The Chromecast has a Netflix promotion, and... it’s gone

Google is no longer offering three months of Netflix with the device.

Read the whole story

 

[Midnitte]

If you already got a code but netflix.com/chromecast isnt working I'd suggest going to "My Account" and entering the code under "Redeem Code", just worked for me.

 

[lotech]

Sometimes I really wonder about Google and how they deal with planning and execution physical products. It would have taken time to negotiate that deal with Netflix but yet no one took into account demand - even worse they couldn't even handle 24hrs of demand. Its a more than a bit embarrassing to then have pull a substantial part of the marketing plan.

 

[logic_88]

lotech[/url]":1n3nrw19]Its a more than a bit embarrassing to then have pull a substantial part of the marketing plan.

Actually, it seems to have worked exactly as intended. There was a huge deluge of PR and sent demand sky high so the promotion is no longer needed. Why spend marketing dollars when you don't have to?

 

[khha4113]

kray28[/url]":351g7qjj]Well, it was only worth it for folks who didn't already have Netflix.

At $35, it's so cheap that I don't think it makes a difference. I'll grab one when they are in stock again.

First priority for me is the new Nexus 7 though.

The promo code also works with existing Netflix customers.

 

[cmannes]

So apparently I ordered ever so slightly late to catch the promo.

No promo + long shipping time == canceled order.

I know it's only $35, but with at least a month till it ships, I can wait for some real reviews and see what's up.

 

[daneren2005]

lotech[/url]":2kyvgz1s]Sometimes I really wonder about Google and how they deal with planning and execution physical products. It would have taken time to negotiate that deal with Netflix but yet no one took into account demand - even worse they couldn't even handle 24hrs of demand. Its a more than a bit embarrassing to then have pull a substantial part of the marketing plan.

Why is it embarrassing? They clearly got what they wanted: PR and the product into a significant number of user's hands. That's all it was supposed to do...

 

[sanchezl]

...but its ability to stream video while letting users continue about their business on the device feeding the video to the Chromecast seems pretty nifty.

Your device does not feed the Chromecast. All your device does is tell Chromecast what to stream from the internet. Makes you wonder what's going on when you stream a chrome browser session.

 

[LuDux]

daneren2005[/url]
Why is it embarrassing? They clearly got what they wanted: PR and the product into a significant number of user's hands. That's all it was supposed to do...

Well, not quite.

The current PR is: the promo that got you interested in the device is over before you heard about it, nothing to see here, move along.

It got a significant number into users hands, but if they want to sell any more than that, shortsightedly cancelling what got people to get it to begin with is poor decision.

 

[wzombie]

When there's a hack to make it work with Firefox, I might be interested.

 

[Ars of Ares]

Dammitall, that was my excuse for getting one.

I'm reading reports that HDMI 1.4 will power the device. Ars Technica, do you have one of these things to test this out?

 

[notoriousKTR]

Ars of Ares[/url]":3oeucgdf]I'm reading reports that HDMI 1.4 will power the device. Ars Technica, do you have one of these things to test this out?

Nothing of v1.4 HDMI specifications mentions power. So the reports you're reading are wrong.

 

[MisterAlex]

I just informed one of my friends that of he hadn't already ordered a Chromecast, they had run out of Netflix promos. His response was "Oh, well. Not interested anymore. Thanks."
So no, I don't think the "[Google] got what they wanted d from [the promo]" line really holds water.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

So how does this compare to those Android on a Stick devices, some as low as the Google Device price-point?

 

[AnniesBoobs]

sanchezl[/url]":3v617rpa]...but its ability to stream video while letting users continue about their business on the device feeding the video to the Chromecast seems pretty nifty.

Your device does not feed the Chromecast. All your device does is tell Chromecast what to stream from the internet. Makes you wonder what's going on when you stream a chrome browser session.

Not sure that's entirely accurate. In this hands-on, they're streaming a local MKV file through a Chrome window to the Chromecast, so there is some feeding going on between your device and this stick.

Edit: Forgot to add link to the hands-on:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/07/ ... hromecast/

 

[Decoherent]

MisterAlex[/url]":2pbvu29w]I just informed one of my friends that of he hadn't already ordered a Chromecast, they had run out of Netflix promos. His response was "Oh, well. Not interested anymore. Thanks."
So no, I don't think the "[Google] got what they wanted d from [the promo]" line really holds water.

That was my reaction as well. I didn't even know the store link had started working, it was still inactive yesterday when I checked. Oh well, I didn't really need one.

 

[AnniesBoobs]

Ostracus[/url]":aunvmvio]So how does this compare to those Android on a Stick devices, some as low as the Google Device price-point?

For those Android sticks, you'll need input devices, while this thing is just a receiver that really just needs a phone/tablet/browser to drive it.

 

[rex86]

AnniesBoobs[/url]":12oedgry]

sanchezl[/url]":12oedgry]...but its ability to stream video while letting users continue about their business on the device feeding the video to the Chromecast seems pretty nifty.

Your device does not feed the Chromecast. All your device does is tell Chromecast what to stream from the internet. Makes you wonder what's going on when you stream a chrome browser session.

Not sure that's entirely accurate. In this hands-on, they're streaming a local MKV file through a Chrome window to the Chromecast, so there is some feeding going on between your device and this stick.

Edit: Forgot to add link to the hands-on:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/07/ ... hromecast/

This is very interesting. Apparently, you can stream audio and video from your laptop by opening the files in your browser. It's not as effective as having dedicated app, e.g., youtube, but it still works. I sense some problems for Google from the TV companies.

 

[bben46]

I ordered this from Amazon this morning. The Free netflix promo was still showing prominently in the advertisement. If I don't get my free promo of Netflix I will be very disappointed - and google may just get their gadget sent back for changing their deal after I ordered.

 

[bobbie424242]

It is amusing to see the Internet, tech press and users go gaga over Chromecast and having wild expectations, while from the POV of developers it is a total disappointment:

- closed source tech
- requires Google's written approval to publish any apps incorporating Googlecast functionality whether on Android, iOS or in Chrome
- requires a sold out USB dongle only available in the US for developement, and requires registration with Google (like they could not have allowed developement using desktop Chrome instead!)
- limited codec support (forget MKV, unless remuxing/transcoding to MP4)

The biggest unknown is: what apps will Google approve and what apps it will not.
For now, we don't know, since only the big launch apps (Netflix, Google Music, ...) are approved.

In other terms, whether XBMC, Plex and friends will be allowed to use it to send content is a large unknown at this point. The SDK license will be a huge problem for OSS apps

Some editor at Ars really should mention the very restrictive clauses of this tech for developers, and the unknowns that surrounds it.

 

[Midnitte]

bobbie424242[/url]":10bm3zp0]It is amusing to see the Internet, tech press and users go gaga over Chromecast and having wild expectations, while from the POV of developers it is a total disappointment:

- closed source tech
- requires Google's written approval to publish any apps incorporating Googlecast functionality whether on Android, iOS or in Chrome
- requires a sold out USB dongle only available in the US for developement, and requires registration with Google (like they could not have allowed developement using desktop Chrome instead!)
- limited codec support (forget MKV, unless remuxing/transcoding to MP4)

The biggest unknown is: what apps will Google approve and what apps it will not.
For now, we don't know, since only the big launch apps (Netflix, Google Music, ...) are approved.

In other terms, whether XBMC, Plex and friends will be allowed to use it to send content is a large unknown at this point.

Pretty sure they've already released the APIs/SDK...

 

[bobbie424242]

Midnitte[/url]":5l4hboln]
Pretty sure they've already released the APIs/SDK...

Yes, I've been studying it today.
The problem is that the licensing has very restrictive terms.

You can integrate it in an app but *** do not have the right to publish it unless approved by Google ***.

 

[ws3]

JPan[/url]":1c01psmu]Ever since I have seen that it CAN'T duplicate your tablet/computer screen its pretty much dead to me. This is borderline useless and Airplay is much better. Now if Apple would stop trying to box people into their ecosystem. If there was Android Airplay support I would buy an AppleTV in a second.

Face it Apple most households will have mixed electronics, if you try to restrict your stuff to Apple only you will loose out in the end.

Airplay is used to sell Apple hardware, not vice-versa.

From Apple's point of view, if you aren't willing to buy all the pieces from Apple to do Airplay, then you are not supposed to have Airplay.

 

[baloroth]

notoriousKTR[/url]":21mtvv5x]

Ars of Ares[/url]":21mtvv5x]I'm reading reports that HDMI 1.4 will power the device. Ars Technica, do you have one of these things to test this out?

Nothing of v1.4 HDMI specifications mentions power. So the reports you're reading are wrong.

That's not strictly true, HDMI does have a 5V power line. It's only supposed to be for EDID reading (according to the HDMI resource page), but at least one user account on Amazon claims that the Chromecast can power itself off the HDMI power line. It'd be unreliable since the spec doesn't require the HDMI line to provide enough current to power an active device like the Chromecast, but technically possible, as most of them do.

 

[groghunter]

rex86[/url]":1d3hc0j1]

AnniesBoobs[/url]":1d3hc0j1]

sanchezl[/url]":1d3hc0j1]...but its ability to stream video while letting users continue about their business on the device feeding the video to the Chromecast seems pretty nifty.

Your device does not feed the Chromecast. All your device does is tell Chromecast what to stream from the internet. Makes you wonder what's going on when you stream a chrome browser session.

Not sure that's entirely accurate. In this hands-on, they're streaming a local MKV file through a Chrome window to the Chromecast, so there is some feeding going on between your device and this stick.

Edit: Forgot to add link to the hands-on:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/07/ ... hromecast/

This is very interesting. Apparently, you can stream audio and video from your laptop by opening the files in your browser. It's not as effective as having dedicated app, e.g., youtube, but it still works. I sense some problems for Google from the TV companies.

The explanation I found was that the browser tab mirroring works via WebRTC. which, to answer a question above, means Firefox support should be quite doable.

apps written for the device appear to use HTML 5 <video> tags to tell the device what to stream: If I understand correctly, when you push the button on the app, it just sends the chromecast a URL to go to.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/158681 ... ndroid/160

(look for a comment by "rjc999")

 

[quietquake]

logic_88[/url]":2q47i019]

lotech[/url]":2q47i019]Its a more than a bit embarrassing to then have pull a substantial part of the marketing plan.

Actually, it seems to have worked exactly as intended. There was a huge deluge of PR and sent demand sky high so the promotion is no longer needed. Why spend marketing dollars when you don't have to?

I think Google just missed some of the psychology at work here. When I first heard of it yesterday, I thought "$35? Wow. That's pretty cheap compared to AppleTV and Roku. Maybe I'll pick one up." Then I heard about the Netflix deal, and that it extended to current subscribers (like me), and I thought "Wow, a net cost of $8? I probably should pick one of those up." Then I heard that the Netflix deal was limited and had ended, and I thought, "Wow, now it's 4x what I was expecting to pay an hour ago. Hmmm..."
Which is to say, I was likely to pull the trigger at either price point, but now that the price has increased, I can't shake the (admittedly irrational) feeling that it's not as good a deal as it was.
I expect I'll still pick one up in a month or two after the first wave of folks have used and reviewed them. But from where I'm sitting, the end of the Netflix deal and the lack of stock put a crimp in the initial wave of adoption.

 

[bobbie424242]

The explanation I found was that the browser tab mirroring works via WebRTC. which, to answer a question above, means Firefox support should be quite doable.

If it doesn't use encryption.

 

[jakers_ugly_brother]

For a company that makes 99% of their money from advertisers, Google is stunningly inept when it comes to marketing and advertising.

They make a great offer: Google gadget that appeals to cord-cutters + 3 months free Netflix for just over the cost of the Netflix.

Consumers go gaga over the deal.

Google has just created an inroad to the living room. They're in! They've done it!

It really doesn't matter what else the gadget can or cannot do when it ships. YouTube + Netflix is enough. The gadget is cheap. And it'll get better with time.

Aaaand then Google throws their advantage away because the promo deal is costing them too much money.

Fickle consumers go off looking for the next great bargain.

Number of Google gadgets potentially installed in living rooms falls by orders of magnitude.

Nicely done, Google. Your engineers might be brilliant. Your executives should be forced to call every single advertiser they work with and explain why they cancelled the promo deal.

How many millions did you save? Were they really worth it? Really?

You can't monetize a gadget that you don't sell.

Idiots.

 

[a_v_s]

baloroth[/url]":2pju3se5]

notoriousKTR[/url]":2pju3se5]

Ars of Ares[/url]":2pju3se5]I'm reading reports that HDMI 1.4 will power the device. Ars Technica, do you have one of these things to test this out?

Nothing of v1.4 HDMI specifications mentions power. So the reports you're reading are wrong.

That's not strictly true, HDMI does have a 5V power line. It's only supposed to be for EDID reading (according to the HDMI resource page), but at least one user account on Amazon claims that the Chromecast can power itself off the HDMI power line. It'd be unreliable since the spec doesn't require the HDMI line to provide enough current to power an active device like the Chromecast, but technically possible, as most of them do.

I worked on a similar device in our lab... HDMI does provide power, but it doesn't provide enough power to power a wireless radio. It is orders of magnitude too low. If someone gets the dongle to work without drawing power from USB or some other external source, it is because their TV is providing power that is out-of-sync with the spec. May work for some users, but by no means does it mean it will be the case for everyone...

 

[groghunter]

bobbie424242[/url]":35lyba80]

The explanation I found was that the browser tab mirroring works via WebRTC. which, to answer a question above, means Firefox support should be quite doable.

If it doesn't use encryption.

Quite possible, I don't know jack about WebRTC, except that it's standardized, which gave me hope for Firefox support.

 

[notoriousKTR]

baloroth[/url]":wg2auaay]

notoriousKTR[/url]":wg2auaay]

Ars of Ares[/url]":wg2auaay]I'm reading reports that HDMI 1.4 will power the device. Ars Technica, do you have one of these things to test this out?

Nothing of v1.4 HDMI specifications mentions power. So the reports you're reading are wrong.

That's not strictly true, HDMI does have a 5V power line. It's only supposed to be for EDID reading (according to the HDMI resource page), but at least one user account on Amazon claims that the Chromecast can power itself off the HDMI power line. It'd be unreliable since the spec doesn't require the HDMI line to provide enough current to power an active device like the Chromecast, but technically possible, as most of them do.

Power for DDC/EDID isn't something newly introduced with HDMI v1.4 or HDMI for that matter.

And 5V DC @ ~50mA is not enough (as you mentioned) to power the 1W idle, 2.5W load of the ChromeCast.

 

[JPan]

ws3[/url]":1auauao8]

JPan[/url]":1auauao8]Ever since I have seen that it CAN'T duplicate your tablet/computer screen its pretty much dead to me. This is borderline useless and Airplay is much better. Now if Apple would stop trying to box people into their ecosystem. If there was Android Airplay support I would buy an AppleTV in a second.

Face it Apple most households will have mixed electronics, if you try to restrict your stuff to Apple only you will loose out in the end.

Airplay is used to sell Apple hardware, not vice-versa.

From Apple's point of view, if you aren't willing to buy all the pieces from Apple to do Airplay, then you are not supposed to have Airplay.

Totally understand that. And it is fucking stupid. There was a really tiny period of time ( 1-1.5 years) where it looked like they could pull off something like Microsoft style domination. And then Google and Samsung curb stomped that.

The future will be diverse, there will only be a really small amount of Apple only households. And the more they tighten the grip the more people will be put off by the whole thing. I like Apple products and I would buy more if they would play nicely with my non Apple stuff. The refusal to do so is one of the biggest detriments of their products.

 

[kgersen]

JPan[/url]":2l53wnl7]Ever since I have seen that it CAN'T duplicate your tablet/computer screen its pretty much dead to me. This is borderline useless and Airplay is much better. Now if Apple would stop trying to box people into their ecosystem. If there was Android Airplay support I would buy an AppleTV in a second.

Face it Apple most households will have mixed electronics, if you try to restrict your stuff to Apple only you will loose out in the end.

Dead to you not everyone else.

Why is full desktop/tablet mirroring so important when most of our contents are coming from the Web ? Because AirPlay does it so everyone else should do it too ? I don't get the reason.

Desktop/tablet interfaces are made to be displayed on their respective screen size not a big screen. What matters is the content not the interface. if the content is only local you can still 'cast' it on the TV using a Chrome tab. This doesn't work yet from a tablet/phone, it's only on Desktop (Windows/Mac/Linux) but I'm sure new apps will come soon that can do that. Also Chrome on Android/iOS will catch up and have it probably.

Meanwhile you can install the Google Cast extension to Desktop Chrome (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... cfkmllpafd) and send stuff to your ChromeCast. You can even cast a tab running Chrome Remote Desktop of the same computer and bam :there you go , here is your full desktop mirroring. happy now ?

 

[MrMalthus]

groghunter[/url]":34e9131j]

bobbie424242[/url]":34e9131j]

The explanation I found was that the browser tab mirroring works via WebRTC. which, to answer a question above, means Firefox support should be quite doable.

If it doesn't use encryption.

Quite possible, I don't know jack about WebRTC, except that it's standardized, which gave me hope for Firefox support.

I don't know if it uses WebRTC, but all WebRTC connections are encrypted by design. Part of the protocol is negotiating the encrypted connection between clients.

