Chromecast Audio - Sonos for 1/10th the price?

[Chip]

Everybody I know who has sonos speakers in their house loves them.  But with even the tiny play1 costing $200, and the larger units that can actually fill a room costing $500+, I couldn't justify the price to outfit my whole house with them.  Instead, I've been investigating DIY alternatives for a while.  I was considering RPis with squeezebox combined with LMS, but there were a few reasons why the RPi wasn't ideal.  The CHIP looked like a much better option, and I even backed it in hopes of giving it a try.

But now that all seems to be a moot point.  The $35 chromecast audio does everything the $350 sonos connect does.  It works with essentially any streaming audio service, as well as locally-stored music.  It handles multi-room synching.  It's easily controlled from pretty much any of the computing devices I own.  I can pick whatever speakers/amp I want for each room, as I would have done with the DIY approach.  The damn thing is just about perfect, and it's impulse-buy cheap.  I'll be ordering a couple of them to start, just to make sure they work as well as advertised.  If they do, I'll be filling my house with them.

EDIT: Ah crap.  It looks like the liveblog I was reading didn't have the whole story on multi-room syncing.  Apparently it will get the feature via an update later this year, but doesn't have it yet.  When it does do multi-room, then it will be perfect.

 

[ekianjo]

The problem with Chromecast solutions is that it's again the same propietary bullshit from Google, so you'll need to use Android or Windows/Mac with their specific application without any Free Software solution. Fuck that shite. 

 

[comradekingu]

The problem with sonos is that its some proprietary bullshit. Is 'chromecast audio' different from chromecast anything else?

 

[Chip]

The problem with Chromecast solutions is that it's again the same propietary bullshit from Google, so you'll need to use Android or Windows/Mac with their specific application without any Free Software solution. Fuck that shite. 

It is controllable from a chrome browser, which you can install on basically anything.  Any modern smartphone, any tablet, and any computer running windows, OSX, or linux.  Who cares if it's "open" as long as it's universally accessible?

 

[_jr_]

Well, I do. Or isn't this a real question?

 

[comradekingu]

How is chrome 'universally accessible'? Other than to the NSA, this assessment is untrue.

 

[Chip]

It's "universally accessible" in that it's available on every platform.  It's not like it only works on certain phones or under certain operating systems.  It's not limited to a particular "ecosystem".  Any person in a position to cast audio or video in their home already owns several devices that are capable of doing so.

And if you really want to get in a twist over "open", bear in mind that casting from chromium works as well.  On the app end, they have an SDK for integrating casting features directly into your android/chrome/ios app.  On the receiver end, they have a fully documented API for making a custom receiver application.  I don't see how any of this could possibly qualify as "proprietary bullshit".

 

[ekianjo]

The problem with Chromecast solutions is that it's again the same propietary bullshit from Google, so you'll need to use Android or Windows/Mac with their specific application without any Free Software solution. Fuck that shite. 

It is controllable from a chrome browser, which you can install on basically anything.  Any modern smartphone, any tablet, and any computer running windows, OSX, or linux.  Who cares if it's "open" as long as it's universally accessible?

No, you are wrong.

For the setup of the Chromecast you NEED to have a proprietary application. It's impossible to do the first setup of the chromecast using a Google-Chrome or Chromium browser only. I know, I have one and I tried to find a way, there is none. 

So it's actually, clearly, proprietary bullshit.

 

[_jr_]

Haven't looked long at the SDK, but it sure looks pretty proprietary. IANAL, but https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/terms doesn't sound very open to me (as a developer).

 

[Mr_Loon]

Hey Chip, I'd be really grateful if you could let us know how you get on with Chromecast audio as I've been looking for something like this but didn't think the Sonos solution was affordable.

 

[Chip]

"Openness" whinging aside, I won't be buying any until multiroom is enabled, as that is primarily what I want it for.  I have no issue with installing a browser plugin (gasp!), but I'm not going to shell out for hardware that doesn't yet do specifically what I need it to do. 

 

[ekianjo]

Who cares if it's "open" as long as it's universally accessible?

Oh and you really don't understand Free Software if you approach things this way. The problem with proprietary software is that you may limit what the hardware can do simply because nobody can modify critical pieces of you code (certainly the ChromeCast has no need to be online to stream things but Google is imposing it for its operation... who knows what kind of data they get when you stream stuff?).

On top of that, the day that Google stops supporting the current generations of Chromecast, you can just stick it in your ass because there will be nothing you can do about it if they don't maintain compatibility with upcoming OSes and the like.

So, who cares? Well, people who understand software care.

 

[Chip]

So, who cares? Well, people who understand software care.

And people who understand cost-benefit ratios don't care.  It's only a $35 widget.  If google drops support for it in five years (which is highly unlikely), so what?  You've gotten your money's worth many times over by that point.  It's not like this is a general-purpose computer - it's a device dedicated to performing a single task.  As long as it does it's one job, then nothing needs modifying.

As you've said, google mines the crap out of your usage for data it can sell to advertisers.  Some folks get bent out of shape about this, but it's inevitable.  It's also a good thing from a hardware longevity standpoint.  Unlike apple, google doesn't really make any money by selling you a new widget every other year.  They make all their money from your usage of their online products.  It therefore behooves them to keep you using those products as much as possible, and that means supporting their hardware for as long as possible.  That's why direct-from-google nexus phones continue to get software updates long after carrier-sold phones are abandoned - google would rather you keep using your old android than risk you switching to ios or winmo.

