How is this getting investor money, and how are consumers seeing this as something worth paying for?
It's just not hard to flip the light switch when you leave the room, and you don't need an all-seeing eye uploading everything that happens in your house to a massive corporation.
I can't believe this is a feature that gets the hype that it does. It's almost as cliche as the example of making a dinner reservation.
You could not pay me to use such a stupid device. No clue why people invest in or purchase such a product.
There have been significant price drops in small modules for short range, rudimentary V-band (60 GHz) radar to do this sort of thing, which companies can built into their consumer-priced product.
I think some of the better ones are a little bit too power hungry to be entirely wireless on battery, and have a USB-C port in their rear, you're meant to plug it in persistently to a small USB charger and tuck the cable away somewhere.
At $0.11 per kWh if say it's 30W and I leave it on 24x7 for a month it's 22.32 kWh, or about $2.5 of electricity a month. Multiply by three for like $7.5 a month if this was a California electric rate. In the longer run I'd like to have a way to turn it on and off automatically not so much to save money, but to have a way to turn off all the house lights in one toggle in home assistant when going to bed, just for the convenience of it.
But ya, it's not that hard, the only place I've found a motion sensor to be useful was in the garage.
Xfinity currently offers WiFi motion detection with their gateways. [1]
[0] Ordinary WiFi can now identify people with near perfect accuracy https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260522023127.h...
What would be the main advantage of this design? My understanding is that it captures image frames, retains them in RAM, and processes them with a CPU without saving them to a flash (or an SSD). Even if an attacker manages to compromise the camera, there wouldn't be historical data to retrieve. But couldn't an attacker with sufficient access read the frames currently in RAM and possibly capture footage while maintaining the access? Could hardware isolation prevent this even if some of the camera's software were compromised?
It feels like it's becoming harder to strike the right balance between privacy and the actual utility that the device is supposed to provide.
Unfortunately apple devices collect EXTREME amounts of telemetry, you are opted-in by default, and much of it is impossible to opt-out of.
CoMaps. Though that's probably a bit hardcore for most people.
At the end of the day, Google is worse. But Google has a better set of POIs. If Apple is throwing in the towel on privacy, I'm not sure the degrees matter as much as the difference in quality.
Thanks for letting us know that it's mainly the surveillance device. The advanced one.
"You think your watch records the audio around you? No no no. The audio flows into the Secure Enclave, and flowing is definitely not recording because it’s a different word." (https://leancrew.com/all-this/2026/09/new-apple-watches-have...)
via https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/record
Seems accurate if the audio captured isn't stored in a reproducible fashion.
Of course, Apple still collects more data than it needs to and abuses users in other ways, so I don't really feel bad for them.
Don't mean to make this sound like a gotcha, but the technical implementation is secondary to how there's no output .wav anyone could play back. I think saying "there's no recording" is a fair and clear to normal people description of what happens.
that’s really the question to be answered here.