Hacker News Reader

Comment by palijer | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly what I do. I'm also confused by this article...

It's rage bait. People hate subscriptions, understandably so, and people without A/V experience might expect a camera not sold as a webcam to easily double as a webcam since they both can capture video.

It's just a really poor reason to be outraged at Canon (or Sony or any of the other companies whose non-webcam cameras don't seamlessly turn into webcams without some standard A/V adapters).

Canon's webcam software was until recently free. It was the sole reason I bought a Cabin camera. This is a rug pull.

That's upsetting, but my point is the article itself is rage bait. It's not outrageous for Canon to charge for webcam software when there's HDMI video-out on the camera.

Imagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.

I can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I support Canon's right to do the same.

Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us to "just" write code that they think is easy, but we know how that can go in reality.

There's already a simple solution here in HDMI. I don't see a reason to be outraged at Canon over not providing another solution that most buyers will never even use.

When I was trying to get back into photography, the fact that Sony's camera has built-in webcam capabilities played a small (but not trivial) part in choosing to invest in Sony's ecosystem. They're just great cameras overall, but I can't say it didn't play a part.

USB camera feeds work out of the box with Sony mirrorless cameras.

So ultimately, if Canon wants to play these games, let's see if the market of NEW buyers like me respond in a way that will make Canon change their minds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com