Claimed: All Surveillance Manufacturers Are Proprietary

Just because something is open-source does not always mean there is going to be this magic community of fixers and enhancers. Github is filled with buggy abondoned projects, all of them "open".

There are already enough items to deal with in a security system, I do not think we have a strong need for open software in the sense of open source. We *do* need software and hardware that is reliable, compaitble with a wide variety of products/protocols, and supported by the manufacturer for ongoing fixes and enhancements.

People want reasonable assurance that whatever they deploy today has a strong chance of still being relevant and workable 5 or 10 years from now. I think overall health and stability of the company is as important (more important) than ready access to any source code used to deliver those products. If new standards and technologies come along (like h.265 on the horizon), you want to be able to reasonably assume your vendor(s) of choice will embrace those technologies as they stabilize.

As you point out, I think that Mobotix fails today in most of the basic tests of "am I reassured the choices I make today will still look good 5 years from now?"

There are benefits to a "closed" strategy if you do it right. Microsoft essentially rode that wave for a very long time, and still today manages to pull in a decent chunk of revenue. But other than both company names starting with "M", I don't see a lot of commonalities between Mobotix and Microsoft in their broader strategies.

Reactions:

Ari Erenthal

Chesapeake & Midlantic

I always thought "proprietary" was the opposite of "intercompatible".

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

In reply to Ari Erenthal

I am not sure 'intercompatible' is a word. Scrabble fans?

But maybe 'interoperable' is the opposite of proprietary?

Reactions:

(2)

Ari Erenthal

Chesapeake & Midlantic

Of course it's a word. I used it in a sentence and you knew immediately what it meant without being told. Boom, new word.

But we'll use "interoperable" if you don't feel like being as daring as I am.

Reactions:

(1)

(2)

Mark McRae

Inaxsys Security Systems

In reply to Ari Erenthal

Only the very smartest are able to create new words

Reactions:

(3)

Brian Rhodes

IPVMU Certified

In reply to Mark McRae

Winner of the hypergeneral statement of the day award.

Reactions:

Tedor Gligorich

Open architecture television receivers and extensible/intercompatible digital video representations

In reply to Ari Erenthal

Professed MIT man seriously use word without lingering peerful wrath, Cited by 4, Scrabble score: 23

Reactions:

Jack Sink

IPVMU Certified

1) Understand market conditions and reasonable expectations of the provider and end user communities.

2) Ensure your product meets or exceeds those expectations.

3) Remember Sisyphus and don't try warping the expectations of users to fit your product line.

4) Failing at point #3, its time to dump your stock.

Reactions:

Ethan Ace

There is so much wrong in this video I just sat with my jaw agape the whole time. This is on the level of misleading marketing from a few years ago, the heyday that brought us "replaces 25 analog cameras!" and "JPEG2000 is the only CODEC suitable for video surveillance!"

I'm just baffled.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

I know the point you're getting at, and I mostly agree, but it is throwing the word "open" further into chaos.

Truthfully the Mobotix guy is correct when talking about Proprietary and Open Source. The problem is that we-the-people do not know the true definitions and/or throw them around loosely (I'm just as guilty).

The problem is we use the word "Open" wrong. If our "Industry Software" was "open", then we all could study the full code, make changes to it and even distribute it to anyone for any purpose. In fact, it will come with a license stating this. It can also have an open source certification.

The vast majority of the industry software is proprietary. Your slider scale should look more like this.

The word you want to use is "interoperability" or "IP interoperability" like ONVIF does. In fact, ONVIF only uses the word "open" when they state they are an "open industry forum" and state "Open to all companies and organizations". ONVIF creates standards.

API's/SDK's help make our software more "interoperable".

Something beneficial would be coming up with a scale that shows each VMS & Camera Manufacturer and where they rate on the Proprietary side. Proprietary is not a dirty word, as long as you can work with other devices and not be locked down completely.

