ONVIF Favorability Results 2017

By IPVM Team, Published Jan 11, 2017, 11:36am EST

ONVIF has been one of the most debated aspects of the video surveillance industry. On the one hand, its aim to increase interoperability has been widely applauded. On the other, many have criticized ONVIF for not working well enough or fully delivering the interoperability marketed.

New IPVM statistics of 100+ integrator respondents shows that ONVIF has been well received overall. In this note, we examine the statistics and share numerous integrator comments on ONVIF's impact / positioning.

ONVIF *******

***** ****** **** ** overall ************ ******* *** had *** ** *** lowest ******** ******* **** integrators.

***** *** ***** ****** integrators ** ******* ********* designed ** **** ***** job ******, *** ****** support *** ***** ***** that ** ** ********** on ** ***** **** of *** *******. ********** were ****** ****** ******* reliability *** ********* ****** basic *********, *** **** policing ** ******** ******* claiming ***********.

******** **************** **-***** ******** ** ONVIF, *** **** ** has ****** ** *** tests, *** **** *** various ******** *** ******** to *******.

Integrators **** ****************

***** *** ******* *** making ** ****** *** integrators ** ***-***-***** ******** and ***** ****** ** proprietary *********. *********** ********* the *********** ** ********* for ************ ******* *******, allowing **** ** ***** their ******* ** **** productive ***** **** ****** making * ****** *** VMS ***********.

  • "***** **** ** ******* equipment ******** **** * standard **** ******** ** very ********."
  • "** ** * ****** spread *************** ****. ** is ******* ****** *********** provide ********* **** ********* vendors."
  • "*** ******* ******* ** helping ** ****** *** VMS ********. ** **** cameras ****** **** *** play, ********* **** ** invest **** ** * VMS. ** **** **** enormous ****** ** **** with ******* ****** ************* in *** ******* ** making **** *** ***** compatibility ******."
  • "**** **** ********* **** protocol *** ** ******. They *********** ****** *** IP ****** ***** **** 1 ********."
  • "**** ** *** ************* we *** * *** brands ** *** * must ****. ************ ******** regarding ** *** *** becoming **** ** * issue."
  • "* **** ** ** opposed ** *****; * felt **** ****** *********** was * ****** ******. However, ***** *** *** business *** **** ******* rapidly, ** **** ***** relying ** ***** ******* that ** **** **** well **** ******** ****** up *** ************/************* *******. We *** ******-**** ****** now *** **** ***** it ** ** **** reliable **** ****** **** so ***** ***** *** made *** **** ******."
  • "********* *** ****!"
  • "*** ******** ** ****** and ******. ** **** cases ***** *** ****** to ** ********** ** functionality ** ** **% of *** *************."
  • "**** ** **** * common ********. ** ***** us ****** *********** ** really ***** *** ********* across *************. *****'* ****** work ** ********** ******."
  • "***** ******** *********** ** camera *******. ******* *****, interoperability ***** ** *********** limited."
  • "** *** ******* * little *** ** ****** to *** ***** ************ market. ** *** ***** us * **** **** option **** **** ********* can't **** ** **** the **** ** ****** product *************. ** ******* means ** ***'* ****** advanced ******** ******* *** NVMS *********. * *****'* delved **** ***** ***** specifications/implementations **** ***** ******** products, *** * ******'* mind ****** *** ***** expand."
  • "** **** ********* - we **** *** **** that ** **** ** a ****** ***** **** standard, ** **** *** video *** ** *** camera (***** *** *** of *** ********, *** a ***** ******)."
  • "****** ************** ** *** camera **** *** ********* be ************ - * think **'* ******* ****** for *** ************ ****** side ** *** ******** that **** **************** *** keeps *** *********** ***** to * *******."
  • "********* ********* ********* - security ******** *** **** negligent *** *** *** long ** **** ***** not ******** ** ** other **********."
  • "**** ***** **** ******* all *** ************* ** work ******** *** *** perfect *** *** *** best ***** ** **** had ** *** ******** different ******* *** **** not ********** ****** ***** came ***** ** **** integrate ******* ** **** together."

ONVIF ***** **** ****** ****** *************

******* ** *** ******** viewpoints ** ***** ******** on *** ***-**-**** ****** of ******* ****** ***** connectivity ** ***** *******. Integrators ***** **** **** native ******* *** ***** the **** ******** *** to *** ******** ************* support ** *** ***.

