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

Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

experimental-platform.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#31

Post by rsync »

jedberg wrote: post #12
kuschku wrote: post #11

> […] creating a walled garden around the user’s own data is a shady move. All of my private data should be easibly accessible to me though open API without any gimmicks. In its press release Nest promised introducing a public API[,] however [it] seems limited in many ways compared to the internal API used by Nest mobile app - and to add insult to injury - many of its features require an active Nest subscription. Thi…

> When Google shuts down Nest, people are left with non-working thermostats, and have to spend money and rebuild their systems to continue on. No, they are left with a normal programmable thermostat with a nicer interface than most. > Even worse, if just the internet goes down – not that rare in areas in the US only served by one ISP which doesn’t have to fear competition – one is even left without heating. This is n…

"This is not true. The Nest operates perfectly fine without internet."

I'll bet that's not true.

All of the QA and QC of the product goes into its fully functional, online mode and the ability to function offline is ignored at best and at worst, intentionally allowed to decay and malfunction.

I have a good example of this:

Sonos music systems, on paper, can run without an Internet connection. This makes good sense - why wouldn't they play local music shares connected over LAN, even when Internet access is missing, right ?

But go ahead and try it sometime ... it doesn't work at all. No doubt some infinite retry connecting to the license server or the auto-update system ... some wait state or blocking that nobody ever notices since they always have Internet.

The point is, it doesn't work. You should be very suspicious of the ability for any of these things to work without Internet.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#32

Post by bloomingfractal »

dguaraglia wrote: post #30
afandian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of like saying "how would you make a car without wheels?". It could be that inherent in the idea of making object X are privacy concerns. The fact that the privacy concerns are intrinsic to the object just means that you have to call the whole object X into question when discussing them. Your question seems to suggest a sentiment like "there isn't any other way to do this, can you think of one?" but there…

Exactly! And I'm OK with people taking the stance "if it's not 100% private and my video needs to be sent over the internet, then I don't want the camera". You can either have a camera that keeps a safe copy of your video in the cloud and detects unexpected activity happening in front of your camera, or you can have one that is 100% private and doesn't upload video to the cloud. You can't have both. At least not with…

What about doing all processing locally and storing only end-to-end encrypted data in servers?

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#33

Post by bhauer »

magicalist wrote: post #28
bhauer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a cloud-based recording service Well, there's the rub, right? I think what those of us who consider themselves self-hosting partisans would say is that we'd prefer a device that allows us to send its signals to a server we own and operate. The recording and image recognition would then occur on that server. In my ideal world, Dropcam (and later Nest) would have provided software I could install on my own server (lo…

> we'd prefer a device that allows us to send its signals to a server we own and operate There are lots of cameras that do that. You can even mix and match software and hardware making for real options, not just some vertically integrated service. So is the rub that you think that such a device just shouldn't exist for anyone?

> [Do] you think that such a device just shouldn't exist for anyone?

No. I apologize if that's what you took from my statement.

I hope the future sees technological evolution that makes it easier for common people to self-manage their devices. Presently, doing so requires more time and thought investment than traditional "cloud" options. For example, it took me a bit of time to set up a self-hosted NVR with a network of IP cameras. But in an ideal world, Dropcam-like devices would exist and provide an option during setup: "Do you want to use our video hosting service or run your own? If you choose your own, you'll need to install some software on a computer..." The Dropcam software is really well designed, it's just a shame I can't run it on my own server.

Like I said, it's idealistic wishful thinking. But if people want to use services hosted by third-parties, I don't want to take that option away.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#34

Post by dguaraglia »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #29
dguaraglia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious. How else would you implement a cloud-based recording service with image recognition? (EDIT: full disclosure, I work for Nest through the Dropcam acquisition)

As a Nest employee can you confirm that Dropcam has been essentially abandoned by Nest? In the 2+ years since the acquisition, nothing significant has been released, and the Nest App is far inferior to the Dropcam app. As well, the "customer suggestion" part of the Nest community board is a graveyard of suggestions and goodwill. It's literally a waste of time because nothing has been addressed, like simple things lik…

I can't really talk publicly about our roadmap (I'd love to, believe me.) I'll try to engage some of the marketing folks and point them to this thread.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#35

Post by pfarnsworth »

rsync wrote: post #31
jedberg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Google shuts down Nest, people are left with non-working thermostats, and have to spend money and rebuild their systems to continue on. No, they are left with a normal programmable thermostat with a nicer interface than most. > Even worse, if just the internet goes down – not that rare in areas in the US only served by one ISP which doesn’t have to fear competition – one is even left without heating. This is n…

"This is not true. The Nest operates perfectly fine without internet." I'll bet that's not true. All of the QA and QC of the product goes into its fully functional, online mode and the ability to function offline is ignored at best and at worst, intentionally allowed to decay and malfunction. I have a good example of this: Sonos music systems, on paper, can run without an Internet connection. This makes good sense -…

It's true. I have a Nest and it works without the Internet.

