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.

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...

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.


He's cracked our code! But how?!?

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.

What product is being attacked here?

Who is accusing whom of 'bastardizing the standard'?

HDSM1.0, v 2.0 are trademarks, SVC, we throw these terms around as if they are some sort of global standard, that all are to adhere to. If HDSM2.0 is a derivative of h264 SVC who really cares, every vendor is going to put their own spin on everything, that's called advancement. I spend my money on the forum to learn, and I find the attacks on trademarks and suedo standards not so educational. I do enjoy someone explaining the spin differences, making the time worthwhile.

Did I explain this well enough?

How they operate are genuine questions, because their implementations bring various tradeoffs. As you well understand, the tradeoffs of implementing JPEG2000 are far different than H.264 (with multi-streaming). That's the point of the previous discussion.

Another member asked about HDSM2.0 being H.264 SVC. If you do not find it interesting, ignore that discussion and focus on the other 1000+ discussions and the 2900+ articles.

Go easy on-'em now pardner...

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 for unbiased details.

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...

Good detective work! Which documents were you able to find the SVC references? Which basic SVC extensions do you mean, like -T, or something else? Along what lines or to what ends is the "proprietary extension to further divide the frames"? Partial answers/speculation more than welcome...

You could answer in this thread, to keep it all together: Is Avigilon Implementing H.264 SVC?

"I'll defend every VMS company's freedom to innovate and dream up new names for enhancements to basic technologies"


Kind of a niche play for a freedom fighter, no?

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.

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.

Negative undertone? Are they reading a different site? Most of the stuff I see here about Avigilon seems to praise the overall technology, but question some of the marketing messages. Considering how other manufacturers have fared on this site, that's the closest thing to "high praise" anyone is going to get.

Here's what I have learned from Avigilon dealers. When we say something positive about Avigilon, like our numerous test results (1, 2 or 3) or rank them among the favorite products, silence because obviously it's expected. If we say something negative, we are biased, negative, incompetent, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the criticism of Avigilon you post in the discussion threads is exclusively for the purpose of aggravating the Avigilon apparatchiks*.

I, for one, find it hugely entertaining. It’s like an online version of bear baiting, without the animal cruelty. As I read their responses, I can picture their enraged spittle flying as they rant at you about how unfair and biased you are. As a group, I find them oddly fascinating. Their devotion to Avigilon is so complete, they are like the video surveillance equivalent of Beliebers.

[* - In this context, I’m using Merriam Webster’s definition #2 - apparatchik: a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (as a corporation or political party). I am in no way insinuating that Avigilon dealers are communists.]

"Their devotion to Avigilon is so complete, they are like the video surveillance equivalent of Beliebers."


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?

I was 'complaining' that HDSM version '1' munges JPEG2000 and H.264 multi-streaming into a single 'technology' which is misleading. My comments there.

Is avoiding any public announcement specifically stating that Misleading

Technically known as the non 'non-denial' denial the ethics and efficacy of this have been debated here.

On the other hand we do have this public statement:

Harnessing the strength of Avigilon Control Center and the second generation of our patented High Definition Stream Management technology (HDSM 2.0)

Care to dig up the actual patent? Couldn't find it under Avigilon or Alex R. (nor K. for that matter), maybe its under someone else?

Unnamed analysts tried in vain to find them:

Many analysts refer to the industry as “slow-moving,” with no clear competitor emerging with an “end-to-end” product in the near term. Yet they also note Avigilon has no North American patents on its technology.

Perhaps this is the reason for their reticence?

NOTICE: This comment has been moved to its own discussion: Is Avigilon HDSM Actually Patented?