No announcement yet.

Axis TCO study

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Axis TCO study

    Have you guys seen this publication circulating in many websites and in security magazines?

    Axis Communications has released a study that shows an IP-based system of 40 cameras offers a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than an analogue-based surveillance system.Axis Communications, the global leader in network video, has released a study that shows an IP-based system of 40 cameras offers a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) than an analogue-based surveillance system. The study also shows that if IP infrastructure is in place, the IP-based video surveillance system will always cost less.

    The study was commissioned by Axis in order to develop an understanding of the total cost of ownership for both an analogue surveillance system and an IP-based video surveillance system. Factors such as system maintenance, video recording and playback, cameras, installation, configuration, training and cable infrastructure were assessed.

    A dozen interviews were conducted with non-vendor industry participants such as security integrators, value-added resellers and industry analysts from different geographic regions in North America. Participants provided feedback, validation and cost data in the form of request for proposal (RFP) responses. The RFP was based on a typical deployment scenario that included a 40-camera surveillance system for a small to mid-size school campus. No existing cameras were said to be re-installed, and no premise wiring or infrastructure existed.

    Findings showed that the cost to acquire, install and operate an IP-based system was 3.4 per cent lower than a traditional system consisting of analogue cameras and DVR-based recording. Overall, an installation with 32 cameras is the break-even point for IP-based systems versus analogue systems. An IP-based system will cost less than an analogue system if the installation includes at least 32 cameras. With any installation between 16 and 32 cameras, the cost of IP versus analogue is similar although slightly lower for analogue systems. The research also showed that in facilities where IP infrastructure is already installed, IP-based surveillance systems would always be lower cost, i.e. even for systems consisting of 1 to 32 cameras.

    Fredrik Nilsson, general manager, Axis Communications, commented: "There is an overwhelming lack of knowledge about the total cost of ownership when it comes to analogue versus IP-based systems. The study, which was led by an independent researcher, clarifies common misperceptions about pricing and validates the cost effectiveness of IP surveillance systems."

    "There were many observations and cost considerations in the study that were non-quantifiable but showed major differences between the two systems. Network cameras provide superior scalability, greater flexibility and image quality, also megapixel functionality. In addition, IP systems typically include better maintenance and service agreements for the equipment, plus they can be remotely serviced over the network for easier maintenance. IP systems clearly make the most sense both from an economic and technological standpoint."

    Steve Gorski, managing director, Axis Communications (UK) Ltd, commented: "This study shows that on a like-for-like basis where cost is the only consideration, IP-based systems make sense at a relatively low number of installed cameras. In our experience, most end-users will have some IP infrastructure to integrate into already which network cameras can immediate advantage of. When you add in the wider benefits of IP-based systems, such as scalability, remote monitoring and image quality, solely basing a comparison on cost becomes less and less relevant."

    I read this article in this new private forum -

    Several member actually had a lot to say about this publication pointing inaccuracy of the statements and raising a lot more questions then answering concerns... What is your take on this publication??

  • #2
    The research also showed that in facilities where IP infrastructure is already installed, IP-based surveillance systems would always be lower cost, i.e. even for systems consisting of 1 to 32 cameras.
    Well, of course, that's the magic phrase, isn't it? If you already have the infrastructure to install IP cameras (ie a robust network backbone with lots and lots of bandwidth to spare) and maintain IP cameras (ie computer nerds on your payroll with not enough to do) then it makes sense to install IP cameras in a large installation. Otherwise, it doesn't.

    Alternativly, in very small installations, like nanny-cam type scenarios, where a do-it-yourselfer wants a lot of control and options, then it makes sense to install, say, three or four BB-HCM580As. But even that isn't all that different, because in this case we have the infrastructure to install (lots of unused bandwidth, if the customer has what scam artists like to call a Smart Home and the rest of us like to call A House with Way More Cabling Than Strictly Neccessary) and maintain (ie a type A personality for a customer who likes nothing more than to fiddle and play with the cameras until they're exaclty right).

    I'd say we're riiiiiiiiiight at the crest of the IP wave- IP cameras still aren't quite as good or as cheap as analog, but almost. Give it another year and a half, maybe less.

    Of course, I'm in sales nowadays, not installations, so maybe I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
    The CCTV Blog.

    "Expert" is something like "leader". It's not a title that you can ever claim for yourself no matter what you might know or might have done. It's a title that others bestow on you based on their assessment of what you know and what you have done.



    • #3
      Well said with your assessment...

      We actually took this publication and dissected one sentence and each paragraph and came with various and realistic questions that we addressed with Axis and anyone that uses this or any IP product line.. and yet, we could not find a single manufacturer that could agree with this publication nor give their side of the story,...

      It is a great technology, but the cost vs. benefit studies makes it useless at this time... You are correct in your timeline assessing the fact that it could take at least a year or more for this technology to be cost effective... Out take is, it will take at least 2 and possibly even 3 years before this technology actually will be reachable for most users... Of course, larger companies, military and government have such unlimited funds to substantiate such costs, regardless if it is the IP cameras, the NVRs, the storage ramifications, the network requirement or even maintenance (most of the manufacturers offer this camera with only one year warranty). However, the majority masses can not come close to such expensive solution yet...

      What I think is that the transition will be going with "hybrid" solutions before it turns into a complete digital... that process can take at least 2 years or even more...

      Like any newer technology emergence, it always costs more initially until competition sets in and then drives the pricing lower.. We have to wait and see...


      • #4
        As every camera installation is different, the technology behind it is different. More and more installations are IP based or hybrid using analog cameras and encoders. Lets face it - the IP based systems are easier to manage and if you have the luxury to have your own network with layer 3 switches, the bandwidth problem is under control.
        I managed a lot of casino installations which of course were all analog systems. In the past 6 months that is changing - even the casinos are looking into IP based surveillance systems - they realized that for a large install is more cost effective than old fashioned analog cameras with NVRs.