Ring's Video Doorbell 2 Brings Battery-Powered 1080p Video Security to Your Front Door

Discussion in 'Guides, How Tos and Reviews' started by MacRumors, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Earlier this year, popular smart doorbell and home security company Ring debuted its Video Doorbell 2, equipped with a motion sensing 1080p camera, a removable battery, and two-way audio capabilities. Integration with Ring's mobile app lets you see activity at your door from anywhere, and even communicate with visitors.

    [​IMG]

    The Video Doorbell 2 is priced at $199 and can either replace an existing wired doorbell or be freshly installed in either a wired or a battery-powered configuration.

    We've been testing one out over the past month to see how it works on a standalone basis and in conjunction with the Floodlight Cam and Chime Pro accessory we reviewed a couple of months ago, so read on to see what we thought of it.


    Click here to read more...

    Article Link: Ring's Video Doorbell 2 Brings Battery-Powered 1080p Video Security to Your Front Door
     
  2. Relentless Power macrumors Penryn

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #2
    I like what Ring has done here and I think it's a widely grown product, but it's such an ugly product that sticks out sorely on the front door.
     
  3. zorinlynx macrumors 603

    zorinlynx

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #3
    Why do all of these products depend on a server on the Internet, rather than just having the app talk over your local WiFi to the doorbell? The latter is the most common sense choice.

    Same deal with smart thermostats, locks, etc... They ALL depend on the company's servers.

    It makes you wonder what these companies are doing with your data. Why would they spend money running these servers if they weren't getting something out of it?
     
  4. theheadguy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Location:
    california
    #4
    This product shipped in July '17. Review seems a little late to just be coming in (I get it -- it took a full month to test it, but still... seems odd).

    edit: I stand corrected - I guess it shipped in June of this year. Who's that eager for a free product to just review it now? The standards feel low...
     
  5. dwaltwhit macrumors 6502

    dwaltwhit

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Location:
    Tennessee
    #5
    The only thing keeping me from pulling the trigger is homekit compatibility.
     
  6. Sammio2 macrumors regular

    Sammio2

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Basingstoke, UK
  7. walstib macrumors newbie

    walstib

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Carpinteria, California
    #7
    I’m already on the HomeKit bus, so products that don’t support it don’t have a chance of me buying it.

    And, all the Ring installations I’ve seen are ugly.

    In a separate topic, whatever happened to Canary’s Promised HomeKit support?

    I would buy several of their outdoor cameras if they supported HomeKit.
     
  8. benz240 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    #8
    You lost me at the lack of HomeKit support.
     
  9. WBRacing macrumors 65816

    WBRacing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    And how utterly useless and dead the device becomes if the company retires it or more likely, goes bust. I've binned my Netatmo partly because of just that (and the fact their hardware is so unreliable).
     
  10. levitynyc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    #10
    I’ve had it for a month and I will be returning it.

    It’s only compatible with a 2.4 network and not 5.

    Video is very choppy and I have gigabit Ethernet.

    I set up a nest cam in the exact same spot and video was flawless so it’s not my WiFi.

    The motion alerts go off and 30% of the time, it records no video because of the WiFi issues.
     
  11. vipergts2207 macrumors 68000

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #11
    I don't buy anything that's not already HomeKit compatible. You can't trust these companies to follow through on empty promises.

    Communicating with a server allows for communication away from home.
     
  12. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
  13. timborama macrumors 6502

    timborama

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    #13
    Half the time I can’t connect to my Ring. Tech support likes to blame my WiFi... too far away. It’s 6 ft away!?! Good product idea, just still beta.

    I don’t really care whether it works with HomeKit or not (HomeKit will never amount to anything anyways). Just get the product working reliably first!!
     
  14. Robert.Walter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #14
    Wow, that thing is enormous. Needs to be more slender.

    When I think of the size of my iPhone...

    And I agree that the device shouldn’t be dependent upon outside servers (except maybe Apple if necessary for HomeKit) or any kind of day subscription requirement.
     
  15. 69Mustang macrumors 604

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #15
    It's a product review. MR does them from time to time. A lot better than cut-n-paste ad copy don't you think?
     