Also, the Sonos can work without an internet connection. It requires a Wifi router, but not an internet connection once it has been registered.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#36

Post by pfarnsworth »

dguaraglia wrote: post #34
pfarnsworth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Nest employee can you confirm that Dropcam has been essentially abandoned by Nest? In the 2+ years since the acquisition, nothing significant has been released, and the Nest App is far inferior to the Dropcam app. As well, the "customer suggestion" part of the Nest community board is a graveyard of suggestions and goodwill. It's literally a waste of time because nothing has been addressed, like simple things lik…

I can't really talk publicly about our roadmap (I'd love to, believe me.) I'll try to engage some of the marketing folks and point them to this thread.

Thank you.

Please let them know that the "Product Suggestion" portion of the Nest Community site is an absolute insult to their customers. They should just shut it down instead of collecting years of requests and completely ignoring them.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#37

Post by dguaraglia »

bhauer wrote: post #27
dguaraglia wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious. How else would you implement a cloud-based recording service with image recognition? (EDIT: full disclosure, I work for Nest through the Dropcam acquisition)

> a cloud-based recording service Well, there's the rub, right? I think what those of us who consider themselves self-hosting partisans would say is that we'd prefer a device that allows us to send its signals to a server we own and operate. The recording and image recognition would then occur on that server. In my ideal world, Dropcam (and later Nest) would have provided software I could install on my own server (lo…

I don't know why the comment is being downvoted. There is a bunch of people that want what you want, it's just that, as you are saying, is a bit of a pipe dream right now. The way technology is progressing, it might be feasible in a few years.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#38

Post by banana_giraffe »

dguaraglia wrote: post #34
pfarnsworth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Nest employee can you confirm that Dropcam has been essentially abandoned by Nest? In the 2+ years since the acquisition, nothing significant has been released, and the Nest App is far inferior to the Dropcam app. As well, the "customer suggestion" part of the Nest community board is a graveyard of suggestions and goodwill. It's literally a waste of time because nothing has been addressed, like simple things lik…

I can't really talk publicly about our roadmap (I'd love to, believe me.) I'll try to engage some of the marketing folks and point them to this thread.

Please do. My interaction with support has been laughably bad. I have a Dropcam that sends me a monthly warning that my account that's paid up for a year is due. I also have a Nest Protect that can no longer see my network because I have two APs broadcasting the same SSID. For the first one, customer service told me "ignore the emails". For the second one, customer service told me "permanently remove one of your access points"

Both responses are enough that I no longer recommend the Nest ecosystem for anyone. They clearly don't care about support, which is troubling for a company that's in the services business.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#39

Post by dguaraglia »

banana_giraffe wrote: post #38
dguaraglia wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really talk publicly about our roadmap (I'd love to, believe me.) I'll try to engage some of the marketing folks and point them to this thread.

Please do. My interaction with support has been laughably bad. I have a Dropcam that sends me a monthly warning that my account that's paid up for a year is due. I also have a Nest Protect that can no longer see my network because I have two APs broadcasting the same SSID. For the first one, customer service told me "ignore the emails". For the second one, customer service told me "permanently remove one of your acce…

Please e-mail me on the account listed in my profile. I should be able to help with the first one (at least forward it to the right people.)

I'm really sorry about the bad experience.

Re: Reverse-Engineering Google Nest Devices

#40

Post by eitally »

supergeek133 wrote: post #8

> you cannot operate the camera or switch your thermostat’s settings without Internet connection This should say *remotely. I know it does in the paragraph before, but sometimes people only read bullets. So is the complaint here I can't find out what data the device is sending back to Nest in whole? And contrary to the post, their Public API is pretty extensive. Seems to me this is just another person with a concern…

Well, you can't operate the camera without an internet connection. The only thing you can do is unplug it & plug it back in.

It's really irritating to use a Nest thermostat with no connection, either, since you can't set or control your heating/cooling schedule.

Post reply on HN