Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Simpler than them being "on about": I'm guessing the app label on iPhone is TV. Dunno though and cant confirm.

To be fair, they're blatantly wrong about the Google branding. They went ahead and did the Apple thing, it's all Google TV as far as consumer branding.




> They went ahead and did the Apple thing, it's all Google TV as far as consumer branding.

Cool, where do I buy a "Google TV" then?

It's still called "Chromecast with Google TV" as of today: https://store.google.com/us/product/chromecast_google_tv

Google TV is an app/portal/service (with somewhat ill-defined boundaries, but I generally like it on my Chromecast, as it's able to pull in recommendations from basically all available sources, unlike Apple TV, which seems to have some feud with at least Netflix); the Chromecast with Google TV is the physical device I can plug into my TV to make it display Google TV.

The streaming protocol is currently called "Google Cast", as far as I can tell.


The complaint about branding is Google has Chromecast, Google TV, Android TV, YouTube TV and it’s really not obvious which does what from the names. IMO if they swapped YouTube TV for YouTube Cable TV then suddenly it’s more obvious what’s going on even if the name’s dumb.

Similarly Chrome is their web browser so why call the physical device Chromecast? It kind of works because on of its less popular features also uses Chrome so that reinforces the name for anyone who uses it this way, but that’s a real stretch now days.


Related to that: The protocol that these (and many third-party devices) speak is called "Google Cast", yet Google refers to third-party devices speaking that protocol as "Chromecast built-in"...

> Similarly Chrome is their web browser so why call the physical device Chromecast?

I suppose it originally made sense, given that the physical Chromecast device only worked with Google Chrome, and in its early days even was used for tab mirroring (until most video sites started integrating the protocol natively). Wanting to benefit from the (at the time quite positive) brand perception of "Google Chrome" probably plays an even bigger part.

But at this point it seems like a weird historical leftover.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: