Hey, if Wyze does not like it maybe they should have paid attention to all of the upvotes and made their own.
Of course I’m not going to use his service because I’m an old paranoid from the ancient days or paranoia but if others want to…
We are paying attention and this is something that is continuing in discussion (I was talking to engineers about it yesterday). I still can’t make promises but this hasn’t been tabled and we’re still discussing what implementation would look like if we go this route.
5 Likes
It’s just this issue has not just a bit more votes than pretty much everything other than the outdoor cam, it is a landslide winner - but not getting the attention one would expect - assuming customer feedback weights on their decision making. Consider the work proceeding on a scale that has less than 20 votes last I looked at the listing. I got no idea what resources they allocate to any thing and I do realize they must make profits. But adding new revenue streams, especially very niche items not in any apparent high demand based on these forums, is no guarantee of profits, while losing customers to a potential competitor that laps your efforts by offering high demand features is a risk for losing customers, revenue and profits.
I’d say its the most important thing to have to elevate wyze from hobbyist level to near security level - NAS/network file share stg is probably right there too. Many here tend to bash my opinion so don’t listen to me… but listen to the 2000 plus other voters.
You’re comparing apples to oranges. That wishlist topic was started (by me) AFTER some tech blogs reported on the fact that Wyze was working on this product. That product was in development long before the topic on the forum existed at all. And it should be noted that several of the launched items in the roadmap started here in the forum based on customer feedback and demand.
That statement also seems to imply something along the lines of: “If they weren’t working on this stupid scale, they could work on a web viewer,” which isn’t a reasonable implication at all. That assumes that the people who are working on new product development are the same people who would be working on a web interface, which I can practically guarantee you is NOT the case.
I don’t know all the inherent challenges they have in launching this, but they may not even have the right people on the team to implement this currently. Their current web interface is pretty limited. They’ve just got a fairly straightforward storefront built on Magento, which is an open-source e-commerce platform. The web development skill needed to launch such a site is fairly minimal. (I’m primarily a front-end developer, and I can do this on my own.)
A proper web interface for the cameras would require a much more custom build, which would require a different set of developers. (I could NOT do this on my own.) The guys who develop their iOS app or Android app may not be the same guys who can build a web interface in PHP or Ruby, for example. So it’s possible that this request would require them to essentially build a new department from scratch and hire a bunch of people specifically for this purpose. (I don’t know all the internal logistics, but there’s nothing else in their product so far that resembles this, so I’m not sure why they’d have those developers “on hand” already, so to speak.)
Anyway, there are a million possible reasons this hasn’t been implemented overnight. But I guarantee you that Wyze pays attention here and listens to what customers want. That doesn’t mean everything makes sense for them to pursue, at least not right away.
It does not affect me because I’ve already switched over to other options because they had web access. I just use my Wyze for secondary monitoring.
But it seems to me (as a software engineer with 30+ years experience) that it is not difficult to offer a web based view.
Granted RSTP is supposed to make that easier, except my camera must be too old because it refuses to upgrade the firmware.
3 Likes
It’s pretty ridiculous this still hasn’t been accomplished to any degree. This has been a requested feature since launch and probably going to make me abandon wyze for a better solution.
3 Likes
It’s funny to read the plethora of excuses by some of the regulars. But bottom line is it is not a unique issue since many other systems have had web interfaces for a very long time (ya, we know, they are expensive systems, but really that’s not due to the software) and many have added mobile apps in recent years, but most importantly is this remains the number one voted issue - period.
2 Likes
I hear they are announcing something on Black Friday? Lets hope for Browser viewing, NAS connectivity and Smartthings integration for all!
Ohh and maybe they will have some Black Cameras… because Black Friday… ha get it?
Seriously though, I’ve had these cameras for a couple of weeks now and purchased because of RTSP/being able to view on a PC. Turns out RTSP doesn’t work so well so I really hope they can come up with a browser based viewer with the same quality and reliability as the app. Note to self: next time buy one camera to try out first instead of ordering 7 all at once 
3 Likes
And some standardization.
Wyze is still fishing around for a design for a web interface, they keep redoing the camera interface.
Viewing their AMA videos about all I see are a group of young people.
I worked as a Physical Scientist on software and hardware development for the US Army topographic systems. During my 37 year career at AGC we went from from sharpies and acetate to make maps to digital 3d models and beyond.
It’s amazing how often people without lengthy experience will redevelop the wheel. They will work on it for a while then discover it’s been done before,
So they have a lot of new ideas, Which is good. But writing a program for the Linux/Android operating system is far different than polishing a web interface.
What I’d really like to see is some statement from @UserCustomerGwen or any @wyze… about the problems that are stopping them from doing a PC browser (Windows/Mac/Chrome) interface (or at least throw us a Linux interface which would run on the intel/mac hardware, like they tossed us RTSP which is good).
4 Likes
This is one of the most interesting threads.
1 Like
I think that’s the point ChemEngr is trying to make.
Wyze put more effort into a new product that no one asked for rather than developing products paople want based on votes.
I’m still waiting for an app GUI I can read. 
2 Likes
New products generate cashflow. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What would you expect? I think they’ll do it eventually, but I totally understand why it hasn’t been their number one priority. They probably don’t have a very large web team in the first place, since very little of their product lives on the web. So it may require hiring a new department, essentially, and this feature doesn’t provide any direct ROI for them.
For them to remain a healthy company, expanding their product portfolio is much more important than adding new features to their existing products (Although they do plenty of both, which is awesome)
1 Like
We are all just guessing at the reasons Wyze does what it does.
Personally I think Wyze is avoiding PC and NAS software because, as you said, it doesn’t generate revenue and could interfere with paid subscription services.
I’m satisfied with the camera hardware at this price. When the software limitations become too annoying I’ll work around it. As it is now I use tinyCam more than Wyze.
2 Likes
I don’t think it has anything to do with paid subscription services. In fact, that’s a perfect example of a feature that was added because of user demand. That wasn’t originally part of their business plan at all. They did that because people asked for it. If they wanted to pressure people into subscription services, they wouldn’t have allowed SD card recording from the beginning, and they wouldn’t have developed RTSP firmware based on popular demand.
1 Like
I didn’t say Wyze was pressuring customers. Wyze seems very open with us.
I’m saying from a business point of view developing a product that could lower your ‘cash flow’ wouldn’t be in your best interest.
Sure. Although I don’t really see how “View in browser” functionality would prevent people from buying the CMC service. They don’t have a ton in common.
It’s not the end product that would cut into profits it’s the proprietary info Wyze has to inadvertently leak out to allow web browser and NAS integration.
The more tidbits of info programmers can gather the easier it is to develop software to work with Wyze hardware.
Oh. I suppose. You can sniff that data from phone apps, too, although I guess there are probably more people who know how to do it from the web. But there’s already a Wyze API someone reverse-engineered available on Github, and they don’t seem terribly concerned about it. Also someone who hacked the camera to save to a NAS.
1 Like
True, and really, all we have to do is install Wyze supplied RTSP firware on the cameras and use them with almost any software.
1 Like