Milestone Beats OnSSI In Court

By John Honovich, Published Jul 17, 2017, 08:57am EDT

The litigation between former partners Milestone and OnSSI has finished, confirmed by both parties.

In April 2016, OnSSI sued Milestone and in August 2016 Milestone won partial damages. Now, the dispute has been settled in both Denmark and the US.

Inside this note, we examine the case, sharing feedback from both parties, examining the competitive outcome of this.

Court *****

** **** **,* ** ***** ****** a '******* ***** *** judgment********** ******* *********** *****', confirming ****:

Barred **** ********* ****** *****

** *** ********* ***** notes, ***** ** ****** from ************ ********* ****** packs, ***** *** *** components *** *********** *** extending ****** ******* ** VMSes, ********* *** ******** OnSSI ******** **** **** Milestone's ********.

**** ** * ********** loss, ***** *****, **** they**** ********* ** ****, ******* **** *** prepaid *** ~$* ******* in ******* ********** *** that:

***** ****, ***** *** purchased ********* **** **** protection *** **** **** systems ** * ***** cost ** ****** ** $13,000,000. ** ** *** filing ** **** *********, OnSSI ******** ** ***** 2000 ******* ***** ********* have ** ****** ********* Care **** ******** ********* for ******* ***** ******* 2020, *** ***** ***** has **** ********* ** excess ** $*,***,***.

Plus ******* ** *********

** ******** ** *** loss ** *** ******** for ****** *******, ***** has ** *** ** undisclosed ****** ** ******* to *********, ** ********* explained ** ****:

********, * ******** ******** in ********** ********* **** OnSSI *** *** ******* the ***** ** *** partnership ********* ******* ***** and ********* *******. ************, OnSSI *** ******* ** pay ******* ** ********* and ** **** *** amicably ******** *** ******. The ******** ******* ******* to ********* ******* *** Danish *********** *** *** satisfied ** **** ** OnSSI’s ****** ******** ** Milestone.

OnSSI ****** **

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

***** ************ *** ************ in **** *** *********’* claim, ***** ** ****** Arbitration ******* *****, *** concluded **** * ********** reached ** ***** ****. We *** ********* **** the ****** *** **** been ****** *** ******* and ******* ******* ***** the ***** ** ****.

*********'* ****** $** ******* debt *********, ***** **** **** are ********* ***** ***** future *********:

*** ******* ******* ** OnSSI **** ** **** as * ******** ** expand *** ****** ****, accelerate *********** ** *** open ******** *** ********* and ******** ***** **** new ******* **** ******** new ********.

****** ************?

*******, ***** **** **** the **** ** ********* driver ***** *** *** an *****:

***** ********* ** *** need ********* ****** *****. Ocularis * ***** *** already ***** *** ***** Driver ********** **** ********** the **** ** **** for *** ******* ** be ********. ***** ********** cameras *** ** *********** deployed.

*******, ** *** * scenarios ***** ** ***** be *********** *** ***** users **** ******** ********* recording *******: (*) ***** cameras (********** ***** ****) that *** ********* ****** packs ******* *** *** OnSSI *** **** *** and (*) ***** *** do *** **** ** migrate ***** ******* (****** do ** **** ** migration *****).

*** *** ********* *** OnSSI********

**** ********* **** **** paid *** **** *** have ** ******* ******* OnSSI ********** **** *** is * ***, **** financially *** ** ***** of ******* * *** competitor. *** **** ***** has ***** *******, **** can *** ** ******* and ******* ***** *** end-to-end ***, *** **** certainly **** ********** ***** the **** **** ******* has *****.

Comments (14)

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

07/17/17 03:17pm

Pigs Get Fat. Hogs get Slaughtered.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 07/17/17 03:18pm

Pigs Get Fat. Hogs get Slaughtered.

#1, what? Please clarify.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to John Honovich | 07/17/17 03:53pm

ONSSI was greedy and became extremely arrogant towards the end.  ONSSI had lots of opportunity and several hints from the industry to wean themselves from Milestone technology but they couldn't resist the easy money.

Lenel backed out of ONSSI OEM and acquisition because of their Milestone OEM. Their dismissive/failed "just a recorder" marketing campaign. ONSSI transcoding platform. ONSSI PSIM offering.

