Chromecast on Pandora

What a difference a day can make, apparently. Just 24 hours after Pandora unveiled a new tablet design for its Internet radio app, it's flipped the switch on Chromecast support. The sharing icon (which I swear wasn't there yesterday when I was kind of going off on a rant) is now live, and it connects as you'd expect to Chromecast.

Earlier this month, Hulu Plus joined the ranks as the other third-party member of the Chromecast streaming community. 

Source: Google+

 

Reader comments

Pandora now officially supports Chromecast

40 Comments

This is cool and all, but Google's policy of whitelisting the select few apps for Chromecast makes it useless for me. It may have only been $35, but until they open it up I want my $35 back.

Then why did you buy the thing knowing there was such little support for it as of now? No one forced you to buy it but yourself. And no one is gonna give you your $35 back.

Posted via Android Central App

I think many people got the impression that Google was going to open it up to any developer who wanted to write an app for it. It would have been a much better product had they done so.

Posted via Android Central App

Given Google's history, I don't think too many people expected it to be as locked down as it is. Especially considering they publicly released an (extremely simplistic) SDK, albeit a "beta" SDK, on the same day as they released the device.

If their intent was for it to only deliver licensed content from pre-authorized vendors, then why not keep the SDK under wraps and only provide it to authorized partners? If their intent was to only deliver licensed content from pre-authorized vendors, then why include the tab-cast functionality which, while cumbersome, allows you to play virtually any content on the device?

Further, they have stated publicly that their intent is for it to be more open with "We’re excited to bring more content to Chromecast and would like to support all types of apps, including those for local content." - [Spam filter blocked reference link]

Best case scenario, they released a product before their lawyers told them it was a bad idea and now they are trying to figure out ways around content contracts. Worst case scenario, they are blatantly and publicly lying about the intent of the device.

I'm aware this is not the best venue for criticizing Google, and I usually don't. I love the company, as probably most here do, and *almost* everything it does. However, I feel they are fumbling a HUGE opportunity with Chromecast.

Google released a product that does exactly what it says it does...play movies, TV shows, videos, music and more from Netflix, YouTube, Google Play Movies & TV, Google Play Music, and Chrome. They have brought more content by getting Hulu Plus, and now Pandora, to additionally support Chromecast. While there is no local content, yet, Google is doing what they said they would do. I'm thinking your assumptions, hopes, and wishes are clouding your judgment with Chromecast.

As for tab-casting, this was done for the benefit of users, but more importantly, a hedge against the few content producers who distinguish between website and app streaming. Google can now go to the content producers and encourage them to update their apps to make a better experience for users. If they don't update their apps, users can just tab-cast without needing a cord to connect their computer to the TV.

It's a win-win-win scenario for Google, content producers, and users. Google finds a solution to reaching the TV set along with updated apps. Content producers get more users by offering an easy solution. Users cut the cord (from computer to tv) and get an easy way of streaming entertainment options to a TV.

"Best case scenario, they released a product before their lawyers told them it was a bad idea and now they are trying to figure out ways around content contracts. Worst case scenario, they are blatantly and publicly lying about the intent of the device."

This is just false. Yes Google wants to do more, but what YOU don't understand is that Google has valuable relationships with media content producers/suppliers. These are relationships that Google knows they can't screw up. Google also knows that these people are paranoid a-holes who fear every possible advance in technology as a threat to their absurd profit margins. They have to be 'managed' slowly and carefully and shown that this tech is not a huge threat to their businesses to bring them more on board with it, with the platform opening up more later.

Fortunately Google understands this, because if they took the attitude you espouse, many of those content providers would freak out and cancel or not renew licenses to provide that content.

All you seem to see from Chromecast is what you wish it did that it doesn't do, instead of what it actually does, which is provide an amazingly affordable, easy and accessible way to stream media.

I too doubt Google is the one slowing this thing down.

I suspect, if anything, that it is the Content providers that are holding things back, not Google.

I bet Google would Jump at the chance for the Xfinity Player to enable Chromecast, as well as the Watch ESPN, as well as all the other media providers. They've already got NetFlix and Hulu on board.

