It appears Tinycam has reversed engineered the protocol that the Wyze app uses to access its cloud servers. Which is how its Android app is able to show the users’ camera streams. They are able to do this without changes to existing server code that Wyze is running.
I can understand if the developers at Wyze have too much workload to prioritize creating a Windows desktop client. I also understand that some people prefer (or are forced) to view their cameras on their desktops.
Why can’t Wyze document this “protocol” and release it? Tinycam already has it. There is so much open source floating around, and someone can quickly come up with a Windows desktop application. It won’t be too much of a competition for the Wyze app, as it won’t offer the other features like motion detection, etc.
For some people, that’s enough reason to do it, as this long thread shows.
I was under impression port forwarding would allow browser access from anywhere. Can’t find info on doing it for the wyze cam. So, I may follow your advice as well. Too many others at similar price point that get generally good reviews on quality and functionality. For now the mobile app satisfies but there are times viewing on laptop would be preferred.
Ya, I know. I was trying to trim my words to be brief so didn’t fully expound on the subject. I port fwd my lan printer and NAS thru my router for remote access. In 3 yrs on same isp my wan ip has not changed so it’s been pretty reliable. New to cam streaming but thought it could be done basically the same way.
I can’t believe this is something no one thought of. I don’t believe it. The idea this security camera would be completely phone-centric is just ridiculous.
It’s needed to view on pc including playback, and we have to be able to find clips and export them from time mark to time mark, because this is a security camera.
We need to be able to export a time slice, like for law enforcement and it cannot be stuck on a phone. That is nonsense. What if your wyze cam caught a murder? You must be able to establish a chain of custody.
The file has to be available. If it’s not, this is all worthless.
Seems wyze is trying to force customers to only use proprietary solutions - sort of copying the Apple model of controlling the ecosystem. Want to stream your iPhone, get an Apple TV. Want to use a NAS, get a wyze NAS. I can assure wyze if they follow this path, they will lose customers because they fail to meet the Apple level of perceived build quality, elegant design and the “it simply works, no skill required” mantra.
This write up clearly shows it doesn’t take any extraordinary knowledge. Even my very limited basic Linux skill can understand the commands being used and how it could easily be deployed by simply adding an option to the app to toggle it on or off and to allow pointing to the network share desired.