Simply product line & Focus on what matters: high quality video recording

[Cantab]

1. Now that Netgear has given us the Arlo Q Plus, why is it still selling the Arlo Q (non-plus)?
2. Likewise, now that we the Arlo Pro, why not disconinue the Arlo?
3. But even more importantly, Netgear should foucs on improving what really matters: video quality.
   • Optical zoom
   • 4k/60p recording
   • Better night vision
   • Better motion recording capabilities  

[JamesC]

Cantab,

The Arlo system is designed to allow the user flexibility in adding new products with their existing products. For example, some users may not need the POE feature of the Arlo Q in all locations, resulting in the user owning both Arlo Q/Q Plus due to different features providing different solutions based on their specific needs. This applies to Arlo Pro/Wire-free as well.

JamesC

[Cantab]

JamesC,

Giving users the flexibility to purchase different products according to their needs is prima facie a very laudable aim. However, this is ipso facto not a convincing reason for having an extensive product line.

1. It is not necessarily true that offering the user a wide range of products will save the user money because having an extensive product line increases manufacturing overheads and increases inventory costs, costs which are then passed on to the user. If discontinuing the Arlo Q will allow the Arlo Q Plus to be sold at the same price that the Arlo Q currently sells at, which is probable giving the fairly marginal price difference between the Arlo Q and Arlo Q Plus, then even the hypothetical user you described will not be saving money by exclusively buying the Arlo Q Plus. Of course, whether the cost savings can be realised is a big 'if'. My point is that Netgear is asking the wrong question; it is focusing on achieving a particular aim and failing to see the wider picture. The real question should be whether having a simpler product line will allow Netgear to offer more for the same amount of money (or better value for money).
2. It is not necessarily true that having different products will offer the user with a better set of options to choose from because some products in the product line-up may be inferior in every respect. The Arlo (original one) seems to be an example of this. The Arlo, at least according to the paper specifications, is inferior to the Arlo. It is also more expensive in the long run because the batteries are not rechargeable.

Since flexibility is what Arlo purports to offer, it stands to reason that Netgear should also offer a high-end security camera. My second point - that Netgear should offer a product with high-quality video recording - seems to have gone unnoticed, and conspicuously so.

[Cantab]

Just to add to point #2 regarding Arlo versus Arlo Pro: If a user opts to use rechargeable batteries for the Arlo, the user would want to use the Tenergy Li-Ion RCR123A 3.7V 650mAh rechargeable batteries specifically marked “Works with Arlo” as recommended by Netgear, which cost about 50 USD. This makes the Arlo + rechargeable battery option even more expensive than the Arlo Pro. To reiterate, my point is that the Arlo is inferior in every respect to the Arlo Pro and is therefore redundant.