50 percent growth for IP video sales

[CameraMan]

This article, on the main site.

A few comments, if I may.

According to the numbers cited by MultiMedia Intelligence, the market for networked video grew 48 percent in 2007. That's nearly four times the growth rate of the entire video surveillance market (which would include analog cameras, DVRs, and other traditional devices as well as IP-related devices like encoders and NVRs).

Well, yeah. Analog CCTV is- or should be- a dying market. There should be no reason for enterprise-class installs to even consider analog video anymore- as I said in a previous post, if you have the backbone, defined as already having the prerequisite amount of cabling run and adequate bandwidth and the proper amount of switches and servers and so forth, not to mention having the nerds in the IS department onsite ready to service the network, then we've already past the point that the ROI for IP cameras are better than analog cameras. Remember, computers are cheap nowadays, and storage is practically free. Throw an intelligent search function and megapixel cameras in there and you've got what we all wanted from CCTV all along- a silent witness.

So why is there any analog sales at all?

(T)he traditional security dealers and integrators do not have the IP expertise to effectively sell and deliver these networked surveillance offerings.

And this is why IS will eat security's lunch, every time.

I'm in CCTV sales, and our biggest growth market is networking and IS techs being asked by their bosses- and thus, their customers- to install surveillance. It just makes sense for the customer, in a lot of cases, to have the CCTV be part of the overall network. A lot of end users aren't even using the CCTV for primarily security purposes. One of the biggest uses for CCTV I'm hearing about from my customers is business intelligence, not security. And if this is the reason the customer wants the cameras, do you think that job is going to some trunk slamming alarm guy or locksmith with dirty pants and rough sketches done on the back of an old envelope or to an IS salesman with a pink tie and a goatee who can use the word 'paradigm' correctly?

[Rooney]

IT security is growing by leaps and bounds. Not only in the CCTV field but also in access control and intrusion arena's. In the last couple years I have had numerous people apply for a position within my company that have good cctv and intrusion experience but NO networking or IP background. It is getting to the point that when we are hiring we must advertise for IT people then train them on the CCTV and other systems we use. It is much easier training an IT person on CCTV then it is the other way around.

One thing we have to consider in all of this is the cost of installation and maintenance due to the need of higher compensation to the technicians. This cost will need to be passed onto the consumer. Which, in my opinion, will cause a short decline in the market until the number of trained persons increase and the demand for thier services level out. One problem is getting enough trained persons to handle the need. As we all know the number of people being trained in the IT fields has had a major shift to offshore schools such as in India and Southeast Asia. I see a shortage of trained people for some time to come. This will be a problem due to the major rise in the market.

[integrator97]

I won't dispute it's the way of the future. And no one should be recording on tape. But I disagree that IP cameras are better, yet. For alot of areas, well lit, sure. But other areas, harsh environments, not $ for $. Yet.

Don't let the growth factor mislead though. Analog sales, should stay steady or decline as IP picks up. Analog is a mature technology. IP isn't. If I sold 1000 last year, and 1500 this year, well, that's a 50% growth.

But, as I said, it is the way we're going.

[rebco]

I have to enter my $.02 like integrator97 said yes it is the future but far from the cure all that everyone states. I could just imagine an IT guy installing a 4 lux ip camera in dark corner, Get real, I am going to hire a guy that just came from working in Verizon's IT department and tell him to run cable and get dirty or put him in a cherry picker 20 ft off the ground are we kidding ourselves, I was in the IT field for many years and wasn't for me, because I always like to get my hands dirty, but 99% of my co-workers would look at me like i had 2 heads when I got dirty doing something..They came in clean and left the sameway It's a white collar job.. You could never replace an installer with an IT guy you can't even compare the two. I think everyone has a misconception of the IP future, You will still need an Installer and It guy, but I don't see the IT field completely taking over the CCTV market.....

As for

Analog CCTV is- or should be- a dying market

Ye I am sure that the mom and pop store or even the local small retail store is really going to put out $800 per camera

[CameraMan]

I thin you may be looking at this the wrong way. It's not that IT will take over the CCTV industry. Rather, CCTV equipment will begin to act like IT products more and more, so CCTV people will need to learn how to use it.

