Arlo Video Doorbell launches with large field of view, but no HomeKit

Posted:
in iPhone
Smart home purveyor Arlo has announced the new Arlo Video Doorbell with a wide vertical field of view -- but unfortunately no HomeKit integration.

Arlo Video Doorbell
Arlo Video Doorbell


The new video doorbell camera is here to take on the likes of Ring and August. It has a simple black/white design with the camera on top above a large doorbell button.

Along with a wide horizontal field of view, it also has a large vertical field of view to give a more complete picture of the owner's porch. It records as a 1:1 aspect ratio instead of the standard 16:9.

It has built-in motion sensing, accepts video calls, and can relay pre-recorded messages to visitors. It has support for night vision as well as HDR and can zoom in on a video while a call is live.

The doorbell also has a siren integrated that can sound whenever someone attempts to forcibly remove the Arlo Video Doorbell from the door.

When pressed on HomeKit support, Arlo says they have no announcement to make at this time.

It will be available to preorder later this week and will retail for $149.99.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    At first glance I thought a Nest Hello was accidently used for the picture
  • Reply 2 of 10
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,275member
    Battery or must it be hardwired?

    Edit: Found on their site that it must be hardwired. Bummer.
    edited October 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 10
    I'll just add my 2c as I use Arlo Pro cameras, and generally speaking if you're using their doorbell, then you might be committed to using their other cameras to, or at least have to deal with the issues below when reviewing video footage.

    1. Arlo's motion sensing is poor, even on the most sensitive setting. I can come home, unlock and enter the house without it even noticing me. (The camera isn't that far away either.) Most of the time the action has happened before arlo has even started recording.
    2. Arlo's video serving service is slow, even when I know exactly the time I'm looking for, I am always left waiting, often the video thumbnails don't even load. It's utterly helpless if you're trying to track down something like damage to your property when you're not sure when it may have happened (or if the Arlo even managed to record it.)
    3. Arlo's video viewer is wet garbage, you can't flick through a video to find a relevant section. The only option is to download it to the phone, then review it in a separate app once it's full downloaded. (Not very helpful if you're not sure exactly when the event happened.)
    4. The video quality itself is poor. Even on the highest setting.
    5. The battery life is garbage, and the plug in options such as the solar panel are insufficient. Their own usb cord and adapter frequently throw errors in the app (and thus can't be kept plugged in to keep the camera charged.)

    Did I mention no HomeKit support? I can see why they fail certification. It's a shit-show of amateur hardware and software.
    edited October 2019 gatorguyneilmkuraiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 10
    neilmneilm Posts: 985member
    My inner gadget freak wants a video doorbell.

    But I've viewed a number of posted videos from them, and what they mostly do is confirm that some unidentifiable person has indeed stolen your Amazon package, or taken the bike you left unsecured on the porch — things you already knew. Yes, if you see a gang of armed home invaders outside your door that would be useful, but is that a likely risk? Or if the neighbor is letting his dog poop in your yard then I guess there's that.

    But it seems to me that if you have an actual case for video surveillance, then you need a real surveillance setup with proper video cameras that are mounted out of reach of a strip of black electrical tape. And a wide angle lens isn't ideal, since while the field of view becomes larger, the size of what you see becomes smaller and indistinct. I'd want to see identifiable faces, license plates, etc.

    4K resolution would help, since then you might be able to enlarge the video to see something useful. This "article" about the Arlo video doorbell, which seems to be no more than a paraphrased press release, doesn't even state what the camera resolution is. In fact it doesn't state much of anything at all.

    Are these things anything more than a mild convenience device, so that while you're in the kitchen you can see that the pizza guy is at the front door?
    kuraiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    neilm said:
    My inner gadget freak wants a video doorbell.

    But I've viewed a number of posted videos from them, and what they mostly do is confirm that some unidentifiable person has indeed stolen your Amazon package, or taken the bike you left unsecured on the porch — things you already knew. Yes, if you see a gang of armed home invaders outside your door that would be useful, but is that a likely risk? Or if the neighbor is letting his dog poop in your yard then I guess there's that.

    But it seems to me that if you have an actual case for video surveillance, then you need a real surveillance setup with proper video cameras that are mounted out of reach of a strip of black electrical tape. And a wide angle lens isn't ideal, since while the field of view becomes larger, the size of what you see becomes smaller and indistinct. I'd want to see identifiable faces, license plates, etc.

    4K resolution would help, since then you might be able to enlarge the video to see something useful. This "article" about the Arlo video doorbell, which seems to be no more than a paraphrased press release, doesn't even state what the camera resolution is. In fact it doesn't state much of anything at all.

