Port connection to streaming video available?

support

#1

Is there a way to do a port connection to get raw streaming video from the camera?

I could see this happening a couple of ways:

  1. Connecting to the cameras IP address (as assigned by the router) with the appropriate port address/configuration

  2. An IP connection to the wyze cam ‘server’ that can then map that port connection to the appropriate source of the video stream

I haven’t had time to sit down with Wireshark to tear apart the traffic contents…

As an extension, any chance of supporting a VPN connection to the camera?

Thanks

J

 

 


#2

It’s not currently available, but they’re working on it (I think).
Per the FAQ page:

Does the WyzeCam support IP camera streaming services like RTSP?
The WyzeCam does not support IP camera streaming services like RTSP.

We understand this is a popular request from our customers. Our engineering team is evaluating this feature for future development.

You can sign up for our newsletter at the bottom of our website or follow the WyzeCam Facebook page to get updates as new features are added to the WyzeCam.

Does the WyzeCam support recording to a NAS device or integration with NVR or ONVIF?
The WyzeCam does not support recording to a NAS device or integration with NVR or ONVIF.
We understand this is a popular request from our customers. Our engineering team is evaluating this feature for future development.
You can sign up for our newsletter at the bottom of our website or follow the WyzeCam Facebook page get updates as new features are added to the WyzeCam


#3

Thanks, I don’t do FarceBook.

With all due respect to the development team, …When I read all the requests that are being ‘evaluated’ and will be in a future release, it makes me very suspect of brittle software. If these requests (requirements?) arn’t initially stated, then chances are the existing architecture and implementation isn’t going to easily support the new features. If one tries to integrate them, hacks develop and the sw becomes inefficient and brittle.When this happens, usually have to do code refactoring…

We shall see.

 


#4

@jjhudak - I would respectfully disagree. It is not possible to pre-plan for every possible feature from the start and plan the architecture for it. Startups always try to build as much as need to get the features they know/planed for to get out. And as needed they will make architectural changes.

Having said that, if the cost of re-architecture (if any needed) is high, it will get prioritized lower “appropriately” - hope it is not the case with this feature. If the demand and business values for the feature is big enough, they end up doing faster.

As of now, Wyze doesn’t have any subscription model etc. which actually makes it different from so many other like products (Nest, Arlo, Foscam, Yi etc etc etc). If Wyze decideto continue this route, then this feature could be implemented - but if Wyze gets greedy and becomes one among many others, then they will lose their differentiation and will not extend this feature.

My request to Wyze is - please don’t use feature blockage as a way to make revenue - instead use “ease of use” to make a compelling case for why customers should subscribe to a feature. I see a good amount of DIY user interest in this product - just like RasberryPi etc. - Wyze should leverage and benefit from it and even use that for customer demand validation of features at 0 cost and then implementing the feature in demand with higher quality and better integration making it worth while for folks to pay for the service.