The smarpthone sources are one of the most important discoveries of content that we currently have. There’s Youtube video autoroute but also various video services on demand with their applications. A direct link between smartphone and TV is therefore an excellent idea.
Google knew and sold more than 20 million its first Chromecast, one of the most famous HDMI sticks and good value for money. But he’s not the only one. A few days ago hit the market the second generation Chromecast, product already tested and you already have your full analysis. Will it at the top of the new HDMI sticks Chromecast? Let’s find out…
Redesign and better access, the only two differences from last year’s model
HDMI stick course, one of the best known that by the way, a gadget with at least unusual design. That was the main change has been the Google content streamer in this second generation.
Now we have a small, circular, compact but larger than the previous generation and with the good idea to include the HDMI cable for connecting equipment. The direct benefit of this new design is that it is much easier to place in television where the stick model type not easily fit or was forced.
The new design greatly facilitates placement Chromecast, especially in cases where there is little space or is the TV very close to the wall
Most of the time the new Chromecast will hang. Your weight does not seem excessive to finish spoiling the HDMI connector, so in that sense we can stay calm.
If the area of your television HDMI connection allows, the new Chromecast 2 carries a magnetized area which means it can join the cable, and also helps us to take more compactly when moved.
Something that has improved in the new Chromecast is commissioning. Simply connect the new device to a TV’s HDMI port and power (directly or via a USB port on the TV itself, which is the ideal way to avoid more cables by choice) and in much less time than the first generation Chromecast we streaming system functional. If no update is involved everything happens for the application on your smartphone, from where we will guide you step by step.
The renovated design Chromecast 2 brings with it a new more powerful processor and a configuration of three antennas and support for dual-band WiFi ac. The difference, if you were using the current Chromecast where you had connectivity problems, surely not appreciates. And in any case you must have the appropriate hardware of the router, which is a critical element to the experience with streaming video that self Chromecast.
In our test we had a model compatible router and hardly noticed differences between the two generations of Chromecast we use for comparison. The difference by including the WiFi ac appreciate who really had problems with the previous Chromecast, but in any case, for streaming and a device of this type would have been more appropriate to seek a way to include Ethernet port.
And this new version with better access and better designed than the previous design has not met all the expectations we had deposited thereon renewal hardware level. Really the only thing that has changed the experience has been integrated cable itself makes placement more comfortable, especially in very close to the wall TVs.
Renewal of the hardware we were with integrated cable and miss compatibility with 4K content
Perhaps the most striking and significant absence given that we are talking about Google and one of the most important sources of content will be YouTube, is the 4K mode. At this point, with a 4K TV market in crescendo, and other players such as Netflix investing in UHD content, Google would have taken the time to market of new Chromecast to offer this possibility from now.
Nor is there a connection system to send content that does not depend on a wireless network as an absolute intermediary. Implement Wi-Fi-Direct, for example, the use of open Chromecast and really serve as a link PCs and smartphones content with any television, not only with ours. Not as commonly used method, but for certain situations, such as travel, that now or nothing is impossible or simple use a Chromecast.
Finally, the Chromecast still lacks some useful internal memory for the user, rather than as discussed below, opens many possibilities.
The application is the engine of Chromecast
If the previous point of the analysis you have come out with the idea that this has hardly changed Chromecast hardware level compared to last year’s model, you’re right. The best, most relevant to the user experience, what really matters is the new Chromecast application.
The most important innovation is in the search, which helps us to find content regardless of the service or application you want to use. Here Google is set at how best streamers that have multiple sources of video on demand and has done well … if you use US Chromecast work.
Outside that market the new application loses much of its appeal, and remains, as in the previous, as a simple configuration the first time and then starts a Chromecast application launcher. Most of the time will be within the corresponding application, not in Chromecast.
In the new Chromecast what really matters is implementation. The bad news is that it works the same in the model of last year and that outside the US loses its main and most powerful functionality
If the hardware has not changed anything Chromecast to a standalone device, so does the application, where the native applications are conspicuous by their absence. All the weight falls on each application.
Here we have the distinct advantage of working from applications on the smartphone, contrary to what happens in many of those found in Smart TV or multimedia centers, the interface is complete, powerful and probably very well designed.
Compliant applications have the icon visible, and we can press to start the connection to the TV. With the new application, that content should be loaded in the background from the spot.
However, applications run independent input supposed to have different interfaces and different modes of operation. There is no unified experience as found in other competitors such as Apple TV or the same Fire TV Stick.
The smartphone is good control, but not the best ever
This lack of spirit (or ambition) to be more than a link between smartphone and TV is very clear when there is no direct possibility to use a remote control other than the smarpthone. Without it, no Chromecast worth or at least not in the conditions we want to go through to have a common for something as simple as playing or pausing element.
On the question of price should not be. There’s the TV Stick Fire Amazon or version also stick Roku, which for just a few more, including very solvent controls and more serious aspirations as a media center and not focus exclusively on sending content from a smartphone.
