OpenEye Launches Own Cloud VMS

By Brian Karas, Published Sep 07, 2016, 10:36am EDT

OpenEye has been shipping security recording solutions since 2001, yet has remained mostly behind the scenes, OEMing their solution to more recognized brands.

Now, OpenEye has released a new platform that leverages cloud connectivity and is shifting to selling under their own brand.

Rick Sheppard [link no longer available], CEO and Founder of OpenEye, spoke with IPVM about the new direction the company is taking.

OpenEye **********

******* ** ********* **** with ** ******** *********. The ******* *** ******* by * ***** ** Gonzaga ********** ******** *** *** grown *********** **** ****. Based **** *******, ** the ******* ******* ~*** employees, **** **% ** those ** ***********.

*** ****-*** ******* *** a ******-***** ********* ****** that **** ******** ***'* from * ****** ******* and ***** ** ***** companies (****** ***** ** include *********). **** ******** made ** **** ********* for ******* ** ***** ** building ***** *********** ********** and ******* *** **** to **** ***** *********** in *****/*********. ** * result *** ******* ****, but ******** ********** ******* under ***** *** *****.

*** ******* *** ***** some ***-** ******** ****** their ***'* *** **** the *****, *** ** 2012 began ** ******* ***** own *** ******** **-*****. This ** **** ****** their ******* *****-******* ***.

New ***** ** *****

******* *** ******** ** *** ***** *** product. Users ***** **** * "traditional" ***** **** * local ********, ** ** not ******** ** ** a ****** ********, *** more ** * *********** management ******** **** * web-based ** *** *********. OpenEye **** **** **** this ******** ******** * more ********* *** ****** to ****** ******** *** users.

**** ******** *** ****** out ** ***** ** a **** ******** ** August ****, *** *** released ** * ******* 1.0 ******* ** **** 2016.

Channel ******** *** ********

******* ** ******* **** new *** ******* ***** their *** *****, ******* certified ******** ***********. ************* involves ********** * ********* and ***** ******** ******, along **** ********* ******* sales *****. *** ******* says **** **** ******** doing * *****-***** ******* for **** ***** *********, but ********* **** ** sell *** ****** ******* to ***** *****.

Sales **** ***********

********* ***** *** * outside ***** ****** *** 3 **'*, ******* **** they **** ** *** additional people ** *** ***** team ** ****. ****** hires ******* **** ********* [**** no ****** *********] **** *****, and **-********* ***-*** ******* for ********** **** ***** [**** no ****** *********].

Supports ******** ****** ******

******* ************ ***** ***** *** brand, *** **** **** are more ******* ** ***** VMS. ********* *** *** any ****** **** *** system, ** **** ** it ** ***** ********* or *** ** *********** with *** ********.

*******

***** *** *** ******* models, ** * **** traditional *****, *** ******** pays ~$** *** ****** for *** ******* *******, and **** ~$**/**** *** maintenance. ** *** ***** model, *** ******* ** ~$45 *** ****** *** year ** ** ****-**-**** basis, ** ********** *** multi-year ************ *********** ** front. **** ******* ** for ******* ******** *******, ***** ******* **** is *** **** ******* version. In **** ******** ******* scenarios *** ******** **** purchase *** **-**** ******** for *** ******** ** they ***** **** ******* VMSes.

Compared ** ********

***** *** *** ****** a **** ****** ** attention ** *** *** market ** *************** **** the ***** (******** *** ***** *** Tested). ******* ** ******* ********** to ********'* ***** ********** only *** *******. ***** ******** ** more ******* ** ********** the ***** *** ******* and ********, ******* ** taking * **** ************ approach, ******* ******* ****** local *** ***** *** cloud **** *** ************ and ********** ********.

Cloud *** ****** *******

** **** *******, ******** bandwidth ** ***** ******, slow, **********, ** * combination *******, ****** ** difficult ** ***** * cost-effective ***** ********* ******** that *** ***** ** a **** ******* ** verticals. ** **** ******, OpenEye *** * ***** approach, ******* ******* **-**** minimizes ****** ** ******** bandwidth, ******* ***** *** user ************** *** ***** management ********* ** ******* OpenEye's ***** *******, ********* suffering ** ******** ****** may **** *** ****** limited ** ********.

