3 ms·

> “the smart camera has no offline footage storage capabilities” How on earth did this get approved to go to market? A security camera that can't record when t

> “the smart camera has no offline footage storage capabilities” How on earth did this get approved to go to market? A security camera that can't record when the internet goes down!

762236 10y ago
Perhaps because it would become a significantly more expensive product?
- srssays 10y ago
  You can store hours of video on an SD card.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    yep, and although thieves could steal the SD cards, it wouldn't be hard for Google to make the system redundant, so that if the internet goes down, each cam sends its motion-activated footage to all the other local cams, for storage on the SD cards. That way, the thieves have to physically access all of the cameras in order to remove the SD cards.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Would it? It doesn't need to store all the footage offline, just enough to tolerate a lost internet connection for a little while.
Spooky23 10y ago
The focus was on developing a service based business model, common sense be damned.
- ajross 10y ago
  Even more cynical: the focus was on making a buck selling a security theater product to the paranoid and gadget-obsessed, not to produce a product focused on providing prosecution evidence. I mean seriously: cloud storage of the video may not be "secure", but it's undeniably cool and provides the visceral feedback that the marks want. It doesn't have to be actually useful to have value to its subscribers. People who are actually worried about break-ins just buy safes and insurance policies. Or move. This is for the nuts.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Probably right! Didn't Nest start out as a baby monitor type marketing message. Somebody figured out that peddling fear is more lucrative than babies!
  - Roedou 10y ago
    I feel like I can add an n=1 sample here; I'm a Dropcam customer, who would describe themselves as paranoid and gadget-obsessed. I was worried about office break-ins, so I bought things that include safes, insurance policies, and Dropcams. These cameras were WAY cheaper than the cameras & services offered by the alarm companies. And in January this year, the worst happened: someone broke into our office, and took a bunch of electronics. Without the videos from the cameras, the building management wouldn't have been able to figure out how they got in, and police to be able to identify/prove who it was and what happened to our gear. I'd definitely buy them again. The only change I'm going to make now is relocating the cameras to areas where they'll cover other parts of the office, and add additional cameras as well.

> “the smart camera has no offline footage storage capabilities” How on earth did this get approved to go to market? A security camera that can't record when the internet goes down!

762236 10y ago

Perhaps because it would become a significantly more expensive product?

srssays 10y ago
You can store hours of video on an SD card.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  yep, and although thieves could steal the SD cards, it wouldn't be hard for Google to make the system redundant, so that if the internet goes down, each cam sends its motion-activated footage to all the other local cams, for storage on the SD cards. That way, the thieves have to physically access all of the cameras in order to remove the SD cards.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Would it? It doesn't need to store all the footage offline, just enough to tolerate a lost internet connection for a little while.

Spooky23 10y ago

The focus was on developing a service based business model, common sense be damned.

ajross 10y ago
Even more cynical: the focus was on making a buck selling a security theater product to the paranoid and gadget-obsessed, not to produce a product focused on providing prosecution evidence. I mean seriously: cloud storage of the video may not be "secure", but it's undeniably cool and provides the visceral feedback that the marks want. It doesn't have to be actually useful to have value to its subscribers. People who are actually worried about break-ins just buy safes and insurance policies. Or move. This is for the nuts.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Probably right! Didn't Nest start out as a baby monitor type marketing message. Somebody figured out that peddling fear is more lucrative than babies!
- Roedou 10y ago
  I feel like I can add an n=1 sample here; I'm a Dropcam customer, who would describe themselves as paranoid and gadget-obsessed. I was worried about office break-ins, so I bought things that include safes, insurance policies, and Dropcams. These cameras were WAY cheaper than the cameras & services offered by the alarm companies. And in January this year, the worst happened: someone broke into our office, and took a bunch of electronics. Without the videos from the cameras, the building management wouldn't have been able to figure out how they got in, and police to be able to identify/prove who it was and what happened to our gear. I'd definitely buy them again. The only change I'm going to make now is relocating the cameras to areas where they'll cover other parts of the office, and add additional cameras as well.