ONVIF Favorability Results 2019

By IPVM Team, Published Mar 15, 2019, 11:01am EDT

In the past decade, ONVIF has grown from a reaction to the outside Cisco-lead PSIA challenge, to being the de facto video surveillance standard officially supported by 11,000 products and thousands of more illicitly.

Integrators have responded positively, in IPVM's latest study of 200+ integrators, with a clear majority positive, as the chart below shows:

fav onvif 2019

However, that does not mean that integrators are completely happy with ONVIF, with numerous complaints about limited functionality and failure to ensure compliance leading the way.

In this note, we examine the key themes for integrators about ONVIF.

Key ******

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

  • "********" - **** **** ever, **** *********** *** ONVIF ** * ********.
  • ******** *********** ***** *****
  • ********** ***** *** **** to *** ****** ******* over *****
  • ******** **** *** *********** of *****, **** ** working **** *.***, ********* and **** (************* * ******* ** improve*****).
  • **** ** *********** / compliance ***** *****

Standards ****

**** *********** ********** ******* ONVIF ** ***** * standard, **** ****** *** question **** ** ********* to ****:

  • "** ******* ** ** an ******** ********."
  • "******** ******** - **** to *** **** ****** over ******* ******* ******* VMS."
  • "***** ***, ***** *** more ** * "**********" than * "********." *****, it ******* *****-********** ****** means *** ******* **** play **** **** *** recorders."
  • "* ***** *** ********* to **** * ******** compatibility ******** ** *** industry."
  • "*** * ******** ** need ** *******"
  • "******** *** ****** **** to ****."
  • "**'* *** ******* **** protocol *** ** ******."
  • "*************** ***** **** ****** for *** **********."
  • "* ***** *************** ** any **** ** * good *****."
  • "**** ** *** **** there ** * "********" to ***** *** ********!"
  • "******* *** ********* ******** is ******* **'* ***** in *** ******."
  • "**** **** ** *** standards **** *** ***** of ******* *** ***'* play ********."
  • "* **** ***** ****** because ** *** ******** to ******* **********."
  • "* ***** ***** *** done * ***** *** of ************* ******** *******."
  • "****'* *** ** ****? An **** ******** ** keep *** ****** **** is **** ****"
  • "********* *** ****** **** for *** ********. ******** camera-wise ** *** ** started ****** **** * couple ***** *** **** met ** ** *********."

Positive ******

*** ***** ******** ******** were ***** *****'* ******* good ****** ** *** industry:

  • "*** ******* * ***** forced *** ******** ** move *******. **** ** has *** *********, *** overall, ****** ********."
  • "************* ******* ** ** integrators * *** ** options ** ***** *** right ******** *** *** customers."
  • "***** - ** * great **** *** **'* come ** ***** ** a *** ********* **** adding ******* ** ******** systems."
  • "****** *** **** ******* mixing *** ******** ****** due ** *****."
  • "** ****** ******** **** before *****? ** ****'* pretty. *** *** *****."

Not ******

*******, **** ** ***********, including **** *** ***** positive *** *****, *** cite ******** ***** ***** not ***** *** ****** and ****** ******** ***** beyond ***** ***** ********* and *************:

  • "** ** **** ** for ***** *********."
  • "**** * ***** *********, does *** **** **** advantage ** *** *** features ** *** ******."
  • "******* ** **** *** integration ** ****** *** and ****, ********** **** it ***** ** *********."
  • "*** ******* ***** ** sometimes *** ********* ***’* want ** **** *********."
  • "** *** **** **** you're ****** ** **, and *** ******* ** accept **** ***********, ** works ****.
  • "** *** "*****" **** caution. **** ******* ********** to, "*** *** *** and ******" *** *** lose **** ******* **** as *** *** ********* record ** ******."
  • "***** ***** ******* *** supported, **** *** ******* (absolute, **********, ********) ******* is ****** ** **** and * ******* ** worst."
  • "** ***** **** ****** functions *** **** ***'* actually ********. ***** ******."
  • "***** ** ****** ******* I *** *** *** ONVIF * ***'* *** a ****** ** ** what * **** **** though *** ****** *** VMS **** ******* *** same *******. ***** ***** a *** ** **** I *****."
  • "***** ***** *** *** issues **** ****** ** use *** **** ********* of *** ******. ** constantly **** ********, *********** etc. **** ** *** onvif ** * ******** of *******."
  • "****** **** ** *** proprietary ******** ** **** systems."
  • "******* ** **** *********, but *****'* ***** *** the ********** ***** *********."
  • "*** ********* *** *** work, *** * ** not **** *** ********* that **** ***** *********."
  • "***** ** * *** of **** *** *********** to ****** ******* **** features."
  • "*** ** ********** ** terms ** **** ******** are ******** ********* ******* ONVIF ***********."
  • "***** ** ******, *****'* always ****. ** *.*** support."
  • "** *****´* ****** *.*** nor ***** ****** ** fully ********** **** **** protocol. ** ******* **, as *********** ** ***** that * ****** **** that ** ******* ***** like *****, *** *******, have ** **** *** other ****** ***** *** compatibility **** ***** ***'*."

Profile * **** ** ******* ********** ********

** ****,***** ******** ******* * which **** ** *********** ** *** *********** that *********** ************** ********** about. *******, ** ** March ****, *** **** of **** ***********, ***** Profile * *** **** 1 *** ********** **********, making *** ***** *******. It ** ******** **** this **** *******, ******* quite *************, ** *** next ****.

Compliance ******

*** ***** *** ******* that *********** ****** *** was *** **** ** actual **********. ***** ***** has ** ******** *********** process, *** ******* *** claim ** ** ***** 'certified' ** '***** **** ONVIF' *** *** ********** that ***** **** ********* is **** *** (** have ******* **** **** the *****). **** *** sample ********** **********:

  • "** ****** ******** ** a ********."
  • "* **** ***** *** a *** *** ***** was *** ** *** more ******** ** ************ to ******."
  • "*** **** **** *** doing ** **** **** the ********** ** ******* their *********...***** ****** *****."
  • "******* *** ***** ***** is ******** ******* ***** accurate, *** *** ******** rendered ** **** *********. If ***** *** * crack-down ** ***-********* ********, it ***** **** ** more *********."
  • "***** ******** ********* *** set, * ***'* *** much ********* ** *****. It's **** **** *** effort *** **** ** create * ********, *** it ***** ** **** teeth. ** ********* *** camera ***** ** ***** standard, ****'* *** *****?"
  • "** **** *********, *** needs ** ** ******** better ** ************* ******* self ******** *************."
  • "***** ** ** ***** in *** "********". **** too ***** *** ******** in *** ******. *** gotten ****** *** ***** needs ** ********."
  • "* ***’* **** *** inconsistency ** *** ************ using ***** ***** ** why *** *** *** cameras ******** ****."
  • "*** **** ********* ***** onvif ********* *** ***** vms ***** **** ********."
  • "** * ********, ******** but ***** ** **** better ** ******** ******** and *********. ***** ******** is '***** **********'"
  • "***** ** * ******** is * **** **** but ***** ****** ** more ********* *********** *** conformity ** *****."
  • "***** **** ***** ******* is ***** - *** what **** **** ****."
  • "*** **** **** ****** not “******” **** **** manufacturers *** *** ***** seal ** ************* ** their ******** ******* ****** being ********** **** *** standardized ***** ********"
  • "* **** *** ********** was ******** ** ****** conformance."

**** *********** **** ***** over *** *****, *** impression ** *** ** that **** ** *** care *** **** ****** active ***********. ** ** strange. ***** ** *** a ***** ************, **** 495 ******* *** ****** membership **** ** ~$*.* million (***** ** ***** pricing ************* *********). *********, ***** **** not *** *********** ** a ******** ** ***** spending.

*******

*** ******* ** ***** certainly ******** *** *****, depending ** *** **** Profile * ***** *** is *******, ** **** could ***** *** ******* pain ***** *** ***** usage.

Comments (17)

ONVIF is a great, but very ambitious project for our industry.  Unfortunately you can't just run into a room and declare yourself the standard, it takes years and years to build the groundwork necessary to be accepted.  ONVIF doesn't have the juice that IEEE or ANSI has, so it's a very hit-or-miss situation.  Also, when dealing with most of the manufacturers of low-cost products that we see every day, they seem to do just enough to get on the ONVIF list and not more in hopes of having customers purchase ALL of their CCTV products from them and not mixing and matching vendors.

Agree: 5
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

What gets me about ONVIF is it's pay to play.  Has anyone ever looked to see who authors these standards?  Designee's (authors) with relationships with AXIS, Sony, Bosch, etc.  All well bankrolled, all writing the standards,  just for how a client connects to / interacts with to a MAC address (IP cameras and encoders).

Sure, it gives the warm and fuzzy knowing that your actually getting something that may work with a minimum "S" profile, but "T" compliance is another story.  Why would you allow someone to say they are compliant when the entire feature doesn't have to be met, then allow exceptions.

 

Agree
Disagree: 3
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Has anyone ever looked to see who authors these standards? Designee's (authors) with relationships with AXIS, Sony, Bosch, etc

Some information here:

Was Creating ONVIF A Wise Decision For Axis?

Can Axis Be Kicked Out Of ONVIF?

ONVIF Chairman Criticizes Low Cost Cameras (Also, He Works At Axis)

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 4
Unhelpful
Funny

Thanks UD#3.  Guess I could have saved myself some time by looking at the archives instead of digging around the ONVIF site.  Still new to IPVM, but learning my way around.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

That is because they were the founding brands in the old day.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

That is because they were the founding brands in the old day.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

One thing that would be interesting to know, via intergrator poll maybe, would be what percentage cameras actually connect (in the field) via ONVIF.

is it 5% or 50%? apologies if this info has already been reported somewhere...

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

According to our statistics (see: ONVIF Usage Statistics 2018), the percentage is around 30%.

Does that help?

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 5
Unhelpful
Funny

perfect.

it looks like this is the first year of stats, but I assume it has always been on the rise.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

ONVIF is outdated and insecure backed by those ancient minds.

No new players will adopt onvif. There are already many successful startups because they didn't fall trap to onvif but their own closed but efficient protocol.

Agree
Disagree: 3
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

What is this list of "successful startups"?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

OnVIF isn't a manufacturer yet you dumped it in your 2019 end of year manufacturer favorability summary. By that logic does Wiegand, or OSDP, or HD analog video, or IPv6 merit a survey?

My only disagreement is that the label is mildly misleading. I appreciate your tracking of OnVIF.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

That’s an interesting idea. We may include such technologies in the 2021 version. Thanks.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Nitpick: ONVIF has a capital N. You may be thinking of OnSSI, which has a lowercase n (but the OnSSI brand is going to be dropped anyway).

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful: 1
Funny

Sure, and I'd correct my own post but...

1. it's a bit excruciating to get back to a post given a feedback comment. 2. there's no edit button.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

ONVIF isn't a manufacturer, but they sell something (access to their specs, test tools, conformance listing, etc.) They are a spec-able item that most products in the industry strive for.

Things like IPv6 is a spec based from a standards organization, such as IEEE, but they don't have any central database or fees to use their standards. They don't have a test tool that is used for conformance testing. ONVIF has all of these.

Similar to how OSSA is shaping out to be...

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

OSSA? You mean android for cameras? Do we have to?

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

This article is part of IPVM's 7,203 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