C. Scott Brown / Android Authority
Colleague C Scott Brown loved the Google TV Streamer, and it’s easy to see why. The TV box combines a sleek design with plenty of RAM, 32GB of internal storage, Thread support, and a decent processor.
However, Acer just announced its own Google TV box in my home market. I quickly realized that if I had to choose between buying a grey-market Google TV Streamer and the Acer box, one omission is keeping me from firmly embracing the Google device.
Do you want a USB-A or second USB-C port on a next-gen Google TV Streamer? 16 votes Yes, absolutely 56 % It would be nice, but not a must 31 % No, I don't care about this 13 %
Acer’s box actually has ports
The Acer TV Box ships with plenty of extra ports aside from the expected HDMI port. You’ve got two USB-C ports (one for power), an optical audio port, a microSD card slot, an Ethernet port, and a full-sized USB-A port. By contrast, the Google TV Streamer has a single USB-C port for power, an Ethernet port, and that’s it. Acer’s box clearly has a variety of useful I/O options, but I really value the full-sized USB port and second USB-C port.
I originally had a Xiaomi Mi Box for a few years, and it had just 8GB of internal storage. However, the solitary USB-A port made it super-easy to plug in my portable hard drive to watch content. This port also made life a little easier when sideloading apps, as I could simply plug in a flash drive and install apps like this. I even used my Mi Box’s USB-A port to plug in a controller for some emulation testing. Using a wired controller is admittedly a niche use for a USB port on a TV box, but it’s nice to have the option anyway. A USB port would also be handy for storing plenty of ROMs on a flash drive or portable hard drive.
I really hope the next Google TV Streamer copies Acer's new box by offering a second USB-C port or a full-sized USB port.
I switched to the Shield TV tube in 2020, and while the microSD card slot was handy, I was disappointed with the lack of a USB port. I frequently watch content from a portable hard drive connected to a laptop, using VLC to stream shows and movies over the local network to my Shield. However, my laptop’s location in my office means that the connection can be spotty. An Ethernet cable would fix things, but we’re renting this place, which limits what I can do in terms of a more permanent installation.
This is also an issue when my partner wants to watch content stored on her portable hard drive. I’m unable to cast to the Shield TV from her laptop, even though both devices are on the same network. I could try streaming over the network via VLC, but we’ve simply resorted to plugging the hard drive into an Xbox One for a hassle-free viewing experience.
I hope the Google TV Streamer brings more ports
C. Scott Brown / Android Authority
In other words, I’d definitely appreciate a USB port like the ones on the Acer TV box. This would allow me to plug in a portable hard drive just fine and watch content without worrying about local networks, casting, or Plex. The only real downside is that it can be a bit annoying to plug and unplug the hard drive when needed. For example, I’ll have to plug the portable drive back into my laptop if I’d like to download more content. But I think the upsides far outweigh the downsides.
Google doesn’t even need to add a full-sized USB-A port to its next TV Streamer, as I would appreciate a second USB-C port too. I’m sure many others feel the same way, as we’ve seen some Chromecast and Google TV Streamer owners plug in a USB-C hub to effectively enable more ports. But this is a hit-and-miss experience in terms of hub compatibility. Either way, I think a second USB-C port or a full-sized USB-A port would be a welcome addition to what is already a great TV box, and it would make the Streamer a no-brainer purchase for me.
Android TV and Google TV boxes might understandably prioritize the streaming and smart home experience in 2025, but it’s clear that USB-A or a second USB-C port would make for a more user-friendly local viewing experience. This is particularly relevant today as streaming fatigue and ever-rising costs make offline viewing a more enticing (and affordable) alternative.
Follow