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

Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

romanzipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 665 posts

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#281

Post by nileshtrivedi »

jwr wrote: post #240
mihaaly wrote: post #50

The penny-fucking behaviour of huge organization in parallel of pushing at you unwanted (actually obstructing) messages in various ways, email, pop-ups and tootip suggestions and advices, CI/CD pushed on the user on a prominent way are repelling. In parallel to the rubbish web presence not working reliably or at all, far from being easy for clients but usually having bells and whistles for distraction. I saved quite…

The thing is, nobody cares. As long as consumers keep making uneducated choices and companies keep copying one another, that's what we will be getting, and honestly, that's what we deserve. After all, people watch "reviews" of video gear on YouTube (pretty much all "reviewers" get the gear for free and then pretend they are objective). These "reviewers" use the gear for all of several hours before making the video an…

Louis Rossmann is putting together a Consumer Action Task Force. If people care, now would be a good time to show it.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#282

Post by tempaccount420 »

jampekka wrote: post #125
alibarber wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So American and Asian consumers can pay the same price for the same device that can do more, but to protect me, the European, my device must do less? It is I the customer who will pay the tariffs (they are always paid by the importer) - the manufacturer gets the same amount per unit.

Tariffs aren't to protect you. They are to protect domestic industry. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/eu-to-hit-some-di...

And "domestic industry" in EU means German :)

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#283

Post by dgb23 »

jwr wrote: post #240
mihaaly wrote: post #50

The penny-fucking behaviour of huge organization in parallel of pushing at you unwanted (actually obstructing) messages in various ways, email, pop-ups and tootip suggestions and advices, CI/CD pushed on the user on a prominent way are repelling. In parallel to the rubbish web presence not working reliably or at all, far from being easy for clients but usually having bells and whistles for distraction. I saved quite…

The thing is, nobody cares. As long as consumers keep making uneducated choices and companies keep copying one another, that's what we will be getting, and honestly, that's what we deserve. After all, people watch "reviews" of video gear on YouTube (pretty much all "reviewers" get the gear for free and then pretend they are objective). These "reviewers" use the gear for all of several hours before making the video an…

You're assuming that these practices are actually beneficial in any way on the market. That's a fallacy. Just because a company is making money, doesn't mean they are making good products.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#284

Post by lazide »

pkphilip wrote: post #267
Pawka wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds insane. But what is more surprising to me - is why dolls were taxed differently than other toys. At first glance, it looks like stupid rules force to play silly games.

In India, the pizza base has a different tax rate than the topping and so some restaurants will have two separate lines on your pizza bill - one for the base at 5% tax and another for the topping at 18% tax. The tax on popcorn is also totally crazy. "Unpackaged and unlabelled popcorn with salt and spices is categorised as 'namkeen' and taxed at 5%. Pre-packed and labelled ready-to-eat popcorn attracts a 12% GST rate.…

Luxury vs premium vs ‘esssential’ at work eh?

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#285

Post by t0mas88 »

troupo wrote: post #247
nudgeee wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious. Reminds me of Pioneer CDJs as well, even on the flagship CDJ-3000 models. If you read the user manual it says: > About using MP3 files > This product has been licensed for nonprofit use. This product has not been licensed for commercial purposes (for profit-making use), […]. You need to acquire the corresponding licenses for such uses. For details, see […] Best use an open audio codec instead.

> Best use an open audio codec instead. You will still need a separate license (or multiple separate licenses) for commercial purposes. Music licensing is unbelievably complicated

That's about the music royalties, the comment above is about the CDJs ability to play MP3 encoded audio.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#286

Post by lazide »

redox99 wrote: post #180
K0balt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or my shirt that has a tiny, useless pocket on the inside of my shirt (down where it might often be tucked inside of your waistband.) It has a tag with a picture of sunglasses on it, and a reasonably sized pair of sunglasses might just tenuously perch inside. This makes it a jacket, and jackets are taxed at a lower rate than shirts. The same shenanigans more or less work for most types of taxation. There’s always an…

Why would jackets even be taxed differently than shirts. It's so silly.

Freezing to death is worse than looking nice?

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#287

Post by brushfoot »

SSLy wrote: post #269
brushfoot wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would prefer that the manufacturer included webcam functionality out of the box. Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a camera that meets…

Requiring a separate kit made of HDMI cap box, and two usb cables (assuming the box power is feedable via usb) also makes canon create further e-waste. That's only because they're greedy and that stuff is already inside. And nothing on the site of the camera https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/... gives any indication that such external app and subscription would be required.

> That's only because they're greedy

No, it's because Canon didn't sell OP a webcam. There's no expectation for them to provide webcam software.

If someone wants an external camera that doubles as a webcam with no adapters, that's totally fine for them! They should shop with that in mind.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#288

Post by reddalo »

irusensei wrote: post #79

I have an EOS Kiss X4 (Rebel T2?) with Magic Lantern firmware. It uses the same software referenced in the article for MacOS and Windows. On Linux you can use v4l2loopback and gphoto2 but it requires loading an out of tree kernel module.

I have an old EOS 550D (I think it's called Rebel T2 in the US?) and I can use the webcam software for free. I downloaded a copy back in 2020 when Covid hit and Canon decided to release it. Maybe that would be the key to reverse engineer it and make it free for everybody?

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#289

Post by kotaKat »

beAbU wrote: post #230
School-Cotton wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vaguely reminds me of the fact that in many countries, pure ethanol sold for industrial purposes is intentionally made poisonous, so you can’t drink it and thus merchants don’t have to charge the taxes on it that they would for spirits.

I heat my house with oil, a truck comes every couple of months and fills a massive tank in my back yard. This "oil" is basically diesel. It smells and feels identical to diesel. But it's about 70 cents cheaper per litre compared to road diesel. It's dyed red, and you are not supposed to put it in your car, but I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines. The red diesel is not taxed like road diesel, and…

> I reckon it'll be more than fine for older diesel engines

There's always the risk of getting your fuel tank dipped if you're on road. Moreso for trucks, but some jurisdictions will set up inspections and check for dyed fuel and tear you an absolute new one when they catch it.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#290

Post by ramses0 »

redox99 wrote: post #180
K0balt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or my shirt that has a tiny, useless pocket on the inside of my shirt (down where it might often be tucked inside of your waistband.) It has a tag with a picture of sunglasses on it, and a reasonably sized pair of sunglasses might just tenuously perch inside. This makes it a jacket, and jackets are taxed at a lower rate than shirts. The same shenanigans more or less work for most types of taxation. There’s always an…

Why would jackets even be taxed differently than shirts. It's so silly.

5% of a $100 jacket is $5

15% of a $33 shirt is $5

5% of a $33 jacket is $1.65

...it's definitely gamesmanship but if you squint you can see where it comes from.

Post reply on HN