In HN style, I'm going to diverge from the content and rant about the company:
Nanit needs this storage because they run cloud based baby cameras. Every Nanit user is uploading video and audio of their home/baby
live to Nanit without any E2EE. It's a hot mic sending anything you say near it to the cloud.
Their hardware essentially requires a subscription to use, even though it costs $200/camera. You must spend an additional $200 on a Nanit floor stand if you want sleep tracking. This is purely a software limitation since there's plenty of other ways to get an overhead camera mount. (I'm curious how they even detect if you're using the stand since it's just a USB-C cable. Maybe etags?)
Of course Nanit is a popular and successful product that many parents swear by. It just pains me to see cloud based in-home audio/video storage being so normalized. Self-hosted video isn't that hard but no one makes a baby-monitor centric solution. I'm sure the cloud based video storage model will continue to be popular because it's easy, but also because it helps justifies a recurring subscription.
edit: just noticed an irony in my comment. I'm ranting about Nanit locking users into their 3rd party cloud video storage, and the article is about Nanit's engineering team moving off a 3rd party (S3) and self-hosting their own storage. Props to them for getting off S3.
As a happy customer, I picked nanit because it actually worked. We didn’t even use the “smart” features, but “you can turn on the app from anywhere you happen to be and expect the video feed to work” is unfortunately a bar that no competitor I tried could meet. The others were mostly made by non-software companies with outsourced apps that worked maybe 50% of the time.
I wish we could have local-first and e2ee consumer software for this sort of thing, but given the choice of that or actually usable software, I am going to pick the latter.
I self host my "baby monitor" with UniFi Protect on UCG-Max and a G6 Instant wireless camera. It's more work to setup, but pretty easy for a techie. It has the "turn on the app anywhere and it works" feature, and with a 2TB SSD I get a month+ of video storage. Because storage is local, it doesn't need to compress the video and I get a super clear 4K image. And I use Homebridge to expose the camera over Apple HomeKit which is a convenient and a more user friendly way to access it. And HomeKit also gives you out-of-home access with a hub. I love my setup, but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to a non-techie friend, especially if they're sleep deprived from their infant.
But I do miss the lack of any baby-specific features like sleep tracking. It has support for crying detection, but that's it.
Hah never thought I'd be compared to that legendary comment! It hits home for me because I worked at Dropbox for years. I did at least qualify that I couldn't in good conscience recommend my setup to non-techies :)
If you don't want a baby camera system that's also a part-time hobby...Nanit does seem like the best option. I just lament that the best option requires giving up so much.
Don't worry, I also use Ubiquiti, and self-host Home Assistant on my TrueNAS :)
I have a little server rack cobbled together out of wood under my basement stairs, with a UDM Pro, 24 port POE switch, and an ancient Dell 2U poweredge for TrueNAS.
You joke but wireguard and, very easily, tailscale, solves most crap you normally need to fix. Close everything with ufw and put tailscale, and then you trivially have access from any device / desktop.
I just rely on UniFi and HomeKit for out of home access! But you're so right I could also access remotely via my Wireguard server or Tailscale running on my ubiquiti console... Wish I could hook up baby events like "poop diaper" to Grafana.
Regarding out-of-home access, I'll drop a note about connecting your phone to your home network with a VPN. Now you're always connecting the same way for this and everything else.
It's not perfect because wifi networks might block the VPN, but for the one wifi network I use the most, Wireguard on port 53 works splendidly, for now.
It's pretty cool! But homebridge is another service to run in a Docker container.. so even less user friendly. But it's definitely the primary way everyone that's not me accesses the baby camera. The out-of-home access requires a "HomeKit Hub" which can just be an Apple TV that's always plugged in. And HomeKit also has "HomeKit Secure Video" feature which is cloud based video storage, but with E2EE. But don't recommend their video storage really.
I have a bunch of cameras from various vendors, some with open FW, some with their original FW, all cut off from the internet. They used to be connected to Frigate but due to performance issues I offloaded the work to Scrypted on a RPi and an AppleTV and the setup works great. It was easy to set up and it's easier to use than any other app, assuming you are into the Apple Home ecosystem.
