Chromecast: What and for whom is it? What exactly is Chromecast? Probably, from scholars to the most profane technologists would be able to give a more or less approximate description: a device that allows me to see content from different devices to my TV. But, for whom is Chromecast? Is it really a device you speak to your friends as "yes, I have Chromecast at home"?

What exactly is Chromecast? Probably, from scholars to the most profane technologists would be able to give a more or less approximate description: a device that allows me to see content from different devices to my TV. But, for whom is Chromecast? Is it really a device you speak to your friends as "yes, I have Chromecast at home"?

Despite being a device that we've heard and read for more than a year, it was last week when definitely something stirred deep inside us after learning that could already buy in Spain.

Thanks to TechCrunch, Gigaom or nationally Genbeta, we've been provided with complete reporting on its features, limitations and possibilities. And, since they spelled perfectly, I will focus on a review of the actual use that owns or should own the device, its alternatives and the public it will fit perfectly.

Go ahead I have not purchased a Chromecast. Why? Because I'm not the target audience. Even the affordable price (35 €) made ​​me go running after him to see how good or how bad it is. The reviews that discussed above and my TV (a Samsung 40UF6500 DLNA technology) have taken the blame.

I find very few things you can do with a Chromecast and do not allow DLNA or Allshare (name given to Miracast by Samsung. This article explains a great time). To play image, audio or video on your TV from any device on my local network, it suffice. Because they work more than decently, without penalizing that the content is served from a DLNA server instead of Internet directly, as does Google dongle. Since we can not enjoy Netflix from our country, and since I am not massive user of services like Google Music, they're no features to value positively from my point of view.

 

What Chromecast should be to be THE Chromecast

What I expected of this device is precisely what doesn't allow yet or not yet working properly. I mean, for example, playback of local content (limited to images from Chrome), or watching videos in Flash or HTML5 where, according to testers, "[...] the experience is pretty bad." If, like those who have used it extensively tell, we have high latency values ​​between computer and device, this device doesn't add anything new.

I really will concern him, when the armies of developers in the world begin to generate volleys of applications because of its SDK. That is, when there are tons of things like this.

For those who I do believe it would be an interesting acquisition is for owners of what I call "half-smart TVs" or moderately smart TVs. I mean, those TVs about 4 or 5 years ago, who do not have DLNA but WiFi (integrated or ability to add an external one), and you may not have the ability to run their own apps, could be considered SmartTVs through Chromecast. I think this is the real target audience. If I were in your situation, I wouldn't hesitate to buy it for a second.

 

Chromecast vs. Apple TV vs. Roku 3

Is Chromecast the only solution in the market in the field of media streaming? Of course not. But I wanted to focus on it for two reasons:

  1. It has the best quality / price ratio 
  2. It is the most open of all.

Both the Roku 3 as the Apple TV are devices with similar functions, but in both cases far exceed the price of the Google device (almost triple), besides being much more focused on a specific platform (iOS), for Apple TV, and need special software (Plex), in the case of three Roku.