Yeah the app will generate a URL but at this stage I think the only way is to flash the beta firmware to the microSD card
It’s nothing to do with lazy. They can’t be 100% reliable because of the fact the internet isn’t. Any lag time negates the use as a true security camera. They’ve been up front with that. They are not classified as security cameras. They can be used in that arena if you’re understanding the lag time can be an issue at times.
Speaking with experience of SA from my days in its army and PNW (Pacific North West); and spending time in both locations, my comments. I think what the reality is that the main reasons for your dissatisfaction are not related to Wyze cameras at all but related to cameras in general. Hence, be careful of rejecting them for your needs; you will only suffer the same disappointment you expressed with Wyze. If, after reading my comments you still want to pursue “better” camaras then, my experience is that the best of the next level up are cameras from a Company called “Reolink”, a Taiwanese company. When I checked this year they had just started to be available in SA. They are of course larger and operate with more power consumption (run at 48V compared to 12V), and cost more.
- The main reason. Your idea of what constitutes “security” has changed by the use of the camera (but would have happened with any camera), particularly the place in the levels of security required to satisfy your anxiety regarding your person and your assets. Speaking to the SA homeowner definition (as observed prior to lockdown). Dogs that react to threat with sound and fury; but training and maintenance is an issue. Electric fence is the main passive deterrent (a visible barrier) , Blue beams and alarms follow (since they have the threat of armed response; even if you are lying). Cameras are only to record actions for later analysis of how EF and BB could be improved. Some thought cameras were imminent danger warning devices or perp identification (as you seem to). But this is not so. Imminent danger has to be tied to a response to be a valid security means (which is why industrial facilities employ armed guards to watch monitors); so for a small business would be ineffective security. Camera records for individual identification are too easy to defeat - one perp looks like another and use of a “hoody” too ubiquitous (now officially accepted facemasks are replacing the “hoody”). So Wyze as a security camera works fine - records events for later analysis of “holes” in the other security layers. I use my Wyze cameras for this record purpose, but mainly only use them as a "peephole’ in the front door (the “don’t open your home to strangers”).
- You have an unrealistic view of the technical status of engineering with regard to camera communication and miniaturization - it is not nearly at the level you see in the movies (remember they have huge budgets and are “Fiction” or more accurately “science fiction”). Wyze is as good as the software and hardware technology on which it is based. All camera manufacturers suffer the same fate. Wifi is wifi (high latency, short range with low power, middling range with high power). Bluetooth is worse. To make low cost portable cameras Wyze had reduce the power of the device since >50% of the hardware cost is due to the power supply. Lower power means slower CPU and shorter wifi range. Surveillance cameras are one technical areas where the IBM Law has been broken (“choose your software before you choose your hardware is the road to computer success”). The software available to Wyze (and all camera manufacturers) lags behind the hardware capability. Wyze understood that and decided to downsize the hardware until it came close to the current and near future (edge person detection which they originally shared) software ability. There has been better software developed in the 21st century (the subject of the movies you watch) but it has been developed by Government R&D and has not, except in drips and drabs (edge photon basics for facial recognition developed in the 1970’s) been released into the public domain - they have not shared or licensed the IP, even though, in theory, it is owned by the citizens that they Govern. So all other “commercially available” systems (including Wyze) are in the same boat. The statements of functionality that you state you desire for camera system are not available by Government dictate. Remember that for an app (including Wyze’s, the UI may be new but the foundation bricks that give it functionality are not. They are copied (or reverse engineered) from code that others developed. So- don’t be hard on Wyze.
Yes you were quite correct in your comments on the “errors” in Wyze implementation, they are certainly flaws and you certainly articulated them far better than most can do on this forum. The “fanboy” comments are really just poor articulations of the fact that that specific user did not need/use the features that you do to the extent that you do. Also you have to remember that a number of them have been brought up on the MS business model (sell alpha or beta software) and are thus used to the Wyze business model, and take it a given for any new company they come across and use. So yes - ALL Wyze software when first sold was by design only about 80%-90% . I might summaries your comments as a frustration that they have not over a period of 12 months taken their software to 99%-100%. Again, per the average of software development in the PacificNorthWest; it takes at least 24 months before a company gets past 95%. Some don’t get there because they run out of revenue before they do; hence the negativity directed to your comments. So, by the measures of their predecessors they are doing quite well on software development: and hopefully they can keep the revenue flow going with the new hardware they are releasing (albeit with beta software).
