Nest introduces camera streaming to Apple TV, 'instaclip' creation and sharing

Posted:
in iPhone
Alphabet's Nest this week rolled out an update to its app platform that allows owners to stream Nest Cam feeds directly to fourth-generation Apple TV units, while introducing a new video clip creation and sharing feature called "instaclip."


Nest for tvOS.


Nest is touting video clip creation and sharing, dubbed "instaclip," as the app update's main feature addition, but other improvements like activity notifications and a tweaked user interface also arrive for iOS 10 with Nest version 5.9.

As noted in a blog post on Thursday, instaclips can be used to capture and share impromptu holiday moments with friends and family. Powered by subscription service Nest Aware -- a requirement for instaclips to work -- the feature automatically detects potentially interesting action to create a short clip viewable in the Nest app.

Tapping on the "clip" icon generates a clip, while pressing and holding the same button lets users customize a clip's length. Instaclips can be uploaded to a customer's online archive, or stored on their iOS device for sharing.

In addition to instaclips, iOS users now get snapshots alongside activity alerts, a feature previously limited to Android devices. Those with Nest Aware are also receive short video clips viewable within a notification pane. The app also includes a new button that switches Nest Cam video feeds and history between fullscreen and portrait viewing modes without forcing users to rotate their iPhone.

Finally, fourth-generation Apple TV owners can download the new Nest tvOS app to access to live Nest Cam video feeds on the big screen. The app supports multiple homes linked to a single account, and is capable of displaying four live camera feeds on a single screen. Nest Aware customers also have access to history archives with activity indicators.

Nest on Thursday said Apple TV functionality was "coming soon," though the app and service appear to be live in the tvOS App Store.

Nest has yet to integrate HomeKit support into its product lineup, which would bring live video viewing and other functionality to Apple's home automation hub.

Nest for iOS and tvOS are free downloads from their respective App Stores.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,070member
    I plead clueless on that, but... Are there really people who put an always on camera into their home and connect it to Google of all things? And if yes, when did protozoons pass us when it comes to intelligence?
    lostkiwiwilliamlondondws-2watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 2 of 18
    What about the thermostat or protect?!  Why aren't those in the ATV app?!
    zroger73
  • Reply 3 of 18
    irelandireland Posts: 17,584member
    Wouldn't put Goog near my home, but that it has an Apple TV app is handy for business. Now all they need is a push notification for ATV an iOS when the sensor is triggered so when in living room you could one-click and you're watch a live robbing and recording it and phone cops as you watch it.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 4 of 18
    I am among the few who find this whole Google thing the most pervasive, insidious and evil invasion of your privacy anyone could imagine.  Are people so stupid to have Google track everything they search, everything they buy, everyone they email and now you're  going to let them see everything in your house, who you see, what they say.  If through some or other service they can also access the microphone and camera on your phone, as well all its contents, they have the whole enchilada.  "Do no evil"... my arse.  So that's why the dropped the credo.  I suppose we have a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" but this time there to serve Larry and Sergey.
    rob53JanNLwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 18
    Wake up people !!!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 18
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,028member
    prokip said:
    I am among the few who find this whole Google thing the most pervasive, insidious and evil invasion of your privacy anyone could imagine.  Are people so stupid to have Google track everything they search, everything they buy, everyone they email and now you're  going to let them see everything in your house, who you see, what they say.  If through some or other service they can also access the microphone and camera on your phone, as well all its contents, they have the whole enchilada.  "Do no evil"... my arse.  So that's why the dropped the credo.  I suppose we have a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" but this time there to serve Larry and Sergey.
    No you aren't. Read the other comments and I haven't seen one that supports having Google in their home. Add me to that list even though I have an original Nest (waiting until I find a replacement that operates the same way and can sneak it past my wife). What bothers me even more are all the people who use gmail accounts because they think they're "free" when they're anything but. I'm also upset with websites, not this one, who think using social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter) is the proper way to host comments on their site. Talk about trashing the world, just let me have an account on each website. It's not that hard and I don't have to sign my life away using Facebook. Oh wait, nothing's wrong with Facebook or Google, they're good companies. /s
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 18
    Alpha-Google has clearly and unapologetically shown that its opinion on privacy differs from mine. That goes for Facebook, too, and many other online operators. A large share of their profits are based on violating established social norms, where no law has been written due to a lack of precedent and dysfunctional government.

