[HN Gopher] The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they h...
___________________________________________________________________
The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached
their end of life
Author : Aloha
Score : 70 points
Date : 2023-02-19 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| Aloha wrote:
| https://archive.ph/QeoIO
| travisporter wrote:
| I'm just waiting for this to happen to newfangled connected cars.
| Hopefully then people will start to vote about the issue
| jimhuntpl wrote:
| Already happened. Cars can and are being remotely shut down,
| irrespective of their purchaser's wishes.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| 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| extremely well with their dedicated but seemingly outdated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 firmware makes it so
| that you can still pick up an 8-year old camera like the Nikon
| D7200 and produce shots that have the same quality as today's
| cameras without worrying about it not being supported (because
| it's essentially a complete product).
| switchbak wrote:
| Not sure how better usability wrt to sharing from the camera
| would ensure that this kind of thing never happens.
|
| I think cameras tend to work well over time because that's the
| expectation of the manufacturers and the purchasers, and
| photographers would rebel en masse otherwise.
|
| If most consumers would be a little more prickly about these
| things and strongly punish these greedy companies, I don't
| think we'd see nearly as much of this. This kind of thing
| simply wouldn't fly in the 60s, but we've been conditioned to
| just accept it.
|
| Well that and consumer protection is basically non-existent.
|
| I still want to share photos easily from my camera though!
| duskwuff wrote:
| The article isn't about point-and-shoot photo cameras, though.
| It's about surveillance video cameras.
| m463 wrote:
| "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 accidental
| shots.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| 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.
| dzikimarian wrote:
| Maybe not one, but double-press power and then volume button
| and you have photo pretty fast.
| prpl wrote:
| 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.
| ilyt wrote:
| 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
| wwfzyn wrote:
| Sounds like we don't purchase cameras anymore. We purchase a
| subscription to use the cameras until our subscription expires.
| voisin wrote:
| This problem will only be solved by legislation. If countries
| seek to reduce e-waste they need to force electronics makers to
| ensure a minimum length of support on the same conditions as
| existed on the date of sale - say 10 years.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Just require them to have a local only mode with feature parity
| and publicly documented interface.
| themitigating wrote:
| More government regulations?
| anotherboffin wrote:
| If the manufacturers can't figure this out on their own, then
| yes, by all means.
| [deleted]
| fsflover wrote:
| Minimum length of support is not necessary. It's sufficient to
| force the companies to release the software as FLOSS after the
| support is ended.
| kragen wrote:
| while this would be an effective defense, it isn't an
| effective legal policy
|
| at the point that the support is ended, the company isn't
| making any more money on the product, so legal remedies like
| forbidding its importation or halting its manufacturing would
| be ineffective; even remedies like fines and injunctions to
| specific performance might be ineffective if the company no
| longer exists or no longer exports to your country, or if
| they've laid off the people who knew how to compile the
| firmware
|
| so to have an enforceable law you need to require the release
| (or at least deposit) of the complete corresponding source
| code up front, not at some future time
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Legally mandated code+key escrow?
| josephcsible wrote:
| That's not quite sufficient, since the hardware could be
| tivoized. Releasing all of the company's private signing keys
| for it should be required too.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Perhaps. But the hardware isn't the issue here. The hardware
| works, but the company is no longer offering free software /
| storage. The customes need to switch to a paid plan.
|
| While it makes a case for self-hosting your software that
| doesn't come for free either. Ideally, you get to control your
| own destiny, but not for free.
|
| The lesson? Nothing is free. There's always cost / risk; hidden
| or otherwise.
| gedy wrote:
| Or vote with our dollars and reject "cloud" connected devices
| fallinghawks wrote:
| I prefer local storage as well, but the downside is the
| potential for data loss to theft. Non technical consumers may
| not realize that if the SIM is physically on the camera, and
| the camera gets stolen, they lose everything. Camera systems
| that store the video on a hub indoors are the best IMO.
