This was asked in an AMA to some of the Wyze devs some time ago. I’m super paraphrasing here added with my own considerations, so don’t quote me as officially speaking for Wyze (I’m not), but the overall feeling I got from the answer is that lots of people want Wyze to work on various other OS’s and platforms, including every smart TV OS (there are a lot of them), Windows, Linux, Fire Tablets, Chrome, etc. Part of the problem is that each require their own special changes in the app, which introduces more inconsistencies between app versions and introduces more potential points of failure, security concerns, maintenance, bugs, etc to keep up with every time they want to do any kind of update, whether a security improvement or add a new feature, etc, it exponentially slows down the overall progress for each separation to ensure it remains optimally secure and functional, let alone improving. If they had to do this for a dozen derivatives, they would probably have to raise prices.
Instead, they are targeting the majority markets. Almost everyone has either an Android or iOS device, so basically everyone can use the Wyze app on one of those 2. That covers 99.99% of the population able to use their services that way.
For others who desperately want to view cameras on any other device, they compromised with an alternative solution. Instead of building a separate app for every single platform, they created the web view, which will allow a person with Cam Plus to be able to view the cameras on any platform through a browser. It works on Chrome OS, it works on Windows, it works on fire tablets, it works on Smart TVs, it works on basically everything That supports any kind of browser.
My family has also had Chrome OS on several devices, but the truth is that we’re in the minority. Chrome OS holds just 0.42% of the global desktop market, so we are a very small niche market. I think they probably see that as an indication that their resources could be better deployed on something that will benefit at least the majority of their users before they work on things that will only be used by a tiny fraction of us.
This is the same rationale that they’ve also given for why they haven’t invested the resources into cross-platform API integrations, like having Wyze support Smart Things, Home Assistant, Hubitat, Homekit, etc. They were going to support Matter because Matter would support everything, But Matter hasn’t been turning out as great as advertised and it’s been really slow so far and still doesn’t support cameras yet.
In the end, I wish they would support more things. Their lack of extra integration, such as not supporting Home Assistant, is leading me to start searching out for other smart home devices since Wyze isn’t expanding theirs outside of cameras, and aren’t doing some critical cross-platform support as I’d hoped. But I can’t totally fault their logic and rationales. It makes a lot of sense. It’s just frustrating. And I am saying this as somebody who also very strongly wishes Wyze would expand their support to other platforms.
I still personally love their cameras and will keep using them, especially since the web view can be used on nearly anything.
I’m just saying that I can kind of understand their rationales for not spreading too thin and requiring a ton of ongoing maintenance with every extra more minor platform that they add which isn’t going to be used by the majority of their user base. I get that. It sucks, And I don’t like it, but there are some reasonable and logical rationales at least.