Reddit will remove mods of private communities unless they reopen

Reddit will remove mods of private communities unless they reopen

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Reddit has informed moderators of protesting communities that are still private that they will lose their mod status by the end of the week, according to messages seen by The Verge. If a moderator tells Reddit they are interested in “actively moderating” the subreddit, the company says it will “take your request into consideration.”

Here is the full message, which we have confirmed was sent to moderators of at least two subreddits:

After sending a modmail message on June 27, 2023, your mod team indicated that you do not want to reopen the [name of subreddit] community. This is a courtesy notice to let you know that you will lose moderator status in the community by end of week. If you reply to let us know you’re interested in actively moderating this community, we will take your request into consideration.

In message threads we’ve seen, moderators of both subreddits told ModCodeofConduct they do want to reopen, but said they would need Reddit make changes before they would.

“We see no reason to reopen as I don’t think we’re the bad guys here,” yoasif, an r/firefox moderator who received the message, tells The Verge in an email. “Reddit has had a chance to reconcile with the protest for weeks now, and they haven’t.” r/firefox, as of this writing, is indeed still private.

Reddit’s declaration that it is going to remove the mods follows escalating messages from the company this week that indicated it might take action against them. On Tuesday, the Reddit admin (employee) account ModCodeofConduct asked some moderators of private subreddits (a designation that means the community is only accessible to approved users) to let it know within 48 hours if they planned to reopen their communities.

But when some replied, the admin took a far more aggressive tone. “This community remaining closed to its [millions of] members cannot continue” past the deadline, ModCodeofConduct wrote in one message seen by The Verge. “This community will not remain private beyond the timeframe we’ve allowed for confirmation of plans here,” the admin added. ModCodeofConduct also argued that switching to private in protest is a violation of the Moderator Code of Conduct.

Reddit spokesperson Tim Rathschmidt declined to comment.

Although more than 8,000 communities went dark earlier this month in protest of the company’s imminent API pricing changes, many subreddits have since reopened; according to one tracker, just over 2,300 remain private or restricted in some form.

Update June 29th, 7:25PM ET: Reddit declined to comment.

Max begins fixing its disrespectful creator credits

Max begins fixing its ‘disrespectful’ creator credits

The updates should take a week or so to fully roll out across the platform. | Photo by Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images

Warner Bros. Discovery has started fixing the controversial “creator” credits section on its recently relaunched Max streaming platform over a month following the company apologizing for snubbing the talent behind films and TV shows. According to Deadline, the entertainment giant began revising the credit sections across its various platforms earlier this week — which currently lump together writers, directors, producers, and more as nondescript “creators.”

“This is a credits violation for starters,” Meredith Stiehm, president of Writers Guild of America West, said last month. “But worse, it is disrespectful and insulting to the artists that make the films and TV shows that make their corporation billions.”

The updated credit sections lay out familiar categories that allow each title’s creators to be properly credited for their work. Some of these can already be seen on the updated credits for Succession. Deadline says the sections will include Created By, Director(s), Writers, Producers, Developed By, and Based on Source Material where applicable. The rollout is expected to take up to two weeks to complete.

Image: Deadline

Some shows on Max, like Succession (pictured), have already had their credit sections updated to reflect the changes.

A couple of days after issuing its apology in May, Warner Bros. Discovery warned that fixing the credits across its platform “could take weeks” because it needed time for the data to be transferred, checked, and finalized. “It is not as simple as pressing a button,” said one studio insider to Deadline. Warner Bros. Discovery claims that a “technical oversight” during the transition from HBO Max to the new Max streaming platform was to blame for causing the issue.

Intentional or not, the timing of this situation has painted a sizable target on the studio. Various strikes and union activity from groups like the Writers Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild, and Directors Guild have taken place in recent weeks as professionals within the industry fight to ensure they’re fairly compensated, credited, and protected against being replaced with AI. Understandably, they didn’t appreciate the snub.

“Warner Bros. Discovery’s unilateral move, without notice or consultation, to collapse directors, writers, producers, and others into a generic category of ‘creators’ in their new Max rollout while we are in negotiations with them is a grave insult to our members and our union,” said DGA president Lesli Linka Glatter in response to the new Max credits. “This devaluation of the individual contributions of artists is a disturbing trend and the DGA will not stand for it.”

Disclosure: The Verge’s editorial staff is also unionized with the Writers Guild of America, East.

The EU still needs to get its AI Act together

The EU still needs to get its AI Act together

There are still a few hoops to jump through before the EUs AI regulations can take effect. | Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images

It’s taken over two years for the European Parliament to approve its artificial intelligence regulations — but AI development hasn’t been idle.

The European Union is set to impose some of the world’s most sweeping safety and transparency restrictions on artificial intelligence. A draft of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA or AI Act) — new legislation that restricts high-risk uses of AI — was passed by the European Parliament on June 14th. Now, after two years and an explosion of interest in AI, only a few hurdles remain before it comes into effect.

The AI Act was proposed by European lawmakers in April 2021. In their proposal, lawmakers warned the technology could provide a host of “economic and societal benefits” but also “new risks or negative consequences for individuals or the society.” Those warnings may seem fairly obvious these days, but they predate the mayhem of generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion. And as this new variety of AI has evolved, a once (relatively) simple-sounding regulation has struggled to encompass a huge range of fast-changing technologies. As Daniel Leufer, senior policy analyst at Access Now, said to The Verge, “The AI Act has been a bit of a flawed tool from the get-go.”

In order to regulate AI, you first need to define what it even is

The AI Act was created for two main reasons: to synchronize the rules for regulating AI technology across EU member states and to provide a clearer definition of what AI actually is. The framework categorizes a wide range of applications by different levels of risk: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal or no risk. “Unacceptable” risk models, which include social “credit scores” and real-time biometric identification (like facial recognition) in public spaces, are outright prohibited. “Minimal” risk ones, including spam filters and inventory management systems, won’t face any additional rules. Services that fall in between will be subject to transparency and safety restrictions if they want to stay in the EU market.

The early AI Act proposals focused on a range of relatively concrete tools that were sometimes already being deployed in fields like job recruitment, education, and policing. What lawmakers didn’t realize, however, was that defining “AI” was about to get a lot more complicated.

The EU wants rules of the road for high-risk AI

The current approved legal framework of the AI Act covers a wide range of applications, from software in self-driving cars to “predictive policing” systems used by law enforcement. And on top of the prohibition on “unacceptable” systems, its strictest regulations are reserved for “high risk” tech. If you provide a “limited risk” system like customer service chatbots on websites that can interact with a user, you just need to inform consumers that they’re using an AI system. This category also covers the use of facial recognition technology (though law enforcement is exempt from this restriction in certain circumstances) and AI systems that can produce “deepfakes” — defined within the act as AI-generated content based on real people, places, objects, and events that could otherwise appear authentic.