People who tell me that IT guys will never get their pant dirty are missing the point- we will become IT guys because our stuff will be IT stuff. IP cameras very nearly are cheaper that anaolg camera systems in new, large installations, because the network is already there- you don't need to run another set of cables- and computers are cheap (much cheaper than DVRs) and storage is dirt cheap (much cheaper than adding storage to a DVR). If you can use something you've already paid for for more than one purpose, the network and storage in this case, then it doesn't matter that the cameras are more expensive because in the long run you come out ahead.

I agree that IP cameras don't make sense for small to medium jobs- yet. Although, an Axis 206 costs just $189.95 (retail), and if you already have a computer in that mom-and-pop, you can just save data to the local hdd. There's that economies of scale we talked about, it's cheaper to make one expensive device do two or more jobs than to make a few cheaper devices do one job each.

[rebco]

Cameraman I agree with you 100% about the future being IT based but I can't see using Ip cameras in a low light situations at least the ones i 've looked at..Not to mention that when you install IP cameras the network will get bogged down unless you are running a 1Gb network Not to mention you still need a server or a dedicated computer to process the video. The one misconception i see alot is IP will be the cure all, or the all in one solution but it is not, even with analog cameras i can't see using the same cameras for everything.....I wish that IP was better in low light situations but till then i don't think we can say stop using analog cameras. As you said yes the Axis 206 costs just $189.95 but can you really tell the custmer you need to have a electrician here to install more light outside because the cameras need more light.. I can't wait for the day were we can gt IP cameras to do everything analog cameras do but till then Analog is here to stay for sometime.....

As for the comment on Field Techs

It is much easier training an IT person on CCTV then it is the other way around. .

I don't see this IT people are guys and gals that want to go to work with clean hands and come home the same way... I don't see them a field pros, I think you need both and both have to learn the others field in and out.

[integrator97]

I thin you may be looking at this the wrong way. It's not that IT will take over the CCTV industry. Rather, CCTV equipment will begin to act like IT products more and more, so CCTV people will need to learn how to use it.

People who tell me that IT guys will never get their pant dirty are missing the point- we will become IT guys because our stuff will be IT stuff. IP cameras very nearly are cheaper that anaolg camera systems in new, large installations, because the network is already there- you don't need to run another set of cables- and computers are cheap (much cheaper than DVRs) and storage is dirt cheap (much cheaper than adding storage to a DVR). If you can use something you've already paid for for more than one purpose, the network and storage in this case, then it doesn't matter that the cameras are more expensive because in the long run you come out ahead.

I agree that IP cameras don't make sense for small to medium jobs- yet. Although, an Axis 206 costs just $189.95 (retail), and if you already have a computer in that mom-and-pop, you can just save data to the local hdd. There's that economies of scale we talked about, it's cheaper to make one expensive device do two or more jobs than to make a few cheaper devices do one job each.

I wouldn't use the PC most of those type of customers have. They are usually cheapo's or low end name brand, with a basic video card. I know I'll end up getting complaints that it runs slower now, or crashes. Plus the hard drive usually isn't up to the task. I refer you to this white paper, which explains why. Basically, video surveillance drives run 24/7, where as most consumer drives (what you find in most PC's or purchase at BestBuy, Circuit City, etc) aren't designed for that. They have power save features that shut it down when not in use, which is expected to be 1/2 to 2/3 of the time. http://www.seagate.com/content/pdf/w...ance_Apr06.pdf

I also wouldn't let the PC perform double duty on a system of any importance.

That Axis 206 is an ok alternative to a CMOS based micro-dome with a fixed iris and focal length.

But if you compare the 216FD, their least expensive full (camera) featured dome to it's analog equals, it is at least $400 more. At 10 cameras that's $4000. And compare an analog day/night dome to the 225FD, and your talking $700 to $1000 more for IP. Yes, it does depend on the situation, but right now, analog cameras outperform and outprice IP in most cases.

[CameraMan]

Sure, many of not most IP cameras suck in low light, but that isn't an inherent weakness of IP technology. It's just that whoever designes IP cameras haven't addressed low light capability yet.

As for video servers- you can put together a perfectly decent server for under $1000.

