Google responds to claims they intentionally blocked AllCast

August 26, 2013

    Chromecast

    Will it, or won’t it?

    The past few days have seen the Chromecast under fire. An update to the streaming device left the sleeper hit AllCast without functionality, and the developer in an uproar. Taking to his Google+ page, Koushik Dutta insisted the change was intended to block his app from working.

    That’s a strong accusation from a guy who admittedly questioned the openness of the Chromecast in the same Google+ post in which he notified the world AllCast was no longer working. AllCast was meant to allow streaming of local media, such as videos stored on an Android device. It was also meant to take media from your Dropbox or Google Drive account, and stream it from your Android device.

    Sounds sublime, but we need to keep a few things in mind, here. First, specifically relating to this case of an app which has lost functionality, is that the Chromecast SDK isn’t final. With an evolving SDK (software development kit), it’s unnecessary and a bit presumptuous to get in an uproar over AllCast losing some functionality. It’s also important to note that AllCast was perpetually in beta, and never distributed to a wide audience, which probably had a lot to do with the evolving SDK.

    The second thing to keep in mind when appreciating this situation is that Chromecast was never said — or sold — to be open source. We often make assumptions that Google, which gives us quite a bit of their wares in the spirit of open source, would do the same with Chromecast. More to the point, Google probably (at least in the interim), wants to control content streaming. An open (read: hackable) device will not make it easy to attract providers or partners, which are crucial to the success of Google’s living room intent. It makes them uncomfortable, plain and simple.

    The Verge reached out to Google for comment on this dustup, and received the following statement:

    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.

    There you have it. An SDK in “early development”, for “developer preview”, and meant for “testing only”. When considering the case of AllCast, it’s safe to say the proverbial gun had been jumped. By all of us. Just because an app which lost functionality in a time when the SDK was in its infancy doesn’t mean Google has withdrawn the feature forever. In the meantime, we can stream Dropbox or Drive content from the Chrome browser, so all is not lost.

    We’ve reached out to Dutta for comment via Google+, but have not received a response. We’ll keep you updated, should we hear more.

    Source

    Comments

    • JimAlaska

      Don’t forget. Streaming from a tab is still beta as well…

    • Markus Ressel

      Everything Google gives to consumers is a public beta… you should know that by now. Does this mean they can add and remove features how they like without users getting angry at them? Hell, no! Without people complaining they had no reason to put this back into the Chromecast ever again. Please don’t talk fanboy shit… We don’t want to live with workarounds (which also could be removed if we take your ‘beta’ argument, as JimAlaska already pointed out)

      • Easy

        Google provided selected apps and tab casting to the public. Any of that is broken or doesn’t work?
        Google provided SDK to the developers and explicitly said it is not finalized (not beta, it is still being developed, beta is still being tested). They didn’t even change that. The aspect they changed is not in SDK but something Koush reverse engineered (AFAIK).

    • Lakh Jhajj

      I personally think Google is not that open anymore. They have finally realized that a more refined and better user experience to the end user can only be possible by having full control over the software. Yeah it will raise concerns and eyebrows on Google’s new SDK policy but people don’t hate Google as much they hate Apple , so probably they will get away with it.

      • Easy

        Are you saying once Google release something, they cannot change their internal code? They cannot change something that they have explicitly mentioned as not finalized?

      • BrandoHD

        The Chromecast is not Android or Chromium, this is not an “Open Source” project

      • abazigal

        Google is just like any other business. They were open when it suited their business model (i.e.: encourage the proliferation of Android and their web services).

        Now, they clearly have long term plans for chromecast which doesn’t play well with being “open”.

        In the end, it’s all about the money.

    • Joshua Hill

      Why are you guys defending Google here. We should be asking for this functionality not defending a business when they deliberately change what they are doing to restrict users options.

      • Easy

        What functionality? Which user option is restricted?

        • Joshua Hill

          They blocked an app called ‘Allcast’ that allowed users to stream any local content they wanted.

          As far as I understand it users now can’t stream all their local content, even through a Chrome tab or if they still can it’s more cumbersome to do so.

          • Easy

            I didn’t see a single article where Google provided this functionality. Also I didn’t know it was a user option.

            Allcast is written by reverse engineering Chromecast code. Not by using approved SDK that Chromecast provides.

            Nothing changed with respect to playing local contents through Chrome Tabs.

