But with Bluestacks, I can only see 3 cams at once.
Just about any unclassified government or military network has fairly open web browsing policies. You just can’t install software, go to unauthorized sites, etc. Many areas have wireless bans. No wireless communication at all is allowed. Phones are wireless communication devices. And yes, they also have cameras. Also, I never said I would be sitting there streaming video all day. You can’t even get an e-mail alert from a Wyze cam, to let you know, “hey, better go check your cam.” I get an e-mail alert (based on my choice in settings) any time a person walks in front of my cams from other brands. Then I click the link in the e-mail and get taken directly to the captured video in a web browser. Easy peasy.
I don’t have 4 cameras, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but I’ll take your word for it. Is what you’re seeing in the BlueStacks app different from what you’re seeing on the phone app? I see the exact same thing, no difference. So you have 4+ cameras and you want to monitor all of them at the same time? If these are your requirements, then you need a more sophisticated, more expensive system. A 4-camera pack by Nest is $600-$700. Lorex $350, etc… Compare that to a little over 100 bucks you’re paying for 4 Wyze cams. I’m sorry, but me I’m not complaining.
An email notification would be nice, but in their defense, they were probably thinking, hey virtually everyone on the planet has a cell phone and it’s a mobile device, perfect! there is no need to design for any other platform and no need to email anything since you’re getting a phone notification. [Mod Edit] There’s plenty of product evaluations on youtube. Should have looked at those. Sounds like you have other cameras that you’re perfectly happy with, what made you switch brands?
MOD NOTE: Post edited to conform to the Community Guidelines
When you buy the cameras at Home Depot they don’t say, “This only works with a phone app” on the box. Because it is the year 2020, the expectation to be able to access pretty much any account of any type through a web browser is a standard expectation. Far more so than assuming everyone has a cell phone with them at all times. The 100s of accounts I have with different companies, banks, retail outlets, other security monitoring services, etc. are all accessible via a web browser and where applicable, send e-mail alerts. Everything except Wyze. As I have already said multiple times, there are literally millions of people in the United States alone, who have jobs that do not allow cell phones or any other wireless communication devices at the workplace, yet still have access to company or government provided web access, your ignorance of the various types of work that require such situations, not withstanding. Not everyone works as a Walmart greeter. I never said anything about switching brands. I have three brands and intend to keep it that way for redundancy. It is not uncommon for security devices to be hacked. Well, they can go ahead and try hacking all three of my systems, all hosted on multiple networks.
I only have 2 Wyze cameras that are a result of an impulse buy at Home Depot. I would love to buy at least a dozen more along with at least 20 window sensors, a smattering a motion sensors, and a dozen or so bulbs. I may be interested in the Wyze lock. You seem to think it is all about monitoring cameras. It’s not. I will make this purchase when I can monitor and receive alerts at work. Several people I work with also want to purchase a large quantity of Wyze devices and are faced with the same problem I am. So, we will not be making our purchases at this time. [Mod Edit] Oh, and the equipment that I mentioned I am interested in buying would be just the start. It would onlycover one of my four properties. [Mod Edit]
MOD NOTE: Post edited to conform to the Community Guidelines
Some recent posts in this thread have been edited and others removed that do not comport with the Community Guidelines . Please keep the following in mind so that further action does not need to be taken:
Sometimes we will disagree on topics. You may even think that the other person is outright wrong! That’s just part of being human talking to other humans. But when you respond, remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
- Ad hominem attacks (personal attacks instead of discussing content of a post)
- Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
- Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that focus on the ideas instead of the person. If someone has something negative to say about Wyze or our products, there’s likely a reason for that. Just tag in a mod or admin to make sure that the feedback goes where it needs to and we have an opportunity to consider and respond to what they’re saying.
Funny thing is, I think we’ve all voted for this feature. Some are just a little more passionate for the feature
Your experience has been different than mine. I have many IoT devices and most are only accessible via a mobile app. (Google Home, 3 different brands of smart plugs, 3 of 4 different camera brands including Wyze). Even those that support some form of web browser access (Echo, Zmodo cameras) have limitations on what is offered via the web vs. via the app.
I would like a web interface for most of these, but like it or not, we live in an increasingly mobile dominant world. Even the recent redesign of this forum seems to be oriented more toward mobile devices rather than computers with large displays.
Keep in mind that when you buy the cameras at Home Depot, they also state absolutely nothing about working via a web browser or computer. The only implication that they do is your expectation.
Just some thoughts I’ve had:
Although I prefer having primary access and even my setup and controls PC/browser based, I would not buy any iot type products without mobile as well. For my limited needs right now, 2-3 cams, I can live with mobile only. But if I’m looking for an 8 cam or more complete coverage type install, looking to avoid ADT types, I may not settle for mobile only. Its not always practical to view 8 live feeds at once on a mobile device. Nor is it necessarily practical for those who have multiple properties which would be a lot easier to monitor on browser tabs.
