What A Disaster.... (Hdcctv Alliance)

Last year, I said that the HDcctv Alliance demonstrated the Worst Security Marketing Ever. And yet they have taken their game to yet another level this year.

I'm so confused... So the magazine dedicated to covering Todd's Folly has blocked Todd on Twitter? What a finely tuned machine.

In a word, yes :(

Wouldn't / Shouldn't Todd have that person's direct email to contact them in a non public manner?

It's actually such a shame, for the concept of hd cctv is solid at worst, and amazing at best. It's become barely more than a punchline at this point.

Certainly, things like that should be handled as privately as possible.

I agree with you. While Todd is amazingly passionate about what he is doing, how he is doing it has overall made things worse. They would have a much stronger brand with a standard 'happy happy' PR strategy.

I absolutely love it!

I don't have to take any more swipes at Todd, he does just fine on his own.

Rockoff responds: "The hyenas imagine that I have personal control of all with "HDcctv" in the name, how times change."

This is ironic since he used to threaten to take legal action against companies misusing the term 'HDcctv" or even "HD CCTV".

In any event, it's a very bad sign for "HDcctvMagazine" to publicly condemn HDcctv.

Thanks for the continued coverage.

HDcctv Magazine is not an official organ of the HDcctv Alliance. They branched into covering general HD surveillance over a year ago. The term "HDcctv" is in the public domain, as I think you're aware.

Do you have any insight about the apparent melt down at HDcctv Magazine? It looks like the founder started drinking all-IP Kool Aid before the end; maybe he overdosed. I've completely lost touch with that team.

HDcctv == "Todd's Folly" Good one!

Let's review the bidding: IPVM has been talking HDcctv down for four years but hasn't covered HDcctv technology in any detail since the 2009 pre-equipment-availability speculation, demurring most recently that "we'll cover it when it becomes appealing."

A majority of the world's surveillance camera factories have been pumping out HDcctv kit for a year now, but IPVM still doesn't acknowlege the appeal.

I can imagine someday John will claim, "I never said HDcctv was a bad idea, I just said it was unlikely to succeed unless conditions a, b, and c were met, and it just so happens that all the conditions were met, so I guess you could say that IPVM was among the first to anticipate HDcctv's success ..." Looking forward to it.

Carl, you never had to take any personal swipes at anybody. It would be pathological to think personally abusive remarks would make the universe a better place. John, do you encourage personal abuse on your blog? Do you discourage personal abuse?

Todd, where is the 'personal abuse'? Carl said, "I don't have to take any more swipes at Todd, he does just fine on his own." Do you find that abusive? Are there specific 'swipes' that Carl has made against you on IPVM. If so, please link to them and I will review.

Beyond that, you are, like me, a public figure in the industry. Criticism is part of the package.

As for HDcctv, what is there to cover on HDcctv? You tell me a specific product that is really attractive, why it is attractive and we will consider. Last time we asked for this, you demurred with a link to the HDcctv compliant list. Who among those 9 total companies has the most compelling offering that is leading HDcctv's 'success'? Perhaps Rockoff Security?

I find it ironic that I am accused of heaping personal abuse on somebody who, over the years, has personally abused HDcctv's detractors innumerable times on LinkedIn.

Btw, speaking of abuse, your comment, "It looks like the founder started drinking all-IP Kool Aid before the end; maybe he overdosed."

You don't think that maybe he, like many others, became disillusioned because of the lack of HDcctv progress? For instance, they recently declared, "When the HDcctv eco system wont change not to much will happen........" bemoaning, "the little real news about hdcctv."

Hi John,

You're right, I'm a public figure now ... when the hell did that happen? :) Anyway, fair cop. If it makes people feel better to add nothing beyond "I hate that public figure, oh boy what a jerk he is!" and you're fine with it, then who am I to complain?

There's no need for me to pick favourites among HDcctv-compliant products: All the cameras deliver live views that are at least as good as any same-resolution IP camera, with no set-up considerations beyond aiming and focusing, and they interoperate out of the box with the compliant DVRs. You might evaluate the Euresys ONVIF-conformant HD IP encoder, and tell us how it compares with Axis's analog IP encoders, or with MP IP camera products. IP encoders make up 1/2 of Axis' revenue; wouldn't HDcctv IP encoders be interesting, even to the all-IP-all-the-time crowd?

