ASIS, day 3
Much of today's discussion was dominated by standards, especially video standards and the seemingly competing PSIA and Sony-Axis-Bosch video standards groups. I say seemingly because there's a lot that can be misconstrued in the "standards" discussion.
First and foremost, it's not even standards we're talking about. As has been noted often today, anything either group releases will really just be a specification. Without the verification of a standards body like SIA or ANSI, they don't quite reach the level of "standards," even if people talk about the specifications they hope to release in that way.
Second, there's the perception on the show floor that the two groups are competing, and that both groups are competing with SIA in some way, but most conversations I've had with the interested players have seemed to indicate that everyone would ideally like to play together. As evidence, SIA treasurer Rob Hile was named PSIA chairman today, and as for creating a good relationship with SIA, he said today, "I'm personally going to take that on my shoulders."
Are standards a big deal anyway? The are and they aren't. On one hand, just about every major camera company works with every major video management software company, so what's the big deal? Well, both David Bunzel, an originator of the PSIA, and Fredrik Nilsson, general manager at Axis, made the point that software makers like Milestone, Genetec, OnSSI, etc., spend way too much time and energy integrating cameras. What if they never had to spend that money again? Wouldn't that allow those companies to spend much more time and energy on improving functionality and adding features? Seems like a no brainer.
So, no, the industry isn't being dragged down by a lack of standards, but, yes, the industry could be made much more efficient with a solid group of interoperability standards.
I'll have more on this in the next paper.
First and foremost, it's not even standards we're talking about. As has been noted often today, anything either group releases will really just be a specification. Without the verification of a standards body like SIA or ANSI, they don't quite reach the level of "standards," even if people talk about the specifications they hope to release in that way.
Second, there's the perception on the show floor that the two groups are competing, and that both groups are competing with SIA in some way, but most conversations I've had with the interested players have seemed to indicate that everyone would ideally like to play together. As evidence, SIA treasurer Rob Hile was named PSIA chairman today, and as for creating a good relationship with SIA, he said today, "I'm personally going to take that on my shoulders."
Are standards a big deal anyway? The are and they aren't. On one hand, just about every major camera company works with every major video management software company, so what's the big deal? Well, both David Bunzel, an originator of the PSIA, and Fredrik Nilsson, general manager at Axis, made the point that software makers like Milestone, Genetec, OnSSI, etc., spend way too much time and energy integrating cameras. What if they never had to spend that money again? Wouldn't that allow those companies to spend much more time and energy on improving functionality and adding features? Seems like a no brainer.
So, no, the industry isn't being dragged down by a lack of standards, but, yes, the industry could be made much more efficient with a solid group of interoperability standards.
I'll have more on this in the next paper.
posted by Sam at 10:15 PM
4 Comments:
"On one hand, just about every major camera company works with every major video management software company, so what's the big deal?"
Hi Sam, While the top 6 nvrs (or so) generally support the top 6 ip cameras, if you examine the top 24 nvrs and the top 24 camera suppliers, many systems do not support many cameras. Also, consider all the possible new entrants who could enter the space that are blocked by these costs. Even Pelco, with their Endura nvr does not support all the major camera companies. And their new megapixel line will need to get support added from all the nvrs.
On this point, specifically, I believe it is a big deal. With standards in place, you could see significant reductions in cost on both cameras and ip video management systems.
Cheers,
John
Cheers,
John
Hey John,
Well, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, I guess it depends on what your definition of a big deal is. Is it realistic to expect there to be 24 brands of camera and NVR all competing and making money in a still relatively small global market for video surveillance?
Thinking about other industries where standards are important for pieces to work together, are there 24 brands of desktop computer and 24 brands of USB drive makers turning a profit? 24 brands of stereo components? Maybe those aren't good analogies. I'm not sure. But I do on some level wonder what are realistic expectations for the final result of the market.
It's definitely better for the integrator and end user, in an ideal world, for all the parts of a system to work together seamlessly so you can install whatever you want, but I can't tell you how many integrators and end users I talk to, many of them very large, who are pretty happy to install a whole system with one manufacturer so they have one customer support team and, yes, one throat to choke. And their systems seem to work pretty well, too.
Anyway, it's good to have interesting stuff to talk about.
Hi Sam,
While mature markets generally do not need 24 suppliers, today's market would benefit by broader support in 3 ways:
- The top 6 IP video software providers are only 20-30% of the market. In other words, the 'majors' are only a small part of the market. Customers use a wide variety of video management systems and are hitting lots of obstacle migrating to IP because most video management systems only support a small number of IP cameras available.
- Even if 24 suppliers are not needed when the market matures, making it easy for new suppliers to enter the market today promotes competition and force lower prices (a good think for integrators and end users).
- Standards make it easy for camera manufacturers to specialize and bring to market new niche products. For instance, let's say you built a super low light IP camera or a super small form IP camera. Today, if you had to lobby for support by each video management system, the cost could be prohibitive. The supplier may not be able to enter and consumers would be denied the benefits of the new differentiated offering.
Cheers,
John
Well articulated John and I don't disagree. It's good incentive for integrators and end users to make sure they're involved in the discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home