Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Mozilla Television Hardware Entertainment

Matchstick and Mozilla Take On Google's Chromecast With $25 Firefox OS Dongle 106

Posted by timothy from the what-can-it-slurp dept.
An anonymous reader writes Matchstick and Mozilla today announced their open-source take on the Chromecast: a $25 Firefox OS-powered HDMI dongle. The streaming Internet and media stick will be available first through Kickstarter, in the hopes to drive down the price tag. Jack Chang, Matchstick General Manager in the US, described the device to me as "essentially an open Chromecast." He explained that while the MSRP is $25 (Google's Chromecast retails for $35), the Kickstarter campaign is offering a regular price of $18, and an early bird price of $12.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Matchstick and Mozilla Take On Google's Chromecast With $25 Firefox OS Dongle More

Matchstick and Mozilla Take On Google's Chromecast With $25 Firefox OS Dongle

Comments Filter:
  • I really do like my Chromecast. Even if it is powered by Google. This device definitely has an uphill battle ahead of it.
    • Yeah, I like it too. I was skeptical, but it serves a nice niche if you like certain web content, and easy to move between TVs. Just wish it had some level of IR control in addition to wifi.

      • Just wish it had some level of IR control in addition to wifi.

        Consider a Raspberry Pi B+. You can add IR (or bluetooth), it's full HD, has four USB so you can add WiFi and other stuff, has a camera interface, there's a media player configuration to fool with right out of the (NOOBS) box, Youtube et al are all available over the web, etc... and it's pretty easy to move, too. HDMI cable, power supply, that's all. Presuming you've an IR or bluetooth remote working with it.

        And it's all about as open -- hardwar

        • I have a RPi, and various HTPCs as well. RPI just not as portable as a dongle, and doesn't support stuff like Netflix unless you get into the Linux/HTML5 approach. Plus, with a RPi, by the time you add the SD card, wifi adaptor, power supply, your cost gets into a higher range where, to me, it makes more sense to just use a NUC.
    • I can see the appeal if you have a "dumb-tv". I bought a "smart TV", and found that I don't need any additional dongles hanging out of my TV taking up HDMI slots. I can play videos or display the screen directly from the tablet or notebook, play videos files off my Plex server, watch Netflix, all directly from the TV. I handn't really planned on getting a Smart TV, but all the TVs that were the size I wanted, with the features I wanted also happened to be smart TVs, or weren't any cheaper than the smart T

      • You might want to be more specific about your brand of smart TV. I got an LG and the Plex support is awful (even though Plex claims LG is a supported brand). Some stuff would play OK when it was encoded in something that was native for the LG, but transcoding just didn't work right. I ended up switching from Plex to the open sores Universal Media Player and that is at least working with transcoding. Clunky interface and slow to respond sometimes, but at least I can watch stuff that I couldn't watch with Ple

        • "And I doubt that you are seeing may apps or channels being added for your "Smart TV" (I'm sure not)."

          Well that's a stupid comment. Try researching before commenting. Yes new apps - they're not channels - are being added to smart tvs which makes this whole google chrome thing pure crap. You get this apps with your TV, bluray player and A/V receiver. Why the fudge do you need chrome. Frickin' pathetic. A fool and his money is quickly departed.

          If you need a media server try Wild Media Server. It'

          • Do you mean new apps being added to _existing_ TVs? If so, how many years back do they support? i.e. for how many years do you get upgrades?

            • More than the 6 months of updates I got from the Android phone I bought. Phone was released. 6 months later, Android 4 came out. My phone never got the update. So no, I wouldn't really expect that Chromecast would get apps any more than my phone. Sure my phone wasn't a Nexus phone, which is apparently the only way to really be somewhat sure that you will get updates at all, but it does have "with Google TM" engraved on the back so I half blame Google for allowing their name to be used a product with basic

              • So perhaps my TV won't get updates for long. But I wouldn't expect that from other devices either.

                But maybe you should. Yes, iOS devices eventually get dropped from new updates too.. So far, you have gotten at least a couple of years of updates for any device.

