3 ms·

> In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example I t

> In this scheme, devices marked "A" will effectively be restricted to people with the time to manage local infrastructure--recording cameras, for example I think in terms of waste, the key is that devices are still functioning and valuable, even if they aren't as good to the original buyer as they once were. A different cloud service might pop up to replace the one that the smart doorbell maker canceled. Or the initial buyer can sell the smart doorbell to a customer that does have the patience to deal with local recording. It'll always be hard to use tech for non-technical people, but at least avoiding the situation where thousands of functioning gadgets are bricked and thrown away should be possible to achive through regulation.

eropple 4y ago
> Or the initial buyer can sell the smart doorbell to a customer that does have the patience to deal with local recording. I think this would require a drastically different consumer mindset. Because I don't think there is a market for used doorbells. > It'll always be hard to use tech for non-technical people As much as I don't like the products, Nest and Ring are not hard to use for non-technical people. They remove the moving parts that may demand maintenance and may cause failures that are beyond a power cycle's reach to fix. In that light, the best regulatory solution is probably to ensconce terms-at-purchase as indefinitely binding for SaaS-attached hardware. No price increases, no end-of-service so long as the company is still in business.