| themitigating wrote:
| Most people are quite stupid otherwise this would work for
| other situations and in the past
| tarotuser wrote:
| 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 on the bottom of the router,
| packaged it right back up and took it back to the retailer
| for a refund.
|
| I bought a non-Linksys/Cisco brand that didn't play stupid
| games. Changed the SSID, BSSID, and WPA2 config to be the old
| one, and finished the install in just a few minutes. It does
| its job and just works. Has been for like 4+ years.
| adrianN wrote:
| Shifting responsibility to consumers has only ever worked to
| further enrich corporations.
| alkonaut wrote:
| 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 paperweight should
| the cloud service disappear. The cloud service merely
| improves the product (e.g keeps video from surveillance
| cameras) but the cameras work without it, and you can set up
| your own recording if you want.
| eropple wrote:
| 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 deserve clarity in what
| _does_ use cloud stuff, but we also need legislation that
| puts a proper fear into bad actors who make expansive
| promises (and, likely, stronger liability applied to
| shipping software that _needs_ patching).
| josephcsible wrote:
| > It's really hard for the average user to even tell what's
| local and what's not.
|
| Especially when there's no legal consequences for
| manufacturers publicly and unambiguously lying about it.
| Remember how Anker said that their Eufy product line stored
| all of your data locally, and then they didn't get punished
| when the truth came out?
| _fat_santa wrote:
| 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).
| ilyt wrote:
| 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".
| shortcake27 wrote:
| The battery issue will probably be legislated first. There
| are already talks of banning non-user-replaceable batteries
| in consumer electronics.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Yes, and there should only be two choices for what the EOL
| plan can be:
|
| 1. Give everyone who ever bought the product a full refund
|
| 2. Publicly release all of the source code plus any and all
| private signing keys necessary to overcome tivoization
| rolph wrote:
| how about software, or firmware, or any other digital component
| of a device must provide function as existed at time of sale
| for the physical lifetime of the product
| mr_tristan wrote:
| The cloud era seems to exacerbate these kinds of issues. The only
| way to truly have "long term" service is to be a subscriber, not
| a "buy once" customer. If you're a part of their revenue next
| year, they're going to try to keep you. Otherwise, you're just
| one excuse away from being dropped.
|
| The "right to repair" laws being developed might help here, but I
| don't know what this means for anything "connected to a service".
| If the service goes down, are there laws that say we need to be
| able to connected to something else? I'm not aware of much.
|
| I mean, as an Arlo customer, I knew this was coming, but that's
| because I've worked in tech for over 20 years, and know none of
| these companies can operate a plan that looks ahead more than 2
| years.
|
| Ultimately technology is either subscribed, or "rented" for an
| undefined period of time. It's never "bought". It's gonna take
| some serious regulation to make that happen, and I'm not even
| sure how that will work.
| tarotuser wrote:
| 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 get a video storage
| solution? Well, so be it. That's the cost of doing it yourself,
| BUT it also means you have your own destiny in your control.
|
| Whereas if you buy cloudcrap, *when* the company decides to alter
| the deal, you're at their behest. Dont like that? Too fucking
| bad.
| merpnderp wrote:
| 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?
| tarotuser wrote:
| > 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.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > 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.
|
| You are part of a vocal minority.
|
| The vast majority of people aren't tech savvy. That's why
| smartphones are the way they are nowadays.
| ninkendo wrote:
| It's not always clear you're getting cloudcrap when you buy the
| product. Sure, you and I can do the research and see that it's
| tied to a service that _will_ eventually shut down, but do you
| expect 100% of people out there to understand this?
| rzzzt wrote:
| To make matters more complicated, some products start as
| standalone and get "upgraded" to cloudcrap along the way.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| Anything with the word "smart" falls under this -- that's a
| good heuristic that covers a large fraction of cases.
| [deleted]
| kbuck wrote:
| Just because a device isn't cloud-connected doesn't mean it
| isn't designed for planned obsolescence. For example, the
| ongoing cheapening of major appliances, or the DRM applied to
| printer cartridges and coffee pods.
|
| This is a legislation problem IMO: companies need to be held to
| reasonable expectations when they sell a product. My ink
| cartridge shouldn't say it's "empty" when the page counter
| reaches 100 [and it's still actually full]. Neither should
| cloud devices go to the landfill because the company selling
| them decided that they don't want to support them anymore.
|
| Companies foisting negative externalities on us (like more
| e-waste) in exchange for more profit are a blight and should be
| treated (and prevented) as such.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| fully with you except
|
| > because the company selling them decided that they don't
| want to support them anymore.
|
| in IoT for consumer devices companies must ensure that a
| software is free of security issues. in some cases the
| support period of 3rd party dependencies is out of control of
| the vendor. and vendors usually don't control the upstream
| silicon and firmware. so if an SDK ships an outdated mbedtls
| and upstream refuses to patch their SDK also downstream will
| not be able to release a patch. and in that case the law says
| connectivity needs to be disabled for that appliance. the
| situation today is that vendors are only starting to realize
| that this is the future in which they operate. so while the
| appliance is still operable in a dumb-mode any smart-features
| will have to be reduced to the max time you can ensure
| support.
|
| while this sounds like pretty normal and sane to most it
| absolutely isn't how IoT vendors in the past have operated.
| And i hope the minute RED directive kicks into gear by Aug
| 2024 consumers will start to sue them into oblivion if a
| vendor is for some reason unable to ship a security update.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| This feels like a very tech-centric perspective. I agree with
| you, if you restrict this to the very IT-savvy group, but this
| shifts the blame away from companies' bad design/behavior.
|
| Most people have no understanding of the difference between a
| cloud-connected device and one that just uses WiFi or BLE
| locally to communicate with an app.
|
| I'd say if you _work_ for a company that produces this kind of
| crap IoT, shame on you, and that people in that position should
| strongly push for the ability to ship with offline-only
| firmware.
| tarotuser wrote:
| Wow.. the cognitive dissonance here is staggering.
|
| Nowhere did I say "build it yourself". There's plenty of
| turnkey commercial/industrial solutions that are also plug-n-
| play. Most even have PoE already built in. The problem with
| them for end-users: you front-load the cost to initial build.
|
| The real problem for users with cloud-crap is that it's
| exceptionally hard to assess risk with cloud crap.
|
| As for me, my simplistic solution is that "cloud =
| unacceptable risk". But that somehow here has translated to
| "DIY garage build while etching my own silicon and boards",
| which totally minimizes what I'm actually saying.
| chrisdalke wrote:
| I did not suggest that anyone should DIY their IoT
| hardware. My point is I don't find utility in shaming users
| for buying cheap cloud-based products - the average user
| doesn't care or know about the tech choices, they just want
| to be able to change their light colors, play multi-room
| audio, etc.
|
| Yes, a subset of consumers will find local-based IoT
| products and vote with their wallets, and there are great
| companies serving that market (at a premium). However, the
| financial incentives push most companies to produce
| WiFi/internet connected crap. It's clearly cheapest to
| build on a ESP-type WiFi platform and build a bad cloud
| app.
|
| I think the only way you really stop this is with strong
| financial penalties via regulation. I'd want two pieces:
|
| Fines for cloud exfiltration of analytics or WiFi data
| beyond the base functionality of an application. Funding
| for FCC or other organizations to actively investigate
| reports of this.
|
| Fines when companies "remotely" brick IoT products that are
| EOL by shutting off a cloud API. Something of this type
| should push companies away from any sort of cloud-based
| infrastructure because they'd need to maintain it for much
| longer. (Admittedly not well-informed here and maybe this
| is in progress already?)
|
| I understand your perspective is that we can't trust the
| government to properly regulate that, and maybe true. But
| it's also unrealistic to expect most users to be well-
| informed. Even if most adults made that choice you still
| have a huge market of college students buying cheap crap.
| eropple wrote:
| _> 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._
|
| This isn't "blunt", this is just cruel. Nobody "deserves" to be
| the victim of false advertising or broken guarantees,
| _particularly_ when they can reasonably lack the necessary
| contextual knowledge to analyze them beyond face value. Most
| people do not have the time or the aptitude (which is developed
| through _more_ time) to become a system administrator of
| nontrivial local computing resources, but still derive
| significant value from being able to things like remotely
| viewable cameras.
|
| The lady mentioned in the article, the one who owns a pet-
| boarding kennel a few minutes down the road from her house, has
| her life _materially bettered_ by being able to access cameras
| remotely, and her life is not materially bettered by becoming a
| sysadmin to get that except for the fact that she is downstream
| of bad actors.
|
| The solution to this is not "well, everyone should be a
| sysadmin". The solution is "make the consequences of being a
| bad actor so petrifying that companies avoid doing so."
|
| Candidly, I echoed a lot of the sentiments of your post when I
| was younger, more self-absorbed, and more confident of my
| ability to attain sufficient expertise in all walks of life to
| never need _help_. My attitudes changed as I grew older and it
| became clearer that I was just as fallible as the next person,
| just on different axes. I hope you get the chance to attain
| perspective, too.
|
| We are, as it happens, _all in it together_ , and the attitude
| your post expresses is counterproductive.
| tarotuser wrote:
| > Nobody "deserves" to be the victim of false advertising or
| broken guarantees, particularly when they can reasonably lack
| the necessary contextual knowledge to analyze them beyond
| face value. Most people do not have the time or the aptitude
| (which is developed through more time) to become a system
| administrator of nontrivial local computing resources, but
| still derive significant value from being able to things like
| remotely viewable cameras.
|
| You're right - that the government *should* do their thing
| and stomp down on companies with death-penalty-level fines
| and jail for the C levels and BoD. But lets be 100% real.
| Only 1 singular bank executive went to jail during the 2008
| banking fraud crisis, and that was in Iceland.
|
| The governments will not act in our best interests. That's
| transparently evident that we're in it on our selves and each
| other. I wish it weren't the case, but wishing something so
| does not make it so.
|
| > The lady mentioned in the article, the one who owns a pet-
| boarding kennel a few minutes down the road from her house,
| has her life materially bettered by being able to access
| cameras remotely, and her life is not materially bettered by
| becoming a sysadmin to get that except for the fact that she
| is downstream of bad actors.
|
| No doubt. But I'm surprised that there hasn't been a company
| who sells a on-prem video solution. Oh wait, there is. A
| cursory search showed me this
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08329JN9B for $560 with HDD. The
| cloud here is an _optional_ thing.
|
| This user decided to go with cloud-only crap for the
| convenience. And it's more convenient for the company to
| renegotiate the "deal". You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
|
| > The solution to this is not "well, everyone should be a
| sysadmin". The solution is "make the consequences of being a
| bad actor so petrifying that companies avoid doing so."
|
| Or you realize that our country is very much "Caveat Emptor",
| and defend yourself appropriately, knowing legal remedies are
| few and far between. And if they ever do get a legal remedy,
| I'm sure they'll get a $10 voucher to buy more of the Cloud-
| crap.
|
| Hardware that isn't tied at the hip to someone else's
| computer is already available. It's just not as cheap.
|
| > Candidly, I echoed a lot of the sentiments of your post
| when I was younger, more self-absorbed, and more confident of
| my ability to attain sufficient expertise in all walks of
| life to never need help. My attitudes changed as I grew older
| and it became clearer that I was just as fallible as the next
| person, just on different axes. I hope you get the chance to
| attain perspective, too.
|
| What is this self-help garbage doing in the middle of
| criticizing cloud-locked hardware being at the behest of a
| company? You do know that there are plenty of options that
| aren't infected with cloud-crap that are also outside of
| "build NVR in your basement".
|
| If I see "Smart", "IoT" (and not a open protocol), or similar
| verbiage, I don't buy it. It also means I don't have to worry
| about data exfiltration like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/A
| BoringDystopia/comments/y3irol/rem...
