You've just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription
theregister.com
theregister.com
Point-to-point encrypted video from a sender with a GoPro plugged in with a USB cable to a receiver at 192.168.0.2:
Sender:
curl http://172.29.114.51/gp/gpWebcam/START?res= # Put GoPro in webcam mode
ffmpeg -nostdin -threads 1 -i 'udp://@0.0.0.0:8554?overrun_nonfatal=1&fifo_size=50000000' -f:v mpegts -fflags nobuffer -vcodec copy -acodec copy -f rtp_mpegts -srtp_out_suite AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80 -srtp_out_params ${FORTY_CHARACTER_PRIVATE_KEY} 'srtp://192.168.0.2:5005'
ffplay -srtp_in_suite AES_CM_128_HMAC_SHA1_80 -srtp_in_params ${FORTY_CHARACTER_PRIVATE_KEY} 'srtp://192.168.0.2:5005'But I guess the ones who need this the most (parents) also lack the time to do anything about it.
"OK, here's a half-assed SaaS that will do most of what I want for $10/month, or I can cobble together my own half-assed solution that will do everything I want for 'free' (~$1000's worth of my own time more than a few years of the SaaS) ... which to choose..."
I don't really trust external businesses to get streaming video of the inside of my house, and I don't trust them to monitor my kid. But am I going to do a better job in a weekend? Hmm...
This is one category of problem that should be solved through legislation, but I doubt that should such laws be passed, that they would be actually enforced against bad actors.
Like most regulations, it'll be just another weapon to entrench existing players, and keep new entrants out of the market.
The way things should work: right-to-repair means not only schematics, BOMs, and source code; it also means documentation on network protocols, and the ability for the end-user to repoint any sort of cloud/smartphone connected device to another endpoint.
IANAL, but I would think this would be covered by existing false advertising laws, and maybe breach of contract. They advertised a product as coming with features x, y, and z; people paid for those features; and then the company unilaterally disabled those features. So now features x, y, and z no longer work on the product as advertised. I'd be surprised if we don't see class action lawsuits for this.
Luckily this granddad does. I also get deployed by daughter in law to deal with any safety critical stuff in their house eg stair gates and mounting TVs on the wall that will survive an acrobat practising a new routine. Ironically enough, her other half is a railway safety engineer.
Technology isn't the be all and end all. Whilst I can and have rigged up a baby monitor from a spare Riolink, a spare PoE switch, a VPN back to my home Zoneminder etc, it isn't actually required. Yes I do have a lot of spare stuff and grandad's cloud is acceptable.
[1] - https://wiki.zoneminder.com/Hardware_Compatibility_List#IP_C...
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us20t1gQPOE
[3] - https://tailscale.com/
Can you be certain that at 3:46 in the morning that you'll be able to pull this up on your phone from bed and it will just work? What about if you are out and left the kid with a babysitter - can you reliably access from outside?
I went through quite a few Amazon cheapo RRSP cameras and they would invariably just stop working randomly in the most scary way for a baby monitor: they'd freeze frame and there is no way to know if the baby is just still or if the feed has hung. I thought about perhaps rigging up some infrared flashing LED or something but this was all a lot of effort and time and energy that as a new parent I just didn't have.
In the end I got some Nest cameras and have had zero downtime and they just work at home and when out and about. Say what you want about Google but I probably trust them more than most places to not let the cameras get hacked trivially.
It needs to work and reliability matters, but isn’t mission critical, life or death.
It is possible to raise a child without a baby monitor.
If not... I'm walking to the kids room to check. Which is not such an uncommon task that a slight risk of additional instances is a big deal.
> What about if you are out and left the kid with a babysitter - can you reliably access from outside.
If I left the kid with a babysitter it is because I uave sufficient level of trust in thr babysitter, and a baby monitor accessible from outside is a risk, not a benefit.
> Say what you want about Google but I probably trust them more than most places to not let the cameras get hacked trivially.
I trust a baby monitor that isn't exposed on a network more than one managed by Google.
I think I'd stick with old gen RF monitors if I was concerned about the baby's health, lest you mistakenly end up with a good night's sleep.
Ran Asterisk at work so it made sense to put it to use at home, albeit without any external connectivity.
We have an Infant Optics DXR-8 Pro for our baby monitor. It's cheaper than the device mentioned in the article, is not connected to the internet/wifi in any way, and works great. I've just bought another one.
Yeah, I bought an old-school audio-only radio baby monitor for just that reason.
Sure, a HAM in a van could theoretically creep out my kid that way, but the physical proximity required makes that extremely unlikely.
I also recommend Phillip's line of audio only monitors. They are even lower latency and have an excellent filtering algorithm built in. I can play lullaby at a decent volume and it won't let any audio through, but as soon as baby makes a tiny noise the audio comes through clearly (including the music of course). It saves a bit of mental load from listening to baby music all the time.
Yeah. I bought my car 5 years ago, and even then it was a trend to stick a cellular modem in the car to sell a subscription remote start/car tracking service.
It was hard, but I determined that my car didn't have a modem (by asking the sales guy if they needed to install a part to activate the service, or if they could just do it from their computer over-the-phone).
My wife's care does have a modem, and I've been tempted to disconnect the box for those features (it's separate from the head unit), or install a dummy load in place of the antenna.
They also can't retract, brick, or remotely-control whatever it is post-sale.