High bandwdth networks are getting to be more and more common, too.

My point is, we can't keep telling ourselves "Oh, I'll learn networking sometime in the future" because the future isn't in five years from now. The future is tomorow.

Listen to me, I sound like a commercial for a new cell phone

[integrator97]

I agree you need to learn IP now. I've had enough headaches just getting it so they could see the DVR from home. Most small business don't have an IT guy, and they don't know what they have, so your on your own.

I was addressing your comment:

and if you already have a computer in that mom-and-pop, you can just save data to the local hdd. There's that economies of scale we talked about, it's cheaper to make one expensive device do two or more jobs than to make a few cheaper devices do one job each.

when I said I wouldn't use theirs. Yes, you can put together a server for a decent price.

Not sure why they haven't taken existing good cameras and built in a video encoder.

By the way, I have systems doing just that. Using my analog cameras, to a network encoder (4 channel units), which jump on a dedicated GB lan over fiber to dedicated servers running ViconNet software. The IP cameras available can't do what I'm asking these to do, performance wise.

Now about that cell phone......

[CameraMan]

Not sure why they haven't taken existing good cameras and built in a video encoder.

Frustrating, isn't it? Even good companies with plenty of analog camera experience, like Panasonic for example, can't seem to build ip cameras with specs companable to analog cameras, even though the technology needed for things like optics or image sensors are identical to analog cameras. That's because the people whi desing IP cameras never talk to the guys who used to design analog cameras.

Incidentally, my Panasonic guy informed me, quitely, that Panasonic is going to discontinue R&D on all analog cameras and DVRs. I don't know how accurate this is.

[integrator97]

An age old problem of the left and right hand not communicating. Years ago, we wanted to send proprietary Moose keypad and bus data over fiber. We contacted Fiber Options. Both companies were owned by Sentrol. We had to purchase and send an extra alarm system to Fiber Options. Moose wouldn't give them the data specs, and they couldn't walk across the hall (figuratively) and get a panel. Go figure.

Probably a good business idea for Panasonic. Though they make good products, their cameras and DVR's are more expensive but not any better than several of their competitors. And the service when you have problems is worse. So try to lead in the newer area.

[CameraMan]

Except they now won't sell you equipment directly or give you tech support unless you're certified, which is what Panasonic already does with telephone KSUs and voicemail systems.

My solution? Get certified. My employer is paying for it, after all.

[integrator97]

That's fine as long as they offer online certification. Some companies want you to go to classes, which keeps them out of smaller markets, where it's hard to justify the expense, when there are alternatives.

[john_harrington]

"Well, yeah. Analog CCTV is- or should be- a dying market."

Hmmm.... we better remove the almost 1800 analog cameras just added as part of a large casino expansion! The IP systems simply were not ready- inadequate control room images, PTZ latency issues, etc.

There is no question that we will certainly see many systems going IP. There is no IT manager in the world that will allow a large scale IP CCTV system on their existing network. However, as noted most CIOs are more politically savvy and resourcful, let alone usually more powerful than the CSO or Security Director and they will use that advantage to grab more budget to support the IP systems, hence weakening the Security Director's position even more.

We are looking at many of the major systems now- I just did the Pelco Endura tour in CA. We will look at Cisco, ONSSI, AD Video Edge and a few others.

What IP systems do you like?

John

[CameraMan]

If you've got inadequate control room imagery, and even to a large extent PTZ latency, I'd suggest the problem is in the network backbone, not an inherent an unsurmountable problem in IP cameras themselves.

As for CIOs versus CSOs, I'm worried about what will happen with CCTV. CIOs will grab CCTV systems for themselves, seeking bigger budgets, more equipment, more personell, more power. They will argue, in the future, that since CCTV is by and large IP based, it should be in the hands of the IT department, not Security. The lucky companies will be the ones where the CIO puts a security consultant on the IT staff. The majority of companies will see the IT department saying to themselves "how hard can this security stuff be, anyway?" and thus security will be compromised. Security in general and the idea of surveillance video as a security tool will get a bad rap.

The way to prevent this is for CSOs to educate themselves on concepts like network architecture, bandwith, ROI, and so on, so they can fight- or work with- the IT department.