I would expect streaming of live YouTube channels would also open up soon. (Really don't understand why its not already).

Play Music All Access kicks Pandora's butt... But this is still great news.

If Samsung made penis implants, would they have TouchWiz? - dchawk81

Yeah Pandora is too repetitive, IMHO, which is why I could never bring myself to subscribe. I didn't have to hesitate on Google Play All Access.

Pandora is okay as a free service though.

Hellz yeah. I found more new music on GPAA in 2 days than Pandora in 6 months. Canceled Blandora subscription.

Posted via my Nexus 6 running 4.5 Lima Bean

Am I the only one that see the elephant in the room, why would I run my power hungry plasma Tv to listen to music? :-((

1. So more people can listen to it? (assuming you can't do #2)
2. Plug the Chromecast into an audio receiver (uses less power than a TV) and speakers, and listen that way. Because it is controlled via phone/tablet, you don't need to see the UI on the TV.

Good point.

Now iHeart Radio please. I know beggars can't be choosers. But I can hope.

Oh forget it, just open the flood gates on this please Google.

Ding ding ding. I don't want to spend the money or dedicate the living room space to a full stereo system, so using my Chromecast to listen to music through my surprisingly capable Vizio soundbar is a great solution for me.

This. My Vizio sound bar sounds amazing, for the price. Putting "All Access" on, switching to "I'm feeling lucky" radio, and cranking up the sound bar are glorious, after a long day at work.

Posted via Android Central App

Allot of people avoid plasma because of the power usage to. So this may apply to a smaller group then you realize.

I agree though about using a AVR. Definitely they best way to go.

Posted via Android Central App on my Note 3

Always surprises me when people are so closed minded and don't think outside the box at all. As many have noted a AMP with HDMI will work or a sound bar. I have Chromecast plugged into an HDMI matrix switch running to all my TVs and AMPs in my house so I can listen to Music or watch videos from Chromecast on any or all devices...

Does your TV run on batteries?

----------------------------------------------------
My S-Pen went through hell to deliver this important message to you

My Vizio TV with Internet apps (Pandora, iHeart, Netflix etc) is my entertainment system. I patched in a set of Logitech PC speakers with subwoofer and the sound is pretty good. Chromecast is a nice addition to the system for playing G Music

Posted via Android Central App

No thanks! I don't want to stream from my phone. I simply want to control the music from my phone or table with a feature rich app. This is exactly what Chromecast provides and allows you to move from one device to another without disrupting the stream. Nothing revolutionary about BT streaming, been there done that...

This is cool that more apps are being brought on board but Google Play Music is far superior than Pandora. Google Play Music was the main reason I purchased the Chromecast. Still good to see more options though.

I'm a Slacker fan but will have to give Pandora another try. Slacker better get this support as soon as the Chromecast SDK is out of beta or they may be losing a paid customer...

I usually Bluetooth stream my music. I think it would be a waste to need my TV on just to play music

Sent from my Moto X

I have a chromecast plugged into my receivers USB port. And it is the default HDMI port for pass through. My receiver also had Pandora and dlna built in. My TV is a plasma (which is not that power hungry due to pentile pixel arrangement) and had Netflix and stuff.

All that being said instead of using the chromecast for Google music I use allcast made by the team made bubble upnn (which also works with Google play and media). There are two reasons for this, one I hate turning on my tv to listen to music. Two I want one app to control them all. With Google music I can only turn down the music from what ever volume I have the receiver or TV at, but with all cast I control the actual receiver volume (even though it's by 4 db blocks) and I get a read out of what sing is playing on the screen of the receiver as well since it converts the stream to dlna. Bad thing is scrubbing sucks or doesn't work with that app.

The bubble one is a bit more of a pain to use but it has better volume resolution.

Receiver is a pioneer sc-1222 and TV is a Samsung pn60-550 (only the 60" is pentile).

Now... If I can just get my wife to use her phone for Netflix and stuff cause the tv users allot more power once the smart hub is turned on.

Posted via Android Central App