Amazon/Ring has finally heard the complaints of many users and has pushed the new Alarm Pro base station to process local video storage. The increase in cost for the monthly plan is expected and is not something that users are complaining about for this feature (I do see complaints of those who do not care about local video storage). Hell, even the cost of a new base station is fine by me because the internal batteries of the old base station wear over time. I know that the details for RIng Edge are still being worked out, but from all the research I have seen, it does not appear that videos will also be backed up into the cloud on the cameras that opt for local storage.
Can someone at Ring confirm if a camera opts in for local storage that those videos will NOT be stored in the cloud at a later time? It makes no sense since the highest capacity card allowed is 512 gb which at best would equate to about 15 days of video storage compared to Ring’s 30/60 day cloud storage. This is under the assumption of 1 camera. If a user like me has 10+ cameras, we would not even have 7 days of local videos.
Assuming that a camera that opts for local storage will not have videos stored in the cloud as well…Why can’t the base station just process the videos and temporarily store it on the SD card to be offloaded into the cloud in the middle of the night or when there is an internet connection? I do not believe that the cries for having local storage is really just to ONLY have local storage… the idea behind local storage for some users is the ability for cameras to continue recording events during an internet outage. Something that has been very common during this stay-at-home COVID era…
I have already preordered the new Alarm Pro Base Station because I am willing to try the local storage by buying a 512 gb card. However, I really hope that Ring irons out this issue where users can only choose either storing and processing videos in the cloud or locally. Ring Edge should be a supplement to the existing method of video recording, not a replacement.
I understand new hardware was required most likely in order to offload videos to local storage. I see the ‘use case’ to incorporate an Eero in the new Alarm Pro, but this also requires the upgrade to the new Protect Pro plan.
The latter should have been separate and not required. Or am I reading it wrong?
Hi @Tch626. To clarify, your Ring Camera or Doorbell can be opted in for local storage OR it can be on cloud storage. You can’t have both local and cloud storage on the same Camera or Doorbell, it will be either or. You can find more information on commonly asked questions regarding this local storage feature through Ring Edge in our Help Center Article here, and you can find steps on how to connect or disconnect a Ring device to Ring Edge here. I’ll also note that for local storage, a MicroSD card is required. I hope this helps answer all your questions!
Storing data locally after buying new hardware should not require subscription… or at least a really small subscription to pay costs for the connection to the ring servers (but like 1/2/3$ month for all cameras).
It does not make sense that someone with 10 cameras will pay the same that someone with 2 cameras storing data locally.
Pro/plus must be payed if you store locally and upload to ring as backup…
I think what he’s looking for, as I am, is for the fallback in the event of internet outage that this become a storage queue. A home with combination of Ring cameras and Ring alarm system amounting to thousands of dollars should not be overcome by a $50 wireless device https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B088LPLN9V you make available on your parent company site.
Amazon has a 1.7 TRILLION dollar market cap. When I started buying your products, I was expecting the technology sufficient to overcome attacks from a $50 DIY product easily purchased online and widely known. I was expecting after the attacked stopped, cameras would upload any motion detected. This is not the case. Video motion is lost, there’s not even a warning about the loss of connection to the router or internet during the time of the attack.
Like the user above, we’ll gladly buy a necessary product in the hundreds of dollars but we’re expecting additional value for the money not a trade off. So, not only does this Edge device not protect against an internet outage (if using “cloud mode”) but it also does not help with resiliency against at $50 device wifi attack. This is a disappointment. Amazon should be the tip of the spear and making polished devices we can add to our network that provide some of these functions. It’s for home security after all, not a talking alarm clock or talking speaker.
Boooo. Bad answer. Technology companies become successful by offering an alternative way to do something (do it the old way OR buy this gadget to do it better). Tech companies STAY successful by building on their success with features that provide the AND (buy this gadget to do the old thing better AND also use it to do this other thing you never knew you had to have).
Ring seems to be making a lot of “or” decisions. Even when they claim to be responding to feedback, as they are with this feature, they continue to simply introduce trade offs not added value. This is as disappointing to it’s customers as it should be to it’s shareholders.
Wow, what a very simplistic and shortsighted answer. Yes, companies are profit driven, I agree there, but that means they should always be looking at ways to increase profits. This usually isn’t done by remaining static, it means that they should always be looking at ways to increase the customer base and offer increased services (for increased profits) to the existing customer base. Seems to me that offering “ANDs” would be a great way to do both. If fact, it seems like such an easy no-brainer that it somewhat piques my curiosity to know exactly what the rationale was behind the decision to make it an either or, but not both…
Wyze does both, why can’t Ring?
For my Wyze cameras I have an SD card in them and am able to watch the videos locally in event of a power outage or loss of internet, but can also view remotely when away and download easily.
For Ring I just tried to download a video stored locally and it said I had to wait for it to be uploaded to and processed by the Ring servers before I could actually download it. It seems like having them store locally is a way not to have to deal with storing the videos and then having people complain about the limited bulk download feature from the website.
My wifi has been hacked too many times and videos deleted (and also deleted from the Ring servers) which is why I went with local, but would prefer to have videos in both locations so I can hopefully have one version or the other available at the end of the day. Or for when the internet goes out or cameras stop recording, which is every time I leave my apartment.
Plus I’m paying the same amount whether I have local storage or cloud storage, so why can’t I have both?
I second this.
Why can’t we have both?
Local for faster processing & faster local viewing
On the cloud for backup and faster remote viewing if needed.