers are often hackers at heart.  We love to pull stuff apart, put it back together, see how we can twist and turn things to make something new, different, and amazing.

Before breaking out the torches pitchforks, please do realize that Google is looking for a fantastic experience for the user.
Rob A
+
1
2
1
 
As long as Schmidt is in charge Google is evil. This is not Sergey or Larry. This is a business decision and that is what Schmidt is there for.
 
I agree with your lost +Anthony Raffini but it seems that Google is now suffering from their own success with their other "open" platforms, people now expect them to be open with ALL THE THINGS
 
I guess I should be glad it was only a $35 investment.
 
+miguel montoya $35 that you spent for a device that still delivers all the functionality that you expected it to. You've lost nothing.
 
logitech revue all over again. i kinda feel like google tv is turning into a verizon. people got excited about this because of the potential. also the apps that are supporting it should have been available at launch. nobody buys a car with no motor when the car company says we are making it. +Google is taking way too long on this. this is turning to a pipe dream. im going to start working on +PiCast or something more open than this. 
 
+Steve Spencer so you think this uproar is about customers being upset about playing legal content that they already own? Okay, you are welcome to think that. The point is that content companies don't think you want to use a local media player to play legal content. They think you are pirating. So Google has to satisfy them not you.
 
What makes you think I don't care about streaming local content? +Steve Spencer ,,,,, another assumption? 

I only started following +Koushik Dutta YouTube channel since he started releasing these videos, I even pointed other people to them as being another plus about the Chromecast and was sharing his posts about the functionality he was bringing, I am disappointed, but I know what I bought, and it's not about reading, it's about comprehension 
 
+Matt McCauley this is not Google TV all over again. It is the opposite. Google TV failed because of the lack of third party support. Blocking local content is a direct action to convince content providers that they should support chromecast. Its so simple really.
 
+Anthony Raffini if a multi billion dollar company can not come up with a way to simply allow me to view my photos and home videos of my family on my TV then they have failed miserably.
 
I really don't understand why playing local content would stop content providers from developing for chromecast. That would be to say that content providers would stop developing services for smart tv. SmartTV can play local content from different local sources, right? 
 
Sit back, wait and watch what Google does, they've made mistakes in the past and reversed them.  Perhaps this is just a knee-jerk reaction to something, until they have a nice firm policy in place to deal with things internally.  If it was Microsoft I'd say no hope, but Google ... there may still be.
 
+Alex French you can do that by casting a tab from Google+. +Johan Sandberg because googles relationship is different. Content providers think googlers are often cheap and like to modify and even pirate things. Also, the past indicates that not taking actions to do something different than what was done with Google TV would end up meaning no 3rd party support. 
 
It's a good thing this happened before they were easy to come by. I just sold both mine, made a profit, and got the free Netflix. If things change again in the future I will buy more. I didn't buy them when Google announced them, I bought them when Koush developed good reasons to own them. 
 
So whats your status on this +Koushik Dutta ? Are you guna work on it some more or are ya throwin in the towel?
 
+Koushik Dutta I am curious where is this change in the chromcast code?  Right now I can't even clone the git repository...
 
I really don't understand why playing local content would stop content providers from developing for chromecast. That would be to say that content providers would stop developing services for smart tv. SmartTV can play local content from different local sources, right? 
 
+Brandon Peters the thing is that lot of people bought and was thinking on buying the device because they supposed that they could do much more things aside form streaming content from youtube, Google movies and Netflix.
Now that it seems that it won't be so easy to do some things because Google will try to make things difficult for the developers I'm pretty sure that lot of people would think twice before pushing the buy button.
Time will tell
 
+Brandon Peters target audience of people interested in streaming their own content. Allcast users. Hence the post title.

My statement stands. If you want to stream your own content, don't get a Chromecast.
 
Guess you have no say in the chromecast update process since it does it all behind the scenes!
 
Does this means the cyanogenmod integration is off? 
 
+Koushik Dutta that's a fair statement. However if you bought a chromecast because you thought you were going to stream local content then that's just dumb
 
Everyone is assuming Google wants to be open and the media companies are saying no.

It is completely possible that Google proposed the chromecast to the media companies as a closed solution. Hence why it is so cheap as well. I'm not saying the media companies want to be open, but Google might not be fighting for it either.

shrug
 
+Anthony Raffini I bought the chromecast for the same reason I buy any other piece of electronics. To hack on it.
 
Anyway, if anyone wants to sell their chromecast now, I'm interested. My mom doesn't care about streaming local content. 
 
+Anthony Raffini I don't think that was a dumb decision. Lot of people thought that Google was different than Apple. Lot of people didn't expect Google to put hurdles to such simple features that even an independent developer (although experienced) can add with some work during his free time. 
 
+Juan Martin it is dumb. Look at the feature list on Google Play. Look at the reviews about what you can and cannot do with it that are all over the internet. No mention of the ability to play local content. So if you were expecting to do that then my statement remains. That's just dumb.
 
+Anthony Raffini So do you really think that so many people would be interested on such device if they knew that it only could do what was stated on the feature list??? I don't think so, if you think other way your assumption is dumb. 
 
I think the real power of Chromecast is going to be in the open developer market. I hope they release some info on this soon.
 
Guess we need some new firmware on the device - challenge accepted. 
 
+Anthony Raffini I thought I could do it because someone proved that it's possible to do it. Does it sound weird for you? 
 
+Juan Martin my thoughts exactly. Why limit such an easy function that almost everyone wants... Viewing your phones photos on the big screen. And just to watch a video I made of my family, I have to first upload it to YouTube... but leave it public for the world to see... remember, private videos won't stream. This is all so assinine. 
 
Like +Koushik Dutta  I'm not very optimistic where Chromecast is going.

First, the need to register apps that stream to Chromecast. I don't think this will be going away and it is an obvious measure for control who can stream what. The dubious SDK terms are also a strong hint that it will be a closed platform, beta or not.

In short, Google care about huge media companies but not individual developers streaming all sort of content.

It is long gone the time since Google where the good "do not evil" guys. Now, they do not evil only if it fits their agenda.
 
Chromecast has 2 customers. 1) The masses. We are enticed by the low price and simplicity. That is all and its enough to make broad appeal as evidenced by its impressive sales thus far. Then there is 2) the content providers. They are enticed by the control over their own content and ability to make it work by only updating their mobile platforms. No need to make a new app just for this device. For #1 it is already a success. Google still needs to work on #2 and these actions are indicative of that. 
 
