Google Chromecast (2018) review: Same as the old Chromecast

The new Google Chromecast was conspicuously absent from the spotlight at Google's recent hardware event. But there was indeed a new, updated version of Googleâs streaming dongle; it's just the company decided to roll it out quietly. Spend a few minutes with the new Chromecast and you'll see why the company didn't brag about the refresh at the event â there's really nothing new to brag about.
Looking over the specs of this third-generation Chromecast, I thought a fitting tagline would be, âMeet the new Chromecast, almost the same as the old Chromecast.â Now that I've spend some serious time with the new model, I regret using âalmost.â
Donât get me wrong, the Google Chromecast overall is a fantastic streaming product for $35. Itâs cheap, itâs small, itâs cheap, itâs out of the way, and did I mention itâs cheap? Also, I will say that the idea of just throwing content from your phone to your TV screen, aka âcasting,â is still really cool if not exactly revolutionary anymore. At the core of what it does, the Google Chromecast works really well. If you donât have one and youâre looking for an affordable way to stream content to your TV, Chromecast is a really great option.
That being said, Iâm someone who already owns the previous model, the second-generation Chromecast. If youâre one of the tens of millions of people who, like me, already own a Chromecast, thereâs really not much here for you.
Chromecast evolution
The jump from the first-generation Chromecast released in 2013 to the second-gen model in 2015 was a significant one. It was complete redesign, transforming from a stick to the circular-designed HDMI dongle youâre probably more familiar with.There was also a noticeable change in performance as the older device could be a bit laggy at times.Â
The new third-generation Chromecast (left) and second-generation Chromecast (right).
Image: MATT BINDER/MASHABLE
In contrast, Googleâs 2018 Chromecast is practically the same as the previous model. Save for a few more minor performance and appearance upgrades, you likely wouldnât even tell the difference. The new third-gen Chromecast still comes in round dongle form, albeit there has been a change from a glossy plastic shell to a matte casing. The logo on the device has also changed from the Chrome graphic to Googleâs little âGâ logo. While it certainly gives the device a nicer, sleeker look, youâll rarely even see it, as the device will find its home plugged in to the back of your TV screen on most television sets.
Setting up the Google Chromecast is still quick, easy, and done entirely through the Google Home app on your smartphone. Because your phone is likely already connected to your WiFi network, I didnât even need to input my WiFi password when setting up the new Chromecast.
While the older Chromecast model streamed at 1080p, one major performance upgrade with this latest version is that it now can stream at 60 frames per second. This fixes the choppiness mentioned in our previous review when it came to watching videogame streams and videos. However, if youâre not typically watching gamer Ninjaâs latest Fortnite stream, you really wonât notice a difference. Google also claims the hardware performance of the new Chromecast is 15% faster. It certainly was fast in my testing, but I never really had any issues with my older model running slow. Also, since a Chromecast, by its nature, has no menus to scan through, it's a fairly unnoticeable upgrade.
The Cast Achilles' heel
Speaking of the user interface, one of my main issues with Chromecast has long been the fact that you have to use your phone to run the thing. Yes, I know thatâs the point, but that means thereâs no on-screen user interface at all, which isn't always the best solution.
Using only your smartphone, you go to whatever video service app you want to watch like Netflix or Hulu and then âcastâ the video to your Chromecast-connected TV screen. With other devices like the Apple TV ($149), or â even more analogous to the Chromecast â the Roku Express ($30) or the Amazon Fire Stick ($40), you can pick up the deviceâs remote and pause what youâre watching, raise and lower the volume, switch to another show or app, whatever! With Chromecast, thereâs the extra step of unlocking your phone to change what you want to do on your Chromecast-connected TV set. You control it all from the video player options of the app youâre casting.Â
In fact, my biggest pet peeve with Chromecast is that, if you receive a call on your smartphone, it won't automatically pause what you're watching. (It supposedly depends on the app, but in my years casting Netflix, HBO, and YouTube with the previous model, Iâve never seen this happen.) Every time, Iâve had to take the call while whatever I was watching awkwardly played in the background until I could bring up the app for whatever video service I was using to pause it. Itâs a choice between that or declining the incoming call, pausing the video, and reaching back out to whoever called me. Annoying.
One new feature that could solve the phone call issue is the addition of Google Assistant to control your Chromecast. You can use your voice for some basic controls, like changing what you want to watch on Netflix or YouTube. Itâs limited, but it works. The hiccup here is that you need a Google Home speaker or a phone with Google Assistant for this to even work. If you donât already own one of those devices, you might as well splurge for a full-featured set-top streaming box like the Apple TV instead of getting these other Google Home devices if all youâre going to really use them for is a workaround for Chromecastâs standalone flaws.
An incremental upgrade
All in all, the new Chromecast is just as good as its predecessor. Itâs just as bad, too. It can still be a bit clunky using your phone to cast. If you want to browse movies and shows to watch with your family, be prepared to gather around the smartphone screen, because again thereâs no Chromecast menu options for your TV set. I guess you could cast your web browser and look at the web version of Netflix (or whatever service you're using), but thatâs an irritating extra step. Thereâs other little issues like changing the volume on your phone to control your Chromecast-connected TVâs audio, which isnât always very responsive.
Speaking of sound, multiroom audio support is coming to the Chromecast by the end of the year, but thatâs not necessarily a reason to buy this device: it's supposedly rolling out to second-generation Chromecasts, too.
In my opinion, the Google Chromecast is a worthy secondary TV streaming device. However, if you already have one, thereâs not a lot of reason to upgrade to this third-generation model â especially if you have the second-gen Chromecast.Â
If you purchased a 4K TV since the older Chromecast model came out, the refreshed device isn't the streaming option for you either. Google still has 4K streaming reserved solely for it's more expensive Chromecast device, the now 2-year-old Chromecast Ultra ($69).
However, if you donât already own a Chromecast and you're not looking to stream 4K content, itâs certainly among the cheapest options to consider. I wouldnât use it for my living room set where I watch TV socially with family and friends, but when it's perfect for the bedroom and just want to put something on since it's so straightforward.
However, if the lack of an onscreen menu doesn't work for you, there are plenty other similarly priced options nowadays. For example, the Amazon Fire Stick offers all that and is currently only five bucks more than a Chromecast. Oh, right, thatâs another thing! Amazon's video app doesn't support Google Cast. So, if you really want to stream some Amazon Prime video, Chromecast may not be the option for you.