Certainly HDcctv Magazine (whatever in heaven's name may be going on over there) isn't your main source of insight about HDcctv. Did you cover the Sep 2012 announcement of 8 chips implementing the functions needed for HDcctv compliance in DVRs and cameras? How about the multi-channel received chips that are reducing HDcctv DVR BOM costs? That announcement also tells the technical story as to why so few of the products designed in 2009/2010 are capable of being certified HDcctv compliant. Are you tracking the enhanced capabilities and delivery of HDcctv 2.0, HDcctv XR, and HDcctv CX? Plenty to cover.

Back to the OP: What do you think they mean about the HDcctv eco system?

Todd, please point to where specifically anyone on IPVM has said that they 'hate you' or that you are a 'jerk'.

As for HDcctv IP encoders, unless the combination of HDcctv cameras + encoders are cost competitive with IP cameras, there's little reason to analyze further. (btw, your claim about IP encoders making up 1/2 of Axis's revenue is astoundingly false. You'd be better off staying away from claims that are so laughably out of date.)

As for chips, our coverage focuses on products for end users. Talk to us about new HDcctv cameras and recorders, cite pricing and explain why they are significantly enhancing their competitive positioning.

Stop lumping HDcctv and HD SDI. Even without that, do you have any third party source for this fastest growing claim (either for HDcctv or HD SDI)? Moreover, tell us what the sales are of just the products on your HDcctv compliant list, breaking them down for Asia, Americas and EMEA.

I have no dog in this hunt. That said, I was shocked at what I saw when I was at the 2012 China Security Expo in Beijing last December, they weren't touting IP, but it was HD SDI all over. Just about all the manufacturers agreed, HD SDI was indeed taking off in China. I have no data, but from the looks of things it reminded me of H.264 uptick during the period of 2004-2005 in China.

It is true most of the products that made their way into US market are of pretty lousy quality, but who knows. Maybe things will be changing.

To add,

This whole HDcctv vs. HD-SDI battle reminds me in some respects of the VHS vs. Beta wars of the 1980's and the HD-DVD vs. BluRay wars of last decade; more so the first. Beta proponents touted the technical superiority of their technology while VHS quickly matched or exceeded Beta's capabilities with every "advancement". And Beta stumbled early in the game by offering only 1-hour recording capability while VHS offered 2-hour recording from the beginning. Beta came out with an L-750 tape that allowed 1-1/2 hours, then added the BII speed, which doubled the maximum recording time to 3 hours but by that time, Matsushita had been manufacturing machines that could record 4 hours on a T-120 tape for some time. Interestingly, the 4-hour "LP" speed was supposedly requested by RCA because that was the average length of a televised football game.

Beta went on to develop "Hi Fi" for improved sound, claiming that VHS couldn't duplicate it but JVC soon released products that used depth multiplexing to accomplish the same goal. Beta introduced Super Beta with better resolution, followed shortly by VHS' S-VHS. Despite all of Beta's supposed technical superiority, it didn't matter in the end. VCRs were often being used to record poor-quality signals and played back on TV's that were incapable of displaying much better images.

Granted, there were some serious differences between the two tape technologies but the commonality between HDcctv and HD-SDI only makes feature duplication easier. In the end, customers chose the product that met their needs in terms of price (VHS was almost always cheaper) and brand (Beta only had Sony, Toshiba, Zenith and Sanyo/Fisher, while VHS had JVC, Panasonic, RCA, Magnavox/Quasar and a slew of other reconized brands in their camp).

I believe that similarities of the stories point to an eventual failure of HDcctv as being superfluous. What I am watching for is the start of Beta (uh, I mean HDcctv) manufacturers to start "jumping ship" to HD-SDI. That would be a stong indication of HDcctv's impending demise.

Undisclosed, thanks for the feedback. It will be interesting to see how it translates in the American market. So far, the options are extremely underwhelming - in terms of product selection, price, feature sets, etc.

The other thing I am curious to see is how much adoption vs vendor promotion is occurring. For instance, if you simply looked at trade show displays, analytics looked to be taking off in the 2005 - 2007 time frame. But, as it turned out, it was vendors making bets that turned out to be bad.

