When Google unveiled its new TV-connected gadget, the Google TV Streamer, on Tuesday, I felt like I had been heard: I had been thinking about it for a long time. a device that could compete head-to-head with the most ambitious proposals on the market with the Apple TV or the Fire TV Cube. It has fulfilled almost all of my wishes: better hardware with more storage, Ethernet, an improved remote, and a step further in home automation control.
It’s clear that Google’s new TV isn’t for everyone, but the magnificent experience that its Chromecast has been offering us for years was not enough for the most demanding and intensive users. When its existence was confirmed, I was extremely happy. And then came the cold shower: Google TV Streamer said hello and Chromecast said goodbye. Google has liquidated the Chromecast HD and 4K and will only sell the Streamer. A serious mistake.
Not everyone wants a streamer. Or needs one. Or is going to pay for one.
I’m not going to talk about the change in format because, well, that’s subjective and if you have space in the TV cabinet, it’s not a problem, but it is about everything else. 32 GB of storage is a luxury for those of us who install a lot of applications. More powerful hardware minimizes any lag even if you put a lot of effort into it. Being able to control more smart devices with the TV is a success in terms of comfort. Connecting to the Internet via cable is a guarantee of getting good speeds, essential if we enjoy 4K content. All these features They are great for me, but not for most mortals..
I think the third-generation Chromecast is a mistake to sell today, whereas the 4K and HD Chromecasts are not. Quite the opposite. A device that relies on mobile-powered content and is dependent on it is a step backwards, but what Chromecasts offer is more than enough overall. Over the past few years, it is likely that The device I have most suggested buying is a Chromecast in response to questions/doubts/problems regarding: I have a TV that is not Smart, what do I do? My smart TV works with pedals, I want to see such an application and it is not on my TV..
Chromecasts solved all of the above and did so by offering a good experience at a reasonable price. Typically People have a TV that is a few years old and all they need is to be able to watch Netflix, Max and similar things without too many complications: turn on the TV, tap the remote a couple of times and off you go. Many people continue to share an account, there are those who don’t pay for 4K content and many others watch just a couple of series a week.
Spending 119 euros for that is a considerable outlay, especially considering that they are not going to get the most out of it, that there are alternatives at more attractive prices (paradoxically, with this move Google just did the best marketing campaign possible for Fire TV) and that while everything is going up, TVs are getting cheaper and cheaper. And I say this as someone who has a 2020 TCL Smart TV with Android TV that cost me 299 euros.
A Pro version was necessary to compete with the best proposals on the market and enthusiastic people, but that is not the majority of people: for the rest have a good, nice and cheap device to upgrade Its TV was enough. And Google didn’t have to do anything, just leave its Chromecast HD and 4K on the market. Now it leaves a huge gap that other manufacturers like Amazon and its Fire TV or Xiaomi and its TV Box S (2nd gen) will take advantage of. Google had the opportunity to attack different segments and it has let it slip away.
Cover | Enrique Perez (Xataka)