The basis is that the company and CEO himself have been aware of this issue for nearly 6 years now. Despite it being a feature that provides the basic functionality that would be expected from any smart home product, they’ve chosen year after year to not provide the necessary resources to fix it. It’s a pathetic way to treat your user base.
1 Like
I have been complaining about the lack of control over SharePoint rights. I have wanted to kill the audio/microphones since Wyze 1 Cams’ first release. I am an ORIGINAL User of Wyze Cams. My Request to get to kill the Microphone on the Cams has NEVER & AGAIN NEVER been addressed by the Support Crowd Or The Corp Office. Besides Totally Destroying the Microphone no real option has been offered. So To Answer Why We Can Make Such A Claim is So Very Valid That you should Solve this problem or Continue to Listen to The customers Vent for the Lack of Support. Brian Anderson
Obviously this is a feature that people want… Wyze should be investing more money and resources in regards to Shared level access.
1 Like
Shared user access doorbell camera v2
Shared user should have access to every setting that the main account holder does such as access to SD card events and the settings that the main account holder has access too.
1 Like
how did this never get integrated? seems like a really basic feature to add…
2 Likes
Dear Loki: The problem is that you do not have fast Account Switching. One has to manually log out, log in the other account, and 2FA, wash, rinse, repeat, some 20 times per day in order to bounce between different cameras that belong to different people or locations.
I have cameras at my place, and cameras at the shop. I can put them all under the same account, but I don’t want other people at the shop to see the house cameras. I can share the cameras to a separate shop account, but then they can’t view video from the SD card because it’s a shared camera and that’s not allowed. 
Wyze needs to impliment Account Switching, and needs to allow Shared Cam access to SD card footage, not just live footage.
1 Like
Just to clarify one thing: I’m not a Wyze employee. I’m a volunteer admin for the forum and fellow user like yourself.
That said, I definitely agree that Sharing needs vast improvements. The good news is that it’s on the radar (“researching”). The bad news is that’s it’s been that way for a long time. Sorry, but I don’t have any inside info on when it will move into actual development.
2 Likes
I think you would be interested in this other Wishlist topic. Visit the topic to show support and vote!
I agree with this topic. But I do really think too we’re all expecting Wyze, a cheap home hobby company to offer features that rich featured professional surveillance systems offer. I think Wyze does a good job for my home. Knowing what I know now though I would go with a home DVR camera system. I’d research what warehouses use on the professional level too.
I want to be selective in what cameras I only want to receive notifications from. I want to be able to only share out certain cameras and certain functions. But for that I now know I need to join the big leauges and pony up some serious cash for a professional system.
If Wyze were “home-hobby cameras” as you say, then they would bring back the ability for us to remotely access files off the SD card (without having to drag out a ladder) and they would give us access to the APIs so we could write our own open-source apps that are actually developed and kept up to date and secure. ((There were open-source Wyze apps but Wyze patched against them.))
Wyze takes our money, but they don’t hire developers. They only take away features and put them behind a pay-wall. No feature requests have been addressed in 6 years because there are no software developers working for this company, only a marketing team.
I thought they had several software developers. But only a few, and that’s why it’s taking so long. Hmm.
Wyze discussed this in an AMA:
As evidence that they aren’t actively targeting 3rd party projects, Wyze released an official API Key so that 3rd party projects could continue to access and develop custom solutions for Wyze stuff (proving they are supportive of custom projects):
There are even examples of Employees actually HELPING some of the opensource API projects and helping them resolve issues so that their projects would work and continue. One example here:
Just curious if you could list for me what used to be free on a device that Wyze voluntarily took away from people that isn’t still free on those devices that used to have it free?
I know people regularly cite things like 12 second Cloud events or person detection, but that is still available totally for free on every single device that has ever been able to have it for free. So, it isn’t taken away.
New devices may not have free 12-second cloud events, but they were never promised and nothing was taken away from anyone who purchased them and the devices that include them are still available for purchase if that’s what people prefer. Some of the newer cameras even include free person detection locally. Personally, I don’t really see a need for the cloud events. All events work well with just the SD card. We still get notifications and all events are still recorded and viewable on the SD card, so I haven’t really understood why people prefer cloud so much. I’m more of the opposite. I would prefer LESS cloud.
FYI, there are several options for this. There is an open source public Wyze SDK for lots of things in general. Wyze Bridge. Scrypted. Docker Wyze Bridge, and at least several other options. Lots of people use some these to make their devices do almost anything they want, including myself. I have almost all my Wyze devices run through Home Assistant so I can have more advanced rules/automations. There are ways to make Wyze stuff work on open source stuff specifically because Wyze supports this and gave us a way to create an official API Key to securely access our Wyze account/devices in other ways.
I know people like to come up with conspiracies about Wyze actively trying to sabotage things or being greedy, but the facts don’t really add up to show that and so far as I have seen, it’s quite the opposite with them going out of their way to give access with official API Keys, and sometimes even contributing to the 3rd party open source projects and help them be successful.
3 Likes
Rename Shared Cameras
The ability to “nickname” cameras shared with you. In case you have a camera named ‘Garage’ and your friend shares their ‘Garage’ cam. Want to be able to rename another person’s camera (client side only). For example, ‘Joe’s Garage.’
1 Like
5 years later and it is still researching 
To be fair, It hasn’t been in “researching” status for the whole 5 years. But I agree it is taking a long time. I know they ran into some obstacles because of the way the foundation of the app is designed. They wanted to rebuild the app from scratch, but that isn’t likely to happen really soon, so they were researching what ways they could implement some shared user permissions within the limitations of the current app structure that makes it a little more difficult, but even if they don’t release everything at once, I’d think they could start doing SOME things a little at a time over time. My wife and I basically gave up and started sharing the same account, which also means we basically gave up on us both having lifestyle or health stuff which require separate accounts. I would think they could implement some user permissions by running most of it through the backend instead of the app.
2 Likes
The hue light app does a good job at allowing account owners to set permission levels for shared users. It would help greatly if the Wyze app had similar functionality.
1 Like
Limit access to certain features when sharing
Sharing my camera needs something called a view/record only mode. I would not want someone’s grandchildren e.g. turning on the siren or speaker and shouting into my Birdycam house. I want to share viewing, recording video, taking stills, etc. but NOT scaring the begeebees out of my bird families.
Imagine for a moment the marketing value for this. Dozens of people with no Wyze cameras currently could get their first experience with viewing something fun…a live view of a Birdycam. Every Birdycam might have as many as 50 or even 100 viewers, who themselves might want to setup their own Birdycam, using Wyze cameras.
But we must have a safe way to just allow people to enjoy limited viewing access. This could potentially lead to the sale of many more Wyze cameras and with it service fees.
Moderator Note: Personal information has been manually removed from this post. Such information often gets included inadvertently in an email signature block when replying by email. The forum software attempts to automatically remove email signatures but it is not always successful. When replying to the forum by email, it is best to remove the signature block yourself before sending.
[Mod Note]: Your topic was merged to this Wishlist request for better visibility and consistency in grouping similar requests. Please remember to scroll up to the top and click the VOTE button to show your support.
Shared camera playback access
Hi, I realized after spending $1000 on a mix of cameras with SD local storage that I was the only one who could view playback. I shared all the cameras with my wife. However, she only gets event notification and still pictures. When I’m traveling on business or at work, I am not always available to pull up the app to review the details. I’d suggest that at least 1 other person should be allowed to access the local SD playback. There is no way we are upgrading to cloud storage or monitoring. But I paid for the hardware and the data is mine. Blocked playback on shared cameras seems like a misplaced paid wall when that is never going to be a path to monetize if I’m already set up for local storage and purposely purchased local SD capable cameras. I hope the request is clear and makes sense for others with 2 adults in a home.
2 Likes
Upgrading would not solve the problem either as there is no cloud storage other than the 12-second event recordings. When you access video footage remotely, it is pulling the live playback video feed from your SD card, not from the cloud.
I appear to be on the opposite side of the spectrum, but this wish/thread seems to be the approved place to voice my wish. Also, there is no way I am reading all 980 replies, so if this topic has been brought up before, count this wish as additional support for its realization.
I want a shared camera to ONLY BE LIVE VIEW.
I do not want previous events to be viewed by anyone other than myself (the main account user). Now that cam plus let’s you playback full event videos regardless if there is an SD card inserted, I can not share a camera without anyone with access being able to view all the historical videos/events.
Controls should be an option when sharing a camera. I saw that someone wanted to disable the microphone. That is not possible to separate from owner/shared users, BUT it should be possible to not allow audio to play for a shared user. This would have the same result.
Options like the ones below should be checkbox allowed/not allowed when adding a shared user:
- Live view ONLY (No controls at all)
- Video ONLY (No Audio)
- SD card playback access
- Ability to change settings i.e, Resolution, Night Vision, Mic on/off, Record, Take Photo, and especially “Turn Off”
TLDR - I want the ability to have a shared camera to only show live video with no control options for the shared user. The simplest level of access - View Only
1 Like