Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

111–120 of 122 posts

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

#111
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you. If you want to have some non-free software in your home, you should have that choice. Someday, I will be skilled enough to run DDWRT on all my routers. But Everyone should have that choice, and plenty of consumer hardware is hardcoded to always serve their manufacturer, and not their owner. I will never again purchase hardware that I cannot control.

> Someday, I will be skilled enough to run DDWRT on all my routers You probably already are! It's very easy to run an open-source firmware on a router that you purchase for the purpose. Don't bother with DD-WRT because it supports hardware that can only be driven by binary blobs tied to ancient kernel versions. Just get something compatible with OpenWrt. My favorite manufacturer of this stuff essentially ships with O…

> The standard OpenWrt web UI is as good or better than what your average router comes with.

It's miles better than any UI I've seen bundled with a router.

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

#112
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.

It’s tough because what if the company doesn’t want to maintain the software? Are they obligated to keep the software up to date despite the one-time-sale? It’s a similar reason why much of the software moved to a subscription model, the recurring costs. Alternatively, there should be some group of smart individuals who come up with some protocol for various devices where, if a manufacturer decides to EoL the sale (s…

> It’s a similar reason why much of the software moved to a subscription model, the recurring costs.

That reasoning doesn't make sense for this case, either.

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

#113
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really hard for the average user to even tell what’s local and what’s not. Perhaps some labeling similar to energy efficiency labeling could be regulated where anything that doesn’t allow for use without the remote service gets a big red “D”sticker, while things that are completely local gets a big green “A”? Some of the best gear I have uses different cloud services but I won’t buy something that would be a pap…

Transparency in terms and branding is a really good idea, but it's probably insufficient. In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example, will eventually have disks fail, and at that point the repairs are likely beyond more than a subset of people. Probably a small one, at that. Cloud stuff is here to stay. We de…

> In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example

I think in terms of waste, the key is that devices are still functioning and valuable, even if they aren't as good to the original buyer as they once were. A different cloud service might pop up to replace the one that the smart doorbell maker canceled. Or the initial buyer can sell the smart doorbell to a customer that does have the patience to deal with local recording.

It'll always be hard to use tech for non-technical people, but at least avoiding the situation where thousands of functioning gadgets are bricked and thrown away should be possible to achive through regulation.

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

#114
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's exactly what I do, and advocate. I've been suckered to buy cloud-shit that I wasn't aware it was. When helping some family with a failed wifi/router, I got some newer Linksys router. Brought it over to them, and demands an online account with some app on the phone. Looked online with my phone, and verified they went cloud only and no reasonable (non-ddwrt, etc) way to bypass it. I wrote "DEFECTIVE" in sharpie…

Got burned with a Linksys/Cisco router, in, i wanna say 2011 or so, when they changed my username & password security setup back to factory default (no security) without my knowledge or permission. Tried to get their overseas tech support to help me, spent HOURS on this via phone & ridiculous chats that I archived, only to have them try to extort money from me to “extend” this needed feature on their junk that I owned — that’s when I knew it was intentional. 2nd example: Discovered during setup that my HP printer/scanner/fax/photocopier/photo printer came with expired ink cartridges; no instruction book, of course, so hours of research revealed these have chips on them that only let you do initial setup w/ original non-expired cartridges — not with new replacements. Overseas HP tech sed on phone: just throw this printer away & go buy a new printer — to them this sophisticated machine/potential e-waste is just a disposable thing, like paper towels et. al., or a 20-lb paper weight. I persisted & did get it to work on my own, entirely self-taught, but have found each time I replace the expensive HP cartridges they “expire” much more quickly than did the previous batch. Plus this fancy machine only exists to extort you for ink with all its apps & crappy refills. 3rd example: My Dell laptop’s “lifetime PC support” as touted on QVC was denied to me, then when I threw a fit they grudgingly referred me to their new tech service provider (no more helpful than the first) BUT WAIT not actual lifetime of the PC itself but of Microsoft’s SUPPORT (updates & bug-fixes expiration time determines its death, to them) of this PC laptop. 4th example: My Dell laptop’s entire Wi-Fi capability/setting/existence seemingly being erased entirely several times by Windows 10 updates. The Wi-Fi setting completely vanished on all the main settings pages — chicken-or-egg dilemma where, I no longer had wired, Ethernet connection at home anymore after Cisco router fiasco to go online to download/fix it (I’d gone totally “cutting edge” all-wireless at home!) & libraries/coffee shops no longer had Ethernet either. I spent 2 hours working with one “lifetime support tech” who couldn’t hack my PC — since I had no Internet at all — & tried to walk me thru it via phone while offline, but to no avail; also spent many hours in a museum’s library using their Ethernet contacting Microsoft & others. I finally found a hotel in an adjacent county with a wired portal in their “Business Center” — so I crashed it posing as a hotel guest, where it took a lifetime tech with the 2nd tech support provider 4 HOURS to figure out how to restore the device driver W10 update had ham-handedly obliterated. But it was erased again next W10 update, I You-Tubed it from there on out, & learned the updates weren’t literally erasing the Wi-Fi — just turning off its device driver, or putting it to Default state, which would then remove Wi-Fi from the settings page (where it’s usually there next to Ethernet, VPN, etc.) I’m not a natural computer tech person, but in all I figured out at least 3 distinct ways to restore Wi-Fi in the bowels of my computer’s two different Settings fiefdoms as W10 kept erasing it — along with monkeying around with my preferences, my colors, my attempts to “schedule” the updates themselves so they wouldn’t just start updating & interrupt my work deadlines & lots of other needless meddling with my stuff that should have nothing to do with MS’ updates. But see, that’s Microsoft saying: This is not YOUR computer, Dear Stupid Customer. Remember the opening credits of that old TV show “The Outer Limits” ? Where it says: “We control the transmission.” (and other stuff) ? So I became The Accidental Computer Tech. But I only ever wanted to be a clueless, joyful user like I was in the early days with Macs & now with my iPhone. 4th example: I was so naive when I got my first home computer many years ago. It was several years in when I learned the updates support was ending on Tiger? And I now had to buy - Snow Leopard? Or was it Leopard? And eventually learned even those updates would end, as Apple considered that my beautiful $1,000 MacBook —,which I had planned to use forever! — was ready to be put out to pasture, ready for Hospice care, to be put on a raft & floated out to sea. OMG, many companies had put cookies on it that don’t expire till the year 9999 (4-digit limit, I guess, but will the Earth even be around that long?) Yet its “creator” disagreed, said do-not-resuscitate, pull that there plug! Eventually it lost its Internet-surfing power — because of Them — but I still use it as an external hard drive (it has its own monitor, unlike other hard drives & thumb drives), as a way to access my original iTunes library (I like the user interface better than the version I copied over to the much-hated Dell PC) & as a CD player & disc burner. So it’s now like a disabled, much-loved favorite child. But Mac really makes it hard, as a replacement battery & repair to the mousepad are not in any way cost-effective. So I don’t really OWN that device nor do I own any of the tablets, phones or Chromebook devices I’ve gotten since. 5th example: All those iPods I got, from the shuffles to the iPod Touch with color screen, are disposables, despite all the paraphernalia (WARDROBES of various colorful cases, screen protectors, designer earbuds etcetera). When the batteries all die, they’re gone. The first shuffle to go, I realized: This thing is no more than a souped-up thumb drive. 2 pods still work — but now we know they were just a fad, outpaced by their own Cousin iPhone. All this is the reason I have never gotten home security tech & never gotten my animals microchipped. Don’t trust the technology will last, don’t want a subscription, don’t want no more disposable tech, don’t believe no Lifetime Anything.

