Please spec me a smart doorbell

Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2009
Posts
5,427
Location
Bristol
We have a Ring doorbell at home which is great. I was intending to buy and install one at my In-law's home, but my father in law's mobile phone is quite old and runs on Android version 8 only and he has no intention to change it. The Ring at home app runs on Android 9 and above. Plus, they're not keen on subscription charges, but they rarely go out so don't really need remote access.

Please can I have some suggestions for a suitable smart doorbell, preferably subscription free?

My father in law is disabled and has very limited mobility. My mother in law does all the running around for him so they would both benefit greatly from a smart doorbell.

Any comments or suggestions welcome.
 
Google Nest if he can install the google home app. You'll need home mini's or above to act as ringers as well
 
Google Nest if he can install the google home app. You'll need home mini's or above to act as ringers as well

This is what we have.

Battery doorbell, usually lasts a couple of months (it's busy here), it's easy to remove and charge and needs no other installation hardware.
Then get a Nest hub, 7" screen, you can pick them up easy and cheap enough.
Obviously you need WiFi at the home.

In a pinch, you could set this up for him using your phone or even account and then just leave these two running, and the hub acts not only as the ringer, but it streams the video from the doorbell so can be answered straight from the hub, without even getting to the door.

It looks like the nest doorbell has gone up in price, but normally goes on offer every so often, we paid £129 & The nest hub looks about £50.
 
Last edited:
This is what we have.

Battery doorbell, usually lasts a couple of months (it's busy here), it's easy to remove and charge and needs no other installation hardware.
Then get a Nest hub, 7" screen, you can pick them up easy and cheap enough.
Obviously you need WiFi at the home.

In a pinch, you could set this up for him using your phone or even account and then just leave these two running, and the hub acts not only as the ringer, but it streams the video from the doorbell so can be answered straight from the hub, without even getting to the door.

It looks like the nest doorbell has gone up in price, but normally goes on offer every so often, we paid £129 & The nest hub looks about £50.
I got a refurb nest hub gen 1 for £33 from the bay, works great with the camera
 
I got a refurb nest hub gen 1 for £33 from the bay, works great with the camera

We've got 3 in the house, and I think I bought all of them at different times off the Internet from private sellers, Facebook, avforums etc. Amazing how cheap they are for a 7" smart screen.
 
I'll just leave this here: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/privacy-loophole-ring-doorbell-00084979

Larkin had a Ring video doorbell, one of the more than 10 million Americans with the Amazon-owned product installed at their front doors. His doorbell was among 21 Ring cameras in and around his home and business, picking up footage of Larkin, neighbors, customers and anyone else near his house.

The police said they were conducting a drug-related investigation on a neighbor, and they wanted videos of “suspicious activity” between 5 and 7 p.m. one night in October. Larkin cooperated, and sent clips of a car that drove by his Ring camera more than 12 times in that time frame.

He thought that was all the police would need. Instead, it was just the beginning.

They asked for more footage, now from the entire day’s worth of records. And a week later, Larkin received a notice from Ring itself: The company had received a warrant, signed by a local judge. The notice informed him it was obligated to send footage from more than 20 cameras — whether or not Larkin was willing to share it himself.
 
So? You got something against it?

I've had the Police knock on my door more than once asking for footage, trying to catch criminals... (and or works). And I'm all for that thank you very much.
Not that I have anything to hide, but I do value my privacy. I don't see the problem in that.
 
Each to there own I suppose.

But I prioritise catching criminals and other scum bags that terrorise any neighbourhood over whether someone watches me wash the car, pick my nose, or chat up the postie :D
 
Each to there own I suppose.

But I prioritise catching criminals and other scum bags that terrorise any neighbourhood over whether someone watches me wash the car, pick my nose, or chat up the postie :D
I hear you, but you can do that without giving up your privacy. I admit that it might not be as convenient to do, but it can still be done.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware most people install these cameras outside of their homes. So unless you're sunbathing naked on your driveway, I'm not sure there's much of a breach of your privacy.
The court order in my link lists other cameras which aren't ones you'd expect to see your driveway in. The ones in the front and back yards for example.

This time, Larkin wasn’t able to choose which cameras he could send videos from. The warrant included all five of his outdoor cameras, and also added a sixth camera that was inside his house, as well as any videos from cameras associated with his account, which would include the cameras in his store. It would include footage recorded from cameras he had in his living room and bedroom, as well as the 13 cameras he had installed at his store associated with his account.
 
Last edited:
The court order in my link lists other cameras which aren't ones you'd expect to see your driveway in. The ones in the front and back yards for example.

Well that's his own fault for turning his house into something of a big brother gameshow. I mean WTF who installs cameras in their bedrooms.
 
Back
Top Bottom