|
| > We are, as it happens, all in it together, and the attitude
| your post expresses is counterproductive.
|
| We are absolutely not "in it together". You're on HN - you
| see the inexorable tread towards more profit at all costs for
| companies. If that means squeezing customers more, so be it.
| But they are not our friends, nor do they see themselves as
| us.
|
| The US government is effectively captured at this point. Any
| remedies that happen here will be long after the damage was
| done.
|
| Basically what I'm trying to get at is that we need to be
| vigilant and not buy into these "easy cloud ecosystems". At
| best, they are long-term contract-mutable rentals, and should
| be recognized as such. To that end, I'll pay more to stay
| away from those devices. That's about as much as we can do.
| sircastor wrote:
| For a while I ran DDWRT on my routers, and spent hours
| learning about FreeNAS and ZFS. And I ran out of patience for
| it after a few years. I had more important things to do, and
| people to spend time with. My routers got replaced with Eeros
| and my NAS got replaced with a Synology. And while I don't
| love that the former got bought by Amazon, both are pain
| free, and I spend a lot less time on them.
| eropple wrote:
| Yup. Even as a power user there's only so much time in the
| day. I ran a UniFi network locally for a while, because I
| was generally frustrated with the state of things. I still
| have the USG at the top of my network but everything south
| of it has been replaced with Eeros for Wi-Fi, and they just
| work(tm). I don't have time to fight with that stuff. I
| have a life.
|
| I still run a FreeNAS box (well, TrueNAS), because I have
| work-related needs that Synology can't really handle, but
| that's a conscious choice and I have the skills necessary
| both to do it and to know that I need to. Most people do
| not. And that's okay. They have skills I do not have.
| Modern society _functions_ on division of labor.
| arthurofcharn wrote:
| 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.
| pxc wrote:
| > 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 OpenWrt
| plus an extra web interfaces, so you can just access the
| upstream web interface at a different URI if you don't
| want to install the latest firmware.
|
| The standard OpenWrt web UI is as good or better than
| what your average router comes with. It's not harder to
| use.
| ecpottinger wrote:
| I never understood why I need MY hardware to use their servers.
| If I buy something it should be mine alone.
| ilyt wrote:
| The people that bought it and complained it stopped being free
| don't want to put their own storage servers up
| compiler-guy wrote:
| You don't. The timing getting cancelled here is the free
| storage tier. But if you want to use your own local storage you
| can.
| bell-cot wrote:
| 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.
| themitigating wrote:
| So if ford stops making spare parts 30 years after a car was
| discontinued is the car rented?
| belorn wrote:
| If the car has drm in it that refuses alternative third-party
| parts, then yes, the car was rented. This is why right to
| repair laws are needed. It fixes this missrepresentation.
| shkkmo wrote:
| If they take steps to prohibit other people from making their
| own parts, then yes.
| Forge36 wrote:
| This is more like if BMW stops supporting their servers so
| they disable your heated seats.
| LocalH wrote:
| Bad analogy. There's a difference between that, where the
| hypothetical car in question has malfunctioned, and a company
| being able to just decide that a feature that they offered
| across the board for free is suddenly being discontinued.
| Imagine that you have a Ford that comes with seat heaters.
| You've been able to use those seat heaters, at no additional
| charge, for several years. All of a sudden, Ford decides they
| want to make existing customers pay for something they've
| been using for years. The next time you go to the dealer for
| an unrelated reason, they silently install Ford's new update
| that restricts you from turning on the seat heaters without
| paying a monthly subscription to Ford. Even this analogy
| breaks down, as with the Arlo situation they have to provide
| server-side storage for the feature, whereas such a seat
| heater conundrum would not. However, this analogy is closer
| to the real situation than "manufacturer stops making parts
| three decades after discontinuation".
| spacephysics wrote:
| 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 (specifically saying not a
| rental), of a product, then they must switch to that protocol.
| But after their hands are clean.
