5 ms·
I've got a handful of DLink WiFi cameras that, in my mind, are almost the perfect way to do IoT. They've got an app and can do all their stuff through the clou
by Mister_Snuggles 11y ago
I've got a handful of DLink WiFi cameras that, in my mind, are almost the perfect way to do IoT.
They've got an app and can do all their stuff through the cloud, but I have them running on a separate WiFi network that is unable to access the internet. The cameras don't actually need that access, I just lose the cloud features.
This is, for me anyway, a really good way to do it. Consumers that want the stuff that the cloud gives them (easy remote monitoring, etc) can have it. Consumers like me that would rather roll their own recording system and access the cameras by VPN can do that too. This is possible because the cameras serve up a MJPEG stream at a specific URL, in addition to however they communicate with the cloud stuff.
If DLink does go out of business (I hope they don't because I'm going to buy more of these cameras), all of my stuff will just keep working. I'd love to see more IoT stuff that works this way.
- dstroot 11y agoSo... you prefer "Internet" of things that do not connect to the Internet? (go ahead and downvote - just could not resist)
- Mister_Snuggles 11y agoIronically, in some cases that's exactly what I want! But what it really boils down to is that the Internet piece should be optional and the device should still function (perhaps in a reduced capacity) if whatever it's accessing on the Internet goes away.
- ams6110 11y agoAbsolutely! There are many useful things I might want to do privately on an isolated network, that are not really compelling if I have to send everything to a third party with a 10 page privacy policy agreement.
- echelon 11y agoI want them connected to my personal network. If they connect to the Internet, it'll be through the gateway I wrote.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoYes, many of us would like for the "I" in "IoT" to stand for "intranet". Cloud-dependence and routing all that data through the Internet is both insecure, wasteful and completely idiotic from engineering standpoint. It's done because companies are testing a new way of extracting money from non-tech-savvy but tech-liking population.
- CWuestefeld 11y agoSimilarly, my house has two Honeywell networked thermostats. These are networked devices controllable via smartphone or web app, etc. But if the company stopped providing the service behind it, they're still perfectly adequate programmable thermostats. They'll keep on working fine, albeit requiring manual programming, rather than turn into paperweights. I fail to see the excitement about the Nest, and I claim that yours hasn't saved you any money compared to mine, even adjusted for effort involved. The time it took me to set up my device - when I actually know what our work/home schedule is, so no training is involved, is minimal. And there's no confusion in the device when, at this time of year, I want to just use outside air through open windows to keep my home cool. A device that can leverage the human mind's power is great. A device that simply replaces one flavor of (trivial) mental effort with a different one isn't terribly valuable.
- Mister_Snuggles 11y agoI agree with your assessment of the Nest. The number of times I've wanted to turn the heat on or off when I'm not at home is exactly zero. I've got a manually-programmable Honeywell and it's been working fine for over five years. Apart from the very occasional adjustments (daylight saving time, resetting the furnace filter reminder, and replacing batteries) it needs very little care and feeding.