All that time and treasure chasing me-too features when they should have been building a new platform independent of Milestone.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 07/17/17 04:55pm

...but they couldn't resist the easy money.

For 7 years of "easy money", I'd agree to not use or develop any recording engine besides Milestones in my little known product.

But I'm what you might call a "capitalist".

 

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 07/17/17 05:02pm

The challenge of being an OEM is that while you might make easy money at first, you are at risk of the original supplier (whether that is Milestone or Hikvision or whomever) cutting you out. Then trying to recover and do you it yourself later becomes incredibly hard.

Undisclosed Integrator #3

07/19/17 06:59pm

.....another one "about" to bite the dust......

 

Undisclosed End User #4

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3 | 07/19/17 08:04pm

I wasn't aware of OnSSI's impending doom. Do you have information to share?

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed End User #4 | 07/19/17 08:11pm

OnSSI is not facing 'impending doom'. At the very least, a new $16 million loan, even after factoring in payments to Milestone, etc. gives OnSSI a fairly significant run way.

On the other hand, OnSSI has real issues and there competitive positioning has been weakened over the past 5 years.

Undisclosed End User #4

In reply to John Honovich | 07/19/17 08:44pm

Thanks John. Sometimes I can't tell who has real info or who's just venting.

I've been managing OnSSI systems for 8+ years. Current system is large and has a mix of v4 (Milestone) and v5 (OnSSI) recording servers. I have zero issues with v5 and now prefer its stability and feature set to the v4 Milestone recorders (ie, multiple streams, H.265, automatic client updating, smart drivers w/ analytic cam integration). 

I am excited to see what OnSSI's future brings now that they are fully independent.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed End User #4 | 07/19/17 08:51pm

#4, good feedback. 

What do you plan to with the v4 / Milestone recorders? Will you keep them as is indefinitely or migrate them?

Undisclosed End User #4

In reply to John Honovich | 07/19/17 09:33pm

John, I not know. I might just keep the v4 Milestone recorders as-is because I will never add new camera models to them. OnSSI not getting Milestone's continued support means nothing to me. All our new cameras are being handled by v5 servers. All of our recording servers are running v4 and v5 recording engines concurrently. There has been no downside to this.

The frustrating thing about the v4 servers is when they reboot, SOME of the cameras SOMETIMES lose their codec and resolution settings. Let loose a couple hundred Arecont multi-sensor cameras on the LAN at full resolution MJPEG and you've quickly got storage issues!

Our cameras on v4 servers record directly to the servers, those recordings move nightly to our SAN. I like this feature of the v4 servers because of our reliance on using a single SAN for long-term storage.

Our cameras on v5 servers go straight to the SAN. If I move all v4 cameras to v5 servers, the video streams will create a throughput and possibly a SAN longevity issue. OnSSI now includes a tool to migrate v4 cameras to v5, so the task of moving the cameras isn't an issue. 

I need to ask OnSSI to help me engineer this, but welcome input from those with the knowledge.

Ronen Atsil

07/21/17 02:11pm

The latest version of OnSSI Ocularis is simply superb !!

Supports multiple streams and automatically displays them in the client.

A great new app for mobile devices.

Recording option by Alerts, motion Detection and simultaneous recording.

Fully support almost any IP camera.

In addition, the system receives automatic updates, which saves a lot of time.


Switch camera regardless of MAC address.

Setting up a new system in version 5 is significantly faster than version 4.

I transferred all our customers to version 5.

In summary, the old-fashioned version 4 recorders can not be compared with the newer and more advanced version 5 recorders.

If OnSSI continue this way I expect them to have a successful future

Undisclosed Integrator #5

07/26/17 12:53pm

We've had sometimes frustrating experiences with OnSSI. Seems they've re-found their MOJO. We're about to install v5.4 we'll let you know... we weren't pleased with how the previous versions handled record on motion. Setting it up was a nightmare. It did also consume lot of computer resources, RAM in particular.. Hope they've fixed those problems

 

Undisclosed Integrator #6

In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #5 | 07/26/17 01:03pm

Server based motion recording has gotten better, but use camera side motion detection whenever possible. We have the most luck doing that.

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,817 reports, 914 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

Already a member? Login here | Join now
Loading Related Reports