    If the law explicitly recognized the right of each individual to his/her personal data, then every company doing business on the internet would have to pay a licensing fee when tracking us -- or forego the opportunity to do so. Those fees would absorb all of Google's advertising profits.

    Meanwhile, Google has no other services that generate a profit, since the popularity of those other services depends upon giving them away "free." They are simply loss-leaders whose purpose is to lure people into range of their tracking equipment. The innovation and polish of Google services reflects not only the work of talented engineers and developers, but also the huge value of personal data when exploited to the fullest.

    Congress should pass a specific law that recognizes the right of each individual to his/her personal data. That would permit citizens to file lawsuits against violators, just as if they had stolen any other thing of value. Then, corporate boards would be forced to reign in their irresponsible employees to avoid unknown future liabilities, including punitive damages for reckless disregard of the law.

    Humanity is online, and is never going back to the days of snail mail and land-line phones. Therefore, it is high time Congress got around to writing laws with that future in mind, and high time that Google, Apple and other companies worked with governments to develop an internet infrastructure that can't be hacked by teenage-dropouts living in with their parents. The reality show known as Congress is no longer able to discharge its responsibilities to the people.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 18
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,802member
    prokip said:
    I am among the few who find this whole Google thing the most pervasive, insidious and evil invasion of your privacy anyone could imagine.  Are people so stupid to have Google track everything they search, everything they buy, everyone they email and now you're  going to let them see everything in your house, who you see, what they say.  If through some or other service they can also access the microphone and camera on your phone, as well all its contents, they have the whole enchilada.  "Do no evil"... my arse.  So that's why the dropped the credo.  I suppose we have a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" but this time there to serve Larry and Sergey.
    There are lots of people, especially on this forum, that agree with you. Personally, I think you're all acting paranoid. I live in a connected world and I like the benefits of that world so if Google, Amazon, Apple, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. use my habits to better service me in hopes of obtaining more money from me, I have no problem with that. You say Google is evil and you reference Lenin, but what evidence do you have that knowing what temperature you like your home will lead to some Leninist action, like Red Terror—an actual example of an evil act?

    I don't fear corporations who want to sell me more stuff because I can always choose not to buy. I do fear identity theft which is why I take steps to make it very difficult to target me, yet I wouldn't call these people evil. For something evil that is current, that would be a registry for Muslims in the US.
    edited November 2016 gatorguy
  • Reply 9 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    Alpha-Google has clearly and unapologetically shown that its opinion on privacy differs from mine. That goes for Facebook, too, and many other online operators. A large share of their profits are based on violating established social norms, where no law has been written due to a lack of precedent and dysfunctional government.

    If the law explicitly recognized the right of each individual to his/her personal data, then every company doing business on the internet would have to pay a licensing fee when tracking us -- or forego the opportunity to do so. Those fees would absorb all of Google's advertising profits.

    Meanwhile, Google has no other services that generate a profit, since the popularity of those other services depends upon giving them away "free." They are simply loss-leaders whose purpose is to lure people into range of their tracking equipment. The innovation and polish of Google services reflects not only the work of talented engineers and developers, but also the huge value of personal data when exploited to the fullest.

    Congress should pass a specific law that recognizes the right of each individual to his/her personal data. That would permit citizens to file lawsuits against violators, just as if they had stolen any other thing of value. Then, corporate boards would be forced to reign in their irresponsible employees to avoid unknown future liabilities, including punitive damages for reckless disregard of the law.

    Humanity is online, and is never going back to the days of snail mail and land-line phones. Therefore, it is high time Congress got around to writing laws with that future in mind, and high time that Google, Apple and other companies worked with governments to develop an internet infrastructure that can't be hacked by teenage-dropouts living in with their parents. The reality show known as Congress is no longer able to discharge its responsibilities to the people.
    Internet privacy is less of an issue than the true privacy vampires: Your bank, credit card provider, pharmacy, driver's license bureau, favorite brick and mortar retailer, supermarket, credit bureau car dealer. . . they all know who you REALLY are. Google has no idea who it is that's really using my computer. Could be me. Could be a family member.  Could be a friend or coworker.  Google probably has no idea what your birth-date is, guesses at who your family might be. Not likely to know exactly what you earn or what you actually do. No clue as to your SS# or bank account routing number. Doesn't know nor cares what your drivers license number is. 