It's not really self hosted since it relies on Apple but it's the least evil at this point. Giving unencrypted video and audio to some company (if what OP says is right) would be way beyond my risk tolerance point.
I have a smarthome setup I built myself using Lua and a Raspberry Pi. Anything it can do locally can be securely exposed on the internet via a service like netbird , which I use for free and is literally a command to get running, or tail-scale which I believe is harder to use. I don’t have video but I think that would work in that scenario as well.
I used to use the docker + homebridge route but it became tedious to maintain.
Instead, I connected it via the Google Home integration (requires an Insights plan) and then use my existing Starling Home hub to access it via HomeKit. This seems to be more reliable and less work than before.
Alternatively you can setup a vpn with rules that automatically enable vpn when you try to connect to specific addresses. Works with Tailscale and on-demand VPN for me. This will work with any IP webcam.
I unfortunately did spring for a Nanit, but am keen to stop paying the subscription... any pointers of a resource you'd encourage me to look at to try to the same thing you did?
and the camera has a standard 1/4" female thread mount, so also a stand to hold the camera. And in the UniFi protect setting enable "Hallway Mode" to rotate it 90 degrees to get the length of baby.
I've been exploring this! Have tried Frigate and SCrypted. With their API it's easy to connect the camera to anything. Haven't got any useful AI models running. What I'd love is sleep tracking.
What competitor have you actually tried? My girlfriend’s parents have a few cheap TPlink solar powered CCTV and they work flawlessly since setup. I used to jerryrig an Android phone for Alfred and that too worked well.
I tried a high end Philips one and a Nest camera. Both were way less reliable than the Nanit. Possibly because they didn’t play nicely with my mesh WiFi at home. But regardless I just wanted to vouch for Nanit’s software, whatever they are doing with their networking and UX is really good.
Their networking is awful in my experience. The WiFi chip is cheap crap, extremely sensitive, cuts out a lot, and doesn’t support WPA3.
I had to set up a dedicated Nanit-only AP in my house in order to stabilize the connection. It would not work any other way, tried many different configurations, even other APs.
They've mostly sold off bits of themselves, and/or licensed their name to other producers. It's highly unlikely that Philips actually made that camera.
My £15 TP-Link camera that we use as a baby monitor works 100% of the time. I can use it completely locally too with nothing sent to their servers at all, or use it through the internet if I want to. Got 4+ years of continuous use and counting, with zero issues.
> you can turn on the app from anywhere you happen to be and expect the video feed to work
if i'm understanding "anywhere you happen to be" right: Real question -- I'm not a parent. What is your use case for wanting to monitor your baby remotely from a different location than your baby? Obviously someone is with them at the house or location with the baby! You don't trust em? Or just like seeing/hearing your baby when you are out?
I see why a baby monitor in general is helpful so you can be in another room in the house and still keep an eye/ear on baby, but obv someone has to actually be in the location with the baby! (and the monitor at least needs to be on the wifi, right? So the monitor is in a place you have network access to, yes?)
It's a reasonable question! I'm past the baby monitor stage now, but when we used our Nanit from a different network it was for things like:
* Doing garage or yard work where Wifi coverage was spotty. May seem like an edge case but remember that when baby is sleeping is exactly when you want to be doing things like yard work.
* Hanging out across the street cooking out with the neighbors while baby sleeps
* Having a couple drinks at the hotel bar on vacation after baby goes to sleep. You're only ~30 seconds from your room if baby wakes up, but it's nice to not have to sit in a dark room for the whole evening after 7pm.
- I'm at a small party 1 block away. Baby is sleeping in the bedroom with mama but I'm trying to protect her sleep. I listen to baby with an airpod in my ear at the party. If baby shows signs of waking I come back and either bottle him or help mama feed him.
Also just because I'm out of the house and miss my baby and want to stare at him...
I have 2 free-roaming rabbits in one room of the house, we've been using Eufy camera to access live feed and found no issues with it, definitely would buy again. And the SD card recording allows us to seek a couple days into the past - it is pretty fun to watch the rabbits scramble to the automatic feeder at the set time.
The vtech camera is working well enough for me for what it’s worth. But any such app solution generally implies transfer through the company’s servers.
Yeah that’s fair, we had one of those too which absolutely did everything it advertised. The nanit is a different product that doubles as a home camera that lets you monitor your home while you’re away. Its software/networking is impressively reliable.
> Every Nanit user is uploading video and audio of their home/baby live to Nanit without any E2EE. It's a hot mic sending anything you say near it to the cloud.
Your way of phrasing it makes it sound like it would be fine to upload the video if it were end-to-end-encrypted. I think this is worth clarifying (since many don’t really understand the E2EE trade-off): E2EE is for smart clients that do all the processing, plus dumb servers that are only used for blind routing and storage. In this instance, it sounds like Nanit aren’t doing any routing or (persistent) storage: the sole purpose of the upload is offloading processing to the cloud. Given that, you can have transport encryption (typically TLS), but end-to-end encryption is not possible.
If you wanted the same functionality with end-to-end encryption, you’d need to do the video analysis locally, and upload the results, instead of uploading the entire video. This would presumably require more powerful hardware, or some way of offloading that to a nominated computer or phone.
Exactly. There is no video analysis if the video is encrypted and they cannot decrypt it. If there is E2EE and you expect them to do the video analysis, they need to be able to decrypt the video. Alternatively, you do it locally, but then why bother uploading anything at all, encrypted or not? So ultimately E2EE would not help here at all.
It's true. But nanit only gives you things like sleep insights if you buy their $200 stand and pay for a bigger subscription. Many users aren't making use of this. They do provide motion alerts, but those could happen on device.
Apple has done some interesting this with privacy-centric cloud processing. Might be some way to eventually get the benefits of cloud based detections without revealing your video.
also my other gripe is they also store audio. Which personally I feel like is even more sensitive. Wish their was an option to allow live audio listening but not store any audio in the cloud.
Then you’d have to trust that the option does what it says on the tin. My default for companies besides Apple is not to, too many scumbags have poisoned the well.
Technically there are two clients: The camera and whatever device is used to access the feed.
I can absolutely imagine an architecture where video can be streamed in an encrypted manner, or stored in encrypted time-stamped blobs, allowing the server to provide rough searching, and then the client can perform fine-grained scanning.
This obviously doesn't enable any kind of processing of the video data on the server side, and doing it on the receiving client would require the feed to be active This means that any kind of processing would almost necessarily have to happen on the sending device, which would probably increase the power and compute requirements by a lot.
Yeah, the entire point of this seems to be "we'll watch your baby monitor and provide alerts if something happens". That requires either processing on a server (as they do), processing on the uploading client (the camera), or having a receiving client which is constantly receiving that data and analyzing it to provide alerts.
The third option is unreliable because if that "client" (a desktop app, a phone app, etc.) dies, then the process stops working completely. The second option is unreliable because if you increase the cost of the camera then most users will buy the other camera because everyone is financially constrained these days.
That basically just leaves the first option as the only practical one at an appealing price point.
No, this doesn't get at the point of end-to-end encryption. Better to look at it in terms of the parties involved -- E2EE implies that there are two or more parties, and that only some of those parties should have unencrypted access.
In the case in point, the parent (camera owner) is one party and Nanit is another party. (Prior to the work in the linked post, AWS S3 was another party). The goal of E2EE is to deny plaintext access to some of these parties. So, in an E2EE deployment, Nanit (and AWS) would not have unencrypted access to the video content, even though they're storing it.
As chrismorgan pointed out, if Nanit did not have access to the unencrypted data, they could not do server-side video processing.
(Also, FWIW, there are multiple clients in this scenario -- the parents' phones are clients, and need unencrypted access to the video stream.)
(As an aside, where I used to work, we did some cool stuff with granting conditional access to certain server-side subsystems, so that the general data flow was all end-to-end encrypted, but customers could allow certain of our processes to be "ends" and have key access. This was really elegant; customers could dial in the level of server-side access that we had, and could see via the key authorization metadata which services had that access.)
> The video is privately analyzed by your home hub using on-device intelligence to determine if people, pets, or cars are present.
