Chromecast sour grapes: Why I'm not buying one (yet)

Josh Wein

Last week, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) began selling an impressive-looking low-cost device that lets its owners easily watch more online video on their TV sets. Google's Chromecast, an HDMI dongle with embedded Wi-Fi, quickly sold out at its main online retailers, so by the time I got around to ordering mine, the delay in shipping times had climbed to weeks.

This provided me with an opportunity to consider whether I really need a Chromecast. Turns out, I don't. At least not yet.

First, let me say that I think what Google is doing with Chromecast is very smart. I want to be able to choose what my TV displays from a touch-screen device, but I don't want to have to think about whether the device I'm holding in my hand happens to be compatible with my TV set. And I especially don't want those considerations to be a factor when I'm shopping for a new smartphone, tablet or PC. Chromecast seems like a step in the direction of interoperability--it works on an iPad with Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) and YouTube, for instance--and that's good.

Furthermore, this type of functionality makes much more sense built into a low-cost device like a Chromecast than embedded in an expensive TV set. A device like a Chromecast could extend the life of a TV set--with a display that's still suitable but firmware that's not--for years. That's bad for TV-set makers, but good for consumers and anyone who wants to use the Internet to distribute video to the TV.

So, I consider myself a Chromecast fan. But I'm not going to buy one.

The device only supports two major video services out of the box: YouTube and Netflix. Yes, support for more services is on the way, but I'm willing to wait and see who else jumps on board before I order mine.

I already have a device connected to my TV that lets me watch Netflix, control YouTube and Vimeo videos with my laptop as well as access Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime (Nasdaq: AMZN) and other video services. It's called a TiVo.

Yes, it cost a lot more than $35, and I still pay TiVo a monthly fee to use it. But it also gets me much more than what the Chromecast offers today: the ability to record live broadcasts and watch them later. Even if that is a decidedly non-online-video activity, it's one I'm not willing to give up.

Maybe this is just sour-grapes reasoning on my part. My first reaction to hearing about the device was: "I want one of those." Only after the device was seemingly out of reach did I begin questioning that reaction.

I'm sure I'll cave eventually. If there's a race between TiVo and Chromecast to get the support of the most online content suppliers, I'd bet Google will win. And as support for Chromecast grows, its deficits as a device will shrink.

And I would also bet the first batch of Chromecast owners will be happy customers. But I can wait. --Josh | +Josh Wein | @JoshWein

Suggested Articles

Early reactions to Instagram's Reels, Facebook's answer to TikTok: no creativity seen, quite possibly no creativity needed.

Quibi subs complain about the quality of the shows, the ease of use of the platform and issues with buffering and speed, according to Kantar.

Roku found itself with more viewers than ever in its second quarter but still no profits.