[bhauer]

> a cloud-based recording service

Well, there's the rub, right? I think what those of us who consider themselves self-hosting partisans would say is that we'd prefer a device that allows us to send its signals to a server we own and operate. The recording and image recognition would then occur on that server.

In my ideal world, Dropcam (and later Nest) would have provided software I could install on my own server (located either on my home network or at a data center). I know that sounds like a far-fetched dream, but that's the ideal I want, and I will pay twice as much or more for devices that recognize the emergent demand for self-management.

I have a Dropcam, and I enjoyed using it for a while. But I stopped using my Dropcam about a year ago because I grew increasingly unhappy with the idea of its video stream being sent to an untrusted third-party (Dropcam and later Google/Nest). Since there is no "self-service" mode for Dropcams, it has become a decoration in my house.

[magicalist]

> we'd prefer a device that allows us to send its signals to a server we own and operate

There are lots of cameras that do that. You can even mix and match software and hardware making for real options, not just some vertically integrated service.

So is the rub that you think that such a device just shouldn't exist for anyone?

[bhauer]

> [Do] you think that such a device just shouldn't exist for anyone?

No. I apologize if that's what you took from my statement.

I hope the future sees technological evolution that makes it easier for common people to self-manage their devices. Presently, doing so requires more time and thought investment than traditional "cloud" options. For example, it took me a bit of time to set up a self-hosted NVR with a network of IP cameras. But in an ideal world, Dropcam-like devices would exist and provide an option during setup: "Do you want to use our video hosting service or run your own? If you choose your own, you'll need to install some software on a computer..." The Dropcam software is really well designed, it's just a shame I can't run it on my own server.

Like I said, it's idealistic wishful thinking. But if people want to use services hosted by third-parties, I don't want to take that option away.

[JustSomeNobody]

Definitely wishful thinking. Anything consumer oriented will be forced to the cloud and use proprietary protocols.

There simply aren't enough of us who want control of our own data to make a difference.

[dguaraglia]

I don't know why the comment is being downvoted. There is a bunch of people that want what you want, it's just that, as you are saying, is a bit of a pipe dream right now. The way technology is progressing, it might be feasible in a few years.

[arthur_pryor]

why is it a technology issue? not that there's never gray area, but this looks like more of a business issue than a technology issue. what's desired there (sending video to a server instance the user controls, instead of a third party vendor's servers) seems entirely feasible with current technology, though not necessarily profitable (or perceived as profitable) by the people willing to sell the equipment.

[nitrogen]

It's not just feasible, it's existed for decades and is used by security cameras that record to (usually on-premises) DVRs. There have been open source apps that do basically the same thing (detect motion, save video around events, etc.). With modern mobile GPUs you have ample processing power for running over-the-top machine learning algorithms. There is no technical need to violate privacy by default.

[dguaraglia]

Right, it's the price point that changes a bit. You can make an argument that given enough money, you don't need to sacrifice privacy at all :)

[SideburnsOfDoom]

The price point is fairly low if you are prepared to make a hobby of it: You can do the image capture with Raspbery Pis. (1)

The storage is slightly more expensive though.

1) http://blog.snapdragon.cc/2012/07/16/using-raspberry-pi-for-...

[dguaraglia]

The problem with the hobbyist approach (and this is coming from someone who owns multiple Raspberry Pis) is that you most hobbyist don't really have the resources to tackle every engineering aspect of building a reliable camera. We have people dedicated to fine tuning the WiFi drivers in the device, writing scalable and secure video storage/streaming services, figuring out the thermal profile of every component in the cameras, minimizing noise in the camera CMOS and the WiFi antennas, making embedded software that will reliably reboot itself after a catastrophic crash... etc, etc, etc.

Don't get me wrong, every one of those aspects is a lot of fun to tackle on your own, but ultimately would you trust your home to something you can throw together in a few weekends? After seeing the amount of work these guys put, I probably wouldn't.

[Lammy]

It sounds like you want Zoneminder: https://zoneminder.com/

[soylentcola]

Depending on what you want to pay, what hardware/platform you want to use, and whether you're concerned about open source and other licensing, there are several options for NVR.

I've only got minimal experience with Zoneminder but I've used iSpy (https://www.ispyconnect.com/) fairly extensively running on desktop computers and, later, on an old laptop repurposed as a NVR.