  • “****** **********. **** ************ still ******* ************ *************, so ***** *** ****** may "****" ******* **'* ONVIF, **'* ***** ***** to **** *** *** the ********* *** ****.”
  • “***** ***** ***** ********, we ****** ** *** vendor ******** *******. *** example, ***** ***** ** Exacq ***** ****** ********* must ** *** ** on **** ****** ******* of ******* *** ***. Imagine ******* ** ** 40+ ******* ** ********* each *** ************. **** a ***** ** ****.”
  • “****** ** ***** ***** for *** ************* *** rather *** ********* *********** between ******* *** *** platforms. **** ********** *** seen *** *** ***** but ********** *********** ** other *********, **** ****** detection, ***.”
  • “* ****** ****** ***** with ***/*** ************ **** same ************ *** ***** need ****. **** * do *** **** * hate ** ******* ** mostly *****'* ******* ****** detection (** ***** **** my *******, ** * have ** ****** **** time ***** ** *** ideal ** **% ** my ********).”
  • “** *** ***** * try ** *** ****** drivers *** *** ********** lack ** ******* ******* through *** ***** ******.”
  • “******* ** ***** *** specific ******. **** ************* work ***** ***** *** little ******* *** ******** except ****** ****”
  • “** ** ***** *** away **** *** ****** drivers *** *** ***** VMS *******. *** ** it ** * *** to *** * ***** white ***** ****** ** an ********* ****** ***** is **** ****** *** case. ** *** **** a **** ***, **** you *** ****** * name ***** ******* *** use ***** ****** ******* in *** ***.”

*** ***** ** ******* products ****** ***** *********, basic ********* *** ********* tends ** ** ********, but ******* *** ****** detection ** ******** ********/******** is ***** * ***** between * ****** *** VMS ******** ***** *******.

Claims ** ********** ****** ** *******

******* ***** ******* ***** was *** **** ** enforcement ****** ******** ******** to ** ***** *********. Part ** *** ******* of *********, *** ********** programs, ** ** **** customers ***** ** **** that ******** **** **** together ********. ******* *** ability ** ***** **** products ******* **** *** of ***** ********** ** certification, *********** *** ****** to **** **** ** verify **** ******** **** in **** ********* *** function ** ******.

  • "** *****, * ****** to *** **** * liked *****. ***** ***, standards *** ****. ** the ***** ****, ***** are *** **** ******** with ***** **** **** to ** ****** ***: #1 ** **** ***** are ** **** ******* falsely ******** ***** ********** - *** ** ***** they're ***** ** **** impunity. #* ** **** partial ********** ** ***** a *******, *** ** probably *** ** *** reasons **** *********** ***-**-*** solutions *** ******* *****. Integrators *** *** ***** are ***** **** ********* to *** ** * design ***** ****** ** ONVIF. ****'* ****** ******** camera *******. *******, ***** should **** *** ***** of ***** *******."
  • “************* *** ***** ***** compliant ** *** ****** as ********* ** *** standards ** **** **** applications ** **** ******.”
  • “**** ** **** ********* for ****************, *** *** that **** ** *** enforce ********* * **** seen **** ***-**** ******* claiming ** ** ***** but *** *****.”
  • “**** * *********** ***** you **** *** ***** it ***** *******. ** you *****'* ****** ** don't ****** ** ** work.”
  • “***** **** *** ****** enforced. ***** * **** to ** ** ********** wise ** **** ******** cross **********. *******, **** did **** ** ******* quickly ** ** ****** submission ** *** ******* out *** *** ******* claiming ***** ***********.”
  • "* ** *** ***** this ********** ** **********. There *** * *** of ************* ******, *** need ** ***** **** time ** ******* ***** compatibility ******* **** *** cameras. *** ****** *** time ** **** *******."
  • “** * ***** ***** standards **** ********* ******** this ** * **** joke.”

***** *** ***** ************* ********** ****, *** ***** are ****, **** ******** still *** ***** ******* claiming ***** ***********.

Outlook *** *****

****** ************ *** ***** valued, ***** *** ****** the "******** ********", *** eclipsing **************** ***** ** ******** among ******* *** *****. It *** ****** ********, and *************, **** ** is ******** ** *********** stand ***** ****** ** this *****, *** *** ONVIF ********* *** ***** they ****** ** ******** development ** *** ***** feature ******. **** **** in ****, ***** ** clearly **** ** ****, the ******** ** ** or **** ** **** deliver ******-*********** ***** ******* support ** * ****-***-**** fashion.

Comments (6)

ONVIF is a "paper tiger" that has been abused for years...nice in theory but not held

to the same standards that the "tech industry" has required for decades.

 

No teeth to control "advertising" nor "adherence".

Agree
Disagree: 2
Informative
Unhelpful: 1
Funny

If ONVIF is so bad, why does it have an integrator favorability higher than most manufacturers?

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

I guess because its the best from the worst.
While we complain a lot about ONVIF we don't have much to choose from and it better than manufacturer lockin.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

...nice in theory

Do you remember the "bad old days" before ONVIF?

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

ONVIF is the right idea, and they've been able to accomplish a lot.  I believe the positive favorability has more to do with the intent and progress than what we actually have today.  Standards are a good thing and I hope they continue to improve, but until ONVIF has the ability to standardize more of the unique / advanced functionalities that cameras are offering today, it will not replace the need for unique drivers.

Some VMS's have gone to latest ONVIF standard for most cameras, then focus on just the biggest players to do the unique / advanced integrations with.  This saves time and resources, and I'd expect to see this same approach for some time.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

As a consulting engineer in low voltage system I really appreciate seeing these comments both pro and con in the surveys.  You guys set my agenda as to what I am going to specify on my projects because you are the ones that have to make these systems work.  Thanks for the input and thanks to IPVM for doing these.  The surveys alone are worth the price of admission.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny
Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 7,201 reports and 959 tests and is only available to subscribers. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.

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