423
You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money... (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You’ve just spent $400 on a baby monitor. Now you need a subscription | Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn’t making quite enough money...::Once upon a time there was a company called Miku who wasn't making quite enough money...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

They've also not been fine.

SUID Death rate for infants has decreased even since 1990. Baby monitor likely had a role in that.

FYI not supporting subscription for features a device has in hardware, just saying I'd rather have a monitor that never went off than no monitor and a dead child. There are plenty of alternative devices without subs that cost a lot less to begin with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You know what else happened in the 90s? Leaded gas was banned. I'll attribute it to that. Anecdotes don't mean much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    I'm not saying baby monitors are the only reason for improved SUID rates. I'm saying they likely played a role. Despite your sarcasm, you might also be right that lead could have adversely affected unexplained infant mortality. The point I was trying to make was that baby monitors are not useless devices designed to extract money from you as implied by OP, whose comments by the way, were anecdotal.

    $400 is excessive though. As is a subscription.

    And data on SIDS is freely available. https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent