Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

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

#81

Post by ilyt »

prpl wrote: post #78

There is probably a useful life of ~10 years on most types of consumer internet-connected hardware. I doubt these are 10 years old, but it would probably be in everybody’s interest to just say “we’ll support this connecting to the internet and requisite services for 10 years.” - Especially for hardware that could seriously infringe on a persons home privacy.

That's why it should be OSS, at the very least code released after vendor decides to stop supporting it. It's of little cost to the company (competitors seeing your 5 or 10 years code is non-issue really, tech went forward enough for that to not matter) but prevents at least some from going to landfill

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

#82

Post by ilyt »

ecpottinger wrote: post #52

I never understood why I need MY hardware to use their servers. If I buy something it should be mine alone.

The people that bought it and complained it stopped being free don't want to put their own storage servers up

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

#83

Post by shortcake27 »

m463 wrote: post #53
vouaobrasil wrote: post #39

A lot of people advocate for traditional cameras gaining some sort of smart interface to facilitate sharing or some other such features. What they don't understand is that traditional cameras work extremely well with their dedicated but seemingly outdated interfaces, and moreover, they prevent things like this from happening. Replaceable batteries, replaceable storage, and "primitive" but exceptionally functional fir…

"smart" televisions just means long boot times and... intrusion. Why would smart cameras end up any different? I will say the DSLRs understand the necessity of immediacy - turn it on and take a shot. (well, there is the "turn it on" part) Honestly I don't know why phone cameras haven't understood the immediacy thing. why not dedicate one button to ALWAYS take a picture, getting the shot even at the expense of acciden…

This is something Apple has put a lot of work into and iOS handles photography UX very well. Wake the screen and swipe left (no need to authenticate). Camera loads in about 1s on my 4 year old XS. No shutter lag so you get the picture you see in the viewfinder. Also, “Live Photo” is enabled by default which takes multiple photos before and after you press the shutter and combines it into a single entry in the UI. You can then go back at a later date and pick the best version, but your library isn’t cluttered. I hate this feature so I keep it turned off, but I can see how it would be useful to many people.

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

#84

Post by shortcake27 »

ilyt wrote: post #55
_fat_santa wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FCC could have a rule when you are releasing "Cloud Connected" hardware that would specify that you must provide an "EOL plan" for when you no longer wish to support the hardware. A good example would be Sonos, they would be within their right to end official support for a speaker, but they must provide some EOL support that will let these devices function in perpetuity (or at least until the hardware breaks down…

Cue vendors putting non-replaceable batteries that just happen to run out after 10 years, bricking device, and making effort to fix enough of a hassle most don't bother... But yeah, would be nice. "No updates - give source code on OSS license + reasonably easy way to flash".

The battery issue will probably be legislated first. There are already talks of banning non-user-replaceable batteries in consumer electronics.

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

#85

Post by jimhuntpl »

travisporter wrote: post #16

I’m just waiting for this to happen to newfangled connected cars. Hopefully then people will start to vote about the issue

Already happened. Cars can and are being remotely shut down, irrespective of their purchaser's wishes.

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

#86

Post by indymike »

ilyt wrote: post #80
indymike wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is... exactly what you'd have to do with fully open source system anyway, buy a box to store it or pay someone for storage. Wrong. I'd simply host the video on some device I have sitting around. Storing streamed video isn't hard to do and there are many ways to do it that take little effort. Being forced to pay money for something I already have capability to do is the problem. It's wasteful and makes me happ…

Right but the selling point was never "... and you can just use your NAS to store it!". We can complain about their shitty e-waste producing model but also acknowledge it is not product targeted to nerds building their own video monitoring infrastructure, OSS or not.

> Right but the selling point was never "... and you can just use your NAS to store it!".

This is actually the problem with these products, there's absolutely no fallback. I wonder how many people buy another Arlo when they get bit by the artificial end of life?

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

#87

Post by yppop »

ilyt wrote: post #79
cs702 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not that I disagree but... :-) Keep in mind: Customers thought they were purchasing cameras with seven days of storage.

I mean if you thought you will pay flat fee and get online hosting till the end of time (and most likely didn't read the fine print that said it isn't infinite in time), that's on you

Well, that sounds like someone whoa attained their ‘sage wisdom’ through bitter experience —- and not through native wisdom.

Not sayin’ you’re wrong, just sayin’.

PS - yes, at one time, I probably bought a pair of those ‘X-ray glasses’ advertised in the backs of comic books.

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

#88

Post by Ekaros »

I think "free" cloud services and addons should always include prominently visible end of service dates. As such buyers could reasonably estimate is the life time left for device good enough at the time of purchase.

With physical product this should be printed on the outside of the box in very prominent manner. And with digital, it should be visible in big enough typeface also.

Breaking this would result in possible damages or full refund to customer. And in bankruptcy certain amount should be hold to keep the services running.

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

#90

Post by tarotuser »

merpnderp wrote: post #15
tarotuser wrote: post #5

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?

> How does the average person

We're not talking about an average person in this instance. We're talking about a company using video surveillance in watching their business.

If it were individuals, I would have a bit more sympathy. But this is this company's livelihood being able to realtime watch remotely their core business.

So yeah, they can pony up $500 for a good NVR and PoE cams. That would have saved her sob story.

Post reply on HN