+Alex French exactly mate. I might understand if Google decide to not add that basic and "easy to add" feature. But if an independent developer manage to do it, why would you want to avoid it? To me it's a wrong decision and I'm sure the sales of the device will be affected because of that. 
 
Well this is turning out to be a fail. Thanks a lot Google. Way to ruin my morning. 
 
+Koushik Dutta didn't u get this working before with the SDK? which means we just have to wait when the green light comes for apps using it?
 
+Anthony Raffini You are quoting the wrong person, I didn't said that one single time.
I also can plug a hdmi cable to my phone/tv. I think that would be faster than what you just suggested, so I don't need a Chromecast.. 
 
+Mark LaChance thanks for saying it first. I'll go Firefox if they keep this shit up. I SWEAR I'LL JUMP!!!! +Google , we see what your doing. We understand it. We will boycot your precious new product in mass if you keep cockblocking my boy +Koushik Dutta . nuff said.
 
Seeing as its an early developer SDK, does stick whitelisting surprise anyone?
 
Glad this all came to light while I am still in my return period. Bye chromecast and hello miracast. 
 
That's bad.... and here I thought what and who made Google so big are devs because Google is on Linux and open source....what do they want? Turn into Apple?
 
Media companies are dumb period. They hate being slaves to cable companies, but rebel at any change in distribution. Slave mentality. Time to grow beyond that. If you distribute your content in different ways you will have a but a bigger cut of profits. Hulu, Crackle, Netflix, Amazon, and Google Play can all get the content on people's tvs but content makers are so scared to do something different. 
 
All Chromecast ever promised was the ability for you to stream media from the cloud to your tv. What's with all the hate? I fully support +Koushik Dutta and the dev community, but Google isn't in "the wrong" here. You bought a device and it does what it advertised to do. Calm down.
 
I am taking a more reserved approach on this block. From the limited SDK and the limited launch apps, I think its clear they want a controlled launch.

I am pretty certain local content is going to be 100% supported, but unofficial hack apks (no offense +Koushik Dutta ) and hacked firmwares is not part of the plan. I can take it a step further and say they most certainly don't want the chromecast associated with torrents and privacy or they will scare away content. They need an SDK that appeases everyone and I think that is their plan. When I say everyone I do not mean pirates, hackers, and the open source crowd. Content, dev, and consumers is their target.

But I think Cast is just that, unauthorized.

I am impatient just like everyone.
 
I have to say that I buy electronics that developers are interested in. I have android 4.3 on a Motorola Xoom. Not because Motorola or Google want me too. I have XMBC on A Pivos Xios not because it came with it but because developers and in this case Pivos want you do be able to hack it. I dual boot between two Roms on a Nexus 4. I thank developers for this too. I got spoiled by Google at the very least being quiet about this possibility. The common aspect of all of this Android. So when Google actively stops development even on a 35.00 dongle it saddens me. No I don't want to return it - I use it for other stuff too. But I like to creatively use electronics. I can hack just follow instructions. Thanks koushik dutta - I enjoy your work.
 
I sure hope this is temporary. It doesn't make much sense to block users from casting their own contents to Chromecast since they can already stream via DLNA. Chromecast just makes it more convenient.
Don Shane
+
9
10
9
 
If you are pirating content then it makes no difference if I use a burner, HDMI cable, or a Chromecast to get the content to my TV. The device didn't exist a month ago and pirates were doing fine before it. Chromecast is not making people pirate more.

I'll go further that that though. A device like Chromecast makes people do the right thing by making it accessible. I have never watched so much Netflix and YouTube since I bought this thing. When you give people legal options to obtain content guess what? Most of them will do the right thing. 
 
+Anthony Raffini using that mentality don't invest in anything that may someday be greater than its original purpose.
Come on man. 
 
Well I was hoping it would be more friendly than my XBMC box but guess I'll stick to using it.
 
Google said the api would change a lot which is why they had approvals locked down. They said don't get comfortable because things will break. Once the api was locked down they would open it up more. They were trying to avoid whiney baby post and support emails.
 
+Anthony Raffini Please stop "arguing" with people on whether they should or shouldn't feel bad about the inability to stream local content or whether that was the purpose for buying it. Who are you to say how any of us should feel about the latest turn of events? If you're happy with your Chromecast just the way it is, then I'm happy for you. I'm content with mine too but that doesn't mean I'm not disappointed.
 
New name Chromesad. Good work +Koushik Dutta it sucks Google is letting big business dictate advances on a device that had so much promise. 
 
Everybody in the world wants content free & cheap, so if Google thinks it can block CC to play open content & thereby encourage ppl to hook up permanently to paid services like Netflix, then they are wrong. People will always have choices to play their local content tru other mediums. I think Google is missing the whole big game with CC, it can have a such a big impact in the world of corporates & educational institutions where ppl can simply cast their local content to projectors in a jiffy. Hope Google does not loose the plot here with a potential baby, with open source on CC, it can capture a whole gamut of untouched boundaries. 
 
It is sad someone as intelligent as +Koushik Dutta who has been in the in the development world make a post like this about a fluid and essentially beta SDK. I am pretty sure the crap will break disclaimer was in that 'I agree to terms' link no one reads. If you don't want to be bound by the Google SDK then don't use it . 
 
I ordered two chromecast and will probably be ordering more. I feel bad the koush wasted all that time. But to say hold off on purchasing a chromecast is a little ridiculous. As an end user it does what it says it does. I don't have a problem with that. 
 
So many grown men crying in this discussion. Sorry your Chromecast does exactly what it's advertised to do. 
 
+Koushik Dutta I do hope that they open it up, but to say that people should hold off buying is a bit extreme. Even with just Netflix, Play and YouTube it is worth the price. When they add Hulu, Plex, Pandora, etc, even more so. It is annoying, and reason to speak out about, but not a reason not to buy. 
 
And here I was thinking this might be worth buying. Guess they are looking for the studios to buy into so no rips! 
 
+Alex French yes I know about that stuff. video_playback and slideshow are what was just disabled.
 
Even without this functionality, the best $35 I have ever spent on tech. 
 
I'm not surprised in the least bit. Google wants to make multi-million dollar deals with content providers and allowing Allcast to exist will only piss content providers off. One of the content providers probably showed a Google exec one of Koushik's videos displaying downloaded videos obtained by irc/torrenting working with Allcast which is all it takes. 
 
+Koushik Dutta Hi Koush, BubbleUPnP developer here.
Thank you for your last video featuring BubbleUPNP.
The removal of the video_playback functionality is really unfortunate, especially since I got it working too :).

You may find my new Chromecast related app interesting, making it possible to stream cloud Google Music to any UPnP / DLNA device like Xbox 360, XBMC, ...(similar to CheapCast but with a different purpose). Emulating a Chromecast device for each UPnP / DLNA receiver.

Description and video:

https://plus.google.com/115387584836830082266/posts/PAwen1dN3xh
 
And thus the reason to never buy a locked device. With the amount of money they invested in marketing this thing to pop culture sheep, it was blatantly apparent that it was going to be a commercial gimmick.This has been their direction over the last year as they have been distancing themselves from open standards and censored their search to the point that a sub-par engine such as Bing can out list them today. They've been bought and paid for. I must congratulate the investors for finally making a return lol.
 
So I drive a ford and I found out if you leave the shifter between neutral and drive you can time travel. Ford patched that bug so no one should buy a ford. Yeah the brochure didn't say you could time travel but because I made it work they should totally have not made changes that stop it from happening. Ford is evil because they hate time lords and stuff....
 
+James Finstrom that has to be one of the most idiotic analogies I've ever read lol. Is Ford an "open source" company building "open source" automobiles?!? :P
 
+James Finstrom this was not simply something being changed and breaking. The code change was clear: they wanted to disable a third party content route. it was intentional.
 
SO WHAT!   it comes down to 1 simple ideal.  when you use a reverse engineered or hacked API you shouldn't bitch when something changes even if intentional. Everything they intend to be used is in the SDK so even if I strap on my tinfoil hat and believe "google is out to get me"  it does not matter.  The chromecast works as advertised and I imagine so does the SDK.  Recommending people avoid a product that does everything it says it does because it doesn't do an unadvertised function that you made it do is nonsense.  I like your work and even this was kinda cool. I hope you carry on and find new and exciting things to do but in the end you are at the whim of the platform and they reserve the right to change things. and if they were things that were never intended for general use such as SDK features then that is their prerogative. 

This is why I don't develop for Windows. I don't want to be at the whim of microsoft.  That said I do work within the walls of a few corporately controlled open source projects who like to change their api like people change underwear. This software pays my bills so I deal with it.  
 
I had a feeling the missing functionality they launched chromecast with was Iintentional.
 
+Kevin Young I don't remember reading that the chromecast was open source. I don't think Google is an open source company.  They have contributed to open source and provide SDK's and API's (which are not being used here and in fact ford sync does as well)  but most of googles products you will not "find the code". 
 
But the question is, does it work with Cheapcast?
 
+James Finstrom I think we are saying the same thing. Their actions to close off their ecosystem clarify their developer and content policies, which were more or less undefined before. Hence my suspicions given prior google tv products, and my post detailing this.

I don't expect this to be an unlocked/open ecosystem anymore. Which is why I recommended people who were looking forward to Allcast to not get a chromecast. I don't think it will ever be whitelisted.
 
For me it's still useful for playing YouTube videos, and Netflix as well, basically a cheaper Roku box for my purposes. It sucks that they want to close down other features but the device is far from useless.

I mean, if you were buying it for this purpose then obviously don't, but there is probably not another gadget with an HDMI port that costs $35, let alone one that plays YouTube and Netflix. The closest would be those Chinese TV sticks that run Android, but even those are a bit more expensive. Maybe you guys should look into those? 
tobby o
 
There could be a legitimate reason for this; Google probably hasn't licensed some key LAN streaming & device-to-device streaming #patents for the Chromecast. The last thing they want is for their new product to be a focal point for litigation, this will only show/stop adoption by "big media." Similar situation to latent LTE in the Nexus 4 but different.
 
It is a debate that won't be won. Though I would say Google has indicated that other "stuff" will be added. Thus far only subtracted. So thus far it is less then what I paid for. And they took away Netflix pretty quick. Certainly before we bought it they did not indicate they were taking it away.
 
+Koushik Dutta Yes, for Google Play Music only (and possibly some future Chromecast apps using ramp). From what I've seen, it is not possible to do something similar for Google Play Movies.
 
Make it stream to DLNA capable device, which many devices have already including all consoles and tv sets.
 
+James Finstrom Whoa, a dude yelling at Koushik. Calm your seas, man. He was just making a point, not holding your family at gunpoint.
 
Welcome to CastGate, grab popcorn watch Google kill something else
 
It's been pretty clear to me that Google's belief in open source ended when Larry Page became CEO. At that juncture forward, you could see open source projects no longer iterating at the same level, and projects like Android, where the new features are all hidden in closed source locations like Google Now and Play Services.
 
That AndroidCentral article isn't even that accurate and clearly doesn't understand that what koush did to implement this himself is completely unrelated to the issue of whitelisting URLs and having to go through Google to launch a receiver app.

Further, the post from Leon that AC links to has even /less/ to do with the topic at hand.
 
+Koushik Dutta short of getting an htpc what are you using or what would you get for a simple streaming appliance to use for local media?
 
Connects via cheapcast but broadcasts nothing. Black screen and no audio.
 
Ouya is a hacker/tinkerer's dream, best $99 I've spent in years!
 
+Koushik Dutta  Just when my Plex app was almost complete using the same video_playback workaround!

I am a little discouraged, but all that this really does is force us to use our own receiver application on the chromecast. They closed an open ended receiver the same way they did when they took the 'Cast API Demo' down off github.

I am not yet ready to call it malicious towards indie devs. Technically they would then be hosting the receiver (it was up on some gstatic site) on our behalf and if they ever made a change it would break a bunch of existing apps. It is better they removed it now before a bunch of apps were published using this nonstandard receiver (mine included).

Now, you may be correct in that they are not planning to let indie devs into the fray, but only time will tell on that one. For me, I'll continue after creating my own receiver. This might not yet be the end of the world.
 