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

#115

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…

But didn’t you just say above that you were “suckered” into buying some cloud crap? My apologies if I’m wrong here …

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

#116
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Eh, I disagree here. Like some responsibility is always on the consumer, but clear information is essential in good markets. If I pay for a hard drive and get one TB of space, I get it til the end of time. If some other product says "1 TB of storage", with no other context, it'd be easy to confuse the two (especially for people who aren't tech-savvy).

> If I pay for a hard drive and get one TB of space, I get it til the end of time. If some other product says "1 TB of storage", with no other context, it'd be easy to confuse the two (especially for people who aren't tech-savvy).

If your physical object you bought that stores the data physically on the object , sure. But it was not that, it was cloud service

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

#117
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I disagree here. Like some responsibility is always on the consumer, but clear information is essential in good markets. If I pay for a hard drive and get one TB of space, I get it til the end of time. If some other product says "1 TB of storage", with no other context, it'd be easy to confuse the two (especially for people who aren't tech-savvy).

> If I pay for a hard drive and get one TB of space, I get it til the end of time. If some other product says "1 TB of storage", with no other context, it'd be easy to confuse the two (especially for people who aren't tech-savvy). If your physical object you bought that stores the data physically on the object , sure. But it was not that, it was cloud service

But people bought physical cameras. It's not unreasonable to think "I am buying this camera with one week of storage". If you don't know how technology works and it's not clearly explained, it's very easy to misconstrue that.

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

#118
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transparency in terms and branding is a really good idea, but it's probably insufficient. In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example, will eventually have disks fail, and at that point the repairs are likely beyond more than a subset of people. Probably a small one, at that. Cloud stuff is here to stay. We de…

> at that point the repairs are likely beyond more than a subset of people. Replacing a hard drive trivial, though. But in any case, if someone doesn't want to do such maintenance every decade or so, there are repair shops that will do it for them.

A hard drive under constant write load is unlikely to last a decade. And replacing them in some of these devices isn't trivial (even if the physical connector is straightforward, how many of them understand receiving a new drive that needs formatting, how do you get to the panel to do it, etcetera etcetera). In isolation, the smartest thing a hardware vendor could do is make this process difficult so you give up and buy a new one.

You could say "well, filter on reviews", but the review space has been drastically compromised with the rise of "influencer" types, too.

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

#119
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transparency in terms and branding is a really good idea, but it's probably insufficient. In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example, will eventually have disks fail, and at that point the repairs are likely beyond more than a subset of people. Probably a small one, at that. Cloud stuff is here to stay. We de…

> In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example I think in terms of waste, the key is that devices are still functioning and valuable, even if they aren't as good to the original buyer as they once were. A different cloud service might pop up to replace the one that the smart doorbell maker canceled. Or the init…

> Or the initial buyer can sell the smart doorbell to a customer that does have the patience to deal with local recording.

I think this would require a drastically different consumer mindset. Because I don't think there is a market for used doorbells.

> It'll always be hard to use tech for non-technical people

As much as I don't like the products, Nest and Ring are not hard to use for non-technical people. They remove the moving parts that may demand maintenance and may cause failures that are beyond a power cycle's reach to fix.

In that light, the best regulatory solution is probably to ensconce terms-at-purchase as indefinitely binding for SaaS-attached hardware. No price increases, no end-of-service so long as the company is still in business.

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

#120
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not one, but double-press power and then volume button and you have photo pretty fast.

android, right?

Yup. I think back-tap is available on both as closest equivalent for iOS.
Post reply on HN