4 ms·

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

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.
- supergeek133 6y ago
  Running a platform costs money, many IoT products turn cost negative quickly if you don't introduce some type of value added service/ongoing revenue. That being said I've always been a huge proponent of allowing some type of local control. Think of people in the automation market (Control 4, CEDIA type stuff) where it would simply be faster. Even Google/Amazon allow local lambda function type activities that would be much better experience if we allowed local control. But that also changes your security landscape.
HenryBemis 6y ago
Everything else that the other people listed (cost model, pricing, etc.) PLUS, if it is a box, you can follow the cables or look where the TV/router is, find the box, take it with you, and the evidence is gone. Like this, even if the perpetrator takes the camera/bell with him/her, the evidence stays on the cloud. Also, for evidence to be admissible in a court of law, one has to prove the chain of custody. Something in your laptop is more prone to editing than a video sitting on a cloud where logs vouch for its integrity. Edit: don't let me invoke the gods of security frameworks. My laptop at home is not ISO27001 compliant, has never been assessed for security etc. The infrastructure of Ring (I believe) is regularly assessed/audited.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  My question was rhetorical. As I said elsewhere, I was criticizing supergeek133's particular justification, not actually looking for the real reason.
supergeek133 6y ago
The ""you need to upload all your data to our servers or you'll likely have to get another to TV to view it"" argument was involving the typical 8-camera wired DVR systems you commonly see in restaurants and in some homes. It needs to be connected to a TV to view the video locally, or you need to have some technical knowledge to setup RTSP on your LAN. Again, total addressable market.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  Ok, but then how is that relevant to the topic? Folks in this thread are complaining that Ring wants to gobble up all the user data for services that could be offered without a cloud connection (including remote video watching). The reasons, as far as I can tell, are that (1) it's a bit cheaper through the cloud because of economies of scale and (2) Ring makes money off the data. It is not because it unavoidably requires technical sophistication/effort by the user. Do you disagree?

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.

supergeek133 6y ago
Running a platform costs money, many IoT products turn cost negative quickly if you don't introduce some type of value added service/ongoing revenue. That being said I've always been a huge proponent of allowing some type of local control. Think of people in the automation market (Control 4, CEDIA type stuff) where it would simply be faster. Even Google/Amazon allow local lambda function type activities that would be much better experience if we allowed local control. But that also changes your security landscape.

HenryBemis 6y ago

Everything else that the other people listed (cost model, pricing, etc.) PLUS, if it is a box, you can follow the cables or look where the TV/router is, find the box, take it with you, and the evidence is gone. Like this, even if the perpetrator takes the camera/bell with him/her, the evidence stays on the cloud. Also, for evidence to be admissible in a court of law, one has to prove the chain of custody. Something in your laptop is more prone to editing than a video sitting on a cloud where logs vouch for its integrity. Edit: don't let me invoke the gods of security frameworks. My laptop at home is not ISO27001 compliant, has never been assessed for security etc. The infrastructure of Ring (I believe) is regularly assessed/audited.

jessriedel 6y ago
My question was rhetorical. As I said elsewhere, I was criticizing supergeek133's particular justification, not actually looking for the real reason.

supergeek133 6y ago

The ""you need to upload all your data to our servers or you'll likely have to get another to TV to view it"" argument was involving the typical 8-camera wired DVR systems you commonly see in restaurants and in some homes. It needs to be connected to a TV to view the video locally, or you need to have some technical knowledge to setup RTSP on your LAN. Again, total addressable market.

jessriedel 6y ago
Ok, but then how is that relevant to the topic? Folks in this thread are complaining that Ring wants to gobble up all the user data for services that could be offered without a cloud connection (including remote video watching). The reasons, as far as I can tell, are that (1) it's a bit cheaper through the cloud because of economies of scale and (2) Ring makes money off the data. It is not because it unavoidably requires technical sophistication/effort by the user. Do you disagree?