Is the Pro 2, or any other Arlo systems able to work in a standalone operation? I do not like the fact that your only interface is though Arlo's systems, and that I can only view my camera that way on a cellphone . Huge security vulnerability! Plus if Arlo decides they do not want to keep their servers up and running (or cannot), your camera system is now rendered useless. I should be able to just log into the base station, but I cannot. There is no web browser running in there, like a router or other IOT things have. So you spend hundreds on a camera system but you don't really own anything. Unless someone on here tells me I am wrong, I am going to return this and look elsewhere.
- Related Labels:
Your post here and in another post are confusing about what you are stating. You can try local storage via USB. On newer Smart Hubs you can view the local storage through the app. Either way you need internet for a wireless system.
Here is the difference's between base and hubs.
I like their wireless and battery operated cameras but am disappointed in their cloud-based set up. It should be optional, not mandatory. My project can't accept that level of security vulnerability.
Wi-Fi, based in your router, and the Internet, accessed through your modem, are completely separate. You do not need the Internet to connect to a wireless camera, or any other device in your wireless network. I think Direct Memory Access is blocked in the VMB4000 software to allow ARLO to keep control.
To put it simply there are good reasons for it, but also allot of issues as well. It is more likely that the Arlo solution with local storage on the pro 3 and above base stations with 2fa authentication is more secure then anything you will do at home. It wasn't long ago all of those foscom and auch cameras got allot of flack because they were easily accessible by bad actors once put on the web with port forwarding.