But I agree it is not a fault with Wyze - they are clearly not targeting home security - it’s focus so far is on home automation and monitoring which is totally different than full blown home security. They are not looking to displace ADT types that will call police or fire to respond to alarms, at least not yet and may never have that as a goal. We are not privy to ownerships long term goals.
It’s customers who like Wyze quality, pricing and support who simply would like more because they see the potential to displace the ADT types for their properties while offering many more benefits with the automation. Thus this and other wish-lists have developed. I applaud wyze for being so engaged. It’s refreshing.
We all should try to remember - this is a wish list, it is a desired feature by certain customers and those who do not want or can’t deal with workarounds have just as valid reasons as those who embrace the workarounds.
IMHO, @WyzeGwendolyn or other Wyze whoever should move workarounds to a separate thread - people can then come here, vote, see like minded posts, find Wyze updates when they have something to add to this thread, and find a sticky post referral to the workaround thread. The workarounds can then focus on their thread, keep up to date on new developments, and most importantly, help those who want to try a workaround or who are having problems.
Meanwhile, let’s stop disparaging wyze for not doing this faster or on someone’s particular schedule. No disparaging wyze means no need to defend wyze and a much more pleasant thread. If someone has a pressing need, sure go ahead and post your wish, but if your time frame is immediate/near future, then don’t blame wyze, they never offered encouragement that this might be coming soon, so move on to a product that satisfies right now. There is always a very real possibility that they decide to abandon this item or simply push it to the back burner. Small companies have limited resources, must focus on revenue growth, even more so than profits in the early stages, or investors flee. Ya, this might generate more revenue, but more than likely not as much as new hardware, and at what development cost? Do they have the funding to support another software team? Too many tech firms generate revenue, but burn through gobs of investor cash and many crash and burn in those flames - the woes of WeWork and other “unicorns” have made many investors a lot more wary than just a few years ago.
Ok, I’m off my soapbox - back to fiddling with some new hardware. Hopefully I did not offend anyone / not pointing to any individuals - just my thoughts on wish lists and this one in particular.
I agree - please have a"work-around" thread.
Far more concise than I - bravo! My kids always said I talk too much, guessing forum members are thinking same thing!
IonTheHome allows cam owners to log into their account on the Ionthehome website and view their cams and has some basic controls like turning on or off notifications and night vision and recording. It’s totally free. (Nice cameras, but doesn’t have anywhere near the capabilities that Wyze does and costs 3- 5 times more than Wyze Cams).
Many of us have both Wyze and a dedicated home security system.
Without stepping up to a full-fledged commercial-grade system with a five-figure-plus pricetag and three-or-four-figure monthly costs, the Wyze cam pan offers much more flexible visual monitoring for many of us (not everyone, of course, but many).
Yes, we are asking for more functionality than what Wyze provides now.
And, yes, we recognize that Wyze has never promised any increased functionality and has no responsibility to provide increased functionality (at least most of us realize that – even if we don’t always say it clearly).
But many of us also realize that we already have very capable hardware in the Wyze cam & pan, so the improvements we are seeking are generally all software.
Deep down inside, most of us recognize that improving software does have some costs, but we also realize that those costs are inherently different than hardware costs.
We would all love to continue seeing incremental improvements in the software for free - but I think many of us would be willing to consider paying for significantly improved software if it were an option.
Personally I hate subscription based pricing and would rather see a specific up-front price for better software, but I might be in the minority. And even I will admit that sometimes a subscription based model does make sense. As one example drawn from the discussions here, if Wyze were to create Windows software similar to the Android app, I would consider buying that software (as a one time cost) but if their solution was a Wyze-hosted website where I could access my cameras through a browser, I would understand why that ought to be a subscription service.
I will also comment that I was an early Wyze Cam user and I was one of the customers asking for a way to view the cameras from a PC long before this forum existed. Today I have less need for this particular feature – it would still be convenient but it isn’t something I need now – unlike some others in this forum I can still understand the various reasons why others would still feel a need for this feature.
I agree, you are not saying much differently since I did say it’s customers who see the potential of using Wyze or who have valid reasons for their situations asking for this. Maybe I could have worded it better. So thanks for adding more background and depth to my post. Appreciated. I guess I’m just saying I understand wyze may be under pressures which we customers are not privy to knowing, such as from investors
I also agree that when my need escalates after we move, I would prefer a one time fee option if they decide to pursue this item. I’m with you, I am not a fan of subscriptions either. I have not needed the full motion thing so did not sign up for it. I’ve avoided other brands due to the subscription model. I’m a little old school, especially when it comes to buying hardware. Anyway, I’m barely a 6 mo old customer, thanks again for adding more perspective.
This is what I hope to achieve with a PC/Mac software application that I do not believe is possible with a web-based application due to the up and down bandwidth limitations of the reasonable priced common residential internet services.
To level set my discussion, upload speed of 20 Mbps and 330 Mbps download and video resolution of 1024.
My objective for functionally for an application would be to watch on a single screen (4k) four live video feeds at a time from my 12 outdoor installed Wyzecam, soon to be upgrade to 16 units.
With having to send each Wyzecam video stream to the web and back to my PC, I will run into the up load limits of my residential internet service provider with the coincidence of my other IOT devices consuming services.
I have been following this thread for a long time and the thoughts are so broad and sometimes very unclear as to what exactly the community is asking for.
Here are four (4) request for more than myself:
View four live stream videos from the Wyzecams on a single screen.
Work on an affordable residential internet service while defining the both the up and down speeds requirements.
Ability to add other Wyzecams from different premises. ie. rental properties & parents homes
All adult aged/generations (baby boomers included) can configure, use and operate a single (no add-on, no emulations, no ala cart device driver solutions) commercial solution with minimum support needed.
Test criteria: A group of 65-75 year old, non-technical people at a local small community church can add Wyzecams and this new solution around the property so they can feel safer in the ever growing crazy world we have created.
Thanks for the platform to add my thoughts.
I’d just add 4 to 8 live streams per screen since some might be fine with SD so 8 may work ok or some may have GB service. My download is only 50-60mb most of the time. Never found it under 50. Haven’t checked upload in a while, think spec is 20m.
The way I see it is a community forum is supposed to be for users who are asking for or providing workarounds and solutions. It’s about users helping each other. It’s not for angry people who are having bad hair days and looking for a place to vent and lash out at other users and at the company. Negativity begets negativity.
Could you share on what platform, operating system, and application you are using, so that I could better understand the data stream’s pathway it is taking to generate eight (8) live video streams on a single screen?
By your call sign my guess would be you have a bit more technical and process discipline than most.
The advantage of a dedicated app vs a web-based app have nothing to do with available internet bandwidth. Both have exactly the same requirements, driven by the required bandwidth to pass the desired resolution using the required codec.
The difficulty in a web-based app, I believe, has to do with the more limited environment in which to run processor-intensive services like video codecs and other video processes like scaling. A dedicated app can run those processes directly, where a web browser must host some sort of compatible service or plug-in that is universally compatible with the browser and the OS.
That said, web-based video is now pretty much a done deal. Everybody streams, many at 4K, and nobody’s browser has an issue with it. Services like YouTube feature automatic resolution scaling baed on bandwidth. Web-based streaming is also more of a moving target as security constraints of browser hosted plugins changes, where a dedicated app could be more stable, at least, I suspect so. Then there’s always security issues with the various programming environments like Java, for example…another moving target.
One of the NVR-based camera systems I regularly deal with can work with both a web-browser and a dedicated app. The browser version, basically an embeded web server within the NVR, has had issues with compatibility on various combinations of browser and OS. The dedicated app is only compatible with two OS’s, and works across several NVR/camera manufacturer’s products. There have always been periodic NVR firmware updates that impact security and client performance.
It’s not a free ride, and I really think, probably quite costly to provide a solid cross-platform dedicated viewing and control app. specific to a unique system.
Thx for considering my background - yes, I’m a licensed PE, chemical engineering, retired due to medical issues. I’m far more knowledgeable about process controls, PLCs, and industrial instrumentation for process monitoring than I am about residential but I’ll learn eventually.
Sorry I was not more clear. It’s not what I have, it’s what “I’d add”, meaning “I would add” to your previous post of having up to 4 streams, I should have said rather than a limit of 4, allow 4 to 8.
Although, thinking more on it, it could just be two rows of 4 panels in the view but only one row of 4 is live at a time and you can toggle the between the two rows.
I’m simply recalling an old outdated cctv system that was in the house when we moved in - it had to have an attached panel via vga cable. Anyway when I tried it out with a LCD TV, it had the 2 rows of 4 and all 8 were live streams. But, resolution was poor, the cam for the most important location for front doorway died, and it was up on a shelf in a closet so hard to access and a poor location for the monitor since we needed to use it as an actual closet, not a cobbled together pseudo hardware rack. I abandoned it because it had no easy browser access (only via an Activex on IE which I only had still active on an old laptop I used for testing out win 10 before switching my desktop), ethernet cable in our room setup had to go halfway around the floor and up into the closet, no WiFi, box was as big as an old AT desktop, contacted company and no fw updates, it was no longer supported. Considered getting a new WiFi capable unit but still had one dead cam and crappy resolution. So just wanting, more than needing, front entry monitoring and having the sidelight window next to the door, the indoor V2 looked like a good option, cost was low enough that if it didn’t workout, it was not a big loss, and I hate subscriptions so never considered the ring type doorbell cam.