    Geesh, so many folks who pretend to be so concerned about what "Google knows about me" or what "Facebook knows about me" (more than Google IMHO) seem so completely clueless or at least unconcerned about who is tracking them in the real world, who they're selling that information to and who that company is then selling it to and on and on. There's companies out there whose entire business is built around buying and selling whatever they can gather about the real you, and willing to share it for a multitude of purposes with almost any buyer who has the connection and the cash. Being sorely afraid of anonymized advertising is silly in the face of how many times a week your real privacy is breached, bought and sold. If you are truly scared and concerned you are barking at the wrong tree if you think Google and Facebook advertising is your big privacy problem. Google ads don't prevent me from buying a house, being hired for a better job or getting a promotion, purchasing insurance at a fair rate, renting an apartment, approval for a loan, flying on a plane. . . Google evil? Hardly. 
    edited November 2016 freshmakerzroger73
  • Reply 10 of 18
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,028member
    Soli said:
    prokip said:
    I am among the few who find this whole Google thing the most pervasive, insidious and evil invasion of your privacy anyone could imagine.  Are people so stupid to have Google track everything they search, everything they buy, everyone they email and now you're  going to let them see everything in your house, who you see, what they say.  If through some or other service they can also access the microphone and camera on your phone, as well all its contents, they have the whole enchilada.  "Do no evil"... my arse.  So that's why the dropped the credo.  I suppose we have a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" but this time there to serve Larry and Sergey.
    There are lots of people, especially on this forum, that agree with you. Personally, I think you're all acting paranoid. I live in a connected world and I like the benefits of that world so if Google, Amazon, Apple, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. use my habits to better service me in hopes of obtaining more money from me, I have no problem with that. You say Google is evil and you reference Lenin, but what evidence do you have that knowing what temperature you like your home will lead to some Leninist action, like Red Terror—an actual example of an evil act?

    I don't fear corporations who want to sell me more stuff because I can always choose not to buy. I do fear identity theft which is why I take steps to make it very difficult to target me, yet I wouldn't call these people evil. For something evil that is current, that would be a registry for Muslims in the US.
    You need to think about phishing attacks and how knowing how the temperature of your house relates to discovering personal activities. The fact Nest and Google would have access to your cameras is what bothers me most. Sure, Nest and Google can say they won't capture your video but I wouldn't put it past them. The IoT is what should scare a lot of people because once everything in your house and life are connected as much as what Google, and Apple, would like them to be, everything about you will be accessible by hackers and our illustrious government, especially with the people Trump is mentioning. We won't have any personal security, the FBI will be able to anything they want to, and the Supreme Court will back everything they do. I'm not being paranoid, just getting ready for the inevitable. To protect myself, I limit what people have access to and don't participate in any social networking. I do fear corporations who will sell anything to anyone because there will always be undereducated people who won't know the impact things will have on their lives until it's too late. Look at all the identity theft and how easy it was in the beginning to get whatever thieves wanted. Hopefully people have now educated themselves enough to understand how to protect some things but now there's a whole lot more things that will get them in trouble and simply saying you can choose not to buy doesn't set a standard for others to follow. Be the educated person you want to be and help people learn about the threats to their livelihood by taking a stance against corporations wanting to have access to and own everything you do. 
  • Reply 11 of 18
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,802member
    rob53 said:
    Soli said:
    prokip said:
    I am among the few who find this whole Google thing the most pervasive, insidious and evil invasion of your privacy anyone could imagine.  Are people so stupid to have Google track everything they search, everything they buy, everyone they email and now you're  going to let them see everything in your house, who you see, what they say.  If through some or other service they can also access the microphone and camera on your phone, as well all its contents, they have the whole enchilada.  "Do no evil"... my arse.  So that's why the dropped the credo.  I suppose we have a new generation of Lenin's "useful idiots" but this time there to serve Larry and Sergey.
    There are lots of people, especially on this forum, that agree with you. Personally, I think you're all acting paranoid. I live in a connected world and I like the benefits of that world so if Google, Amazon, Apple, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. use my habits to better service me in hopes of obtaining more money from me, I have no problem with that. You say Google is evil and you reference Lenin, but what evidence do you have that knowing what temperature you like your home will lead to some Leninist action, like Red Terror—an actual example of an evil act?