For anything the EU considers riskier, the restrictions are much more onerous. These systems are subject to “conformity assessments” before entering the EU market to determine whether they meet all necessary AI Act requirements. That includes keeping a log of the company’s activity, preventing unauthorized third parties from altering or exploiting the product, and ensuring the data being used to train these systems is compliant with relevant data protection laws (such as GDPR). That training data is also expected to be of a high standard — meaning it should be complete, unbiased, and free of any false information.

Photo by Pool / AFP via Getty Images

European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton holding a press conference on AI on April 21st, 2021.

The scope for “high risk” systems is so large that it’s broadly divided into two sub-categories: tangible products and software. The first applies to AI systems incorporated in products that fall under the EU’s product safety legislation, such as toys, aviation, cars, medical devices, and elevators — companies that provide them must report to independent third parties designated by the EU in their conformity assessment procedure. The second includes more software-based products that could impact law enforcement, education, employment, migration, critical infrastructure, and access to essential private and public services, such as AI systems that could influence voters in political campaigns. Companies providing these AI services can self-assess their products to ensure they meet the AI Act’s requirements, and there’s no requirement to report to a third-party regulatory body.

Now that the AI Act has been greenlit, it’ll enter the final phase of inter-institutional negotiations. That involves communication between Member States (represented by the EU Council of Ministers), the Parliament, and the Commission to develop the approved draft into the finalized legislation. “In theory, it should end this year and come into force in two to five years,” said Sarah Chander, senior policy advisor for the European Digital Rights Association, to The Verge.

These negotiations present an opportunity for some regulations within the current version of the AI Act to be adjusted if they’re found to be particularly contentious. Leufer said that while some provisions within the legislation may be watered down, those regarding generative AI could potentially be strengthened. “The council hasn’t had their say on generative AI yet, and there may be things that they’re actually quite worried about, such as its role in political disinformation,” he says. “So we could see new potentially quite strong measures pop up in the next phase of negotiations.”

Generative AI has thrown a wrench in the AI Act

When generative AI models started appearing on the market, the first draft of the AI Act was already being shaped. Blindsided by the explosive development of these AI systems, European lawmakers had to figure out how they could be regulated under their proposed legislation — fast.

The seemingly limitless ways in which LLMs can be adapted presented an issue for the EUs regulatory plans

“The issue with the AI Act was that it was very much focused on the application layer,” said Leufer. It focused on relatively complete products and systems with defined uses, which could be evaluated for risk-based largely on their purpose. Then, companies began releasing powerful models that were much broader in scope. OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 large language models (LLMs) appeared on the market after the EU had already begun negotiating the terms of the new legislation. Lawmakers refer to these as “foundation” models: a term coined by Stanford University for models that are “trained on broad data at scale, designed for the generality of output, and can be adapted to a wide range of distinctive tasks.”

Things like GPT-4 are often shorthanded as generative AI tools, and their best-known applications include producing reports or essays, generating lines of code, and answering user inquiries on endless subjects. But Leufer emphasizes that they’re broader than that. “People can build apps on GPT-4, but they don’t have to be generative per se,” he says. Similarly, a company like Microsoft could build a facial recognition or object detection API, then let developers build downstream apps with unpredictable results. They can do it much faster than the EU can usher in specific regulations covering each app. And if the underlying models aren’t covered, individual developers could be the ones held responsible for not complying with the AI Act — even if the issue stems from the foundation model itself.

“These so-called General Purpose AI Systems that work as a kind of foundation layer or a base layer for more concrete applications were what really got the conversation started about whether and how that kind of layer of the pipeline should be included in the regulation,” says Leufer. As a result, lawmakers have proposed numerous amendments to ensure that these emerging technologies — and their yet-unknown applications — will be covered by the AI Act.

The capabilities and legal pitfalls of these models have swiftly raised alarm bells for policymakers across the world. Services like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Bard were found to spit out inaccurate and sometimes dangerous information. Questions surrounding the intellectual property and private data used to train these systems have sparked several lawsuits. While European lawmakers raced to ensure these issues could be addressed within the upcoming AI Act, regulators across its member states have relied on alternative solutions to try and keep AI companies in check.

Image: SDNY

Lawyer Steven Schwartz found out the hard way that even if ChatGPT claims it’s being truthful, it can still spit out false information.

“In the interim, regulators are focused on the enforcement of existing laws,” said Sarah Myers West, managing director at the AI Now Institute, to The Verge. Italy’s Data Protection Authority, for instance, temporarily banned ChatGPT for violating the GDPR. Amsterdam’s Court of Appeals also issued a ruling against Uber and Lyft for violating drivers’ rights through algorithmic wage management and automated firing and hiring.

Other countries have introduced their own rules in a bid to keep AI companies in check. China published draft guidelines signaling how generative AI should be regulated within the country back in April. Various states in the US, like California, Illinois, and Texas, have also passed laws that focus on protecting consumers against the potential dangers of AI. Certain legal cases in which the FTC applied “algorithmic disgorgement” — which requires companies to destroy the algorithms or AI models it built using ill-gotten data — could lay a path for future regulations on a nationwide level.

The rules impacting foundation model providers are anticlimactic

The AI Act legislation that was approved on June 14th includes specific distinctions for foundation models. Providers must assess their product for a huge range of potential risks, from those that can impact health and safety to risks regarding the democratic rights of those residing in EU member states. They must register their models to an EU database before they can be released to the EU market. Generative AI systems using these foundation models, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot, will need to comply with transparency requirements (such as disclosing when content is AI-generated) and ensure safeguards are in place to prevent users from generating illegal content. And perhaps most significantly, the companies behind foundation models will need to disclose any copyrighted data used to train them to the public.

The mystery of “Schrödinger’s copyrighted content” in AI training data may soon be more apparent

This last measure could have seismic effects on AI companies. Popular text and image generators are trained to produce content by replicating patterns in code, text, music, art, and other data created by real humans — so much data that it almost certainly includes copyrighted materials. This training sits in a legal gray area, with arguments for and against the idea that it can be conducted without permission from the rightsholders. Individual creators and large companies have sued over the issue, and making it easier to identify copyrighted material in a dataset will likely draw even more suits.

But overall, experts say the AI Act’s regulations could have gone much further. Legislators rejected an amendment that could have slapped an onerous “high risk” label on all General Purpose AI Systems (GPAIs) — a vague classification defined as “an AI system that can be used in and adapted to a wide range of applications for which it was not intentionally and specifically designed.” When this amendment was proposed, the AI Act did not explicitly distinguish between GPAIs and foundation AI models and therefore had the potential to impact a sizable chunk of AI developers. According to one study conducted by appliedAI in December 2022, 45 percent of all surveyed startup companies considered their AI system to be a GPAI.

