Purchased two separate Arlo systems to bridge into one account and 1 year subscription expired

[Retired_Member]

I Purchased two separate Arlo systems and bridged them on one account.

Now that the 1 year subscription has expired - they want me to pay to use more than 5 cameras because I have one account?

This is wrong on so many levels!!!

Anyone interested in purchasing these systems - reach out to me - I'm done with Arlo!

[StephenB]

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

I Purchased two separate Arlo systems and bridged them on one account.

Now that the 1 year subscription has expired - they want me to pay to use more than 5 cameras because I have one account?

---

They've always had a 5 camera limit on the free accounts.

You can work around this pretty easily.  Just set up a separate account, and move some bases/cameras into it.  Then use "grant access" to allow you to see all the cameras from one account.

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

This is wrong on so many levels!!!

---

I know many people will disagree with me on this.  But the cloud services (including storage) do cost Arlo money.  If you get them for free, then other customers are subsidizing you - either through new camera sales, or through their own paid subscriptions.  So to some extent you've been getting a free ride at other folk's expense - and at some point that becomes unfair.

[Retired_Member]

disagree

Cost to accommodate 5 devices is factored into sale/purchase of a complete system - (camera's and hub).

I purchased two complete systems - so why should I not be allowed to run 10 devices?

your logic is as flawed as Pelosi

[StephenB]

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

Cost to accommodate 5 devices is factored into sale/purchase of a complete system - (camera's and hub).

---

For your entire life?  Surely you jest.  However, I said many would disagree.  You're entitled to your opinions of course.  I'll stick with mine - which is that as the installed base of cameras grows, the business model of providing free storage becomes unsustainable.  It's simple math.

Opinions and politics aside, the fact is that the free storage available with the older cameras always had a five-camera ceiling in the terms of sale, and you have now exceeded that limit. 

I gave you the workaround you can use to get the free storage back.  It would still give you the convenience of getting notifications and viewing the recordings for all your cameras from one account.

[Retired_Member]

I am razzing you a bit with the political reference (can't and help myself - and I will sin again)

but you say free storage for older cameras' -  my cameras [both complete systems] were purchased new one year ago and surly can't be considered old - even by todays excelerated techno life span. Also - it's NOT FREE - I paid for this up front when I PURCHASED - TWO SYSTEMS - NOT ONE 

I'm no business expert, but combining the two purchased accounts into one should be saving them money with one less login to administer. 

[StephenB]

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

but you say free storage for older cameras' -  my cameras [both complete systems] were purchased new one year ago and surely can't be considered old - even by todays excelerated techno life span. Also - it's NOT FREE - I paid for this up front when I PURCHASED - TWO SYSTEMS - NOT ONE 

---

On the business side - there might be a company out there that has the discipline to set aside a portion of their sales revenue to cover the down-the-road costs for bundled "free" services.  But I've never worked for one. 

Instead, the revenue is all aggregated - most is spent to cover current costs, some is invested to grow the business, the rest is taken as profit.  To risk politics again- a hike in gasoline taxes might be proposed as a way to fund highway repairs.  But once the money comes in, it just gets mixed with all the other tax revenues and is applied to the overall budget.  

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

I'm no business expert, but combining the two purchased accounts into one should be saving them money with one less login to administer. 

---

What I just gave you was the equivalent of a tax loophole - basically gaming the system.  Arlo would much rather you purchase a paid subscription (which of course does offer value over the "free" service).

[Retired_Member]

How wonderful that your business expertise so eloquently outlines Arlo’s financials.

fyi,..

the cloud storage costs are minuscule, the actual cost incurred by the provider is bandwidth, and the more shared access, the more bandwidth.

🙄

[StephenB]

---

@Retired_Member wrote:

fyi,..

the cloud storage costs are minuscule, the actual cost incurred by the provider is bandwidth, and the more shared access, the more bandwidth.

---

To be clear, I don't work for Arlo and I have no inside information on their financials.

Cloud storage, bandwidth, and server processing all cost, and most cloud service providers operate on very slim margins.

Amazon S3's published price is $0.021/GB per month.  That isn't much per user, but it does add up as the installed base grows.  The associated bandwidth of course also costs (and could easily cost more than the storage itself).  Which is why subscriptions are needed for smart notifications and cloud activity zones.  

The direction Arlo appears to be heading is to transition non-subscribers to local storage.  But IMO the local storage needs some more features for that to be viable.  Also it is limited to the Pro3 and Ultra SmartHubs.  But done properly, it would be a win/win for Arlo and their customers.