The reason is so you can control it from anywhere without setting up port forwarding and a static IP. Most people don’t understand, or can be bothered, doing that. I get why you don’t like it, I wouldn’t like it either, but it’s not some conspiracy.
It would be far better if somebody sold a single VPN device for the mass public to be able to access home devices. Something wireguard based could be so simple for people to use. Even better if your ISP had this as a standard feature which they made easy to setup Then none of these devices would have an excuse to go out to the company’s servers. Any that did would be obviously spying and they could be shamed.
Better yet if the lasy ass ISPs would move over to IPv6, ditch CG-NAT and give static addresses for all. I suspect there is a deeper issue as I believe that even on IPv6, mobile phone internet is still hidden behind CG-NAT.
The reason is so you can control it from anywhere without setting up port forwarding and a static IP. Most people don’t understand, or can be bothered, doing that. I get why you don’t like it, I wouldn’t like it either, but it’s not some conspiracy.
It would be far better if somebody sold a single VPN device for the mass public to be able to access home devices. Something wireguard based could be so simple for people to use. Even better if your ISP had this as a standard feature which they made easy to setup Then none of these devices would have an excuse to go out to the company’s servers. Any that did would be obviously spying and they could be shamed.
Better yet if the lasy ass ISPs would move over to IPv6, ditch CG-NAT and give static addresses for all. I suspect there is a deeper issue as I believe that even on IPv6, mobile phone internet is still hidden behind CG-NAT.
Doesn’t wireguard’s zero config work by relaying through an outside web service? Seems like the LG solution with extra steps.