Canon charges $50 per year to use a $900 camera as a functional webcam
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
No, that's not how chip tuning works, and no cars are not built that way.
Come on, let's not just start wholesale making up examples to justify this practice.
Thanks to my kittens knocking down a box this morning I randomly happen to have my Cobb AccessPort lying on the floor next to me. I don't use it anymore, my car has been set up how I like it for years now, was on a shelf. Until, well, cats. Which is why it's also covered in cat hair (and the rubber is getting that gross tacky thing older equipment does, not helping, sorry!)
Chip tuning comes in different flavors but this is one of them. Plugs into the OBDII port, I can flash different "tunes" onto my ECU. Why would one do that? Because yes, you can unlock more power from your engine. But not because the factory sold me a better car 'detuned' to a worse one, it's because manufacturers are conservative. They know that people will do things like put 87 octane gas in the car when they're not supposed to. They don't push all the limits because they'd rather reduce warranty expenses etc.
Aftermarket tuners can find a little extra oomph because they're willing to tinker with getting closer to the limits. And the people who use it aren't morons about the gas they use. (You can also pick your tune based on your needs and acceptable risk level. I'm running something meant for daily driving, not the track. I also upgraded the front mount intercooler and the charge pipe and exhaust at the same time to be able to do it all safely.)
If I didn't live in California where we top at at 91 octane I could put a little more aggressive tune for 93 octane in. As it is I have a little more power, a little less turbo lag, and it's something fun to tinker with. But I'm not getting something that should have come with my car, I'm modding aftermarket performance into it, understanding the risks.
Like almost all car analogies this doesn't map cleanly onto something like cameras. But to torture the comparison it's like buying a DSLR, and then getting a better lens. You didn't get cheated by the stock lens, you just upgraded to a better one.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
I MIGHT be wrong, but I remember pretty vividly that at least in Europe some cars were sold with different engine power options, and the only difference was the software in the engine. The mechanical side was exactly the same, but the cheaper version just had software that gave less power. It was cheaper for the manufacturer to build one engine and make the budget version limited in software. Unfortunately, I don't remember which engine that was and I'm not going to research it now, so maybe I'm mistaken.
Also, lately BMW came up with the idea for subscriptions for seat heating etc but I think they backed down after everyone started laughing at the idea. However, my Nissan Connect app is a subscription service (used to remotely turn on heating in the car, locate the car, etc). So the hardware is in the car but some functionality is behind subscription.
And you're still not getting that "actual output" of that camera because its hardware is not capable of streaming 1080p or 4k through USB. This pro webcam software from Canon gives you 720p UPSCALED to 1080p. Those people that want a nice webcam should buy one and not try to repurpose something that was never meant to be one.
If you actually get a Canon camera that can stream high quality video over USB you get that functionality with the camera over standard protocols and you don't have to use any Canon software.
No, you don't really get better quality. The stream is still 720p, upscaled by software.
Also, we're not talking only about this camera, the article says that no matter how much you pay for a Canon camera you still need to pay subscription if you want it as high quality webcam. That is just not true. Many Canon cameras offer high quality webcam mode without subscription. Including my EOS R8.
Upvote
-17
(5
/
-22)
Does anyone want to know why corporations do this crap.
There's one easy answer, because people are stupid enough to pay for it.
Does anyone remember the phrase "Customer Service"? It used to be included in the purchase price of the product. Not anymore!
There's one easy answer, because people are stupid enough to pay for it.
Does anyone remember the phrase "Customer Service"? It used to be included in the purchase price of the product. Not anymore!
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
And how does this make it reasonable for them to charge a subscription for software for their older cameras? Answer: it doesn't.
Sure, you can get the base mode for free. But charging on a monthly (or annual) basis for the upsell is entirely unreasonable, given that there's no cloud costs, and almost certainly minimal ongoing development costs. They don't even give you true 1080p for the price - just a digital upscale, which makes the practice worse.
A nominal once-off charge would be reasonable: after all, this is something that was presumably developed and released long after the cameras in question. There's no problem (at least in my books) with spending a small amount to unlock a completely new feature that was never there before and was never promised. But charging a subscription for something that requires absolutely no further effort on Canon's part - that's pure rent seeking, irrespective of what newer cameras might be able to do.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
I refuse to use software that has to 'phone home' to see if the subscription is still active to use it.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Yes, I agree that it should be a one-off payment. However, I hope you see that with this narrative Canon would actually be better off if they never added this functionality. I’ve looked through the product page on Canon website and through this camera’s manual. There’s no mention whatsoever that it can be used as a webcam. So when buying no one should reasonably expect for it to function as a webcam and no one would have any negative feelings that it doesn’t. If they never added this functionality they would avoid this bad press and this camera would just be known as a really good compact camera, instead of being on front page of ArsTechnica with the text that without subscription it’s less valuable than a $50 webcam.
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
Shouldn't it be maximum technically possible fps? If that requires subscription, under any excuses it invalidates Canon products. It's like buying a Ferrari only to find out that you can drive up to 100 mph and if you'd like to go past that, subscribe.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
Not exactly. It’s like buying a Ferrari and finding out 2 years later it can function as a motorboat, but if you want a fast motorboat you need a subscription.
In your example a Ferrari is meant to go fast. This camera was never meant for live streaming.
Sure, should be a one-off payment, not a subscription. The same with Adobe software, MS Office etc.
When you buy a Ferrari you’ll also find out that the price to service simplest things is at least triple as a “normal” car, even though no additional labour is needed.
Upvote
-17
(3
/
-20)
A difference is that this is no surprise at all to anyone, and the company, Ferrari, is very clear about it to potential customers.
They offer a subscription service where you buy a car and they keep it, take care of it and deliver it in top condition on a track day of your choosing (if I recall correctly), which is clearly also expensive, but at least has the potential to save time and effort if that's how you intend to use the car, though less freedom. Regardless, it is also something they make very clear, as their customers are buying an expensive machine.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
Even here Canon has been failing hard for years. They have gimped every one of their cameras (even their so-called R5 "cine" camera) with micro-HDMI until just last year. I have ruled Canon out of my camera-buying decisions for this monumental blunder alone, because I will not buy a camera that I can't reliably attach a viewfinder or external recorder to.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
That's because when you buy a BlackMagic camera, you get a lifetime license to the paid version of Resolve.
So your example is invalid (and in fact contradicts the point you seem to be trying to make) for that reason alone, in addition to "thinking you have to use Davinci Resolve" making no sense in the context of this article.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Especially true for anyone dumb enough to accompany Elmo to Mars
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
If you don't need video/webcam capability and are only interested in shooting stills, this is a good argument for either dusting off your old DSLR if you still have one, or seeking one out if you don't, or going back to shooting on film, because not only do older DSLRs predate this paywalling/DRM stuff by a couple decades, but also film, by definition of being an analog format, is unaffected by paywalling/DRM entirely and you actually own a physical copy of the things you shoot, you just need a darkroom of some kind to develop your own stock in and you need to learn basic chemistry in order to develop that stock.
I'm not worried about just Canon here, what if this sort of behavior proliferates across the rest of the industry and other vendors start copying Canon and even start acting bolder with what exactly they'll lock behind a paywall? Like, imagine your E-mount body suddenly locking the ability to shoot in RAW behind a paywall, and only working with Sony-branded glass, which is already crappy as it is should that actually happen and not just stay as speculation on my part, now imagine that also applying to the entry-level a6000-series APS-C bodies as well as the higher-end full-frame bodies in the range, this is what could happen with other vendors if they start to copy Canon, and what either seeking out older DSLRs or going back to film circumvents.
Tl;dr, as Louis Rossmann puts it, if one big company gets away with doing something crappy, the rest of the industry will follow, it happened with phones when Apple removed the headphone jack and Samsung started copying them, it happened with laptops when, once again, Apple limited the number of ports on Macbooks and other PC laptop makers started copying that, and even desktop PC mainboards act similarly in cutting back on the number of expansion slots over the years, and there's nothing saying it won't happen to cameras with Canon paywalling webcam functionality should other camera makers copy them and start paywalling other functionality in the future, although at least cameras have some protection against that built in by way of older bodies still generally being capable of the same functions, at the same quality, that they were capable of when they were new, and then of course film cams are only as capable as the film stock you load into them.
I'm not worried about just Canon here, what if this sort of behavior proliferates across the rest of the industry and other vendors start copying Canon and even start acting bolder with what exactly they'll lock behind a paywall? Like, imagine your E-mount body suddenly locking the ability to shoot in RAW behind a paywall, and only working with Sony-branded glass, which is already crappy as it is should that actually happen and not just stay as speculation on my part, now imagine that also applying to the entry-level a6000-series APS-C bodies as well as the higher-end full-frame bodies in the range, this is what could happen with other vendors if they start to copy Canon, and what either seeking out older DSLRs or going back to film circumvents.
Tl;dr, as Louis Rossmann puts it, if one big company gets away with doing something crappy, the rest of the industry will follow, it happened with phones when Apple removed the headphone jack and Samsung started copying them, it happened with laptops when, once again, Apple limited the number of ports on Macbooks and other PC laptop makers started copying that, and even desktop PC mainboards act similarly in cutting back on the number of expansion slots over the years, and there's nothing saying it won't happen to cameras with Canon paywalling webcam functionality should other camera makers copy them and start paywalling other functionality in the future, although at least cameras have some protection against that built in by way of older bodies still generally being capable of the same functions, at the same quality, that they were capable of when they were new, and then of course film cams are only as capable as the film stock you load into them.
Last edited:
Upvote
-6
(1
/
-7)
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
What's stopping Fuji and Nikon, or Sony or any of the other camera makers, from paywalling functionality in the future if Canon gets away with paywalling webcam functionality? As I added to my comment, if one big company gets away with doing something crappy, others will follow, also as I pointed out, there's already precedent for the crappy decisions of one big company being copied by others in other industries, so I'm not exactly talking out my rear here.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Well, lost sales to their competitors might provide some incentive not to do such things.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
my elgato is getting extra life with my panasonic camera instead of switching to canon.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
My Nikon Z5 works as a webcam with the free Nokia software. I didn’t check the resolution and so on, but it seemed fine when I tried it.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Not to mention that even if you don't get the "free" license with the camera, or don't buy one of their cameras, you can still just buy the license straight up, and it is lifetime, including full version updates (a license bought for 15 is just as valid for 19 without having to pay anything extra). And they keep adding features to the free version, instead of just gimping it to try to extract more money from people. I have one of their cameras (bought used, no idea where the license was), and have yet to encounter a feature that the free version hasn't supported that I have needed for my semi-professional/semi-hobby usage of Resolve.
edit to add: Resolve also works with non-Blackmagic cameras. For free. With pretty much no restriction on features that most home and sem-pro uses would need.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
You missed the point. You don't have to use resolve if you don't want to. Read further
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
No.. I'm not talking about the subscription from your ISP. I'm talking about the hardware manufacturer also requiring a subscription (on top of what you already pay to your ISP)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
But companies need to make the maximum profit possible, not matter what they legally can get away with, otherwise the poor owners and shareholders would have to work themselves. It would be rather anti-capitalist to criticize it, wouldn't it? And I'm almost sure that's illegal now, right?
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
You forgot about the part where reverse engineering is now effectively illegal.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Louis Rossman throwing shade at this article:
View: https://youtu.be/xYLMZuKWLfE?si=So4vPMXG5faaVW_7&t=156
(c: \users\downloads link still exists at time of writing
)
View: https://youtu.be/xYLMZuKWLfE?si=So4vPMXG5faaVW_7&t=156
(c: \users\downloads link still exists at time of writing
)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Oh come on now. There is no chance they are that ridiculous.
