Time all at the beginning - which makes Chromecast anyway?
=================
The Chromecast is a HDMI stick or a stick with HDMI extender, which can be used as a kind of "smart TV for retrofitting". You put the Chromecast to the HDMI port of a x-any old TV and then play back any old content from the Internet that have been previously given to him by an x-any device.
Ahem, moment. As often happens something "any old"? Now that Chromecast is (still) not the last word when it comes to playing back data, but it is approaching the slow. Important to understanding the function of Chromecast (and most important distinction to Android sticks): The Chromecast receives from external, eg a smartphone or tablet said "Show me youtube video X" and leading the then autonomously by. Tablet and / or phone are only remotes for Chromecast - they are not involved in the actual play. If several tablets or phones with the appropriate apps in the same WLAN as the Chromecast, so you can all be used simultaneously as a remote control.
Wen it all now reminiscent of "Throw" from Sony, which is correct. Similar approach, similar method, but it is without a terminal as the Chromecast but on smart TVs and other equipment designed to natively support the "Throw". But otherwise very similar, yes.
Advantage of Chromecast: You "can" with almost all major cell phone brands. Whether IPhone, whether androids or Windows Phones, the "thresholds" that need to be bridged, are relatively low and the "universal character" thus comes slowly but steadily becoming increasingly popular.
Chromecast vs. Miracast
=================
Very simplified, short distinction: Chromecast is a player - it fetches autonomously the contents that you want to play it, and passes it to the television, which are "confirmation from" Device little more than remote. Miracast however, is first of all a standard for wireless communication. Used it is typically the case of pure "mirroring tools" - hot will, the appropriate "HDMI Sticks" (etc.) are used to (ie screens) "screencasts" 1: transfer via direct radio link 1 to a terminal , The "delegator" device is also the player - the Miracast component is the transmission to the TV. You see the difference?
Advantage Chromecast: The control device sends only one command and then take care of anything. Disadvantage Chromecast: I need for each nonsense (ie "Content") own app that once allowed the Chromecast that I tell her with my controller "game from the".
Butter in de fish what can the Chromecast now? And what is not?
=================
The Chromecast can Youtube videos Watch Ever, max cathedrals, various streams such as from the media libraries of public service and a lot more. More important at the moment is, what it can not or could not long. Long time no there there, directly to stream data from one device to Chromecast was. The funzt now on apps like "Allcast". Access to media centers etc. is now centralized via corresponding Apps and significantly better than possible on the previous individual apps. In this respect, significant steps are recognizable forward. Gone are the days where you could just play on the Chromecast what you had previously downloaded to the cloud.
BUT - of course not work some things (yet?). For example, the Chromecast can not Amazon Prime. But for the same below. You can also still no DTS, can only still jerky at the moment proprietary apps eject complete screen content and need every now and then the Chrome browser, including the relevant extension to (ie Windows, etc.) to be transmitted from the PC images. All in all not perfect - just as little warning. But the market is moving.
What was now with Prime?
=================
That's right, Prime is not supported. But that's not the Chromecast, even if the acts from time to time in reviews or forums discussions so. The Chromecast is ultimately an Android device. And Prime can not with Android.
Clearly, in this regard await me the usual nerd Flames. "Of course it is!", Yeah right. I'm fine. If you are not in Germany and (!) If you manage its Chromecast or more generally to convince his Android device of display Flash content. Then does the video service of Prime. Amazon Prime namely primarily uses Silverlight for transmission that does not for some reason, it uses Flash as a "fallback". Only not in Germany. It uses nothing as a fallback. Since Silverlight does not run on Android, Prime works well on selected Android devices, on which one has not yet played the "non-certified" flash app from Adobe, but only then - and when Flash ever pulled from the prime service in consideration is. As this is not the case in Germany, Prime falls flat.
So what to do?