Photo by Frederick Florin / AFP via Getty Images

Members of the European Parliament vote on the Artificial Intelligence Act during a plenary session on June 14th.

GPAIs are still defined within the approved draft of the act, though these are now judged based on their individual applications. Instead, legislators added a separate category for foundation models, and while they’re still subject to plenty of regulatory rules, they’re not automatically categorized as being high risk. “‘Foundational models’ is a broad terminology encouraged by Stanford, [which] also has a vested interest in such systems,” said Chander. “As such, the Parliament’s position only covers such systems to a limited extent and is much less broad than the previous work on general-purpose systems.”

AI providers like OpenAI lobbied against the EU including such an amendment, and their influence in the process is an open question. “We’re seeing this problematic thing where generative AI CEOs are being consulted on how their products should be regulated,” said Leufer. “And it’s not that they shouldn’t be consulted. But they’re not the only ones, and their voices shouldn’t be the loudest because they’re extremely self-interested.”

Potholes litter the EU’s road to AI regulations

As it stands, some experts believe the current rules for foundation models don’t go far enough. Chander tells The Verge that while the transparency requirements for training data would provide “more information than ever before,” disclosing that data doesn’t ensure users won’t be harmed when these systems are used. “We have been calling for details about the use of such a system to be displayed on the EU AI database and for impact assessments on fundamental rights to be made public,” added Chander. “We need public oversight over the use of AI systems.”

“The AI Act will only mandate these companies to do things they should already be doing”

Several experts tell The Verge that far from solving the legal concerns around generative AI, the AI Act might actually be less effective than existing rules. “In many respects, the GDPR offers a stronger framework in that it is rights-based, not risk-based,” said Myers West. Leufer also claims that GDPR has a more significant legal impact on generative AI systems. “The AI Act will only mandate these companies to do things they should already be doing,” he says.

OpenAI has drawn particular criticism for being secretive about the training data for its GPT-4 model. Speaking to The Verge in an interview, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist and co-founder, said that the company’s previous transparency pledge was “a bad idea.”

“These models are very potent, and they’re becoming more and more potent. At some point, it will be quite easy, if one wanted, to cause a great deal of harm with those models,” said Sutskever. “And as the capabilities get higher, it makes sense that you don’t want want to disclose them.”

As other companies scramble to release their own generative AI models, providers of these systems may be similarly motivated to conceal how their product is developed — both through fear of competitors and potential legal ramifications. Therefore, the AI Act’s biggest impact, according to Leufer, may be on transparency — in a field where companies are “becoming gradually more and more closed.”

The AI Act falls short on protecting migrants and refugees against AI systems

Outside of the narrow focus on foundation models, other areas in the AI Act have been criticized for failing to protect marginalized groups that could be impacted by the technology. “It contains significant gaps such as overlooking how AI is used in the context of migration, harms that affect communities of color most,” said Myers West. “These are the kinds of harms where regulatory intervention is most pressing: AI is already being used widely in ways that affect people’s access to resources and life chances, and that ramp up widespread patterns of inequality.”

If the AI Act proves to be less effective than existing laws protecting individuals’ rights, it might not bode well for the EU’s AI plans, particularly if it’s not strictly enforced. After all, Italy’s attempt to use GDPR against ChatGPT started as tough-looking enforcement, including near-impossible-seeming requests like ensuring the chatbot didn’t provide inaccurate information. But OpenAI was able to satisfy Italian regulators’ demands seemingly by adding fresh disclaimers to its terms and policy documents. Europe has spent years crafting its AI framework — but regulators will have to decide whether to take advantage of its teeth.

Meta explains how AI influences what we see on Facebook and Instagram

Meta explains how AI influences what we see on Facebook and Instagram

Meta’s President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg (pictured) affirms the company’s commitment to transparency. | Kristen Radtke / The Verge

Meta has published a deep dive into the company’s social media algorithms in a bid to demystify how content is recommended for Instagram and Facebook users. In a blog post published on Thursday, Meta’s President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg said that the info dump on the AI systems behind its algorithms is part of the company’s “wider ethos of openness, transparency, and accountability,” and outlined what Facebook and Instagram users can do to better control what content they see on the platforms.

“With rapid advances taking place with powerful technologies like generative AI, it’s understandable that people are both excited by the possibilities and concerned about the risks,” Clegg said in the blog. “We believe that the best way to respond to those concerns is with openness.”

22 “service cards” are now available that outline how content is ranked and reccomended for Facebook and Instagram users

Most of the information is contained within 22 “system cards” that cover the Feed, Stories, Reels, and other ways that people discover and consume content on Meta’s social media platforms. Each of these cards provides detailed, yet approachable information about how the AI systems behind these features rank and recommend content. For example, the overview into Instagram Explore — a feature that shows users photo and reels content from accounts they don’t follow — explains the three-step process behind the automated AI recommendation engine.

1. Gather Inventory: the system gathers public Instagram content like photos and reels that abides by the company’s quality and integrity rules.
2. Leverage Signals: the AI system then considers how users have engaged with similar content or interests, also known as “input signals.”
3. Rank Content: finally, the system then ranks the content from the previous step, pushing content that it predicts will be of greater interest to the user to a higher position within the Explore tab

The card says that Instagram users can influence this process by saving content (indicating that the system should show you similar stuff), or marking it as “not interested” to encourage the system to filter out similar content in the future. Users can also see reels and photos that haven’t been specifically selected for them by the algorithm by selecting “Not personalized” in the Explore filter. More information about Meta’s predictive AI models, the input signals used to direct them, and how frequently they’re used to rank content, is available via its Transparency Center.

Instagram is testing a feature that will allow users to mark reels as “interested” to see similar content in the future

Alongside the system cards, the blog post mentions a few other Instagram and Facebook features that can inform users why they’re seeing certain content, and how they can tailor their recommendations. Meta is expanding the “Why Am I Seeing This?” feature to Facebook Reels, Instagram Reels, and Instagram’s Explore tab in “the coming weeks.” This will allow users to click on an individual reel to find out how their previous activity may have influenced the system to show it to them. Instagram is also testing a new Reels feature that will allow users to mark recommended reels as “Interested” to see similar content in the future. The ability to mark content as “Not Interested” has been available since 2021.

Meta also announced that it will begin rolling out its Content Library and API, a new suite of tools for researchers, in the coming weeks, which will contain a bunch of public data from Instagram and Facebook. Data from this library can be searched, explored, and filtered, and researchers will be able to apply for access to these tools through approved partners, starting with the University of Michigan’s Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Meta claims these tools will provide “the most comprehensive access to publicly-available content across Facebook and Instagram of any research tool we have built to date” alongside helping the company to meet its data-sharing and transparency compliance obligations.