Was now going to post this +Xolani Radebe

Lots of misunderstanding in this thread about what type of company Google is, what open source is and what the Chromecast is

As I said earlier, Google 's own success with regards to Open platforms have come back to bite them in the a**

Now, from the minute Google releases any product or service, people will automatically assume that's it's open and should be hackable regardless of what Google advertises the product to be

Google may well be trying to find the middle ground on this (if that even exists) some patience is needed 
 
It's a known fact that +Google has no balls when it comes to forging media and partnership alliances. Their ability is always just enough for a launch and a few blog posts before they tend to fizzle out. Boo +Sundar Pichai +Larry Page +Sergey Brin for that empty talk about openness and progress for the computing industry as a whole at I/O. Very disillusioned with Google with each launch.
 
Please vote with your wallet. Buy things that follow broad, or even better, open standards like WiDi and Miracast and DLNA. Let's show Google that the proprietary lock in products they are moving toward will not be accepted.
 
They might be doing it for the best of us. Content producers don't want to make stuff for specifically android because its open, allowing it to be pirated or whatever there excuse is. The more content that we can get on chomecast, the better. Don't get me wrong though, I wish it were open.
 
Well said +Parker DeWitt

But maybe Google should forget about getting big content to the Chromecast, make it completely open, Netflix and others run in the opposite direction, but at least we will be able to stream local content :-\ 

Assuming that this is why they are playing this one close to their chest 
 
With all the development around the Chromecast standard, the actual Chromecast might become irrelevant. So far, there are Chromecast emulators for any computer with Python, Javascript, and then there's another one for the Raspberry Pi. 
 
+Brandon Peters exactly, and that may have been the line that Google had to draw, and they chose the side that Netflix, hulu, Pandora etc is on instead of our side of streaming local content. 
 
Not that I don't hate that this happened but has the whole Beta API , "embargo", thing even been lifted?
 
Isn't this the same as Google Wallet being blocked by Cellphone companies because......because security and stuff. Funny how people can purchase devices and be constantly "told" how they are going to use it. So as long as I use Youtube for my personal videos then I'm good....can't use someone elses application to stream my personal home movies to my TV?

What's happens if my TV manufacturer says you can only bring in video via "approved" hdmi devices that they approved? Google would be.....a little upset to say the least.  You buy a vehicle you can do whatever the hell you want to with it.
 
I guess I am cancelling my chromecast order too.
 
Just because you can't run custom apps doesn't mean that the chrome cast isn't worth it. At 35, it is still good for the three supported apps and tab casting. 
 
+Brian M. Ross I will go a step further. It is the cable companies. Media companies actually wouldn't mind their content being on as many devices as possible as long as they can throw ads or get subscription fees. Media companies have contracts with cable companies that limit their content. For example, a cable channel can only put X no. of hours on the web etc. Cable/Satellite companies dictate which device the network can be on. For example, you cannot use HBOGo on Roku, if you have DirecTV, but can use it on every other device. Sucks, but that's how it works
 
Screw google. They are becoming more nazi every day. Guess it's time to switch to replicant. 
 
What's next? Google Loudspeaker Cables that will play only "approved" music? And that Google car, will it let me visit Google approved stores only? Why has Google turned into a douchebag? 
 
I have already received mine and I will say that at $35 it is a nifty little gadget and I wouldn't advocate not purchasing one just because of this issue. Its a bargain.. 
 
Jeez, You guys up there are acting like this was a life or death situation in which you invested all your spare money into
...you paid 35$
... for a device with a still BETA api on an embargo, stop overreacting.
Its still a Great for what it does at 35$ just wait, and see what happens
Edit:
+rhy o'drinnan in particular now :/
And now you too, +albert richardson 
 
+Koushik Dutta I ordered mines weeks ago and am still waiting on it. When I get it, if it is still on an older firmware, is it possible I can not update it and still use Cast? Or should I just cancel my order?
 
I'm fine with not being able to play local content. I'd much rather use XBMC for that. I think people are expecting too much out of this. Don't get me wrong, the ability to do that would be a nice addition, but there are better options for that. This was always intended for online content, in a very simple and easy way, that even the most technologically deficient people could handle.

The only thing that would make this a failure and not worth the $35, is if they don't finally get that full SDK out in a reasonable time period and allow for those other streaming services to hop on board and make it available for their apps. If they don't get that done, and soon, then it could turn out to be Google's biggest failure to date given the demand for it.
 
Google is a giant corporation intentionally hurting end users who paid them money. I do not understand how anyone could be defending this. It's as douchy as Apple or Microsoft. New boss same as the old boss. 
 
Google pretends to not be evil. However, each time it serves their interest to sell out their users by cutting deals with cell carriers or content providers or backtracking on net neutrality they do. This company is no different than Apple or Microsoft. As much as we all wanted to believe they were different...they are not.
 
Well, this changed my mine. Will be holding off on a Chromecast until this is resolved.
 
+Koushik Dutta I am bit worried. Does this affect only the playback of local media or even from other sources like daily motion and vimeo ?. I have started an iOS app which should combine videos from multiple sources. Any update on this will be highly appreciated. Thanks
 
I think we should wait a week before jumping to conclusions, the name "Google" and "Chrome" indicate that this will have some open API's. Currently the API's are extremely beta. It was wise of them to stop the proliferation of unsupported API's before it was too late.

We also don't want apps that unnecessarily rely on local streaming, burning our batteries nor goo d reason. My guess is, chrome casting from Google Drive will be coming in the next year, done properly from the cloud on not from my device.

Once proper API's come out and we see how hard it is to get on the whitelist, we can start holding Google accountable for "Don't be evil"
 
Thanks for the heads up. I was able to cancel the order I placed on Play store a few days ago. Very sad.
 
Order for two chromecasts was canceled due to this. 
 
Just cancelled the order for my second Chromecast.   Looks like Google is going down the same road as Apple.  Too bad.
 
Anyone want to sell me one for 0.149 BTC? Let me know, thanks.
 
Its funny how people ignore TOS and develop when being told about approval required part and complain when things break.
 
sad, sad day for the chromecast. Hopefully we can maybe reflash a custom rom on it!  Pretty please!  +Ryan Frank 
 
+Tadej Rudec There's a difference between not putting any effort in to supporting something and actively blocking it.  If someone else figured out an interesting way to use something that people want to do with it and the creator of that thing goes out of their way to stop that, they're being dicks.  They have no obligation to support it or do anything to help, but to go out of their way to fight it is active effort against their users.
 
35 bucks for a cromecast and 3 months of Netflix I am glade I got it when I did. I still love my cromecast.
 