Well, I take it up as "Waiting for Godot". Prime will sooner or later in an Android-enabled and thus Chromecast suitable form on the market or massive problems associated with user acceptance (see the various troll forums on the subject) meeting. Since the Kindle devices use a Android derivative, it can be assumed that an appropriate implementation of Amazon is certainly possible - so it should actually be a matter of time. Improperly, the question remains whether Amazon wants anyway? We will see.
Conclusion: No problem of Chromecast.
Are there alternatives to Chromecast?
=================
Yes, there is. Raspberry Pi, for example. For hobbyists certainly. Corresponding Linux images on the device can be (derived from XBMC) found under the name Raspbmc the Internet - including instructions on how to configure the Raspberry accordingly. The Pi costs while scarce 30-40 euros and is on the level of Chromecast.Wem that's too stupid, which looks back at the Apple TV, but three times as much cost as the two competitors. There is already, therefore, with the nimbus that it works perfectly with Apple devices, which appears to be by no means necessarily the case in accordance with the current feedback in the related reviews. Since the 3rd generation just got feedback from stuttering to hangers and crashing apps, poor backward compatibility and generally a lot of bugs churning. Let me hold but: This was probably in the early days for the Chromecast and of course applies to a lot of how we get selling it today too often unpatched devices. Conclusion: firmware update not forget.
Android sticks is there also a lot of other manufacturers - especially of "small name" as MK, CSL, Mystore / Mystore365, Amerry, Captiva, MiniX, TVPeCee ... all with varying quality, changing suitability for streaming of data and turn ... varying quality. Especially when one considers that there are devices with quad-core Cortex CPUs at twice the price of a Chromecast, now that you have to have to ask, where exactly do you because with its "Android Stick" want to go. I want pure streaming, then I'm in the Chromecast now - but especially in the future (if the apps once are good enough) - in good hands ... I want to have put the power of a modern cell phones to my TV, so does it possibly make more sense to look for such sticks. It is a question of the use scenario - well, and a question of price.
Last words? (= Known bugs)
=================
Well, hearsay after the Chromecast can not DTS. You will also receive sometimes problems very performance-intensive applications or in applications that require fast response times. Full HD is not a problem, playing very well, because playing is in general at the moment only by mirroring Apps possible and even then hardly advisable (because of said latencies = stuttering), so here Miracast & Co at the moment are better off , But above all, can be considered a "bug" the PSU: It draws in standby power, so that one is well advised, "energize" the Chromecast over its USB port directly from the TV to. She is at least only if also the TV is on.
Conclusion
=================
The concept is convincing in itself. A streaming device I only remotely to exhort to stream and do the rest alone. The development of several apps for the device is impressive - at least me. There is a lot of potential in it in the idea and the various innovations that have gone forth from the idea. But is that enough for the average user? I think: Yes and no and am really ambivalent. For applications such as digital signage and everything else, where I just need a full-fledged Android as on a smartphone, the Chromecast is not an option - not even (at least for now not yet) for applications where I a consistent, non-fragmented Stream 1: 1 want from a device stream to the screen without noticing significant latencies. But that is not what the Chromecast initially focused times, which is why the comparison with Miracast sometimes bites.
In the end one, what "you" as Otto normal users from the moment Chromecast can draw: Who wants to use Watch Ever and max cathedrals and so far lack Smart TV never got, here finds a good way by favorable upgrade to come to new happiness; Who uses Amazon Prime, the current situation will curse and can only hope that the Chromecast eventually also can. It is definitely on the usage scenario - but in general it can be said that the Chromecast is a solid device with slight weaknesses. I can not get therefore at the present time beyond 3 stars. 4 would be too much for me, if I'm honest. Maybe, if it is evident that the native support for Chromecast actually "like wildfire" at all major video services. Perhaps only when Google has resolved in the 2nd generation said, smaller hardware-side flaws such as wireless or power supply Standby consumption.
Has helped you this review, so please rate drop them a note as "helpful". I am at your disposal for questions and of course for criticism at any time. Make a mistake somewhere fixed, then please correct me. Many Thanks :-)
