I remember when the Chromecast with Google TV first came out. My immediate thought was, “This is a game-changer.” While I’d been a Chromecast user since the original model, I increasingly desired the deeper functionality of a full remote and UI, as you’d get from Fire TV sticks and Roku. Since then, I’ve used multiple Google TV/Android TV products, including third-party devices from brands like Onn, as well as the newer Google TV Streamer.
Recently, though, I’ve come to realize that the original Chromecast may have had it right all along. Over the last year or so, I’ve increasingly turned to casting as my main way to stream content, and there are several reasons I’ve taken a step back.
Do you prefer a remote, or is casting more your jam?
0 votes
Remote and UI for the win
NaN%
I prefer casting, but use the remote regularly as well
NaN%
I almost exclusively cast
NaN%
Other (Let us know in the comments)
NaN%
Why I prefer casting over picking up the remote
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority
First, I find it’s often faster and easier to find content on my phone than to navigate a TV UI. Google TV’s “resume watching” often repeats the previous episode I’ve already finished instead of moving to the next one, and I’ve grown tired of using a remote to enter passwords or search for content when I could just type it out on my phone.
Another factor is signing in and out. While it’s not a regular issue, Google TV is much more likely to sign you out than phone apps are, and since I use a lot of different passwords, getting back in can take a while. With casting, I also don’t have to worry about signing into someone else’s TV when I’m at a friend’s place or on vacation.
In the early days of the Chromecast, I craved a UI and remote, but the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.
For example, my mom doesn’t have many streaming services, so when I visit her, I love that all her TVs have built-in casting, letting me play my own content without having to enter all my details. Similarly, my in-laws visited just last weekend and stayed at a nearby hotel that had smart TVs but no access to the expected streaming services. Even though they had no idea what casting was, I quickly showed them that their Android phones could cast YouTube, Netflix, and other apps directly to the TV.
Another great thing about casting? No need to update a UI or a bunch of TV-based apps. As long as your phone’s apps are up to date, you’re ready to go. The simplicity of casting means there’s very little that needs troubleshooting or maintenance.
Is there still a market for a simpler casting device?
Ryan Haines / Android Authority
While the OG Chromecast is long gone, the good news is that casting never went away. Every modern Google TV device supports casting, and many smart TVs do as well. For example, my Vizio doesn’t have Google TV and uses a custom platform, and yet it still supports casting. That said, you’re still at the mercy of a modern UI. This means the experience can freeze or glitch in ways I rarely ran into with the older Chromecast hardware.
Personally, I’d love to see a cheap Chromecast again that ditches the remote and UI. This might seem a bit regressive, but if it were priced around $20-$25, I would buy one just to have a more stable casting experience, while using my Google TV Streamer for my kids, guests, and the rare occasion where I prefer a UI and remote.
At the very least, I think Google should make a bigger deal out of casting technology than it currently does. While many TVs and streaming devices support casting, I feel like this feature has become overshadowed by more elaborate configurations that aren’t necessarily any better. Whether you strongly agree or disagree, I’d love to hear your take in the comments.
Don’t want to miss the best from Android Authority?
Thank you for being part of our community. Read our Comment Policy before posting.
