Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS

By John Honovich, Published Feb 21, 2020, 08:56am EST (Info+)

VMS is ending.

Soon every VMS will be a VSaaS. Competitive dynamics will be redrawn.

What does this mean?

VMS Historically On-Site

Historically, VMS meant video management software that was deployed on-site. To the extent that it could be watched remotely, it was dependent on the user to set up remote access - port forwarding, VPNs, etc.

We use the term VMS here but the same structure exists for DVRs and NVRs.

VSaaS Originally Cloud Only

Originally, VSaaS was typically cloud-only, meaning no VMS server or appliance on-site, simply cameras phoning home directly to the cloud.

Problems With Both Models

Both of these models have problems.

On-site VMS systems force the user to set up their own remote access. For most, this is time-consuming and something they do not understand well, making it either immediately frustrating to set-up or done in a way that increases exposure to vulnerabilities.

***** *****-**** ******* ***** *** **** to **** *** ***** ***** ** the *****, ***** ******* ******** **** upstream *********, ******** *******, ******** ******* costs, ***. ********, ***** *** ******** overwhelmingly *** ******* *************** ******** ** decades-old *** **********, ** **** ** network ****** **** *** * ******, the **** ** *************** *** ********** a ****-*******.

VMSes ******** *****

***** ************** ***** ************ ** ****** on-site *** *** / ****, *** step ********* *** ** *** ***** products ** *********** ****** ******* ** adding ** ***** *** ***** '***** home' ************.

*******, ********, **** ****** **** **** VMSes ** **** *** ******* *** video ********** **** ****** **** ***** own **-**** ********** (***** ****** *******) or ****** *** ******* **********.

Everything **** **** *****

***** ***** ********** ******, ******* ** once ****** ** ***, ***, *** or *****, **** **** ***** *****-**.

*******, ***** **** ***** ** *********** differentiation ** *** **** ***** ****** works ****** *********. ** **** * few - *******, ***** *******, ********, breadth ** ******** ********* *** *** cloud, *******, *********, ***.

Disclaimer: *** 'Everything' *** ********** ***********

*********** *** ***** *** **** ** cloud *** ** *** **** ****** competitive **** *** **** * ***** without ******** ***** *****-**. ** **** be **** ** *** *** *** for ********* *** ****** ****** ****** to ***'* ***.

*****-***** **** ****** ** ******** **** no *** **** **** ** ** an ******* ****** **** ** **** to ****** *** ******** ****.

Customers *******

**** **** ** **** *** ***** surveillance ***** ** **** *** *** to ****** **** * ******* ***** of *************** *** *********.

Increased ***********

*** *** *********, **** **** **** increased *********** *** ****, ** **** incumbents **** *** ********** **** ** poorly *** **** *** ******** ******** with *** ********** ****** **.

Read ****

**** *** *********** *********, ********, *** tests ** ***** ***** *********:

Comments (53)

I work for Eagle Eye Networks

Obviously I'm biased, but I agree. There will of course be some holdouts that don't switch for some reason or other. (just like there are still analog cameras and there are still people that pay with a paper check at the grocery store.)

However, all business systems are moving to the cloud, just like all devices are moving towards being connected to the Internet. It will take longer for VMS systems to move to the cloud than some other systems (i.e. phone, accounting, crm, etc...) but it will happen.

The thing that is encouraging to me is the rate of acceleration that we're seeing and the types of customers that are installing cloud system. Several years ago I used to have to beg people to listen to me about cloud video surveillance, and now we have customers that have hundreds of cameras per site.

There are certainly pros and cons, as there are with any product (Tesla cars don't require gasoline but if you want to drive cross-country they're probably not the best choice.). But over time Tesla and the ecosystem that surrounds them, will evolve and the same will be true for cloud video surveillance.

Agree: 4
Disagree: 2
Informative: 5
Unhelpful
Funny

Great article! Remote access of video without compromising the network is a must going forward. Sending all/most data to the cloud for storage, I can't say I'm there yet but using intelligent motion or analytics, sending critical information for safe storage makes sense. Using this information for AI processing, yes.

Agree: 3
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

So obviously there there are systems that will never go anywhere near cloud such as military, airports, prisons, casinos,etc. but do you think there will be more hybrid systems similar to more of an OpenEye format?