    I don't fear corporations who want to sell me more stuff because I can always choose not to buy. I do fear identity theft which is why I take steps to make it very difficult to target me, yet I wouldn't call these people evil. For something evil that is current, that would be a registry for Muslims in the US.
    You need to think about phishing attacks and how knowing how the temperature of your house relates to discovering personal activities. The fact Nest and Google would have access to your cameras is what bothers me most.
    Are you really worried about Google running a phishing scam on you? I'm not. My only concern would be Google getting hacked and then that data being used to exploit me.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 12 of 18
    I couldn't care less if Google knows the temperature inside my home or whether or not it's on fire. I'll draw the line if Google places a camera in front of my toilet.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    Those who say that Google and Facebook aren't threats because either (1) targeted marketing only improves the quality of their lives or (2) the real threats are other companies that gather personal information on you are surprisingly (and dangerously) cavalier about where we seem to be headed as a global society (and using strawman arguments doesn't exactly make arguments any stronger). I cannot even count the number of articles I've read on companies using readily-available information within Facebook and Google searches to decide whether they're going to hire someone or not. Or the number of articles that describe the coercion the police use to strong-arm companies to hand over private information. Perhaps it is fair to say that Google, Facebook, et al. don't have evil intentions, but their business practices at the very minimum have the potential to do things that are dangerous for individuals.

    Privacy concerns will always be at a crossroads with profit motives. Take Facebook as an example: As with any company, Apple included, you cannot use their services unless you agree to their terms of use. Those terms of use exist solely to give the company as much of a right to claim as its own intellectual property any information or photos you post. They also give the company absolute freedom to share your information with anyone and any organisation they please without you knowing about it for either commercial or law enforcement reasons. You don't get a say in it: you either accept the whole deal or you walk away. Facebook has a history of changing its terms of agreement without notifying anyone (people learn about such things, such as any uploaded photos becoming the intellectual property of the company, because someone raises a stink about it in the media and not because the company advised you). Then they change the terms again without seeking the knowledge and consent of its users (customers is the wrong term; it is more like revenue sources). And the information that is shared instanteously with other companies means that you, as a monetised source of revenue, can use a few key words and all of a sudden you are inundated with affiliated ads. That shows the company's only scrupule is to gather as much information as possible and profit from it. One can argue that that is not evil, and maybe it isn't until it is. (As an aside, I quit using Facebook several years ago after problems with the terms of service changing that I never agreed to and would have had I been given the chance.) But there are some potential issues that any functioning society should be discussing.

    To those that say that people questioning where this is all leading to are being paranoid are themselves not being farsighted enough: With the right technology in place, which is in fact the state of things, it is not at all far-fetched to imagine a situation where data collection and sharing can lead to some very dangerous situations for individuals.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,215member
    I can just see the scenario where the baby sitter has her boy friend over and the Apple TV show on in the background breaks for an ad for condoms!
    bestkeptsecret
  • Reply 16 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    Those who say that Google and Facebook aren't threats because either (1) targeted marketing only improves the quality of their lives or (2) the real threats are other companies that gather personal information on you are surprisingly (and dangerously) cavalier about where we seem to be headed as a global society (and using strawman arguments doesn't exactly make arguments any stronger). I cannot even count the number of articles I've read on companies using readily-available information within Facebook and Google searches to decide whether they're going to hire someone or not. Or the number of articles that describe the coercion the police use to strong-arm companies to hand over private information. Perhaps it is fair to say that Google, Facebook, et al. don't have evil intentions, but their business practices at the very minimum have the potential to do things that are dangerous for individuals.
    Bing or DuckDuckGo pre-employment searches (or prior to dating or taking on business partners) would reveal just as much as Google Search would, right? So DDG or Bing or Google or Yahoo or any online search provider is a threat then? What would you suggest be done about what you've perceived as a threat?

    You also said:
    "Or the number of articles that describe the coercion the police use to strong-arm companies to hand over private information. Perhaps it is fair to say that Google, Facebook, et al. don't have evil intentions, but their business practices at the very minimum have the potential to do things that are dangerous for individuals."

    In that regard Apple and Google are amazingly similar. They will both comply with legal requests for user data they have in their possession. Would you be implying then that Apple might also have business practices that are dangerous for individuals?  Again what would be your suggestion, refuse lawful requests (FWIW there's ample reports of Google challenging government requests to disclose user data on a case-by-case basis if they believe it's not a legally supported one and I'm sure Apple does too) Should schools, banks or security companies be able to search your background prior to employment, but not via an internet one? What about a single woman checking out a blind-dates background in advance? Should she have that right to know what she's buying into? How about police investigating why someone may have been attacked or worse murdered? Any clues in social posts? If those are valid reasons for searching a social site like Facebook how would you recommend restricting other searches that you would consider threatening to privacy, and what types of searches would those be? These are honest questions that might require some thought beyond "Google. Facebook. Evil. Internet. Bad" 
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 17 of 18
    gatorguy said:

    Bing or DuckDuckGo pre-employment searches (or prior to dating or taking on business partners) would reveal just as much as Google Search would, right? So DDG or Bing or Google or Yahoo or any online search provider is a threat then? What would you suggest be done about what you've perceived as a threat?