        • Joshua Hill

          Did you read the article?

          • Easy

            Yes, I did.

      • Steve- Construction Contractor

        How dare someone defend ‘a business’.

        Does the Chromecast no longer work as advertised? If not, take it back.

        Cry on, lib.

        • Joshua Hill

          NO! How dare a website that exists because of Android users defend a business at the expense of the users that drive this site. Way to misrepresent what I said. CRY ON FASCIST PIG!

          P.S. This was a healthy discussion until you fealt the need to add insults you dirty TROLL.

          • Steven

            Actually you come across as more of a troll. Because someone didn’t agree with you, you feel the need to start call them a troll. Some one needs there dummy back.

        • Joshua Hill

          AA’s opening sentence says exactly what I said, ‘When Google made changes to its API that left the 3rd party app AllCast without Chromecast functionality’

          Take that you fanbois with your heads up Googles ass and the inability to read.

      • BrandoHD

        Di you read the article, the answer may be a yes, but now, did you understand what you read?

        Read this again from Google’s official statement “It’s still early days for the Google Cast SDK, which we just released in developer preview for early development and testing only.”

        “developer preview and for testing and development only” <<<—– This is very important for you to understand

        Koush got too far ahead of himself, he found a way to BYPASS the rules that Google set for the SDK and he got locked off, he broke the rules and Google did what they had to to do

        This is Google's product, and they have all rights to protect their investment in order to achieve the plans they have for their product

        • Joshua Hill

          And consumers have the right to tell companies what they like and don’t like about their products. This website exists because of and for Android users not to push Googles business model and profits at the expense of it’s user base.

          • abazigal

            It cost just a freaking $35. Were you expecting Apple Tv level of functionality?

            • Joshua Hill

              What’s your point? We’re discussing something that was available and has since been removed. Would you kindly stay on topic instead of muddying the waters.

            • abazigal

              My point is that you get what you pay for. The chromecast stick was never intended to let you stream your local media (replicating a feature like Apple Tv+air video + airplay). Some people spend hundreds buying 2nd-hand Mac-Minis for that very purpose.

              I believe Chromecast is simply Google’s efforts to bring streaming online services to “dumb” HD-Tvs. They likely have some partnership with companies like netflix, and expect to earn it back in the long run via commissions. But for this to be financially viable, everyone must subscribe. That’s why the chromecast dongle is so cheap – it has to be to rapidly increase adoption numbers, to seed the ground for phase 2.

              The ability to stream your own content would defeat that. Imagine if someone simply torrented their own movies and used allcast to stream them to their TV. Who’s gonna subscribe?

              Someone found a way to work around that, Google wasn’t pleased (because that clearly wasn’t their intention in the first place) and blocked that.

              It’s just a typical day in business.

            • Joshua Hill

              The Chromecast had a particular functionality. Now thanks to Google making changes it doesn’t. Regardless of the devices intended purpose/functionality nothing anybody says changes that fact.

              I understand Google is a business. Please understand that as consumers and Android Authority as a site for Android users should represent what is best for the users not Google. These different interests don’t always have to be mutually exclusive but in this case they are. I doubt no matter how much noise we make we will bring about change in this case. That doesn’t justify some commenters and this website taking a pro Google anti-user stance. Let’s all go work in sweat shops for multi nationals. Be chained to their workstations with company tattoo’s

            • abazigal

              I am not anti-user. I am simply trying to be realistic with expectations here. The chromecast costs just 1/3 of an Apple Tv. Were you expecting 100% of the functionality?

              The chromecast never shipped with the ability to stream your local content. Someone found a way to work around that. It’s pretty much like jailbreaking your Apple device. Have fun, enjoy it while it lasts, and don’t complain when it gets neutered in a subsequent patch.

            • Joshua Hill

              I never expressed what I expected. I have only ever stated that Google removed this functionality. Some commenters were apparently happy with this state of affairs and defended Google, including yourself. I responded to this by pointing out that we and this website should be looking after users not Google. Some people can’t seem to grasp this concept.

            • Joshua Hill

              Peoples inability to read and comprehend what is written in a comment without adding their own biases and assumptions about what the OP meant will be the death of society. Yes I am deliberately exaggerating and yes I’m talking about @Construction_Contracts:disqus amongst others :D

            • Matthew Wypyszinski

              at this point i have to jump in that the same argument can be used against increasing security features in cars. by your logic i should now be allowed to hotwire your car and your car maker should NOT be allowed to do something about it, since your car had a specific functionality that i enjoyed and if they altered it, it would not.

