Multi Cam LIVE view !!!!

wyze-cam

#1

I can not stress strongly enough the very real and practical benefit of an opening Live Screen view of at least 4 cameras.

If possible a simple swip to the next screen of 4 live view cameras etc etc

An outdoor version is also desirable, however if kept dry the current Wyze cameras are working FLAWLESSLY in Lake Placid, New York with -20 below temps this year.

A car cam version would also be great, as would many of the other suggested ideas.

FIRST and FOREMOST though is the ability to switch from camera to camera faster and easier and the answer to that is having the MULTIPLE camera LIVE view pages!!!


#2

12 posts were merged into an existing topic: Simultaneous Streaming (Multi-camera viewing)

Please hop on over there and VOTE for it. For your vote to count, you must click the VOTE button at the top of the page.


#3

Excellent addition to the post, your suggested solutions would indeed be acceptable and my only disagreement is that the waterproofing cam wait. Multi-view etc is top priority and since it’s software driven easier than hardware design and manufacturing.

Anyone can easily create a daytime cover / shielding to keep the water ? and snow :snowflake: off their WYZE cameras.

The tempurature isn’t an issue, believe me.

 


#4

Hairs… I did not mean to imply that waterproof has priority in my world over multi cam live view. The multi cam live view is top priority. In fact, I am about to put one outside under cover and I believe it will be fine if kept dry. We’ll see what happens when the temps get up in the 90s, but that’s many months away.


#5

Understood, I thought your choice of the weatherproof version in the pole meant it was a higher priority to you.


#6

I voted for “Absolutely Critical Now”


#7

Oh ok … thanks for the support.

Asci see it combined with the Q2 vot s we are leading the poll.


#11

Multi camera viewing is an option added to what’s available with all BASIC viewing options on higher priced / quality cameras.

I have been informed that WYZE indeed recognizes they need this feature and then are thankfully currently working on some great available options.

Rest assured it’s coming and it will win you over to see 4 + camera views simultaneously … LIVE !!!


#13

If you combine the quick live refresh and multi cam view poll totals it seems one take away is that there is a clear preference is for a quick software upgrade with hardware additions to follow.


#15

With the latest announcement of V2 cameras and the Firmware / Software releases this week, all evidence suggests WYZE is serious about continuing down this road of low cost surveillance domination!!!

With 8 original cameras operating flawlessly and two V2’s ordered, I have less invested including the shipping, micro SD cards, and extra length Monoprice USB powering cables ($360.00) than many competitors would charge for just a few of their highly overpriced cameras.

I’m an admitted FULL ON APPLE-HOLIC up in the middle of the NY nights at 3:00am to early order EVERY new Apple product released.

I say this to clarify that overpaying for the BEST doesn’t bother me in the least.

Apple’s latest Macbook Pro, iPhone X, HomePod, iPad Pro, and the Apple Watcb V3 are all worth my $.

And so are my WYZE cameras !!!

Now roll out the Multo-view camera feature in the next app update so perfection and continue to win over the masses!!!

 


#17

The pole has quieted ???

… come on let’s get WYZE moving on this need for multi viewing and live updating options.

ITS SOFTWARE CODING and can be easily added to the current compilation.


#18

A post was merged into an existing topic: Landscape View On iPad/iPhones

Please hop on over there and VOTE for it. For your vote to count, you must click the VOTE button at the top of the page.


#21

I see the benefit of all of those, but I think the priority has to be connectivity. Without solid connectivity, adding features like auto-updating or multiple live streams is only going to cause more problems.

I had early suggested swipe switching between cameras. I think it would be more useful to a larger segment of the user base compared to multiple live streams. I say this as an owner of a compact cell phone. I do have tablet that multiple live streams would be nice, but on the smaller screen of a Sony Xperia Z5 compact, the smaller images wouldn’t have enough clarity to see what is happening.

Now if there is a desktop application added to the mix, then we are talking ideal situation for multiple live streams.

The weatherproof thing seems easy enough, but I wonder if that means people will start asking for a battery powered version. I don’t think that is feasible in this small format at least not with any kind of battery life. I have seen several DIY outdoor solutions that seem viable and are more likely to solve this than the company making an outdoor version of this camera.

I would also put built-in geofencing or direct interaction with another smart device to produce geofencing as a top priority. Right now, geofencing can be mimiced via smart switches and relationships with other devices, but that means your camera loses power, has to reboot and restart the whole connectivity rigamarole all over again.

I would even put local cloud file saving over multi-cam view. If you could save to a local server, you could open up the possibility of using other software (desktop or mobile) that would likely give you the multi-cam view and so much more.


#22

Just getting started on my Wyze adventure with my v2’s shipping today.

From what I’ve read of how these work, I think one possible option might be some type of desktop DVR application where these could function similar to a security camera set complete with a multi camera view main page. You could use computer or NAS storage and set recording/retention limits. Then maybe the mobile app could have a way to connect to the desktop app which would give you multiview main screen by transmitting the view of that main screen to your phone rather than sending you 4,8, 16 or whatever number of separate streams.

So all cameras would stream locally to that computer, then that computer would act as the relay to send the combined view to your phone.


#23

Since there is no current method to stream content from a Wyze Cam to local storage, this isn’t possible in the slightest. That would solve many issues with content viewing but wouldn’t be appealing to some of Wyze’s target audience (the plug-n-play home user who isn’t tech savvy and just want a camera they can view on their phone).

Having the ability to save locally could eliminate the need for the app altogether for some Wyze users and considering that the app is really the only completely “original” part of the Wyze package, that doesn’t seem likely (the camera is a mass produced Xiaofang w/ their proprietary firmware flashed onto the board - on Github there are actual photos that show that this isn’t proprietary hardware even - these are mass produced cams that pass through Wyze and marketed as innovative).


#24

Stands to reason if they can stream it to a phone they can stream it to any device. If it’s a proprietary stream (which it sounds like it is) then an application should be able to be made.

Now does the company want to make that product? That’s the question and it seems at least for now the answer is no. But it would make the product even more interesting if I could effectively turn it into a home security solution.

Presently I have 2 on order, primarily to keep an eye on the dogs, but it would be cool to add more in the future.


#25

Agreed, but I don’t think that will happen anytime soon. Here’s why I have that opinion (and this is pure speculation based on what I have seen and what is known).

The Wyze Cam is a mass produced camera out of China. Multiple companies use the exact camera (not just the exterior shell - the entire inner workings as well) for their products. That means that the hardware is absolutely not unique in any way. They are simply passing the product through to the consumer. What they are producing is the app and modifications to the firmware (likely to accommodate the app). To me this says that these folks are app developers by training and they wanted to monetize more than just their app. They wanted to sell a product.

Pure conjecture here, but my guess would be that they bought a HUGE lot of the cameras at an ENORMOUS per unit discount. This is V1. They sold these at that cheap price that draws all the boys to the yard (it’s definitely not their “milkshakes”). Their key differentiation besides cost is free cloud storage. I will touch on this below. What that means from a fiscal perspective is that they are not gaining capital at the rate they could. They aren’t gaining R&D capital and they are relying on volume sales to bolster their company. There is a huge risk in that approach. What if something goes wrong? It has IMHO. They have massive connectivity issues, an under-featured app and a waning of online positivity about their product (in some circles).

In comes V2, just 5 months later. Is V2 an intentional change in hardware or product availability from their supplier. Did they just buy another huge lot of someone else’s designed & manufactured product? There were already production issues with V2 with dust on CMOS sensors. It may just be me, but they seem to be floundering.

I mentioned their free cloud storage. These are former Amazon employees (note we don’t have bios for these folks, so they could have been administrative assistants, worked in a fulfillment center packaging boxes or been janitors - all unlikely but still unknown), and there is a possibility that they are getting discount rates on AWS storage (which isn’t cheap).

That is all to point out that expecting a company like this to A.) figure out and implement something like multi-stream viewing or local cloud streaming or B.) lose hold of their only product (the code & app) through an API or SDK isn’t going to happen. IMHO this is a company looking to be bought. They want to take the market by storm, produce the hot product (probably wants to be stable and connect properly first) and then sell to a big player, either to shut them out or to bring to market a professional implementation of the same product.


#26

Wow, you have a postulated an amazingly thoughout, yet HIGHLY speculative senario that although theoretically could be true, I highly doubt is even close to reality.

WYZE business model and it’s product agreed were high risk early on, however the reviews are overwhelmingly praising the cost to benefit advantage these units have compared to the “best sales” such as today’s 2 Nest Ring cameras for $300.00 !!!

