Somewhat related to a recent journal article, this comes across the WSJ:
Archive line to above WSJ article
You can own a gadget, but its fate might well be controlled by the company that makes it.
In January, Arlo Technologies Inc. sent an email to customers of its internet-connected security cameras about a new "end-of-life policy." Starting April 1, the company would no longer support models that included no-fee seven-day rolling storage of video clips—a well-advertised selling point.
End-of-life policies for tech products are becoming more common. Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. have similar ones. But Arlo's abrupt announcement aggravated some customers. Forty days later, the company recanted, keeping the free video storage and extending software support.
[...] In late 2018, Ms. Clum spotted a five-pack of Arlo security cameras at Best Buy, with enticing offers printed on the packaging: "Including FREE cloud recording" and "With rolling seven days of FREE cloud recordings."
She purchased 30 cameras, totaling over $6,000, and spent hours wiring and mounting them throughout the kennel herself. Today, 26 are still running.
[...] This year, on New Year's Day, Ms. Clum received Arlo's email explaining that her five-year-old cameras would move to their "end-of-life stage" in April. Firmware updates, as well as the seven-day no-fee cloud storage benefit, would end. Instead, Arlo device owners could upgrade to one of the company's paid plans, starting at $13 a month or buy an add-on device to store videos.
PS - they recanted -- for now -- but how long do you expect it will be before they try all over again to EOL these cameras?
Previously: Arlo is Taking Away Security Camera Features You Paid for
Related Stories
When I set out to buy my first home security cameras, the Arlo Q was my obvious pick — every reviewer pointed out that it offered seven days of free cloud storage instead of forcing you into a subscription. Heck, Arlo even advertised it on the packaging.
But on January 1st, 2024, the company's killing that feature for many Arlo cams — and reserving the right to eliminate all cloud functionality, including email alerts, push notifications, and other "bundled services or features," for any camera that hasn't been manufactured for four years.
Arlo's delivering that news in the form of a new retroactive "End-Of-Life Policy" which you can read in full below, but the short version is this:
- If you have an Arlo Gen 3 or Arlo Pro, there are no guarantees after April 1st, 2023
- If you have an Arlo Baby, Arlo Pro 2, Arlo Q, Arlo Q+, Arlo Lights or Audio Doorbell, there are no guarantees after January 1st, 2024
- Email notifications and E911 emergency calling are gone after April 1st, 2023
- "Legacy Video Storage" with AWS S3 is gone after January 1st, 2024
[...] When Amazon killed its Cloud Cam, which also offered free 24-hour storage, owners at least got a free replacement device and a year of subscription service. Maybe the company will do something like that if there's a sufficient backlash.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Quicksilver on Monday February 20 2023, @10:39AM (4 children)
If all aspects of a device aren't under your control then you don't fully own them. There is nothing that requires a 3rd parties action or equipment that won't either require that you pay ("subscribe") or that will be shutdown at some point.
All those devices/services are just sitting there silently going "tick, tick, tick...". They are just one corporate decision or merger away from evaporating into vapor.
If you have a device or service that uses "cloud access" it is not permanent. If you want "connected" devices or services you need to setup a VPN to your home network and host the connected service yourself. Then setup your mobile devices to VPN to your home network for their connected needs. Permanently.
(All it requires is a free cloudbased Dynamic DNS service!!!)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday February 20 2023, @12:38PM
I should point out this was also a big part of the idea behind the Free Software Foundation. If you can't, say, adjust a camera to save its contents to your own server rather than the storage owned by the company that made the device, you don't really own it or anything you create with it. I mean, they'll swear up and down they'll keep it forever, and also won't steal your photos for their own use, but you have zero legal or practical guarantees of either of those.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Monday February 20 2023, @07:22PM (2 children)
WTF?
You obviously live in an oligarky and are totally in chains.
If your government had not sold your souls to the devil, scum that do this would be in prison for various offences against "computer misuse" acts, fraud and theft.
However, you have "the best government that money can buy.
Money bought it.
Now you are totally stuffed.
Vote for scum -everyone else does
You might want to think differently next time! (Or look to Russia to see where you are heading).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 20 2023, @11:36PM (1 child)
Arthur Dent: "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
Ford Prefect: "Oh yes, of course."
Arthur: "But why?"
Ford: "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in."
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2023, @03:10AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sigterm on Monday February 20 2023, @10:44AM (5 children)
Free (cloud) services are like government money: Neither actually exist.
There is a clear link between forced obsolescence and "free services," be they cloud-based or otherwise. From the article:
Who pays for the "free" cloud storage? If you say "the company," please go sit in the corner. YOU pay, in this case by purchasing the product. And since the purchase price is the only means by which the service is financed, the company relies on you either a) using the service for a limited time only, or b) buying a new product after a while and stop using the old one. Hence planned obsolescence and a constant stream of perfectly functional e-waste.
While this is blindingly obvious, it's doesn't excuse false advertising. If you claim to give away "free X," then don't come crying when everybody shows up at your door wanting free stuff. If that ends up bankrupting you, you have no one to blame but yourself.
What we probably should do, is stop buying anything that's inextricably linked to so-called "cloud services," because at one point, this cloud will vaporize and your product will turn into an expensive brick.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday February 20 2023, @11:51AM (1 child)
A couple of years ago, I discussed phto storage by google with a friend of mine (PhD in physics, programming all day). He was attracted to buying a Pixel phone as it came (at the time) with free, unlimited photo storage. I was flabbergasted by the naivety of the thought. Probably this type of advertisement is well researched for its effectiveness and seem to penetrate even the highly educated, critical (when caught of guard) mind.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by owl on Monday February 20 2023, @01:57PM
It is much more that simply "when caught off guard". This is an example of what Bruce Schneier terms The Security Mindset [schneier.com]. And it is a mindset that only a small subset of the population (no matter how educated the population may otherwise be) will have. And for those who don't think with Schneier's "Security Mindset" it is not naivety nor being caught off guard, they simply do not see the hole because it is otherwise invisible to them. Yes, they can see it after it is pointed out to them, but they will simply never find it on their own.
Yes, this type of marketing is well researched and effective, and the companies employing it are banking on only a small percentage seeing the offer for what it is (unlimited you say??? Ok, let's see how much I can upload). And/or for the 4-point fine print including a clause that more or less says: "we can close your account for any reason we make up in the moment" and they do so to the few who try to actually use an unlimited service for the plain meaning of "unlimited".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Monday February 20 2023, @02:25PM (1 child)
This, so much this.
Not just "cloud" s**t though - if you buy the kit so do all the job on-site then you got the kit, until it breaks. Be sure to check what the warranty is, who backs the warranty (in case mfr goes bust), if you can't budget to replace at end of warranty look to buy longer warranty or insurance, if you can't afford those (or they aren't available) it's a good indication the product won't last until you can afford to replace it, in which case you can't afford to own one (even if you can afford to buy one right now).
I'd go further. Avoid buying any big-ticket items that are part of closed eco-systems, that don't work compatibly with other items / services, that are not repairable, don't have replaceable components, or don't have parts available. For things like cars, prefer high volume makes/models where there is good after-market parts supply and independent repair and maintenance is available - if you want to buy a limited edition supercar from a weird brand, go ahead but be prepared to write down your "investment" tomorrow if something breaks and you can't get a new part to fix it or anyone able to do the fix (e.g. if mfr gone bust).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 20 2023, @05:03PM
> if something breaks and you can't get a new part to fix it or anyone able to do the fix
One more option--make the part yourself. In the past this might have meant a machine shop. Now there are maker spaces where you can use machine tools and 3D printers, so making a wide range of replacement parts has gotten easier.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21 2023, @03:13AM
Free software is like government money: neither actually exist.
Uh huh.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bart9h on Monday February 20 2023, @02:06PM (12 children)
The Free Software movement goal that "ALL software should be free" is too ambitious in the current state of our society.
Maybe they should start tolerating some proprietary software for general purpose computers, and strive for mandatory openness for software that runs on physical products.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday February 20 2023, @03:17PM (9 children)
<very-little-sarcasm>
I think that would be a slopery slip for the Free Software movement to tolerate proprietary software.
Individuals such as you or me can decide individually our level of tolerance for proprietary software. Heck, I might even purchase proprietary software if I feel it is a good value for me. (I haven't for a long time) But that is an individual decision. And proprietary software doesn't seem to be disappearing. Apparently there is some value in service and support. I expect that to continue forever. Just as people will hire an electrician to do something they might have been able to do themselves such as a technology upgrade. Incandescents to LED bulbs for example.
In principle, any non open software is a way to keep control over your behavior, spy on you, break your hardware, or worse.
</very-little-sarcasm>
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday February 20 2023, @04:47PM (7 children)
I don't know - in principle I think the only control a lot of non-open software is looking for is to get people to actually buy it rather than giving away free copies. Still a limitation on freedom, but not nearly as pernicious - virtually every creator of books, music, etc. is doing the same. Someone has to pay for the work after all, and there's a limited number of hobbyists willing to foot the bill themselves for the satisfaction of creation and giving it away.
Less so these days, as everyone is jumping on the internet-connected ads and/or spyware bandwagon, but it still exists. (Frankly, I don't even trust open source software that wants an internet connection for no good reason.)