Do you have a sense of why people are buying HD SDI in China? And what market segments?

I think the infrastructure in China has much to do with the HD SDI uptick. IP penetration has been slow in the surveillance space, perhaps due to the lack of IT talent and staff, this makes HD SDI a pretty compelling proposition. Let's not forget the quality expectation in China is low, so whatever offering we deem unacceptable here in US is just fine in China.

Based on the conversations I had, I don't believe it was vendor promotions that is driving the market. China might very well be uniquely suited for HD SDI. As a manufacturer of VMS and DVR appliances, we seriously considered diving into the SDI space after my trip. But the lack of quality camera offerings in US gave us pause.

Marty,

Not quite correct.

I was heavily involved in the industry at the time and I've both seen plenty of Beta porns (mostly stuck in VCRs) and observed Beta's steep decline well before they lost their licensing agreements. And Sony retained licenses with its own studios well after others dropped out. In fact, it wasn't the Beta manufacturers who dropped out but the studios and especially the duplication plants who watched Beta become an ever-decreasing part of their sales. Then rental stores that had limited shelf space decided to devote the vast majority of it to in-depth stock of the most popular titles in the most popular format, rather than trying to satisfy a declining number of Beta owners.

In the past, some people wrote that "IP vs HDcctv" was like VHS versus Beta. It seemed like there was just too much momentum behind "all-things-IP" for anyone to seriously consider alternatives. Now that HDcctv is taking off all over the world, we haven't heard that old simile in a while.

This is the first I've read that "HD-SDI vs HDcctv" might be like VHS versus Beta. Too funny!

HDcctv is the adaptation of HD-SDI for surveillance, under license from SMPTE. There is no single HD-SDI standard, there is no compliance certification protocol for HD-SDI, there is no organization backing a global HD-SDI standard for surveillance, there is no one working on enhancing surveillance capabilities in any flavour of HD-SDI. Sure, it usually takes little or no tweaking to make HD-SDI products interoperate; it's simple and effective, like we pointed out in the 2008. However, there are cases of SDI non-interoperability, and there can be no expectation of out-of-the-box SDI plug & play. HDcctv is plug & play by design, and it's getting better: HDcctv XR is a new PHY that doubles transmission distance over HDcctv 1.0 / SMPTE 292M, HDcctv CX is a new PHY that works directly over Cat-5e/Cat-6 infrastructure, and HDcctv 2.0 includes logical and electrical enhancements to deliver bi-directional data and audio communications.

The marketing efforts of the HDcctv Alliance paved the way for HDcctv products (certified HDcctv-compliant or otherwise), successfully questioning the dogma that every camera should be an IP camera. Jumping ship from HDcctv in favour of HD-SDI? Hardly. The chip makers are voting with their feet; let us know if any chip maker is bringing any new capabilities for any of the flavours of HD-SDI.

Under our industry-unique license agreement with SMPTE, the HDcctv Alliance is ideally situated to continue to leverage SMPTE advances to higher-pixel-rate transmission methods, for higher resolutions and higher frame rates, as they become available.

Hi Undisclosed Manufacturer,

Thanks for this refreshing alternative point of view. It will be interesting to see if you can help John understand what the appeal of HDcctv equipment might be. I'm looking forward to IPVM's first poll of integrators asking what the pro's and con's might be in specific circumstances.

Although Chinese culture may not be intrinsically as aligned with high-quality manufacturing the way Japanese culture is, for example, the Chinese are pragmatic, and there are many smart, well-educated folks in China. There's tons of I.T. talent over there. They also have more disposable cash than anyone else these days. The China domestic market is adopting both MP IP cameras and HDcctv cameras. They don't seem as hung up on religious camera selection over there and appear more willing to choose the best tool for the individual job than folks in, say, northern Europe.

Todd,

I still contend that you tend to include HD-SDI when it suits you and exclude it when it doesn't.

So please state it clearly: is there anything preventing chip makers from incorporating HDcctv "advancements" in non-HDcctv chips? Are there specific licensing agreements? Are they pledging to produce different chips for HD-SDI than for HDcctv?

Hi John,

As a putative journalist, you need to be able to distinguish between ad hominem insults and opposing arguments. A religious point of view is one that is not subject to rational review. To advocate that any one local-site transport technology is always best, be it HDcctv or Ethernet or CVBS, is a religious point of view.

You continue to use "IP" as synonymous with "all IP cameras." IP video already has 100% market share, the only question is whether every camera should be an IP camera. You're sticking with that position, and looking in the rear view mirror you can't see any reason to change your mind. There are tons of HDcctv products available today, approaching as much variety as CCTV products: from highest quality to least expensive. Have you seen the $70/channel HD-SDI systems from China? That's four cameras + full-speed 1080p DVR for US$280. I haven't seen it, but that might prick your ears up. It would be hard to buy a PC capable of running a real VMS for that little, let alone Ethernet switch + four 2MP IP cameras, even if the VMS itself were free.

I wonder why you might expect the HDcctv Alliance to offer products. Does ONVIF offer products? Maybe it's because you're accustomed to criticizing manufacturers. We're managing a standard and helping people understand that they have an alternative.

While I fight with dogmatists, HDcctv product manufacturers have created a fast-growing industry. Many of these companies also make IP cameras. HDcctv adoption is crossing from early adopters into the early majority right now, while you're still questioning the premise. I hope IPVM are able to get out of the U.S. this year, meet with executives (other than IP camera salesmen) from the middle east, India, China, Russia, Korea, Taiwan, and get a better sense of what's to come for this industry. Alternatively, keep criticizing what hasn't turned up yet on your doorstep, and keep being surprised by what's happening out there in the wider world.

Todd, that's a straw man - "To advocate that any one local-site transport technology is always best, be it HDcctv or Ethernet or CVBS, is a religious point of view." I don't believe that anything is 'always best' nor does most anyone here.

Saying that people are 'drinking cool aid' is offensive and implies they are members of a cult.

As for your amazingly low cost non HDcctv / HD SDI offerings, I saw your discussion on it. Who in their right mind is going to buy products from Longsee (mega-spammer) or Acesee? And those are almost certainly OEM prices, not dealer or even end user. Plus no support, no hard drives, etc. You are comparing spam to prosciutto.

I don't know if you do these things to play games with people or you simply misunderstand such basic issues, but I cannot imagine this is convincing many.

Todd,

Again, you can't decide which is which. Your statement "There are tons of HDcctv products available today, approaching as much variety as CCTV products: from highest quality to least expensive. Have you seen the $70/channel HD-SDI systems from China?" is another instance where you blur the distinction between the two.

And you still haven't answered my question, which by no means can be considered a "personal attack": Does HDcctv hold exclusive rights to the technologies for HD-SDI advances such as extended length, UTP transport and bi-directional communications?

Hi Carl,

The distinction is crystal clear: HDcctv-compliant products are listed. Other products in the category, either made with old (broadcast-era) chips or by manufacturers for whom quality is not their first priority, are sold as various flavours of SDI.

Yes, the HDcctv Alliance holds significant intellectual property positions with respect to HDcctv XR, HDcctv CX, and HDcctv 2.0. Those are all HDcctv Alliance developments, not reverse licensed by SMPTE or anyone else. In some cases, device (DVR/camera/etc.) manufacturers are required to pay license fees to the patent holder(s) for the right to use the patented technologies.

It would be great if you, or someone, had the courage to start "HD-SDI Alliance." Then we could direct all the questions we get about non-interoperable or under-performing SDI equipment to someone who's willing to take responsibilty for non-compliance-tested equipment in this category.

Please clarify, John: For HD surveillance, do you believe that Ethernet is always the optimum local-site transport technology? Does "IP Video" mean something more than "all IP cameras?"

Looking forward to your beginning to cover HDcctv technology and adoption per se, now that you acknowledge the appeal of HDcctv, rather than merely sniping at our attempts to rise above the all-IP-camera noise blanketing the market these many years.

No Todd. Stop beating around the bush. I didn't ask for a list of HDcctv-compliant products. I asked you why you lump HDcctv and HD-SDI products together when you discuss sales numbers or China deployments, but insist on disparaging HD-SDI's supposed lack of interoperability.

