To provide one end user viewpoint (although maybe not an "average" customer), a standard markup on equipment hardly seems objectionable. Somehow, a vendor must support costs associated with equipment procurement, receiving, performance verification, returns, and vendor payments, and markup is one such tool. 30% seems pretty tame. In my uneducated opinion, 50% over market might begin to look a little opportunistic, but must be considered as a part of a complete proposal, not in isolation.
In addition to equipment mark-up, personally I find that quotes that list independent installation costs and equipment costs are very easy to understand and, as noted above, how could one critize vendor-supplied gear costed within MSRP + freight? We find business freight can vary widely and can be a very significant percentage of an item's unit cost, and this may be unappreciated by the customer when they're not doing the procurement themselves. Web purchases seem designed to reinforce this oversight, since freight isn't attached until the very final step before payment, and many "price shoppers" never get to that final step.
Some customers may not be satisfied with the "FHD-WDR-LL-15" approach if they want to understand what it is that you're installing. For example, if they think they're paying for Axis but wonder if you'll deliver Dahua (or even a less capable Axis), would they explain the problem or would they just look elsewhere? When prospective customers may wonder exactly what it is that you are delivering, is it possible that sales could be facing challenges because a quote is interpreted as unclear or possibly even evasive?
This has been a good conversation. I always appreciate threads improve end user understanding of elements of costing and pricing. Thanks, OP, IPVM, and contributors!