The Samsung Smart Home Camera Leaves Much to be Desired

The basics

You've got a new baby. A new dog. A new pair of curtains. And you want to keep an eye on them while you're away from home. It's understandable. Curtains are fragile things. Step forward, the Samsung Smart Home Camera. It's the latest in a long line of dinky-cams designed to sit unobtrusively on a bookshelf, and ogle your prized possessions, pets or offspring (under the care of a babysitter, of course) while you're away from home. The Smart Home Camera boasts Wi-Fi and Ethernet connections, a neat design with a swivelling head for easy positioning, and something few cameras in its class offer: the ability to beam audio back out of the camera from your remote location, through a smartphone or iPad. Does it work though? We plugged one in to find out.

The good

The Samsung Smart Home Camera is gorgeous. It looks right at home in domestic settings, and visitors won't be creeped out that you've installed a robotic eyeball in the corner. And if you're a bit self conscious about your in-home CCTV, you can slap that pop-up peeper back down into the body to make it extra discreet when not in use.

The bad

But here's where it all falls apart: while the hardware is undoubtedly top notch, Samsung's software is shakier than a set of maracas. Setting it up is a lesson in self control, and several times we found ourselves cursing the contradictory instructions. Once it's finally up and running, the Smart Home Camera seems allergic to its web connection. The camera constantly drops offline, even when connected directly to a broadband router via Ethernet, and whether it recovers itself without a full reset is pot luck. That’s just not acceptable for a security device that you need to come through for you, whenever you need. On the few occasions the Smart Home Camera stayed connected long enough for us to access it, video frame rates were smooth, but inconsistent. Even when accessed over the local network, audio was choppy and when sending sound back to the camera it came out distorted, speeded up or repeated. Hardly the comforting feature we'd hoped to calm a distant pet or child.

The bottom line

While the design is tempting, the software makes this a non-starter.Samsung's quality hardware is undoubted, but the flaky software means the Smart Home Camera is utterly unreliable, and a risky investment if, as Samsung suggests in its marketing material, you intend to use this to keep watch over your most precious belongings: you’re far better off with something like Devolo’s dLan line of home security cams. 

[Source]

You can follow me on Twitter, add me to your circles on Google+ or Subscribe to me on facebook or YouTube. You can also check my website and blog to keep yourself updated with what is happening in the ever changing world of technology

Apple In Trouble Due to Deal Locking iPhone To AT&T

News are coming out, Apple sued again due to deal locking iPhone to AT&T, Plaintiffs says Apple violated the Sherman Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act by not giving users permission to have their iPhones locked to AT&T’s network.

The news comes from folks over at CNET, says:

Zach Ward and Thomas Buchar filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California on Friday alleging that the tech giant violated antitrust laws by locking iPhone buyers into voice and data contracts with AT&T Mobility. The plaintiffs claim that Apple violated the Sherman Act’s prohibition on monopolization by not obtaining consumers’ contractual consent to have their iPhones locked when the tech giant entered into a five-year exclusivity agreement with the wireless carrier in 2007.

 To enforce the terms of its agreement, Apple installed software locks on the iPhone that prevented buyers from taking their devices to a competing wireless carrier, the lawsuit claims. That activity violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which includes an exception that allows handset owners to modify their phones for use on the wireless network of their choice, the plaintiffs said.

“Through these actions, Apple has unlawfully stifled competition, reduced output and consumer choice, and artificially increased prices in the aftermarkets for iPhone voice and data services,” plaintiffs said in their lawsuit (see below).

In addition to monetary damages, the lawsuit seeks an order restraining Apple from programming iPhones in such a way that would prevent consumers from unlocking their SIM cards. The plaintiffs also want Apple to provide SIM unlock codes to iPhone owners on request, as well as an order preventing Apple from selling iPhones without adequately disclosing that the handsets are locked and obtaining consumers’ contractual consent for that arrangement.

Consumer frustration over handset software locks installed by wireless operators is nothing new, but previous lawsuits against wireless carriers over the issue have failed thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that found consumers no longer have the right to file class action lawsuits against wireless carriers. In AT&T vs. Concepcion (PDF), the court ruled that a clause in the carrier’s customer contract limiting consumers to arbitration instead of class action met the basic standards of fairness.

 However, this lawsuit takes a different tack, pursuing the handset maker rather than the wireless carrier. Whether Apple has a similar clause in its customer contract wasn’t immediately clear.   [Via CNET-News]

You can follow me on Twitter, add me to your circles on Google+ or Subscribe to me on facebook or YouTube. You can also check my website and blog to keep yourself updated with what is happening in the ever changing world of technology