Tech is entering the post-intimacy, post-honeymoon, abusive phase in its relationship with users. The companies involved are seeing what's possible to get away with and exploiting it at every opportunity.
It's crazy that the company's action is legal.
Hearing that Miku will now be subscription-based is really disappointing. From being at the top, to bottom with the other wifi monitors. We'll still use as a monitor, but wont be recommending to anyone anymore like we used to.
[1] https://reviewed.usatoday.com/baby-monitors/features/your-ba...
Mine has a range that works across the entire house, battery lasts all day, and only 'wakes' when junior is crying/moving.
IOT was a massive hype-cycle long dead. I even swapped out my Sonos system after those clowns making dumb privacy decisions.
Can you suggest any monitor brands/models or places I could find them?
(Genuinely asking)
Does this mean I miss out on a bit of convenience? Yes.
Does this also mean that I don't need to worry about my barbecue going on strike because "the cloud" is down? Also yes.
They do a worse job of disclosing the subscription necessary to use most of the advertised features (this is explained on the 'membership' page of their website, but not the product page itself). But if you avoid this product for requiring a smartphone at all then the problem is neatly avoided.
I have no idea what the BOM is on this product but that seems entirely possible? I haven't checked the options but I am sure there are cheaper options that offer fewer features.
I'm really tired of "oh so you're telling me it costs money to do something" articles. It really might! It's also possible the company is lazily trying to get some recurring revenue on its balance sheet. Without actually being inside their process you really can't know.
Moreover, a $10/month subscription is far from selling things at cost. Maybe the company has too much overhead and they really need this revenue to stay afloat, but the bait and switch is still not to be excused. Given the sequence of events, it has the hallmark of a company purchasing another specifically with the intention of rent seeking.
On a side note, I think startups are really doing themselves a disservice here. With stories like this, Nest, and others, I have very little interest in buying a product that isn't from an established player. Because the odds are really good that company is aiming to get acquired and then the nature of my device changes. Maybe it gets discontinued. Maybe the privacy policy changes. Maybe features get removed and replaced with subscription fees. It's not terribly often that I end up having the same experience I enjoyed when I purchased it. More often than not it ends up being e-waste because it won't even function without an always-on connection.
That was really long-winded way to say, "I don't have any more info than you but it looks bad." Sure it looks bad! If I have to guess (and I do) I'd say they're not delivering good value.
But this is supposed to be a website for people building companies! Hardware costs money and has ongoing support costs! These aren't shameful flaws, they're the nature of the business. It's not "more ethical" to use a model that hides the costs of ongoing support for a product by packing extra margin into each sale.
I would not buy this product. I agree it's overpriced (and its subscription is poorly disclosed). I do not care about the high-end features it delivers. But the fact that it has a high cost (and a subscription for ongoing support) is not a problem by itself.
> But this is supposed to be a website for people building companies!
I've built a hardware company before so I have a decent handle on what's involved. Pricing hardware is generally easier than SaaS because you know what your materials cost and you know what your distribution channel is going to cost. Macroeconomic events can be a problem, sure. In our case, a copper mine explosion really screwed up profit margin and ability to source material. But, I can't go back to people that already purchased my hardware, take away functionality they already paid for, and tell them they're going to have to pay me to get it back. The least scummy way would be to add a new value-added service and charge for access to that.
It's through the lens of that background that I think we should critically look at what's going on here. Companies engaging in tactics like this make it harder for others to succeed. I don't think this should be viewed as some fantastic growth hack.
> Hardware costs money and has ongoing support costs!
I can't imagine what the support costs on a baby monitor would be. But, that's supposed to be baked into the cost of the product. There are established formulae for that process. It's a big part of why we don't have to pay support contracts on every piece of consumer hardware we purchase. I'll grant you that the web service aspect of this colors the picture slightly differently, but then the new $120/year fee seems excessive.
> It's not "more ethical" to use a model that hides the costs of ongoing support for a product by packing extra margin into each sale.
Ethics enters the picture because none of this was disclosed at the time of purchase. Instead, that functionality was sold as being included. Sure, their EULA almost certainly allows them to do whatever they want after the sale. But, that EULA is about the only form of actual disclosure involved.
It's also fair to consider the wider context here. The company that made the monitor was acquired by another and the new company is now removing previously included functionality and charging for it. The acquiring company knew the numbers before they purchased the company. They didn't have to bear any of the R&D costs. It's really hard to evaluate this and not see it as rent seeking behavior.
I think that's a big problem for any startups looking to get into hardware because people are going to stop taking risks on newcomers if they're likely to get screwed after an acquisition. As a start-up community, we should be critical of the actions taken here. Especially when no mea culpa has been issued that explains why the change was necessary for the company's survival.
Kids will cry if they actually need you.
We had a wireless monitor that velcroed around their foot that monitored heart rate and blood oxygen level (Owlet brand). It went off once after an ill-fated breast feeding session at god-knows-when-o'clock where they got into a weird position between a very very drowsy mum and some cushions and we didn't notice. Would they have suffocated eventually, or maybe they would have mustered a cry? Who knows, but I am glad the alarm went off and we were able to wake up mum and reposition the baby so their face was not mushed into skin.
For us the monitor was something that allowed us to relax a bit.
It also had the added bonus of you could tell if they were getting a cold before they had any other symptoms as their heart rate was usually higher than normal when they were sleeping. Very useful.