            • Joshua Hill

              Yet another poster who hasn’t read or comprehended my OP, ‘We should be asking for this functionality’. Where did I day Google ‘should NOT be allowed to do something about it’?

              If you want to disagree with me that’s fine, but make sure you understand what I actually said first. I’ll thank you not to misrepresent me in the future

            • Matthew Wypyszinski

              No I fully understand what your saying, I would kindly ask you not to misrepresent ME.all i want is continied functionality of my car jacking tools, because I tool the time and energy to add this feature to your car, they ability for others to t it without a key.

              More seriously, what this guy did with all cast, while welcome, was in a whole illegal. It went against googles policies towards the use of the developer SDK they distributed,and was used mostly for illegal purposes (namely streaming torrented movies. Let’s be serious here, there isn’t a single member of this site who wants local streaming for home movies.).

            • Joshua Hill

              You didn’t answer my question. It appears you can’t because you misrepresent me exactly as I stated.

            • Matthew Wypyszinski

              “…not defending a business when they deliberately change what they are doing to restrict users options.”

            • Joshua Hill

              Once again, how does my statement ‘not defending a business’ equate to me saying (according to you) that Google ‘should NOT be allowed to do something about it?’?

              It has no correlation unless you misinterpret the English language or are seeking to misrepresent me.

            • NicholasLefevre

              No Josh, you stated that Google changed the Chromecast in a deliberate effort to restrict users. You can’t seem to merely acknowledge that this statement was not one you had evidence to support.

            • erwinanciano

              Just so you know, there are android sticks for $35 or so that have more functionality than Apple TV.

            • acras

              Bad day at the Starbucks? Chromecast did not have this “certain functionality” that you are screaming at everybody about .Where on Googles site for Chromecast does it say ” stream your personal content with AllCast” ? Koush found a “workaround” to provide the functionality , knowing that the SDK was early beta , and that Google would be changing code . If he didn’t know that Google is trying to bring content providers on board , who will not join the party if the device is easily hackable , then he really wasn’t paying attention . This device isn’t his , or your personal playground , and just because it’s running a variation of open source software does NOT mean that the device has to be open source. Jean-Baptiste Queru left AOSP because even Nexus devices aren’t open source .

            • Joshua Hill

              ‘Koush found a “workaround” to provide the functionality’ but in your opening sentence you claim Chromecast didn’t have this functionality. What a well reasoned argument.

            • acras

              Reading comprehension is not your strong suit , is it? Do you understand what a workaround is ? Out of the box , from Google , the Chromecast does not have the ability to stream local content . Koush found a way to modify the early stage beta code to allow this function that Google did not include.

            • Joshua Hill

              Did I ever say otherwise. It appears your comprehension skills are the issue here.

            • acras

              Laughable , your whole argument shows your lack of understanding. Go to http://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/chromecast/#netflix and tell me where you see AllCast listed as a way to enjoy the Chromecast . Someone hacks a device , KNOWING that the SDK and probably every aspect of the code is in a state of flux , he gets his knickers in a bunch , and you try to say Google took away functionality ? I trust you bring the same attitude to all of your devices , don’t run antivirus software and never update for security patches , you know , because the guy who just hacked your rig to take your passwords and take control of your system to help launch an attack on the NSA just added functionality to it.
              Yes , I would like to see the ability to stream my content , I would like to be able to use Chromecast in every possible way that I could imagine , but Google is not evil for not giving that to me , and people visiting this site are not sheep for seeing Googles point of view . I have held off on buying a Chromecast to see how it develops , I don’t really need it as it was marketed , as a Netflix , Youtube , GooglePlay , and Chrome streaming device.

            • Joshua Hill

              Your inability to comprehend what I am actually saying is what is laughable. I agree with most of the things people have been saying here. Unfortunately people are trying to correct me for things I never said making themselves look silly in the process. I even quoted my OP with the hope you would re-read it and comprehend what I had written. Unfortunately this seems to be beyond you.

