A microSD card in the camera, like most others use?

From the product description though it sounds like sleep analysis is what you're paying for, which they do on servers analyzing the video.

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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'm not leaving a baby at home while I go on vacation. I would never be on another network, even. Why need the cloud?

Because it’s easy and convenient for new parents.

The typical parent has never heard of Synology or Ubiquiti, doesn’t have a NAS, and gets whatever tech their ISP gave/rents them.

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.

Agreed. Maybe the market for easy-to-use, self-hosted baby monitors doesn’t exist.

I’d least I never heard a parent complain that their biggest problem dealing with a baby is lack of E2EE.

It's much easier and less stressful to put your baby to sleep and (maybe) have a radio monitor. More technology does not inherently decrease stress.

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.

"and you trivially have access from any device / desktop"

I hope you do tell them in advance. Secret surveillance is indeed in the creep territory.

This baby monitor is mounted over the crib. Any checking up would see the crib and the baby. Parents checking on their crib is not creep territory.

"Maybe you want to check up on the babysitter"

Not sure about your setup, but I replied to this.