Good question, tough one.
I don't think end users in surveillance are terribly sensitive to brand. If it was, you'd have far far less fragmentation in market share. Additionally, very few surveillance companies have a big brand when it comes to end users as they tend not to be mass market companies who would be widely known outside of the business.
I am curious to hear what other's say. Good topic!
IPVMU Certified | 01/24/13 04:15pm
In access, brand alone isn't typically important, but interoperability and compatibility are.
The potential to be 'locked' into a given access system is much higher. For example, in a large scale video surveillance system, I might have 4 or 5 brands of cameras and multiple models. 3rd party VMSes do a good job at working with a range of devices, thereby offering a broad range of options.
This is not the case with access control. If I have 30 doors, each door must use the same controller (or family of controller) compatible with the head end. In other words, I cannot use a LENEL controller with my CCURE system, or vice versa.
Because interoperability is closely correlated with branding in access, I would say there is some sensitivity, but it might be begrudging.
Is 'interoperability closely correlated with branding in access'? Really?
Branding's more about, "I really like/love Company X" not "I have to use Company X because it works with no one else"
In my career in security, I've seen maybe five end users who cared at all about what brand we installed. They just wanted it to work. I think larger end users with more knowledgeable staff are more likely to trust a big brand name, but even most of those haven't been 100% adamant about it.
IPVMU Certified | 01/26/13 03:04pm
I think the market will move to standarized protocols. Like OPC or even Onvif (Did you check the new specs of Onvif regarding access control?)
But concerning security, generally brands means experience and support.