  16. HQuest, Dec 21, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017

    HQuest macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    #16
    I had the original Ring Doorbell for about one year. It was almost like this product of yours but 720p and no removable battery. It was unreliable. Most of the time with the device, I was either deleting the choppy notifications (and videos) of movement detected from cars passing by the street, or disabling the notification and video recording from the device. It was a very, very unsatisfying product. But I was living in a small town, some of the poor experience was my ISP’s fault by only providing a whooping 10/0.8MBps DSL circuit, so we had to live without these features.

    Fast forward to July 2017 and here I am in Baltimore, MD. The motion detection was a must, because safety. As before, one notification a minute for a car passing by the road. At least the video was now crystal clear, with a true high speed Internet service. I contacted Ring and, long story short, we managed to replace the unit by the Ring Pro. Nothing wrong with the hardware, it was a product limitation.

    The difference was night and day. The Pro has features found in other more common security cameras, like the ability to create a movement map area, but in what we bought the product for, we are finally able to use it as intended. While the Pro is only hardwired to your chime (for power), it has 2.4 and 5Ghz support, but it is thinner than the regular Ring, and to the reviewed product, 1080p as well. Yes, we rely on the company not going bankrupt. Yes, we pay extra (although $30 a year is not bad) to have the recorded videos streamed and stored in the cloud. But all in all, it is a good investment and it has saved us with a few damaged parcels with couriers and trouble with insurance - not to mention we can, as advertised, be “always home”, answering the doorbell even while traveling outside the country as if we were at home.

    [EDIT] Another very handy feature of the Ring system is the ability to share videos anonymously within your area, and to receive notifications from other users around your area, if they see something going on at their places. Word is that some persons have been identified and jailed because of these surveillance systems.[/EDIT]

    It all goes down to what you need and what you are willing to afford. When integrated with other devices like the Kwikset door locker, it makes a good set of devices to protect your home. Even without HomeKit support, it is worth its premium price.

    I am not associated with the company, but I had pleasure to interact with the company owner/CEO Jamie S. in a few occasions, and all his “promises” were fulfilled by the company.

    Bottom line, yes, I would recommend one. Just plan before you buy it: if your door is facing the street, you might find hard to unable to configure the motion detection properly with the Ring Doorbell, but it should work just fine with the Ring Pro.
     
  17. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #17
    Sounds good. I wish they would put the word review in the title though.
     
  18. 69Mustang macrumors 604

    69Mustang

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    In between a rock and a hard place
    #18
    Okay, I'm not trying to be insulting, but did you read the article? I ask because regardless of the title, there's nothing in the article that reads like anything but a review. There's literally (figuratively speaking) no way to confuse the article with an ad. I'm confused regarding what putting review in the title would do.
     
  19. ImBuz macrumors 6502

    ImBuz

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Location:
    California
    #19
    I have had this product Before it was Ring--It was called Doorbot, although the Doorbot at first was touchy to set up it worked fairly well . the video lacked quality, but overall at that early in the game it was fun.
    The changed the name to Ring when they came out with the newer version, I was forunate to be among the beta testers for this one, out side of some minor hickups the one I have had now for several years is super. I just recently added two flood light cams and joined the neiborhood program.
    I have been very satisfied with Ring and their super service.
    As far as the appearance goes, for my use it is fine, I understand those who do not like it.
    You do have control over how sensitive the cameras are, I hve no trouble with false or unwanted signals
     
  20. Nickel Defense Suspended

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2017
    #20
    How small should it be to not be ugly. And will all the needed components fit in the smaller unit you envision? I'm quite fine with how it looks on my door.

    So, I assume you'd never need to use the features remotely? I have used it remotely a number of times and it was fantastic and very useful. I can't do that if it only functions locally. The Internet MUST be used for remote operation.

    Last year I got the Schlage lock with Homekit. It worked well within the house. But remotely, it was a disaster. I dumped it and swore I'd never use any Homekit device again.
     
  21. Relentless Power macrumors Penryn

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #21
    It's plasticky and obtrusive. It Just looks out of place on a front door to me, given I understand it's internal components and the technology embeded. I'm not saying anyone should not be content with it, I think it looks tacky personally. I know others who are content with Ring, but they agree that it looks awkward and out of place. Just my opinion on it.
     