Oh, as for your ketchup sig - do you realize that tomato ketchup is a relatively recent type of ketchup (circa 1812 according to Wikipedia)? Mushroom ketchup predates it by at least 50 years, and various other ketchups are even older.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 20 2023, @05:22PM (1 child)
There is the Freemium model. An open source model. Extra closed bits, and/or product support for an extra cost. Red Hat is an example of making a profitable business on open source. Businesses don't seem to have a problem with paying good money to have someone to call at 3 AM if something goes wrong.
Some open source is created by big companies that sponsor it -- out of their own selfish interests. See the list of sponsors of Eclipse for example.
In the Java world there is a huge amount of high quality open source software. A lot of this was built by businesses. Sort of the "Stone Soup" model. Everyone brings an ingredient to contribute to the soup, and soon you discover that you've actually got good soup. (Stone Soup was a children's book read on Captian Kangaroo back in the 1960s)
The success of major projects, like Linux, some distributions, Eclipse, Apache Foundation, Java, LibreOffice, FireFox and other projects seem to indicate that it can work. Although over many years, sources of funding may dry up and others needed. As with the upheaval of Chrome become everyone's favorite browser.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 21 2023, @03:24AM
Freemium is poorly suited to a whole lot of software, not to mention it tends to be ferociously annoying even where it works, since you pretty much have to lock out core features to make paying worthwhile - in which case what's the point of making it OSS? You're basically just making shareware with source code, and have to be very careful with either how the closed bits are connected, or how you accepting code contributions, to avoid being forced to open everything.
And unless your software is extremely powerful and thus unavoidably complex (i.e. NOT 90% of user-facing software) then a support contract is basically an announcement that your interface is garbage and should be avoided.
And don't get me started on niche software - when the entire global user base is only in the thousands you're unlikely to ever get enough paying customers to break even.
Sufficiently large, complex, popular software *can* work quite well as OSS - but the majority of commercial software is relatively small utility programs that only have a single developer and receive minimal (if any) third-party code contributions. Making such software OSS is a philosophical choice with roughly zero practical benefit, and can make it all but impossible to get paid for your labor developing it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday February 20 2023, @06:09PM
I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday February 20 2023, @11:58PM (1 child)
It's worth noting: There's no rule in the Free Software world that you can't sell copies of it, maybe along with a support contract. What there is is a rule that you can't stop somebody else from giving it away for free. So most projects decide to just give it away.
As for where the money comes from: A patronage or donation-based system seems like our best bet, so long as capitalism is what everyone's relying on to manage allocating resources.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 21 2023, @03:08AM
Actually there is kind of a rule against selling it - the same one that underlays all market economies: the principle that all else being equal, customers will flock to the least expensive option. It's really hard to sell the exact same product that someone else is giving away free. And especially for less complicated software (a.k.a. most of what we all use) a support contract is pretty much an admission that you are an incompetent interface designer and nobody should use your software.
Patronage/donor models do seem like the best bet for open source software - but as a rule they've got a long way to go before they're a viable way to turn writing software full time into paying your bills, and it's unlikely we'll ever see a fully open-source AAA video game, etc. At least until we work out a much better funding model for the huge amount of labor required.
OSS seems to work great for large collaborative projects where every user gains far more than they contribute - but the vast majority of software is written by either one person or a small group... and OSS just doesn't seem to be a viable business model at those scales.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 22 2023, @04:34AM (1 child)
The problem is that most of that proprietary software reserves the right to alter the deal and many have gone to a subscriptoon/rental license. Sometimes even re-defining words like lifetime and perpetual to do so.
I like Free software because it actually legally bars itself from altering the deal.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 22 2023, @03:19PM
I don't know about most, but yeah, a lot definitely does.
But I don't think it's fair to conflate the evils of subscription software with proprietary software in general. It's kind of like conflating street-racing through school zones with owning cars.
I have a great love for OSS, but will happily buy proprietary software from honest publishers when it's the better option.
I absolutely refuse to rent software though. They want me to pay for updates, that's fair - money paid for goods delivered. And I'll buy them when and if the accumulated benefits for me are enough to justify the price. But I'm not putting myself in a position where a company can cut me off from using software that's already good enough.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Monday February 20 2023, @05:58PM
Of course any closed source would be against the FSF ideals.
But a law to mandate open-source software on devices sold is a lot more plausible, since the author is already making money by selling the device.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 20 2023, @04:09PM
You want all free software, use all free software.
If the capitalist market hasn't created free software for an application you desire, maybe you have found your calling? (Go out and make it happen.)
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday February 20 2023, @06:54PM
You could say, "why not both". I'm old enough to remember when our analog TV had a schematic diagram on the inside so technicians--any technician not just the company--could repair it. In our modern parlance, the TV was both "free/open source" and did not require any subscriptions other than cable, which for the most part didn't exist except in resort motels.
