I hear you, but if it were truly easy and cheap, they probably would have implemented it already, since it’s the most requested item. Based on their business model, I doubt they’re interested in making something like that subscription-based. CMC is a bit different since they incur extra outgoing costs associated with video storage
There are quite some surveillance software such as ZoneMinder, Shinobi, Kerberos.io, Bluecherry, MotionEye, ContaCam and iSpy which you can use not only to view the camera’s RTSP stream but as well as record/save it.
I tend to agree with @masterep that a PC/Mac app is more of a financial decision. But then I also agree with those proposing a web/browser option as a platform neutral less expensive solution - although it probably will require a hub of sorts to serve the web interface.
Just some thoughts - It would be interesting if someone with inside info could post the wyze mission statement and strategy (What do they see themselves as, not their tactics to get there). Are they actually looking to position themselves as the best low cost high quality home security device provider? Or are they positioning themselves to excel at providing an array of low cost home automation, surveillance and convenience devices compatible with popular mobile platforms? Or something else entirely? We don’t really know - maybe wyze does not know either or maybe finding themselves at a crossroads this issue has created for which they are not yet prepared to decide.
I’ve seen a couple mission statements. One is “Making great technology accessible.” I’ve also seen them use the phrase “Too good to be true” a lot. And I’ve seen them talk about wanting to offer such a high value at a low price point that it would be irresponsible not to buy the products.
Overall, there definitely seems to be a theme of making great products at a low price point, in order to get them into as many hands as possible.
How many cams can you see at once on it?
You can justify this cost by the amount of new users you’ll receive once this feature is available.
How would you quantify a forecasted Financial model on the number of new users that were influenced by this additional piece of software?
I do this type of work for a living and I’m scratching my head on this one.
2 Likes
Adding the “compatible with” logo of Microsoft/ Apple to the products.
Exactly. There are tons of features I want to see. I think they’re useful, and I think people would enjoy them if they understood the full potential. But I can’t say that Wyze would sell X more cameras if they add all the features I want. I have no idea how many other people want those features, or – more importantly – how many people are withholding a purchase because of the lack of those features. Trying to determine that would require market research resources I don’t have access to.
I’ve voted for this topic. This is definitely among the features I’d like to see. I’d use it if it existed. But I’ve got several Wyze cameras regardless. So I’m not sure if Wyze would necessarily earn more of my dollars if they added the feature. Would they sell some more cameras? Probably yes. But how many more would they need to sell to justify the cost, and how many more would they sell? I have no idea what those numbers look like, and they might be pretty hard to determine anyway.
I voted for the subject as well, and for myself I see great value in having a software application created to watch multiple Wyze Cam from your computer screen. Since the value proposition is so great I am willing to purchase this software in addition to the $20 cameras.
I understand there is a tremendous amount of people who want all these features and benefits at no cost. However, looking at it from a business point of view, I can understand why this is a tough proposition for Wyze to incur, given that this request is from users who already invested in the cams.
From my position, I can’t answer the question, “what is in it for Wyze” as far as revenue generation. Which is again why I would be willing to pay for the application.
Last point, the typical residential Wi-Fi router and Internet service, may hit the limits of the bandwidth when you have many cameras pushing data to the Internet and back again to watch it on someone’s computer screen if you are using a web based solution.
Agreed, I would use a web interface a lot, however I think one of the major hurdles is more the security issue. I have seen that tossed about in this thread that it is something they need to be sure on, then add on the recent security problem and I am guessing security is a big focus for a browser interface.
Just my guess though
1 Like
You bring up a great point about Security, but the reality is it could be secure today but tomorrow might be a different story as hackers from around the world develop new strategies bypassing existing walls. With that in mind the cost of doing constant updates for security reasons is another ongoing financial barrier for the company to pay if they move forward on a web based solution.
I still want a PC/Mac application for all the many benefits so many people have expressed and for myself I’m willing to pay for it.
2 Likes
This is something that customers have been requesting since the very first Wyze Cams started shipping – I know because I am one of the customers who described this omission as the one significant fault of the system.
The answer way back then (long before this forum ever existed) was “We’re working on it” - after all this time all the progress we have is that the idea has moved from “we’re working on it” to We know our customers want it but we can’t figure out how to do it so forget it
1 Like
You do realize that everything you see from a Wyze cam has to go through your ISP twice right?? Everything gets uploaded from the camera, then downloaded to whatever device you use to view it.
You may have heard that from me or from someone from the support team. It was something that we were looking into right from the beginning and then we started noticing the complications (due to us looking into the feature requirements). We apologize for the confusion.
Unless like me, you are thousands of miles from the cameras you need to monitor on a completely different network. Most of my day is spent where zero wireless communication, especially cell phones, is allowed. Not everyone is sitting in the property they are monitoring. I would have no need for cameras if I were there.
So you are saying Wyze is either Incompetent or Lazy or Both - I couldn’t agree more
1 Like
ALL the video is still going through an ISP twice – in your case it might be two different ISPs but all the data still has to go from the camera up through the ISP providing service at that location and back down through the ISP providing service where you are watching it.
I wouldn’t put it quite that strongly, but I do think they are more concerned about new products (which, of course, bring in new revenue streams) and not especially worried about the needs or wants of existing customers who have already paid for products and are now hoping for just a bit more functionality.
Wyze certainly manages to have the best hardware available at (or even close to) their price and their software does work but they really don’t seem to be paying enough attention to what their customers are asking for in the software.
1 Like
I don’t have any idea how many cameras Wyze has sold and are out in the wild, but I would imagine it a lot. The amount of folks here on the community forums is likely a small percentage compared to total users. With that said, even though it seems to people like us that frequent the community forums that everyone wants the browser interface, it may not be as hot an item as it looks like here.
I would like to have it, no doubt.
I don’t know if it’s a thing with Wyze, but several years ago, another company I had a camera from (I can’t remember the name) stated that the reason they didn’t want ONVIF/RTSP/Web, and wanted it all app based was their business model planned on income from storage subscriptions. I’m not saying this a consideration for Wyze, but who knows what their future plans are. Complete Motion Capture wasn’t a thing just a short while ago.