 

[JPan]

kgersen[/url]":20h4ghet]

JPan[/url]":20h4ghet]Ever since I have seen that it CAN'T duplicate your tablet/computer screen its pretty much dead to me. This is borderline useless and Airplay is much better. Now if Apple would stop trying to box people into their ecosystem. If there was Android Airplay support I would buy an AppleTV in a second.

Face it Apple most households will have mixed electronics, if you try to restrict your stuff to Apple only you will loose out in the end.

Dead to you not everyone else.

Why is full desktop/tablet mirroring so important when most of our contents are coming from the Web ? Because AirPlay does it so everyone else should do it too ? I don't get the reason.

Desktop/tablet interfaces are made to be displayed on their respective screen size not a big screen. What matters is the content not the interface. if the content is only local you can still 'cast' it on the TV using a Chrome tab. This doesn't work yet from a tablet/phone, it's only on Desktop (Windows/Mac/Linux) but I'm sure new apps will come soon that can do that. Also Chrome on Android/iOS will catch up and have it probably.

Meanwhile you can install the Google Cast extension to Desktop Chrome (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... cfkmllpafd) and send stuff to your ChromeCast. You can even cast a tab running Chrome Remote Desktop of the same computer and bam :there you go , here is your full desktop mirroring. happy now ?

Yes dead to me not everybody else. But the limits are huge. How do I get my video collection, my iTunes library, my divx or mkv files I store on my tablet or PC over to the TV? Perhaps media that can only be played by something like VLC? No fucking chance. It first needs to be somewhere in the web. Not even the Chrometab thing fixes that. You only can broadcast stuff that is in the internet as far as I understood it. Or lets talk about my picture library that I do not have in the web but in iPhoto?. Or my iTunes music library again not uploaded.

This thing is only useful for people who have moved 95% of their media into the net and stream mostly. And the question is if you want that ( restrictions might be download limits of your ISP, bad internet connections or simply the convenience of having 1000 hours of DVD quality video on a 2.5" external harddrive. Never really understood the appeal of online storage for that. My offline videos do not buffer, fast forward instantly and load in a split second.

I know that this is not the target audience of Google. Google envisions customers who have stored EVERYTHING online on their servers. And this is fine. But I am not one of these customers.You might be. But I think the HUGE limitations have not been mentioned clearly enough. Fair?

 

[Kensall]

JPan[/url]":1s5jkw7c]

kgersen[/url]":1s5jkw7c]

JPan[/url]":1s5jkw7c]Ever since I have seen that it CAN'T duplicate your tablet/computer screen its pretty much dead to me. This is borderline useless and Airplay is much better. Now if Apple would stop trying to box people into their ecosystem. If there was Android Airplay support I would buy an AppleTV in a second.

Face it Apple most households will have mixed electronics, if you try to restrict your stuff to Apple only you will loose out in the end.

Dead to you not everyone else.

Why is full desktop/tablet mirroring so important when most of our contents are coming from the Web ? Because AirPlay does it so everyone else should do it too ? I don't get the reason.

Desktop/tablet interfaces are made to be displayed on their respective screen size not a big screen. What matters is the content not the interface. if the content is only local you can still 'cast' it on the TV using a Chrome tab. This doesn't work yet from a tablet/phone, it's only on Desktop (Windows/Mac/Linux) but I'm sure new apps will come soon that can do that. Also Chrome on Android/iOS will catch up and have it probably.

Meanwhile you can install the Google Cast extension to Desktop Chrome (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... cfkmllpafd) and send stuff to your ChromeCast. You can even cast a tab running Chrome Remote Desktop of the same computer and bam :there you go , here is your full desktop mirroring. happy now ?

Yes dead to me not everybody else. But the limits are huge. How do I get my video collection, my iTunes library, my divx or mkv files I store on my tablet or PC over to the TV? Perhaps media that can only be played by something like VLC? No fucking chance. It first needs to be somewhere in the web. Not even the Chrometab thing fixes that. You only can broadcast stuff that is in the internet as far as I understood it. Or lets talk about my picture library that I do not have in the web but in iPhoto?. Or my iTunes music library again not uploaded.

This thing is only useful for people who have moved 95% of their media into the net and stream mostly. And the question is if you want that ( restrictions might be download limits of your ISP, bad internet connections or simply the convenience of having 1000 hours of DVD quality video on a 2.5" external harddrive. Never really understood the appeal of online storage for that. My offline videos do not buffer, fast forward instantly and load in a split second.

