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]
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.
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What they don't understand is that traditional cameras work extremely well with their dedicated but seemingly outdated interfaces, and moreover, they prevent things like this from happening.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).
"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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
• 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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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
[+] [-] Aloha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cs702|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] andyjohnson0|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vouaobrasil|3 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] m463|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] switchbak|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voisin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _fat_santa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsflover|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RobotToaster|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rolph|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gedy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themitigating|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ekaros|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jhonovich|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voakbasda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mr_tristan|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] travisporter|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimhuntpl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gtvwill|3 years ago|reply
Business tactics that are this malicious towards society on so many levels should be legislated out of existence.
[+] [-] tarotuser|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eropple|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] chrisdalke|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kbuck|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] manuelabeledo|3 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] merpnderp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ninkendo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GirlFriday|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omershapira|3 years ago|reply
• 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.
[+] [-] prpl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1-6|3 years ago|reply
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|3 years ago|reply
It was, however, surprising they chose to do so.
[+] [-] lokar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] khromov|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ecpottinger|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] compiler-guy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pandaman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErikVandeWater|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wwfzyn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bell-cot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacephysics|3 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] themitigating|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] formerly_proven|3 years ago|reply
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