Those transparency obligations are potentially the largest factor driving Meta’s decision to better explain how it uses AI to shape the content we see and interact with. The explosive development of AI technology and its subsequent popularity in recent months has drawn attention from regulators around the world who have expressed concern about how these systems collect, manage, and use our personal data. Meta’s algorithms aren’t new, but the way it mismanaged user data during the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the reactions to TikTok’s tepid transparency efforts are likely a motivational reminder to over communicate.

Twitters New CEO Linda Yaccarino Eases Into the Hot Seat

Twitter’s New CEO, Linda Yaccarino, Eases Into the Hot Seat Linda Yaccarino, who initially could not take ad sales meetings because of a noncompete clause, is adjusting to her new role reporting to Elon Musk.

Nvidia RTX 4060 review roundup: you deserve better

Nvidia RTX 4060 review roundup: you deserve better

Nvidia doesn’t have a picture of the 4060 specifically, but here’s a representation of the 4060 lineup from its marketing video. | Image: Nvidia

Linus Tech Tips is calling it a “wet fart of a GPU.” Hardware Unboxed says it’s “a slap in the face to gamers.” Here’s how GamersNexus begins its conclusion: “This isn’t as egregiously embarrassing as the 4060 Ti.”

They’re all talking about the Nvidia RTX 4060, a 1080p-focused graphics card which launches tomorrow for $300 — and probably isn’t worth that price.

Not everyone thinks it’s a bad card. I’ve poured through reviews today, and some conclude that it is, at least, one of the best 1080p cards you can currently buy brand-new. Here’s Andrew Cunningham with Ars Technica:

It’s not an exciting upgrade, but if you asked me which GPU I would buy for an $800 to $1,000 gaming PC, the RTX 4060 would be the one I’d point to, especially with so many 3060 cards (as of this writing) still selling for pretty close to the same $300 price.

And Jarred Walton with Tom’s Hardware:

The RTX 4060 isn’t a terrible card by any means. Some people will probably say it is, but across our benchmark suite, it was universally faster than the previous generation RTX 3060 at every setting that mattered (meaning, not counting 4K ultra performance, where neither card delivered acceptable performance). There will be edge cases where it falls behind, like Spider-Man: Miles Morales running 1440p ultra, where minimum fps was clearly worse than on the 3060. But overall? Yes, it’s faster than the previous generation, and it even cuts the price by $30 — not that the RTX 3060 was available for $329 during most of its shelf life.

Every reviewer notes that Nvidia did do a good job on power consumption, with a card that consumes under 115W under load. Some point out that DLSS 3 frame generation made a notable difference — in the handful of games that support it.

But every reviewer I’ve seen also agrees this GPU is hamstrung by a paltry 128-bit memory bus and 8GB of VRAM. Many point out that the 4060 is not only occasionally losing to the 3060 — a two-year-old GPU which already struggled to justify its existence — it’s almost always losing to the two-and-a-half-year-old 3060 Ti.

Here’s Chris Szewczyk with PC Gamer:

The RTX 3060 Ti retains a notable lead over the RTX 4060 here. When viewed in that context, the RTX 4060 is on the disappointing side. We’d usually expect a card from a new generation to match a card a tier up from the previous generation, in this case, that would be the RTX 3070, but since even the 3060 Ti is out of reach, the 3070 remains completely unchallenged.

And Steven Walton at TechSpot:

The RTX 4060 aligns more with what we traditionally think of as a GTX 1650 or GTX 1050 Ti-class product – a $100-$150 GPU, not a $300 one. One glance at the MSI Ventus 2x MSRP model we were sent is enough to conclude that this isn’t typically what we consider a $300 graphics card.

You can currently find the 3060 Ti for as low as $330 — no, even as low as $275 on sale. Or, you could pick up the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, one model of which is currently $310 at Newegg. Or the Radeon RX 7600, a card that somewhat disappointed my colleague Tom but at least costs $30-$40 less than Nvidia’s new model and can sometimes beat it in rasterized games.

Personally, I’d sooner roll the dice on a used 3070 than any of these. I’m not a fan of the direction GPUs have been headed, and eBay completed listings show a preowned 3070, which will soundly beat the 4060, can be had for roughly the same price.

The best doorbell cameras

The best doorbell cameras

Illustration by Kristen Radtke / The Verge, Shutterstock

We pick the best video doorbell cameras for keeping an eye on people, packages, and anything else that comes across your front porch.

With a smart doorbell, your front door’s communication skills go from 1980s landline to 2023 smartphone. Combining a motion-activated camera with a microphone, speaker, and doorbell, a doorbell camera sends alerts to your phone to show you who’s calling without you having to open the door or even be at home. Whether you’re curled up on the couch, hard at work in your office, or sunning on a beach in the Bahamas, a smart doorbell camera keeps you in touch with what’s happening on your doorstep.

I have tested more than 30 video doorbells, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all — like a smartphone, it’s a personal choice — I have thoughts on which are the best of the best and which work well for specific use cases.

My most important advice is that if you have existing doorbell wires, use them. Wired doorbells are generally cheaper, work better, and are more compact, so they tend to look nicer.

If you don’t have wires and don’t want to pay for an electrician to run them, try using an AC power adapter (Ring and Google Nest sell their own; you can also find generic ones). But if all else fails, I’ve got a couple recommendations for good battery-powered buzzers. Just plan to pick up an extra battery when you purchase, or factor in removing it from your door every few months to charge it for a few hours.

Best doorbell camera

Video quality: 960x1280p, 6x zoom, HDR / Smart alerts: Person, package, animal, vehicle and facial recognition ($) Aspect ratio: 3:4 / Field of view: 145 degrees diagonal / Power options: Wired / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz / Storage: Cloud and local / Subscription fee: $3.99 a month / Works with: Alexa, Google, SmartThings

The Nest Doorbell Wired (2nd-gen) is one of only two video doorbells in this list that can record 24/7. Being able to scroll through a continuous timeline view of everything that’s happened at your front door is super helpful and means you won’t miss a crucial moment — even if something happens outside of motion-detecting range. This, along with a low price, good video quality, the ability to tell you who and what is at your door, and some free recorded video, make it the best doorbell for most people.

The Nest Wired is also the best video doorbell that works with Google Home, and the best for protecting your packages. Its proactive package watch feature tells you when a package arrives and sends another alert when it’s gone. In my testing, it worked very well.

Unlike most of the competition, Google doesn’t charge you for smart notifications. The Nest Wired will tell you if it’s a person, package, animal, or vehicle at your door for free. You also get free activity zones to cut down on unwanted notifications, and three free hours of event-based recordings, thanks to its local storage and local processing. You can, in theory, use this doorbell without paying a subscription.

