Ring is rebranding its subscription products, ditching Ring Protect in favor of Ring Home, and to celebrate it’s bringing some new features along. The most notable change is the addition of 24/7 recording if you own select wired video doorbells, ensuring you don’t miss anything if a motion alert wasn’t triggered. You’ll also get video clip previews sent through push notifications, rather than having to wait for the app to open.
In addition, users can now get Extended and Continuous Live View options for their cameras, letting them keep an eye on what’s going on when they need it. Extended Live View, for instance, will up the time limit on watching a camera from 10 minutes to 30, while Continuous removes the limit altogether. You’ll also get Doorbell Calls, which triggers a phone call that’ll connect straight to your smartphone when someone’s at the door.
The prices for each of the new Ring Home tiers will remain the same as their Ring Protect predecessors, at last for now. Home Basic is $4.99 a month, while Home Standard is $9.99/month, and Home Premium is $19.99/month. Unsurprisingly, Extended Live View and Doorbell Calls are available at the Standard tier, while the Continuous Live View and 24/7 recording are unlocked at the Premium level.
As for why the tiers were changed, it’s to enable users to bolt-on additional packages from Ring’s growing ecosystem of security products. It says that, when the change kicks in on November 5th, you’ll be able to add Virtual Security Guard and Alarm Professional Monitoring to the same plan.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/home/smart-home/ring-brings-247-recording-to-some-of-its-wired-cameras-130003545.html?src=rss
You’d think making a good digital picture frame would be easy. All you need is a good screen and a seamless way to get images to the device. Combine that with an inoffensive, frame-like design and you’re good to go.
Despite that, Amazon is positively littered with scads of digital photo frames and I can tell you that many of them are awful. It’s basically the 2020s version of what we saw with knock-off iPods back in the 2000s. There are loads of options that draw you in with a low price but deliver a totally subpar experience that will prompt you to shove the thing in a drawer and forget about it.
The good news is that you only need to find one smart photo frame that works. From there, you can have a pretty delightful experience. If you’re anything like me, you have thousands of photos on your phone of friends, family, pets, vacation spots, perhaps some lattes or plates of pasta and much more. Too often, those photos stay siloed on our phones, not shared with others or enjoyed on a larger scale. And sure, I can look at my photos on my laptop or an iPad, but there’s something enjoyable about having a dedicated place for these things. After all, there’s a reason photo frames exist in the first place, right? I tested out seven smart photo frames to weed through the junk and find the best digital frames worth buying.
What to look for in digital picture frames
While a digital photo frame feels like a simple piece of tech, there are a number of things I considered when trying to find one worth displaying in my home. First and foremost was display quality and size. I was surprised to learn that most digital photo frames have a resolution around 1,200 x 800, which feels positively pixelated in 2024. (That’s for frames with screen sizes in the nine- to ten-inch range, which is primarily what I considered for this guide.)
But after trying a bunch of frames, I realized that resolution is not the most important factor; my favorite frame has a 1,280 x 800 resolution. More important than sheer pixel density are things like reflectivity, brightness, viewing angles, color temperature and so forth. A lot of these digital photo frames were lacking in one or more of these factors; they often didn’t deal with reflections well or had poor viewing angles.
A lot of frames I tested felt cheap and looked ugly as well. That includes lousy stands, overly glossy plastic parts and design decisions I can only describe as strange, particularly for items that are meant to just blend into your home. The best digital photo frames don’t call attention to themselves and look like an actual “dumb” frame.
Perhaps the most important thing outside of the display, though, is the software. Let me be blunt: a number of frames I tested had absolutely atrocious companion apps and software experiences that I would not wish on anyone. One that I tried did not have a touchscreen, but did have an IR remote (yes, like the one you controlled your TV with 30 years ago). Trying to use that to get on a Wi-Fi network was painful, and when I tried instead to use a QR code, I was linked to a Google search for random numbers instead of an actual app or website. I gave up on that frame, the $140 PixStar, on the spot.
Other things were more forgivable. A lot of the frames out there are basically Android tablets with a bit of custom software slapped on the top, which worked fine but wasn’t terribly elegant. And having to interact with the photo frame via touch wasn’t great because you end up with fingerprints all over the display. The best frames I tried were smart about what features you could control on the frame itself vs. through an app, the latter of which is my preferred method.
Another important software note: many frames I tried require subscriptions for features that absolutely should be included out of the box. For example, one frame would only let me upload 10 photos at a time without a subscription. Others would let you link a Google Photos account, but you could only sync a single album without paying up. Yet another option didn’t let you create albums to organize the photos that were on the frame — it was just a giant scroll of photos with no way to give them order.