+Anthony Raffini I personally saw this as letting me stream videos to any tv with HDMI while I'm traveling. I have an xbox, ps3, and htpc at home for video playback while I'm at home so I never saw much use for chromecast there
 
I still Iove the fact it has virtually no load time . Turn on the TV and it is ready to go. ( after it is set up)
 
I cancelled my order, the only reason I wanted it was because of the local video playback and the community support but now that we know this is a locked down device its not really worth it since my TV already has all the media apps built in. The whole reason why Google made it to the top was because of its open nature allowing us to do whatever we wanted but this is a kick in the gonads. 
 
Well time to find something else to do with my chromecast... Maybe level out the kitchen table. :-P
 
I guess its clear , this is supposed to by used only for online streaming - quite useless for many of us... lets wait for rockchip :) maybe they will be nicer to customers :)
 
That's bad!
I really loved the  paying video from my phones gallery. But, I think this local playback will become a possibility in future via the implementations using their authorized SDK. +Google might be still testing the waters wit their Chromecast offering and they do want anything that might chase the Media companies from supporting this device.
In future they might add support to their Google Plus apps on Android and IOS. That should practically solve my worries about local gallery playback as my photos and videos are auto backed up in G+.
In my opinion, it's still worth $35 for just supporting Youtube & Netflix.Let's hope for the best!
 
All you whiners sound like a bunch spoiled rotten teenage brats... quit crying about a device you spent almighty bank breaking $35 on that actually does what the hell it's advertised to do! Get out the freaking house and do something.. Meet people, play sports dammit! .. Jeez. Get over your Damn selves! :) 
Jim Jam
 
Already bought my chrome cast, along with three months of Netflix,
Have had so many problems with the bandwidth and the use of the chrome cast, went to other devices, like the Wii!
 
Google care its profits, no more its users. I'm sad from reader's close
 
Thank goodness I can still play all of my local content through a Chrome tab as easily as File://etc...

The PC where those files are stored is always on anyway, so meh... This wasn't technically a supported feature or function anyway, so no great loss to anyone who planned to use it as advertised.

Sorry for not raking Google over the coals for this one.
 
I only purchased Chrome cast because you were developing this. I'm starting to become disillusioned with Google. I'll keep looking for an alternative that will work in hotel rooms. Thanks for your work Koush.
 
+Anthony Raffini I thought Google TV failed because it was a horrible, half-baked product that was barely beta quality when it was released? (I got a Logitech Revue on launch day).
 
This seems like something Apple would do; don't be evil Google!
 
Has anyone actually read the the developer notes relating to Chromecast?!

https://developers.google.com/cast/release-notes

Warning: The current Google Cast SDK is a preview SDK intended for development and testing purposes only, not for production apps. Google may change this SDK significantly prior to the official release of the Google Cast SDK. We strongly recommend that you do not publicly distribute any application using this preview SDK, as this preview SDK will no longer be supported after the official SDK is released (which will cause applications based only on the preview SDK to break).

Updates often break undocumented functionality, there is no need to start throwing baseless accusations and spreading FUD because of it.
 
+Koushik Dutta He's showing why your claims are ridiculous, and that makes him uninformed? You're using an undocumented, unreleased API that isn't even complete, and then you claim that when it's changed it's a personal attack against you. Prima donna much?
 
+Allen Bouchard I've read that notice before. I'm well aware of it. What you should be aware of:
I wasn't using the SDK. Read my subsequent post, and read the code they changed. The change was an internal one intentionally made to break Fling and AllCast. It wasn't an "SDK" change. There was no other reason to make that change.

Uninformed much?
 
+Koushik Dutta my point is that they only support development via SDK which implies that non-SDK apps and other undocumented abilities might break subsequent to system updates.
Chris W
 
My guess is that Google's ultimate goal for Chromecast is to either control and monitor all content flow for database compilation, or to be able to push ads through the device when in use. Why else sell at cost. Your nice app allows for neither. Thanks tho. 
 
+Chris W it's astonishing how people are willing to jump into conclusion and assume the worst from very little evidence.

First, Chromecast isn't sold at a cost it actually makes a profit: http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/28/review-google-chromecast/

Second, said functionality could be restored in a later SDK update, the fact than a recent system update removed undocumented features isn't unusual, they even warn about the possibility in device's developer page.
 
Build the same ability using PLAiR instead of Chromecast. No chance of getting blocked there :)

It is open too with the iOS and Android SDKs available TODAY!
 
I do think the big G's hands are tied on this a bit; they have to play nice with their media partners, especially on such a disruptive technology. But I think the massive user adoption will help drive this to the more open platform it needs to be.

In the meantime, keep in mind that the "Google Cast" extension for Chrome on the PC will let you cast a tab, no matter what's in it. It's a bit of a resource hog, but it'll let you cast Amazon Instant Video and YouTube feeds that are otherwise blocked on the Chromecast directly.
 
+Koushik Dutta
Hey koush, did you read Google's response?

We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It's still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available.

via http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/25/4657202/google-blocks-chromecast-app-that-let-you-stream-own-videos
 
what ever happened to don't be evil? :(
 
Hi Koush

Would you mind posting a link to your latest AllCast without the time bomb. I am still on Chromecast 12840 and would like to enjoy AllCast while I still can. I live in the UK. Will I still get the Chromecast update even though I bought a US Chromecast and downloaded the Chromecast apk manually?

Loving your work.

Jomeysunglasses
 
Damn I was really looking forward to using that feature to play videos I've made.
 
My Chromecast ships in three days. Great job Google. Way to be open. 
 
+Corey Vallejo Such big words for someone who hasn't brought anything to the table in the android/chrome community....lol
 
+Brad Williams Hehe, uninformed comments like yours are what keep the Internet endlessly entertaining. Regardless of what I have or haven't contributed to the Android community, and that's beside the point, I know a whiny dev when I see it.
 
+Corey Vallejo lol uninformed? your a DJ...and like all DJ's I know..they love to stir up other peoples shit it seems...spinning shit...since you know that is what you do. spin records and ish. Im pretty sure the open source community wouldn't be where we are today without koush....as pretty much all custom recoveries are based off of koush's original clockwork. Go do something to change the entire scene(clockwork and more)...then tell yourself you don't have the right to bitch about it. Just saying...
 
Oh! I understand your confusion now. You confused my personal life with my professional life. That's an easy mistake to make when you talk out of your ass, so I suppose you're forgiven. Anyway...