    Are these things anything more than a mild convenience device, so that while you're in the kitchen you can see that the pizza guy is at the front door?
    Au contraire...
    I just had an issue last week where a recently released felon walked down our woods-lined street to my home and walked up to the porch. My Nest Hello sent me an alert for an "unfamiliar face" before he even rang the doorbell to see if anyone answered. A few seconds later when he stuck his finger under his shirt to ring the bell I knew then he was trouble.

    Immediate call to 911 rather than responding to the ring. He was looking down the street to see if anyone was out and about and walked to the back of the house while the police indicated they were only a couple minutes out. They arrived in time to scare him into the woods where they lost him, but my video from the Hello was so perfectly clear and from several angles one of the officer's recognized him straightaway from a previous arrest. They'll be watching for him. 
    edited October 2019 kurai
  • Reply 6 of 10
    iMaKiMaK Posts: 9member
    This whole HomeKit thing is getting on my nerves.
    We keep getting promises about HomeKit support from almost every brand, then they launch without HomeKit support.

    It all reminds me of the South Park episodes that make fun of Game of Thrones. The parts where they show George RR Martin telling everyone “Don’t worry, the dragons ARE coming!” and he keeps writing episodes without dragons in them, instead chooses to put a bunch of “wieners” in the episodes. 
    kuraidkhaleyStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 10
    neilmneilm Posts: 985member
    gatorguy said:
    neilm said:
    My inner gadget freak wants a video doorbell.

    But I've viewed a number of posted videos from them, and what they mostly do is confirm that some unidentifiable person has indeed stolen your Amazon package, or taken the bike you left unsecured on the porch — things you already knew. Yes, if you see a gang of armed home invaders outside your door that would be useful, but is that a likely risk? Or if the neighbor is letting his dog poop in your yard then I guess there's that.

    But it seems to me that if you have an actual case for video surveillance, then you need a real surveillance setup with proper video cameras that are mounted out of reach of a strip of black electrical tape. And a wide angle lens isn't ideal, since while the field of view becomes larger, the size of what you see becomes smaller and indistinct. I'd want to see identifiable faces, license plates, etc.

    4K resolution would help, since then you might be able to enlarge the video to see something useful. This "article" about the Arlo video doorbell, which seems to be no more than a paraphrased press release, doesn't even state what the camera resolution is. In fact it doesn't state much of anything at all.

    Are these things anything more than a mild convenience device, so that while you're in the kitchen you can see that the pizza guy is at the front door?
    Au contraire...
    I just had an issue last week where a recently released felon walked down our woods-lined street to my home and walked up to the porch. My Nest Hello sent me an alert for an "unfamiliar face" before he even rang the doorbell to see if anyone answered. A few seconds later when he stuck his finger under his shirt to ring the bell I knew then he was trouble. 
    That's all well and good, and I'm glad it had a useful outcome for you. But it doesn't invalidate the much more numerous "unidentifiable petty thief" videos. You also didn't know he was a recently released felon when you had to decide what action to take, so that's irrelevant other than as after the fact interest. Mostly it helped you in a "stupid criminal" situation. That's good, but is it enough?

    At 1600x1200 your Nest may have slightly better resolution than some of its competitors, but it's still only going to have the potential to actually identify a person standing fairly close by.

    By the way, if the police had caught your guy, what would they have charged him with — ringing a doorbell with bad intent? Maybe trespass, at worst? He'd have claimed he was looking for casual yard work and had gone around back to see if anyone was at home. Back on the street in hours.
    edited October 2019 StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 10
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,275member
    neilm said:
    My inner gadget freak wants a video doorbell.

    But I've viewed a number of posted videos from them, and what they mostly do is confirm that some unidentifiable person has indeed stolen your Amazon package, or taken the bike you left unsecured on the porch — things you already knew. Yes, if you see a gang of armed home invaders outside your door that would be useful, but is that a likely risk? Or if the neighbor is letting his dog poop in your yard then I guess there's that.

    But it seems to me that if you have an actual case for video surveillance, then you need a real surveillance setup with proper video cameras that are mounted out of reach of a strip of black electrical tape. And a wide angle lens isn't ideal, since while the field of view becomes larger, the size of what you see becomes smaller and indistinct. I'd want to see identifiable faces, license plates, etc.

    4K resolution would help, since then you might be able to enlarge the video to see something useful. This "article" about the Arlo video doorbell, which seems to be no more than a paraphrased press release, doesn't even state what the camera resolution is. In fact it doesn't state much of anything at all.

    Are these things anything more than a mild convenience device, so that while you're in the kitchen you can see that the pizza guy is at the front door?
    Here's three use cases for you. They don't all have to do with stopping a crime.

