Skip to main content

Google reportedly working with Vizio to build Chromecast into TVs

According to a new report, Google may be working with TV manufacturer Vizio to build Chromecast features into forthcoming TVs. As noted by Variety, the effort would eschew Google's Android TV platform in favor of Chromecast's simpler method of operation:

The new line of TVs, which could become available as early as this spring, won't feature any traditional smart TV apps. Instead, they will function just like Google's Chromecast streaming adapter, offering consumers the ability to watch online services like Netflix and Hulu on their TV sets, but with the streaming initiating from mobile devices.

This would be an interesting turn for Google, whose Android TV platform is already built into a number of TVs and includes casting support in addition to an on-screen interface and full-fledged apps. This new approach, however, would essentially result in building Chromecast into the TV rather than requiring an extra dongle.

Source: Variety; Via: The Verge

39 Comments
  • Isn't this what Android TV already does? Posted via the Android Central App
  • You really don't read the articles at all do you? Posted via the Android Central App
  • They don't even read the title anymore Posted via the Android Central App
  • Android TV does a hundred things more than that. This is probably to be able to bundle the functionality for an extra 4$ for Vizio so they can sell Chromecast ready tvs for 100$ more.
  • That's so bad idea, the performance between a native Netflix app in a tv, and that streamed on a chromecast is very noticeable.
  • ^^^you must have $hitty wifi Posted via the Android Central App
  • I haven't noticed a difference on Netflix, Hulu or HBO. Posted via the Android Central App
  • If you're using the original chromecast on a congested 2.4Ghz wireless network, then I could see where you are coming from...
    But the new chromecast on 5Ghz network? It's lightyears faster than my baked in smart TV apps.
  • It should be exactly the same.
  • I notice it's better from Chromecast Posted via Techmology
  • My chromecast works much better than my Vizio Netflix app. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I can't stand my vizio "smart" tv. Takes almost 30 seconds from the time I press the power button, to see an image on the screen. I'm not interested in buying any more "smart" tvs. I'd rather plug things into HDMI ports that will do what I need. Just turn on quickly, and I'll be happy. Can't wait for this TV to die.
  • Vizio isn't going to die. Just because Netflix is slow doesn't make the tv bad lol. It's been the best tv I've owned. If it's too slow plug Chromecast into hdmi. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I think he meant that he wants HIS actual tv to die.. not Vizio. Why? Idk.. My Vizio tv is awesome but the remote sucks. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I love my vizio tv but I know what you mean about the remote. It's been replaced once and 2nd remote isn't doing too good. Glad I found the Logitech harmony remote during this past black Friday. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Agreed. TV makers should focus on picture quality and leave the rest to accessory OEMs (or divisions). Posted via the Android Central App
  • When I bought my TV for my bedroom, I didn't want a Smart TV at all. I just got a Chromecast for my streaming needs. Works perfectly. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Hard to find non smart TV nowadays.. Posted via Techmology
  • This might actually be a decent idea, so long as Google and Vizio work out some way to allow for playback controls to be also available with the TV remote. You'd still have to initiate the streaming from a mobile device, but the TV's remote should be able to pause, FF, RW, etc. It is beyond frustrating when the connection between the phone and the Chromecast drops. At least once a week I suddenly become unable to pause with my phone, leading to have to open the Chromecast app and hope the controls there work, or when they don't, reset the Chromecast. So they really should integrate the ability to directly control playback with the remote. It shouldn't be that hard to do and would massively improve the user experience.
  • I think this already works with the new chromecast and most TV's that have an HDMI-CEC port.
    I can pause and play streams using my TV remote on my Samsung TV on nearly every streaming app I've tried: Twitch, Youtube, BBC, Plex, and WatchESPN.
  • Does it? Wow. I knew it controlled power and input, but didn't realize playback controls worked. I guess my TV just doesn't support this. It has HDMI-CEC and powers on and changes to the input when I cast, but the playback controls on my remote don't do anything while casting. I don't use it on my 2015 Samsung, but I'll give it a try and I might be moving TVs around later. Thanks. :) I guess as long as this works, it would be great. Native smart tv apps are so often glitchy and slow to be updated, this would all but eliminate that so long as Google is in direct control of the updates. If left to Vizio, it might not be as much of a benefit.
  • Meh end of the day I still like replacing a $35 hardware piece compared to a $600-$1200 TV just to make it smart. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Well I have crappy DSL so I am screwed no matter. Posted via Android Central App
