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