    1. Package is delivered and I am alerted so I can keep an eye or have somebody bring it in.
    2. Don't have to answer the door if I see it is someone selling something or politicians going door-to-door.
    3. Knowing when my kids are coming and going. Make sure an elderly parent doesn't wander beyond getting the mail.

  • Reply 9 of 10
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,275member
    I'll just add my 2c as I use Arlo Pro cameras, and generally speaking if you're using their doorbell, then you might be committed to using their other cameras to, or at least have to deal with the issues below when reviewing video footage.

    1. Arlo's motion sensing is poor, even on the most sensitive setting. I can come home, unlock and enter the house without it even noticing me. (The camera isn't that far away either.) Most of the time the action has happened before arlo has even started recording.
    2. Arlo's video serving service is slow, even when I know exactly the time I'm looking for, I am always left waiting, often the video thumbnails don't even load. It's utterly helpless if you're trying to track down something like damage to your property when you're not sure when it may have happened (or if the Arlo even managed to record it.)
    3. Arlo's video viewer is wet garbage, you can't flick through a video to find a relevant section. The only option is to download it to the phone, then review it in a separate app once it's full downloaded. (Not very helpful if you're not sure exactly when the event happened.)
    4. The video quality itself is poor. Even on the highest setting.
    5. The battery life is garbage, and the plug in options such as the solar panel are insufficient. Their own usb cord and adapter frequently throw errors in the app (and thus can't be kept plugged in to keep the camera charged.)

    Did I mention no HomeKit support? I can see why they fail certification. It's a shit-show of amateur hardware and software.
    I've had an Arlo Q camera (not battery operated) for well over a year now and have never experienced any of those issues.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    neilm said:
    gatorguy said:
    neilm said:
    My inner gadget freak wants a video doorbell.

    But I've viewed a number of posted videos from them, and what they mostly do is confirm that some unidentifiable person has indeed stolen your Amazon package, or taken the bike you left unsecured on the porch — things you already knew. Yes, if you see a gang of armed home invaders outside your door that would be useful, but is that a likely risk? Or if the neighbor is letting his dog poop in your yard then I guess there's that.

    But it seems to me that if you have an actual case for video surveillance, then you need a real surveillance setup with proper video cameras that are mounted out of reach of a strip of black electrical tape. And a wide angle lens isn't ideal, since while the field of view becomes larger, the size of what you see becomes smaller and indistinct. I'd want to see identifiable faces, license plates, etc.

    4K resolution would help, since then you might be able to enlarge the video to see something useful. This "article" about the Arlo video doorbell, which seems to be no more than a paraphrased press release, doesn't even state what the camera resolution is. In fact it doesn't state much of anything at all.

    Are these things anything more than a mild convenience device, so that while you're in the kitchen you can see that the pizza guy is at the front door?
    Au contraire...
    I just had an issue last week where a recently released felon walked down our woods-lined street to my home and walked up to the porch. My Nest Hello sent me an alert for an "unfamiliar face" before he even rang the doorbell to see if anyone answered. A few seconds later when he stuck his finger under his shirt to ring the bell I knew then he was trouble. 
    That's all well and good, and I'm glad it had a useful outcome for you. But it doesn't invalidate the much more numerous "unidentifiable petty thief" videos. You also didn't know he was a recently released felon when you had to decide what action to take, so that's irrelevant other than as after the fact interest. Mostly it helped you in a "stupid criminal" situation. That's good, but is it enough?

    At 1600x1200 your Nest may have slightly better resolution than some of its competitors, but it's still only going to have the potential to actually identify a person standing fairly close by.

    By the way, if the police had caught your guy, what would they have charged him with — ringing a doorbell with bad intent? Maybe trespass, at worst? He'd have claimed he was looking for casual yard work and had gone around back to see if anyone was at home. Back on the street in hours.
    Being on probation wouldn't have helped his situation (he was) and what does that matter to the Nest Hello helping to prevent a burglary of my home anyway, because it did?
    I car les about whether he walks than whether he walks away with my stuff.

    Sound like you're resorting to a "yeah...but...but" comment instead of acknowledging how it may actually be helpful and a personal safety improvement to have one. 

    As for only helpful being close to the doorbell that's not true either. He was identifiable as much as 20-30' before he reached the doorbell. That's plenty close enough for me. It's also allowed me to spot people pulling thru my circle drive (no biggie unless they grab something), people cutting thru the property trying to get to a park the other side of the woods, (it's marked no trespassing), know when the delivery guy drops off a package I'm waiting on, and what vehicle left the spin-out tracks in the back section of my property (it was a neighbor's kid on his ATV. Easily taken care of with a father to father talk.)

    No skin off my back whether you get one or not. I think my examples of how they have been useful in real life outweighs "gosh I don't see what the value would be" while never using one. 
    edited October 2019 mike1
Sign In or Register to comment.