Hey zulu. Interesting posts.
Even as product offerings (which the software must integrate) are expanding rapidly?
I think the concern of many is, will they EVER reach 95% if they continue to expand offerings at this rate.
Note: Click the to expand the poll.
Click the [POLL] title to go to the full Topic if you wish to comment.
Too true. On history Wyze probably will not. The more relevant user statistic though (mentioned elsewhere in this forum) is how much of the unfinished (buggy) code is entwined with data privacy (data available to “hackers”) and functional reliability (catastrophic breakdown: which, according to that well known engineer “Murphy”, will always happen at the worst time for the user). Unfortunately these parts of a software program are the most difficult to debug, so many companies (following the PNW model of software project management and sales) get to them last and many times never.
Yes, but the issue is not that a Pi could be used to replace a Wyze its about why you would do it; its too expensive. A higher cost multi-fuction computer can always outperform a single function cheap computer. This cost can only be justified IF the computer is being used for multiple functions and the cost assigned proportionately to each function. In your Pi example if you were already using PiAware and wanted to add Motioneye surveillance. So I would only recommend a Pi or smartphone or Laptop or Tablet be used instead of a Wyze IF the device had been bought for other purposes and could be co-opted to perform the visual surveillance function. Why spend more money than you need to.
Here’s a funny thing. “Move fast and break things,” is more like “Move fast and break things with broken things,” nothing ever destined to reach 95% again.
Out here in Moronville, “disruption” and “destruction” are still synonyms - though we speak truth sotto voce in Our Church of Tech.
Given the above, it would seem the only way to truly use tech “efficiently” would be to withdraw from it.
I know. Blasphemy. Apostasy. My desk chair just burst into digital flames.
while i agree, for the most part, my reaction to anyone w/ a ‘lazy’ response would more along the lines of “it’s $2)!” an actual security cam is closer to $200 to $500 for something completely reliable, range useful and water resistant/outdoor capable. i’ve had great results w/ mine for the property use i’ve applied, watching my parking lot, etc. great pic, time lapse and uploading. although i’ve had issues w/ wifi, because for some reason my appt is saturated w/ wifi signals and i cannot get more than 15’ away from the router w/o losing signal, but the cam itself works just fine for $20
Yours is the lazy response - read the thread. Your comment is about hardware. That is why we are attacking the software and its development path and not the hardware. As you say the hardware is extremely good value compared to the alternative (the $200). But the software on the $200 camera is pretty much the same as the software on the Wyze - buggy and prone to breakdown with new “features” code layered on poor code foundation. So if I was reviewing the $200-$500 camera I would be making the same comments. BUT, since Wyze are a NEW company why do they program/code like an old company, and get software development wrong like an old company. Solution: Wyze - get a good programmers (like Steve Gibson) to teach you the correct programming techniques and write/fix your programs correctly.
you clearly missed my point.
if wise doesn’t get on the ball and fix all these goofy ridiculously troublesome problems with this lock and the plug, they’re going to be another has-been that didn’t last long. Everything started out working okay and seeming solid. Then the door locks stopped unlocking automatically, probably due to a weak Bluetooth receiver I’ve determined. If I get my smartphone right against the door, it might unlock. It’s not the Bluetooth in my phone, that’s solid to 50 feet or more through two interior walls. Now my wise outlet won’t reconnect or install. The pairing light flashes alternating red and blue, and can’t even fiund any help showing that possibility…reallllly???
I don’t care how cheap it is, if I can’t rely on it, it’s getting thrown in the trash. I’m becoming totally disenfranchised with the company. From huge supporter to “I’ve had enough” in just three months!
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away my Wyze cams recorded alerts for all sorts of moving objects - cars, people, plants, animals, clouds, shadows and endless swarms of insects dive bombing the camera lens.
Today, one V2 cam recorded exactly one event of any kind, which I will describe later.
What it did NOT record as an event, was a dump truck pulling into the yard and dumping a load of #68 stone on the property.
