WHY didn’t you ask the faithful beta testers? I’m sure a lot of us would let you use videos from our cams. I’ve a camera that just monitors the front yard where NOTHING has happened for two weeks (hopefully it will show my son mowing on Friday),
The reasons we didn’t ask the beta testers is because we had to provide a new firmware that would need to be manually installed with an SD Card and computer plus receive a special version of the software that would disabled timestamp and logo plus would also add the feedback request. We thought it was too many changes and too many disruptions to the standard software.
Once the feature is a little more stable, we will put that feature into the standard firmware and ask the beta testers to validate the performance like they have done so many times in the past and for which we are very grateful.
This is definitely not a planned scenario. TinyCam it totally independent from Wyze. We don’t have compatibility requirement for TinyCam. My gut feeling is that it wouldn’t work since we have to authenticate every device + app ID. Unless TinyCam can update with the 2FA authentication logic it shouldn’t work.
So, likely TinyCam users will have to choose turning off 2FA. Sorry about that!
We can update tinyCam app with support 2FA logic from WyzeCam. Not a big deal.
The problem is that I do not see how to enable 2FA in Wyze beta app. I see 2FA only in app chengelog, but not in the app itself. How can I do that?
Since this thread seems explicitly aimed at understanding exactly how much more I would be willing to pay for this exact camera with all of the security items addressed, that’s what I’ll focus on.
$0 more. Why? Because I don’t buy an item BECAUSE it’s inherently insecure, but I may be willing to buy it IN SPITE of it being insecure. In the case of this camera, I landed somewhere in between. I’m not aware of Wyze making any statements about the potential lack of security of the camera, so I could argue that I sort of bought it because I felt it WASN’T INSECURE. Still, it’s a pretty inexpensive device, so I don’t know that I had a lot of expectation of being secure (so I sort of bought it IN SPITE of it being insecure).
At the end of the day, this camera is extremely inexpensive and I’m ok (to a point) with the potential security risks. Wyze has specifically outlined information about various TUTK servers that are NOT outside of the US and how to get cameras to use THOSE. That’s a good step.
I’m more interested in seeing the app be enhanced with more useful features and I’d like to see my cloud recording remain in tact for a much longer minimum amount of time. Or, I’d like the ability to record all captures to SD-CARD only and to NEVER stream those in any fashion but direct from camera to app.
Personally, I HATE cloud services. I’m sick and tired of investing money into things that are completely dependent on these Internet-based hosts that go down, take my devices offline, or completely disappear when a company closed up shop leaving my products completely useless.
Want more money from me per camera? Give me an offering in exchange that requires ZERO dependence on a cloud offering of any kind (I’ll configure my home router to use Dynamic DNS and set the app up to find my router and connect in on its own, and when I’m on the local net, UPNP can determine the internal addresses of the cameras and not need the DDNS at all).
While I understand what @Frederik is getting at, to say that charging more for the camera won’t make it more secure isn’t 100% true.
There are a multitude of places that the revenue generated from selling a camera goes. It pays for the parts, the time to design the camera, the cost of assembly, and the time and effort that goes into developing the software. There’s an additional expense associated with marketing and selling as well as to pay for the cloud services that are part of the base service as well.
While simply increasing the cost of the camera doesn’t make it more secure, that additional revenue can be put to use to leverage a more secure overall architecture, pay more people to write code so things are developed more quickly, and other similar things.
No, nine women can not make a baby in one month. But you could end up with nine babies after nine months instead of just one… Or, by offsetting each by a month, you would have 9 babies after 17 months. Either way, you put in more, you get more back. And while a cost increase today doesn’t immediately make that camera more secure, building out the underlying structure for that higher security platform (which is almost entire software and has little or no direct impact on the camera itself) and then deploying a more expensive camera to the more secure architecture WOULD make the camera more secure “immediately” (but that platform has to be designed and built before the add-on cost could be charged).