|
| This issue sucks on many levels, one of which is someone like
| myself, and many others here, want the convenience of say smart
| home products.
|
| For instance, with Nest, due to their mothership and
| proprietary API's, I have to settle for either an inferior
| product, or spend time setting up a home automation stack.
|
| Which is great if it's a hobby and/or enjoyable, but I just
| want the features without the hassle.
|
| The real open source revolution will come when many of these
| privacy-first, host-your-own XYZ are _truely_ turn key. I think
| we're getting closer but just not their yet
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >Are they obligated to keep the software up to date despite
| the one-time-sale?
|
| If it's a security issue, then it was sold defective.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Are they obligated to keep the software up to date despite
| the one-time-sale?
|
| No. But they also should have no right to stop others from
| supporting the software:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34858209.
| adrianN wrote:
| No, they don't need to keep the software up to date, they
| just have to ensure that the device continues working. Almost
| everything that uses electricity has a bit of software. Most
| devices don't need any updates. At the _very least_ they need
| to enable somebody else to keep the devices running, for
| example by open sourcing the infra needed to do so.
| cs702 wrote:
| In short, the people who "purchased" these cameras _do not own_
| them.
|
| Specifically, the owners of these cameras may own the hardware,
| but _cannot use it_ because they do not own nor control the
| software that runs it.
|
| Richard Stallman predicted this _decades ago_. Regardless of what
| you think of him, he was the first person to come up with the
| idea of free open-source software expressly to give users the
| ability to (quoting) _" control the program and what it does for
| them. When users don't control the program, we call it a
| 'nonfree' or 'proprietary' program. The nonfree program controls
| the users, and the developer controls the program."_[a]
|
| He was, and is, right about this.
|
| [a] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
| ilyt wrote:
| Not that I disagree but in this case it seems to be mostly
| about "free" cloud storage ending:
|
| > Starting April 1, the company would no longer support models
| that included no-fee seven-day rolling storage of video clips--
| a well-advertised selling point.
|
| And cameras were still being able to be used with external
| storage
|
| > Instead, Arlo device owners could upgrade to one of the
| company's paid plans, starting at $13 a month or buy an add-on
| device to store videos.
|
| 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.
| indymike wrote:
| > 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 happy I did
| not buy Arlo's product.
| ilyt wrote:
| 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.
| indymike wrote:
| > 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?
| cs702 wrote:
| > Not that I disagree but...
|
| :-)
|
| Keep in mind: Customers thought they were purchasing cameras
| with seven days of storage.
| ilyt wrote:
| 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
| yppop wrote:
| 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.
| ilyt wrote:
| I guess achieving "sage wisdom" of "reading the terms of
| service you pay for" attained at cost of only few shitty
| cameras is cheap for the affected.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > In short, the people who "purchased" these cameras do not own
| them.
|
| They do own the camera. They just don't own the cloud service
| that makes the camera useful. Or even operable.
|
| Reminds me of Cory Doctorow's story _Unauthorized Bread_.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > They do own the camera. They just don't own the cloud
| service that makes the camera useful. Or even operable.
|
| I don't know the model, but the article makes it seem as if
| the cameras work perfectly well without it? I hate online-
| only products and think they are between scam and trap, but
| this seems more a case of false advertising than anything
| like that.
| logbiscuitswave wrote:
| Well-ish depending on your use case. It still requires
| their app, hub, and cloud services to work even just for
| steaming. There's no completely "local only" mode.
|
| You can use local storage to save recordings by connecting
| flash storage to the hub, but it's only really useful a
| backup. You can't view it in the app (you have to sneaker-
| net the storage to a computer), and it can only save
| triggered recordings.
|
| Basically if you don't care about storing and saving
| recordings for future use and only plan to stream from the
| cameras, then it'll continue to work (as long as Arlo's web
| services work of course).
| kevincox wrote:
| > but you can never have control over a service someone else
| runs
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-
| really-s...