A freaking dump truck
furtively snuck into the yard
lifted its bed 15 feet up into the air
and poured thousands of pounds of rock onto the earth
and then scurried away completely undetected
A freaking dump truck
about an hour later
I did get my one event of the day from that cam
of a Golden Retriever walking by the fresh mound of crushed rock.
Thank goodness for that orange dog.
Luckily the continuous SD card recording did preserve how and when the magic gravel pile appeared.
Which why I REALLY REALLY want better remote access to the SD card video and do not especially care about CMC - which I believe has to be triggered by a motion event to start recording anything in the first place.
Likewise my concern is that my $20 cameras used to work a lot better for me than they do now, and I am somewhat less than enthused about having to manually flash them all back to a better earlier firmware… once I figure out which one that might be…
Here’s a still of what the cam decided not to record as a motion event…
(No worries, I was expecting the delivery and am still ROTFL )
After conversing with @desertshores I turned off the PR notifications and turned off PR under Wyze Services. Turned everything else on. Did not remove/reinstall the app or change firmware.
Today those cams are once again detecting dump trucks when they pull into the yard.
I’m not sure how adding Person Recognition would so completely blind the existing sound and motion detection, but apparently that’s what it did.
Oh , that’s perfect, thanks for the laugh!
You are incorrect in your assumptions. We tolerate issues as a concession to the low cost of entry. Recent issues with stability, usability and consistency are sufficient to evoke a response of this nature. Clearly there are a number of very experienced and skilled persons that have been taking their precious time and energy to bring the concerns to light in an appropriate forum. You should be thanking them for their dedication and candor.
We are all so happy that you are pleased with your products and they meet your expectations but for some of us, that is not the case at all. I personally share the exact same opinion as @Daniel_SA in this post. I’ve purchased and use +20 cameras and have grown increasingly disenchanted but hopeful that Wyze would resolve issues instead of pushing forward and exacerbating them.
Look; for $30 including SD card you can slap up a operational and extensible video ecosystem with cloud services, notifications and 2 way audio. All of this with less than a 30 minute investment in the actual installation? It would appear that all the check boxes are addressed. Unfortunately that is only the surface presentation and like an iceberg, 90% of the usability and satisfaction lie below the surface.
As to your mention of mass satisfaction due to the small size of this thread and lack of public expression of dissatisfaction; again dismissing valid and concerned consumers with solid and well founded criticisms could be a fatal flaw and I sincerely hope it is not one shared by Wyze management or marketing. There will always be someone with a product that pushes the price / value barrier and that provides opportunity to build a market but, this is the opportunity to retain and grow that base or fail due to inattentiveness.
Have read your dissappointmt of Wyze. I’ve invested very lightly in2 Wyze products & have been pleased w/ their product line. They performed all in their price point $20, if U expected more, they U need 2 pay more. Wyze has been gr8 in keeping their prices very low. Good luck in yur search for better solution, I think yur needs grew faster than Wyze product line.
Without stepping on @brichter 's possible response, let me pose you a question.
Do you see the reason for my puzzlement here?
Note: Click the to expand the quote for more context, if available.
Agreed, with the caveat that my particular problem with the lock at least has nothing to do with Internet connectivity. After doing further testing it appears that the Bluetooth module in my lock has a very weak receiver, at least intermittently. Maybe 1 in 4-5 times the door will be unlocked when I walk up to it. The rest of the times it is not. I discovered accidentally the other day if I’m very close to the lock and I bring my cell phone up to manually command the door to unlock, it will suddenly auto unlock. This proves that the first step, the geo-fence activation via Wi-Fi, has succeeded.This has happened probably 3-4 times now. Makes me think that at least some of the time, the Bluetooth receiver in the lock is not hearing the Bluetooth signal from my phone. I know it is not my phone because I use it frequently for other uses and I reliably get 30 to 50 feet or more even going through two interior walls without any dropouts or problems whatsoever. I have been electronics and communications technician for almost 50 years. My troubleshooting skills are pretty good LOL.
All three of my laptops always stay connected to the primary connection no matter what other Wi-Fi connection is open. Two are Toshiba Satellites, one is an IBM ThinkPad. Plus you can go into your Wi-Fi network settings and tell it not to automatically switch to other access points. Of course a lot of users probably don’t bother to learn enough about their device to know they can do that LOL.