That sounds great.

I love technology, and I love the way TV watching is rapidly evolving.

I also control my AppleTV with my Android phone. So it's not necessarily Apple specific....

Well, OK. Not an officially-supported way of being universal then. :p

This is MEANT to be universal :D

They killed the free 3 months of Netflix deal. Rumor going around is that anyone who ordered after 1 PM PST yesterday is out of luck (that would include me - ordered yesterday evening). Would Google really spoil the buzz on this product by doing this? Seems they'll upset a lot of people who ordered on the day the product was announced.

I smell a lot of cancellations if they really did that. Thats messed up.

Jeebus. You'd think a company as smart as Google could predict the kind of fallout they're about to get from this sort of move. What are they thinking?

That's what I was thinking. So, you want me to pay $35 for something that anyone who has a gaming console can do. I can even hook my laptop to the TV and watch that way. Sure, $35 isn't much, but I'd hope that it would do something at least a little bit unique.

Here's a pretty good comparison of this to the other popular options (game consoles, AppleTV, and Roku).

http://qz.com/107942/googles-chromec...dia-solutions/

it basically makes your TV a monitor for your smartphone. Pretty smart. and it sold out already in hours. Google own YouTube. The easier they make it to watch Youtube on a device you already have in your hand (rather than turn on your game console and open the YT interface, etc.) the better it is for them. My father is 74. he watches netflix on his tablet but his neck gets tired. Now he can just bring up a movie he likes and watch it on his TV. Simple.

This is kind of accurate, but in function it's got one important difference: the video itself is being streamed directly to the Chromecast, so once it's started, you can keep doing whatever you want on your phone/tablet/laptop after you press play.

That's pretty rad. I was at Google's L.A. office today (shameless namedrop) talking about doing some YouTube-based ideas for one of our clients and they were telling me about Chromecast. It's pretty kewl.

It lets you stream video from the browser. If this includes flash content, that's unique. I don't know about PS, but XBox doesn't do flash with it's onboard IE. Neither does iOS.

As mentioned before, I'm watching a lot of sporting events that I can only find on say, justin.tv or firstrow. If I can stream that to my TV without having to hook up cables, as well as be able to do other things on my laptop while I do, that's certainly worth the money to me. It was especially so at $11, but even if they have killed Netflix, it still is at 35.

So say I get NFL Sunday Ticket on mobile since I am getting Madden would this be able to stream the games from mobile to my TV?

Most likely not. It's not designed to take arbitrary content and display it on the TV from what I've read.

See above plus the fact that if $600 iPhone doesn't have the processing power to run flash then neither will this $35 dingus that's the size of a thumb drive.

What I think is completely ridiculous is that for all the pictures that makes this look like you can just plug in this doohicky into the HDMI port and be watching video, you still have to connect it to AC power through the USB port on the back of the Chromecast thingy.

What's the point of it being small if I've still got to string power from it to an already nearly full power strip that may or may not have room for the USB adapter?

I'll stick to my AppleTV that can play HBO Go, ESPN, Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, my entire iTunes library, mirror what's on my Mac, mirror what's on my iPhone or iPad, and be controlled by an iPhone, Android, universal remote or the tiny remote that it came with.

It's a hundred bucks versus $35 and currently a lot more functional.