There’s no doubt that the thousand-plus users here in the “Community” are a small percentage of the total customers, but I think it is reasonable to believe that we are close to representative of the actual users.
Keep in mind, that probably a significant number of the Wyze Cams that have been sold aren’t even still in use today due to customers who for whom the novelty just wore off, or or never figured out how to make the camera work even with support (many would find it easier to toss out a $20 camera than to put any effort into making it work) and the customers who found that the original Wyze Cam simply didn’t fill their needs. The v1 cameras had all the limitations of the later models plus were finicky to set up and the early versions of the app weren’t as good as the current version. So I’m sure quite a few Wyse Cams have made their way into the trash or the junk drawer. Heck, I’ve got one buried in a junk drawer around here somewhere that’s still registered to my account but hasn’t been connected in about a year (I’m not even sure if it is a v1 or v2 and apparently the Wyze support website no longer has the “Click here to find out” which version you have).
I would strongly suspect that most Wyze cam users don’t even know this forum exists. I’ve been a customer for over two years, and I just heard about the forum for the first time today. Wyse has not made any effort to let customers know about this forum. I only found out when I made a comment to support about the obvious need for a FF/RW capability in viewing continuous recording videos and support told me to bring it up here. Interestingly enough it is also one of the top voted items here in the forum and also one of the items that doesn’t seem to be getting any progress.
Bottom line, yes, we are only a fraction of the total customer base, but we are a larger fraction of the actual user base, and probably a reasonably good representation of what actual users want – although we probably do have a higher percentage of users who are willing and able to tinker with settings and use third-party software.
I don’t know any more than you do about their thinking, but personally I would guess that a reluctance to have browser access may have more to do with their software model than their business model. They have not shown any desire to set up an aggressive “subscription” model for their products/services. App development is different from web development and I suspect that supporting web access might be a bit outside the wheelhouse for the developers.
It has been documented elsewhere in this forum that the connection is peer to peer. If the camera and the phone are both connected to your home network, the stream stays in your home network.
I’m perfectly happy with BlueStacks though. I get a Wyze app that’s exactly the same as the phone app. Only thing is it’s version 2.7.19 for Android compared to version 2.7.29 for iOS that I use on the iphone. Haven’t tested the voice feature, don’t need it. Other than that, I’m able to do live streaming, check events, do playbacks, go full screen, and that’s all I need. Re security, I’m not too concerned about any data. I just don’t want to use the phone as a monitor all day, and live streaming kills my battery. Could you clarify which functions you’re not able to use on the emulator app and what the security concerns are.
I can use precisely zero functions on an emulator app, because you aren’t allowed to install an emulator app on a government computer, or most likely on the vast majority of computers people have at work.
I don’t mean this in a negative way, but have you been paying attention? I’m just curious, because my devices already do TONS more than they did when I bought them, and I’ve had them less than 6 months. Most of the new features that have been implemented were based on user feedback. So I think I have to respectfully disagree. In fact, they seem to pay more attention than any company I’ve had experience with. That’s one of the biggest things that sets Wyze apart, in my mind. That doesn’t mean every suggestion is an automatic “yes.” There are several features I want to see that they haven’t implemented, too. But they definitely pay attention and they do implement a LOT of customer suggestions,
I’m not sure I agree with that, really. I think the kind of users who would seek out the forum would naturally be more tech-minded and hands-on than the average user.
Sure. Obviously, they have to prioritize things. If you look at the official comments in that thread, they’ve said that they started to implement it but ran into some issues related to the way the files are stored on the SD card. Basically, it sounds like there might be some hardware limitations that would prevent this from getting implemented. I also know from personal experience that some video codecs are more friendly with FF/RW than others, so that might cause potential issues, too. Anyway, just because they run into roadblocks which may prevent a request from getting implemented doesn’t mean they don’t pay attention. But you’re right that they probably won’t implement every request that any customer ever wants.
If you’re not familiar with the forum, by the way, the Wishlist items are, by definition, items which are NOT yet being implemented. You can look at the Roadmap section to see tons more items which have been implemented, or are in various stages of being implemented.
That’s true, you’re not supposed to install any personal s/w on a company computer let alone a government computer, so whether it’s BlueStacks or a standlone Wyze software doesn’t matter. Work computers (CPU’s and disks) are company owned resources and so is the network. I always take my own laptop to work, get approval if needed to connect to a guest network, and do my personal work that I have to do on my own laptop. I don’t even check any web sites that are not work related on a work computer because technically, it’s against the rules, but most companies allow you to use the network some for personal use if you’re not using too much bandwidth and affecting other people’s work. My advice is to use your own laptop if they allow it. I would think if you explain that this is for home security and safety reasons, they should be ok with it. Otherwise, I don’t see a way other than the phone app.
