Canary shows what happens when you make what was once free features locked behind a subscription paywall

[AlTech]

Canary is a company offering home security video camera services.

 

They recently announced changes to their Free Service and under the new terms, existing Free customers will lose the Night Mode feature (not to be mistaken with Night Vision).

 

The backlash has been quite significant to say the least.

Quote

Canary, a connected home security camera company, announced changes to its free service last week that went into effect on Tuesday. Under the new terms, non-paying users will no longer be able to freely access night mode on their cameras nor will they be able to record video for later viewing. Night mode is a feature that lets you set a schedule for your Canary camera to monitor your home while you sleep without sending notifications.

On top of that, all the videos the company previously recorded for free will be converted into 10-second clips called "video previews." Essentially, important features are being taken away from users unless they're willing to pay $9.99 a month. People aren't happy about it, and they're airing their grievances on Twitter.

 

This is what Canary had to say:

Quote

Today we stream nearly 500 million video clips per day. Most Canary users rely on notifications, Watch Live, and their timeline images to determine what is happening in their homes or businesses, which means that hundreds of millions of recorded videos travel through our platform unwatched, making the system slower, and costing Canary a significant amount in cloud expenses. To address this, we have aligned all free users on a plan that provides Video Previews that are still maintained on a 24-hour timeline. We have also introduced a faster Watch Live experience that can now be enabled while Canary devices are set to Away or Home mode. Our goal with these changes was to maintain a highly-competitive free service option while enabling continuous innovation and new feature development for all users.

 

And users have not reacted positively to these new changes:

 

 

So yeah, It's sad that a once free feature is now paid for but did you actually expect it to remain free forever?

 

If a product is free then something is wrong. It either means A) You're the product or B) somebody will need to adjust their business strategy soon.

 

Personally, I'm not one to expect things for free. There's a difference between offering things for free, offering things for ludicrous prices and offering things for reasonable prices.

People have become too used to the idea of not paying for things and frankly it's damaging the industry.  Because when people have to actually pay for things, many are unwilling to.

 

Source:

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/10/4/16426394/canary-smart-home-camera-free-service-update-change

 

[vorticalbox]

if the terms of service were that the night mode is free then it should stay free for all existing customers as this is the contract they brought into and these new terms should only apply to new customers.

 

That looks like a clear violation for trading standards and would imagine that legal action will be brought up against them soon enough

 

 

[Guest]

It's bad business to create an unsustainable business model. It is worse business to not admit it, come up with a model that keeps you afloat, and have an open and transparent dialogue with your user base. Most would accept being grandfathered in for some things and needing to pay for other things to keep a company going. It is a better option than getting absolutely nothing when the company has to fold. COMMUNICATION is where these companies keep messing up.

 

I find myself counting the days when a company offers only a free tier and uses words like "lifetime."

[RadiatingLight]

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

If a product is free then something is wrong. It either means A) You're the product or B) somebody will need to adjust their business strategy soon

or C) You bought a fucking physical product with real money, so it's not really free. the camera came with online features, which you're paying for with the camera itself.

[AlTech]

5 minutes ago, Legendarypoet said:

I find myself counting the days when a company offers only a free tier and uses words like "lifetime."

So you want more companies to start using subscriptions for things?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

So you want more companies to start using subscriptions for things?

No. I'm just saying that when I see that combo, I know things are going to get bad. Meaning it's just an indicator of things to come for me personally.

[samcool55]

This is why you should keep everything local and offline

The "cloud" stuff might sound good but this crap just keeps happening again and again. I don't have anything like this and i'm already sick and tired of it.

[suicidalfranco]

i blame the consumers for thinking that a cloud solution for security cameras was a good idea in the first place 

[Okjoek]

I like free shit.

[NumLock21]

8 hours ago, Legendarypoet said:

It's bad business to create an unsustainable business model. It is worse business to not admit it, come up with a model that keeps you afloat, and have an open and transparent dialogue with your user base. Most would accept being grandfathered in for some things and needing to pay for other things to keep a company going. It is a better option than getting absolutely nothing when the company has to fold. COMMUNICATION is where these companies keep messing up.

 

I find myself counting the days when a company offers only a free tier and uses words like "lifetime."

 

 Like that Synergy crap isn't it.

Your "Lifetime" is the the product you bought that's Synergy version 1. Not "lifetime" for all future Synergy products. Synergy 2 is counted at a new product.

What happened here is Canary did not account into the cost of running this free service, which they have to pay for themselves and then offer it "free" to their customers.

 

[PianoPlayer88Key]

9 hours ago, vorticalbox said:

if the terms of service were that the night mode is free then it should stay free for all existing customers as this is the contract they brought into and these new terms should only apply to new customers.

 

8 hours ago, Legendarypoet said:

Most would accept being grandfathered in for some things and needing to pay for other things to keep a company going. It is a better option than getting absolutely nothing when the company has to fold. COMMUNICATION is where these companies keep messing up.

 

I think I'd have to agree ... I think if a company says something is free, it should stay free essentially forever.  If there's a chance something can't stay free forever, then they should say up front when announcing the existence of the product, that they will eventually charge for it.

 

Actually ... for example in cases of software, for example, if newer versions of things are being charged for, the older versions should remain available free, for those who don't need, or can do without, the newer features.  Similar concept with services, I think - leave the existing things free, and add paid premium services, DON'T "move" things FROM free TO paid!

[SansVarnic]

The company should have released an announcement of the changes prior to implementing them, explaining why. 

I work in the Security industry and I can tell you that the cost of those free serviced are very expensive to maintain, it was going to implode eventually. 

Good move on the change but very poor on implementation ...

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

The company should have released an announcement of the changes prior to implementing them, explaining why. 

I work in the Security industry and I can tell you that the cost of those free serviced are very expensive to maintain, it was going to implode eventually. 

Good move on the change but very poor on implementation ...

There's a trap most companies run into when they're trying to scale. Any of the Silicon Valley spawned ones normally run into this. The "Free" aspect of their model almost always costs too much for the users they bring in. The issue is that, especially in items you've purchased, you expect the original "deal" to stick. (This isn't a bad thing, actually, as it makes an economy work.) Thus, changing the model is generally worse for a company unless it was well telegraphed early or the certain "free" aspects were only time-limited. 

 

The interesting part is YouTube is actually in the process of doing this, though for its Creators and not its End-Users and, as a result, is creating quite the constant drama because they're actually shifting to a White-list system.

[Rupe]

People who bought the product on the back of having these free services as opposed to a competitor when in other aspects a competitor may have been better will feel screwed by these changes. If the services are not sustainable then there mistake was offering them for free in the first place. They should at least apologize in their statement

[Trik'Stari]

It's called a dog, and not one of those tiny purse dogs.

 

Best security system you can have, since the dawn of mankind.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's called a dog, and not one of those tiny purse dogs.

 

Best security system you can have, since the dawn of mankind.

Doesn't help if you take your dog to the park for a walk and someone robs you blind while you're out