            • acras

              And you seem to not comprehend that the software for this device is in Beta testing , which means it will be changed . From what I read , Koush didn’t use the SDK for AllCast , he found a security vulnerability in the O.S. for Chromecast and exploited that . Heaven forbid Google use any information it has gathered during Beta testing on their devices O.S. to modify it. If he didn’t want this to happen , he shouldn’t have used a workaround . If he had done things the way he was supposed to , and they decided they wanted to block that function , still within their rights and totally ethical. If they told people that it streamed personal content , then took that function away , your argument would make sense , and it would be a B.S. move

            • Joshua Hill

              I’m going to try once more to impart what I have said and point out how that is different from what you are ascribing to me.

              I never at any stage said it was a Google provided or endorsed functionality. It was however a functionality the Chromecast device had (through the use of the Allcast app) that Google has actively made changes to in an attempt to restrict this functionality and the use of the Allcast app. This is fully compatible with my OP: ‘Why are you guys defending Google here. We should be asking for this functionality not defending a business when they deliberately change what they are doing to restrict users options.’

              ‘he shouldn’t have used a workaround’: I never said otherwise

              ‘still within their rights and totally ethical’: I never said otherwise

              ‘If they told people that it streamed personal content , then took that function away , your argument would make sense’: I never presented an argument. I made a statement based on my opinion that as a user I would welcome the functionality to stream anything and as a user I believe we should be asking for this. AA should be asking for it on our behalf too.

            • Joshua Hill

              ‘you try to say Google took away functionality’ Google deliberately changed things to remove the functionality this app provided. No amount of semantics on your behalf changes this fact.

            • acras

              BETA…. semantics have nothing to do with this , an “app” that was created to take advantage of a security vulnerability in an O.S. , that was patched is not taking away functionality from the device, manufacturer , or general consumer. I can turn a Chromecast into a lighter , if enough people follow my lead , then burn their houses down , Google changes manufacturing to make it non-flammable , have they taken away functionality?

            • Joshua Hill

              YES, if they change the design to deliberately impede the functionality (whether it is Google endorsed or not) that you have found with the device then YES, THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY FUNCTIONALITY [for the record this is the first time I've screamed at somebody despite you earlier erroneous allegations against me :) ]

              I don’t understand how that is so hard to comprehend. I have never argued that it is right or ethical that we had the option of that functionality for a while. I only stated an opinion that as a user I would welcome the functionality to stream anything and as a user I believe we should be asking for this. AA should be asking for it on our behalf too. Finally I stated that Google ‘deliberately change what they are doing to restrict users options’. I never stated it was an option Google had provided and then removed.

            • Easy

              How do you know they removed the functionality? They might have moved it to a different routine. They might have to modify the code to remove the current unpublished function to a different one. Do they have to ask permission to whoever wrote whatever code?

            • NicholasLefevre

              No amount of semantics will obscure the fact that you have adduced no evidence to support your assertion that “Google deliberately change thins to remove the functionality this app provided.”

            • Joshua Hill

              I never at any stage said it was a Google provided or endorsed functionality. It was however a functionality the Chromecast device had that Google has actively made changes to restrict.

              For all of you who have forgotten or have comprehension problems here is my OP: ‘Why are you guys defending Google here. We should be asking for this functionality not defending a business when they deliberately change what they are doing to restrict users options.’

            • Easy

              Some are defending Google because they didn’t seem to have made anything wrong.

            • Joshua Hill

              Did you ever say it was Google provided or Google endorsed functionality? NO. Did I? NO.

              This functionality existed by your own admission and Google have taken active steps to prevent this functionality. That’s all I’ve ever been saying and you seem to agree with me yet here you are arguing with me. Who has the comprehension issue???

            • Joshua Hill

              I’m not sure why your bad day at Starbucks has impeded your ability to comprehend the English language in it’s written form.

          • Shiuko

            And who gave you that so called “right”?
            You have not right to shit unless they do ask you for your opinion.
            They design and sell a product, you do not like it or want it? Fine, do not buy it and/or make your own.
            They do not owe you anything you selfrighteous brat.

