Per Camera fees - Let's Follow the Money

[dive_instructor]

Hi,
Synology (Surveillence Station) and similar manufacturers, and IP camera software companies, charge serious high fees per-camera, for those camera users that exceed one or two cameras. As far as I can tell, they never reveal how those revenues are disbursed.

Are we expected to believe it's labor intensive to write the source code to accept each additional camera?
Are we expected to believe that fee revenue is disbursed to the manufacturer of the additional camera brand?

If they are, in fact, disbursing the additional fee revenue to involved camera companies, then why don't camera companies allow that fee to be paid directly to them at time of camera purchase?

There are hundreds of camera manufacturers. What's the probability that each one charges the exact same per camera fee demanded by Synology and others? A better way to ask, "what percent of the per camera fee is disbursed to each involved camera manufacturer?" My guess is, zero. Am I right?

Do we, as payors, have the right to even a partial answer as to how our payments are disbursed? "Ohhhhh Noooo!"

 

[samplenhold]

Are we expected to believe that fee revenue is disbursed to the manufacturer of the additional camera brand?

Why would you even think that?

The 'fees' are based on how much people will pay. It has nothing to do with the cost of the service. Prices for anything are never based on the cost of production, except that it needs to cover that cost. It is ALWAYS based on how much they believe people will pay for it.

Why do you think that auto makers will drop prices by thousands? The cost of manufacture did not mysteriously drop overnight. People did not buy it at that price so they dropped it.

 

[bigredfish]

I have a lot of security camera systems I manage and dont pay a single penny. $0

Maybe switch to an system that doesnt rape you?

 

[quiet.tea]

I always thought that the cost was for Synology to maintain their software. It is a one time cost per active camera and can be transferred to another Synology NAS.

 

[[email protected]]

I've been aware of Synology (SS) costs to add additional cameras for many many years, think it's well documented from Synology themselves.
Surely it's a choice of either an NVR as I have, or go "pay as you go" with the NAS Synology route!
Cannot understand someone moaning about the the incorrect route they have taken and the extra costs involved. It's their fault.
Not one of silly jokes again!

 

[Snobud]

Just going to leave some food for thought here.. for starters Synology and QNAP both offer 8 camera licenses for their NVR capable systems. It is really the responsibility of the consumer to know what they are buying and how to utilize it to the fullest. So the Synology DVA 1622 and the QNAP QNAP TS-453E-8G are going to be kvm self sufficient and are 100% designed with the intent and purpose of being utilized as a stand alone NVR for small home and business. Now small home and business means 8GB Ram with a max operating capacity to run 8 4k cameras at 80 FPE…. And then you are maxed out (Synology DVA 1622). So the QNAP is going to offer an additional empty slot to add another 8GB of RAM and the 4 bay slots for a total of what.. 80+TB hard drive and 16gb of Ram?? And I think it comes with the QNAP pro monitoring software.

Sure you can buy a proprietary NVR and PoE switch etc… and get locked into a solitary ecosystem and run upward of 16+ cameras.. just make sure the cameras and software will work for your needs. If I am remembering correctly these 2 NAS NVR designed systems allow for the 8 camera licenses to transfer to another NAS if needed. So I guess what I am saying is that if a consumer wants an NAS for NVR purposes then make sure that it is 100% NVR capable by reviewing the specs, reviews, warranties, return policies and any and all hardware and software specs before purchase.

I think you raise a decent question and I am right there with you just befuddled and angry that something you buy and own can continue to incur charges which means you really don’t own it to its fullest capacity but honestly it’s the least concerning red flag issue these companies present. I mean I just reviewed their unethical and illegally written warranties today and what a joke! What absolute rubbish and the warranties won’t hold up in any US based legal system including mediation at the State Attorney General level.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

Rule #1: No recurring extortion fee.
Rule #2: See Rule #1

 

[Snobud]

Rule #1: No recurring extortion fee.
Rule #2: See Rule #1

What is the new fandangled terminology… “subscription based service” which has really been exploited to the fullest by all the mainstream companies like Toyota, BMW, Arlo, ring… etc.. however the licensing fee isn’t an ongoing charge so I think this is why it goes undetected by the FTC consumer rights fraud division and most State Attorney General Consumer affairs divisions. Since it is a one time charge for a “service”. It still just doesn’t feel right! For example the New Jersey AG sued the auto manufacturing industry a few years ago and placed an imbargo on any vehicles charging consumers subscription based fees for services that had previously been free aka the radio, keyless entry, heated seats etc.. the outcome of that lawsuit was not good for consumers and it simply created a legal loop hole for the manufacturing companies to continue exploiting subscription based services and fees by moving all services into their software integration media consoles and discontinuing the use of IR tech for things that were previously free like keyless entry and remote start.

I don’t understand how no one has filed a class action lawsuit against Synology for forcing consumers into buying their proprietary hard drives which violates the Federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act of 1973? This is above my head but I feel as though charging for camera activation fees.. After the NAS NVR has been outright purchased… I want to say that is illegal to some extent. So it was concluded that consumers can not incur more continuing charges after an item is outright paid for unless that ongoing service has to be routed through an offsite server which is maintained by a third party (not the consumer). So if the NAS advertised working with 20 4k cameras at 80fpe but only allows the use of 10 cameras to hook up for use and you have to pay to add the additional 10 cameras but the system is never routed and connected via LAN to the offsite servers and consumers are prevented or locked out from fully accessing using the remaining 10 camera connections then this would fall under false marketing and advertising and possibly other consumer rights. This is definitely something worth reporting to the FTC and AG if you are someone who is locked out of using the full extend of the NAS NVR system on your local network.