        • I do have an LG. There's technically a Plex app that showed up recently, but I've never used it. I just use the DLNA features and I've never had a problem with it. Although I think everything I've watched has been h.264 encoded. I agree that there's probably better options, but at the same time I can't bring myself to spend money on a dongle when my TV already has all the features built in. Perhaps when the TV is a few years old and newer stuff no longer works with it. In that case I would probably go wit

      • Re:Chromecast (Score:5, Interesting)

        by chaosdivine69 ( 1456649 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @11:59AM (#48028285)

        I'll see your "smart TV" and raise you a "3D TV".

        I have both features in my TV and I use neither of them - well, besides the built in Netflix app. Anyhow, I admit I fell for the hype, call me gullible. I have watched a grand total of 0 3D Blu Rays even though I own a 3D Blu Ray player and an unopened copy of Avatar 3D. The player is still in the box after a whole year. I hope it works because I think the warranty is about to expire in December. I don't buy Blu Rays since they're way more expensive than DVD and since Netflix came along, I don't really need to go on a wild goose chase to find a still operational rental store either. Too bad Netflix doesn't offer 3D capabilities on some of its titles. I might actually use the 4 pairs of stupid looking glasses that came with it.

        For a real smart TV experience I connect my desktop computer to the big screen via HDMI cable and sit back with a wireless keyboard with built in touchpad. Now THAT'S a smart TV experience considering I can do everything and anything I desire with that kind of setup.

        Moral of my story: If you can save a few bucks on a dumb TV then I'd seriously suggest you consider it. Connect your laptop or desktop to it via HDMI and go nuts if you really want a satisfactory experience.

        • I picked out my current TV based on a number of other variables and eneded up with a barely smart TV with 3D. The Netflix 3D selection is pretty sad, but Youtube has more stuff, and the kids/cousins love watching stuff in 3D. And since I have young children who don't like baby sitters I occassionally treat the wife and myself to a 3D blu-ray of something we would have liked to see in the theatres, and as exepensive as movie tickets are these days it's just as cost effective to own the blu-ray DvD combo pack

          • This is true. I have seen all my 3D titles in the theater and it is rather pricey (hence me wanting a copy of 3D Avatar after I saw it so I could repeat the experience on a whim) but I go to the theater to get out of the house and for the "event" nature of it all, granted it's not often I do this. I don't have kids though so I didn't consider that type of expense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jfengel ( 409917 )

          I'm not sure you can save anything with a dumb TV any more. These features are so cheap that they're being replicated by a $25 stick. Adding at least basic "smart" features is kind of a no-brainer for the manufacturer.

          Too bad they suck at it. At least, in my experience: the built-in version of Netflix on my TV is so bad that I bought a Roku. It's a few years old, and maybe they've improved it since then, but on mine it's slow and awkward. Perhaps in the future they'll just spend $25 and wire in one of these

          • I have a Sony TV and their Netflix App is actually pretty good. It even has a dedicated Netflix button on the remote. I don't use any of their Sony Entertainment services or anything else like that since I prefer the connected desktop computer route. Their web browser on the other hand is beyond brutal and it's the main reason I connect it to a desktop.

            What isn't good is their Miracast implementation. It only works with Sony phones/tablets...this seriously pissed me off since none of mine are made by them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ai4px ( 1244212 )
        I have a smart TV and it's a realy PITA to enter URLs or search for a youtube video. Chromecast is much easier.... heck, it's even easier than fliping the screeen around to show my wife something on the laptop... I just beam it to the TV.

    • This is of interest for me exactly because it isn't locked to using Chrome. I've only ever used Chrome when I was trying to establish if a website's functionality was just broke or if it was a Firefox problem.

    • It is not even certified to work with Google's own Chromebooks.

  • Not sure how well it will work (Score:3)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin,kosch&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @11:15AM (#48027929) Journal
    ChromeCast isn't exactly setting the world on fire. I have one. But the apps for it are same as what I can get on XBox and tablet. I really only use it when I want watch stupid cat videos on our TV because her tablet is better then XBox's YouTube interface.

    The only saving grace for this unit is the open nature that ChromeCast really doesn't have yet.

    • The only saving grace for this unit is the open nature that ChromeCast really doesn't have yet.

      True. It would be nice to be able to have VLC type playback capabilities.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I this and love it: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/videostream-for-google-ch/cnciopoikihiagdjbjpnocolokfelagl?hl=en

        You're welcome.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by wulfhere ( 94308 )

          +1 Informative

        • Yea... but how well can a little usb stick decode? I've got a dedicated media PC with an i5 processor and a $200 video card for hardware accelerated decoding just so I can watch 1080p mkv files. Even with all that, some of the more detailed nature stuff can get jittery.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You can play any video on it using Plex client on your mobile and a Plex server (which does on the fly conversion, still have not encountered a single video format it cannot play).

