It is kind of fascinating that most posts on IPVM result in John Honovich and his associates being forced to defend IPVM.
I have worked for three video surveillance equipment manufacturers. One was before John launched the IPVM website and two have been since his transition from LinkedIn. It has been my experience that in our industry there was a void that he has filled. In other industries in which I have worked, magazines (and now their web counterparts) act as a resource for product reviews. In the video surveillance industry, it is almost as if the industry publications are afraid to write meaningful reviews, or are unable to hire people capable of writing them, due to budgetary restraints or fear of losing advertising.
I have learned that John Honovich considers himself to be a bullsh*t detector for the video surveillance industry. Why? Becomes someone needed to fill the void. If no need for this role existed, there would not have been a space to fill and IPVM would have failed. The truly interesting thing in all this is that no one else has attempted to fill the void, yet.
One of my previous employers referred to John as "Rush Limbaugh." That tag was meant to belittle the service that IPVM seeks to provide. Whereas I see Rush Limbaugh as an opportunist who has been able to exploit political debate to accelerate his career in broadcasting, I have come to recognize John Honovich for his experience in the field, and he has been able to attract other experienced people to work with him to test products: to verify or debunk manufacturer claims. Because John and his associates come from within the video surveillance industry, IPVM also provides tools that manufacturers always talk about providing, but most lack the resources or commitment to make and maintain them.
In my opinion, the IPVM tools justify the website/business. It is also quite apparent that there is a "market" for independent IP network/surveillance training in our industry.
Then comes the product reviews. As the employee of a manufacturer, and especially as a marketing guy, when I get an email from IPVM that "they" are going to review one of our products, it is an opportunity for us to revisit our self-evaluation of the product. If it does not do what we say it does, the people at IPVM will discover that. I have always understood why some people in manufacturing take that personally. I have come to understand that the only thing that John takes personally is when his integrity is questioned. "You say your product does this. We could not get it to do that. Facts are facts." But those results are only part of a review that reveals in detail what the product does and does not do, using tables, specs and pictures. And, most importantly, John and his people work with the manufacturer during the test. They always report what they have found and ask if we want to do something about it. The review is never posted as a blindside.
Where IPVM seems to take the most heat is when their people "go on the attack." It happens when the manufacturer refuses to acknowledge a problem that IPVM has discovered. When a problem does exist, it is almost always a delicate situation for the manufacturer. And no one wants to be dictated a timeline by someone else.
However, I think that the people at IPVM are looking for manufacturers to act with expediency. That is a good word. Expediency. It has been my experience that when a manufacturer engages with the people at IPVM to explain the internal plan to address the allegations, the people at IPVM offer to provide help and exercise restraint while the manufacturer works through the allegation. Often, a "failure" is something that is too difficult for the owner to use. Anything that causes any manufacturer to make a product easier to use is a good thing. (I am not sure if you have noticed, but almost everything you buy at Walmart has become easier to assemble. This started years ago with many barbeque grills being returned. Why? Because the purchaser could not assemble it. Walmart was literally taking back partially assembled grills with the pieces piled into a shopping cart. Walmart, with their power as one of the largest retailers in the world, told the grill manufacturers, "Make your grills so that anybody can assemble them in 10 minutes, or we will not carry your brand.")
Whatever the motivation (even if it is a review on IPVM), manufacturers improving the experience for the end-user is a win-win-win.
If the manufacturer chooses to fight with IPVM, John and his associates seem to take that as verification that they are correct and they appear to be more than willing to defend their position.
I have written this because I see a corollary with what is going on here with what is happening with the executive branch of the United States government and the mainstream media. However, whereas some members of the mainstream media can make a living off of sensationalism, if IPVM does not stay grounded in fact, the site does not provide the service to integrators that John and his associates ultimately seek to provide. That integrity is what John fiercely defends.
