Security Light needs a bridge? Seriously?

[MikeLawton]

I bought the light to pair with my arlo camerias only to find out the lights doesnt connect to my existing arlo router like the cameras do, and you need a big ugly bridge plugged in nearby the cameras.  So disappointed with this, surely the lights can be updated to connect to the existing router like the cameras.  Sent it back! 

[JamesC]

MikeLawton,

I'm sorry to hear the lights did not meet your expectations. The bridge is essential to the operation of the security lights as they connect to the bridge using bluetooth technology. The Arlo Base Station does not have this capability.

JamesC

[sgibbers17]

In my opinion there was not much forethought with the design of the wireless connection of the lights.  There is no reason that they couldent have the same wireless connection that the cameras have.

May I suggest a new version of the of the basestation that would support the lights.

[michaelkenward]

---

@sgibbers17 wrote:

There is no reason that they couldent have the same wireless connection that the cameras have.

---

Not sure that I buy that. Cameras are much heavier than lights in their data needs.

Then there is the range and energy consumption thing. Lights connect to their "bridge" with a "Bluetooth Low Energy" connection. The bridge then does the wifi bit.

It is a nuisance, yes, but it may be for a reason. 

Who knows what the next generation will bring?

[Millar]

I also didn't understand the design decision. If they were the possibility to connect the bridge with the base station to extend also the range for the cameras it would make sense - but just another piece of equipment just for the lights?!