Future of TV reception

Page 2 of 2<12
Poll
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)

No members have voted yet

September 24th, 2013 at 9:53:49 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
And that will do for a massively unfair mischaracterization until a better one comes along.

The idea behind Chromecast is that lots of people already own tablets, PCs and have wireless internet at home.


PC's and wireless alone won't activate Chromecast. You need a smartphone or a tablet. If the person with the phone or tablet is not in the house, Chromecast won't work.

It isn't an issue if you live alone. But why not spend $200 on an MHL TV, and $80 on a Roku streaming stick and have a self sufficient system. That way your family or guests can use the TV.
September 24th, 2013 at 10:19:49 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: Pacomartin
PC's and wireless alone won't activate Chromecast. You need a smartphone or a tablet. If the person with the phone or tablet is not in the house, Chromecast won't work.


From what I've read, it will work with a PC streaming Netflix, Youtube and anything being stremed or played on Chrome.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
September 24th, 2013 at 11:31:08 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Nareed
From what I've read, it will work with a PC streaming Netflix, Youtube and anything being stremed or played on Chrome.

Yes, but that doesn't work as well as activating the device to get it's own Netflix. The Chromecast is primarily designed to work with the tablets and phones.

I guess if you already own a table and a TV, then get the Chromecast. If you own nothing, then there are inexpensive MHL TV's now, and get a ROKU streaming stick.
Page 2 of 2<12