And your answer "the HDcctv Alliance holds significant intellectual property positions with respect to HDcctv XR, HDcctv CX, and HDcctv 2.0" is another obfuscation of my question. I deliberately didn't ask if HDcctv owns or control the rights to those specific terms, but the actual rights to the hardware and/or software that makes them possible. In other words, is a manufacturer who builds HDcctv products or specific components for those products that enable those features prevented from selling those products as HD-SDI products or those components for use in HD-SDI products?

Carl,

HDcctv is a product category. All SDI products are in the category. Only the certified HDcctv-compliant products can be guaranteed by the manufacturers to interoperate with other makers' products out of the box.

YES, making, using, or selling products implementing some aspects of the next-generation HDcctv standards would be infringing valid patents that are licensed only to HDcctv Alliance Member companies. No, the Alliance is not the patent owner. Please see the I.P. sharing agreement posted on the Alliance website for more detail about how the RAND licensing works.

Interesting reading. I especially like:

17.4 Notwithstanding section 17.1, if the Alliance is wound up or dissolved at such time when Member is a Member, then the license granted to such Member under section 10.5(a) shall become perpetual and survive termination of this Agreement, such license shall further include the right to create derivative works of the Specification, and Member’s obligation under section 10.5(b)(ii) shall terminate.

I dunno, I think the most interesting/amusing/sad/wtf? thing I get out of all this (at least at this point in time, I'm sure it will change again) is Todd's continually implying that anyone who doesn't LOVE HDcctv is automatically in the "IP-everywhere" camp. I posted on a LinkedIn thread a while back about how I still use a mix of analog and IP but saw nothing attractive in HDcctv, and Todd's immediate reply was to accuse me of being on the "all-IP" bandwagon. Talk about twisting one's words!

"HDcctv is a product category. All SDI products are in the category."

You see, Carl, this is why he lumps HDcctv and HD-SDI sales figures together: HD-SDI products ARE all HDcctv products, whether they want to be or not.

Literally yesterday, Todd said, "I wonder why you might expect the HDcctv Alliance to offer products. Does ONVIF offer products? Maybe it's because you're accustomed to criticizing manufacturers. We're managing a standard and helping people understand that they have an alternative."

So, yesterday, HDcctv was a 'standard' like ONVIF. Today, it's a product category that covers everything SDI, even products that do not use his standard.

Completely illogical. This type of contradiction happens again and again with Todd.

Oh John, there you go attacking Todd again, you nasty man, you.

Todd trying to convince us HD-SDI is HDcctv (or is it the other way around?):

Yup, HDcctv is both a standard and a product category. Boggles the mind, eh?

The Alliance manages the HDcctv standard, we're not selling products. We are promoting the product category. Within the category, HDcctv compliance certification is important for ensuring interoperability and electrical performance. If you prefer your products not tested to any global standard, then by all means, go with whatever proprietary implementation of whichever SMPTE spec your favourite manufacturer chooses. I'm still wondering to whom we should refer complaints about SDI non-interoperability.

Should every HD camera be an IP camera? Marty says obviously not, why do I keep belabouring this point; yet IPVM's last word on the topic is that you'll start covering HDcctv when it become appealing ... which hasn't happened yet.

Whatever you might prefer to call it, why not acknowledge the appeal of HDcctv, start covering it, understand the relationship between HD-SDI and HDcctv, take a peek at what's coming down the pike. Heck, why not suggest a better name for the fastest-growing product category in this industry's history?

So Matt,

By your own admission, when it comes to HD surveillance, you are exactly in the all-IP-camera camp.

Marty, what is Matt missing?

Well Todd, as far as HD, yes, I am "all-IP"... being as the only other option is SDI, and I see no benefit to it. But again, you're twisting words, as I said nothing specific about HD video vs. SD.

Todd, HDcctv has failed as a standard as hardly anyone is choosing to be certified. It would be far more accurate to simply talk about HD SDI as the product category with the tiny subset of HDcctv compliant products being a segment.

As for HDcctv's appeal, there is no appeal, unless you mean HD SDI. And even then, there's no appeal in the Western markets regardless of what level there may be in Asia. You need better products to compete in the West. There's no point wasting our time doing so until it gets there.

Finally, unless you can validate your 'fastest-growing product category' claim with a 3rd party source, I will delete it and any future references.