    You also said:
    "Or the number of articles that describe the coercion the police use to strong-arm companies to hand over private information. Perhaps it is fair to say that Google, Facebook, et al. don't have evil intentions, but their business practices at the very minimum have the potential to do things that are dangerous for individuals."

    In that regard Apple and Google are amazingly similar. They will both comply with legal requests for user data they have in their possession. Would you be implying then that Apple might also have business practices that are dangerous for individuals?  Again what would be your suggestion, refuse lawful requests (FWIW there's ample reports of Google challenging government requests to disclose user data on a case-by-case basis if they believe it's not a legally supported one and I'm sure Apple does too) Should schools, banks or security companies be able to search your background prior to employment, but not via an internet one? What about a single woman checking out a blind-dates background in advance? Should she have that right to know what she's buying into? How about police investigating why someone may have been attacked or worse murdered? Any clues in social posts? If those are valid reasons for searching a social site like Facebook how would you recommend restricting other searches that you would consider threatening to privacy, and what types of searches would those be? These are honest questions that might require some thought beyond "Google. Facebook. Evil. Internet. Bad" 
    It's amazing to me how people go out of their way to oversimplify things to the point that we no are no longer talking about the same things.

    The point I and others in this thread are trying to make is that we should be leery of the myriad ways technology is increasing the chances that our private lives could be turned against us should the right circumstances appear.

    Go ahead and refuse to engage the points being made and spend your time instead cheering on the slow build-up of a technological web in which everyone gets snared. I will give you one point: Perhaps any online presence is reason to be circumspect. And perhaps not. But I don't think we're building in enough options to avoid the worst possible scenarios. And it's people like you that are so cavalier about these issues that will make sure that that continues.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 18
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,583member
    gatorguy said:

    Bing or DuckDuckGo pre-employment searches (or prior to dating or taking on business partners) would reveal just as much as Google Search would, right? So DDG or Bing or Google or Yahoo or any online search provider is a threat then? What would you suggest be done about what you've perceived as a threat?

    You also said:
    "Or the number of articles that describe the coercion the police use to strong-arm companies to hand over private information. Perhaps it is fair to say that Google, Facebook, et al. don't have evil intentions, but their business practices at the very minimum have the potential to do things that are dangerous for individuals."

    In that regard Apple and Google are amazingly similar. They will both comply with legal requests for user data they have in their possession. Would you be implying then that Apple might also have business practices that are dangerous for individuals?  Again what would be your suggestion, refuse lawful requests (FWIW there's ample reports of Google challenging government requests to disclose user data on a case-by-case basis if they believe it's not a legally supported one and I'm sure Apple does too) Should schools, banks or security companies be able to search your background prior to employment, but not via an internet one? What about a single woman checking out a blind-dates background in advance? Should she have that right to know what she's buying into? How about police investigating why someone may have been attacked or worse murdered? Any clues in social posts? If those are valid reasons for searching a social site like Facebook how would you recommend restricting other searches that you would consider threatening to privacy, and what types of searches would those be? These are honest questions that might require some thought beyond "Google. Facebook. Evil. Internet. Bad" 
    It's amazing to me how people go out of their way to oversimplify things to the point that we no are no longer talking about the same things.

    The point I and others in this thread are trying to make is that we should be leery of the myriad ways technology is increasing the chances that our private lives could be turned against us should the right circumstances appear.

    Go ahead and refuse to engage the points being made and spend your time instead cheering on the slow build-up of a technological web in which everyone gets snared. I will give you one point: Perhaps any online presence is reason to be circumspect. And perhaps not. But I don't think we're building in enough options to avoid the worst possible scenarios. And it's people like you that are so cavalier about these issues that will make sure that that continues.
    On the contrary I DID actually engage with the points you brought up. You on the other hand don't seem to have a suggestion on what to do, choosing not to respond with a suggestion or specific comment on even a single one of the several questions I posed. 
    edited November 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.