But three hours isn’t enough time to be particularly useful. And the $6 per month ($60 / year) Nest Aware subscription is expensive compared to single-camera subs from competitors. It does cover all your Google Nest cameras for less than competitor multi-camera offerings and adds 30 days of event-recorded video storage, plus Nest’s excellent Familiar Faces feature that tells you who is at your door, mostly reliably. If you want the 24/7 recording, however, you need to up it to $12 per month ($120 / year), but again this subscription applies to all Google Nest cameras you have.

The Nest wired has four color options and more discreet branding than most doorbells.

The Nest Doorbell Wired is essentially the same as the Nest Doorbell Battery. It costs the same, has the same tech specs, and looks identical beyond a size difference. But there is one key hardware change: the Nest wired is a true wired doorbell, which means it runs directly off your existing doorbell wiring.

Because it's wired, it can record continuously, which the battery version can’t. The wired power also means it’s faster and more reliable. Plus, as with all true wired doorbells, it catches more footage at the beginning of each event (about three to four seconds) — thereby avoiding the back-of-the-head problem many doorbells suffer from, where the camera takes too long to wake up to catch the visitor as they approach.

On paper, it doesn’t have the best specs; the Arlo and Ring Pro 2 look better technically. But you do get 960 x 1280 pixel resolution and a 6x digital zoom. And video quality is very good, thanks to some digital trickery. A 3:4 portrait aspect ratio and 145-degree field of view meant I could see my porch from top to bottom and a fair amount from side to side.

On-device AI makes the Nest speedy with notifications, and it delivers rich alerts to both your phone and watch. These are interactive, allowing me to press and hold the video to see a clip and activate one of the three pre-set quick responses. It’s also quick to call up live video.

Nest’s doorbells and cameras work with Nest smart displays and speakers to show and/or tell you who is at your door, and with Amazon Alexa smart displays to see and talk to your visitor. They also work with Samsung SmartThings, but there’s no native integration with Apple Home.

There are a few quirks. There’s no reliable way to snooze notifications from the doorbell, and if you use have multiple Nest speakers or displays, they’ll all announce your visitors. Not great if you have a Nest Mini in your kid’s nursery. It also doesn’t work with the Nest app, only the Google Home app.

The Home app is much improved, however, thanks to a big redesign that launched in May 2023. It handles video playback in particular much better than before. You can also now use a doorbell press to trigger an automation — such as turning on a light in the hallway.

Read my full Nest Doorbell wired review for more details.

Best wired doorbell camera for Alexa and Ring

Video quality: 1536 x 1536p, HDR / Smart alerts: Person, package ($) Aspect ratio: 1:1 / Field of view: 150 degrees horizontal, 150 degrees vertical / Power options: Wired / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz / Storage: Cloud and local (with Ring Alarm Pro) / Subscription fee: $3.99 a month / Works with: Amazon Alexa, Samsung SmartThings

The Ring Pro 2 is more expensive than the Nest Wired, but its video is higher quality and much brighter. It has an ideal square aspect ratio for a full front porch view, speedy notifications, and impressively accurate motion detection using three separate sensors — radar, video analysis, and passive infrared. It also has a nice slim design and multiple faceplate options to fit your decor. Those features combine to make this one of the best video doorbells you can buy. But it doesn’t have any free video recording, there’s no option for 24/7 recording, and the smart alerts are limited to people and packages only.

The Ring Pro 2 is the best doorbell that works with Amazon Alexa and Ring’s security system and cameras, but it has little to no integration with other platforms, so it’s not a good option if you use another platform and want to add your doorbell to smart home routines. It does work with Samsung SmartThings, and integrating it into Apple Home can be done, but it requires extra hardware.

The Ring Video Doorbell Pro 2 has a compact design and the option of swappable faceplates for a different look.

A true wired doorbell, Ring Pro 2 has alerts for packages and people (but not for vehicles or animals), color night vision, dual-band Wi-Fi, and smart responses (which let your doorbell can talk to your visitor for you). The Ring app is excellent. There are pages of settings you can tinker with, and the timeline view to scroll through your recordings is very good.

The Pro 2 will work with existing doorbell chimes, plus Ring sells a plug-in Chime and Chime Wi-Fi extender that can help boost connectivity while providing a selection of fun doorbell tones. Of all the doorbells I tested, this had the best range and connectivity, and built-in, full-color pre-roll helps ensure you don’t miss any crucial action.

Ring doorbell cameras can stream to Amazon Echo Show smart displays, and show the feed automatically if someone presses the doorbell.

As with a lot of doorbell cameras, the Pro 2 can use Echo smart speakers to announce when there’s somebody at the door. Ring doorbells can also automatically pull up a live feed of your doorbell on an Echo Show or Fire TV-enabled television when someone presses the doorbell. This gives you an instant video intercom in your home — a super handy feature.

The downside is the Pro 2 is expensive, and you will need to pay for the Ring Protect plan (starting at $3.99 a month or $39.99 a year for 180 days of video storage) to view recorded footage and get smart alerts. This also adds an extra six seconds of pre-roll video, which, in lieu of 24/7 recording (not an option on any Ring doorbell), provides plenty of time around motion events to catch all the action. The digital zoom is good, but not the best on offer — Arlo wins that race with a whopping 12x.

The Pro does work with Ring Edge for local storage and processing of videos, plus the option of cellular backup. But you need a Ring Alarm Pro and Ring Protect Pro subscription for this ($20 a month, which includes professional monitoring), although compared to $12 a month for just video services with the Nest, it’s a pretty good deal.

Read the full Ring Video Doorbell Pro 2 review.

Best battery-powered doorbell camera

Video quality: 1536 x 1536p, HDR, color night vision / Smart Alerts: Person, package ($) Aspect ratio: 1:1 / Field of view: 150 degrees horizontal, 150 degrees vertical / Power options: Battery, wired trickle charge, solar / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz / Storage: Cloud and local (with Ring Alarm Pro) / Subscription fee: $3.99 a month / Works with: Amazon Alexa, Samsung SmartThings

If you have no choice but to rely on battery power, the Ring Battery Doorbell Plus is the way to go. At $179.99, it’s a bit more expensive than my previous top pick for a battery doorbell — the Ring 4 — even though it looks identical. But you get head-to-toe video and better video resolution giving you a clearer picture of what’s going on at your door. That’s worth the extra $20.

Unlike the Ring 4, and like most other battery-powered doorbells, there’s no pre-roll. If catching people as they approach your door — not just at your door — is crucial for you, you might want to consider the 4. But the Plus also adds color night vision and, in testing, was more responsive than any other battery doorbell I’ve tested, pulling up a live view in under four seconds compared with upwards of 10 seconds for most others.

The Ring Plus and Ring 4 look identical, but the Plus has some plusses.

Battery life isn’t great, despite the name. It lasted two months with all the features turned on — except the extra-length recordings (default is 30 seconds, but it can go up to 120). This is about the same as the 4 and less than the Eufy Dual. You can tweak settings on either doorbell to reduce power consumption, but then you have to give up features like HDR (which makes it easier to see faces) and snapshot capture, which takes a picture every five minutes to give you a better idea of what’s been happening at your door.

On the plus side, Ring is the only company that does offer swappable batteries. The Plus uses the same $35 Quick Release ones as Ring’s battery-powered cameras. This makes it so much easier to keep your doorbell charged — just keep a second on hand charged and ready to swap in when you get low (they’re easy to charge with USB type-A cable, and one is included). Most other doorbells you have to fully remove to recharge.

The Ring Battery Plus uses a removable, rechargeable battery.

But — as with all Ring doorbells — there are no animal or vehicle alerts, only people and packages (for a fee). It’s also 2.4 GHz only, which is a disappointment, although I didn’t have any connectivity issues in testing.

Other features include pre-recorded quick replies and the option to set a motion alert schedule, plus live view and two-way audio. You need a Ring Protect Plan for recorded video, as well as people-only mode, which cuts down on unnecessary alerts and package alerts. Both of these were very accurate in testing. A subscription starts at $3.99 a month. Home and Away features are also behind the paywall, which makes it fiddly to turn off your cameras when you’re home without coughing up some cash.

The Plus also works with Ring Edge, a local storage and processing option that requires a Ring Alarm Pro smart hub and a Ring Protect Pro subscription ($20 a month). This also adds cellular backup through its Eero Wifi system, so it can keep your doorbell online if both the power and internet go out.

The Plus can announce visitors on Echo speakers and automatically pull up a two-way audio / video call on an Echo Show. It won’t work with your existing chime unless you wire it (which also trickle charges the battery), but Ring sells a plug-in chime.

Best budget doorbell camera

Video quality: 1080p / Smart alerts: none / Aspect ratio: 16:9 / Field of view: 135 degrees horizontal, 80 degrees vertical / Power options: Wired or battery / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz / Storage: Cloud or local with a Sync Module / Subscription fee: $3 a month / Works with: Amazon Alexa

The Blink Video Doorbell is the best option for a cheap doorbell with no ongoing fees. And while it works as a wired doorbell, it's also a good option for a battery-powered buzzer, as it can go up to two years on two AAs. I don’t love this doorbell, as video and audio quality are not great, but it’s cheap, it gets the job done, and that battery life is phenomenal.

The Blink lacks a lot of bells and whistles (no smart alerts or quick replies, only 1080p video, and a standard 16:9 aspect ratio), but the basics are here — motion-activated recording (with a max of 30 seconds), alerts, live view (with caveats), night vision, motion zones, and two-way audio. If you want to pay $50 (often less) to have a camera at your door and be done with it, get the Blink.

I only recommend buying the Blink with its wireless hub, the Sync Module 2.

The biggest selling point for Blink is the feature that makes its similarly inexpensive security cameras so attractive: up to two years of battery life on two AA lithium batteries. The company has developed a super energy-efficient chip that will power its cameras longer than any other doorbell I’ve tested. (I managed almost a year with very heavy use).

Uniquely for a battery-powered doorbell, the Blink can also be a true hardwired doorbell. When wired, it will activate an existing chime (something neither the sub-$100 Ring nor Wyze doorbells can do) and provide constant power — not just trickle charge. This means it can wake up faster than a battery-powered buzzer and catch your visitor as they arrive. Wiring also adds on-demand two-way audio and live view (otherwise, you can only see the stream if there’s a motion event at the doorbell or someone presses the buzzer.)

The lack of an on-demand live view on battery power would be a deal-breaker, but I only recommend buying this doorbell with its wireless hub, the Sync Module 2, which also facilitates on-demand live views plus adds free, local storage. (You can get a live view with a subscription, too, starting at $3 a month). The extra $35 for the Sync Module 2 should pay for itself compared to a monthly subscription, and for a total of $85, this is still less than Wyze or Ring’s similar offerings (you will also need a USB stick to store the videos on).

The Blink comes in white or black and, because it uses AA batteries, isn’t as huge as most battery-powered doorbells, making it a more discreet option. It is a giant pain in the neck to install, however; make sure to follow the video instructions Blink provides closely to save a lot of frustration.

The biggest drawbacks are lower video quality and poor audio quality (it can be staticky, and it’s push-to-talk — not full duplex), short recording length, and no smart alerts. The app is also a bit tricky to navigate. It doesn’t work with Google Home, but it works great with Alexa, and you can see a live view on Echo Show devices and use any Echo speaker as an indoor chime.

Best doorbell camera that works with any smart home

Video quality: 1536x1536p, 12x zoom, HDR / Aspect ratio: 1:1 / Field of view: 180 degrees horizontal / Power options: Wired / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz / Storage: Cloud / Subscription fee: $3.99 a month / Works with: Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Samsung SmartThings, Apple Home (with an Arlo Hub)

If you use more than one smart home platform, are looking for something that’s outside the Google or Alexa ecosystem, or are put off Ring due to its Neighbors app or controversial police partnerships (it’s worth noting you can opt out of both those), the Arlo Essential Wired Doorbell is a great all-around choice.

For less money and with more features than the Ring Pro 2, Arlo’s video doorbell adds native Apple Home support and works very well with Google Home; Arlo’s doorbell is one of the few non-Google cameras you can view live feeds from in the Google Home app. It also works with Amazon Alexa. But note it doesn’t support HomeKit Secure Video, and you will need to pick up the Arlo SmartHub ($100) to integrate with Apple Home.

If you are already using Arlo cameras or its security system, this is an easy add. It also has smart alerts for people, packages, animals, and vehicles, a handy square aspect ratio, and a 180-degree field of view that gets the whole porch. Plus, it has the same high video resolution as the Pro 2.

There is also a built-in siren for scaring off a package thief or neighborhood cat and a backup battery (it only lasts for a few minutes). Courtesy of its wired nature, it has a pre-roll that captures your visitor as they approach. Arlo’s wire-free option doesn’t have this and suffers from that back-of-the-head problem.

However, the Arlo is not as fast or reliable as the Nest Doorbell Wired. It isn’t as quick to send alerts or pull up a video feed and struggled when placed farther from the router. If you don’t have a good Wi-Fi signal at your front door, the Arlo isn’t for you. And there is no option of a chime Wi-Fi extender as with the Ring Pro 2, and it only works over 2.4 GHz — both the Ring Pro 2 and Nest Wired can use 5 GHz.

A subscription plan is pretty much a necessity since, without it, all you get is a live view. Starting at $3.99 a month paid annually ($4.99 monthly), Arlo Secure adds smart alerts, automatic geofencing to turn your camera off when you arrive home, 30 days of rolling cloud video storage, interactive notifications, quick responses, and activity zones. (Ring doesn’t charge for activity zones.) But there’s no option for 24/7 recording, which is available on Arlo’s non-doorbell security cameras.

Arlo’s doorbells cost less and offer more but aren’t as reliable

The Arlo is a nice-looking doorbell and comes in all-black or black with white trim. It works with your existing chime and can use Amazon Echo or Google Nest smart speakers to notify you of a visitor; plus, Arlo sells its own plug-in chime with a choice of ringtones for $50.

Finally, a unique feature about the Arlo doorbell I really like is that when someone presses the button, the notification arrives like a phone call — as opposed to a pop-up. This makes it less likely you’ll miss a visitor, plus the doorbell will prompt them to leave a message if you do.

Best doorbell camera without a subscription

Video quality: 2K HD, 4x zoom / Smart Alerts: Person and packages, facial recognition Aspect ratio: 4:3 / Field of view: 160 degrees horizontal / Power options: Battery, wired trickle charge / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz / Storage: Cloud / Subscription fee: none / Works with: Amazon Alexa, Google Home

If you don’t want to pay any monthly fees but want a feature-packed doorbell that records footage for free, the Eufy Dual is the best, thanks to a second camera at the bottom that records the doorstep. But it’s very expensive.

There’s no charge for smart alerts that spot people and packages, and innovative AI features are free, too. These include facial recognition and “Package Live Check Assistance,” which frames any packages in a blue box and collects recent events around the delivery for quick viewing, and an Uncollected Package alert, which has the doorbell check for packages at a designated time, alerting you if you forgot to pick something up.

Important Note: In late 2022, Eufy suffered some security vulnerabilities, which the company was not transparent about. We temporarily removed our recommendations while the company worked on a fix. While the security flaws appear to have been resolved, the company’s lack of transparency is something to consider before purchasing a Eufy camera. You can read more about the issues and Eufy’s solutions here.

However, as a battery-powered doorbell, the Dual has the same problem as others. No pre-roll footage means you may not see the person as they approach your door, only when they’re in front of it or walking away. But its onboard machine learning, AI-powered smart alerts, and motion detection that uses both PiR and radar mean no false alerts. And those two cameras give you a blind-spot-free view of your front door area, one in 2K and the other in 1080P.

Battery life is good, better than the Ring Plus, lasting about three months based on my testing (it claims 3 to 6 months). But you must take the whole doorbell down to charge, which is a pain.

Read the full Eufy Dual doorbell review

Best wired doorbell camera for Apple Home

Video quality: 1200x1600p, HDR, 5x zoom / Smart Alerts: Person, packages, facial recognition Aspect ratio: 3:4/ Field of view: 178-degrees vertical, 140-degrees horizontal / Power options: Wired / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz / Storage: Cloud / Subscription fee: $0.99 a month, iCloud / Works with: Apple Home

The new Wemo Video Doorbell from Belkin is the best doorbell that works with Apple Home. Fast, secure, and with support for HomeKit Secure Video, the Wemo has a decent 1200 x 1600 HD video stream with HDR and a circular view that shows you the whole porch, although with a rather discombobulating fish-eye effect. But it’s better than the other good HomeKit option, the Logitech Circle View.

With rich notifications in HomeKit, you can talk to a visitor from your lock screen.

The Wemo is easier to install than the Logitech. Both share the same simple software setup. (Thanks to relying entirely on the Apple Home app — there’s no compatibility with the Wemo app). The doorbell recognizes multiple motion events (people, packages, animals, and vehicles) and can also identify faces and announce exactly who is at the door on a connected HomePod or HomePod Mini. You do need one of these (or another HomeKit hub such as an Apple TV 4K) to use the Wemo, and adding in that cost, if you don’t already have one, makes this an expensive doorbell.

The Wemo is very, very quick. Button push to a notification to pulling up live video is under five seconds.

While daytime footage was good, night vision isn’t, and I had some issues with it missing motion events and sending false alerts for people due to its reliance on pixel-based motion detection (others use PIR and radar detection). However, the Wemo was very, very quick, with the speed from a button push to a notification to pulling up the live video being under five seconds. It’s even quicker if you use the interactive notification on your device (through which you can talk to the visitor). And that speed makes up for some of its failings.

The main reason to go with Wemo is for HomeKit Secure Video, Apple’s service that stores recorded video securely in your personal iCloud account. Additionally, video is processed locally on a HomeKit hub for the smart alerts, and only recorded video is sent to iCloud. However, there is no local storage option or 24/7 recording, and you have to pay for an iCloud Plus plan (starting at 99 cents per month) to view any captured clips.

All things considered, it’s the best option for a wired Apple Home-compatible video doorbell right now.

Read my full Wemo Video Doorbell review for more details

Best battery-powered doorbell camera for Apple Home

Video quality: 1080p / Smart Alerts: Person, facial recognition and person, facial recognition, packages with HSV, / Aspect ratio: 16:9 / Field of view: 162-degrees horizontal / Power options: Wired or battery / Wi-Fi: 2.4 GHz / Storage: Cloud and local / Subscription fee: 7 days free cloud storage or $0.99 a month with iCloud / Works with: Apple Home, Amazon Alexa, Google Home

If you don’t have the option of wiring and / or you really want 24/7 video recording, then Aqara’s G4 is a good option for Apple Home users. It’s the only battery-powered doorbell that’s compatible with Apple Home, and it works with HomeKit Secure Video. It runs on six standard AA batteries and can be hardwired to support 24/7 video recording (through Aqara’s app, though, not in Apple Home). It’s jam-packed with features, but it seems best suited for people who live in multi-family buildings — its landscape aspect ratio means it can’t really see packages at the doorstep, and it’s not particularly weather-resistant.

At $120, it’s the least expensive HomeKit option and pairs with the Aqara U100 smart lock (which also works with Apple Home and Home Key) for a nice, fully Apple Home-compatible setup on your front door — if you are good with the black, techie look of these products, that is.

The G4 can be powered by wires as a true wired doorbell, or by six AA batteries, or both!

The downsides of this doorbell include a 16:9 aspect ratio (a problem if you want to see packages on your porch), no HDR imaging, which delivers pretty bad video quality, and a finicky Chime box that has to be plugged in inside and near the doorbell. That Chime also houses a microSD card, which is required for 24/7 recording. Unfortunately, the G4 can’t ring an existing electronic chime, but the Chime box is plenty loud, and you can customize the heck out of the sounds,

The G4 shares all the same HSV features as the Wemo, including smart alerts for people, packages, animals, and vehicles, facial recognition and the option to announce who is at the door on a connected HomePod or HomePod Mini (you need an Apple Home hub to use this in HomeKit). It responded just as fast as the Wemo to doorbell rings and motion alerts, but I’ve had some connectivity issues. Plus, occasionally, I got an overheating warning while testing in May, and I live in South Carolina — so I am concerned about how this is going to hold up to the summer heat.

