The cameras worked fine, but their maker said they had reached their end of life
wsj.com
wsj.com
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.
> 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.
:-)
Keep in mind: Customers thought they were purchasing cameras with seven days of storage.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
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.
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).
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.)
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).
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!
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.
I guess most "i am elegant" tech companies just don't go for buttons. (apple, tesla, etc)
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.
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).
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.
You could say "well, filter on reviews", but the review space has been drastically compromised with the rise of "influencer" types, too.
Replacing the hard drive in it couldn't be easier. You do have to remove four screws to get into the box, but once there, you just unplug the old one and plug in the new one. When you power it up, the box notices that the hard drive is new and asks you if you want it to be prepared for use (with requisite warnings about losing any data that may be on it). If you click "Yes," it does what it needs to do and starts using it.
Aside from opening the case, my grandmother could handle this without any problem at all.
I simply assumed that better systems than mine would be as easy, but perhaps I assumed too much.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Finding one that didn't require an internet connection was exceedingly difficult. It can be hard to even tell if they require an internet connection or now -- and it seems most of them do.
I did eventually find one, but if I need to do something like this again, I'll build it myself. It would be much faster and easier.
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
But yeah, would be nice. "No updates - give source code on OSS license + reasonably easy way to flash".
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
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.
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.
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.
Business tactics that are this malicious towards society on so many levels should be legislated out of existence.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's miles better than any UI I've seen bundled with a router.
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/ABoringDystopia/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.
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.
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.
• 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.
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.
It was, however, surprising they chose to do so.
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
No. But they also should have no right to stop others from supporting the software: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34858209.
If it's a security issue, then it was sold defective.
That reasoning doesn't make sense for this case, either.
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