Never seen any website query for ublock and refuse to load because of it, and I’ve been using it for years. They can tell if you have an ad/cookie blocker, even if it is router based.
All of the router or network based filtering I’ve played with doesn’t properly block ads in videos, where ublock is pretty must bulletproof with it.
I get those websites that won’t proceed if it’s installed. Ad blocking at the router isn’t perfect like I stated, because it’s html-dumb, but it works well for me.
The added benefit is devices that don’t use browsers (TVs) don’t show ads, either.
I have been pretty happy using my Wyze cameras. I have them both inside and outside of my houses. I was planning on adding more, especially the Cam Pan V4 series. I have essentially sold others on the Wyze cameras also. So it is baffling to me why a company like Wyze would do something so stupid as to alienate a large portion of customers by forcing users to using Chrome or anything related to Google for live feeds. I use both Firefox and Duck Duck Go specifically to stay away from Google. I AND MANY OTHERS FLAT OUT DON’T TRUST THEM !!!. If Wyze is going this direction they will be FIRED as my preferred security camera provider. I don’t have the issue with RING, which was an option I considered before I chose Wyze. So Wyze, the ball is in your court, you can continue to do Un-Wyze things like eliminating your camera’s compatibility to non-Google, privacy priority platforms, e.g., Firefox, etc, and lose future business, or fix it and keep current, and gain future, business.
I wonder if Wyze is getting something from Google to promote itself.
Ya that’s what I’ve been trying to say.
@p2788deal @Aviatorone @barry2
Before throwing conspiracy theories out there, just do some Googling (or I guess the search engine of your choice since google is evil).
Firefox does not support HEVC (H.265) which is what the Panv4 uses for video compression. It requires a license fee to be paid, and Mozilla does not want to pay it.
If you want to add HEVC support to firefox you can buy the codec yourself for $2 or so. Not 100% sure if that will make Wyze work in it or not though, they may just detect Firefox and say it isn’t supported, since most people aren’t buying codecs when they install FF.
The use of a proprietary encoding, probably kills this Wyze product. I won’t be buying anymore Wyze camera that uses this encoder.
You’re going to need to avoid 4K and up cams from pretty much every company then. Basically industry standard format for those resolutions.
Every smart phone with a halfway decent camera for the past 10 or so years uses it when you record in the maximum quality (and many use it regardless). Are you not going to buy any more phones either?
There is a reason they use it, it is currently the best quality vs size encoder. They had to pay to use it, it isn’t like they did it for cost savings or to make it incompatible with certain things.
Windows used to include HEVC and HEIC ($0 via the MS store), but now they make you pay for it. So blame MS and Firefox for wanting to save a buck. Not sure if Apple ever had it included, perhaps @habib (as a Mac and graphics guy) can confirm. I believe iPhone was the first to start using it for encoding, so I’d think Macs would have native support for at least videos recorded/pictures taken on an iPhone, but not sure.
If you know where to look, you can still get them without paying, but I’m obviously not suggesting anyone do that.
If you read through the feature request at Mozilla, FF didn’t even support using the PAID encoder installed on your PC until a month or two ago, at least not for non-commercial videos.
I’ve verified that my Samsung phone does not have h.265 encoder. Maybe the newer ones do. And TVs, too.
My junky base model Samsung from 2017 uses it if you set it to the highest resolution, and that’s running old Android 8 and the cam is nothing great.
If you want to play something that is 4K or more, the video either has to have the license embedded (commercial videos like Netflix, Youtube, etc) or you need the decoder. I believe VLC may include the decoder, but that won’t work in a browser.
Yep, my TV is 4K capable but I don’t have 4K sources, so no H.265.
In that case, with the exception of any built in apps, it would be up to the device connected to support it. Those devices decode/decompress the H.265 and output as standard HDMI. The built in apps should support it fine since most of them are playing commercial videos. But if you were to try and use the built in web browser to view Wyze or other 4k non-commercial content, I suspect it would have an issue (of course those browsers are severely crippled anyway).
Now could wyze consume the video on their servers then output it as a different format? Sure, but that would take a lot of processing power and additional bandwidth outbound from AWS, which is the direction AWS charges for.
So Wyze released pan V4 knowing that it doesn’t want to pay licensing fees to display it in WebView. Makes sense to slowly switch to another line of cameras that integrates things better.
That also explains why the previous version of the Wyze app doesn’t show the pan V4 camera; licensing fees
Wyze paid the licensing fees, they would not be able to compress the video to that format if they didn’t.
They cannot license your browser/PC for you. Only pre-recorded/produced videos can include the decoder license, it can’t be added to live video or even random short clips. Web view works fine in browsers that support the codec, which is most of them. Complain to Mozilla about not including it in theirs.
Not fees, just that they needed to add the decoder into the app which requires an update, they can’t hack into your phone and manually add the decoder to the old app version. Like I said, they paid the fees (and in the case of the app, both for compressing and decompressing the video).
Your frustration is misdirected in this case. I would guess the licenses are part of the reason for the higher price of this cam, but there really isn’t any other way to stream 4K video in good quality and reasonable bandwidth.
Still hoping they’ve at least doubled the bitrate though.
Presumably, the codec is already in the Wyze app v.3.7.5(697), and it should be in the pan V4 firmware. Then why can’t my other phone running v.3.6.7(694) not update to 697? Google Play says, “This app won’t work with your device”. What technical limitation could explain this? Could it be that licensing fees are by app versions?
Incidentally, older Wyze app versions used to be able to show pan V4 cameras. It was removed at some point, so there really was no technical reason.
I assumed you meant 2.5 app. Not sure, I guess maybe if your phone can’t support that codec it can’t install, but honestly it sounds more like a bug. I don’t think compatibility in the play store checks for anything more than OS version and platform, but could be wrong.
I have the 697 app on my 4 year old Pixel and I don’t have any Panv4s.
No, I really meant v.3.6.7(694). Browse the threads, there are other posts about it.
Never said I don’t believe you. I guess they may have been able to exclude phones that do not natively support the decoding (or perhaps that don’t have hardware decoding support). Just seems odd since all it would do is not be able to display the Panv4, which is the same thing the old one can’t do…..
I’m pretty sure this older phone has a hardware decoder.
Well obviously something on it is not compatible, or something is messed up with play store and your phone. Maybe it will get resolved in an upcoming release, or you can try a beta version.
What Android version is it? Maybe there is a minimum being enforced now. I’m on 14 and have the latest app. Obviously my old 32 bit Android 8 phone only runs 2.5. I don’t have anything in between those two.