View On PC/Browser (Windows / Mac / Chromebook)

Wishlist Wishes Granted
,
1143

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, @UserCustomerGwen 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.

2 Likes
1144

I agree - please have a"work-around" thread.

1 Like
1145

Far more concise than I - bravo! My kids always said I talk too much, guessing forum members are thinking same thing!

1 Like
1146

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).

1147

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.

1148

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.

1149

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.

1150

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.

1151

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.

2 Likes
1153

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.

1154

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.

1155

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.

1156

Here’s my six camera (I got two more on Sunday!) being viewed through a web page:

image
image779×983 377 KB

(This is using Netcam Studio)

Here’s another view of my cameras through a web page:

image
image668×658 216 KB

(This is using ActionTiles)

This is made possible using the RTSP firmware and some Network Video Recorder (NVR) software. It is not an out-of-the-box solution, but it is a solution. Ironically enough, with the NVR software I don’t need notifications as much because I’ve more control over where the detection zones are, what triggers them, how long to record for, and where the recordings are stored. So if anything does happen I have peace of mind that I can access the details without having to react to every little leaf twitch.

I’m highlighting this to show that there is a current working ability to solve this problem if there is a need for a solution NOW.

2 Likes
1157

That looks pretty nice. Win10 or OSX or Linux? The action tiles - via the browser - served by NVR? Or a plug in for another browser on any OS? I’m old school, never used Win10 tiles even though I got a touch screen capable laptop that folds back flat for tablet mode. It’s older, has pen too. I might have to explore it more.

1158

I’m running a Windows Server 2016 Essentials with Netcam Studio as my NVR. The Action Tiles is an application and web page that offers IoT integration, which I use to manage my SmartThings and other home automation needs.

1 Like
1159

Don’t have smart things or a sever anymore. had a win2000 server a long time ago for self learning, setup a NT server before that so we could do remote logins to a company process control system. This was dialup modem era - ya know the dark ages of the 80s-early 90s. Anyway, net cam studio looks like it worth checking out. I got one V2 simply watching back patio. No open access so no one is ever back there besides me grilling so that’s an ideal cam to load the rtsp fw. Will try it eventually.

1 Like
1160

Thank you for reminding everyone of the original issue. We’ve heard work around galore which doesn’t solve the ORIGINAL issues. I’m sure someone is going to day something about cheap camera blahs blahs blahs. Well raise the price a few dollars and give themost requested item requested to the customers. Also someone will mention the fact that wyze never promised PC viewing blahnik blahnik blahnik. Yes we are idiots for not paying attention to what we were buying. Unfortunately PC viewing has been done, we aren’t asking for a never been created feature but one that has been implemented on many other brands. Probably a open source program out there they could use for free. Did everyone forget what year this is? 2020 the year of no more excuses. Just my 2 cents so keep ur hate mail everyonr. not ieveryone. In it.

1161

I got no idea if this might help enable wyze to move forward at least for Win10, or if it’s just a “nothing burger”, or if the current RTSP fw will work or not. So turn off the flame throwers and post some educated opinions or any experience with this new or updated capability.

Just saw a Microsoft newsletter mentioning connecting ip cameras to Win10 to stream or capture. Seems they are adding support for ONVIF and RTSP for connecting camera on the local network to either their built in camera app or a 3rd party app, supposedly to make it easier. Although, Microsoft isn’t always the easiest to figure out or is it necessarily better than 3rd party solutions.

1162

There are some internet protocol (IP) cameras available on the market that have an embedded web server as part of their firmware. This allows users to access the ip address of the camera and access a web site that allows the management and viewing of the camera. A good example of this is the Linksys WVC80N webcam - see chapter 3 “Advanced Configuration with the Web-Based utility”.

Some manufacturers allow their cameras to be access from your browser with a password out of the box. Others require the use of a utility that locates the camera on your network and then allows you to initially configure it. Regardless of how you get the camera set up, the initial configuration is important.

Some camera manufacturers allow multiple cameras of the same type to appear in the viewing window of one camera, allowing multi-cam feeds to be displayed. The Foscam C2 supports this (see chapter 4.3.4"Multi-Camera"). This is generally only available to stream all cameras together.

There are two main reasons why this is only available on older cameras:

  1. These days most users need an app-based simple installation method
    • When you set up your Wyze cam, you add a camera, put the camera into setup mode, then scan the QR code on your phone
    • Super simple, and no fuss
    • This enables cameras to be configured via the app with no extra confusing steps - which makes it easy to troubleshoot by the support team
  2. The web server and associated software take space (and time!)
    • Wyze have already confirmed that the cameras have scant space spare for firmware functions
    • Implementing anything like this would massively reduce other functionality
    • Similar to the RTSP firmware upgrade, I expect that if such a thing was implemented, it would be a side-stream of firmware, and would not get updates like person detection
    • All of this would take time to develop and manage, so there’s no quick solution

The extra wrinkle is that even if you have a native web server on your camera, it doesn’t mean you can see your camera from the internet. To do this, you’d have to consider some options:

  1. Port forward your camera’s ip address and port through your router
    • Involved some technical knowledge
    • You still need to know your home ip address
  2. Use a third party to host your camera stream
    • A nice web interface - but you still need to expose you camera feed to the host

This summary highlights what is involved in using a native interface on a camera to view and manage the feed. It lists the requirements, plus the additional complexity around accessing the feed from outside your home.

1 Like
1163

Good call @ChemEngr - I missed that - here’s the post for others:

1 Like