Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome The Internet Android Communications Google Media Network Operating Systems Software News Technology

Google Integrates Cast Into Chrome, No Extension Required (venturebeat.com) 43

Posted by BeauHD from the all-in-one-solution dept.
An anonymous reader writes from a report via VentureBeat: On Monday, Google announced Google Cast is now built right into Chrome, allowing anyone using the company's browser to cast content to supported devices without having to install or configure anything. The Google Cast extension for Chrome, which launched in July 2013, is no longer required for casting. The report adds: "Here's how it works. When you browse websites that are integrated with Cast, Chrome will now show you a Cast icon as long as you're on the same network as a Cast device. With a couple of clicks, you can view the website content on your TV, listen to music on your speakers, and so on. In fact, Google today also integrated Hangouts with Google Cast: Signed-in users on Chrome 52 or higher can now use the 'Cast...' menu item from Chrome to share the contents of a browser tab or their entire desktop into a Hangout." The support document details all the ways you you can use Google Cast with Chrome.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Integrates Cast Into Chrome, No Extension Required More

Google Integrates Cast Into Chrome, No Extension Required

Comments Filter:

  • Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? (Score:3)

    by Etcetera ( 14711 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:15PM (#52799481) Homepage

    (And "What does God need with a starship?")

    Brave is trying to make a profitable business with certain things relating to security, but who in their right mind thinks that this is somehow an improvement upon or necessary for secure web browsing? 26,000 engineers? Grandma? Millennials? Who?

    No one's thinking of security, or they'd have kiboshed this and a dozen other features, and put the enablement or access of them in a different binary that the OS mediates access to as needed.

    Is there seriously not enough interest in a basic, capable web browser that doesn't implement this stuff that an OSS project can't be started up to focus on it?

    • "The browser extends profits. The browser expands marketshare. The browser is vital to web traffic."

      Sundar Pichai: Remedy this situation, restore browser production, or you will live out your life in a pain amplifier!

      "The Web is the Browser! The Browser is the Web! "

      Browser Worker: Sire, we can't leave all these browser plugins.
      CEO Lars Boilesen: Damn the Browser!
      Andreessen: He cares more about his men than the Browser. I have to admit, against my better judgement, I like this CEO.

      "He who controls the brows

      • "He who controls the browser, controls the universe!"

        Oh Dear Lord He's RIGHT!!!
        http://scaleofuniverse.com/ [scaleofuniverse.com]
        Oh, Flash Required...
        Bwahahahaha...
        Seriously, putting Quantum Foam at the lowest level was a nice touch, but had they looked more closely they would have seen that the foam is made of turtles...

    • It's convenient.

      If you don't like the holes that it may or may not open, turn off auto-update, sandbox an environment, then test it and submit a bug report, get your cash bounty, and quit whining "get off my lawn" non-sense.

      I for-one like how simple it is getting to use my devices like this. Those "smart" TV's and "smart" media players have menus/interfaces that can kiss my ass.

      • Those "smart" TV's and "smart" media players have menus/interfaces that can kiss my ass.

        If they could kiss your ass, then they could also kiss other things, and the profit margins on smart TV's would be much, MUCH higher than they currently are...

    • Re:Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lgw ( 121541 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @06:10PM (#52799797) Journal

      The juxtaposition of stories on the /. front page answers the question. Why Does My Browser Need to be a Server?

      FBI Director Says Prolific Default Encryption Hurting Government Spying Efforts

      Google: solving problems.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nnull ( 1148259 )
      Don't you just love that your browser is now punching through your firewall when you browse the internet? Come on, everyone loves it!

  • Sure, but why is Chrome still... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...worse than Firefox in every imaginable way.

    • Come back when Firefox is properly multithreaded and not plagued by memory leaks.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sirber ( 891722 )

        Come back when Firefox is properly multithreaded and not plagued by memory leaks.

        Hey hey! 2016 is here! You can enable e10s in Firefox 48. Also, haven't had memory issues since firefoxs 45. The browser stays around 300 and 500 MB RAM.

        • Well, you haven't had memory issues, but a significant percentage of user have had memory issues for years and years, and nothing seems to have helped those users. That speaks of a codebase that's extremely crufty and hard to maintain.

          I'm glad to hear Firefox is finally get some sort of multithreading. But it just feels like too little, too late.

        • I've /never/ had a problem with memory when I compile it myself, optimized for my system environment and CPU capabilities.

          When I use the prebuilt binaries from Mozilla it is a terrible experience.

          • If you're on Windows, you can try Waterfox instead of going through the hassle of compiling it yourself. As a bonus, a bunch of the less-desirable features that Mozilla has been shoving into Firefox are removed.

            On Linux, I would assume most users aren't using Mozilla's binaries (rather they would be using binaries compiled by the maintainers of their distro). Even so, I'd use IceCat (IceWeasel) as it also strips out some of the crap I don't want built into my browser.

            Or use Palemoon instead, which doesn't

  • Bloat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JazzXP ( 770338 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:41PM (#52799639) Homepage
    To me this is something that should have stayed as an extension. I'd say only a minority of people will use this feature (I have a Chromecast and I can't see it getting much use). Why do we need this built in to what is meant to be a fast and lightweight web browser?

    • Re:Bloat (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:56PM (#52799731)

      It's funny that the same people who refuse to add bookmark dividers/separators into Chrome because of "extra UI complexity" [chromium.org] have no problem adding bloated cruft like this.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        It's not "funny", it's probably The Suits seeing Cast as (somehow) profitable, and dividers not.

      • Chromecast adds zero UI complexity because it doesn't appear to anyone who doesn't own a chromecast device.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dknj ( 441802 )

          I think that is his point. What UI complexity is added to anyone who doesn't want a divider shown? But dividers doesn't sell more chromecast devices. /thread

          -dk

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ioErr ( 691174 )
          There's a "Cast..." item wasting space in my context menu but I don't own a Chromecast.

    • What you call bloat, others call functionality. If Mozilla tried this in Firefox, this discussion would be 300 comments long, so it's refreshing that its competitor gets called out for 'unnecessary' stuff. :)

      If you have a Chromecast, why wouldn't it see much use? Not everyone wants to plug a 3m HDMI cable from their 12" laptop to their 50" telly every time they want to watch a youtube presentation.

      What would concern me as a FOSS-weenie is yet more closed-source stuff being added to the Chrome platform. If i

    • In general I think this is a good thing. It makes technology nicer and easier to use for the masses and in a pretty secure way too. In general they don't know how to install extensions in browsers, but they are smart enough to plug something in. The cast stuff is great for those people. It also means that the cable-companies will loose subscribers and that less hd-receiver boxes will end up taking space in the landfill after about one year of subscription. The casts are smaller and will simply have a higher

  • The API to actually detect whether or not chromecast is available changed in the switch from extension to built-in.

    Quite a few software systems, particularly packages with few dedicated developers including Subsonic, are now broken.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close