Exacq Breaks Avigilon Integration

By John Honovich, Published Jan 20, 2014, 12:00am EST (Info+)

IPVM testing has verified that Exacq has broken integration with Avigilon cameras. Up until mid year 2013, Exacq's releases immediately identified and recognized motion detection from Avigilon H3 cameras but now they do not. This is an especially important since Exacq does not support server side motion detection, forcing Avigilon cameras to record only continuously and with no markers to show movement.

Here is a video showing Avigilon cameras on the last Exacq release support Avigilon fully compared to the latest Exacq version:

**********, ***** *********** ********** ******** ******* and ********* ***** ****** *********. *** they ** ***.

***** ********* ** **** *********, ******:

"**** ** *** ******** ****** *** ever **** ****** ** ********* *************, ***************** ***** **** ****** ** * supported *** ** *** ******** *******."

****** ****,

"** **** *********** ******* ** *** ONVIF ****-** ** *** *.* *** 5.6 ******** ** ******* ******* *. We **** ****** ******* ***** ***** camera ****** *** ***** ** ************ provide *******. ** ****’* **** *** plug-in ****, ** ** *** ****, with *** ******** ******."

Avigilon *** *******

****** ***** ****** ******** ******* **** never ************ *********, * ************* **** used ** ***** *.* ********** ********** Avigilon ****** ******:

{ "************": "********", "******": { "*****": [ { "****": "**********/***************/", "****": { "name": "************", "**": "*", "***": "*" } } ] }

** ********* ******* *** ******** ****** events, ***** *** ******** *** **** block ** **** **** *** **********.******** ***** ** *** ***** ****** directory. ** **** ************ **** ****(******* ** ** ******* *.**.*.****) **** the ******** ******* ********.

****:***** **** **** ***** **** **** being ******** **** ****** ******* *** applied, ** ***** ****** ** ******* not ** ********* **, ** ******** copy ** *** ******** ******* ***** updating).

****, ** ** *****, **** ********** is *** ******** ** *****.

********

*** ******** **** ** **** ******* ONVIF's '*****' ** *** ***** ** and ********** ***** *** ***********?

***** ****** ****:

"****** *** ***** ***** ** *** requests **** *** ********* *** *** level ** *********** **** *** ****** vendor. ** ******** * **** ** requested ****** ***** ** ********** *************. At **** **** *** *********** *** not ********** ** **** ************* **** would ******* *** *********** ** ****** Avigilon *******."

*******, ** ** ******** ** **** much '***********' *********** ******** **** ******* Profile **** ** *** ******* ******* ** Exacq ** ******** ** *** ****** of ****. ****, ********* ***** ******* ***** *************** *** **** ********** ********* **** Avigilon, **** ** ***,**&*,********* *****.

**** *** *** **** ** ******** whether ***** ** ***** **** ** competitive ******** / ******* ** ********. Avigilon ** **** **** ***** *** being ********** ***** ******* *** *** to *** *********, ***** ***** **** at *** ******* ** *****, ** Avigilon **** ***** ****** ***** **** their *** ** ****** **** ******** their *********** ** *** *******.

** *** ***** ****, ******** *********** with ******** ******* *** *** **** Exacq, ** ** **** **** ********* wanting ******** ** ****** ** ********'* VMS ****** ***** *** ******** **** to **** ******** *******.

******** *******, ******* ******* *** ***** of ******** / ***** ******* *** caught ** *** ****** ** ******* ** **** *** **** ***** has *** ***** ** *******.

Comments (23)

Wow. Didn't see that coming.

Scot, are you a dealer of both? How much impact do you see this having on you?

Yes, we have good relationships with both companies, but I don't really have a dog in this fight. I honestly don't see a huge impact on us, other than just the fact that I hope we can put the genie back in the bottle rather than watching the rest of this movie.

This is a bad move by Exacq. It obviously worked before and still does with the hack, so why play games like this?

It's ironic because Avigilon's marketing about their ONVIF support is clearly worse and more misleading but this move by Exacq appears to be far pettier and more akin to actual 'sabotage'.

There's obviously a difference between providing functionality and making it disappear by spite, as opposed to simply not providing it in the first place and possibly adding it down the road, especially where you have customers who might have depended on that functionality and will no longer have access to it out of the box following an upgrade.