Umm … really ?

I currently have purchased 12 WYZE cameras for under $300.00.

I have flawlessly watched and recorded every social room (obviously not bedrooms / bathrooms), the basement, a tractor trailer garage, a three car garage, inside of our Amish built chicken coup, and outside in the front and backyards of our home outside Lake Placid, New York.

Tempertures -20+ below haven’t caused one second of interruption nor has the common hay dust etc in the coup.

Sure sd cards, shipping, usb extension cables etc can add additional small costs, but these would be incurred by most any cameras.

The limited but wonderfully FREE cloud recording is surely an added bonus, rare at any price point.

Software enhancements and additional features are very easy as iSmartCam and others using this design have shown.

Lastlt, write to the founders and you might quickly agree with me assessment that they are NOT looking to flip WYZE.

They are taking advantage of a huge burgeoning mass market of people unwilling to invest thousands into home security / automation who are proving very happy to try (and quickly expand) this lower cost option.

Sure WYZE is more of a Microsoft than an Apple, but don’t forget that Microsoft moved up quickly, owned the market space they sought, and the founders stayed for decades.

I am actually a regular investor in higher cost / higher quality products i.e. Apple, Phillips Hue etc for my home.

Yet I am now WYZE to back WYZE!

 


#27

Speculative it is, but not so far outside the realm of possibility as one might think. Coming up with other likely causal explanations for the way the Wyze has behaved over the past 6 months yields just as much speculation, conjecture and likelihood as what I have described.

That said, saying Wyze is more a Microsoft than an Apple creates an odd spectrum of two early PC companies at the bleeding edge of technology (at origination). Rather narrow don’t you think. Also, Microsoft outpaced Apple early on as they weren’t tied to proprietary hardware as much as Apple. In fact, Microsoft’s primary hardware products were peripherals and not their flagship, while Apple’s flagship has and may always be their blackbox hardware devices with their own proprietary software inside. Wyze is a different animal altogether, having no hardware to claim as their own and only an app and possibly (although some out there who have explored say otherwise) firmware. Essentially, this makes Wyze a mobile app company who sells a camera that can only be run on their app.

Wyze isn’t on the bleeding edge at all. The only truly “innovative” move they have made is the price. That arguably isn’t innovative at all but a philosophical differentiation in how they are choosing to monetize their “product” (I use quotes because their only true product isn’t the camera but the app). They aren’t new to the market they are serving. They don’t bring new tech to the table. They don’t even bring two existing technologies into a new synthesis. They are addressing one (and only one) issue in the home security/monitoring market. They are addressing the ever-increasing cost at the entry level for the non-tech savvy consumer.

Don’t get me wrong, that is admirable, but at this point in time, that is a risky position to take. Low overhead, low profit positions are inherently risky in any industry, but in tech, especially a first venture, they are wrought with pitfalls. Wyze is taking on huge risk and I am not seeing a “rise to the challenge” response. I see more of a “cover are hindquarters” approach currently. Maybe this is just an early hiccup, but maybe it’s a sign that they are in over their heads.

I think what Wyze is attempting to do is commendable, but I am a realist at heart. I like the product on a conceptual level and I actually own 6 cams (7th on its way … maybe… someday… V2). Unlike some here, I believe that I can have both the opinion I just expressed and have mounting doubts. I think that to stick my head and the sand and hope that it all turns out well is just not for me. I hope Wyze succeeds and they are transparent with their successes and failures.


#28

I’m definitely looking forward to seeing what I can do with these things.

Odds are the bigger Wyze gets, the more you’re going to see people find ways to use the cameras.

Right now my big thing is trying to find a way to run it on PC, seems like there’s some workarounds for it so I’ll mess with that once they arrive.

I had one off brand camera that was like $70, worked for a while then died but you could access the camera directly via IP which was nice. Then I tried using old cell phones and this app I found that turned them into cameras, but the app would frequently crash.

Way I look at it, for minimal investment I get some new cameras to play around with and if they don’t work as well as I’d hoped, or if they have shortcomings, well I didn’t spend much.

But the company does seem active, so perhaps I luck into jumping on early and some great new features will appear in the future.

Time will tell but either way I’m sure I’ll get my value out of it.