Debunking IPVM Being 'Pro American' Manufacturers

Sometimes we hear from people outside the USA that IPVM criticizes manufacturers from outside the USA to defend American manufacturers. Presumably, this is because IPVM is an American company.

What these people miss is that we heavily criticize American companies.

IPVM's all-time most criticized camera company is American Arecont, with posts like Worst IP Camera Manufacturers 2011, Worst IP Camera Manufacturer 2014, Worst Camera Manufacturers 2016, Arecont Lies, Now Threatens Lawsuit, Arecont Needs a Reset Button and a Clue, etc.

IPVM"s all-time most criticized access control company is American Lenel, with posts like Lenel Partners Angry, Lenel Does Not Care, Worst Access Control 2016, Lenel President Is Out, Lenel Poor Favorability Results 2017, etc.

And it is not like we have been especially kind to other American manufacturers like Honeywell, OnSSI, Pelco, etc.

Nonetheless, here is an example of recent anti-American criticism received:

Surprising, that in the guise of being an independent information service on security products, all you seem to be doing is having an anti Asia rant. Too bad America has lost the race in the electronics component and PCB race. The nimbleness of the asians and the sheer hard work can never be matched by an American worker... Just another sick right wing misinformation outlet.

I can sympathize that when one's company or preferred brand is criticized, it is natural to focus on those criticisms. It is not as if most people are going to scan through IPVM's 4,600+ articles to figure out how much we criticize others.

The reality is IPVM has criticized (and sometimes praised) many, many manufacturers across the world. In an industry where literally every other publication is manufacturer advertiser funded, that's the unique value proposition we offer being an independent member's service.


When 99% of the manufacturers are foreign, it's going to slightly skew the numbers as to how many of the foreign ones are going to be criticized versus how many domestic. I WISH we had about 20 more domestic manufacturers that would care enough about the industry to create products with an eye on security of both their customers and their products.

Not to mention my all-time favorite IPVM headline!

Is Cisco the Lindsay Lohan of video surveillance?

Cisco has become so irrelevant to video surveillance products that I hardly think about them any more.

However, we did criticize them a few months back - Cisco Meraki Launches The Most Expensive HD Camera In Years

I think that there is a lot of "Is this camera made in America", etc. because of federal and state projects that are looking for Buy American or Buy America compliant. Thus, it is very important to the US integrators, when why it is brought up a lot.

Then there are the times that a manufacturer will claim compliance, when in reality they are slapping a label on something that isn't or worse, just claiming compliance.

If there are other similar guidelines that apply to other countries, I am sure we can get a discussion going... But the member base I am sure is skewed to US, thus US-relevant topics.

I know that the manufacturer I work for and my previous one, finding ways to be compliant (not manufacturing in China) was a hot topic that was constantly being discussed and researched.

I can't help but notice the conflict about being an "impartial source". If a manufacturer doesn't like what you are saying this is the ONLY way to attack you. The simple test is to engage the person making the claim in a reasoned discussion - and that seems to be a rare thing in most on-line forums.

Unfortunately, the only other source(s) of information in the security industry are the manufacturer marketing departments that are often completely ignorant of what passes for useful information.

As for "buy American"? Every nationality on earth want to support, within limits, their own economy. The reason "buy American" exists is because the US has had a great deal of openness for foreign markets.

The simple test is to engage the person making the claim in a reasoned discussion - and that seems to be a rare thing in most on-line forums.

Ad hominem attacks are easier for many. It requires far less thought, research and attention to detail.

We do encourage manufacturers to respond to us privately and volunteer to give information prior to publishing, seeking feedback. We continue to do that with many companies that won't speak to us including USA's UTC and China's Hikvision.

Part of that has to do with poor communication potential in using the text format in general. Its very common across the internet that most of the "issues" are from misinterpretation of bad writing or prose and misreading bad spelling or tone.

No matter what is said, or not said, True or not , someone will take offense

In today's media driven marketplace it is very important to separate fact from fiction and truth from deception.

That s getting harder and harder to do with the info overload. and media deception out there.

We commend Ipvm for taking a stand and speaking up .

The truth is hard to swallow, and a whole lot of sugar to help us swallow it.

Exposure , that s the name of the game.

Product comparison, test, example s that's what we need to see truth thru the clouds of sales, and media Hype.

Drama

Keep up the good work and don't let your guard down , as soo many deceptive product adds with distorted facts to sell , sell , sell products.

Intentional or NOT , we still have to pay for the product if we install with out these test.

need to know the company is a reliable, stable, entity and products perform

I think IPVM spends too much time defending the discussions of their subscribers. If Mfgs subscribe here just to self promote their hardware etc they're wasting their time. If they dont like hearing their new or mainstay hardware is junk thats on them for building junk. Sure you have those with an axe but where doesnt that happen? Honest marketing info or data should be worth its weight in gold. How many of them will hand out a Demo unit for free to test for 6 mos ?

If one mfgs system is too delicate or overly complicated or unsecure the truth about it being published should be appreciated so those problems can be fixed or redesigned. It shouldnt generate accusations and name calling. If Red China or any Euro mfg doesnt like that people wont buy their system or software because their totalitarian politics suck, then they should condsider if the financial impact that has on their economy is more productive to their nations image and economy. The same could be said for any system by anyone.

If any mfg believes the that we will buy their crap just because they sell cheap, insecure, items and loudly whine about it or try to pressure sales they have a very miopic view of their customer base and a lousy business model.

One thing I do on a new system is I get an evaluation unit and give it to my IT dept to find security problems. I give it to my fraud dept to play with it and try to do things it isnt designed to do like download 8 hrs of video from 2 site at once, then I give it to my install techs with no instructions to install it and make it work properly. If they all come back with at least 75-80% positive reports and no major problems with security of common failures then we put on system in a location and run it live for 6 mo. If they works we buy them for distribution. One other part of the process is how well the suppliers serve us on repairs, replacements, Loaners and how important our problem is to their support structure.

Some cctv vendors we use: (Old) Pelco, Open Eye (linux), Vivotek (Linux),

Some systems I wont ever call again: Click-It (Windows), Axis, Honeywell Video, Generics

Just My 2 cents..

RS

Its the way the articles are written. Worst case headlines, straw man arguments and unsupported conjecture used as absolutes and solid conclusions. Spurious reasoning. This happens with specific brands, foreign ones, in order to sensationalise a topic into a horror story.

Its a matter of scale and proportionality, not frequency.

Worst case headlines, straw man arguments and unsupported conjecture used as absolutes and solid conclusions. Spurious reasoning.

Example please. We have written 300+ articles this year so let's say give us 3 to start that covers the 4 elements you assert.