The other thing customers might not appreciate is being told, as you were, that Avigilon cameras were never supported by Exacq, which is blatantly false.

I'm assuming their logic was that since Avigilon typically pushes end-to-end systems, including their VMS, removing support for Avigilon cameras might not have much of an impact.

Another big mistake they are making with this move is to make it more difficult for users who might be interested in moving away from Avigilon at some point to do so without incurring large initial costs related to camera replacement, essentially locking themselves and their channel partners out of that market.

I'm sure Avigilon reps and partners will have a field day with this.

The other thing it does is send a message out that competition from Avigilon is becoming more and more of a concern for them. Coming from a company like Tyco, I'd say that's a very strong message and can be interpreted in a lot of different ways depending on who is listening.

Avigilon has been a real threat for big incumbents for at least a year, if not two. Privately, it's widely acknowledged. Publicly, you know how this industry works...

At their growth rate and now size compared to the much lower industry average growth, they are obviously taking share away from incumbents.

The Exacq move, though, is weird, because Exacq has a much stronger competitive positioning and better growth rate than most of the competitors being impacted by Avigilon.

I agree. Whatever the reason was at the time, it doesn't seem to have been thought thru very well.

I'd be curious to know how consultants and integrators reacted if they had customers using Exacq who had Avigilon cameras installed when this came about.

Tyco, Tyco, Tyco.

But Tyco/ADT sells alot of Avigilon product

On the Tyco topic: The Tyco/Exacq acquisition was announced June 19th, after 5.6 was already out (June 11th). The dates are close but it's pure speculation whether the two are related.

Possibly, but listening to the video and looking at the file version info below the script, 5.4 and 5.10 are being compared, which would imply this change was made well after the Tyco/Exacq acquisition.

Yes, 5.4 and 5.10 were compared in the video, simply to show the last version in which the motion integration worked (5.4) and the most current version (5.10). 5.6 is the release which removed the Avigilon motion events, which was released before the Tyco acquisition.

Thanks for the clarification Ethan.

Obviously, Exacq has been concerned for a while if that's the case and I'd say the comments in my first reply to John still stand.

I wouldnt be surprised that with the tight relationship betwen Avigilon and Tyco that Tyco didnt mandate this well before annoucing public purchase.

Why would Tyco mandate this? And is Tyco's relationship with Avigilon really that tight? Tyco IS carries lots of surveillance manufacturers and only recently picked up Avigilon.

I don’t really think that Tyco would have wanted it, but if it was somehow contractual with the resale agreement of Avigilon through Tyco. Avigilon reports having added pretty substantial focus on strategic accounts of which Tyco was one of them in late 2012 earnings report. I would suspect much of the focus was on the fine print of the agreement. We have in the past been vendors for specific product types in different business segments, where the manufacturer would threaten discontinuing support of us if we picked up and offered a rival product line.

This is just speculation of course, and we dont sell Avigilon, so its no worries over here with that respect, but am concered about future changes Tyco could/will make with exacq.

having worked in both large and small companies in various forms in both business and product development, my guess is that there was not an over arching plan. It probably was just one of those things that early on someone in engineering added support to the camera line becuause they thought they were doing the right thing.

However, it probably never went through the proper business/partner process & paperwork. Then somoene noticed that the config file didn't match the official list of supported cameras, so they deleted the ones that didn't match up, and didn't really think about it too much.

I could be way wrong here, and we'll probably never know for sure, but I've seen things like this way more often than I would care to admit.

Maybe but they certainly know now that it works and that people care so it begs the question: why don't they just put it back in?

Question to you John; why do you always use Exacq in your surveillance tests? Is it because Exacq is your personal favorite? Exacq could be a good platform for various experiments as long as it continues to support integration with all known camera manufacturers (including the 'competitors'). As an integrator, I'll be disappointed by such moves by Exacq where it limits integration.

Using a VMS, instead of something like VLC, is important so that we can lay out cameras side by side, digitally zoom, compare, etc.

The only question is really - what VMS to use for our IP camera tests?

Exacq has been good for testing because it's lightweight, super quick to install and upgrade and supports lots of cameras.

This move by Exacq is stupid but we have a workaound.

John,

Is this still the case that Exacq will only record Avigilon cameras continously as they dont support the cameras motion detection?

thanks!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Yup, that's correct. You can try the workaround we discuss above, but test it before counting on it, as it's now several versions past.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports