3 ms·
The "point" of the cloud service is that it's sadly usually the easiest way to create a [on-premise-device]<->[user's smartphone/laptop] for B2C/residential dep
by hobofan 1y ago
The "point" of the cloud service is that it's sadly usually the easiest way to create a [on-premise-device]<->[user's smartphone/laptop] for B2C/residential deployments of appliances (like the baby monitor in this case).
It's much easier to create a device<->internet connection + a smartphone<->internet connection that it is to deal with the myriad of issues that occur if you try to do local device<->smartphone connections in networks with unknown topology and quirks (e.g. ISP provider being overly conservative in their firewall presets). If that in general would be a more trivial issue you would see less cloud services.
(You would probably still a similar amount of cloud services due the increased monetization options, but this would level the playing field for local-only options.)
- cube00 1y agoHopefully as IPv6 gets more adoption we'll be able to open up some of these services, although IoT devices never get firmware updates so they'll have to sit behind Wireguard so maybe not.
- ghm2180 1y agoWhy is it hard for a local device to expose a REST API from home —a DDNS updater could update IP address for a cname — and then access all the local data local_device(REST API) <> Smartphone?
- philipallstar 1y agoI would imagine these were the reasons: - most people want to build lovely structures in the cloud, as it's hard to fix bugs in software on devices - you'd need to open up a firewall on the home router - auth might be tricky - can't bolt on value added "enhancements"