Google yesterday unveiled a tiny little device that aims to change how people view online content in the living room by making it easier than ever before.

No more unwieldy set-top boxes or desktops will be necessary when you get your mitts on Google’s device. Known as the Chromecast, the little plug-in stick looks a lot like a flash drive but instead of connecting to a USB port, it connects to the HDMI port of your HDTV. The gadget then taps into your WiFi network to stream content directly to the TV, with your Android, iOS, OS X, Windows, or Chrome OS device serving as the remote control.  To get the most out of Chromecast, you’d need to have an existing subscription to some online TV services, but even without these it’ll still work with other online content.

I know you’re thinking, there’s really nothing new about this, Apple already has this with its Airfix right? Plus there’s all the other set-top boxes with streaming capabilities available to buy, so how is the Chromecast different?

Well, for one thing, it’s compatible with many other platforms, and second, Google has a lot of hardware partners so we could see Google Cast – Chromecast’s underlying technology, integrated in future TVs such as those from Samsung.

Even so, it’s worth taking a look and seeing how Chromecast stacks up against some of the major internet TV players that it’s looking to take on, namely Apple TV and Roku 3:

Which Streaming Device Stands Out?

Based on the specifications above, Roku 3 has the edge when we’re purely talking about content – with over a hundred channels available it leaves Apple and Google for dust.  Apple isn’t too shabby with 14 content partners signed up, but with only Netflix and YouTube it’s clear that the Chromecast is very far behind and a has a lot of catching up to do.

As for the platform compatibility, the Chromecast can be used with more devices so you don’t have to be tied down to Apple devices to enjoy it.  But even here, Roku still has the edge since you don’t even have to own a computer, tablet, or smartphone to enjoy it.

The Chromecast might not have a physical remote, that isn’t a big deal and if you think about it, it’s one reason why it costs way less than the other two streaming devices, because you’re only paying for the plug-in, nothing more.

Chromecast also gets some brownie points for producing a two-inch device, talk about space saver.

On this morning’s edition of NewsDesk, Kristin Feledy asked Wikibon Senior Analyst Stu Miniman for his opinion on Google’s little dongle device:

“I see some huge promise here to really simplify the way multimedia and that line between digital and regular programing could be done.  If you look at the challenges today, if you are a high-end user, you get your universal remote, you program it up and then six months later you need to reprogram it or add or remove things.  With something like Chromecast, I can turn my tablet into my entertainment control device where not only am I gonna have a remote control but it can also really pull in stuff from the Internet and bring it on to my TV.”

Aside from that, Miniman stated that Chromecast has the element of openness to it which will make it very interesting for developers and users alike.

For more of Miniman’s Breaking Analysis, check out the NewsDesk video below:

All in all, though Chromecast’s minimalistic design and price is highly commendable, the available content is severely limited at this time. No doubt this is still a work in progress and Google will add many more channels over the next few months, but until it does it’s not going to be the Apple TV killer some other ‘analysts’ have been hailing it. Even so, at just $35 we’d expect more than a few impulse buyers will end up getting their hands on one just for the hell of it – when that happens, it’ll be down to Google to make the most of it.

But if you really can’t wait for Google to get its content house in order, then your best bet seems to be the Roku 3 – hundreds of channels and you don’t have to be a fanboi to use it :)