*** ******* ********* *** OpenEye *** ** ****** gaining ****** *********, **** ****** *** *** ******* ** *** ******, *** the ******** ** **** market ***** ** ** a *** *** *****, launching * *** ***** and ******* **** ********* can ** ***********. *******, if ******* ** **********, much ** ***** ************* could ** ********** ** other *** ******* ** customers ****** **** ******** to *** **********.

*******, ***** *** ************ of **** ******** **** / *********** ***** (**** Exacq, *********, ************), ** do *** *********** ******* for ***** *********** *** options. **** *** ** an **** ***** ******* can ******.

Comments (10)

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

09/07/16 05:41pm

1) How OpenEye deals with existing/traditional channels? Does it compete with itself?

2) what's the integrator's motivation to sell EgleEye? Does EgleEye pay back RMR to integrators?

3) how is it going so far?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Hans Kahler

Eagle Eye Networks
In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 09/07/16 07:17pm

I work for Eagle Eye.

In response to question #2 above, Eagle Eye dealers earn RMR on every project. We don't pay it to them, rather, the end user pays the dealer, and the dealer pays us. Much the same way that a DVR or camera is sold. (but just to be clear, we don't go through distribution.)

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to Hans Kahler | 09/08/16 09:24am

Thanks!

Ivideon does something similar and as far as I know they pay back to a dealer, while users pay to Ivideon.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 09/08/16 11:37am

they pay back to a dealer

I don't know how Ivideon does this, but as a general practice, integrators do not like this because it means the manufacturer has the billing / customer relationship, where integrators typically see this as their role, ergo how OpenEye, Eagle Eye, and most others I can think of do it.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to John Honovich | 09/08/16 12:04pm

Understood. But if the manufacturer does not have billing relations with customers, it means that dealer has to manage payment process for each customer and discontinue service if not paid. A lot of things to care about ... is not it?

wonder how eagle eye handles it.


Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 09/08/16 12:07pm

wonder how eagle eye handles it.

Well then, look 3 comment above :)

Eagle Eye states:

We don't pay it to them, rather, the end user pays the dealer, and the dealer pays us.

Either the manufacturer needs to pay the integrator or the integrator needs to pay the manufacturer but since integrators tend to really really care about this, the model is typically integrator gets paid by customer, then pays manufacturer.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Avatar

Brian Karas

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #1 | 09/08/16 12:27pm

It is a lot to manage, and I'm not sure there is a 100% preferred approach to this. I spent a LOT of time on this topic while at VideoIQ when we were in the process of developing a cloud service that we hoped to bill for eventually. I spoke with about 50 different integrators on how to handle it.

Integrators that had either a background in selling alarms (or other RMR services), or the more modern ones with automated billing systems preferred the approach where they billed customers directly, and paid their own service invoices separately (obviously keeping the markup/difference as their profits).

Integrators (even larger ones I spoke with) that did not do a lot of RMR, or were not setup to handle a large volume of accounts receivable processing were quite fine with just having us bill users directly and give them what would effectively be a monthly commission. One caveat here is that the billing would be done where the customer would get a bill/invoice with the integrators name/logo, not VideoIQ's.

Nobody (that I recall) preferred a method where VideoIQ had a direct, branded, relationship with the end user for billing.

For the integrators to manage this it also meant that we needed to have a billing/account management dashboard. I think almost as much effort went into building a billing/tracking backend as building the actual user-facing part of the product.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Brian Karas | 09/08/16 03:50pm

One caveat here is that the billing would be done where the customer would get a bill/invoice with the integrators name/logo, not VideoIQ's.

Apologies for slightly off topic, but quickly do 3-party rmr monitoring services do this for every integrator company that they service, with potentially hundreds of logos and company names?

Is that why they just answer "Central Station?"

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to Brian Karas | 09/08/16 04:59pm

Thanks a lot !!!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Vladimir Eremeev

In reply to John Honovich | 08/17/18 02:18pm

Ivideon can take payments from user and then pay back to a dealer, and there is also scheme when dealer take payments and pay back to Ivideon. 

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

This article is part of IPVM's 6,898 reports, 921 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