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Does the camera allow the supposed owner to install a
| firmware that can work with another service of the owner's
| choosing?
| logbiscuitswave wrote:
| Hardware is completely proprietary and closed source. All
| camera communications go through a black box hub device
| which talks to Arlo's services. There's no public API for
| any part of the hardware or software chain.
|
| In other words, unless you're going to take the time to
| reverse engineer all of it, you're completely at their
| mercy.
|
| Even if you opt for local storage you're still beholden to
| their black box hub because that's the only thing the
| cameras will talk to, and their app because that's the only
| thing that will talk to their hub. (HomeKit and other
| integration exists but it doesn't provide the full
| functionality you get from the app, and still requires
| their hub.)
| pandaman wrote:
| Games, just as movies, have anything from dogs to the people who
| kicked in $2 on the Kickstarter in credits, there has to be more
| to this story than this or there is soon going to be a massacre
| of some "rogue" catering driver taking down Disney's
| blockbusters.
| jhonovich wrote:
| This can get even worse, e.g. Verkada, Meraki, what we named
| "Hostage as a Service" https://youtu.be/_vhIdsHeI0M
| voakbasda wrote:
| This is a brilliant term that perfectly summarizes the status
| quo of most IoT vendors and products. I will be using it
| henceforth and forever more.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > internet-connected security cameras
|
| These stopping to work is actually one of the best outcomes you
| can have
|
| As opposed to e.g. internet-connected security cameras being
| hacked so that anyone can watch your home or footage from
| internet-connected security cameras being shared by the service
| provider with just about anyone or footage from internet-
| connected security cameras being completely useless because of
| the cheap hardware used for them, creating a feeling of
| surveillance without any of the benefits
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Disappointing the article didn't specify the marketing that was
| used to sell the cameras five years ago. Obviously planned
| obsolescence is bad, but I'd like to know how misleading they
| were when selling the product.
| Ekaros wrote:
| 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.
| khromov wrote:
| While we wait for better legislation, all we can do is vote with
| our wallets. That's why I started the review site Unwanted Cloud
| to review how well devices work without "cloud" connectivity:
| https://unwanted.cloud/
| 1-6 wrote:
| When companies advertise free for life, take it with a grain of
| salt. If they can't force people into a paid subscription, then
| they'll simply stop making the device work.
|
| Remember, if Google can cut off support, what makes you think
| others wouldn't? Remember Stadia?
|
| Customers should agree to nothing less other than getting
| refunded for their camera setup.
| pepperidgeFarm wrote:
| Perhaps Stadia is a bad example, because Pepperidge Farms
| remembers when Google refunded every purchase when Stadia shut
| down.
|
| It was, however, surprising they chose to do so.
| lokar wrote:
| I do remember stadia. I got a full refund for the hardware and
| all games purchased.
| gtvwill wrote:
| This is basically every apple product ever. Get turned into
| paperweights despite being fully functional devices just because
| apple won't supply updates, won't open firmware or software up
| for users to apply updates. Can't claim your a ethical company
| when you do toxic unethical crap like that. Legit e-waste created
| for nothing but maintenance of a companies profit. Shit drives me
| up the wall. Should be legislated against. You can tell alot
| about people's ethics by how much they like to fix and reuse
| things or how much value they put on repairable items.
|
| Business tactics that are this malicious towards society on so
| many levels should be legislated out of existence.
| omershapira wrote:
| The interesting arbitrage here is:
|
| * Product BOM prices are more-or-less known by the public,
| product margin not as much
|
| * Cloud prices are low
|
| * Customers expect low product but high subscription prices
|
| I wonder if consumer protection can make a separation like this
| work. The Playstation model (sponsoring the hardware assuming
| >100% ROI over the product's lifetime) is bad for small
| companies, and definitely bad for e-waste when they fail. But
| mobile phone contracts make it clear you can own the phone after
| the contract, and still need to pay service fees throughout the
| usage, and that's mostly considered fair; and could definitely be
| a lot worse in terms of e-waste.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-19 23:03 UTC)