This is a.... different case study.
Check out the video:
It appears to be an ad / marketing video for an integrator - EOS and their NVR partner - Digital Watchdog.
I believe this EOS is the same integrator that tried to crowdfund the "Big Brother Project" for a school.
What Do You Think?
Is shooting up and then exploding a competitor's NVR clever or poor taste? Vote:
As a commercial for the security industry, this is poor taste. As someone who paid for college and took 3rd place in an entrepreneurial competition building a business that sold exploding rifle targets, I loved it.
Needs a "in poor taste but I like it anyway because SPLOSIONS" option.
As for me, I prefer the classics.
Hey easy on Arecont:) At eos we love competion, the video was all in good fun and we greatly value our customers opinions. This customer testimonial turned out to be bit more unique then planned. -FTR
Agree with Ari - loved the manual approach of Office Space! I've had several pieces of equipment over the years that I would have loved to have taken a sledge hammer to. (this laptop I'm working on is one of them some days!). This gives me a great "event" idea: invite all clients to a party in the desert (I'm in Arizona) and bring their hated piece of equipment. We'll provide the BBQ & sledge hammers, they get to relieve thier tensions & when done, they'll need to buy a new one & we can happily provide a quote and take an order right at the event! :)
Can manufacturers bring some of their own, er, "favorite" equipment to destroy? I can think of a few pieces I've worked on in the past that I'd love to sledgehammer..
Poor taste but I love it!
Poor taste all the way, I guess no one got hurt but still. i skipped the clip myself. i can't watch stuff like that, I have passed out getting blood drawn more than once.
It doesn't surprise me though, these kind of people will do anything in search of their next fix.
...these kind of people will do anything in search of their next fix.
Go ahead and watch! We're talking bullets, not needles. And while one could argue that they are shooting 'junk', it's not heroin. Maybe clearer would be "Guy shoots up then blows up DVR."
I thought it was ok up to the point where they shoot it which seemed childish/immature (sorry can't think of a better word to describe). If they would have just blown it up I think the message would have come off better.
Having many times wanted to do what these guys did to a Bosch DVR, I enjoyed this. I dont know how anybody can say it's in good taste without smirking.
Odd, I've seen these guys push a lot of Geovision around Michigan.
Austin, Geovision is dead at eos. We use to love the Geovision platform until they lost sight of straight surveillance. We still service the line, however when compared to Spectrum...No comparison. Customers love it! -FTR
It's unfortunate because it's a was great platform and clients were able to navigate well. We've found that many of their products offer features that just dont work, after 100's of hours of problem solving.
It's a Windows Server....wipe it and install what you like.....
This video is so totally one sided. This is bad!
I suspect the problem was with ADT and not with Bosch.
Nothing against Bosch or ADT, however the reality of the situation was on going over a full year with ADT/Bosch support, with no resolution. Client was very frustrated, out a lot of money, and needed a fix.
Ed I cannot speak to every issue but the issues ranged from...
After they experienced this level of service for over a year they called us and asked us to replace the system.
Why show this type of video, it's just an endorsement to violence...? You are better than this!
I spoke too soon (below).
We are showing it because it involves industry companies. I think blowing computers up is silly but I don't think it has a real connection to violence against people.
I think this is an effective advertisement, despite that most people find it in poor taste.
The reason being (1) because many more people now know who EOS is (as well as Network Optix getting additional attention) and (2) even for those who find it in poor taste, the production quality is high (signaling professionalism) and it is not so controversial that anyone would reject these companies because of it.
Yes/no?
John, I disagree... I never focused again on the name but walked away thinking "wow, how immature". So until you mentioned the name, I didn't have a clue.
Margarita,
As you acknowledge, you didn't know who they were beforehand. My point is that most companies challenge is that few know who they are.
This gets them more attention. Plus, in this industry, lots of people like guns.
Personally, I wouldn't even think of shooting anything up, much less making a video about it. However, my point is that there are enough people in this industry that like (or tolerate) this sort of thing, that this will likely be a net positive (i.e., get a few more dealers / customers / partners, etc.).