A benefit over Wemo and the other HomeKit Secure Video options is that Aqara does have its own app, and that app has a ton of innovative features, including custom ringtones for different people, a voice changer, and the option to have your smart home devices react depending on who is at the front door.

The Aqara app is also where you access 24/7 video, a really nice feature to have, especially for free — Nest charges $12 a month for it. The implementation here is spotty, and video quality is not great, but it will do in a pinch.

The Aqara doorbell works with Google Home and Amazon Alexa, unlike the Wemo, which can only be set up through the Apple Home app. Aqara has said it will be updated to support Matter when (and if) the new smart home standard works with video cameras.

Read my full Aqara Video Doorbell G4 review for more details

Other doorbell cameras I tested

The Netatmo, Arlo, Logitech, and Wemo video doorbells are among the doorbells I’ve tested.

I’ve tested dozens of video doorbells, and many popular models didn’t make the cut here due to relying on battery power. If you can’t hardwire a doorbell, you will suffer from the back-of-the-head problem. The Ring Video Doorbell 4, with its preroll footage, is the only one that successfully navigates this issue (when using battery power).

The standard Ring Video Doorbell (2nd-gen) misses those first few moments and has to be removed to charge. Same with the Google Nest Doorbell Battery, which had connectivity issues that were a major pain point in testing. The Wyze Video Doorbell Pro has some impressive features for its price, and if you hardwire it, you do get pre-roll video, but it has a 5-minute cooldown period between recordings unless you pay for a subscription — an inexcusable amount of time that negates its offer of “free recording.” We also tested the Arlo Essential Video Doorbell Wire-Free, which does have a removable battery but doesn’t work with Apple Home, as its wired counterpart does, and takes too long to wake up to catch the visitor as they approach.

The Wyze Video Doorbell Pro has a 5-minute cool-down period between recordings unless you pay for a subscription.

As for other wired options, the Ring Video Doorbell Wired is a truly budget buzzer at just $60, but it won’t work with your existing chime and doesn’t draw the same amount of power from those wires as the Ring Pro, making it generally less reliable. Without HDR, its video quality is spotty, and its sister brand Blink just beats it to the Best Budget spot in terms of features — including better battery life and free local storage options. Granted, the Ring can record for longer than 30 seconds and has package detection, but you have to pay for those features.

The Netatmo Smart Video Doorbell has some interesting features, including entirely local storage (to an included microSD card) and free person recognition. It also works with Apple Home (but not HomeKit Secure Video), but a weirdly narrow field of view and poor video quality let it down — not to mention that $300 price tag.

Other Apple Home options we tested include the Logitech Circle View Wired, which, while fast, is expensive, only works with Apple Home and frequently dropped off my Wi-Fi network.

There's also a new breed of doorbells built into smart door locks. I’ve tested the Lockly Vision Elite and the Eufy Security S330 Video Smart Lock, and both are very expensive and work better as door locks than doorbells. But if you have a specific need for this device (e.g., you have nowhere else to put a doorbell camera), then they are useful for at least seeing up the nose of whoever is at your door, if not much beyond that.

FAQ: Smart doorbell cameras

Most doorbells can be wired to existing doorbell wiring, but only true wired doorbells are powered by your home’s electricity. Battery-powered doorbells are just trickle-charged when wired.

Wired vs. wireless doorbell cameras: what’s the difference?

Wired video doorbells use existing doorbell wiring attached to a doorbell transformer and chime box to provide continuous power, so they don’t need to be recharged. Most won’t work when the power goes out, but some have small batteries to keep them going for a few minutes in the event of a power outage. If you don’t have existing wiring, you can use an AC power adapter (Ring and Nest sell their own; you can also find generic ones).

Battery-powered doorbells, also known as wireless doorbells, are powered by a rechargeable battery. Because they don’t have continuous power, they have to wake up first when they detect motion before starting to record. This often results in a clip only catching the back of the person’s head as they walk away, which is not super helpful if you’re concerned about porch pirates. True wired doorbells don’t have this problem, and most will reliably catch all the action.

Many doorbells that advertise themselves as wireless and run on a battery can also be hard-wired to your existing doorbell wiring. But these are not “true” wired doorbells. Your home’s electrical power isn’t powering them. Instead, in almost all cases (Blink being the only exception), the battery is being “trickle charged” by the power from the doorbell wiring. This means that without any extra features, they simply don’t react as quickly as true wired doorbells. It’s science, people.

The Blink Video Doorbell has a 16:9 aspect ratio.

The Ring Video Doorbell Pro 2 has a 1:1 aspect ratio.

What is aspect ratio on a doorbell camera, and why is it important?

Aspect ratio is arguably more important than video resolution when it comes to video doorbells. This spec tells you what shape of video you will get, whether it’s top-to-bottom or side-to-side, whether you’ll see your doorstep and the whole of the visitor or just a head-and-shoulders shot. Common aspect ratios include 4:3, 3:4, 16:9, and 1:1.

Aspect ratios are always written with the horizontal number first. If the first number is smaller than the second number, then the image will be taller than it is wide, or “portrait orientation.” If the first number is larger than the second (as in 16:9), then the image will be wider than it is tall, or “landscape orientation.” If both numbers are the same, as in 1:1, it will be a square view.

My recommendation is to go for a square view when possible, but if you have a wide porch area — and would like to see people approaching from the left or right, as well as straight on — a 4:3 or 16:9 might suit you better.

Installing a wired video doorbell camera involves connecting a chime power kit to your indoor chime box to help power the camera.

How to install a video doorbell camera

Battery-powered doorbells are easy to install and generally just require screwing the mounting bracket to the area around your door. Some come with the option of tape strips, so you don’t even need to get out the screwdriver.

Wired doorbells require a bit more effort. And while you can choose to pay around $100 for a professional to install it, if you have existing doorbell wiring, it’s a simple job.

I’ve written a step-by-step guide to installing Ring video doorbells, but, in general, the steps for any wired doorbell involve the following:

1. Turn off the power to your doorbell wiring
2. Locate your indoor chime and connect the chime power connector that came with the doorbell (this helps to facilitate power to the new doorbell)
3. Remove your old doorbell
4. Attach the mount for your new doorbell using screws or double-sided tape (some have the option of an angled wedge to get a better view of the person in front of the door)
5. Attach the doorbell wires to the connector screws on the doorbell
6. Attach the doorbell to the mount, either with screws or by snapping it on
7. Turn the power back on

Pro tip: Before installing any doorbell, download the manufacturer’s app and check the instructions — some cameras need to be paired to the app before mounting them.

Photos by Jennifer Pattison Tuohy / The Verge

Update: Wednesday, June 28, 2023: Added a new category for battery-powered Apple Home doorbell and a new recommendation for best battery-powered doorbell as well as updating details throughout.