        It's actually quite a sweet setup: you get a netflix style browse catalogue complete with synopsis and pictures. Choose what you want to watch and cast it to Chromecast...

        There are some drawbacks: Mobile app is $5 for iOS or Android. Requires a computer running Plex server software (I have mine setup as a vm with 2 cpus and 8GB of

        • That sounds like an awfully complex setup, a mobile device, a computer running the transcoding software, a ChromeCast dongle and a TV just to play a video? Just plug the PC into your TV, that way you don't waste all that power doing transcoding and you can eliminate a bunch of devices that you don't need. You could even use the mobile device with a bluetooth/wifi mouse/keyboard app if you want to control it from there.

      • With the localcast app, you can play pretty much any video from your android device. Works great.

        • It is a bit limited in formats it will accept, like typical direct HTTP live streaming, but yes, it works fine for those that it accepts. I just want more.
      • If I could just get DLNA support, I'd have 50 of them
    • I have two, and I don't think that most of us have tablets or XBoxes attached to all our TVs. With Chromecast I can start watching a video on my Theater PC, then cast it to a bedroom or living room TV without needing to have PCs or consoles in the other rooms.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Imagix ( 695350 )
        I've got a Chromecast, but I'm not terribly impressed. I have separate SSIDs for my 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. The Cast is on the 2.4, which means that it doesn't nicely interact with devices on the 5 GHz band. It really wants to match SSID names.

        • Agreed. Sometimes my CC doesn't show up. Caveat: I'm using my CC with Plex. So in addition to it not showing up, sometimes the video freezes and I need to reboot the CC....

          But my biggest beef is that the CC is useless when my internet connection goes down. So is Plex though so I'm doubly hosed... But when my internet connection is down, I'm more likely to want to just switch on the TV...

          I might have to go back to XBMC running on a PC and all of its annoyances..

      • Because you don't need them attached to your TV.
    • Yeah I have a Wii U. This Amazon Prime Video stuff just comes through it, so I haven't bought a Roku to watch Amazon Prime Video.

    • Look, it's stupid. You're stupid. Everyone is stupid.

      Buy this [amazon.com]. It has two HDMI inputs on the back. Hook your computer to one--your sound will even come out of the speakers, and stop coming out when you switch the TV off--and an HDMI switch to the other. Plug your Wii U, PS3 (bluray player), etc., into the HDMI switch. Plug your legacy systems (NES, PS2) into an Audio-Stereo-Component switcher, with composite systems routed properly (the same pins are used for AVC as AVRGB, with the Red pin reused fo

    • ChromeCast isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

      It's the #1 best-selling electronics device on Amazon, and I believe it has held that spot continuously ever since it was released. It's also one of Best Buy's top sellers. Every non-geek I know who has one loves it. I don't know if that equates to "setting the world on fire", but it's been pretty darned successful.

  • no $12 deal for you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @11:40AM (#48028123)
    It would have been nice if this had been posted before all of the $12 devices were spoken for. I went to the site as soon as this was posted but all 500 were taken.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Welcome to /. Glad you could join us.

    • This was probably in the firehose long before it showed on the frontpage. I wouldn't expect any limited number offer like that to survive more than 60 seconds once it made it to Slashdot in any fashion. We're lucky that the kickstarter servers didn't just crash and burn under the load that a posting here can bring.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by asa ( 33102 )

        I don't think the so-called slashdot effect is in effect these days except for casual and amateur sites. Pretty much any serious site can handle a hard slashdot hit any more.

    • I went to the site as soon as this was posted

      Apparently, 500 other people also sacrificed the chance to yell "First Post!"

  • The deal under which Mozilla makes about $300 million a year putting Google as the default browser in Firefox is ending in November of this year. This deal provides the vast majority of Mozilla's funding. Does Google need to renew it? The situation has changed from 4 years ago - Chrome is the default on Android, People are installing it on their laptops to have the same browser as their phones, etc.

