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

391–400 of 665 posts

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

#391

Post by wat10000 »

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…

The revenue boost you get from this dumb shit is easily measurable and attributable. “Let’s charge our existing customers $5 for some nonsense” -> bigger bonus that year.

The long term revenue hit you get from pissing off your customers is nearly impossible to measure or attribute.

Occasionally you’ll see a company where the leadership believes in the long term value of not doing this crap. They might do pretty well as a result. (Fans would point to Apple as a huge example, YMMV.) But even with an example to imitate, the incentives are almost impossible to overcome, especially since your revenue story will get worse before it gets better if you change course. And those rare good companies are vulnerable to change in leadership that takes them down the bad path.

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

#392

Post by redbell »

This reminds me of HP turning printing into a monthly subscription [1], BMW experimenting with heated seat subscriptions [2], and countless other manufacturers trying to rent us physical features or products we’ve already paid for. It’s as if owning something outright is becoming a relic of the past. Honestly, this trend is getting out of hand.

Imagine if we live to the day where fresh air becomes a monthly subscription—with tiered plans, of course! Basic air might be free but stale, while premium plans offer "mountain-fresh" or "ocean-breeze" options. And heaven forbid you forget to renew your subscription or your credit card expires—suddenly, breathing might not be in your favor!

_____________

1. https://www.pcworld.com/article/2251993/the-nightmare-is-rea...

2. https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...

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

#393

Post by gwbas1c »

Corrado wrote: post #323
walthamstow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hoo boy we have some classics in that category in the UK. My personal fave is when morning TV host Lorraine Kelly successfully argued she wasn’t hosting as herself but acting a character called Lorraine Kelly, with very favourable tax consequences.

I think Steven Colbert hosted a show using himself as the host. I’m not sure about the tax implications though.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

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

#394

Post by brushfoot »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #381
brushfoot wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.

Imagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.

I can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I support Canon's right to do the same.

Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us to "just" write code that they think is easy, but we know how that can go in reality.

There's already a simple solution here in HDMI. I don't see a reason to be outraged at Canon over not providing another solution that most buyers will never even use.

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

#395

Post by cfn »

vasco wrote: post #94
c120 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This levy is not meant for piracy, but for legal access - like copying the CDs you already bought to your phone. Compared to what we used to pay on blank media it's not so bad. If the alternative is that you are not allowed to keep private copies of anything...

I reject this view of the law completely at least in Portugal. The law was introduced to add a tax to every storage media one can purchase with the premise that a percentage of that storage media will be used for what they call piracy. This in effect means everyone is assumed to be breaking the law in advance and paying for it in advance. As for your point about alternatives, if they add a tax on oxygen you breathe,…

And the funniest part is that when you buy from Amazon (ES, DE, etc) that tax is not applied further hurting the local shops.

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

#396

Post by entropie »

frognumber wrote: post #113

I firmly believe this is the branch digital cameras are dying on, and at this point, probably must die on. If these opened up, at least to the level iPhone did in 2007, they'd have an ecosystem as people still used them. As-is, for most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera than my full frame interchangeable lens camera.

> As-is, for most purposes, my Android phone is a better camera than my full frame interchangeable lens camera.

Any Android/iOS flagship phone right now is MILES behind current full-frame mirrorless technology, and I doubt they will ever be truly comparable. There are too many technical limitations.

I am pretty sure we will eventually have consumer cameras with an Android-like OS and the equivalent of today's full-frame sensors, delivering awesome footage, but mobile devices will never come close to a (semi-)professional camera.

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

#397

Post by tartoran »

the-grump wrote: post #56
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not the reason. If the camera records video for more than 30min, then it is a video camera, see the question answered here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34640107 In short, there is no good reason anymore, but originally this was because of EU import tarifs.

GP didn’t claim that’s not the reason. They’re making a joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would overheat. It’s a joke.

IT's not a joke. When filming for more than 30 minutes the cameras at the time (10-15 years ago) would warm up and eventually shut off automatically to cool off.

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

#398

Post by mzajc »

brushfoot wrote: post #287
SSLy wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP bought a camera, and the camera can be used as a webcam - but deliberately not with standard protocols. Pretending the limitation is of technical nature rather than a result of corporate greed is both delusional and harmful to consumer rights.

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

#399

Post by plorg »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #261
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

There was a custom ROM for canon available quite a few years ago... Now all I can find is https://www.magiclantern.fm/ but I believe the previous one was called CHDK or something like that

From my memory CHDK was a project for Canon's consumer/point-and-shoot cameras, and Magic Lantern is for the DSLRs.

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

#400

Post by gwbas1c »

This article is missing some very critical details.

Do you have to use the software from Cannon? What about any other webcam software that runs on Mac?

Does Cannon's software support non-Cannon webcams? IE, is it standalone software that the author prefers to use over other webcam software?

Is this a case where most customers will never use the webcam software, thus Cannon is "passing the savings on to them" by charging separately for the software?

Post reply on HN