4 ms·

> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built in

> Why should the OP need to pay a subscription to enable a feature that is build into the camera Getting video into your computer through USB is _not_ built into the camera. Else why is OP downloading an app to do it? The app is part of the implementation, and it costs money. I have no problem with the manufacturer charging separately for that. The rest of us can use a video cable to get video into our computers.

dspillett 2y ago
You are entirely ignoring the subscription for what should, at most, be a one-off cost. > The app is part of the implementation Give other cameras can do it, there has a standard for it since 2003, and there are F/OSS implementations for others, maybe I'm asking the wrong question and instead should have asked “why should the OP pay a subscription for their bad choice of how to implement the feature?”.
- brushfoot 2y ago
  The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera as their webcam will never use it, because they know the quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI. If I asked Sony for a power generator to charge my camera's battery, they could charge me a million a month if they'd like. Hopefully that would signal to me that there are better and more standard options.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    > The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about so other people who might not be happy about it can use the information to chose a different camera from a different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue post-purchase. > they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI Or the industry standards for video-over-USB, that this manufacturer chose not to implement because they couldn't easily gouge a subscription out of it.
    - brushfoot 2y ago
      OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would prefer that the manufacturer included webcam functionality out of the box. Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a camera that meets that requirement, and understand that it's not a standard feature in these cameras. I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good hill to die on. It's getting outraged over expecting a camera to do what it wasn't designed to do, when there are already simple and standard ways of making it do that.
      - SSLy 2y ago
        Requiring a separate kit made of HDMI cap box, and two usb cables (assuming the box power is feedable via usb) also makes canon create further e-waste. That's only because they're greedy and that stuff is already inside. And nothing on the site of the camera https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/specifications/ https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/... gives any indication that such external app and subscription would be required.
        brushfoot 2y ago
        > That's only because they're greedy No, it's because Canon didn't sell OP a webcam. There's no expectation for them to provide webcam software. If someone wants an external camera that doubles as a webcam with no adapters, that's totally fine for them! They should shop with that in mind.
        mzajc 2y ago
        OP bought a camera, and the camera can be used as a webcam - but deliberately not with standard protocols. Pretending the limitation is of technical nature rather than a result of corporate greed is both delusional and harmful to consumer rights.
  - nohillside 2y ago
    Indeed, we should be glad they don‘t charge us for each picture we take …

dspillett 2y ago

You are entirely ignoring the subscription for what should, at most, be a one-off cost. > The app is part of the implementation Give other cameras can do it, there has a standard for it since 2003, and there are F/OSS implementations for others, maybe I'm asking the wrong question and instead should have asked “why should the OP pay a subscription for their bad choice of how to implement the feature?”.

brushfoot 2y ago
The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. Most people who can afford to use a good camera as their webcam will never use it, because they know the quality is worse and they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI. If I asked Sony for a power generator to charge my camera's battery, they could charge me a million a month if they'd like. Hopefully that would signal to me that there are better and more standard options.
- dspillett 2y ago
  > The company can charge whatever they want for this feature. They can. But that doesn't mean everyone is forced to be happy about it, and doesn't mean it can't be talked about so other people who might not be happy about it can use the information to chose a different camera from a different manufacturer instead of discovering the issue post-purchase. > they'd rather use industry-standard HDMI Or the industry standards for video-over-USB, that this manufacturer chose not to implement because they couldn't easily gouge a subscription out of it.
  - brushfoot 2y ago
    OP bought a camera not sold as a webcam and is trying to use it as a webcam. Fair enough, I've done the same. A standard way of doing that is to use a video cable to get video output and plug that into a capture card on your computer. OP doesn't want to do that and would prefer that the manufacturer included webcam functionality out of the box. Also fair enough! But if that's the requirement, buy a camera that meets that requirement, and understand that it's not a standard feature in these cameras. I get subscription fatigue, but this is not a good hill to die on. It's getting outraged over expecting a camera to do what it wasn't designed to do, when there are already simple and standard ways of making it do that.
    - SSLy 2y ago
      Requiring a separate kit made of HDMI cap box, and two usb cables (assuming the box power is feedable via usb) also makes canon create further e-waste. That's only because they're greedy and that stuff is already inside. And nothing on the site of the camera https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/specifications/ https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/powershot-g5-x-mark-ii/... gives any indication that such external app and subscription would be required.
      - brushfoot 2y ago
        > That's only because they're greedy No, it's because Canon didn't sell OP a webcam. There's no expectation for them to provide webcam software. If someone wants an external camera that doubles as a webcam with no adapters, that's totally fine for them! They should shop with that in mind.
        mzajc 2y ago
        OP bought a camera, and the camera can be used as a webcam - but deliberately not with standard protocols. Pretending the limitation is of technical nature rather than a result of corporate greed is both delusional and harmful to consumer rights.
- nohillside 2y ago
  Indeed, we should be glad they don‘t charge us for each picture we take …