 

[comradekingu]

Just because google has the ability to produce it, at a reasonable cost, does not mean I can accept a PC being gimped into an appliance.

Just because the phone is capable and current in some way, does not mean i want to run Android, and especially not Google android.

Advertising is not ok. That aside, hardware is not a subscription plan.

 

[ekianjo]

So, who cares? Well, people who understand software care.

And people who understand cost-benefit ratios don't care.  It's only a $35 widget.

And that's the whole difference between a 35 dollars Raspberry Pi and a 35 dollar proprietary-locked piece of shit. You can actually do everything you want with a Raspberry Pi because it's as Open as possible and you can think of dozens of ways to use it. A Chromecast can only be used in a single way, can not be reflashed or anything even though specs wise it should be pretty similar to what a Raspberry Pi could do, even if it lacks some ports.

 

[_jr_]

But the Raspberry Pi requires the user to do something and become more than just a user (even if only a little bit). This has gone out of fashion among computer users in general. Mostly because the user base has grown so large and for a lot of the new users their first contact with computing devices has been something misdesigned by apple and friends. Despite the success of the Pi it is still a fringe product.

This segregation of 'creators' and 'users' has now unfortunately also tainted the concept of freedom, because a creator today finds herself surrounded by competitors and leeches instead of fellow creators. The world really has become a worse place in the last 15 years (and not only because there are now more refugees around than ever since WWII).

 

[ekianjo]

But the Raspberry Pi requires the user to do something and become more than just a user (even if only a little bit). This has gone out of fashion among computer users in general.

The folks who are "computer users" but who do not tweak at all with their system or remotely understand how it works are just like microwave-oven and washing machine users. They don't deserve a computer in the first place, it's a waste of a device for them. And incidentally, a lot of them go for iPads and Macs which is the perfect "non-computer" appliance for them - they need their little walled garden.

 

[Chip]

And that's the whole difference between a 35 dollars Raspberry Pi and a 35 dollar proprietary-locked piece of shit. 

That and wireless capability, a decent DAC, an enclosure, and ease of use.  You absolutely can use a RPi to kludge together a whole-house audio setup - I even mentioned this in the top post.  The difference is that with the RPi, it's going to cost a lot more than $35 per room before you're done, and it's going to be a lot harder to set up and use.

Back when electric motors were new and expensive, you could buy one of them to power all your appliances.  You would have one generic motor, and you could swap it our between your mixer and your vacuum cleaner and your hand drill.  Technically you still could, but you wouldn't want to.  Electric motors are cheap enough that you can throw one into every single-use device, and you don't have the time-consuming hassle of swapping them between appliances, or the frustrating process of creating from scratch some means of connecting a motor and an appliance that weren't designed with the other in mind.  Computers are the new electric motors.  
 

They don't deserve a computer in the first place, it's a waste of a device for them. 

That's pretty rude.  There's nothing wrong with wanting "appliances", and there's certainly nothing wrong with using a modern SoC in those appliances.  What is it you're recommending here, that every single device containing a microcontroller must also be capable of being used as a general purpose computer?  Or do you think that SoCs shouldn't be used in single-purpose devices at all, and that engineers should reinvent the wheel with every new product?  Because I guarentee you that when broadcom designed the BCM2835, it was certainly not with the intent of selling it in general purpose computers like the RPi.  It was designed to be sold in appliances.  These low-power, low-cost SoCs are primarily being used exactly as they were intended - in "smart" widgets that do one thing.  SBCs like the RPi are a very tiny side business for chipmakers, which is why support for them is usually quite poor.  If tinkerers and hobbyists get some use out of them, then great - but that's not their intended purpose.  If it weren't for the massive market for low power SoCs to control these appliances you hate so much, nearly all of these chips wouldn't exist.

 

[_jr_]

It was less of a problem previously when appliances were individually designed with discrete electronics or very low powered microcontrollers. A stereo was mostly only good at being a stereo. But now when all of these are basically general purpose computers running a general purpose operating system connected to standard hardware using standard interfaces, it is so extremely annoying that they get walled in. Convenience is a strong argument. It isn't cheaper or easier to create your own secure and scalable web shop, publish your own creative works, or build your own audio system from standard parts, but it is still easier and cheaper than ever before. IMO it is importatn to check whether the strings attached to the convenient solution are really not making it more expensive in the long run. To me the SDK agreement is ominous, but YMMV.

 

[comradekingu]

But the Raspberry Pi requires the user to do something and become more than just a user (even if only a little bit). This has gone out of fashion among computer users in general. Mostly because the user base has grown so large and for a lot of the new users their first contact with computing devices has been something misdesigned by apple and friends. Despite the success of the Pi it is still a fringe product.

This segregation of 'creators' and 'users' has now unfortunately also tainted the concept of freedom, because a creator today finds herself surrounded by competitors and leeches instead of fellow creators. The world really has become a worse place in the last 15 years (and not only because there are now more refugees around than ever since WWII).

I think equating having users with granting the power to limit their use is dangerous. Its the lack of personal in PC.

My way of helping software freedom is trying to make it easier, and thus accessible, to normal users.
Also not buying this chromecast thing till i know more about it.