The rules depend on the company. Mine says ZERO PHONES. There is no need for a Wyze app on the computer. We would be fully capable of getting alerts from Wyze through webmail or a Wyze web based monitoring system. Easy peasy. Millions of people sit at work on computers all day and are allowed to casually view personal things, but are not allowed to have wireless devices such as phones in the office.
I do mean this in a negative way: that lead-in is always a lie.
Yes, they have added features, and I’m sure some of the added features match some user suggestions. But when you look at the top user suggestions in terms of how many users have asked for the same feature you will find that those suggestions have also been on the list among the longest, which strongly suggests that those suggestions have been determined to be too hard and simply pushed off the table without saying so.
I suppose some would feel that saying “Maybe later” is better than saying “When Pigs Fly” but I think that the way it has been used here raises false expectations nearly as badly as the “We’re working on it” did years ago when I asked about a way to view the cameras on a PC.
And, oh by the way, in your rush to defend the Wyze team I think you missed the fact that my comment that upset you so much was itself a defense of the team.
I really wasn’t trying to be negative or insulting. I prefaced it with that because I thought it might sound negative otherwise. You mentioned that you’re new here, so I thought it was entirely possible that you haven’t paid attention to the previous features that have been implemented based on user feedback. That’s why I asked.
Yes, I’m sure a lot of things are taken into account, including difficulty. I don’t think anyone denies that. That doesn’t mean they’re pushed off the table, but certainly deprioritized compared to similar requests that are easier to implement, sure.
I don’t think so. It means they’re not working on it now, as it implies. If they are working on it, it will say “researching” or “in development” or “testing,” depending on the phase. There’s also a “probably not” tag for things they’re reasonably sure they’ll never implement. Sometimes it goes from “maybe later” to “researching” and back to “maybe later,” after research reveals challenges that merit deprioritizing it, or difficulties that may make it impossible with current systems or hardware, for example.
Tons more in less than 6 mo, really? How do you define tons? I must be missing something.
I’ve been on board since around August and my cams actually do less with person detection going away, which didn’t work very well in my case anyway since I need a 90deg rotated mounting to view our front entry. The app has had some improvements - but really not a ton in the app either. CMC I guess for that demanded more than a 12 sec clip, but the whole cloud stg thing is another pet peeve - people with 100 events a day get 14 days stg while people with 1 event a day get how much… the same 14 days. Anyway, I’m ranting, time to just say I like wyze, the cam pretty much satisfies a need, but they can do better to address the highly voted issues.
Sure. I don’t know exact dates on everything, but here are a few things implemented this year:
Person detection was added, and will be returning soon. (Xnor was just acquired by Apple, which is why Xnor terminated the contract, but Wyze is committed to bringing that feature back.)
Complete Motion Capture was entirely based on user requests.
RTSP firmware was launched about 8 months ago, which was one of the biggest requests at the time.
Alexa integration for Wyze Sense devices
Ability to jump straight from a recording to the corresponding time on the SD card
Ability to turn off IR illuminators when night vision is on
2FA was added in April, based on user feedback
Showing several camera simultaneously via grouping
Well, for me, I DO need live streaming on my PC/laptop instead of the phone. I don’t want to use my phone as a tiny dummy terminal dedicated to one single function all day. Like I said, BlueStacks solved my problem perfectly. For your situation, no phones allowed? That’s too radical, your beef is with your employer then. I’m not clear what you’re asking Wyze to do?
I’m still not clear why users don’t try BlueStacks to view live streaming on the PC. I got my cameras last month, complained to the community about not being able to view on the PC, someone recommended BlueStacks, I installed it, bingo, solved the problem, in a couple of weeks. imo, there is no need for a separate web browser s/w; this workaround is a viable solution. I don’t understand why more users don’t give it a chance. The instructions for installing BlueStacks are crystal clear, anyone can do it.
I have used an android emulator which I am not too thrilled about using. From a consumer standpoint I see it as more or less basic to have a desktop app for viewing Wyze cams. Even being able to login and view them on the Wyze website will be amazing! A solution would be to have a web app running temporarily until the main desktop app is coded and created.
I’m using an Android emulator, and I’m perfectly happy with it, there is no difference between the app on the emulator and the app on the phone. What difficulties are you seeing?