Reactions:

(3)

John Honovich

IPVM

"Something beneficial would be coming up with a scale that shows each VMS & Camera Manufacturer and where they rate on the Proprietary side."

The challenge is that people will disagree about how much weight goes to each potential component of 'openness'. Milestone know vehemently disagrees that being owned by a camera company has any impact on their openness, etc.

It's easy to make the contrast between Mobotix and the rest of the industry, because Mobotix is so obstinate but, e.g., who is more open / less proprietary - Exacq, Milestone, Genetec?

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

Who is less proprietary?

The answer should not reflect ownership.

The answer should be based off of interopability.

How many camera models and manufacturers does it work with?

Does the model have complete functionality?

The same as above with Access Control and various other devices, platforms, apps, and etc.
What does the SDK\API's consist of?

Outside of the answer as notes

If you want to add future speculation into the mix, then it should be countered with past history as well.

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

"The answer should not reflect ownership."

And that's the problem with doing a scale. People are going to disagree about the assumptions used.

I think lots of reasonable people will find Genetec to be more open for camears than DVTel or Avigilon (as examples) because Genetec does not have its own camera line to push.

I am not seeking to debate this specific point. I am raising this as an example of why a scale is hard to design if people disagree on what drivers impact the scale.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

Then do multiple scales and add them up for an overall score. For each scale, you can have micro scales. I would not call the overall scale as "Open", as that term is being misused and people will think the software is actually "Open", which can be a good thing or a bad thing to an end user. With individual metric scores, people can decide for themselves what drivers impact it.

Interoperability Scale (How proprietary is the actual software)
Company Scale (What is the overall attitude/reflection/etc. of company to working with other manufacturers - Do they use ONVIF as a standard guideline? If they do, are they an official ONVIF member/certified? Or does the company use another standard or go it alone)
Parent Company Scale (Same as above but for the Parent Company if they have one)
Distribution Scale (Can you buy product at various Distribution Channels? Is 3-4 Distribution Channels good? Anything more or under bad? Survey Integrators on their thought on how many channels should be available and what is considered too many to help this metric along)
Integrator Scale (The same thought as above. For an end user not to get stuck with a specific integrator, you need more than 1 certified integrator in that area) Survey various groups how many is the correct amount and how many is too many or not enough)

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

I'm not seeking a debate or heated exchange, but this post made me realize how the term "Open" has been misused by all of us and you have a forum that can start putting the terms back to original meanings.

I have never sold or used a Mobotix camera in my life, however, what the Mobotix guy said about their software is pretty darn true. Marketing has dirtied the word "open". "Open" should only be used if you have 100% access to the Source Code, make changes to it and to be able to distribute it for any purpose.

Example of Marketing

"Open Architecture"

"Non Proprietary"

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

Jeremiah, 'open', applied to products, is an inherently vague term.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

Vague, because it has been muddied. When something is vague, then someone or group needs to clarify and classify it.

Reactions:

Tedor Gligorich

Original meaning of Open != Open Source (this is brand GNU usage)

Original Open by self usually mean Open API or Standard API

Mobotix mixing up both meaning on purpose, try for confusion.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

In reply to Tedor Gligorich

You're getting a Public API confused with Open API. A Public API can be released to everyone or a certain group of people or company.

This is the muddied part. Media is notorious for mixing them up and companies are using the mixup for marketing purposes (Pressure because others are doing it) or are just confused themselves.

An Open API is not that common, however they are becoming more common like Facebooks SocialAPI and Wikipedia.

A web based VMS with an Open API would be pretty cool.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

"Open Platform" is another marketing term. It basically means it has API's.

Open Platform sounds better than API and it has the word Open which means freedom...right?

Reactions:

Carl Lindgren

Since proprietor and proprietary have the same latin root, the opposite of the one should be equivalent opposite of the other. The opposite of proprietor is customer so the opposite of proprietary should be customary.

Ipso facto....