    So maybe Mozilla can see the writing on the wall and doesn't care to "offend" Google any more. Making the

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @11:42AM (#48028137)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2014 @12:03PM (#48028337)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Ultimately I cannot easily reduce this to an answer here, and probably not to one that will satisfy you.

        Why would this be so hard? "Cheap hardware is more important to us than open hardware" would be sufficient.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          Why would this be so hard? "Cheap hardware is more important to us than open hardware" would be sufficient.

          More like "Hardware people will want to buy and license from us" versus "Hardware that's open, but no one wants".

          3D graphics is a patent minefield, where even data formats are patented as part of the standard.

          So an open device with open firmware will mean basically it doesn't work - graphics will be stutter and framerates low. Perhaps video decoding will work out fine. Or maybe not.

          Anyhow, the big thin

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why would they give me money as a reward for funding them with money?

    They give you a $200 per diem at CES. But.. why not just make the reward level that much cheaper? I don't get it.

    • Why would they give me money as a reward for funding them with money?

      They give you a $200 per diem at CES. But.. why not just make the reward level that much cheaper? I don't get it.

      Probably because the per diem is up to $200.
      So if you average $150 then they're "saving" $50/day vs reducing the price of the reward tier.

    • Because giving you a $200 per diem likely doesn't cost them $200. For instance if that money has to be spent at specific vendors that they have worked out a deal with. This is one of the things that the US and organizations like The Gates Foundation get criticized for. It's like company script in place of being given cash, you can only spend that script at the company store, where the company is happy to sell you a $10 shovel that only cost them $5 to obtain and stock. The US frequently gives foreign aid wi

  • I really don't understand what this stuff (either Matchstick or Chromecast) is good for. Why don't you plug your HTPC into the TV? Are these things for oddly-shaped rooms where people just have to have the computer and monitor on different sides, without a cable?

    Someone please ELI5 me (that's the currently hip way to ask for explanations, I hear) WTF the use case is for wireless HDMI?

    • Some people have one TV and multiple computers, I think. It's strange. Families don't need multiple televisions.

      • Some people have one TV and multiple computers, I think. It's strange. Families don't need multiple televisions.

        Families don't need televisions at all. That said, the average US home has just shy of three TVs.

      • Families don't need multiple televisions.

        HAHAHAHAHA. How are different people supposed to watch different things at the same time (on a reasonably sized screen)?

        Heck, I "only" have one TV now, but just for me, I can imagine having a TV in my bedroom (which I have now), and getting a big TV for the living room.

        • I don't have "TV". I have a computer. People have phones, computers, laptops. There's like 40 displays in your house. Why do you need a TV in every room?

    • That assumes you have a HTPC. Many people don't. Also, it lets you put the content on any TV in the house, rather than just the one next to the HTPC (assuming you have one). Finally, it's very straightforward to use - pull up what you want on your iPad/iPhone/Android phone/Android tablet, tap the cast icon, and you're up and running.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      You can set up a computer in the home office and a TV in the family room. Then you control it using your phone.
    • Devices like these don't utilize wireless HDMI, it's just wireless control of the HDMI device. I like my Chromecast because it does the simple things I want and I don't have to fund a new PC and deal with the cables (TV mounted on the wall). Control is also easy from my phone or tablet, without ever needing a physical keyboard for typing.

    • Ok, I'll bite. I have a laptop in the living room that can, and occassionally still does get plugged into the TV for multimedia use; yet the chromecaste gets several orders of magnitude more use.

      Form factor. I don't need or want another box sitting in front of my TV.
      Quiteness. I am well aware that a PC can be silent, but it costs money and effort to accomplish. Less so these days with low power micro boards granted.
      Power draw. To get into entertainment of choice is significantly faster with the chromecast u

  • I have a cheap $18 dongle I bought off of Ebay. Seems to work well enough.

    • I'll never deal with the electronic bay of thieves, but I had a similar thought about the price. If the $12 deal was still open when this was first posted I would have bought in. 18 is too close to other HDMI dongles that I've seen at Internet retailers that I deal with. True, this is likely more open than those, but if openness is the driving factor then the PI is likely the best low cost option. And while they quote the Chromecast $35 price, I often see it discounted, even at Best Buy. The best deal on s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Richy_T ( 111409 )

        I don't believe that the Pi is up to the job. I did have an HDMI dongle that could do the job but it went "poof" after a week and DealExtreme lost it on the return.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close