It might just be my situation. I only have one HM311, configured it near one AP, and deployed it near the other. From limited testing I think it’s stubbornly attaching to the first AP even though it’s now much farther away. Same network and SSID of course. (But not convinced it’s the main reason since I tested with the first AP off and it wasn’t much better.) I really like the unit a lot - it’s well made and a decent floodlight too - but the lack of updates and Alexa viewing are issues.
It wasn’t even @Joel.Baird I was responding to. It was @PalmSprings
The explanation is still correct though. 
1 Like
I was wondering if someone had pointed out that using a Mac with an M1 processor can view the Wyze iPad app on the desktop. I finally set up a new iMac a couple of weeks ago and have been liking that I can have widgety windows to show my weather station, weather radar, and Wyze. The Wyze app has its formatting problems on the Mac, but I can get it to work as I need it, as illustrated. So, I can keep tabs on the cats when they are outside (and other visitors).
To get more than one camera on the view, make a Group.
1 Like
Yes, many have, throughout this thread and elsewhere.
Yeah… I know… I was replying to one of them — the most recent one.
1 Like
Great view!
Why is it such a major project to provide a PC browser view for Wyze Cams? I have one Amazon Coudcam that can be viewed on Android apps and browser as well. Their cam is more expensive; my 4 Wyze cams work just as well except for that one feature. The video must be in the cloud already to send to the phone/tablet apps, so why not to a site for PC browser?
Presumably I could run Android in a virtual box on my Linux PC, but that’s more trouble than I want to take.
1 Like
That’s the answer. It costs money to develop, and maintain, software solutions. Wyze is on record to provide the feature at a cost to obtain the revenue they don’t get by providing cheap hardware.
I think that Wyze would have benefited from a little bit more forethought before they released their program
Paying attention to what customers need or want is the standard which most of the software developers out there have done, and that would have eliminated most of the problems we have complained about on these forums… at least that’s how I feel about it.
There’s probably also a significant security layer being added, to comply with all kind of government BS. If the hardware doesn’t have a on-chip TLS, then it has to be baked into the firmware which leaves it far more open to hacking. That encrypted feed then has to be decrypted in the mobile app software, requiring further app development and a new app release.
The issue is that they announced it way too early, probably for the investors benefit more than anything.
Wait a minute here. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that Wyze should havbe not offered the Wyze camera with the app to access video content until they also had a version of software completely developed for release that would allow use with Windows/Mac/Chromebook?
So all those folks that already purchased and have been using the Wyze cameras would not have had them because there was no Windows/Mac/Chromebook access?
I am just trying to understand what you are saying. And since you are going to hopefully explain, how about explaining how Wyze would have benefited?
1 Like
Sam, what I am trying to say is that when they released the cameras , it would have benefited them to include the software to view them either on a PC or online with a web based application. We have been waiting for nearly 3 years for that ability which although not promised, was alluded to. Ever since the Wyze company opened there have been complaints about the inability to view the cameras online or with a PC application. It’s sort of like selling someone a house but not providing keys to enter it. I hope this makes sense to you.
I think I pretty much understand their business model as we see more and more devices flooding the market and yet very little progress made on issues like viewing the application in landscape mode on a tablet and the issue of not being able to scrub through past events and videos to locate a certain item or issue with ease.
These may not be important to everyone but they are important to a lot of people and although Wyze didn’t say that it was in fact a security camera that stance has changed in the last year.
It would benefit them to look at the packages offered by competitors in regards to manipulating or viewing the camera recordings.
I’m sorry for making this so long but sometimes I have difficulty in putting my thoughts into understandable words thank you for your reply
I would add also that Wyze are working on 20 or more products right now, and if they developed them in the same way as the camera and app, probably have a huge backlog of issues to address and not the correct size/structure of team to address them. Many companies who bring out new versions of products just stop addressing old issues if they’re not bugs.
1 Like
Uh, what? SSL/TLS is the least of the issues. It’s about licensing and maintaining a TUTK P2P web client. How is firmware TLS more vulnerable? And what the heck does government have to do with it?
And why "added*? Do you think they’re not already using https for everything?
I agree with Big Monkey; it is time for Wyze to catch up to its viewability potential. What seems to be implied is that it is a technical problem with software/firmware that they are trying to solve, but I strongly suspect that the issue is the cost of bandwidth and server space to allow the increased access by users.
Clearly Amazon already had plenty of that, so they could provide both browser and mobile app access from the beginning (they did have an issue making it compatible with both Chrome and Firefox browsers, but they seem to have solved that).
I think Wyze should be more transparent about the reason for the delay, perhaps describing the economics involved. The cost problem is understandable, but web access would also result in more camera sales and Cam-Plus subscriptions (and more opportunity to advertise other products), so it might pay for itself.
As an alternative to browser viewing, the example of Telegram could be used-- desktop apps for Windows, Apple, and Linux, which work very well, simultaneously with their Android/iphone apps.
Ha. TUTK is probably in use because that’s what so many IoT companies use to get up and going, to get the capital to create their own solutions. Why the hell would you continue to use a piece of excrement like TUTK when there are many alternatives, that just require time and development?
As for the government, try following the regulatory frameworks and you’ll see.
Why not just make a window’s store app like you did for android? This shouldn’t be that hard since the app framework is already there.
1 Like
They already have an online portal to manage your Wyze account. They could implement the same or similar streaming as done with the app. Or they could use the similar API for a web app. They resources are already there, they just need to apply it to the customer portal.