I'll copy my comment from the other thread over here:
Vlad - I don't want to toally derail this thread, but I'm curious why you think ACC is "closed" (or a 3 open-ness ;) )
ACC supports a variety of non-Avigilon cameras, encoders and other software integrations.
What features/functions make Milestone more open in your view?
This was my perception too: while Milestone and ACC are both "integrating" some devices ( Milestone quite a lot) , the level of integration is not always the maximum one for all devices.
I would give a 9 to Milestone if most of the cameras in their integrated list were working with Edge recording, and there were a decent number of DVRs. And then there is openess towards other stuff: access first, some intrusion, other IP stuff which would easily be integrated.
PS I obviously don't have any hands-on experience with Avigilon, but as the comments above show, it is at least the symbol of a closed system if not a 100% true one, but this is not a bad thing at all.
I don't have direct experience with Avigilon, but I have a lot with closed/propriatary systems. As an end user of these products for many years, I just can't understand why a customer would want it (my guess is lack of industry knowledge). I don't mean to knock the product since I haven't used it, but the system type quite honestly drives me mad. End users end up with a handful of camera choices, small pool of other integration partners, and the biggest one to me, there is no competitive pricing/bids after the system is in place. If you are getting a bid on 20 additional cameras, the only possible significant difference in cost is going to be labor. It's a no-win situation for the customer in my mind.
For integrators, I guess I can see why you would sell it. It removes the costant research and need for continued knowledge of industry products because that's all been decided for you (not trying to offend anyone, I know we're all busy, I just couldn't think of a diplomatic way to state this). Other than that though, I think many of the popular systems out there can run circles around closed systems on just options alone.
As for ONVIF, my personal opinion is it's a "sales feature" or a way to circumvent the fact that there is no true integration. Through the cameras I have setup using this, I view it as a shallow solution to a much deeper issue. It's a good tool if you need it, but I don't think it should be the sole path solution.
Honest question, what is defining "open" here?
There is a difference between "open" and "depth/breadth of 3rd party product support".
ACC is *very* open in that there is a robust SDK/API (yes, I know you don't like hearing that, but wait...) that almost anyone can leverage to add functional integrations to the platform. Camera support is *mostly* done via ONVIF. While not a perfect example, we also at the same time hear many people claim that the industry needs to do more to adhere to standards instead of custom 1-offs. Avigilon uses ONVIF heavily in their own cameras, though I'm sure some things (like pixel-motion) are not ONVIF yet.
I bring up the SDK, and really this is essentially the same version of "open" as Milestone (the primary example being used here). At VideoIQ when we wanted to integrate our edge storage, analytics alerts, and customizable meta-data overlays on video it became clear that "open" was kind of a misused term. There was no easy or direct path to get full support for these features in Milestone (or several other "open" VMS platforms).
If Milestone is so "open" (and I don't mean to pick on them specifically), then show me how you can implement your own custom video codec into Milestone easily. Show me how you can integrate your own edge-store API/format into Milestone easily. Show me how you can add customizable meta-data overlays to a video stream easily.
Open, for essentially all the VMS's on the market, tends to mean "we have some formats for you to interface to our primary functions. you most likely have to do all the work yourself, and sometimes get it certified, and then scheduled for release in a driver pack/update"
I don't think there is any VMS that is open to the extent any random hardware startup can create entirely new functionality or innovation and leverage it directly into the VMS.
Wow, i am almost sorry i started this. I didn't mean to bash Avigilon and not even Milestone which are both nice mature products just going on different routers about the same issue. But it seems somehow the market (or the subset who are following this site at least ) is very much concerned about how Avigilon is and will do business if there are so many threads ending up discussing them.... I would have bet Milestone's future would be more of a concern as it should affect a lot more partners, resellers, owners, etc....
The main point is open equals how many or how deep you can integrate 3rd party cameras encoders or DVR/NVR? IMO if you have a project big enough the integration can be done with help from producers of VMS. In the long run the battle will be decided by the depth of integration with 3rd party and also by real working analytics ( camera side or VMS side)
Words hold a lot of meaning... Open, in my vision/scale means more than number of cameras+DVR integrated...i think i will take the risk and state : performance and innovation need openess. Thus, an 'open' VMS , in 2 years when some new technology will come to the industry will either be the first to support it or will say " ok, we are about to, check back in 3 months ". And that should be appreciated by partners and be successful on the market. But money not always work this way, at least short term. To name another manufacturer, ( though again i have nothing against them ! ), here it is : Mobotix. I would say they are 1/10 open and as strong as they were a few years back saying their way is the future....well, it is not.
Milestone has no choice but to be open since they generate no revenue from the sale of endpoint devices.
Avigilon and Mobotix are a good deal less dependent on working with other people's stuff, so they spend a good deal less on 3rd party integration.
Maybe Canon will change the Milestone model now, but as of yet I haven't seen anything to suggest that Axis and Milestone are any cozier than they were prior.
Instead of looking at what works now on those systems, why don't we look at how easily and quickly the vms companies will help integrate cameras that we know don't work into their respective vms if we are trying to win a job or have won a job
Eg taking over a 100 camera dahua/uniview site.
will avigilon put their engineers to work to get camera motion side working or will they say like they do right now, it's onvif and not our problem, go talk to the camera maker it their problem...
Will milestone release a device pack and make sure the cameras connect and record properly or will they do the same as avigilon?
I think this is where the openness score comes from
I have tested dahua and uniview on avigilon and motion doesn't work
I have tested uniview on milestone (latest device pack 8.1) and the camera connects but does not display in the client or record
IPVMU Certified | 09/13/15 02:31am
It seems like a large majority of the discussion of a vms openess rating is based upon server side motion detection, I would be curious to know where integrators stand in regards to the survey that Ethan did in 2012 about motion detection location preference. The majority of integrators preffered camera side vmd I would be curious to see if that is still consistent or if most are now looking for vms side vmd support.
What you folks are calling "open" was the definition of "open" when Novell was big.
IT persective on OPEN:
More than one vendor does it and nobody thinks that's a big deal. Technically we used to look for "3 genetically separate implementations" for an IETF standard.
Standards publically available for free or for some price the marketplace finds reasonable.
Normal mainstream embraced-by-the-vendors use of multiple implementations that interoperate with no excitement all the time. So yeah you gotta troubleshoot onvif once in a while. You should have tools and processes for that, not some story about how your SDK has the foobar feature better implemented than the standard does it. If your foobar feature is of use then the standard should be able to facilitate using it or the standard's got gaps.
Nobody talks about how my DHCP client works better with a D-Link wireless ap's DHCP server than with a Netgear wireless ap's DHCP server.
SO if you can hang 3 random non-Avigilon OnVIF cameras off an Avigolon VMS then I'd call that "open". ("Random" meaning random known legit onvif-capable cameras from different engineering teams.)