You can use a cloud provider's infrastructure without giving it access to your material. My devices generate the content, my devices do the processing and analysis, I consume the content. The cloud just coordinates the data in flight, and stores it at rest, all encrypted. It's possible but most companies don't bother because they have to put effort and their "payoff" is that they can't monetize your data anymore.
Yeah but the reality of the microSD card is weird. E.g. Eufy puts the video on the card but encrypts it so you have to pull it through the camera through the app to your phone.
It's hilariously crazy but we were given the cams as a gift so we stuck with them.
That's always annoyed me about Eufy, but it hasn't been a practical problem given they're mounted in hard-to-reach areas. I think the feature is to avoid a thief being able to view the footage. I like that they support RTSP access for a NAS/live viewing without their bloated app.
My parents bought a camcorder in 1995 and "self-hosted" the video just fine. But you're right it shouldn't even be something consumers should consider, because it should be the default and should be easy. You can get low power SSD-powered NAS devices now so hopefully this will change soon.
I meant more that in the abstract technical sense it's not that hard of a problem, but I agree that given the options available to consumers it is hard.
If UniFi Protect was re-skinned and had a bunch of its security camera complexity removed and optimized for the baby-camera use case it'd be normal consumer level friendly.
The baby monitor could have its own SD card and webserver and then you provide a smartphone app which uses local network discovery to find the server and talk to it.
In that case no parent needs to know about Synology or even IP addresses.
> In that case no parent needs to know about Synology or even IP addresses.
But they need to know about networking enough to be on the same network. I understand that sounds easy, but every time someone gets confused about their cursed setup the company making the device will get a returned product and an angry review. Client isolation, multiple wifi networks, some devices being on wifi some on the mobile network.
Companies are making it harder and harder to use, or at least to understand how to use, your own network for anything other than "get Internet on device"
There is no technical requirement for an easy-to-use baby monitor to be cloud-connected. If there is no easy-to-use baby monitor which is not cloud-connected, that is a market problem, not a technical problem.
> There is no technical requirement for an easy-to-use baby monitor to be cloud-connected.
A common use case for baby monitors is being able to wander short distances away and still listen in: Work in yard, talk to a neighbor, go out to the detached garage.
Having a baby monitor which is not tethered to the WiFi coverage is a selling point. Many cheap monitors are WiFi connected or use their own WiFi network and the range is limited.
A lot of people in this thread are also completely missing the selling points of Nanit which include breathing tracking and sleep tracking features. It’s a product that could technically be implemented locally with enough extra processing power and cloud servers for coordinating out of home access and bouncing notifications, but obviously the number of people who would pay extra for that (instead of trying to roll their own solution HN style) is not large.
It's more that a typical parent has not thought of the need to have a baby monitor, until they have a baby (in which case, they're too busy to build out their own baby monitor stack).
Pay money to solve a problem and time-save as a parent is a valid business idea/strategy. The externalities that the parents might suffer if these businesses do not completely adhere to good security practices don't seem to come back to bite them (and most parents get lucky and not have any bad consequences - yet).
Maybe you want it to be easy to grant a babysitter access to the cameras temporarily and not bother getting them VPN'en into your CCTV network.
Maybe you want to check up on the babysitter (as creepy as that sounds, there might be good reasons). Or you're traveling but your partner is home, and you want to be able to see your sleeping child from half a world away.
I do think we've gone to far in the direction of cloud-only, but I don't think it's a bad option of have. The problem I have is that many of the companies running these services have really terrible security. So for S3 for a nanny cam, I'd assume that each customer have their own bucket, with their own credentials, but I doubt that's the case.
We've used an offline Infant Optics baby camera for three kids and have never wished for any of the smart features that online cameras offer. You really just want to know whether they are asleep and when they are crying. I just don't see a good use case for recording all that video for most kids. (I'm sure there are special needs situations where it is helpful)
I actually don’t really get the point of a cloud service for this. Aren’t babies usually left in situations where there’s at least one trusted adult locally available?
Yes, a parent is always around. The part you might be missing is that the parent doesn’t want to have to limit their movements to areas where WiFi coverage is good.
Many cheap baby monitors are WiFi connected. You have to haul the video unit around and keep it live to hear when it cuts out, then move back toward where WiFi coverage was good.