The first 2,000 a year is going to be included. After that it'll just be 2 cents per click. I mean, come on, you are wearing the thing out fast and might have a warranty claim coming up because of it! /s
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Louis Rossman throwing shade at this article:
View: https://youtu.be/xYLMZuKWLfE?si=So4vPMXG5faaVW_7&t=156
(c: \users\downloads link still exists at time of writing
Yeah, he just states that Ars missed something about different cameras having different requirements--some small point.
But the video is excellent.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I loved magic lantern and the lack of availability on newer models meant I have not and will not upgrade my DSLR. I'll just use my phone most of the time now and the old DSLR I have is still just fine for most things.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Arguably below bargain bin resolution and quality in 2025. 720p is so very 2018. Apple was (rightly) criticized when their M1 laptops came out with 720p max resolution cameras in 2020.
It's inexcusable when the USB video class spec has been around for a decade that a 6 grand camera can't handle it while webcams of modest means have no trouble even if they support multiple output formats.
It's $5/month subs, but how much are the screwing customers over for in additional spyware features under the guise of "usage metrics" they're harvesting?
Edit: Yes, there is a free utility that lets you use a phone as a webcam for a desktop class system. It's called "CamoCamera". And there's no way it's going to work with a dSLR. But that's really not the point here. Canon is just being a very good example of the excessively greedy corporate entity.
Last edited:
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Louis Rossman throwing shade at this article:
View: https://youtu.be/xYLMZuKWLfE?si=So4vPMXG5faaVW_7&t=156
(c: \users\downloads link still exists at time of writing
That was a very helpful response, and I hope Ars see and act on it.
While the article was substantially correct, it looks like maybe the Ars staff didn't do quite the amount of due diligence we've come to expect from them, leading to this debate blowing up in the comments section.
Fair enough, mistakes happen, I just hope Ars owns this one and don't do what so many others do and try to quietly sweep it under the rug, as it's the best way to maintain trust.
As for Canon's excuse, sorry what? You're making a profit in the billions and you can't afford to pay a team of software engineers to keep your software up to date with the hardware you sell? Do me a favour! This is the absolute worst kind of nickel and diming.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Have noticed this, seems to be some companies after enshitifying or shrinkflating their product, have then bright out a “premium” product for a premium price which is suspiciously similar to the original pre-shitted product… but at a now inflated price.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I guess that my next SLR camera won't be a Canon - I have no interest in goods that a manufacturer can cripple or brick if I don't keep paying for it over and over and over.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
As I stated multiple times here in the comments this is just not true and this article repeats false information without any fact checking.
A “6 grand camera” absolutely CAN handle this, as every new Canon camera has USB video class.
Also, resolution is not everything when it comes to image quality. 720p from big sensor camera and good lens beats 1080p from a webcam hands down.
My iPhone 15 Pro has 48MP sensor. My full frame Canon EOS R8 has 24MP sensor and creates much higher quality images.
Upvote
-1
(5
/
-6)
Your hardware manufacturer will also be charging you a subscription. So if you had a Nokia phone, you're paying them a sub, on top of going to AT&T.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
How many of you pay a subscription for local TV when you can get it for free with an antenna? Just asking. Some people will pay for ease of use.
For the record, I believe if you pay for the hardware you should be able to use it free of charge. BMW found that out when they attempted to charge a subscription for heated seats.
If they are doing something with added value in the cloud like storage, indexing, search whatever then fine. If they are artificially charging you for stuff that is occurring locally then not fine.
For the record, I believe if you pay for the hardware you should be able to use it free of charge. BMW found that out when they attempted to charge a subscription for heated seats.
If they are doing something with added value in the cloud like storage, indexing, search whatever then fine. If they are artificially charging you for stuff that is occurring locally then not fine.
Upvote
-13
(0
/
-13)