Genetec: We Do NOT Support Avigilon

I actually think that not supporting Avigilon cameras is the worst idea. Not because of the "open platform" claims, though I do think being hardware agnostic is wise, and like them or not they are a popular, ONVIF-conformant camera brand.

I think it's a horrible idea because if you really truly hate Avigilon the way most of the VMS manufacturers seem to...why would you not want to say, "Hey Avigilon customers (and integrators)! Like your cameras but hate Avigilon? We can help you!" The alternative is to allow Avigilon systems to remain Avigilon, despite customers possibly wanting to move to your VMS, which doesn't make good sense to me.

I also wonder what would happen if a user with 200 or 500 or 1000 Avigilon cameras came to Genetec and wanted to switch, but wanted motion detection supported. Would it not make the most business sense to integrate them?

We checked other VMS support for Avigilon and of the common VMSes, Milestone and Video Insight both claim support, including motion detection.

We tested Milestone with an H3 bullet camera with current firmware, and motion events are indeed passed from camera to VMS. You can see it switch from live to to recording (top right) here based on me waving my hand in front of it (with a 3 second pre/post record):

We did not check to see if the H3 analytic cameras passed analytic events. But since you need ACC to configure events anyway, they're sort of a moot point.

I understand being pissed at Avigilon. I don't understand refusing to take their customers away from them.

The real issue here is ONVIF, which although claiming to be a standard, routinely leaves (allows) various camera manufacturers implementing different API's, even on relatively common functions like camera side motion detection.

"Not all ONVIF cameras are created equal – some are much more expensive to support and integrate than others, and in this case the cost of opportunity is not worth it to Genetec. As such, Avigilon cameras are not on our supported devices list. We’re happy to work with your undisclosed integrator to find a suitable solution that fits their client’s need."

This is looking like ONVIF yes - ONVIF no, wasn't ONVIF created to avoid this grey area? Are we going to see this more now with Axis teaming up with Milestone, Panasonic with Video Insight and no body knows who is next. I would like to hear ONVIF comments on this.

John, Would it be possible to have a vote and see who hurts more from this policy Avigilon or Genetec. We all know for sure the End User will hurt the most - so i would leave that out.

I work for Genetec and have requested cameras from Avigilon for several years, so we may pursue a supported integration. The resistance I've personally encountered came from Avigilon and the statement made was "We don't want to become a camera manufacturer solely, we are a solutions company - opening up our API to competitors reduces us to a camera manufacturer only and there's no money in that."

I feel, the years of not wanting to partner with the Open Architecture players in the market has cultivated this disconnect and has and will continue to truly hurt Avigilon as they go the battle alone.

I'm not sure if simply "integrating" is the end-all answer however, I would suspect that items within the cameras capabilities would not be provided in their API and reserved for support only within Avigilon's VMS. Much like they tout today, "Sure we support Axis, but if you want FULL support of any camera, you're better off with Avigilon cameras". This is speculation of course, based only off what my gut instinct suggests from past experiences with their organization.

I can't speak on behalf of Genetec's position to support Avigilon's cameras or not, it's much higher than my pay-scale, but I can say there's definitely resistance on Avigilon's side.

Across the board, how about ONViF growing a "pair" and DEMANDING an end to this nonsense?!?

The BACnet communication protocol has opened up many once proprietary devices, equipment and applications to integration. It still has issues with not providing access to ALL the the device features.

In the same way, ONVIF should make it clear that any manufacturer that wants it's ONVIF "badge" MUST put everything out where it can be accessed.

Do it like MODBUS where any feature available has a specific address in memory and just needs to be "called" to work. Publish the address list as part of the certification. Make all common address spaces identical from product to product.

If you have must have it, put the proprietary stuff (analytics, dewarping, etc) in software for the head end VMS.

Put simply, how about HP stating our heavy metal is the best in the industry but you should also buy HP switches, routers and desktops or laptops if you want full performance.....We don't integrate others hardware.

History's highway is littered with the bones of companies that made poor strategic decisions. The first indicator of deterioration is often the abrupt departure of multiple senior corporate executives "for personal reasons".

Unsupported manufacturers list (incomplete):

1. 3svision
2. Avigilon
3. Dlink
4. Foscam
5. Trendnet