Endorsing?
Let help you. Here's my comment right above yours: "Personally, I wouldn't even think of shooting anything up, much less making a video about it."
That's not an endorsement.
But comparing 'abuse' of an NVR to a person is silly. People have greater rights than inanimate objects.
Those women who are "booth babes" are models. Models use their looks as a way to earn a living. That is their career: modeling. What is the difference between standing at a booth wearing a risque outfit vs. a woman who is on a billboard in NYC wearing next to nothing?
How does this relate to objectiifcation? Modeling is a multi billion dollar industry. That is their job. I could argue "booth babes" is an inaccurate way to describe them since they are techincally models who are almost always hired via a modeling agency.
Who is objectifying women? The term "booth babe' is objectifying. They should be called models.
This thread is flooding my Inbox. Hopefully it ends soon. I might miss a message from the booth babe, uhh, sorry, model I am trying to hire.
Evening wear by Bushmaster with accessories by S&W, Glock and Ruger. Calling them booth babes might be risky.
Sure, it could possibly appeal to certain folks. Unfortunately I never gave it another thought. And if I come across the name again I may remember the video and wonder if they are a solid company with mature, professional employees. Not sure...I suppose its whatever takes your fancy.
Having said that...I can, I suppose, put myself in the shoes of those who have had to deal with inferior/frustrating hardware. I'm sure I've wanted to throw something out the door a time or two in sheer frustration. The difference is that I don't think that as a business I would want to market that frustration. Although now that I think of it... one of the best commercials (imho) was of an elderly lady tossing a tire through the window of a tire company and thinking it funny.
Discount Tire Company. Must have been effective, I remember it well :-)
Although, I like the video....great video to prove his point, the end user must have hated BOSCH system so much that it is worth showing on Youtube and not mention, hiring someone professional to shoot this footage. I think EOS also chip in the cost of this whole video project.
I liked it. It fits the demographic.
Sigh ... I don't understand why Bosch gets the blame.
Based on Luke's general description of the issues, it was a problem with ADT.
Technical Question: Does anyone really think that this NVR was actually blown to smithereens as portrayed in the video?
I don't and here are the reasons why..
Where's the body? Surely the whole NVR was not vaporized. IMHO, even if it was stuffed with explosives, a steel frame of that size would likely leave several large pieces. But if it did, why weren't they shown? When we blow something up we like to look at it after, to feel satisfaction right?
When exactly were the explosives placed inside the NVR? You don't want to shoot at something with explosives in it, right? And once the case is riddled with large caliber holes and slugs, you probably will have a hard time opening it. Even if you are able to pry it open and put the explosives in it, you are never going to get it to close back up and have all the seams meet and screws fit, right? Yet that is the apparent condition of the case pre-detonation.
Where exactly was the explosion itself? For some unexplained reason, (movie style DOF shot?), we are obscured from seeing the ground where the NVR is rested because of grass. Either this is intentional or EOS does not know how to frame a shot. Blame it on the producer if you must, but the fact is that ground zero is purposefully obscured, and this is a big no-no in documenting explosions.
Why does the 'explosion' appear to show the cardboard box top going straight up in the air with the remote? This is unlikely to happen if the NVR resting against it side were to explode.
My conclusion: The explosives were placed underneath the cardboard box, which was stuffed with various pieces of scrapnel placed to enhance the visual effect of the explosion. The box blew-up, the NVR blew-over and the grass hid it all.
Why would they lie? (i.e. Why would they make seem like they blew it up if they didn't?). Duh...
P.S. This is all IMHO. I never blew anything up with explosives. I only know what I do from watching a couple hundred explosion videos on youtube. I ask anyone with any training or knowledge or even a strong opinion to please tell us what they think happened...
Google up 'Tannerite' videos and then re-evaluate.
Like Michigan, the state I live in has lots of empty land where these legal, unregulated binary explosives can be purchased at the local sporting goods store.
