Does this mean that existing VertX deployments will not be compatible with the new Aero controllers/panels, or does it just mean that vendors will need to complete integrations of the new Aero platform. I guess im mostly asking about backwards compatibility of the new Aero controllers/panels.
Reminds me of the S2-ACM vs the Lenel version of S2-ACM, if you want OSDP you have to buy all new S2-ACM blades and have S2 version 5.1 or greater. At least this was the case when the part number was originally S2-ACM-MP. Hopefully they have implemented some compatibility for the S2Legacy systems.
Revenue Incognito.
IPVM may have this report but here is something they should create.
A report that shows the hardware controller scaling footprint with cost comparison. So Mercuy, Brivo, S2, Software House, Paxton, Aero etc.
Overall hardware costs of 128/64/32/16/8/4/2/1 reader hardware build along with a separate column for any SSA, Software upgrades or reader licenses. Yes MSRP would be fine.
Once built you can scale the manufacturers based on MSRP annual increase.
Will an X100 be able to take the spot of a V100 in the middle of a chain of V100's if it goes out in a Genetec Synergis Cloudlink Box, or if a V100 goes out, will every V100 need to be replaced with an X100? 👀🤷♂️
This is Despina Stamatelos, Product Marketing Manager at Genetec. Regarding the above question, the X100 will not replace the v100 in the ecosystem, as they each use a different protocol. The x100 can only be managed by the x1000, as such, we won't be able to integrate it directly through the Synergis Cloud Link.
'This is a valid question but we are still analyzing the options. We will provide further details of the new streamlined Edge EVO replacement portfolio as we approach the launch of that product. End-of-Life information specific to Edge EVO will be provided to customers according to our product lifecycle communications process in conjunction with or just following the launch announcement.'
We work on a number of access control systems. Some of these support both the HID VertX and Mercury panels. We have never sold an HID VertX panel and we always use Mercury. I never saw the point in the HID VertX line and I still feel the same way. You can sell Mercury and have 20 plus access control manufacturers to choose from.
Yes your choice is logical, however the software OEM doesn't always have the power to choose. HID only allows larger partners with large commitments to use the Mercury platform. They push all others to Vertx/Aero. Outside the US there are many more partners on Vertx, but their reach tends to be a bit regional so effectively options (for the end users) are still limited, which is probably exactly what HID wants.
Am i understanding this correctly ? maybe ? maybe not ? Effectively what Aero intends to achieve is try to be the controller brand of choice for the say small to medium size access control software partners ? is there actually that segment ( thinking aloud ) ? i can see access control systems if cost is the criteria who would like the system integrator to use their own ( proprietary controllers mostly ) , there are large enterprise level systems who start at 32 doors and scale up to lets say unlimited but buying more of software and hardware who mostly uses mercury or in some case proprietary again or even in some other case VertX if you make aero compatible to these installs then isn't that a replacement for mercury ? I get that Genetec like to take care of their customers and install base but making Cloudlink compatible with AERO is basically making an enterprise level system compatible with AERO isn't ? isn't AERO intended for smaller systems ? i think the differentiation of small systems is not something a hardware manufacturer or controller manufacturer can define i think if AERO is made compatible to systems like genetec or say hanwha access ( since you mentioned asia ) then isn't that a place where ideally it should be mercury ? not even sure why keep two controller ranges. ? Mercury and AERO ? No harm intended or negativity intended
All manufacturers need to publicize all MSRP pricing, let the chips fall where they may. Tired of this hidden market. Tired of $20 per month. Tired of Security Dinosaurs. Tired of all the doctored up ANALOG systems with an ethernet jack. Tired of margins and markups for JUNK 1980ish Mercury systems where the only thing that is open is how OLD you ARE.
Now is a perfect time for change, even if it means YOU (YES, CRYBABY YOU) go the F out of business.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1
Create New Topic
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Comments (19)
Tony Warren
Does this mean that existing VertX deployments will not be compatible with the new Aero controllers/panels, or does it just mean that vendors will need to complete integrations of the new Aero platform. I guess im mostly asking about backwards compatibility of the new Aero controllers/panels.
Create New Topic
Eb Scroggins
Will an X100 be able to take the spot of a V100 in the middle of a chain of V100's if it goes out in a Genetec Synergis Cloudlink Box, or if a V100 goes out, will every V100 need to be replaced with an X100? 👀🤷♂️
Create New Topic
Eb Scroggins
It was the first thing that went through my mind when I read the article, hopefully they are compatible.
Create New Topic
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Can the Aero function as a standalone controller like the Edge EVOs can (particularly without any separate software to run on top of it) ?
Create New Topic
Jim FitzGibbon
We work on a number of access control systems. Some of these support both the HID VertX and Mercury panels. We have never sold an HID VertX panel and we always use Mercury. I never saw the point in the HID VertX line and I still feel the same way. You can sell Mercury and have 20 plus access control manufacturers to choose from.
Create New Topic
Amaldeep Pradeep
Am i understanding this correctly ? maybe ? maybe not ? Effectively what Aero intends to achieve is try to be the controller brand of choice for the say small to medium size access control software partners ? is there actually that segment ( thinking aloud ) ? i can see access control systems if cost is the criteria who would like the system integrator to use their own ( proprietary controllers mostly ) , there are large enterprise level systems who start at 32 doors and scale up to lets say unlimited but buying more of software and hardware who mostly uses mercury or in some case proprietary again or even in some other case VertX if you make aero compatible to these installs then isn't that a replacement for mercury ? I get that Genetec like to take care of their customers and install base but making Cloudlink compatible with AERO is basically making an enterprise level system compatible with AERO isn't ? isn't AERO intended for smaller systems ? i think the differentiation of small systems is not something a hardware manufacturer or controller manufacturer can define i think if AERO is made compatible to systems like genetec or say hanwha access ( since you mentioned asia ) then isn't that a place where ideally it should be mercury ? not even sure why keep two controller ranges. ? Mercury and AERO ? No harm intended or negativity intended
Create New Topic