Support more storage options

[P-LEE]

There are 2 type of markets:

Group#1: You have the none-techincal people, who just want to turn everything on, and start using it as a "for dummies" style. Everything is simplifed and beautifully presented to them without need to know all the technical stuff. They are welling to pay a reasonable fee for making their life easier.

Group#2: On the other hand, you have the computer geeks, like myself, would prefer my recordings goes to local NAS and then automatic synced to my OneDrive, this way I get a copy locally and a backup copy in my cloud. I know how to configure it, am familar with troubleshooting if have a problem. and frankyly I couldn't care less about the the nice interface after it has been configured. And i don't want to pay for more money when I already got tens of GB of cloud storage available at my dispose.

I see Arlo is satisfying only group#1, and making some money off the subscription. But I think group#2 would prefer an IP camera over Arlo partly due to the space limitation. If Netgear can support pushing recording to various cloud storages (local NAS, OneDrive, Amazon Cloud, Dropbox...etc), then you might get more share of group#2 market.

[Cantab]

1) Ability to simultaneously record to Network Attached Storage (NAS) and to cloud.

2) Backup power.

[Cantab]

To be honest, I don't see how local storage would be useful. A thieve can quite easily remove the SD card from the device. And if one were to put the Arlo Q Plus into an enclosure, night vision would be inoperable because the IR light would be reflected off the plastic/glass surface of the enclosure.

The only advantage of the Arlo Q Plus over the non-plus version is Power over Ethernet (PoE). It would be a fallacy to buy the Plus version simply because of local storage.

[Cantab]

1) Ability to simultaneously record to Network Attached Storage (NAS) and to the cloud.

2) Backup power (see MyFox, for example).

The Arlo Q and the Arlo Q Plus are designed with the flawed assumption that there will never be a disruption to the power supply or internet connection. 

[Logzy]

I dont see why we are waiting so long for this feature, especially as the Arlo Q aparrantly has this option.
If i had known it didnt record to NAS then i would never had purchased it.

[Hula_Rock]

by Cantab

on ‎2016-06-30 09:10 PM

To be honest, I don't see how local storage would be useful. A thieve can quite easily remove the SD card from the device. And if one were to put the Arlo Q Plus into an enclosure, night vision would be inoperable because the IR light would be reflected off the plastic/glass surface of the enclosure.

The only advantage of the Arlo Q Plus over the non-plus version is Power over Ethernet (PoE). It would be a fallacy to buy the Plus version simply because of local storage.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@Cantab

Huh ?  Local storage would be attached to the base station USB port, INSIDE YOUR HOUSE !!!!!

[Hula_Rock]

To be honest, I don't see how local storage would be useful. A thieve can quite easily remove the SD card from the device. And if one were to put the Arlo Q Plus into an enclosure, night vision would be inoperable because the IR light would be reflected off the plastic/glass surface of the enclosure.

The only advantage of the Arlo Q Plus over the non-plus version is Power over Ethernet (PoE). It would be a fallacy to buy the Plus version simply because of local storage.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@Cantab

Huh ?  Local storage would be attached to the base station USB port, INSIDE YOUR HOUSE !!!!!

[Cantab]

Oh sorry! I meant to say "on-board storage" instead of "local storage". Thanks for pointing out, Hula Rock.

Also, I realise you were referring to the wireless Arlo version whereas I'm referring to the Arlo Q version. I am fully supportive of your idea.

[bmattox79]

I posted a suggestion based off of this but due to the fact that the lag we all experience is because once the camera activates and tells the base to start recording the base has to connect to the server and start uploading which can take a few seconds, if we can plug a thumb drive into the usb on the base and have it record directly to the drive then upload once the recording is finished it would cut that lag out, and also give us a backup should the Internet or server go down

[bmattox79]

This idea will almost eliminate lag if u have the base record directly to the usb drive first then upload the clip to the cloud after the recording is complete. This will allow u to view locally on the drive and remotely from the cloud.  From what I see most of the lag on this system is the camera is trying to send data but the base is lagging on connecting to the cloud.  Nothing really changes except the video clip goes to the drive first then uploads when finished. 

[Pet1700]

I believe the lag has little to do with the upload, but more likely as a result of Cameras falling asleep to save battery. When woken up, they will record without much lag... But no activity for awhile, they fall asleep until they are woken up by motion and hence the few second delay in recording... Maybe we could figure out an option for less frequent sleep options since many of us are using rechargeable batteries anyway, so battery life is not an issue.

[bmattox79]

On a side note what type of rechargeable batteries do u use and what kind of performance do I get out of them