Razor512
Very Senior Member
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/mult...oip-news/32547-netgear-launches-iot-ip-camera
This seems like version 2 of the vuezone cameras, with all of the flaws of the vuezone system.
Cloud only and thus no local access or recording, thus it is a paperweight without their servers. If the product does not turn enough of a profit to offset the cost of the servers, the service can end, leaving people with no access to any of the functionality of the device.
Overall this seems like a continuation of a bad trend. When something relies on cloud services, then you are at many risks, previously free services can be converted into pay services, or if a user is interested in paying for service, the price can go up to a point where they are no longer willing to pay.All for an unnecessary transfer of functionality that was traditionally hosted directly on the device, or at most, shifted to a server that the user hosted locally, and was in full control of, to a remote server outside of the users control with the primary goal being full control over planned obsolescence as well as opening new revenue streams.
Other than that, they forget to mention frame rates (e.g., the vuezone was advertised as being able to send up to 1600x1200 video, even though that was at less than 1FPS )
It still seems to use the expensive non rechargeable lithium batteries, which in the case of vuezone, meant a few hours of recording if it were to record non stop (with battery life estimates being based on 5 minutes of recording/ stream per day. (meaning every advertised location that the device was shown in, would easily kill the batteries within a week due to the traffic in those areas). This new system does not seem to fix that issue (especially if a user tries to think about where can the camera be placed that will be worth monitoring, that experiences 5 minutes or less worth of movement per day?
This seems like version 2 of the vuezone cameras, with all of the flaws of the vuezone system.
Cloud only and thus no local access or recording, thus it is a paperweight without their servers. If the product does not turn enough of a profit to offset the cost of the servers, the service can end, leaving people with no access to any of the functionality of the device.
Overall this seems like a continuation of a bad trend. When something relies on cloud services, then you are at many risks, previously free services can be converted into pay services, or if a user is interested in paying for service, the price can go up to a point where they are no longer willing to pay.All for an unnecessary transfer of functionality that was traditionally hosted directly on the device, or at most, shifted to a server that the user hosted locally, and was in full control of, to a remote server outside of the users control with the primary goal being full control over planned obsolescence as well as opening new revenue streams.
Other than that, they forget to mention frame rates (e.g., the vuezone was advertised as being able to send up to 1600x1200 video, even though that was at less than 1FPS )
It still seems to use the expensive non rechargeable lithium batteries, which in the case of vuezone, meant a few hours of recording if it were to record non stop (with battery life estimates being based on 5 minutes of recording/ stream per day. (meaning every advertised location that the device was shown in, would easily kill the batteries within a week due to the traffic in those areas). This new system does not seem to fix that issue (especially if a user tries to think about where can the camera be placed that will be worth monitoring, that experiences 5 minutes or less worth of movement per day?
Last edited:
