I know that Uniview was very hesitant to meet with IPVM as they were under the assumption that IPVM just dislikes Chinese made products. Personally, I think they are honest assessments. Although I would have liked to have seen the Uniview 4MP cameras in that comparison as they are available in the US.
Rich, it is interesting the number of manufacturers who assume I simply dislike them or their country, not factoring in our overall coverage of their competitors which is often just as or more critical.
Thank you also, End User 6, for your altruistic approach to the industry. It's not often that an End User, such as yourself, comes to the aid of those who prefer to keep lines intact and margins high.
It's easy to see why such aid is rarely seen: the "race to the bottom" has many losers, but only one clear winner - You, The End User.
Whether a they be a CSO, or facilities manager, or SMB owner, or your neighbor, no one could deny that the End User's buying power has greatly increased over the last several years, mainly due to tremendous growth of Chinese/Asian manufacturers.
Even if not directly purchasing Chinese goods, End User's benefit enormously from the price pressure put upon the Western manufacturers.
But, you are the exception, putting your own End User gain aside, you stand on principle and integrity.
I think this is a petty article with a petty complaint.
32" TVs are 31.5" diagonal and have been forever. It's called rounding up, and rounding 3.69 to 4 is not egregious.
Cameras over 2MP are almost always listed in whole numbers. Nobody calls a 3MP camera (2048x1536) a 3.14MP camera. And nobody is mentioning that 12MP fisheye cameras have maybe 6-7MP of actual usable image.
4,000 x 3,000 imager = 12MP
Only uses 3,000 x 3,000 square in the middle = 9MP
I have to disagree, J. There are times to split hairs and times it's not worth it. I like to know nuances like this, but I agree it doesn't need a Change.org petition or boycott or something like that, either, which I don't think was being called for.
It's interesting that someone disagreed with my comment and they are probably not alone. I certainly respect their opinion, but I'm curious as to their (or anybody's) rationale for it.
My perspective is that when Axis shipped the camera, it wasn't ready. It didn't deliver what was promised. Now there is a firmware upgrade to do so. The issue, though, is that the end user (like me) now has to go back in upgrade the firmware on their camera or pay for a service call to do so. If it is covered by warranty (I would assume it is), it still requires scheduling the service call, "supervising" the technician, etc.
It seems to me that the only reason to release the product when they did was to hit their internal deadlines and financial target at the expense (inconvenience) of their customer.
That's my rationale, but I'm very interested in other perspectives.
The issue, though, is that the end user (like me) now has to go back in upgrade the firmware on their camera or pay for a service call to do so. If it is covered by warranty (I would assume it is), it still requires scheduling the service call, "supervising" the technician, etc.
Yes, and the integrator still has to eat the cost if its under warranty. Not like Axis will pay for that.
And there are likely many more M3046s that shipped already and are in inventory at various distributors. Do the distributors eat the cost of upgrading them or do they ship them as is?