I can understand why certain things might go under a subscription, like if you’re getting a large amount of cloud storage, for example. But these subscriptions feel like ways for companies to make recurring revenue from a product made so cheaply they can’t make any money on the frame itself. I’d urge you to make sure your chosen frame doesn’t require a subscription (neither of the frames I recommend in this guide need a subscription for any of their features), especially if you plan on giving this device as a gift.
How much should you spend on a digital picture frame
For a frame with a nine- or ten-inch display, expect to spend at least $100. Our budget recommendation is $99, and all of the options I tried that were cheaper were not nearly good enough to recommend. Spending $150 to $180 will get you a significantly nicer experience in all facets, from software to design to screen quality.
The best digital picture frames for 2024
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/home/smart-home/best-digital-frame-120046051.html?src=rss
The Creami is based on a patent for an innovation previously only found in the restaurant biz. Once it expired, Ninja leaped at the chance to incorporate its design into a relatively affordable consumer product. The result is fast, easy and surprisingly yummy ice cream made from home.
Instead of the churning method used in most ice cream makers, the Ninja Creami uses a drill-like utensil to blend a frozen liquid base into a tasty dessert. Although it’s pretty loud while doing its thing, it’s still quieter than most countertop blenders — and only stays noisy for a few minutes.
When reviewing the standard Creami model (this Deluxe one includes extra containers and settings), Engadget’s Sam Rutherford concluded that tasting its resulting ice cream was “the best part.” It produces desserts with intense flavors and smooth textures. This higher-end model also makes smoothies and Frappuccino-style coffee drinks.
“Because the base is spun instead of churned, there’s less air inside your finished product,” our reviewer wrote. “This is good because it increases flavor intensity and delivers a slightly denser, more luxurious mouthfeel. It’s almost closer to a frozen custard than ice cream.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/deals/save-40-on-the-ninja-creami-ice-cream-maker-with-this-prime-day-deal-195620493.html?src=rss
A new joint venture between Uber’s Serve Robotics sidewalk delivery drones and Alphabet’s Wing flying drone service will do a dual test run. Both tech companies hope that flying and sidewalk drones can cover areas its counterpart can’t and speed up delivery times.
TechCrunch reported that Serve Robotics and Wing will start making deliveries in Dallas, Texas sometime in the coming months. The test will include a select number of customer orders being delivered by a combination of sidewalk and flying drones.
One of the biggest challenges for drone delivery is coverage. Flying drones can only travel a certain distance away from its headquarters. Sidewalk drones can find it hard to navigate densely populated areas and certain rocky terrains. Drone companies often have to upgrade their facilities to meet these distances and obstacles.
Wing
Serve Robotics and Wing’s idea is to use both types of drones for delivering orders to cover areas traditional delivery services cannot. A Serve bot picks up the order from a restaurant and carts the food to an “AutoLoader” where the Wing drone, a flying drone that can carry five pounds and fly at speeds up to 65 mph, picks up the order and completes the delivery.
It’s not known which restaurants or merchants will be part of the test, the areas in Dallas where the drones will deliver orders and any post-test plans for the new drone delivery fleet. Serve Robotics makes deliveries for 300 restaurants in Los Angeles. Wing also works with Walmart in Dallas and participated in a pilot program with DoorDash and Wendy’s in Virginia.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/uber-and-wing-will-partner-for-drone-delivery-pilot-in-dallas-205628584.html?src=rss
Licensing content from their vast libraries and back catalogs is how Hollywood studios make money. A TV show or movie that’s on Max in the US may be on a totally different service in the UK or Korea, with the studio pocketing the extra pounds or won in the process. That’s why savvy viewers have long used VPNs – virtual private networks – to expand their options. Change your location from the US to the UK and, voila, you suddenly have access to Friends and The Office on Netflix again.
That’s great if you’re watching on a phone, tablet or PC, where installing and activating a VPN is as generally as simple as visiting the device’s app store. But streaming through a VPN is a bit more challenging on a TV. Thankfully, there are quite a few ways to get that VPN-filtered content on the biggest screen in your home. Below, we’ll walk you through unlocking geo-blocked content on your TV.
If you don’t already have a VPN subscription, we’d suggest choosing a service from our list of best VPNs. And with the notable exception of Proton VPN, we’d strongly recommend avoiding any free VPN options.
