Subscriber Discussion
Is It Misleading For Milestone To Call Their VMS 'XProtect'?
I hate to sound biased, but can't we all find issues or claims of the opposing vendors claims and cry foul or claim a marketing statement is "Misleading". Last I knew "XProtect" is simply a registered trademark of Milestone and has no technical bearing of the technology and protocols for which they are claiming. I'm not bashing, just saying if something works, call it whatever the marketing team decides. These forums are supposed to be educational, and informative and the undertones are annoying.
So for the private post....
NOTICE: This comment was moved from an existing discussion: Milestone Vs Avigilon - Remote Viewing Bandwidth Usage
You really do sound biased.
You are criticizing Milestone for naming their VMS 'XProtect'??? That's like someone objecting to Avigilon naming their VMS 'Control Center'. Both are product names and fairly generic ones at that. I don't see a reason to object to either.
HDSM is marketed as a technology, and a major claimed differentiator, not simply a brand name, ergo the debate about what it is and what it does.
02/25/14 09:58pm
No, I agree. It absolutely is misleading and unethical for one manufacturer to have an advantage over another just because they managed to think up a cool product name first. I think that the only reasonable solution would be for all manufacturers to be forced to refer to their products by code number. Instead of "XProtect", it'll just be "Video Surveillance Recording Software Product NCC1701-D" or whatever.
Really, this is the only fair solution, I think you'll agree.
-Sent From My Mobile Telecommunications Device Designed in Cupertino
Although NCC1701-D is a classic, I prefer the NCC1701-E software myself...
| 02/27/14 02:56pm
But the NCC1701-D version only has a single documented unrecoverable crash in history!
Very true, but as you said "unrecoverable". Even though the NCC1701-E has seen it's fair share of catastrophies (Borg virus trying to assimilate core functions, crashing while interfacing with Scimitar and unltimately lossing it's Data), the E has shown its resiliency through using patches and updates all the while dealing with some serious attacks on this Federated Software. It's till going strong today.
I was implying that if vendor a does a half baked proprietary version of something as complex as video compression, and the base name of the compression algorythm is a basic protocol like ONVIF or a base h264 compression and a vendor puts a spin on it, let's not get all stuffy trying to hold them accountable to be true to some ultruistic standard, where one firm claims to be complaint while accusing all others of bastardizing the standard.
Yes, I'm guilty of bias to the extend of us knowing and caring very little about about the technical features of the vast majority of competitors. We provide and warrant our solutions based on what we know well, and are willing to write checks to gaurantee the results. Let's all make our clients happy with whatever we choose to sell and support and we all win. Attacking product A or B, in an educational forum is BUZZ KILL.
if HDSM2.0 (trademarked name) is a derivative of SVC, then so be it, and referring to something their marketing department might dream up, and how they present it as misleading, has a negative undertone. The original HDSM1.0 was an adoption of wavelet compression, and if HDSM2.0 adopts portions of SVC, and are able to enhance it their benefit their is nothing misleading about that. The following article does a good job of explaning basic SVC as a building block, not the end-all be-all, and every I'll defend every VMS company's freedom to innovate and dream up new names for enhancements to basic technologies. Reading the available documents about HDSM 2.0, they've incorporated the basic H.264 SVC extensions, and created a proprietary extension to further divide the frames. a good article on basic SVC is http://www.robotics.net/2013/02/04/reality-of-h-264-svc/ for unbiased details.
If there was a button to nominate a thread to "Pointless discussion of the year", I would click it on this thread. It's not even clear (to me) what is being discussed here.
| 02/26/14 05:17pm
Oh, you don't have a "Flag this thread as spam or HDcctv related" button?
Reader's digest version: Avigilon dealer is upset about 'negative undertone' against Avigilon, protests.
Good job of distortion. This thread is a derivative of another complaining of AV not officially stating that HDSM2 is adopting one o more h.264 SVC extensions. Is avoiding any public announcement specifically stating that Misleading?
Newest Discussions
| Discussion | Posts | Latest |
|---|---|---|
|
Started by
Carl Stoffers
|
15
|
29 minutes by Brian Karas |
|
Started by
John Honovich
|
10
|
37 minutes by John Honovich |
|
Started by
Undisclosed Integrator #1
|
3
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #1 |
|
Started by
Brian Rhodes
|
6
|
less than a minute by Undisclosed Integrator #5 |
|
Started by
Joseph Marotta
|
3
|
less than a minute by Mike Davis |
