Seeing the DSM 7.2.2 update notes in the middle of the night was enough to ruin my sleep. It takes a lot for a company to make users feel this blatantly dismissed, but Synology managed it.
In the new DSM release, Synology has effectively removed support related to H.265, while presenting it with a polished-sounding justification:
Starting from this version, the processing of multimedia files using HEVC (H.265), AVC (H.264), and VC-1 codecs will be shifted from the system side to end devices to reduce unnecessary system resource usage and improve performance. These codecs are already widely supported on end devices such as smartphones, tablets, computers, and smart TVs. If the end device does not support the required codec, use of media files may be limited.
That explanation sounds reasonable only if you ignore how people actually use NAS features. Pushing codec handling to client devices is not some harmless optimization. It removes capabilities that users already paid for and replaces them with a less convenient setup, all while pretending this is an upgrade.
The problem with Synology Photos
The impact on Synology Photos is a perfect example of why this decision is so frustrating. After the update, phones have to spend extra performance and network traffic on transcoding and uploading thumbnails back to the NAS. On the web side, dealing with HEIC photos may now require installing a browser extension and a desktop app just to handle local encoding.
That completely misses the point of why many people buy Synology in the first place. The appeal is supposed to be convenience and simplicity. If server-side transcoding is possible, then users should at least be allowed to choose whether the work happens on the NAS or on the client side. Instead, Synology made that choice for everyone and forced a worse solution on them.
Surveillance Station is even worse
The changes to Photos are annoying enough, but Surveillance Station is where this becomes much harder to accept.
In the new version, motion detection for cameras using H.265 video streams is no longer supported on the server side. The justification is that modern H.265 cameras are already smart enough, so server-side motion detection is unnecessary.
That might sound fine on paper, but it falls apart quickly in real-world use, especially with many lower-cost cameras. With brands commonly seen in the Chinese market, such as Hikvision, motion detection on cheaper models is often unreliable. Set the sensitivity low, and events may not trigger at all. Set it high, and the system may trigger constantly. In that situation, removing server-side motion detection is not streamlining the product. It is taking away a fallback that users genuinely need.
Honestly, I’m just relieved I resisted spending over 2,000 yuan on Synology surveillance licenses at the time. If I had paid that much and then watched core functionality get cut like this in a software update, it would feel even worse.
This probably isn’t only about enterprise strategy
A lot of discussion online has focused on the idea that Synology wants to move away from personal users and focus on business customers. I don’t think that is the whole story. Another likely reason is much simpler: saving on H.265 licensing costs.
If Synology had handled this the way QNAP might have—by charging an extra fee for H.265 codec support—I might actually have paid for it. I would still call the move shameless, but at least users would have had a path to keep the feature.
The only acceptable fix now would be for Synology to restore H.265 support in a future update and guarantee that existing models keep that support, while only charging licensing fees on newly released hardware if it absolutely insists on doing so.
What makes this especially hard to swallow is the pricing context. Users already pay a noticeable premium for Synology hardware, and the hardware itself is hardly impressive for the price. After charging that premium, cutting support for existing features through a version update is far beyond what many loyal users would consider acceptable.
I recommended Synology to friends before, and I also used its products myself for everyday needs. After this, I’m much less likely to choose Synology again when it’s time to replace or upgrade equipment. I may end up looking more seriously at QNAP instead. I already have a TS-464C, though QNAP’s bugs can be outrageously bad. Maybe if QTS 6 is released, it could turn out to be the kind of major overhaul DSM 7 was supposed to be after DSM 6.
Users affected by these changes should be vocal about it wherever possible, on social media, personal blogs, and major platforms both inside and outside China. Public pressure is often the only thing companies really respond to.