  • I feel ur pain. I had to switch back to Comcast Internet as soon as I could. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Why can't you report spam? All these updates and that's still not an option? Posted via the Android Central App
  • See the little triangle, push it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------^
  • I have a Samsung smart TV and I don't use any of the apps. The Netflix app is terribly outdated and cumbersome to navigate. I have a chromecast 2 hinged up that I use for streaming Posted via the Android Central App
  • What's the point. Any TV now days can do it Posted via the Android Central App
  • Hopefully Google controls the updates to Chromecast and not Vizio. Will otherwise run into same situation as Android phones.
  • The only app I use on my smart tv is Netflix and that's only to watch 4k stuff but I absolutely hate because it barely detects the remote when I press anything. I literally have to point the remote directly at the sensor and hold the button down hard. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Blah vizio are such poop tho, Sammy Sony or LG would be better Posted via Nexus 6p
  • I see this as something mainly for bedroom TVs in the 32"-40" range. It's for at night when ur already in bed with smartphone in hand, and if they made it so u don't have to change the input source, for those with cable or satellite, then it could be a real winner. Android TV is built for 60" living room TVs, simple as that. Posted via the Android Central App
  • This is the first thing I thought of when they announced chromecast. Posted via the Android Central App
  • I have been casting stuff to my E65-C3 since June of 2015 when I bought it. Posted via the Android Central App
  • Not gonna purchase this, it's gonna cost too much to do the same. The same thing I am doing now Posted via the Android Central App
  • Or just use Miracast today. Better performance than chromecast and does not rely on your wifi speed Posted via the Android Central App
  • At the end of the day, it's about picture quality. I'd rather buy a Sony panel and just buy the Chromecast as an accessory. Posted via the Android Central App
  • In fairness, these would not be "smart TVs." They would still be dumb TVs, but running Google Cast Receiver in their firmware, and as ALL televisions (as well as most DVD/Blu-ray players) have CPUs and firmware these days, it really would be a good idea to try to get TV manufacturers to make this standard, especially since Google Cast receiver is not something that is going to need updating. The main problem is that Google is promoting Chromecast like crazy while allowing Android TV to wither and die on the vine. It is no surprise as the VP who runs Chromecast also runs Android TV now, since the former product is a success and the latter product is, eh. This tug-of-war between ChromeOS and Android really stinks. It is the main reason why Google never gave us a good large form factor Android device: because it would cannibalize ChromeOS. Then they come out with Android TV but do not promote it. Most people do not know that the Android TV exists, and the two actual devices available (Razer Forge and Nvidia) are more for gaming enthusiasts (or at least "gaming enthusiasts" too cheap to buy a Playstation or a Steam machine). So now the only real hope for the future of Android TV is if Google uses the platform for cable TV boxes (which Google successfully lobbied the FCC to deregulate). Google really dropped the ball on it. They could have come out with a really decent device capable of competing with Apple TV, Roku and the Fire TV, done it at a good price point and heavily promoted it. Instead they came out with the Nexus Player - for which you cannot even buy a replacement remote! - and forgot about it. Maybe their real plan was to focus on smart TVs to begin with, but Samsung and LG (#1 and #2 TV makers respectively) have their Tizen and WebOS platforms. But even if Google is able to come up with a viable cable TV box, I would bet that a real tug of war over whether it would be an Android device or a ChromeOS device would break out. I like Chromecast, but the problem is that it requires a separate device and a Wi-Fi connection, as well as third party apps willing to build the plug-in. Yes, Google has moved a lot of the things, but only because they are so cheap. Had Google followed the Nexus Player up with an Android TV dongle for about $50, it would have been a hit, especially with Marshmallow allowing external storage for apps. Android TV dongle (with a user-supplied 16 GB USB 3.0 drive for apps) would have been great for everything except high performance gaming, which the Razer Forge and the Nvidia Shield would have served. But the ChromeOS division didn't want the competition, so Google came out with the totally useless "Chromebit" flop instead: $85 for a Rockchip CPU, 2 GB of RAM that you still have to provide your own keyboard and display for. In other words, only about $40 less than an actual Chromebook with HDMI out costs. The sooner ChromeOS dies already, the better for Google and Android ... and also the better for people who have ChromeOS devices, which would get upgraded with the ChromeOS/Android hybrid.
  • Vizio?! LG or Samsung... Or Phillips.. Posted via Techmology