That's some powerful powder there! Even though I feel an attack of confirmation bias coming on, I am unable to stop myself from pointing out one or two items:
So I think your trying to show me things can be utterly destroyed by a lot of explosives. Got it. But come on Brian, I know you know more about TNT than me, so if you are trying so say you think the NVR actually got blown into little pieces, I would love to learn why!
Right about the frame, wrong about the rest, (though you had me convinced)
one thing that you might have missed in the video was how the blast was so strong that it moved the camera and made it point way up, and thats why it didn't show what lukes picture did. maybe the aftermath was supposed to be part of the video, but they didn't count on the camera moving. luke, is that what happened? got any more pictures?
I myself was not near the blast. We had about 40lbs of explosives so the blast was a bit powerful. The customer wanted a closeup shot of the explosion so he volunteered to put his cell phone upclose to the blast. The phone of course moved once the blast occured. We didn't show the aftermath because we didn't like the footage. It was purely a creative decision to cut the aftermath clips.
thanks luke, were lucky you are a member, cuts down on guessing!
was the 40lbs in the nvr? what didn't you like about the aftermath?
I am confussed for you posses all these kinds of camera but on upon exploding this nvr your choosing mobile phone to document?? Indeed remind me of your show on tele- amater hour at apollo. Why not working nvr, eight whatever cameras in a such position for angle of view, then see boom boom like for it meant to be. Sorry if too much talk but reminded me to remember when we small kids and daddys blowing up pig (we have other for eating) on picnic in the forest. I wish for witnes aftermath, doing some amounts of math after to analyze, but no.
"That's some powerful powder there!"
Yes and No. Anything explosive has lots of power, especially if you put things around it (Trap it/cover it) so the force has no place to escape, unless it goes through whatever you have around it.
Low Explosives usually push and heave where a High Explosive has a very high Relative Effective Factor, so it rips through more things.
Apologies, Sir. If ever I doubt your wisdom again, just link me back here for attitude readjustment... :)
Maybe now we can "blow" up this discussion and be done with it??
Why don't you go ahead and unsubscribe, and we'll catch up with you later...
Well at least I don't hide behind an anonymous name lol. You must have run out of comic books to read. Sigh...
How rude of me Margarita, I'm George Whittaker. Honestly Margarita I wanted to comment about the conspiracy theory stuff above, but I didn't want to disappoint or bore or anger you.
But then why trying to figure out why you felt the need to pop back in a discussion just to suggest everyone else stop, it dawned me, you must not know about unsubscribing???
your welcome
I gave it a thought, previously (unsubscribing that is) however upon seeing your comment I decided that I would wait and see what interesting contributions (if any) you would make.
Btw, here is a small clip of a course I took in 2002. IRTB AND if you click on this: Video and Streaming Media you can scroll down to the CNN News Report and get a really good look at a truck being blown up with no need to detect conspiracies or anything.
So you see George, I was a little interested.
As a former demolition expert that has blown up many vehicles, trees, tanks, armored carriers, buildings, bridges, and etc., I can tell you that you see the detonation (fire/light then smoke and debris) in high-explosives before you hear it. However, for low-explosives, the explosion is slower than sound. This is a real explosion created by a low-explosive. It is just a tiny one made to look bigger by putting the low-explosive in the cardboard box instead of the server itself. The server would also still be intact, minus the major bullet damage (I'm guessing the back end of the server was pretty much gone after the shooting ended) and minus ground impact, as it would be just blown away whole (At least what was left of it after the bullet damage), by force or just tipped to the ground, as the explosive was not inside of it but instead inside the box.
If they did use a binary explosive, then the watched damaged makes sense.
That is a lot!!! If you would have burried (In the ground) the majority of the cardboard box and put something heavy on top of it (leave enough room for your gun shot), it would have been 1 heck of an explosion. (Sheriff would have probably came though and peoples windows would be broken)
I think you could have probably had the same results with about 12-15 lbs of Ammonium nitrate doing it the exact same way.
I don't know if I believe that was 40LBs. Here's a video of 20LBs I did a couple years ago.
1980s just called - they want their Jordache jeans back!
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