            • Joshua Hill

              You’re right, corporations are taking over the world and we do not have the right to shit without their permission. Imagine a world where we do not have the right to our own bodily functions without their say so. Thanks for making a wonderful point that contradicts your whole argument and adds nothing to the discussion at hand :)

            • Shiuko

              Better get back to your underground bunker and put your aluminium foil hat back on…Read my post again and this time try to understand what I meant by using the word shit…Vague nounShit can be used as a generic mass noun similar to stuff; for instance, This show is funny shit or This test is hard shit, or That was stupid shit. These three usages (with funny, hard, and stupid or another synonym of stupid) are heard most commonly in the United States.Now, get into your head that nobody owes you anything, if you buy a butter knife and decided to use it as a screwdriver and it does not do a satisfactory job of it, who are you going to blame? Worst still you could use it to kill someone; would you expect the knife manufacturer to condone or encourage the use of their product in a fashion that was not intended when designed, advertised and finally sold as?I am sure that you could use the chromecast as a hammer if you felt so inclined, I mean the functionality is there… Do no think that it was ever advertised as a hammer though.Now you can try and read my answer and pick whatever you want from it, twist it around and fail to comprehend what myself and everybody else that bothered to reply to you had tried to make you understand

            • Joshua Hill

              You didn’t try to make me understand anything. You just wanted to beat your chest like the rest of us :D

              Thanks for the wonderful English lesson. It’s always refreshing to hear what I already know in someone else’s words.

            • Shiuko

              Beating my chest?
              More like wanting to bash your head in…

              You want to know something funny?
              English is my second language, still, my reading comprehension seems to be a lot better than yours.

              I give up, you are just too arrogant and stupid to make an effort to understand and see other people’s point of view

            • Joshua Hill

              Angry much? If you hadn’t got so emotional you may have realised that right from my first reply to you I was over this discussion and making deliberately silly comments. Did my comment make any sense? No (although in all fairness your initial comment was hard to understand). Did I know that? Yes. Did you know that? Yes. Did you realise I was over this and just goofing around? Apparently not. Given the way you attacked me do I care? Not in the slightest. I hope you didn’t take your rage out on some other poor innocent.

        • Joshua Hill

          Did you understand what I said or do I have to talk condescendingly to you with arrows and the like.

      • cabbiebot

        Joshua:

        The functionality is not ready but will be forthcoming. Your Chromecast works as advertised and will grow to be more of a value once the SDK is finalized and 3rd-party devs are given the okay to have at it, as was understood the moment it went for sale.

        Thanks in advance,
        Here to help,
        XOXOXOXO,
        *sprays a bit of cologne on this note*
        Your kindly neighborhood cabbieBot.

        • abazigal

          Someone, I doubt Google will ever allow it.

          I could still rationalise it if Google had answered along the lines of wishing to patch a perceived hack in the best interests of security. Instead, their non-commital answer leads me to believe that aircast was an unintended, and completely unwelcome feature that Google intends to kill permanently, because it doesn’t jive with whatever plans they have for chromecast.

          • Joshua Hill

            And yet people are here defending such actions??? Seem incomprehensible to me???

          • End in sight

            Yeah, I agree.

            You know back in the early days, Larry or Sergei would have probably been like this dev. But now that the media giants hold sway over them with their money, Google has to give up on their idealistic tendencies like, all books should be free online, etc.

            • Joshua Hill

              Thank you apparently one person here understands what is going on. Pity Marvin Gaye is not here to add to our number.

          • cabbiebot

            Will you be back here to eat crow once they deliver on it?

            • Joshua Hill

              We’ll be back here to give it to you when it never originates if you feel that’s the way to respond to someone who offers a counterpoint to your opinion with reasons and doesn’t resort to personal attacks against you. BTW you haven’t responded to my question. I guess have no facts or reasoning to substantiate your claim. Go TROLL somewhere else.

            • cabbiebot

              You sound really internet tough because of your selective use of caps and that intimidates me. I better watch out if I know whats good for me!

            • Joshua Hill

              No, I just wanted to draw others attention, through the use of CAPS, to my opinion that you are a TROLL.

            • abazigal

              If they ever do allow it.

              I am simply admit that I am wrong. This is a public forum, free for everyone to hold a civil discussion back up with facts or logical reasoning.

              I am simply stating what I think Google is up to. Is there a problem with that? If you disagree, simply say so, and back it up with your own reasons. I can take it, you know. :)

            • cabbiebot

              Fair enough. My reasons are that they have explicitly said they want to allow the casting of local content. You insinuate they have plans which excludes that without a justification for it, or any reasoning for why they would do so. Despite that local content can be played now on a Chromecast (just not from mobile, via the official beta googlecast extension)

            • abazigal

              Well, technically, they said that they “would like to” support it, not that they would. I interpret it as an admission that they likely never will, unless they find some way to monetise that (or if competition gets so intense they have to allow it to keep users on their chromecast platform).