Hi Matt,

If I mistook you for someone else (there are so many!), I regret for twisting your words. I trust you'll recover.

Back to the substance: Why does Marty tell me to shut up already, it's obvious to *everyone* that a good designer sees the merits of HDcctv in some circumstances, yet an experienced installer such as yourself just can't see any benefit to HDcctv, ever?

[Moderator: Section deleted as commenter makes an unsubstantiated claim about their products growing at far higher rates than their competitors.]

From now on, no self-promotional claims are allowed about growth rates unless they cite a specific third party source including the name of the report/publication and its date. Otherwise, marketers can simply throw out anything as presumed fact.

John,

Delete me if you will, you have a history of deleting/blocking the HDcctv Alliance point of view. You can't get me for being off-topic on this discussion, for a change. It's all about the HDcctv message.

200,000 HDcctv cameras shipped worldwide last year. That is my number, based on reports from Alliance Members, including those who supply a majority of chips in the product category. Do you have any other numbers? It would be self-fulfilling for you to delete my posts about numbers, just because no one else has published numbers. Why keep a lid on that info? Are you going to delete my contributions wholesale, or just a [claim elided because we can't verify it]?

You're not grasping the facts on the ground: There is a time lag from standard to chips to products in the market. Is it that people are choosing not to certify HDcctv compliance, or that they're selling products designed with chips that don't implement the functions required for compliance certification? How would you know, given that you don't even cover this important category yet?

The chip makers drive product innovation. There are more chip makers in the Alliance than you might be aware of. Why would these guys be working so hard on a failed standard? Isn't it true that about zero chip makers are investing in 100% multi-vendor interoperable IP camera solutions? What do the chip makers get that you don't get?

Your scope has narrowed from "HDcctv has no appeal" to "HDcctv has no appeal in Western markets." That's progress. Does IPVM serve only the West these days? One of our Members in California told me last week that he's selling 300 HD DVRs and more than 1000 cameras each month in the U.S. alone. That's appeal. Every one of those customers might wonder, if they're paying attention to your feed, what you're not seeing.

Todd, your 'information' cannot be validated and has not been validated by any third parties. The 200k number is simply a salesperson boasting.

As for the member in California, is it Randy Jones at SG Digital who remains the only US person I see promoting HDcctv. 1000 cameras each month is not that impressive, especially if that's your top guy in the US. Who else do you have? Cite specifics or don't make claims.

I'll abide by the no-growth-rate rule, assuming 3rd-party validation means something like IMS or (shudder) A&S ... my numbers do come from third parties, but they're not published.

You should look around the U.S. more! Randy's not the only one. Lorex is an example of a company moving HDcctv product. That number came from an Asian manufacturer (not EverFocus).

Say John, care to make an over/under bet on how many stands at ISCW are showing HDcctv equipment? Surely, you wouldn't take the under on 2 :^)

Sorry, I'm not much of an artist, but you get the gist...

For those readers who may be more multimedia in the way they absorb information:

Hey John,

You challenged me to point out personal abuse.

I reckon Carl's earlier cartoon is a legitimate attempt at satire, although the content highlights his inability (unwillingness?) to grasp my answers to his questions.

And Brian's video is an instructive investment of your readers' contributions to education about video surveillance; it might actually make the conversation easier to follow for some, and those who really hate me for pointing out the all-MP-IP-camera fallacy for HD might really appreciate the fart noises.

Does Carl's latest contribution advance the conversation in any way? It looks like a pure ad hominem swipe from here. How do you see it?

Carl's picture? The picture of the man with two heads? Please explain how you believe that picture is ad hominin.

Also, feel free to explain why accusing people who disagree with you as 'drinking the kool aid' is not offensive? I've already made it clear that in American culture, 'drinking the kool aid' is a derogatory term that implies someone is stupid and gullible. How does that 'advance the conversation in any way'?

No, the man with the two heads is the attempt at satire to which I referred.
The latest contribution is the picture of what's his name, the actor ...

