******* *********** *****’* *** ** *** products ** ***** *********** ** ** take ** ** ** *************** **** Garrett ** *** ****** ** *** school ******** ******. ***** *** ********** is ***********, ** ** **** ** set *** ****** ********.Garrett’s *********** ********** *** *** ********* ** *** ******* “******** ******”. When our school customers follow our advice, students ***** ***** ********* ******* *** ********* ***** ******* ***** ****** *** ******* ****** *** ********, *********** >**% ** *** ****** *** ******** * ****** ******, *********, ******** ********* ******* ***** ***** ** * ******* **** ** ********* ********* ************. *** ********** **** *** ****** ** **********. Two Garrett detectors can fit in the same footprint as a single Evolv Express which provides equal or better throughput for the same amount of floor space. It should also be noted that both systems require secondary screening.
Where ******* ******* **** *****, *******, ** ** *** ***** ** * ******* **** ********* *** ******** ********* ************. Unlike Evolv’s limited detection ability, Garrett’s detectors are fully capable of detecting small and medium-sized knives, non-ferrous aluminum and zinc handguns, and disassembled weapons. Garrett’s superior ability to find these threat items (including many vape pens) provides schools the versatility and flexibility to set their security level to whatever they deem necessary. Conversely, *** ********* ******* ** *** ***** ******* ** ****** *** ****** ******* ****** ****** ** ******** **** ******. In today’s environment, wouldn’t you want the best level of security and flexibility for the school that your child attends? [emphasis added]
I'm surprised it has taken Garrett this long to respond, but good to see them doing so.
What is not mentioned in this report or the other comparisons is Evolv's processing software and workflows. You can't just compare cost and tuning parameters, particularly when you think about this from the perspective of the end users. Evolv has a strong advantage here in making the product and their process appear to be more intuitive and easy to operate.
IMO, Garrett's best response would be to put some R&D into modernizing how the alerts are presented and managed to the operators. I also think that there is merit in the subscription service approach for the school markets. Garrett could likely create increased continuous revenue streams, an overall comparale approach/process to Evolv, and still have a less expensive offering.
Evolv has disrupted the metal detector market, and that fact is not going to change. If Garrett and CEIA do not enhance the event handling aspects of their products I think that in the long run they are going to be delegated only to the lower end of the market, regardless of pricing or price/performance ratios.
Garrett is a product that has remained largely unchanged for quite some time, especially with respect to advancing their technology. Anyone that has been in the technology space for 5 - 10 years or more, has observed somebody sit on their laurels with respect to product development, and get wiped off the map by a company willing to think outside the box.
How long did it take BlackBerry to become completely irrelevant after they became the mainstream mobile device?
Evolv is a little more than a start-up today, which has had some maturing to do with respect to their marketing. They've been taken to task for that, but are learning, and today, have a tremendous tailwind. The quintessential market disrupter.
Ultimately, the market will decide the victor. Not the marketing material, seasoned sales staff or giant channel partners. The K-12 staff, who share personal experience at their own tradeshows/conventions. Same for the CNO's in health care, and CSO for entertainment venues. There will be no secrets - it either works, or it doesn't work, and the people holding these positions will let each other know.
The K-12 staff, who share personal experience at their own tradeshows/conventions. Same for the CNO's in health care, and CSO for entertainment venues.
How did that work out with fever cameras?
I do agree with your point about the long term buy this figuring out process made far more difficult by Evolvs deceptive marketing makes this hard to do quickly.
No firsthand experience with those products on my part.... But an example of a poor performing product being exposed by the market. One where the users are not in competition with each other and have a common "mission".
I do agree with your point about the long term buy this figuring out process made far more difficult by Evolvs deceptive marketing makes this hard to do quickly.
Respectfully, this was not the point I was making. I do not support those accusations of deception.
One where the users are not in competition with each other and have a common "mission".
I used to think that abstractly and then I dealt with various actual users who, contrary to my intuition, would fight hard to defend their decision, even when proven wrong.
We went back and forth with the end user and even after we showed them that Hikvision's own documentation was against the school bus's deployment, they would not accept or admit any fault.
There is some human nature or at least common tendency where once one makes a major decision (like buying fever cameras or weapon detectors) that buyers don't want to admit they made a mistake.
