Google is right to kill off the Chromecast

Ahead of next week’s Pixel-focused event, we saw the official unveiling of the Google TV Streamer today. Google’s new set-top box is a big change for the company, pivoting to a higher-end space where Apple has, up until today, effectively been without much competition. Alongside this change comes the official death of the Chromecast lineup, more than 11 years after that original model in 2013. And as much as I’ll miss the simplicity of the company’s original streaming devices, Google is absolutely right to kill off its series of affordable streaming dongles — here’s why.

The Chromecast with Google TV had its fair share of issues

It’s time for the company to move past them

My history with 2020’s Chromecast with Google TV — the device this new streaming box is most directly replacing — has been filled with headaches, and I know I’m not alone. The first Chromecast with remote support launched to impressive reviews four years ago; I actually purchased mine off the strength of Ryan Whitwam’s review alone, even before I was working at Android Police. And for a while, it was the best streaming experience I’d had up to that point. Apps felt fast and snappy, Google’s new overlay for Android TV felt fresh and modern, and the remote felt just right in my hand.

By June of 2021, things had started to go very wrong. Like others, I started to run up on storage warnings, with frequent alerts that I was completely out of space, despite only having installed a dozen or so apps in total. Memory usage also became an issue; apps would frequently reload within seconds of returning to the home screen, even if I jumped right back in. I also ran into frequent networking issues, with my Chromecast often failing to stay connected to my router after a couple of hours of binge watching.

I wasn’t alone here. It’s easy to find dozens of Reddit threads old and new pointing out the exact issues I faced, not to mention AP’s own coverage. Google tried to make improvements to some of these problems over several software updates, but talking among my fellow editors and other writers in our field, it sounds like for most people, these issues persisted. By 2022, I’d factory reset my Chromecast to help alleviate my frustrations, only for every single pain point I just listed to eventually show back up. By the end of that year, Google’s latest gadget had found its way into a junk drawer, and I haven’t used it since.

By breaking away from the Chromecast branding, Google can shed any negative connotations consumers have with its hardware. The Chromecast of yesterday was so 2010s — this new set-top box is a fresh start, separated from the baggage of the brand’s original dongles.

Google’s Chromecast experience wasn’t markedly better than using built-in software

Why spend $30 on a device that won’t improve how your streaming apps work?

With today’s announcement, Google is aiming to deliver a more premium experience. Yes, the Google TV Streamer is double the price of the previous high-end Chromecast, but with that price hike comes a promise that, this time, things will be different, specifically when it comes to performance. And really I think it’s a smart move on the company’s part to reposition its efforts from basic streaming dongles to more powerful hardware, a segment of the market that has been woefully underserved for the past decade.

The experience provided by the $50 4K Chromecast with Google TV and its lower-res $30 little brother are not markedly better than what you’ll find using the built-in experience on modern smart TVs, and that’s a problem. Yes, your run-of-the-mill set from TCL, Vizio, or Samsung will pair a weak processor with too little RAM, and you might find yourself wishing for more storage after reinstalling Peacock to watch NBC’s coverage of the Olympics. Guess what — all of those complaints match up perfectly with the issues we’ve seen on these last two Chromecasts.

Meanwhile, Google also failed to undercut companies like Roku and Amazon. Both companies offer their own entry-level devices at $30, which are discounted so frequently, I’d be shocked if anyone ever pays full price. As I type, Roku’s cheapest gadget is marked down to $20 through its website, while Amazon is offering the regular and 4K models of its streaming stick for $25 and $30, respectively — the same price as its cheapest Fire TV Lite model.

Even if you’re solely focused on Google TV as your platform of choice, Google is still beat out by Walmart’s in-house Onn brand. The company’s latest 4K-supported model is just $20, and that’s full price. The race to the bottom on streaming hardware has actively harmed the end-user experience across the board, all while making it a space Google just can’t compete in.

Put simply, there’s absolutely no reason for someone to go out and buy a cheap Chromecast, assuming they’ve purchased practically any television, regardless of price, in the last five years. You might get a different streaming experience — swapping between Amazon, Roku, or even Samsung’s in-house Tizen platform to Google — but you won’t find a markedly better experience, no matter how many times you browse through store shelves at Best Buy.

Google TV Streamer isn’t a perfect name, but it’ll do

At the very least, it feels more modern than Chromecast

While I think it’s time for Google’s last couple of streaming dongles to head out to pasture, one thing I’m not sure about here is the branding. Although the term “Chromecast” hasn’t aged particularly well over the past decade — it doesn’t have much to do with Chrome, and the primary method of interacting with one of these pucks plugged into your TV isn’t through casting — it was still a recognizable name to a lot of consumers.

Google TV Streamer, meanwhile, isn’t just wordy — it adds a third meaning to the phrase “Google TV.” Try explaining to your parents that Google TV is, at once, a custom skin on top of Android TV, a platform for buying movies but not TV shows, and a piece of hardware for your collection of streaming subscriptions. But if you ignore the word “Streamer,” this new release does a better job of explaining to shoppers what this thing really is, just as Apple TV and Amazon Fire TV do.

You’ll have to wait for our full forthcoming review to see if the Google TV Streamer can live up to its potential. But considering I — and many, many others — have been begging for a more powerful rival to the Apple TV that can replace Nvidia’s aging Shield TV as the Android streaming box to get, I’m happy to see it here no matter what. Let’s just keep our collective fingers crossed that its rumored MediaTek chip can actually hold a candle to the A13 Bionic powering Apple’s $129 Apple TV 4K.