"Doorbell with a subscription" is something so utterly stupid, an absolute misdevelopment.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
363 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
76517 readers
2406 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The fuck does it even need a subscription for, anyway? Is it not hosting the videos locally? Fuck that.
Local hosting for a security camera is a rather terrible idea, because it can be defeated by stealing or breaking the camera.
The camera isn't storing anything.
Oh, I guess the micro sd card slot under the batteries of the doorbell camera is non-functional then, and it saves the videos into your ass, where you pulled that claim from?
Yes. Yes it does store them to the camera.
First of all, I was just speaking generally about security cameras, not specifically a ring, when responding to your comment about local storage being stupid for a security camera.
Secondly not all Ring doorbells use an SD card slot or even have batteries. They can be wired directly to the home and save the data to another external device.
Third and pedantically: An SD card is not the camera. It's an SD card. 😌
The fuck does it even need a subscription for, anyway? Is it not hosting the videos locally? Fuck that.
"It" being a "Doorbell with a subscription", from the message you directly replied to. In a thread about a video doorbell from Aldi.
Local hosting for a security camera is a rather terrible idea, because it can be defeated by stealing or breaking the camera.
This is what I replied to with concern for storing security camera data locally. You didnt say this camera or Ring cameras, so your comment seems pretty fucking stupid and generic changing the subject to be about local storage for all security cameras.
Not so bad when you think about it …… Ring’s subscription isn’t too expensive and it gives you cloud storage and remote access. Bring on the hatred but I’ve found it one of the few worthwhile subscriptions
Stop putting bloody cameras bloody everywhere bloody hell!
I always thought it would be cool to have a doorbell that, when pressed, would flash a red light on the person standing there and then a machine voice would say 'Target Acquired'.
how about i dont need a video doorbell and i can use my eyeballs and look out the window
Good luck doing that in my place.
i get it that tech is cool and stuff, but as ive gotten older, ive learned not to rely on it as much
Yeah, but you literally cannot see where the doorbell is at my place. It's a physical impossibility. I live on the second floor of a two flat with an enclosed entryway. No window anywhere in the building can see who rang the doorbell. Glad that works for you.
i didn't have a doorbell when i was still with my ex, and the only way i could see someone on the otherside was a spyhole. at my parents, i just look through the window
Because I can check my door when I'm not even home and even talk to those at my door to pretend like there is someone home. Because it will record the porch pirate stealing off my porch. It's for security and evidence, not so much an actual doorbell.
if i wanted security like that, id get a closed loop camera system, all stored locally.
Same. Which is the only reason I don't use Ring. But I was interested in it until I went looking for a good option to buy. Absolutely no reason hardware in my possession should require a subscription to utilize.
why not make more money from you?
£17.
Any time someone says an ultra cheap monitoring device is subscription free I just picture an odd man running a curio shop telling me his wares don't cost money
The actual hardware cost of these devices is actually minimal. Basically any wifi capable microcontroller, a camera and depending on implementation some storage (or a micro sd-card holder). So that price is only cheap in comparison to existing products.
For reference, said microcontroller with basic camera can be had for like 3$ or something.
Retail pricing dictates a $3 component cost is $12. And that $3 would have to include packaging and assembly costs. And the plastic case and button. £17 is tough to hit with all that, especially if there is an SD card included or any software development to ensure any kind of security.
The 3$ isn't a component price but also retail already.
From the listing:
Answer your door from anywhere in the world with this remote viewing Video Doorbell.
So I assume you're not expected to self-host this. Which means they have to run and maintain servers. And $16/person ain't covering the cost of this device + servers indefinitely.
Where does it say that
you can make very cheap to maintain peer to peer solutions
you can use a STUN server to discover your public IP and use a method called UDP hole punching to open a port others can connect to. STUN servers are very cheap to run: they don’t actually handle the data; just provide a kind of handshake service in the middle for coordinating
this is often used for peer to peer video chat etc
It's a rebranded Tuya doorbell. So there aren't any subscriptions, though you will be giving them all your data.
Which means they have to run and maintain servers.
I'd bet money that it works just like similar devices from Reolink. Local recording to SD Card or NVR. If you want cloud recording then you're paying a monthly subscription.
This device from Aldi is at a very low pricepoint but it's specs are garbage. 480p recording? In 2025? C'mon...
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
...and do they sell data, including video, to law enforcement and insurance?
Sincerely, A person who recently was in a fender bender and was not surprised at all when Progressive shared "incident footage" from a Ring camera across the street at a location completely unrelated to the fender bender
(They ARE selling your data, folks. NEVER trust big tech to act in your best interest)
I stopped my Ring subscription but kept the doorbell camera.
It wasn't until a year later when I was moving and the house was almost completely empty (still had internet/wifi setup) and I looked at the wifi app and saw that the ring doorbell still had significant data usage.
They were clearly still capturing my doorbell video.
They also, if you don’t turn it off, default to allowing other Amazon devices to use YOUR Ring to access the Internet.
It's a rebranded Tuya device, and they don't sell your data to any law enforcement or insurance.
They do however comply with Chinese laws and all your data is readily available for the Chinese government.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It may not require a subscription fee, but that's really only a minor concern.
Having my video surveillance be uploaded to a cloud service and having to use some proprietary app to use my device is the real problems.
If you want security cameras, look for boring Power over Ethernet cameras that have an RTSP output. They connect to your network and provide a video stream out a specific port. Then you can plug that into whatever FOSS network video recording system you're using (Zone Minder or Frigate) and then you can access it like you access any other thing on your local network.
Never goes to a cloud, never leaves your house.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I believe this is only for the European market though. Aldi has stores in the United States, but I don't believe it's available here.
load more comments
(17 replies)
Security researcher here. I'm assuming this to be some low cost chinese easily hacked thing.
Yup, it's a rebranded Tuya device.
load more comments
(9 replies)
view more: next ›