I know that this is not the target audience of Google. Google envisions customers who have stored EVERYTHING online on their servers. And this is fine. But I am not one of these customers.You might be. But I think the HUGE limitations have not been mentioned clearly enough. Fair?

No Sir. What he is trying to tell you is that you can stream *local* stored files.. via the Chromecast extension. So stuff that is not on a remote server, but on your local PC.. you can stream that through Chrome the browser. That feature of Chromecast, using a Chrome tab to cast, is what currently still only works on desktop and is in beta and still needs to come to mobile. But end of day this does spank Apple TV as it is cross platform and $35.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/07/ ... hromecast/
Yes, you can play local video. At least some of it. A not-strictly-speaking legitimate copy of Black Mirror in MKV file format played magnificently on our television when we dropped it in a Chrome browser window.

Likewise, if you’re running it in a browser, Amazon Instant video, Hulu, Rdio, and HBO Go all just work. As did video from Wired, Gawker media, and Flickr slideshows. We ran photos from Facebook fullscreen. We watched a live Flash stream of a Braves game on an extremely shady bootleg site that spawned approximately a gazillion Chrome windows in the background.

 

[JPan]

No Sir. What he is trying to tell you is that you can strem *local* stored files.. via the Chromecast extension. So stuff that is not on a remote server, but on your local PC.. you can stream that through Chrome the browser. That feature of Chromecast, is what currently still only works on desktop and is in beta and still needs to come to mobile.

Then as far as I see it he is wrong.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/45569 ... -tv-failed

"Unfortunately, Chrome tab projection isn’t really a useful workaround. WebRTC doesn't have the same benefits of low-latency and high-bandwidth that you get with something like AirPlay or even Miracast. In our brief testing, videos streamed over Google Cast had audio sync issues"

"Although, as Chandra says, "there's no restrictions on what can be done" with tab projection when it comes to content restrictions, streaming a Hulu video will not be an enjoyable experience. "

And even if it was fast you can still only project a Chrome browser tab. I fail to see how that helps me with showing an iPhoto library, a local iTunes Playlist or a movie playing in VLC. They do not run in browser tabs or do I completely misunderstand the feature.

In the end it does not look like that:
"Calling streaming local content an "open question," Chandra says "I'm not going to say we're not going to do it." For now, users will need to find a way to get their content into the cloud where either Chrome or an app can access it and stream it. "

So no it doesn't look like Chromecast fixes those problems now and it doesn't look like it will in the future. Its just a really limited device and the marketing doesn't make that clear.

 

[Kensall]

JPan[/url]":2ogn81pe]

No Sir. What he is trying to tell you is that you can strem *local* stored files.. via the Chromecast extension. So stuff that is not on a remote server, but on your local PC.. you can stream that through Chrome the browser. That feature of Chromecast, is what currently still only works on desktop and is in beta and still needs to come to mobile.

Then as far as I see it he is wrong.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/45569 ... -tv-failed

"Unfortunately, Chrome tab projection isn’t really a useful workaround. WebRTC doesn't have the same benefits of low-latency and high-bandwidth that you get with something like AirPlay or even Miracast. In our brief testing, videos streamed over Google Cast had audio sync issues"

"Although, as Chandra says, "there's no restrictions on what can be done" with tab projection when it comes to content restrictions, streaming a Hulu video will not be an enjoyable experience. "

And even if it was fast you can still only project a Chrome browser tab. I fail to see how that helps me with showing an iPhoto library, a local iTunes Playlist or a movie playing in VLC. They do not run in browser tabs or do I completely misunderstand the feature.

In the end it does not look like that:
"Calling streaming local content an "open question," Chandra says "I'm not going to say we're not going to do it." For now, users will need to find a way to get their content into the cloud where either Chrome or an app can access it and stream it. "

So no it doesn't look like Chromecast fixes those problems now and it doesn't look like it will in the future. Its just a really limited device and the marketing doesn't make that clear.

See above, Wired had a better experience with Chrome Tab casting and its still in Beta.

And anyways, I really dont see how Google is misleading with the marketing in their ad they do not show people casting their iPhoto or VLC? Its literally loads of Youtube clips, from your phone, tablet or PC, and Chrome tab casting, all of which it can do now. Its called Chromecast, not PC or Mac or Itunes- cast.

The fact that it can even do so much local streaming through the browser, and again, cross platform, at $35 is big plus.