I have benefited plenty from Koush's work and I definitely appreciate the time and effort he puts into the community, but just because he's a developer doesn't mean he's infallible, doesn't mean he's a God, doesn't mean he's untouchable, and it doesn't mean he's not subject to the same rules as everyone else on this planet.

So when Google plugs up a backdoor that wasn't meant to be used to support client-side streaming to Chromecast devices, Koush needs to suck it up, deal with it, and use Google's SDK the way it was meant to be used in order to accomplish what he wants to.

Whining about it here on Google+, acting like Google intentionally plugged the hole just to screw developers like him is completely childish and it caused a rash of unnecessary and false accusations today in the media.

Just saying.
 
Lol I did have the walking farts today...so I spoke out of my ass a lot :)
 
Google is no more a friend.....just a new authoritative Microsoft without flexibility we just use
 
Google keep deceiving me ... I read theire answer to your post, what a bullshit one !

Finally i hope they will be  a cyanogen mod cast ;-)
 
Koush doesn't respond to valid criticisms or corrections generally.  Take his silence as assent.
 
The ONLY reason I could see for them blocking this would be if Google is planning on adding AirCast functionality to Android natively. That is my hope. But for now, with AirCast dead, my chromecast is useless. Better fix it fast Google.
 
+Ben Sumner how can your chromecast be useless. When did you buy it? The chromecast still does what it was said to be capable of since day one. It has lost NO FEATURES. Koush's app was introduced what... a week ago? As a beta, self-terminating product? Unless you bought it within the last week then I don't see how you conclude that your chromecast became useless. Even if you did, why would you buy a product just for an unsupported beta feature that you can already do with any media streamer out there. There are things that make chromecast unique and streaming local content isn't one of them.
 
Useless mostly because I (incorrectly) assumed it was made to be an equivalent of Miracast. AKA sharing local content primarily. My fault, but yeah.   Anywho it looks like google has already confirmed the functionality to play local content will be added back, so yay to that.
 
To me it seems that Google has made a product that has huge potential. Its potential is that it can be a viable distribution platform for media content companies. It has the potential to challenge cable companies. Google knows this and its actions speak to its desire to protect its image toward content makers. 
 
Well, their actions have already been to reverse their change. They announced the feature will be coming back.
 
Right, so all the bickering in this whole thread was for nothing. Still though, they're response indicated that they'd prefer to make the local streaming solution themselves, not to allow a developer like koush to provide a hacky solution. Still, its no foul on googles part, they have the right to control chromecast and they made no claims about it being an open platform. Local streaming is a feature people want and their response indicates that its coming. I would imagine a cast button in the android gallery, a cast button in Google Drive and hopefully an app on your phone that allows you to browse files on a local network and then cast them.
 
+Pierre-Emmanuel Fabrigli maybe you find it disappointing. Maybe android is open because they believed (correctly) that that was the right strategy for the mobile os market and they believe that a closed platform is the right strategy for content distribution. If you think Google makes android open because they are just a nice company then you are mistaken. Its a strategy and its a strategy that doesn't work for everything. Google is being smart if you ask me.
 
Get over your self's, there are other open platforms that allow you to do whatever you want.  Including at $35 price range, like Raspberry Pi.   And all the software support you want for free!  Plus its the size of a credit card.  If you want more control, then get a Beagle Bone, just $10 more.
 
+Pierre-Emmanuel Fabrigli a new way of doing a thing? Google's way is the way that brings in the most success. Sometimes methods fail but that is and always has been the goal. Google's way was never stated as being always open. Google chooses to be open when they believe that is the correct strategy.
 
How long would people have to wait though?
 
There's no way, now and in the future, to install a CM or any custom image over a Chromecast stick. 
If you check MINIMUM support specs:
https://developers.google.com/cast/supported_media_types "Level 1 DRM support: Widevine, Playready"
If you don't know what means "Level 1 Widevine" check it here:
http://source.android.com/devices/drm.html
If it was Level 2 then Unlocking the secure bootloader and disabling DRM was an option, sadly that's not possible at all with Level 1.
 
I use this as a liason for my upnp. Any chance of a cast5? Or even a removal of the two day trial?
 
There are bunch of self entitled whiners here. You bought the device knowing it's feature set (unless you're an idiot).

Stop assuming everything Google makes is meant to be hacked apart. There are many devices that let you stream local content. Heck if you have an old computer, you can build your own.
 
+Kem Alimole disappointed as in I had hoped that I'd be able to stream local content, hacked or not. Google has the right to do whatever is in thier own interest. It does not make them evil, just capitalists. I still like the device.
 
+Koushik Dutta Could you try using WebRTC to get around this again? If they shut you out again we all know to return our Chromecasts!
 
So, with the official Google response:

"We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content. It’s still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only. We expect that the SDK will continue to change before we launch out of developer preview, and want to provide a great experience for users and developers before making the SDK and additional apps more broadly available."

I'm left in the same place as I was when I purchased my Google TV.  Essentially:

"We have huge plans... that there will be tons of content, including local content.  That's what we'd like to do, but we can't get content providers to sign-on.  In fact, they are actively blocking the browser string that Google TV provides.  We could easily get around this by making the Google TV browser return the browser string for desktop Chrome, but then we'd get our butts handed to us in court.  See, the content providers are ok if you bypass most of their ads by viewing their web content on a computer, but if you do it in your living room they will scream that this was never intended for the 'big screen'.  So, while we have big plans for the device, they will never be fulfilled because even Netflix, who wants your money to watch movies, has a contract with us that says we better not let you watch movies you've downloaded.  Sure, we'd like to give you this ability, but we can't offer you anything, even Netflix (let alone the big networks and cable providers), if it means you can get studio content for free, legally or otherwise.  At least we own YouTube.  Maybe we should have called our product the YouCast.  We can't get into as much trouble streaming our own stuff."
 
Arrogant is the common behavior for people/companies with power (given to them by the ecosystem/customers). 
 
Google should just play a 5 to 10 sec add like you tube does for every 5 or so casts. It should not matter what is casting. They would still make a ton of money like on YouTube but let customers and developers run wild with a product with so much potential
 
Let the same big content providers get the share the deserve too from the small ads. Hmmmm
 
Well you know how it works. The billions of dollars we pay for our devices and subscriptions to carriers is not valued because they already have our money and we are not a clearly unified voice. However the millions that content providers represent is much more important cause they all want rhe same thing and the squeeky wheel gets the grease!!
 
