HUMAX NO LONGER ALLOWING ME TO USE MY 2 FUNCTIONING WEBCAMS - THEY ARE RETIRING HUMAX EYE

MeteredOut

eskbanker said:

Undervalued said:

whichman2 said:

Can I claim some sort of compensation for the loss of my still fully functional cameras?

Almost certainly not.

This is little different to phone and computer manufacturers no longer providing security updates, making the phone or computer largely useless.

To a lesser extent the same can apply with spare parts availability for mechanical or electrical devices. Sometimes there is enough demand that third party companies produce and sell the more popularly needed spares but otherwise, short of having a custom part made you are stuck!

Rightly or wrongly it is the way of the world.....

It's undoubtedly true that tech products can and do become unsupported, but if they're effectively rendered completely inoperable by virtue of a unilateral decision of the supplier's then it could perhaps be argued that this breaches the consumer's CRA rights if this falls foul of the reasonable durability test.  If it's been a number of years since purchase, and no ongoing support/service contract was in place, then such an argument might be fairly weak, but if a product was disabled within months of purchase then there might be a viable case....

Which is why the first question i asked was when the cameras were purchased.

glennevis

outtatune said:

They are apparantly rebadged y-cam devices - there are som YouTube vids on how to hack those which may be relevant to you.

If they are rebadged y-cam cameras and you have a smartphone then you could try a third party android app such as Tinycam Monitor. Some y-cam cameras are on this list

https://tinycammonitor.com/support.html

RefluentBeans

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

whichman2

RefluentBeans said:

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

Great post. Thanks for responding. In this case the Humax Eye as a basic service provides 7 days free recording/playback/download. You can pay for longer storage time but why would you. Whereas my ring cameras cost me an annual charge for recording/playback/download/storage etc. The Humax business plan was always going to cost them money and they appeared to be unable to sell the cameras at full price offering 2 for 1 or 50% discount. In my early days using CCTV I was completely in control after purchasing the kit. Only thing they tried to sell was equipment installation/maintenance. Technology advances meant depriving me of that control by sending everything down the line to a server which had to be maintained or service would be lost. I know that it made sense to store the recordings off site for security reasons but how I wished for the ability to do both and not have to rely on a remote server 100%. I purchased the cameras five years ago and silly me I thought as long as they still worked I could use them but not to be. To be able to view live or record and store locally as a system retirement present would be nice! I jest of course.

Alderbank

whichman2 said:

RefluentBeans said:

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

 I purchased the cameras five years ago and silly me I thought as long as they still worked I could use them but not to be. To be able to view live or record and store locally as a system retirement present would be nice! I jest of course.

Does the Humax Freesat recorder not do that?

Humax's website says:

Humax Eye IP Camera compatibility

Watch recordings from your Humax Eye IP Cloud camera from the comfort of your own sofa with the built in Humax Eye app.

https://uk.humaxdigital.com/product/hdr-1100s/

whichman2

Alderbank said:

whichman2 said:

RefluentBeans said:

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

 I purchased the cameras five years ago and silly me I thought as long as they still worked I could use them but not to be. To be able to view live or record and store locally as a system retirement present would be nice! I jest of course.

Does the Humax Freesat recorder not do that?

Humax's website says:

Humax Eye IP Camera compatibility

Watch recordings from your Humax Eye IP Cloud camera from the comfort of your own sofa with the built in Humax Eye app.

https://uk.humaxdigital.com/product/hdr-1100s/

No I don't believe it does. I think it has to be connected to the cloud server for functionality just like the mobile phone.

mikb

"Cloud" = Somebody else's computer. Whatcha gonna do if they switch it off? Congratulations on your new paperweight!

"Ownership". A quaint idea, now being replaced by the illusion that "I bought and own this", in reality "you are renting this item for as long as we see fit"

It's a sneaky, fundamental change in how businesses work, and it's not something that should be supported.

The presence of words like "cloud" and "subscription" and "service" are anti-features, to me. If I buy a security camera, I want it sending the data to MY system, and then *I* will decide what gets processed/stored/etc. and if I *want* to push copies of CCTV to the cloud or offsite, I can CHOOSE to do that.

These newer ones that will ONLY send to the manufacturer's servers are a terrible idea, wrapped up in marketing to make it seem good.

All control over the camera has to be via them. All images from the camera are sent to them BEFORE they get sent back to you to look at. THEY store them, maybe. If you keep paying, that is. Or when they give up on that product, "sorry ... out of luck, here is a buying opportunity to get another one!". Manufacturer goes out of business? "Sucks to be you!" etc.