Look. They're selling us a piece of hardware. It's not impossible to make a profit off that without all this other garbage thrown in.
I'm down with some proprietary software though. Frankly, I miss the old Windows mentality where you paid for the OS and it didn't spy on you. It was Apple, FaceBook and a bunch of other companies that encouraged Nadella to go the spyware route, and unfortunately he's turned the company around and made it perform much better than Balmer did, so we're not seeing the end of that any time soon.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday February 20 2023, @04:07PM (2 children)
One of the very few games I purchased for and enjoyed on the PS3 was Gran Turismo (5, I think).... anyway, in a relatively short span of time they end-of-lifed the online competition support for GT5, telling us to instead upgrade to a PS4 and the latest software, now PS5 etc.
My PS3 still works fine, we're on our 3rd round of controllers but they still work too, and GT5 offline mode is as fun as it ever was, but guess what guys: with that kind of policy, the PS3 was the last console we ever bought.
As for my IP cameras, they may or may not have cloud functionality, I truly don't remember. I do remember repeatedly disabling their UPNP features, eventually cutting them off at my router. They're in the yard, working great, streaming video to our internal network which runs ZoneMinder, all the video recording I can stand, and then some, for the cost of electricity to run it. Oh, and the first (of 3) IP camera installed at this house has been humming along without issue since 2013, it even survived the lightning strike that took out most of our other wired network equipment (including a PS3, but by that time you could get used PS3s for like $20.) There's no reason they should die over time, not for a long long time.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 21 2023, @03:59PM (1 child)
Are you saying you didn't buy many games for it, or that most of the ones you bought you didn't enjoy?
If the former, it doesn't sound like they lost that much revenue by angering you...if the latter, you might've reached that conclusion eventually anyway as well.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday February 21 2023, @05:22PM
We probably sunk $500 in games for the PS3 over the years, and $700 in the first console hardware, later $80 then $20 for used console replacements (said used consoles came with probably another $1000 "worth" of additional titles, maybe $50 "worth" of which we enjoyed.).
Of the $500 spent on titles, we probably thoroughly enjoyed about $200 of them.
One major problem is that the bulk of content produced for those consoles is violent, explosions and blood, or worse. It's not like we've banned all violent media in our home, but it's also not like we enjoy saturating in blood, gore, bombs, guns, etc. for long periods of time. I clearly remember when we stopped watching "The 100" series because the storyline just sank beneath a sea of graphic violence in virtually every episode. It's the same for violent game titles, when you pick it up and you know that's basically all you're going to get.... sorry, I'd rather watch porn, thanks.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday February 20 2023, @04:23PM (2 children)
Once again, the problem here is that idiots think that "The Cloud" is some unlimited free resource made of unicorn magic.
Nope. In this case, it is some specific companies file hosting service. File hosting is NOT FREE. It costs the company fucking money to host your precious files, and it will go away the moment they can't indirectly make enough money off of it by mining your data.
If you depend on some "free" service like this for anything at all, you WILL eventually get screwed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Immerman on Monday February 20 2023, @04:54PM
Yep. As I repeat seemingly ad infinitum:
The Cloud = somebody else's computer. As such its availability, and the rules it obeys, it are entirely at the mercy of Somebody Else.
Do you really trust Somebody Else with all your data? With control over your ability to continue to use important software? To maintain even modest security of their vast and valuable data hoard in the face of criminals, intelligence agencies, etc. that would love to get their hands on it?
No? Then stay away from the Cloud.
(Score: 2) by GloomMower on Monday February 20 2023, @08:07PM
Yeah people are used to just uploading their videos and photos on instagram for free and think that is how it might work for any product. Something like a security camera you don't want just anyone seeing so it can't have the same business model.
I've been developing a camera related product for astronomy, and working in a cloud aspect because it is convenient if you don't run your own servers and want it available over the internet for anyone. I was thinking I can perhaps fit maybe 2 years into the purchase price of the product and then you would have to subscribe. I was going to tell people this up front though, and they can still access the images on their LAN or upload it themselves self-hosted if they want regardless.
(Score: 2) by Sjolfr on Monday February 20 2023, @07:57PM (1 child)
No one should be surprised by this sort of thing. Buying anything comes with the risk of losing support for it. A thing is only as good as it's warranty, unless you can support it for yourself. Most people can't do that.
Microsoft's CPU support for Win11 comes to mind.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday February 22 2023, @04:41AM
There is some difference though. My range is well out of warranty, but it didn't suddenly shut down at midnight. There's a difference between something failing over time because it's old and worn and failing because someone flipped the kill switch.