The Chromecast is also cheap. But this device is no replacement for a Roku 3 or Apple TV—both of which are inexpensive and good values—instead requiring you to first own an Android-based tablet or smart phone so you can "cast" (i.e. "stream") content from that device to your TV. It's not even a standalone device. Why you'd want to use this when better and simpler devices are available, with their own simple remote controls, superior interfaces, and much deeper range of content choices is unclear. Especially when those other devices aren't even that expensive. Rokus cost $50 to $100, and the Apple TV is also $100. (All come complete with a remote.)
Paul Thurrot has this so completely wrong, it baffles me. Even $35 is expensive to a huge portion of the world. And the idea with the chromecast is that now, with the help of developers, you can make the web accessible on the biggest screen on your TV.
Also, the very fact that you don't need another remote to manage is the entire point of the chromecast.