Reactions:

Dale White

Thank you to those who brought the discussion to the real issue of interoperability. At the risk of revealing my age, this is a very old discussion and may turn into a rant. The reason PC is far more prolific than Apple today is because of interoperability. It's only in recent history you could buy a printer from HP that would work on your Apple computer. It had nothing to do with which one was the better computer. In fact, you could argue that Apple was the better computer. For most purposes though, PC won.

End users have struggled with this in security since the begining. Can you imagine after nearly a hundred years, buying an analog camera that would not connect to your recording system. IP didn't create the situation it has only complicated it. PTZ protocol is another example, going back to Diamond protocol for those of you who are old enough to know where that came from. Eventually, if you manufactured a PTZ, it had a half dozen protocols or it didn't sell.

From an end user standpoint, much of software design today stops short of a finished product. We live in an age where software designs other software and yet it is still a problem if you power up a network device before the server or vice versa! Wouldn't a simple loop solve this?

Interoperability requires a standard, not a new developer project for every SDK/API. I have high hopes for ONVIF but I also realize manufacturers feel they need a gimic to get you to buy their products. Trust me, a proprietary gimic is not what's required. A good product is what wins the day. Ask anyone who's ever scrapped a system because the company didn't embrace interoperability.

Interoperability means manufacturers adhere to a standard and things plug in and work, including the bells & whistles. NTSC was well established before me but it's like IP started us over again. Go ahead, someone bring up PAL, then find a camera that doesn't do both. Sometimes we go backwards. For decades we had 14" and 15" tires with reasonable prices. Anyone bought tires lately, 16", 17", 18", 19", 20", 22"?

"Proprietary" or "Open" may be the scale but "interoperability" makes a level plating field for either one. "He who is most interoperable wins!"

Taking a look at analog makes it easy to see. People didn't buy a camera because it was the only one that worked on their system (proprietary). They bought the best camera for the money and purpose.

OK, it did turn into a rant!

Reactions:

(3)

(1)

John Honovich

IPVM

MxInstaller is back, with another video: Open Platform vs Proprietary.

His key claims are:

and that because of that:

The conclusion being that all proprietary systems (Mobotix, everyone else) are the same.

Of course, this is absurd because Mobotix has refused over and over again to support other cameras and IP standards (like H.264 and ONVIF) while Mobotix's rivals add support routinely for third party cameras and new standards.

Reactions:

Jeremiah Boughton

Every IP video vendor wants to be associated with the “open platform” concept, but no one wants to be seen within a hundred feet of the word “proprietary”.

What he is saying is correct. They are all proprietary systems that have EULA's. Truthfully, you are locked into one software vendor even if you do have a lot of API's (Open Platform). In fact, there is someone on your discussion page looking to Unify 2 VMS's . Will these 2 VMS's work with each other without a 3rd party work-around? The answer is no.

I'm not hearing his claim that all proprietary systems are the same. He is stating they are all proprietary systems. He is not stating they are all the same in functioning or anything else.

I believe I know why he is stating this. It is because many people in the industry and many end users think that many of the VMS systems in the market are "Open Source" or "Open Platform", a marketing term which basically means API's, due to various marketing messages and misinformed information. All Mobotix is trying to do, in my opinion, is to educate people and try to play on a more level playing field.

Personally, I like API's.

I just read the blog posts that go with the videos. They explain everything and not a thing they write is misleading. They also explain why they are doing this post. Here is a few of their statements.

Some surveillance vendors go so far as to say that “open platform” technologies are non-proprietary.

Does “open platform” and “non-proprietary” mean the same thing? Devoid of semantics, the answer is no!

Reactions:

John Honovich

IPVM

"What he is saying is correct. They are all proprietary systems that have EULA's."

But it's reductionistic / misleading to focus on that.

Just because all systems are 'proprietary' does not mean they are all equally open / unopen.

Mobotix is more proprietary than Genetec. Anyone care to debate me on that?

Reactions:

Dale White

I don't understand the need to try and explain this unless they think people are falling for these marketing embelishments and they need to right the world.

Reactions:

Dale White