Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrafiee | Hacker News Reader

Well the problem with that is many people use the cameras for security also. So if a bad actor comes and takes the camera with them/breaks it, there would be no way for the users to get access to the footage after the fact to know what happened.

View on HN

The video wouldn't be stored on the camera, but an NVR or something similar. But "locally" could also include a cloud storage solution of the end user's choosing in addition to actually on prem.

If someone manages to steal one of my cameras I'll have some close-up, HD video of them stored on my hard drive.

I see. So you mean for the VMS solutions, not the stand alone IP cams (such as Nest, Ring, Wyze, doorbells, etc)?

I don't know what @nkrisc, but I definitely mean: camera should be able to store data on any standard sftp server. Or on a CIFS server for the Windows dudes. Or WebDAV.

Want to store it in some proprietary cloud? That's fine, but it should only be done as an afterthought. SFTP, CIFS, and WebDAV would enable any power user to build and use their own home storage or cloud storage.

I see the value of what you are proposing but that would be useful only for tech savvy users (vs mainstream)...

I 100% disagree. Mainstream people ask tech savvy people to help all the time. And, importantly, paid-for cloud services should IMO also make their services available over sftp. Not doing so is a large contributing reason I don't use those services.

If you also sell the optional local storage device (a network video recorder), then at least you give your customers the option.

Otherwise, you are not materially different from Ring or Google.

Thanks for the feedback. Our cameras have local storage but we do the inference on the cloud. Our main value prop is more powerful event detection features beyond what Nest is offering (Ring is not really offering any as of now.) and at a significantly lower price...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com