My use of the term is apt: "Drinking the kool aid" means "holding an unquestioned belief" as defined in Drinking the Kool-Aid - Wikipedia. What makes you think it means "the drinker is stupid and gullible?" Lots of people hold unquestioned beliefs. The belief I'm questioning is whether every (HD) camera should be an IP camera. Looking forward to your severely delayed publication of the reasons behind your promised recommendations that every HD camera should be an IP camera. If you've already provided it, and it was "I think the prices of alternatives are too high and the quality too low and only one guy sells it in my country" then I suggest you ask some more questions (do some research) before tripling down on your belief.

The picture of Borat with two thumbs up is an ad hominin attack? Against who? You? Explain.

Thanks for citing the Wikipedia article about 'Drinking the Kool Aid'. Check the two examples they give - people taking acid or committing suicide. It has deeply negative connotations. It's offensive. If you have any respect for anyone else in the conversation, you will apologize and commit to not using the reference again.

And it's especially ironic that a person like you, who has an extremely vested interest in HDcctv, accuses the rest of us as being the ones with 'unquestioned beliefs'. Your reputation and livelihood depends on HDcctv. The rest of us can easily switch between different products, categories, etc.

YOU ARE A VENDOR. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCUSE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT YOUR PRODUCTS AS "DRINKING KOOL AID" OR "HOLDING UNQUESTIONED BELIEFS". SHOW SOME RESPECT TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU DO THIS AGAIN, I WILL PERMANENTLY BAN YOU FROM COMMENTING ON IPVM. UNDERSTOOD?

Sure John.

As I wrote, it's clear that Carl is taking a content-free swipe at me ... how else would it be relevant in this context? You reckon Carl's posting Bhorat is a self portrait, perhaps? Or some other non sequitur? Wow.

I'm the first to point out that HDcctv cameras are not the best choice for every application. I continue to question your assertion that IP cameras are the right choice in all cases, or in all HD cases, or in all HD cases in the USA, as the case may be. You're wiggling to get away from an indefensible position.

You're thrashing, first accusing me of saying people are dumb because you were not familiar with common English vernacular, then accusing me of offending everyone for literally alluding to committing suicide, based on a quick mis-reading of one Wikipedia entry. One hopes that's not how you do all your "industry-leading" research. A lot of folks in today's media might owe you an apology for using this common phrase: Drinking the Kool-Aid - TV Tropes.

At any rate, no need to scream, I understand that if I use this phrase again, you will kick me out of IPVM (again).

While we're talking about vested interests, your blog appears based in the falsehood that there's an on-going migration to IP video. That migration already happened years ago; we're all using IP video. There is an on-going migration to HD surveillance. The legitimate open question is whether it's always best to convert HD video to IP in the camera mount, in every case, at least for the USA (which you switched to today). End customers don't experience IP transmission on the local site (unless they see some Ethernet-related problems); focusing on IP Video Market may have seemed fashionable in 2008 but, really, it's beside the point in 2013. Uh oh, another hijacked thread, this discussion is about why the HDcctv standard failed because we're so bad at marketing, as you keep reminding your readers, instead of covering the subject in earnest.

Todd, I am not responding to your straw man arguments ('blog appears based in the falsehood').

I get it, you want us to favorably cover the things you sell and you are upset that we have not. You are wasting my time that could be more productively spent on providing new research, tests and training for our other members.

If other members want HDcctv and HD SDI reviews, let them speak up. No more from you Todd.

"Finally, unless you can validate your 'fastest-growing product category' claim with a 3rd party source, I will delete it and any future references."

Now John, you're being too critical of poor Todd. After all, jumping from one unit to ten DOES represent a 1000% increase - I'd say that's pretty fast-growing! Whether it can maintain that pace is a whole other matter...

Todd, if people are being hard on you, it's only because you make it so easy for them. Funny thing is, it's not just here - seems to me I see the same thing everywhere you post. Maybe the Internet is trying to tell you something?

It just keeps getting funnier, Matt.

You're right that the growth is statistically huge because it started from such a low base. Pending a 3rd party market research report, I don't know that either of us is permitted to discuss HDcctv market share in detail here.

But here's why this is so funny: back when the IP camera market hypers were claiming huge statistical growth, others dismissed the numbers because the base was so low. Now you're adopting that same line. Too funny!

Some people have been trying to shout us down for years, Matt. New ideas aren't always welcome, especially when they challenge the reasons behind big investments in product line decisions. Today, the blogs reflect growing numbers of folks who agree with our assumptions and our logic, whereas that noisy group of inveterate snipers (see above) remains pretty much the same.

