Yes, we are huge fans of Avigilon and Motorola Solutions, but I disagree they are a lot alike. Both have analytics, but after that, things get different. Motorola has a full mature solution that includes access control, ALPR, cameras, cloud, VMS, AI, ALPR, bodyworn cameras, incident management, and radios all integrated. This is great for our large enterprise clients, and it's only getting better.
Ava is new and fresh with a lot of sizzle and allows us to deploy a camera-only solution to less demanding clients that want more than just cameras. I like how we can deploy a server to bring in current cameras and deploy cloud-only at remote locations. This gives us the best of both worlds. Also, the install is quick, and it just works from my months of testing.
Also, keep in mind the Ava server offering is not really a bridge as it is more cloud-accessed. I can access the server with full functionality without a WAN connection, unlike most other systems that have a bridge. A lot of the issues that Verkada has Ava has addressed, which I like.
I will give you that Avigilon has a great VMS platform and cameras, but calling their access control solution "mature" (or even a "solution" for that matter) is....awfully generous, to be as nice as I can be.
Further, I've been very directly involved in the administration of two different large systems, which is where it falls woefully short. Sure, it's fine from an installer perspective and there are some things that are actually better than many of the leading access control platforms. But, it is so horrific from an administrative perspective that it completely negates any of those benefits. Whoever designed the reporting platform should be arrested for war crimes.
With all do respect I take undisclosed feedback with a grain of salt.
From what you have said we work in similar sized systems. We have never had any complaints from clients about the reporting nore have we not been able to do what what clients need. ACM is not perfect but it works well once you learn out to use it.
Michael, it would not be possible for me to add up the total number of hours that I've spent on the phone with ACM tech support and engineering, so this isn't a matter of needing help -- I've had "help" from the highest levels. The system simply cannot do certain things that I would consider to be fundamental items.
I would also suggest that the fact that customers haven't complained about the reporting is not really a viable metric to use, because customers often don't know what the reporting should actually look like. That's a very specific thing that, if you haven't used another systems, you wouldn't actually know what reports you should be able to get from a system. Further, it's more often a case of "this is what I have, so I have to make it work", which is the approach I've taken to the items I've found that it can't do. Last, with the fact that Avigilon will support end users without any certifications (which is, admittedly, a great thing), I would wager that you may never know of some of the reporting issues that clients have faced.
Just to prove that I do have some semblance of knowledge of what I'm talking about, two examples of things that you either cannot get or that no one has been able to tell me how to get from ACM reporting (as of version 5.12 -- these may have been rectified in later versions):
1. Time to acknowledgement of an Alarm by an operator. I can see which operator acknowledged an alarm and any notes they entered, but I can't actually see how long that alarm was active before it was acknowledged by that operator.
2. A list of activeIdentities that have access to a designated space. Note that I said active Identities -- yes, I know I can get a list of Identities that have access to a space, but there is no filter option to only show active Identities. I can add a filter to show active Tokens, but there can be people who have do not have active Tokens that do have active Identities.
And none of these even makes mention of their utterly disastrous method of implementing failover...
I know that you love Avigilon, and I have great respect for ACC and their cameras -- but ACM has some massive gaps that cannot be overlooked.
Apologies for my thorough de-railing of this topic...
I would like to second what my colleague Hash says: we would be interested in hearing more of your feedback and discussing your customer's needs. I head the product management team for Avigilon software, and we're always eager to hear about unmet needs from our customers.
In addition, we've recently improved our identity search page (126.96.36.199), and I can have someone on my team who knows the details go through that with you and see if it helps.
If they allow the installer to change configuration settings on the camera (color, WDM, etc.) I will ditch Verkada in a heartbeat. We have always criticized the way Verkada locks down the cameras (ala apple) from the installers....but just knowing that they will have ONVIF capabilities, that on it's own puts them firmly in the top of this segment. Verkada never listened to their dealers, only to whoever is going to put more money in their books which is why if they don't change their approach they will die.
Today? Not supported. Tomorrow? Who could have predicted 2020? 2021 is right around the corner though...
Most of the near-term engineering focus is on enhancing existing integrations (like Openpath and Kisi for access control, etc...), adding additional integrations (always happy to consider suggestions!), and debuting new products and features (soon!).
1) yes the dome and fisheye have good night time images. Both are true day night with IR. It's alot better then any Verkada cameras I have seen.
2)yes you get dewarping client side on Ava fishes and 3rd party fisheyes. Only in browser though not on the mobile app which would be nice.
3) yes the cloud cameras record to on camera storage.
4)Ava cameras have on board audio for detection of audio events not for recording audio.
5)I was told ONVIF is coming and would add ONVIF to the cloud cameras. Since the cloud cameras and onsite cameras are the same (at least that is my understanding) I would think onsite cameras would get ONVIF too.