Live data from Hacker News

The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

wsj.com

11–20 of 122 posts

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#11

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

This feels like a very tech-centric perspective. I agree with you, if you restrict this to the very IT-savvy group, but this shifts the blame away from companies’ bad design/behavior.

Most people have no understanding of the difference between a cloud-connected device and one that just uses WiFi or BLE locally to communicate with an app.

I’d say if you work for a company that produces this kind of crap IoT, shame on you, and that people in that position should strongly push for the ability to ship with offline-only firmware.

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#12

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

> To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience.

This isn't "blunt", this is just cruel. Nobody "deserves" to be the victim of false advertising or broken guarantees, particularly when they can reasonably lack the necessary contextual knowledge to analyze them beyond face value. Most people do not have the time or the aptitude (which is developed through more time) to become a system administrator of nontrivial local computing resources, but still derive significant value from being able to things like remotely viewable cameras.

The lady mentioned in the article, the one who owns a pet-boarding kennel a few minutes down the road from her house, has her life materially bettered by being able to access cameras remotely, and her life is not materially bettered by becoming a sysadmin to get that except for the fact that she is downstream of bad actors.

The solution to this is not "well, everyone should be a sysadmin". The solution is "make the consequences of being a bad actor so petrifying that companies avoid doing so."

Candidly, I echoed a lot of the sentiments of your post when I was younger, more self-absorbed, and more confident of my ability to attain sufficient expertise in all walks of life to never need help. My attitudes changed as I grew older and it became clearer that I was just as fallible as the next person, just on different axes. I hope you get the chance to attain perspective, too.

We are, as it happens, all in it together, and the attitude your post expresses is counterproductive.

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#13
post #8

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

It’s not always clear you’re getting cloudcrap when you buy the product. Sure, you and I can do the research and see that it’s tied to a service that will eventually shut down, but do you expect 100% of people out there to understand this?

To make matters more complicated, some products start as standalone and get "upgraded" to cloudcrap along the way.

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#14
post #8

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

It’s not always clear you’re getting cloudcrap when you buy the product. Sure, you and I can do the research and see that it’s tied to a service that will eventually shut down, but do you expect 100% of people out there to understand this?

Anything with the word "smart" falls under this -- that's a good heuristic that covers a large fraction of cases.

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#15

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

How does the average person go about a non cloud connected router? They barely know what it is, let alone what it means to administrate it over the cloud software. How is this their fault for not being a IT professional capable of understanding a $75 purchase?

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#17
post #6

Idea: Prosecute such companies for obtaining money under false pretenses. If you only get the thingie which you "bought" for a limited time - that is clearly a rental, not a sale.

So if ford stops making spare parts 30 years after a car was discontinued is the car rented?

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#18
post #3

This problem will only be solved by legislation. If countries seek to reduce e-waste they need to force electronics makers to ensure a minimum length of support on the same conditions as existed on the date of sale - say 10 years.

More government regulations?

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#19
post #4
post #3

This problem will only be solved by legislation. If countries seek to reduce e-waste they need to force electronics makers to ensure a minimum length of support on the same conditions as existed on the date of sale - say 10 years.

Or vote with our dollars and reject "cloud" connected devices

Most people are quite stupid otherwise this would work for other situations and in the past

Re: The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life

#20

To put bluntly, anybody who buys hardware that is inexorably linked to some cloud-crap should be ashamed of themselves and deserve the loss of money as a learning experience. I *only* buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work. If that means you buy PoE cameras and ge…

> I only buy hardware that can be controlled and/or managed locally. Sure, it means some 'cool' gadgets aren't available in my world. But it does mean that what I buy will be supported and will just work.

You are part of a vocal minority.

The vast majority of people aren't tech savvy. That's why smartphones are the way they are nowadays.

Post reply on HN