Anybody want some action on an over/under bet at ISCW? How many people showing HDcctv equipment in a fortnight? John's already got "1" ... anyone else?

Todd,

Of all the things I posted in this thread, you took the Borat picture as a personal attack against you? Now that is far funnier than anything else expounded here. It was just what it appeared to be - two thumbs up for Brian's media summary.

I have replaced the offending image. Ad hominem, my ass!

What a gift this thread has become; I thought for sure it would've died 12 hours ago... I just have to think at this point Todd, wouldn't just ignoring this just allowing it to drop off and get farther down the discussion list be better off than to keep commenting and pushing it to the top? This website is, when all is said and done, "IP Video Market", we are the preachers and the choir (see what I did there?), and I don't think getting into a bunch of combatitive arguments with the devil's advocates (again) here is really going to forward your efforts. It's just embarrassing for everyone.

I can only assume that either A) you subscribe to the "any publicity is good publicity" theory, or B) you are an independent contractor of IPVM.com and every time John want's to grab eyeballs (a couple weeks out prior to ISC), he gives you a ring and BOOM let the insanity begin. If B isn't the case, you should probably think about having that conversation with John.

Sean, how about a write-in vote for C) oblivious to the animosity he engenders, and stumbling blithely ever forward?

@Matt, regardless of the lack of tact shown in most of his public communications, I don't think he's oblivious.

@Sean, @Matt, I don't get Todd's strategy in all this. Tact or no tact, fighting with people on the Internet is not productive in building an 'HDcctv Alliance'. Maybe he thinks this is Guerilla marketing but who's he winning over? The start of this thread showed that one of the few people / sites supporting him has publicly and unceremoniously dumped him.

My theory is Todd is most motivated to winning the 'debate' and cannot control himself. That's why he spends so much time each week jousting with people on various LinkedIn groups.

It's a terrible marketing strategy, whether he is oblivious or not of it.

It is entertaining to see you guys struggle.

IPVM is invested in IP cameras dominating the security market. Your problem is the increasingly obvious fact that not every camera should be an IP camera. Your latest position (breaking news just in time for ISCW!) is that of course not every camera should be an IP camera, it's just that every camera probably should be an HD camera, and certainly every HD camera should be an IP camera, at least in USA and maybe parts of Europe. Did I get that right?

IPVM is afraid of HDcctv. For example, IPVM identified HDcctv in Sep 2009 as one of the potential threats that would derail IP cameras from dominating the market. Those invested in the all-IP-cameras doctrine have good reason to be getting nervous: Those tiny cameras fit in analog camera housings, but they're digital? Damn, those live views look great. Gee, that was easy to set up. Gulp, hundreds of factories started cranking these things out overnight; is it really true that HDcctv cameras are much simpler to develop than IP cameras? Uh oh, are HD DVRs going to be more cost effective than NVRs for same-resolution applications, as they proved to be for SD video? How the hell can complete first-generation HDcctv systems be on the market already under $100 per channel?

I've gotten new insight from Europe about what happened over at HDcctvMagazine.com. I am very sad for the founder, and I hope that his family will be OK. The consequences of that person's life struggles do not reflect any worse on the HDcctv movement than, for example, IPVM suing Michael Miller, a staunch all-IP-camera advocate, for a perceived copyright violation, or something. Stuff happens.

The only way we (the authors on this thread) are wasting our time is if only 5 or 6 people are reading this stuff. I suspect that while some folks are just tagging along for the smack-down snipes, the majority of readers are interested in professional surveillance eqiupment.

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote, "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."

Your personal animosity toward me may have less impact on the industry than you give yourselves credit for. I look forward to your studied coverage of this product category. I don't expect it to be un-biased or positive, but I do expect it to be well-researched.

PS: John, you were kidding when you said that Randy Jones is the only US guy moving HDcctv gear. C'mon, is any of you up for an over/under bet on HDcctv on display at ISCW? Let's pick a number: 40 booths? 150 products? Suggest something.

PPS: I notice on the Anixter thread this morning that someone characterized their decision to commit only to IP cameras as drinking a specific sugary refreshment. Do you find that offensive?