How to stream video to your smart TV using a VPN
The easiest way to install a VPN on your smart TV is to download it from the built-in app store – if your preferred VPN is available. Among the top smart TV platforms, Amazon’s Fire TV and Google TV are your best bets for built-in support. If your set doesn’t run those operating systems, you can add them to any TV with a free HDMI port for as little as $30. Meanwhile, the pricier Apple TV supports a growing list of VPNs as well. Roku, unfortunately, does not support built-in VPN apps.
Fire TV
Amazon’s Fire TV operating system has a wide range of content to binge-watch, as it comes with access to Prime Video’s expansive catalog. Thankfully, its user interface is easy to navigate, making installing a VPN a breeze.
Amazon’s Fire TV Stick line is a very VPN-friendly streaming platform.
Amazon
To set up a VPN, navigate to the Fire TV app store and search for the VPN service to which you’re subscribed. Fire TV has multiple options on the app store, including most of the services mentioned in our aforementioned best VPNs list.
From there, the process is pretty simple: Download the app, log in and connect to the VPN. When you obfuscate your IP address using the VPN and connect to a different country, you’ll unlock its Prime Video content library.
Google TV
Google TV is a smart TV operating system with a sleek user interface that supports thousands of apps, including VPNs and streaming platforms. As with Fire TV, just download your VPN app of choice, input your credentials and run it before activating the streaming service you’d like to check out. While Google TV doesn’t have as robust a VPN library as Fire TV, it currently has a wider selection than Apple TV (see below). Read How to stream using a VPN on your Google TV or Chromecast for more details.
Apple TV
If you want to install a VPN on your Apple TV directly, you’ll need tvOS 17 or later. If not, you can follow our alternative workarounds below.
Apple TV boxes have become more VPN-friendly with recent OS updates.
Devindra Hardawar/Engadget
For those with tvOS 17 and later, setting up a VPN on your Apple TV is simple. However, it’s important to note that it doesn’t support many services, so you’ll have to double-check that the VPN you subscribe to has Apple TV compatibility. Read How to use a VPN on your Apple TV for more details.
AirPlay or Google Cast from a VPN-enabled device
There are two distinctions between screen casting and mirroring. The former is when you stream content on a device, cast it on your smart TV and still use the device for other purposes without interrupting what you’re streaming. The latter is when you show everything you’re doing on your device on your TV. For example, if you’re streaming a movie and tab out, your smart TV will mirror everything you’re doing.
As with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in vehicles, there are Apple and Google flavors of screencasting: AirPlay and Google Cast (formerly Chromecast). In each case, you start by running your VPN of choice on your phone or tablet, firing up your streaming app, starting your movie or TV show and simply clicking the AirPlay or Google Cast icon when streaming the video. If your TV doesn’t have AirPlay or Google Cast built-in, you can buy a set-top box that supports one or the other.
AirPlay is probably the most well-known casting and mirroring technology, and it currently works on a wide range of smart TVs and set-top boxes. I screencasted from my iPhone XR with a VPN enabled to my Samsung UHD TV and everything worked without a hitch.
On the Google side, click the icon with a TV and Wi-Fi rays to start casting your content to the big screen.
Note that Amazon is working on a rival screencasting platform called Matter Casting, but it’s not widely supported yet.
If you don’t want to fiddle with wireless protocols, an underrated and lesser-known way to stream video to your TV using a VPN is via an HDMI cable. You’ll need an HDMI cable and (for some devices) an HDMI dongle, such as one that converts a USB-C port to HDMI. Once connected, your laptop, phone or tablet screen should be displayed on your TV’s screen. At that point, just fire up your VPN, start your streaming app (or browser) and maximize the window.
Whole-house VPN access: Set up a VPN on your router
All of the methods above describe ways to get VPN streaming access on a single TV. But if you want a whole-house approach – in which you could, for instance, watch UK Netflix on every device on your home network – you’d want to investigate accessing the VPN at the router level. Just note this is for advanced users only, and is far and away the most challenging method of the bunch.
This requires installing a new router, or making major modifications to your existing one. Furthermore, it generally requires installing a custom firmware on a router, which usually means voiding the hardware manufacturer’s warranty. And even then, you’ll need an expert user in the household who knows how to engage and disengage the VPN and customize its settings, as leaving it turned on all the time can interfere with non-streaming activities, including simple things like shopping online.
