6 ms·

I work for a residential IoT company. The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely.

I work for a residential IoT company. The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely. Otherwise you're just talking something in the home (BLE, etc). If you don't have some type of service the average consumer will not be able to use it, people aren't going to setup NAS devices, or other servers in their house to collect video data. Even a wireless DVR system can be a pain (another box, likely another TV to see it, etc). I know that this community is more on the side of the skepticism of collecting data, but keep in mind the total addressable market is mostly people who don't want to deal with these problems. Now if you're talking about "if the cloud service is down my device doesn't work" then I completely agree, these devices need to have enough local functionality to operate/buffer without their service working for extended periods of time, or being removed.

reaperducer 6y ago
The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely. Otherwise you're just talking something in the home (BLE, etc). Does Apple use iCloud for HomeKit, or is it all on the iPad/AppleTV that acts as the home hub?
- woadwarrior01 6y ago
  I've had two HomeKit cameras at home for a while now. HomeKit cameras default to stream only (via the homebridge) while any of the people who have access to the camera are home. When everyone's out, it records/streams to iCloud, and this part is purportedly end to end encrypted, so that only devices of people who've been granted access to the camera(s) can watch it.
  - supergeek133 6y ago
    Homekit devices also require a mFI chip to participate in HomeKit (or develop software to connect to another device in the home with mFI chip).
jessriedel 6y ago
Ring already has a base station. Why doesn't that base station have a solid state drive to store all the video/images, and allow the user to view them on their smart phone by connecting to the base station through the wifi? The argument "you need to upload all your data to our servers or you'll likely have to get another to TV to view it" is just beyond lame.
- ReactiveJelly 6y ago
  > Why doesn't that base station have a solid state drive to store all the video/images Everything is cheaper per pound in a data center. And they can force updates if the client is dumber. And the customers won't complain when the SSD eventually dies. > and allow the user to view them on their smart phone by connecting to the base station through the wifi? Because people will want to do it across WAN. LAN-only is one piece of code, WAN-only is another. Going up to WAN for everything is redundant but costs less dev time. Yes, it's frustrating for us who care about privacy. The motive is never to build a good product that respects people and does what they want. The motive is always to make money. Every corner must be cut.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    > Everything is cheaper per pound in a data center....Going up to WAN for everything is redundant but costs less dev time. Yes, agreed. That's just a totally different argument than the one supergeek133 made, so my point stands.
    - supergeek133 6y ago
      Yes my argument was business and ease for the customer, not what this is.
- ta8964586 6y ago
  I suspect the answer is not a technical one, but a business one. I'm guessing that adding local-only usage features just aren't profitable enough (not enough increase in market share by implementing them) for Ring to justify the effort.
jjav 6y ago
> The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely. This is a pain, but solvable by punching holes in all the NAT pair combinations. At a previous startup we all communication peer to peer (phones, custom home devices, laptops), no data traversed our servers ("the cloud"). It worked beautifully.
- shaftway 6y ago
  > keep in mind the total addressable market is mostly people who don't want to deal with these problems. > This is a pain, but solvable by punching holes in all the NAT pair combinations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RqDp7i308 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RqDp7i308
  - jjav 6y ago
    I think I wasn't clear in the first post. The customer did not have to do anything (i.e. no need to configure any NAT passthroughs on their router etc), this was entirely transparent to the user.
asdff 6y ago
I get that most people don't like to deal with that sort of set up. But we live in a world where the Raspberry Pi is extremely popular, yet also the most average consumer unfriendly computer in the entire world. Not everything needs to be a mass market product to be successful.
- supergeek133 6y ago
  What's the sales of Raspberry Pi versus something like a connected camera (Nest cam, dropcam, etc). "Popular" is relative.

reaperducer 6y ago

The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely. Otherwise you're just talking something in the home (BLE, etc). Does Apple use iCloud for HomeKit, or is it all on the iPad/AppleTV that acts as the home hub?

woadwarrior01 6y ago
I've had two HomeKit cameras at home for a while now. HomeKit cameras default to stream only (via the homebridge) while any of the people who have access to the camera are home. When everyone's out, it records/streams to iCloud, and this part is purportedly end to end encrypted, so that only devices of people who've been granted access to the camera(s) can watch it.
- supergeek133 6y ago
  Homekit devices also require a mFI chip to participate in HomeKit (or develop software to connect to another device in the home with mFI chip).

jessriedel 6y ago

Ring already has a base station. Why doesn't that base station have a solid state drive to store all the video/images, and allow the user to view them on their smart phone by connecting to the base station through the wifi? The argument "you need to upload all your data to our servers or you'll likely have to get another to TV to view it" is just beyond lame.

ReactiveJelly 6y ago
> Why doesn't that base station have a solid state drive to store all the video/images Everything is cheaper per pound in a data center. And they can force updates if the client is dumber. And the customers won't complain when the SSD eventually dies. > and allow the user to view them on their smart phone by connecting to the base station through the wifi? Because people will want to do it across WAN. LAN-only is one piece of code, WAN-only is another. Going up to WAN for everything is redundant but costs less dev time. Yes, it's frustrating for us who care about privacy. The motive is never to build a good product that respects people and does what they want. The motive is always to make money. Every corner must be cut.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  > Everything is cheaper per pound in a data center....Going up to WAN for everything is redundant but costs less dev time. Yes, agreed. That's just a totally different argument than the one supergeek133 made, so my point stands.
  - supergeek133 6y ago
    Yes my argument was business and ease for the customer, not what this is.
ta8964586 6y ago
I suspect the answer is not a technical one, but a business one. I'm guessing that adding local-only usage features just aren't profitable enough (not enough increase in market share by implementing them) for Ring to justify the effort.

jjav 6y ago

> The issue with remote access is you need a service in the middle to provide that remote access, and provide it securely. This is a pain, but solvable by punching holes in all the NAT pair combinations. At a previous startup we all communication peer to peer (phones, custom home devices, laptops), no data traversed our servers ("the cloud"). It worked beautifully.

shaftway 6y ago
> keep in mind the total addressable market is mostly people who don't want to deal with these problems. > This is a pain, but solvable by punching holes in all the NAT pair combinations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RqDp7i308 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3RqDp7i308
- jjav 6y ago
  I think I wasn't clear in the first post. The customer did not have to do anything (i.e. no need to configure any NAT passthroughs on their router etc), this was entirely transparent to the user.

asdff 6y ago

I get that most people don't like to deal with that sort of set up. But we live in a world where the Raspberry Pi is extremely popular, yet also the most average consumer unfriendly computer in the entire world. Not everything needs to be a mass market product to be successful.

supergeek133 6y ago
What's the sales of Raspberry Pi versus something like a connected camera (Nest cam, dropcam, etc). "Popular" is relative.