            • Joshua Hill

              Yes my interpretation too.

            • Easy

              “would like to” means “never will”? I have to relearn English.

            • Joshua Hill

              Yes you do need to relearn English and stop selectively quoting people. The poster never said ‘never will’ they said ‘I interpret it as an admission that they likely never will’. If you have to resort to such tactics your colours are on display for all too see.

            • Easy

              What colors? :) No point to discuss anymore.

            • Joshua Hill

              Your incomprehensible colours.

            • Joshua Hill

              Just because Google ‘would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content’ doesn’t mean they will. As numerous commenters have pointed out (thinking they are correcting me even though I mentioned nothing about this) their business model and what they need to do to stay competitive may not see Google deliver everything they would ‘like’ to users.

          • Easy

            “would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content.”
            What do you mean by non-committal?

            • abazigal

              “I would like to give you a million dollars”

              Doesn’t mean I will.

            • Easy

              So if Google announces that they will release Samsung GS4 Google edition, then likely they wouldn’t. Is that correct? If Ford announce, they will introduce a new model, it means they will not, right?

            • Joshua Hill

              Flawed argument. Google did not announce that they will do something. Google said they would like to do something.

            • abazigal

              Correction. If Google, for some reason, states that they “would like to release XXX”, then probably, they won’t.

              I see it as a way of trying to politely say no, like when you want to turn someone down, and say “Oh, I really wish I could help you, but I am quite hard up myself…”

              They left themselves a little wriggle room, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

            • Joshua Hill

              Don’t bother to use Easy’s own words ‘it doesn’t make sense to argue if you already made your mind.’

            • Joshua Hill

              Don’t bother @disqus_ibjrftC01n:disqus has already made up their mind and to use Easy’s own words ‘it doesn’t make sense to argue if you already made your mind.’.

            • Joshua Hill

              ‘would like to’ is not the same as will do.

        • Joshua Hill

          At no stage AFAIK has Google said this functionality will be a part of Chromecast. They made changes to remove this functionality and haven’t specifically said they will be returning it at a later stage. What makes you say this functionality ‘will be forthcoming’?

          • cabbiebot

            Well that is pretty easy. I read the article. You can find it here: http://www.androidauthority.com/allcast-answer-from-google-259112/

            • Joshua Hill

              You fanboi interpretation of it is obviously different to the literal interpretation of this article.

          • gottahavit

            Maybe you should do some research on what you are actually talking about. This “functionality” still exists and IS part of the SDK. HOWEVER, what they removed was the backdoor that was used to hi-jack their own Chrome(Not Chromecast) receiver.

            What was changed was the Chrome Plugin Receiver. The allcast app was completely bypassing the SDK to access the Chrome Plugin Receiver in order to avoid having to whitelist its own receiver.

            I can tell you for a fact that at least as of right now I can still stream local content to my chromecast using my own android app and my own properly whitelisted receiver.

            Now if when they move out of BETA they completely pull mediareceiver and HTML 5 video support from the SDK I will jump on my Soap Box along with the rest, but as of right now all they did(intentionally or not) is plug the backdoor into their Chrome Receiver. If I were Google, I would have done the same thing.

        • Joshua Hill

          BTW I don’t own a Chromecast. So I’m not angry that something I was using has been taken away. I just believe users and websites like this should stand up for themselves. I’ve mentioned a number of times that I am absolutely flabbergasted that people are defending Google in this instance. Why don’t we just let multi-nationals rule the world. It seems to be the logical outcome to such reasoning.

          • cabbiebot

            Well thank god for true champions of the consumer such as yourself, raising a call to arms against wretched companies who seek to establish an exploitive world-wide slave state. Today, Allcast (that had a 2 day expiration on functionality intentionally put in by Koush) functionality is removed, tomorrow, the world! Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I salute you, good soldier.

        • Simon Belmont

          Joshua seems to have too much time on his hands. Dozens of replies to the same posting thread.

          Someone doesn’t like his views challenged, methinks. I liked your “letter” by the way.

