Reviewed in the United States on April 21, 2020
I waited until I owned and used this for a little while before making a snap judgement. I'm going to start by listing pros/cons, and give a bit of a summary and my recommendation at the end.
You can schedule when it is armed/not armed so that it isn't armed when you are home during the day.
It has 2-way sound, so you can not only listen . . . but you can also talk to the person on the camera.
Pretty inexpensive for what you get.
Simple, well-designed cameras that work fairly well for the price.
Fairly simple, mostly-intuitive interface for the camera system.
Relatively decent range of settings/options.
Easy to set up and get going.
Can be powered with electrical power (with battery backup) or with batteries alone.
Works really well with Alexa, especially if you have an Echo Show.
Relatively waterproof, good for outdoor use as long as it isn't submerged.
Light, easy to install (just put in two screws in the base, then snap it on).
It instantly alerts you that there is motion at a camera, and automatically brings up the live view.
You can power off the light that lets someone know they are being recorded.
You can configure the motion detection/recording settings really well. You can select the zones the motion sensor records (for instance, I have it ignore the bits of road it can see from the front door) with pretty good granularity. You can set how long it waits for the next motion (down to 10 seconds), and how long it records when it sees motion (up to a minute, but you can have it stop recording if the motion isn't there anymore). People who have said it doesn't record long and waits a long time between resets obviously didn't go into the settings.
The cameras and sync unit constantly check in and download updates as they come out, and Blink is good about finding things and fixing them.
While you can power it with electrical power . . . you lose the waterproof-ness of it when you do (you have to remove a rubber panel on the back).
It doesn't work with your computer. Yes, you can install an Android emulator and trick it into thinking your computer is a cell phone with the installed app. I realize that people always have their phones, but I don't stare at my phone for 8 hours or more per day . . . but I do spend over 8 hours per day at a computer for work. I also prefer looking at a camera on a 28-inch screen instead of a 5-inch image on a phone. Do security guards have smart phones nowadays? Yes. Do you see them sit in their office to bring up a camera on their phone if they have a worry or issue . . . or do they bring it up on screen? Yes, it is convenient to *also* have it on the phone if you are away from the computer or away from the house. But to have it be the *only* way to see it is a bit the reverse of what you want for security.
It takes *forever* for the live image to come up on screen (between 3-20 seconds), with a big delay. I realize that 20 seconds isn't a lot of time, but it IS about the amount of time that someone will wait at your doorbell for a response before walking away.
While it instantly lets you know there is motion at the camera, you have to click on the notification and wait up to 20 seconds for it to connect (again, with a long lag) before you see anything . . . and occasionally it disconnects temporarily from the hub and can't connect.
When you are in the instant notification/live view, you can't get anywhere else in the app (like to see the video it just recorded). So if nothing is in the live view and you need to see what (or who) tripped it, you have to exit the app you are in and then open the app directly, then go to videos. It would be a LOT better if you could click on it directly from there to see if there is something urgent you should have seen.
There is no way to connect to the cameras directly on your local network. There are a bunch of reasons this is bad: 1. There is a huge lag, since the video has to go to the hub (even though the camera is connected to WiFi), then to the network, then to your switch, then your modem, then to the Blink web servers, then to your modem, then your switch, then the hub, then the camera. This is VERY slow and uses a ton of bandwidth. 2. It means if your network connection is down, you cannot look at your cameras. 3. You not only have to be on the internet (you couldn't use them at, say, a vacation cabin), but the camera has to be connected to both the Blink web servers and to the hub.
Even though I have a mesh network, the cameras won't switch to another WAP. Since you can't reboot them remotely, you have to go to the camera to remove the battery, then have it re-connect. It's not an issue often, but is really annoying when it happens. For instance, if you set up the camera in one part of your house and then install it (or later move it) to another section. Or if you need to reboot your router, or if there is a power outage and one access point comes up before the other, etc.
The cameras have to connect to both the WiFi AND the hub. So you may have WiFi reaching all the way out to the remote workshop at the back of your property (as I do), but since the camera can't use the WiFi to connect to the hub . . . it can't be used (again, because you also cannot connect directly to the camera) at all. It took me a while to find a spot in my house that would give a decent connection to my front and back door cameras, and my house is only 2,000 square feet. If your house is any bigger, you probably won't be able to connect to all of the cameras. I have a third camera I got in the set that was going to go on my shop, but that's not an option (even though the web connection there is good). I don't even understand why it needs both connections. If it can't get to the hub through the WiFi and it doesn't work through the WiFi alone, why bother with the WiFi?
When it senses motion it takes it a pretty long time to wake up, connect to the hub, connect to the WiFi, connect to the Blink web servers, and start recording. So if someone drives up your driveway, the car will be long past your camera by the time it starts recording. Ditto for if someone runs up to your house.
I realize this is a bit long-winded . . . but there were a LOT of "cons". Would this camera be good as a baby monitor to alert you with video and sound when the baby wakes up? Yes, but there are cheaper/dedicated ones for that. Is it good for a doorbell camera? Feature-wise, yes . . . but between the lag for it to start and the lag between what you see and real-time, I'd say "not really". I think that the odds are good that the FedEx guy or grandma is going to give up and walk away by the time you get the video up on your phone and get ready to talk to them . . . and if it is someone breaking in they will be in before you can ever see the video. Is it good to record an event so you can go back to look at it if you need to? Yes, it is. If you needed proof that someone was at your house, the quality is good (WAAAAY better than a gas station camera), the recording works well, and even the night vision is acceptable.
To sum up, if you want inexpensive and easy-to-install/set up cameras to record proof of something that happened, good integration with Alexa, and something to occasionally check on an area of the house . . . these are a good bet. If you want something for live security, live video, 2-way communication, and that works when the outside connection or your modem is down (or if someone cuts the phone/cable line) . . . then you can probably find something else that works better. There is a good chance you won't find something that works better for the price and ease of setup, though.
In closing, I probably wouldn't buy it again (or at least I'd try to find something better in a price range that wasn't out of my budget). . . but it isn't bad enough for me to send back. I would rather have spent another 50% for a better system. Hopefully that helps in your decision making process.