This won’t seem like a big deal to someone who lives in an apartment or who has a house with 7 Ubiquiti APs covering everywhere inside and out, but it is a big deal to a parent who has a single WiFi router and wants to be able to do something like pull weeds in the yard, have a conversation with the neighbor, or go to a detached garage and work on a project without having to worry about their exact WiFi coverage at every moment to check on the baby.
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.)
Why 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?
Hopefully 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.
It’s an over engineered solution to a, relatively, simple problem of access long the device on the local network. This used to be a hard problem to solve but in 2025 I’d question why they’re going through the headache of all this cloud stuff when they could just build a quality device that runs locally with a simple base station that triggers alerts. They only hosting they really need is something to send alerts to an app.
Leading cause of death under one year is sudden infant death syndrome which happens mostly at nap time, situations where the adult may need rest, self care or housekeeping. You cannot fathomly watch an infant 24/7 especially if one parent is working and there's minimal support sistem (living far from relative, working grandparents etc)
ox and hearth rate baby monitor definitely alert on sids. prevent, no, and that's why they are not medical devices, and wouldn't make sense to pay a randomized controlled trial to certify as one.
works? yeah. hearth stops beating, ox goes under parameter, parents get an alert.
So, 24/7 kinda, yeah... Realistically, the risk is relatively low I'd say, so to still stay a functioning parent with other duties (for baby or otherwise), you don't look 24/7
> You must spend an additional $200 on a Nanit floor stand if you want sleep tracking. This is purely a software limitation since there's plenty of other ways to get an overhead camera mount. (I'm curious how they even detect if you're using the stand since it's just a USB-C cable. Maybe etags?)
I made a simple wood mount and painted it to match the crib. It worked well. There was no software enforcement requiring you to buy their mount at the time. Has this changed recently?
Of course you don’t need it. But it’s very useful, especially living in a house with a layout that doesn’t lend itself to hearing a pin drop in the next room.
The v-tech ones are fine though. No need for anything with an Internet connection (though some of them even do now).
Of course you don't _need_ it, but it's a useful convenience. Due to the layout of our house it was quite hard to hear my toddler if he was crying in the middle of the night - we often wouldn't wake up to it. So the monitor was very helpful.
Why on earth do you need an app and a camera? The same basic VTech audio monitors that are basically the same for many decades now work great, don't cost a fortune and there's no question of "where is this data going?" It's all just a big cash grab for people who need chincy tech toys for a non-problem that's better solved with way more simple kit.
I used to work with my laptop, sitting near my baby. Also, I used a timer to follow 45m sleep patterns, so technically there’s no need to react to anything within first 45m, but most times first 1h30m (45+45m).
> Self-hosted video isn't that hard but no one makes a baby-monitor centric solution.
It's not that easy. The only usecase that is actually really fucking easy is when both the camera and the device trying to access it is in the same network - broadcasts for discovery, that's it. Although I've seen people turn on "client isolation" in their wifi back when I did computer repairs, so it's not a given that this works!
But as soon as that assumption goes out the window - and if it's just you going into the garden to check on some weeds where the wifi doesn't reach - the task suddenly becomes so, so much harder:
- the "easiest" case is an ISP that hands your wifi router a globally routed IPv4 address, allows UPnP to be configured, and the user has UPnP configured. All that the camera has to do here is to request a port opening and that's it. Still, you as manufacturer need a server to store a mapping between user, IP address and port. (And you need to hope that the user's mobile device or their ISP doesn't have a nasty firewall blocking non-standard ports)
- No UPnP? Now you as manufacturer either need some STUN/TURN server or explain to the user how to manually enable port forwarding.
- Worst case: the user's ISP either has IPv6 only, CGNAT, double/triple/... NAT or similar shit in play because they don't have enough IP addresses to supply to their customer base. That's pretty much impossible even with STUN/TURN, sooo many ways for things to go wrong along the path.
- even a theoretical fully IPv6 world where everyone has globally routed IPv6 addresses everywhere and all ISPs have their routing working still wouldn't solve the issue... because consumer ISP routers enable a firewall on IPv6 to avoid stuff like "online game cheaters 0wning their opponents running an outdated version of their game".