All that said, a more streamlined whole-home option for ExpressVPN users is to try out that provider’s AirCove router models. (Note that Engadget has not yet tested these models.) Because they are ExpressVPN’s own hardware, they include warranty coverage and support through the company.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cybersecurity/vpn/how-to-stream-video-to-your-tv-via-a-vpn-143736234.html?src=rss
Microsoft is discontinuing production of its HoloLens 2 headset, according a report from UploadVR. The company has no plans for a follow-up device, telling customers this will be the last chance to purchase the headset before stock runs out. At launch, it was advertised as a device for enterprise consumers, so it never really entered the mass market. The move isn’t that surprising, considering Microsoft scrapped plans for a HoloLens 3 headset back in 2022. We’re waiting for the official line from the company.
It’s not exactly indicative of a death knell for VR and AR, though. Apple’s Vision Pro isn’t yet a year old, while Meta and Snap have both announced new glasses hardware in the last month. However, those last two companies’ take on AR are substantially smaller (and lighter) than the HoloLens — if not exactly subtle.
Netflix has finally shared a full-length trailer ahead of Squid Game’s second season premier on December 26, calling for viewers to “Get back in the game.” It centers on the mysterious salesperson from the start of the series, reprised by Gong Yoo — and he wants to play again.
reMarkable’s new ‘pro’ e-paper tablet has a color screen, creating a best-in-class distraction-free writing experience. Combined with a stylus and a folio keyboard, it’s built for ideas and writing. Is it as powerful as an iPad? No. Is it expensive? Yes.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/the-morning-after-microsoft-is-killing-off-hololens-2-111629324.html?src=rss
Women of color running for Congress in 2024 have faced a disproportionate number of attacks on X compared with other candidates, according to a new report from the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the University of Pittsburgh.
The report sought to “compare the levels of offensive speech and hate speech that different groups of Congressional candidates are targeted with based on race and gender, with a particular emphasis on women of color.” To do this, the report’s authors analyzed 800,000 tweets that covered a three-month period between May 20 and August 23 of this year. That dataset represented all posts mentioning a candidate running for Congress with an account on X.
The report’s authors found that more than 20 percent of posts directed at Black and Asian women candidates “contained offensive language about the candidate.” It also found that Black women in particular were targeted with hate speech more often compared with other candidates.
“On average, less than 1% of all tweets that mentioned a candidate contained hate speech,” the report says. “However, we found that African-American women candidates were more likely than any other candidate to be subject to this type of post (4%).” That roughly lines up with X’s recent transparency report — the company’s first since Elon Musk took over the company — which said that rule-breaking content accounts for less than 1 percent of all posts on its platform.
Notably, the CDT’s report analyzed both hate speech — which ostensibly violates X’s policies — and “offensive speech,” which the report defined as “words or phrases that demean, threaten, insult, or ridicule a candidate.” While the latter category may not be against X’s rules, the report notes that the volume of suck attacks could still deter women of color from running for office. It recommends that X and other platforms take “specific measures” to counteract such effects.
“This should include clear policies that prohibit attacks against someone based on race or gender, greater transparency into how their systems address these types of attacks, better reporting tools and means for accountability, regular risk assessments with an emphasis on race and gender, and privacy preserving mechanisms for independent researchers to conduct studies using their data. The consequences of the status-quo where women of color candidates are targeted with significant attacks online at much higher rates than other candidates creates an immense barrier to creating a truly inclusive democracy.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/women-of-color-running-for-congress-are-attacked-disproportionately-on-x-report-finds-043206066.html?src=rss
Women of color running for Congress in 2024 have faced a disproportionate number of attacks on X compared with other candidates, according to a new report from the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the University of Pittsburgh.
The report sought to “compare the levels of offensive speech and hate speech that different groups of Congressional candidates are targeted with based on race and gender, with a particular emphasis on women of color.” To do this, the report’s authors analyzed 800,000 tweets that covered a three-month period between May 20 and August 23 of this year. That dataset represented all posts mentioning a candidate running for Congress with an account on X.
The report’s authors found that more than 20 percent of posts directed at Black and Asian women candidates “contained offensive language about the candidate.” It also found that Black women in particular were targeted with hate speech more often compared with other candidates.
“On average, less than 1% of all tweets that mentioned a candidate contained hate speech,” the report says. “However, we found that African-American women candidates were more likely than any other candidate to be subject to this type of post (4%).” That roughly lines up with X’s recent transparency report — the company’s first since Elon Musk took over the company — which said that rule-breaking content accounts for less than 1 percent of all posts on its platform.
Notably, the CDT’s report analyzed both hate speech — which ostensibly violates X’s policies — and “offensive speech,” which the report defined as “words or phrases that demean, threaten, insult, or ridicule a candidate.” While the latter category may not be against X’s rules, the report notes that the volume of suck attacks could still deter women of color from running for office. It recommends that X and other platforms take “specific measures” to counteract such effects.