  22. convergent macrumors 68030

    convergent

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #22
    How exactly could it provide reliable service if it was connected to an app on your phone? It would need to have some local server of some sort to store videos, because it can't depend on your phone always being there. Also, how would it access your phone if you were not on the WiFi network? You wouldn't want to get alerts if you weren't home? That is a huge function of the device. While I'm not crazy about dependency on cloud connections for all my home automation devices, in the case of a camera I don't really see a way around it without making it way more expensive and complicated to install.

    I know this is an Apple site, but personally, I would not invest in something like HomeKit that means you are totally locked into a single vendor. Its quite expensive implementing home automation and I prefer something that is more flexible.

    I have the Ring Pro and a Stick Up Cam, and its reliably worked for 6 months... can't recall it not working.

    You might look at the Ring Pro... its a lot smaller because it doesn't have a battery and relies on the doorbell wire for power.
     
  23. RMo macrumors 65816

    RMo

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa, USA
    #23
    Honestly, of any "smart" doorbell (except the Aeon, whose button barely works), I think this is the most intuitive design. It's a bit large, but I imagine the bottom half is mostly battery. The button is very clearly placed for guests to ring, and it's shaped at least somewhat similar to non-smart wireless doorbells. (I'm comparing this to Skybell, which is round and may not obviously scream "doorbell!" to guests.) The Pro and Elite are smaller but require hard-wiring and may be other options if you're otherwise enticed by Ring.

    Just wondering since a lot of people are asking: what would that get you? The only thing I can see is the ability to use motion as a trigger for something else in HomeKit. (But HomeKit is so limited in its capabilities I could barely imagine using it for that. I have mine connected to SmartThings and use to trigger lights through that and Home Assistant, either of which can also work with HomeBridige if you are really desperate for HomeKit.)

    But there's no reason they couldn't take a hybrid approach like Philips Hue--it works entirely via your LAN for IP-based control when you're home (or over the ZigBee network it sets up for most physical controls), and optionally works with their "cloud" service, My Hue, when you're away. It's a bit silly to have "live" view at home that goes through their servers from your LAN and then back from their servers to your LAN when the app could just show you directly (and, sure, upload it later or more or less simultaneously if you want).

    My main issue with Ring, which I've had for a few months, is its total cloud dependency and lack of local storage or viewing options. It's a bit demadning on the uplink (1 Mbps minimum for the non-Pro, more for Pro) and is somewhat choppy at times, which I'm not sure if is due to my speeds being somewhat close to this or a server issue on their side. At least some local caching might help regardless (RTSP or similar to let me save it to my own server would be even better, but at least for one camera their subscription prices aren't insane.) It also seems a bit delayed in catching motion sometimes, only getting the back of the head with particularly nimble mail carriers, which I imagine it would also do with nimble thieves.
     
  24. dan4248 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    #24
    Sorry but I have to disagree. I have the ring and my ring is running on Verizon. Im also running on2.4. Most routers have the option to run on 2.4 or 5g. The ring has nothing to do with your internet as far as running it on the 2.4. If your having issues with your choppiness then you need to invest in the WiFi extender my buddy was having the same issue he called ring and they supplied him one for free. As far as the battery goes I get a lot of foot traffic at my front door so I have to recharge my battery once a month and I usually do it on a Sunday when I’m home. Read some good forums before dogging a great product and do some research. If your willing to spend 200 bucks on a product call ring ask what they can do about the WiFi extender and if you don’t get the satisfaction out of that then take it back. If you have basic internet then yea your service is going to be crappy.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 21, 2017 ---
    Sorry but I have to disagree everyone’s home isn’t set up for a product like ring. I have a big entryway and it doesn’t look bad at all. It is unfortunate that it only comes in one size but you have a camera and a descent size battery that needs to last. It would be nice to make smaller ones and give you the option between hardwire and wireless. Make the hardwired one smaller.
     
  25. B4U macrumors 68010

    B4U

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Location:
    Undisclosed location
    #25
    I am wondering how well will the battery hold up in my area's Winter.
     

Share This Page

40 December 21, 2017