The sad reality is, running a cloud service is the only actually pain-free way for any given smart Thing to work as the customer expects it.
And on top of that, a NAS capable of storing video costs about 300-ish bucks with a HDD capable of running 24/7 and eats about 10-ish watts of electricity, which is quite the cost factor on its own.
Sure, the "nerd population" here on HN can rig something up that works in a matter of a few days, including some rudimentary AI to spot if the baby managed to escape the crib. But the 99% of people out there will crash at the "please open your router's config page to allow UDP port 65535 passthrough" step, if only because they forgot the password that they set five years ago.
> But as soon as that assumption goes out the window - and if it's just you going into the garden to check on some weeds where the wifi doesn't reach - the task suddenly becomes so, so much harder:
Exactly. There are a lot of comments in this thread from people who are either non-parents or who haven’t lived in a situation where they didn’t have perfect WiFi coverage of their entire living area.
Being able to visit the neighbors or go out in the yard without worrying about missing baby monitor events is a huge advantage that many parents will pay for.
I think this entire comment section is a prime example of HN not understanding non-technical audiences.
> Exactly. There are a lot of comments in this thread from people who are either non-parents or who haven’t lived in a situation where they didn’t have perfect WiFi coverage of their entire living area.
... and from people who take care of configuring their entire smart home crap of their entire relatives. In Germany we have a joke roughly translated to "Christmas is the time of the year where the children come back home to fix their parents' computers" for a reason - but a lot of people don't have family or friends who can deal with getting stuff set up.
The average user isn't competent enough to deal with a setup flow more complicated than "install this app, scan this QR code on the device, enter your wifi password, that's it". The user neither knows nor cares to know that the Thing sets up a temporary wifi access point (whose credentials are in the QR code), gets the home wifi credentials via a small API endpoint, tests the connectivity and then shuts down the temporary wifi. For them, it Just Works.
You'll never convince me that the term "cloud" came into existence for any purpose other than to separate itself from "the internet". That way, normal people who were very steadfast for years about not putting personal information on the internet would start putting their personal information in the "cloud".
> Self-hosted video isn't that hard but no one makes a baby-monitor centric solution
It sounds like they're not hosting it though. They are processing it, and storing it temporarily while it's queued.
A fully self hosted AI powered baby monitor that accurately detects sleep states and danger situations would be incredibly expensive today. Maybe not in a few years though.
We just used ipcams with our kids. Now with ubiquity it is dead simple to setup also storage for it. I think synology supports anything that emits rtsp.
Baby monitors around here -Alecto is a popular brand - cost twice as much and have only half the capabilities.
They don't provide a display, so I put a Raspberry Pi, a display, and an audio hat in an enclosure. It plays an rtsp stream from the camera at startup and works pretty well.
+1 for Unifi. They’ve added “baby crying” to the audio monitoring for triggering alerts. Everything is kept local on your LAN. Can access remotely via an app if you wish, but that’s simply accessing the device on your LAN so no dumping all your footage into some random “cloud.” Stuff just works and requires no subscription so all your money goes towards better quality hardware.
Nanit needs this storage because they run cloud based baby cameras. Every Nanit user is uploading video and audio of their home/baby live to Nanit without any E2EE. It's a hot mic sending anything you say near it to the cloud.
Their hardware essentially requires a subscription to use, even though it costs $200/camera. You must spend an additional $200 on a Nanit floor stand if you want sleep tracking. This is purely a software limitation since there's plenty of other ways to get an overhead camera mount. (I'm curious how they even detect if you're using the stand since it's just a USB-C cable. Maybe etags?)
Of course Nanit is a popular and successful product that many parents swear by. It just pains me to see cloud based in-home audio/video storage being so normalized. Self-hosted video isn't that hard but no one makes a baby-monitor centric solution. I'm sure the cloud based video storage model will continue to be popular because it's easy, but also because it helps justifies a recurring subscription.
edit: just noticed an irony in my comment. I'm ranting about Nanit locking users into their 3rd party cloud video storage, and the article is about Nanit's engineering team moving off a 3rd party (S3) and self-hosting their own storage. Props to them for getting off S3.