The argument "you need to upload all your data to our servers or you'll likely have to get another to TV to view it" is just beyond lame.
Everything is cheaper per pound in a data center. And they can force updates if the client is dumber.
And the customers won't complain when the SSD eventually dies.
> and allow the user to view them on their smart phone by connecting to the base station through the wifi?
Because people will want to do it across WAN. LAN-only is one piece of code, WAN-only is another. Going up to WAN for everything is redundant but costs less dev time.
Yes, it's frustrating for us who care about privacy. The motive is never to build a good product that respects people and does what they want. The motive is always to make money. Every corner must be cut.
Yes, agreed. That's just a totally different argument than the one supergeek133 made, so my point stands.
Like this, even if the perpetrator takes the camera/bell with him/her, the evidence stays on the cloud.
Also, for evidence to be admissible in a court of law, one has to prove the chain of custody. Something in your laptop is more prone to editing than a video sitting on a cloud where logs vouch for its integrity.
Edit: don't let me invoke the gods of security frameworks. My laptop at home is not ISO27001 compliant, has never been assessed for security etc. The infrastructure of Ring (I believe) is regularly assessed/audited.
That being said I've always been a huge proponent of allowing some type of local control. Think of people in the automation market (Control 4, CEDIA type stuff) where it would simply be faster.
Even Google/Amazon allow local lambda function type activities that would be much better experience if we allowed local control.
But that also changes your security landscape.
It needs to be connected to a TV to view the video locally, or you need to have some technical knowledge to setup RTSP on your LAN.
Again, total addressable market.
Do you disagree?