“This should include clear policies that prohibit attacks against someone based on race or gender, greater transparency into how their systems address these types of attacks, better reporting tools and means for accountability, regular risk assessments with an emphasis on race and gender, and privacy preserving mechanisms for independent researchers to conduct studies using their data. The consequences of the status-quo where women of color candidates are targeted with significant attacks online at much higher rates than other candidates creates an immense barrier to creating a truly inclusive democracy.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/women-of-color-running-for-congress-are-attacked-disproportionately-on-x-report-finds-043206066.html?src=rss
Women of color running for Congress in 2024 have faced a disproportionate number of attacks on X compared with other candidates, according to a new report from the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the University of Pittsburgh.
The report sought to “compare the levels of offensive speech and hate speech that different groups of Congressional candidates are targeted with based on race and gender, with a particular emphasis on women of color.” To do this, the report’s authors analyzed 800,000 tweets that covered a three-month period between May 20 and August 23 of this year. That dataset represented all posts mentioning a candidate running for Congress with an account on X.
The report’s authors found that more than 20 percent of posts directed at Black and Asian women candidates “contained offensive language about the candidate.” It also found that Black women in particular were targeted with hate speech more often compared with other candidates.
“On average, less than 1% of all tweets that mentioned a candidate contained hate speech,” the report says. “However, we found that African-American women candidates were more likely than any other candidate to be subject to this type of post (4%).” That roughly lines up with X’s recent transparency report — the company’s first since Elon Musk took over the company — which said that rule-breaking content accounts for less than 1 percent of all posts on its platform.
Notably, the CDT’s report analyzed both hate speech — which ostensibly violates X’s policies — and “offensive speech,” which the report defined as “words or phrases that demean, threaten, insult, or ridicule a candidate.” While the latter category may not be against X’s rules, the report notes that the volume of suck attacks could still deter women of color from running for office. It recommends that X and other platforms take “specific measures” to counteract such effects.
“This should include clear policies that prohibit attacks against someone based on race or gender, greater transparency into how their systems address these types of attacks, better reporting tools and means for accountability, regular risk assessments with an emphasis on race and gender, and privacy preserving mechanisms for independent researchers to conduct studies using their data. The consequences of the status-quo where women of color candidates are targeted with significant attacks online at much higher rates than other candidates creates an immense barrier to creating a truly inclusive democracy.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/women-of-color-running-for-congress-are-attacked-disproportionately-on-x-report-finds-043206066.html?src=rss
Women of color running for Congress in 2024 have faced a disproportionate number of attacks on X compared with other candidates, according to a new report from the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the University of Pittsburgh.
The report sought to “compare the levels of offensive speech and hate speech that different groups of Congressional candidates are targeted with based on race and gender, with a particular emphasis on women of color.” To do this, the report’s authors analyzed 800,000 tweets that covered a three-month period between May 20 and August 23 of this year. That dataset represented all posts mentioning a candidate running for Congress with an account on X.
The report’s authors found that more than 20 percent of posts directed at Black and Asian women candidates “contained offensive language about the candidate.” It also found that Black women in particular were targeted with hate speech more often compared with other candidates.
“On average, less than 1% of all tweets that mentioned a candidate contained hate speech,” the report says. “However, we found that African-American women candidates were more likely than any other candidate to be subject to this type of post (4%).” That roughly lines up with X’s recent transparency report — the company’s first since Elon Musk took over the company — which said that rule-breaking content accounts for less than 1 percent of all posts on its platform.
Notably, the CDT’s report analyzed both hate speech — which ostensibly violates X’s policies — and “offensive speech,” which the report defined as “words or phrases that demean, threaten, insult, or ridicule a candidate.” While the latter category may not be against X’s rules, the report notes that the volume of suck attacks could still deter women of color from running for office. It recommends that X and other platforms take “specific measures” to counteract such effects.
“This should include clear policies that prohibit attacks against someone based on race or gender, greater transparency into how their systems address these types of attacks, better reporting tools and means for accountability, regular risk assessments with an emphasis on race and gender, and privacy preserving mechanisms for independent researchers to conduct studies using their data. The consequences of the status-quo where women of color candidates are targeted with significant attacks online at much higher rates than other candidates creates an immense barrier to creating a truly inclusive democracy.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/women-of-color-running-for-congress-are-attacked-disproportionately-on-x-report-finds-043206066.html?src=rss
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
