2

TLDR:

Are there work arounds for smart cameras (specifically Nest) to not need the subscription service?


Like many companies today, Google has taken to selling subscription services. My wife and I want to install a number of cameras in and around the house for a variety of reasons, not least of which is security and the ability to see what happens or happened (as the case may be) in the past, as we travel frequently.

I like the ease of both Nest and Ring - but I am leaning to Nest because I can get a bunch for free due to some promotions from work. However, as said here, and here and finally here it appear that Nest is utterly useless for that purpose without a subscription (which is difficult to change from the 5 day to 30day when we travel) also making it expensive for the 5 cameras we want to install. Additionally, we already have a couple of Google devices in the home, so I would like to keep them all compatible if possible.

I have looked online and couldn't find anything - so I thought I would try here. Has anyone found a work around for using smart cameras without the subscription?

1

If there is a workaround for a specific device, that device is insecure. Getting this right (if the company decides to enforce specific aspects) should be a basic security requirement.

A plausible alternative is to install both a targeted device (with the motion detection/doorbell functionality), as well as a simpler 'always on' device, and link the 'trigger' event to a 'capture image' function.

You could always dedicate a device running the app as an 'opto-net' jump over the firewall, but this seems just as convoluted.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.