Koush, you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading FUD and speculating on the motivations behind this as if they were fact.  This "move" proved nothing of what you suggested.
 
Hmmm you can stream local content from the pc ver of chrome but its not possible out of the box on android? A guy creates an app that goes around the sdk to accomplish local streaming and its functionality is disabled by updates not once but twice...lol. yeah its all just innocent coincidence.....lol.
 
Glad I came across this...I almost bought one! Whew.
 
I want my baby on the big screen :(
 
Well , i don't understand all the fuss here...it still lets you do a lot. You can cast anything from Chrome..-- This device helps you get rid of your cables you used to connect your device and TV. -- It fantastically casts from mobile devices as well. -- Course it would be great if it allowed to cast any local content nothing could beat that...- but hey minus that feature the device is still pretty useful. 
 
If I can't cast my gallery content, I'm not eating. 🍳
 
So much for being able to cast from Chrome. That's broke now, too.
 
So much for being able to cast from Chrome. That's broke now, too.
 
I got tired of the whole thing. So I Hooked up an spare e-machine running: xmbc, MediaHouse-Pro UPnP and Unified Remote Server. Plugged it into tv hdmi. Put xmbc on all my droids also put on unified remote client. - Im sure there is an easier way but working with what I had laying around, I can now play any of my home movies, youtube, netflix, dvds or surf web, anywhere I want including on tv. Thanx google in my case you pulled an "apple" (Introduce just enough of a technology to peek interest but try to handicap it in search of unrealistic controll and increaced profits. Thus driving the concept to new devs and platforms and the consumers along with them.) - for those who are interested there are android tv devices on ebay that can be had for prices simular to chromecast. Then you put xmbc on em and you can cast to them. Im still a big google fan but hey google please dont forget your roots and try to throw us a bone or two every once and a while!!
 
+Sagar Surana The issue is not that Google has not built in the ability to cast local content.  The issue is that they are going out of their way to prevent others from providing that ability.  It's a great little piece of hardware.  Hopefully they'll take it's chains off.
 
I agree Jacob. However ultimately this whole issue (and many more just like it) is merely an "effect". The "cause" lies squarely on "us" the consumers. I suggest that we all do as I do. Which is, if a: service, software or hardware offends me I complain. If nothing is done in a timely fashion then I stop using it. The all mighty Dollar is the only language spoken these days. The funniest part of it all is the very dollars that "narrow minded entities" often wield aginst "us".....COME FROM "us"("us" = the 98% of people in the world who actually generate 99.9% of the blood, sweat, and capital that keep the world turning)!!!...rotfl. Please don't confuse my comments with being aginst the system. With checks and balances it is the best system in the world. Guess what? "Our" checks are the balance..lol. We are not doing our part thus the system is broken accross the board!! Thanx to many awesome innovaters and developers just like Koush who wish to grow WITH the world not subjugate it: we live in a world with options. In fact we live in a world with too many options to PAY for mediocrity and price gouging. Sorry to rant over such a tiny issue. As you can see from my posts above I have already solved the issue for myself (xmbc). It's just that this issue spans many industries and diciplines including politics. When viewed on this larger scale it comprises a very sad self destructive trend of affairs. We throw our hands up in the air for helplessness.

The solution is very simple if you don't like it complain and if nothing is done: don't buy it, take it back, cancel it, or dont vote for the guy next time (whichever applies). If everyone did this I guarantee in 6 mths time it would be a whole new day indeed...lol. 
 
more than dissappointing decision from google :-(
 
+Ryan Melena is a child and everything I've said seems to be coming true. Hulu plus is supported and HBO go and watchespn are coming soon. Providers that all wouldn't touch Google TV with a 10 ft pole.
Translate
 
+Anthony Raffini Calling people who were disappointed that this feature stopped working "dumb" was a dick comment.  Just because the device does what you want it to do doesn't make other people's frustration "dumb".  You can be content with the device without crapping on people who aren't.  Also, maybe a little respect for someone who has voluntarily given so much of their time to progress the entire Android ecosystem.
 
+Ryan Melena I didn't call anyone dumb for not liking. I called people who expected this functionality dumb, cause it is dumb. I do respect koush by the way buy I respect Google much more.
 
+Anthony Raffini Well I guess you can think people that "expected" functionality which already existed (thanks to +Koushik Dutta) are dumb and I'll continue thinking you're a dick.  BTW, strange that you respect a giant corporate entity that is trying to make money off of you more than a guy who volunteers his time and skills to give you things for free.
 
If you ignore non productive comments they typically go away. When you waste your energy on them they seem to grow...lol. 
 
+netwurk guru You are correct, sometimes it is just so hard. :)  Thanks for the great info about streaming with XMBC on Android too.
 
+Ryan Melena can you convey a thought that is correct? The functionality didn't exist. Koush made it happen with an unreleased SDK and made something happen that was never advertised or promised. You are an amazing troll though. Good job.
 
And look at that. Now we have HBO go support. Looks like Google does know what they are doing.
 
IMHO, They should have secured the content providers prior to launch. At least 5 or so. But hey HBO is a good start. I know why they are doing what they are doing. However for me at least, it still doesn't justify having a Google device that can't stream content from an Android device!?!? Its like Microsoft launching a top of the line PC that can't even run Microsoft software!!! ..lol
 
+netwurk guru and hulu plus, another provider that never existed on Google TV. The chromecast is essentially mending what was a bad relationship with content providers. Google Music was a pirate's paradise until they made it into a package attractive to people who are willing to pay for content.

It is nothing like Microsoft launching a top of the line PC that can't run Microsoft software because:

1) It does work with Android software
2) AllCast is not supported software. Even if it was "allowed" I doubt it would have ever been released on the Play Store.
3) Google has stated that official support for this kind of thing is coming in the future and so far, slowly but surely Google's promises are coming true. It's already more supported than Google TV ever was.
 
What about that q thing they were going g to release.
 
+Anthony Raffini Agreed that it is "promised" to improve. I use a lot of Google products and in general I am pleased with the functionality and I love the price!! That said chromecast has been a huge dissapointment. On the packaging they claimed to satisfy all our mobile media needs. Needless to say to date they have fallen WAY SHORT OF THAT MARK. The statement that chromecast is their best effort to date in media streaming (which by the way is highly debatable) is a sad commentary on what we deem acceptable and worthy of our patronage. Beyond my comments above none of this change the fact that our media streaming options are being held hostage by the giants in the industry and those that cater to their tantrums. And the worst part of it all is they are using OUR own money to do it....lol
john Fu
 
can not download
 
Can Amazon movies be streamed from the Chrome browser? 
 