          • Joshua Hill

            As you can see I’m all up for rigorous debate, which means I don’t mind having my views challenged. And as you’ve read my myriad posts you will also know I do agree with what most of the posters who were arguing with me were saying. They were just arguing about the wrong points. I made a very short original statement and defended that original statement to arguments that were irrelevant to what I had actually written. People don’t understand how to have a confined literal discussion. They want to broaden the discussion and change the original meanings of what people said. That is not how you hold a useful discussion / argument where I come from.

      • Joshua Hill

        Here’s an example of an article that takes a more pro-user / pro-developer slant on the issue: http://ausdroid.net/2013/08/27/google-comments-on-local-playback-on-chromecast/

        I would have preferred something more along the lines of this from AA too.

      • NicholasLefevre

        There’s such a long train of comments here and the only real issue is that Joshua Hill claims that Google made changes to the Chromecast FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRICTING USERS OPTIONS. He can’t seem to admit that he has provided no evidence to support that conclusion and needs to insult anyone that points that out.

    • Joshua Hill

      You’re not going to be hearing back from the developer given the anti-dev and pro-Google tone to your article.

    • Raymond Marx

      I’m sorry, I was under the impression this “AllCast” crapware was a Samsung app as it was included with my Galaxy S III

      • Easy

        :) Actually I too thought AllShare (not all cast) is a crapware, but surprisingly it seems to work reasonably recently. May be you can try again and it might work.

    • Lisandro O Oocks

      I honestly would prefer to see the first cloud service to jump on this bandwagon and let us stream from it to the TV at similar speeds as YouTube or Netflix is right now.
      Allcast, thou in beta, wasn’t good to stream from Dropbox as I would’ve liked. I only had good success with content in my device.

    • Joshua Hill

      Given that @abazigal:disqus, @BrandoHD:disqus, @Construction_Contracts:disqus, @cabbiebot:disqus and @disqus_ibjrftC01n:disqus have stopped responding I am hoping they have finally comprehended what I written and some of them feel a little sheepish about the way they misrepresented my statements. I think I’ve finally got @acras:disqus to comprehend what I wrote too :) Just another day in an online forum :)

      • abazigal

        Huh? I was responding in between my break times. It’s 3 pm over here, and I am still at work. Sheesh, give it at least 24 hours before you raise the victory flag, will you?

        Besides, I don’t think I misrepresented anything.

      • Easy

        No, what you interpreted is not correct. Probably others stopped because it doesn’t make sense to argue if you already made your mind.

      • Joshua Hill

        Apparently you can’t teach an internet dog new tricks. Just another day in an online forum.

      • Simon Belmont

        They probably stopped responding because they fell asleep at the keyboard from reading your eleventy billion replies. Lay off the coffee, man. ;)

        I’m just messing with you, by the way. But yeah, about 80% of the posts in the comment section are yours. :)

    • TSandayu

      Question. Were the apps that he wrote using the SDK broken or was only the app hack that bypassed the SDK broken as well?

      • Simon Belmont

        Likely the hack itself. Of course those apps DEPENDED on that hack to work.

        So, basically, the apps are useless now. Ah well.

    • Simon Belmont

      I can’t see Google NOT allowing local file streaming from Android devices (and probably iOS, if it can) at some point, with the Chromecast. It’s just a no-brainer function, and it’s also one that would compete well with AirPlay and AppleTV.

      Google has a lot of mindshare with the Chromecast, but they’re taking their time and hopefully getting things right with the SDK. My guess is they didn’t want a “hacky” way of accessing local content to be the way people were doing it. They want developers to go through the SDK and access it securely and properly (when those features are ready to be launched). Like they said, it’s early times for the Chromecast, so I expect big things down the line.

    • Adam Outler

      They didn’t remove features. the way they coded it was simply to block access to the features used by everyone except google.

    • aai534

      tinyurl.com/kk6tldj

      v

    • erwinanciano

      I love Google and all but this is not a move you should be lauding or defending. This is just apologist speak.

    • paul taraneh

      Let’s not forget that casting from tabs sucks at the moment. If rather be able to enjoy full functionality of the device i apparently wasted money on, than pick up new with an apk that could still be used on android tv dongles. Point is, chromecast is currently a big dud, let’s put the fire on Google to work on the apps they hype as functional functional before we go to a plan b. They even patched the root loophole already. They have some nerve.

    • Oobiewan

      I don’t actually care if allcast is not qorking with chromecast anymore, I can still stream to our samsung smart tv, and a lot of other devices. So saying that the app has has lost it’s functionality is dumb.

    Popular

    Latest