Later on I started using the "Surveillance Station" package that came with my Synology NAS. That's closed source and the version I'm familiar with came with licenses for two cameras and the ability to pay to enable more. However, if someone is less interested in extensive setup or doesn't have a suitable computer free for that use, it's a decent option, as are similar packages on other NAS platforms.

I guess in terms of finding a market with adequate demand, the NAS solution would be a good one. There are already models that are geared and pitched toward use as network media servers. I'd be curious if one of the bigger NAS companies might come up with a model that's targeted as a NVR.

The cameras are cheap and plentiful enough but many current consumer-grade network cams are either sold as "cloud" only or involve lots of potential security issues. Several offer DDNS routing as a way to check your camera feeds from outside the LAN but don't adequately explain the risks in opening a port to a device that may have several exploits available. Others tout their easy setup and compatibility with mobile apps but neglect to stress that you need to access them via a desktop application or web interface on a non-mobile computer in order to see the security settings, change default passwords, or otherwise configure them properly.

The end result is thousands of network cameras easily accessible to anyone with the right Google or Shodan search terms. Restricting a device to "cloud" only may solve these issues for many people who would rather pay a monthly fee to let someone else handle their data but I think there's a place for something in between.

A basic NAS with some storage and software similar to what we've mentioned offers the ability to connect multiple network cameras, store and manage recordings locally, keep actual cameras inside the LAN with no outside access, and also serve as a location for home backups and file server duties.

I'm honestly surprised that a hardware-oriented company, whether a NAS company or something more like Apple, hasn't marketed a line of simple home NASes with IP cameras as additional options for purchase. By selling their own branded cameras they would get more add-on sales from people preferring to get everything of the same brand and more enterprising users could easily add their own IP cameras as long as they use one of the common protocols.

It's nothing you can't set up already but people seem to like turnkey systems and I'd imagine there's a segment between "just pay a monthly cloud subscription and forget about it" and "I'll just set up this old PC in the closet and configure some open source NVR software".

I guess the question is whether people would even bother since the initial cost is higher than some Dropcams or even a dedicated CCTV system like they sell in electronics stores.

[supergeek133]

There are those AIO DVR/Camera solutions that are fairly cheap and popular. All data is stored locally on the DVR and you can see it remotely via DynDNS or something similar.

[dguaraglia]

Don't mean to be dismissive, but you should be careful about that kind of setup. A lot of those companies haven't taken security seriously. This article is a stark reminder of that: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-in...

[detaro]

I bet quite a few people would be less annoyed about Nest and others if someone made a good alternative.

From what I've seen there is a) fully cloud-enabled stuff, b) cheap china crap with security holes and c) "enterprise" solutions with prices and hardware demands to match. No-one makes something with the features of b), proper security and the price+polish of a).

There is quite a few "IoT" devices I want to like, but they come with (to me) unacceptable limitations.

Just to make it clear, I understand that this has similar development effort and Nest probably couldn't have done both at the same time. I just wish there were a few companies outside of the as-cheapest-as-possible spectrum that made "boring" consumer devices.

[dguaraglia]

I agree. The problem is that "boring" won't make money and "great" is too expensive. So "boring" has to be cheap (read: crappy) to work for the manufacturer.

Unrelated, but I had a similar issue when trying to find a "dumb" TV: most of the high-end screens come attached to crappy software that you know will stop receiving updates 2 years down the road, and the cheap ones were super low quality. I got lucky in the end, but it took a few weeks of research to find the right balance.

[detaro]

Yes, it generally seems that "dependable" isn't a very good value proposition for consumer devices anymore. And in the speicific example, the enthusiast market, that might care about having things locally, is a) small and b) seems to prefer to get the cheap stuff and fiddle with it

[supergeek133]

That's true, and the risk of providing that DIY.

The truth is that most of those come with the remote access features disabled, and when they are carelessly enabled by someone who doesn't know what they are doing this will happen.

But like I said, many of those systems out of the box only broadcast to the DVR locally.

EDIT: Since I see you're a Nest/Dropcam person, I'm a Honeywell guy. Haha. We can still be friends. :-)

[dguaraglia]

Oh! Nice, I actually know a guy who works for Honeywell out of MN. He's in the Aerospace division though (just found out he's kind of a big deal... weird, I know him through my girlfriend's family and had never checked his LinkedIn page.)