This feeds in to the whole "right to repair" and "right to ownership" debates.

RefluentBeans

whichman2 said:

RefluentBeans said:

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

Great post. Thanks for responding. In this case the Humax Eye as a basic service provides 7 days free recording/playback/download. You can pay for longer storage time but why would you. Whereas my ring cameras cost me an annual charge for recording/playback/download/storage etc. The Humax business plan was always going to cost them money and they appeared to be unable to sell the cameras at full price offering 2 for 1 or 50% discount. In my early days using CCTV I was completely in control after purchasing the kit. Only thing they tried to sell was equipment installation/maintenance. Technology advances meant depriving me of that control by sending everything down the line to a server which had to be maintained or service would be lost. I know that it made sense to store the recordings off site for security reasons but how I wished for the ability to do both and not have to rely on a remote server 100%. I purchased the cameras five years ago and silly me I thought as long as they still worked I could use them but not to be. To be able to view live or record and store locally as a system retirement present would be nice! I jest of course.

I do feel for you - unfortunately companies love to lock their products down and this means that the only authorised routes are allowed - which when they discontinue those services the products no longer function without they core service.

The plus side is that the cameras are just cameras and there is often communities out there who will help you ‘hack’ into your own tech to get it to run locally. 

We do see that even big tech consistently fails to launch products effectively - for example - when was the last time Google launched something and kept it around for more than 5 years. 

Hopefully regulations will come in - but I think that most people just don’t understand the issue, and see it as a none issue. On the positive side - the EU is taking on big tech giants so hopefully they will tackle the right to repair/right to own your own products and those policies will trickle out.

MeteredOut

RefluentBeans said:

whichman2 said:

RefluentBeans said:

It is the issue with smart devices - if they require proprietary software for them to function then the use of your device is limited to how long the device is supported for. 

It’s akin to every time your car starts it checks with the manufacturer to make sure it is authorised to drive, and if that check fails your car switches off - if that service stops then the car is functionally useless but not faulty.

The last line is important in my opinion - functionally useless but not faulty. The devices all clearly are working and so you cannot return them under the CRA, but the service it uses is becoming retired. Most companies love the subscription model because it brings in revenue to support these ongoing services (and generating profit) and they exist in a grey market.

Until the government tightens regulations on the subscription market (maybe by saying all subscriptions that are required for a product to function are required to be guaranteed to run for 6 years from purchase date) - this issue won’t be going anywhere. Effectively, the manufacturers have a method of killing a product whilst it is still functional. Ideally - the manufacturers would open up the code base/allow devices to be run locally or on other services so they don’t just become ewaste. 

Unfortunately it seems the law hasn’t caught up with this anti-consumer practice yet, and until it does there’s very little that consumers can do. 

Great post. Thanks for responding. In this case the Humax Eye as a basic service provides 7 days free recording/playback/download. You can pay for longer storage time but why would you. Whereas my ring cameras cost me an annual charge for recording/playback/download/storage etc. The Humax business plan was always going to cost them money and they appeared to be unable to sell the cameras at full price offering 2 for 1 or 50% discount. In my early days using CCTV I was completely in control after purchasing the kit. Only thing they tried to sell was equipment installation/maintenance. Technology advances meant depriving me of that control by sending everything down the line to a server which had to be maintained or service would be lost. I know that it made sense to store the recordings off site for security reasons but how I wished for the ability to do both and not have to rely on a remote server 100%. I purchased the cameras five years ago and silly me I thought as long as they still worked I could use them but not to be. To be able to view live or record and store locally as a system retirement present would be nice! I jest of course.

I do feel for you - unfortunately companies love to lock their products down and this means that the only authorised routes are allowed - which when they discontinue those services the products no longer function without they core service.

The plus side is that the cameras are just cameras and there is often communities out there who will help you ‘hack’ into your own tech to get it to run locally. 

We do see that even big tech consistently fails to launch products effectively - for example - when was the last time Google launched something and kept it around for more than 5 years. 

Hopefully regulations will come in - but I think that most people just don’t understand the issue, and see it as a none issue. On the positive side - the EU is taking on big tech giants so hopefully they will tackle the right to repair/right to own your own products and those policies will trickle out.

Er, I've some news for you...

We're already seeing some early indications that some of the EU concerns will be addressed in Europe but not in North America (eg, sideloading on apple devices).

There's no guarantee the UK will be included in any future challenges.