I recently purchased the chromecast with the idea that I can stream all my media effortlessly. On black Friday I deliberately bought a non-smart TV with the idea that the chromecast would stream my media content from my galaxy note2's gallery n media folders directly to the tv seamlessly. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I am extremely disappointed in Google. I totally deterred from purchasing a smart tv or smart dvd player in hopes that the chromecast would handle all streaming needs. Thought this was going be be a great money saving alternative, but turned out to be nothing close to it. Yeah I can stream netflix and other Google sponsored apps but thats not what it was advertised to be. Thats not what i wanted it for. I can only hope that something will change in the near future. This is not fair to us consumers who spend their hard earned money and something that falls short of what it should be. Very disappointing..
 
+Adam Tez Yup!! Read comments above. Sorry for your losses, evidently Google has "Shanghaied" many of us on same boat....lol
 
+netwurk guru yes they sure have. lol. but even tho I am disappointed in it thus far, I have some type of faith that google will get this straightened out at some point. They need to catch up with everyone else. 
 
+netwurk guru hey can u give me some more direction on how u explained to mirror cast things from my library to the chromecast? If I can get that figured out ill be in good shape and wont be as disappointed lol
 
+Adam Tez can't do it with chromecast. Never could and Koush created an app that made it possible and then Google broke his app several times...lol. (Intentionally or not is subject of debate) however that's what this thread is about and that's why I'm so upset with Google. :-( However you can go to eBay and find an "android Smart TV" that you like (- $45.00 to $200.00 - depending on how fancy you choose ie: some of them have latest android OS and Camera and Bluetooth) Connect it to your tv. Then install "xmbc" on it. Then install xmbc on your phone, tablet, and PC. Then you can stream to or from any device to or from any device over your WiFi network via xmbc!!! ;-). (Once installed on all devices in your network you will see that each xmbc device broadcasts its shares via dlna. So its fairly easy to tap into all the shares in the xmbc interface.). Oh and if you make your PC a dedicated xmbc server. And you get a cheap USB Bluetooth dongle for PC. Then connect it to TV via HDMI and use extended desktop as I did you can install "unified Remote" on both phone and PC. Then you can sit in bed and controll your TV via Bluetooth!!! Hope this will point you in the right direction to solve your needs. If you are fuzzy on any of those config's just "Google it" and lots should come up.
 
Tnx Koushik, i downloaded your app from aptoide but it couldn't find my chromecast. And please fix your download link.
 
So basically they're saying "if you want to watch your own media, use an apple tv." 
 
Download avia and buy the whole version for 2.99 then you can stream everything from your phones media. Just found this out the other day. Works great! This is what I got the chromecast for!
 
+Adam Tez Looks promising!! Awesome find!! Thanx for the post. - Has trouble with some ".mkv" and ".mp4" files but that is not uncommon to a lot of dlna streamers, plus the fault is typically on the recieving device end (chromecast in this case). Now lets wait and see if google intentionally breaks this also.
 
Yeah we will see but I don't think they will. Avia is a chromecast sponsored app. If they intentionally break this one im gonna snap my chromecast in half and toss it in the garbage lol
 
+Adam Tez yeah I had to borrow a friends just to check out avia cause I took mines back to store due to above issues lol. "Oficially Supported" - Interesting. Guess that means somone who called them 1st and promised a cut of the action...lol Well the device is young still. Lets see what develops.
 
Koushik great job...users are ready to donate for user friendly app...try to come up with new one....Google may bargain you..... Cheers
David B
 
So much with the Apple TV hype, I guess Google can do a better job with it.
 
im guessing the url has been brought down? i have done great work and we at the xda and android lovers love and appreciate your work.. thank you i would donate money to have a working fix for this i got a chromecast and since the last time i looked its been blocked and it sucks because i got the cast for the very reason to stream media from my phone to the tv from what ive read when it was first release it was suppose to make your tv a smart tv kind of and not being able to do the things it use to be able to do just bums me out and im sure it does alot of people... google is slipping with the open source part about the company. i remember back then everything use to be open now it just seems like they are falling behind the carriers just like apple did and things just started going down hill. i think when samsung releases tizen people will deffanitly start jumping from Android to the new open source just because samsung just dont care. BUT LIKE I SAID I WILL DONATE FOR A FIX GOOD LUCK
 
I am aware I have Linux on my computer and have a HTC one rooted with stock android
 
+Dillon Shifflett Thats awesome. Same here. I think im gonna try one of those all linux phone versions on one of my spare phones just to see how usable it is.
 
Ubuntu isn't very usable unless you have a nexus 4. 
 
But the idea was amazing I wish the carriers would support it like theyre going to with tizen being able to get full desktop integration with you mobile phone is a pretty sweet idea
 
Koush, Google announced the availability of the ChromeCast SDK.  Any plans for making AllCast available for CC again?
 
+Adam Tez " Download avia and buy the whole version for 2.99 then you can stream everything from your phones media. Just found this out the other day. Works great! This is what I got the chromecast for!" - Well Adam: I like the Avia app in general and I like interface however After extensive testing im still not impressed with the chromecast device. I was really excited when I first tried Avia and several of my videos played. Then as I tested more codecs, it became evident that there are some issues with various formats and even some formats that play if perfect but dont play if they were encoded differently than chromecast expected. Also some buffering issues. But once again these issues are typically on the recieving end of the stream. In short chromecast needs alot more work. It should be called chromecast beta....lol And I will add I have become VERY IMPRESSED with XMBC. I havnt found anything it wont play yet...lol That tells me that I am not asking for the impossible. Infact I dont think its too much to just ask that a device that was supposedly designed and advertised to stream video is actually capable of streaming videos....rotfl
 
FUCK YOU GOOGLE. going ROKU!!!!!!!!
Translate
 
Ok just an update. There is now several offerings in the play store. AVIA, SOLID EXPLORER CAST..ETC... they all seem pretty rough around the edges to me, and most of the issues I listed earlier still exist. So far Avia seems to be the best of the lot, however that aint saying much...lol
 
Before I can do anything it auto updates...this is server based, so I don't see how I can get around this unless I investigate the firmware of Chromecast. I need more experience. 😒
Add a comment...