Agree: 7
Disagree: 4
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

that will never go anywhere near cloud such as military, airports, prisons, casinos

Never is a long time but if we mean the next 5 years, I suspect that will largely be true. The problem for providers is that unless you want to constrain yourself to a shrinking pool of customers, you will have to add cloud, making it effectively a commercial necessity over the next few years.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Anthony, as a retired Air Force guy I was there with you on the military's use of the cloud, but as of last January, the Air Force finished up a project that moved 550,000 users to Office 365 which is part of the $1B Air Force Cloud Hosted Enterprise Services program. It is here and more to come.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 4
Unhelpful
Funny

VSAAS is going to propel the industry to new highs. Memoori’s recently published report on the physical security industry shows that video surveillance product sales reached $19 billion in 2019 and could reach $35 billion by the year 2024.

This growth is forecasted by sales of AI video analytics now entering the commercial market as well as VSAAS now growing at around 15% per annum. IPC are set to become the most common sensors in commercial and industrial buildings by 2024.

We have observed similar exponential demand for a cloud-first all in one solution VMS with embedded cloud video analytics, area search, facial recognition, centralized management, remote monitoring, alarm station, flexible storage options, intelligent alerts, and most importantly the ease of use for end-users and integrations with other cloud services (custom cloud) and systems.

Agree: 1
Disagree: 1
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

When you work for a company that has a strict, no cloud anything policy:

Time to brush up the old CV.

Agree: 4
Disagree: 3
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny: 7

My grandfather refuses to use an ATM. It's certainly his prerogative and it doesn't really impact his life too much. Some people just like to do what they have known for the bulk of their lives. It doesn't make them wrong, it just means that they don't get to enjoy certain benefits and efficiencies that the rest of society does.

Agree: 6
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

If you let me encrypt onsite, then I will do it, but if the data is encrypted by your servers, then I am not going with a cloud solution.

Agree: 16
Disagree
Informative: 5
Unhelpful
Funny

Interesting point. I think most cloud applications (think CRM, banking, healthcare, etc..) handle the encryption for the customers/end users.

Are you interested in managing the encryption keys? Because then you have to manage them for each viewing device also. This is certainly technologically possible, but I don't think it's a common practice.

Agree: 1
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Are you interested in managing the encryption keys?

This is the problem/issue with anything security/encryption related. At the end of the day, security is hard (and complex). There are plenty of companies that have a DVR/NVR/VMS and don't know how to properly secure/encrypt/etc, but they don't care about that. In those scenarios, they will go with a cloud solution where encryption is done on the remote end. In their eyes, it is encrypted, but they don't know to what extent.

I also wouldn't want my data/video, in the cloud, if it can't be encrypted on the fly before it gets to the remote server.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I understand your perspective, and I think that a lot of people feel the same way. However, encryption is just one aspect of security that's hard. Think about a different industry - banking for example. I would say that most people keep their money in a bank, but I would bet nobody does a security check on the bank before they open an account. As a society we trust banks and there is also some level of insurance with FDIC. This wasn't always the case, but over time it became that way. I think the same evolution will happen with encryption in general and video surveillance specifically.

Many companies are handling encryption for their customers on data that is arguably more sensitive than video surveillance (email, crm, accounting, etc..) It will take time, but most (not all) video surveillance customers will become comfortable with the idea too.

Agree: 5
Disagree
Informative: 4
Unhelpful
Funny

Yes, very valid points.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

That is a very interesting illustration, and it brings to the surface one vital point; regulation. Banking security is highly regulated (although arguably sufficient). Will the storage, encryption, and use of customer data (whether video or otherwise) be similarly regulated? Many in society would argue for less regulation; if that is the direction governments take, then acceptance of security standards by customers will not be well founded.

If we are 'security professionals' and not just VMS salespeople, we owe it to customers to help them realize that the cloud is NOT secure, and likely never will be. It is only a matter of time until there will be a security breach of sufficient magnitude that the media and industry players cannot sweep it under the rug.

While it is true that the cloud server industry will continue to sell the idea, and try to discredit naysayers, those end users who don't sacrifice security to the 'cloud' will be the least disappointed.

Agree: 6
Disagree: 2
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

I think it's ridiculous. And there will be consequences. It's not programmers I am worried about, it's I.T. people, and demographics that lie heavily about their skills and are getting constantly used as an outsourcing solution. Where do you think "hacking" is happening?

Long story short. I am not doing it. I was in banking before I moved into Education. LOL..."security."

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Yes, I want full management. We provide security for high profile families. We cannot afford to get our information leaked anywhere. Even the students here do not have permission to use their phones on campus and share the information via social media. Students do not even appear in the yearbook if the parents request it.

I already use a reliable security integrator. I am sure your cloud solutions if it was good has passed by my desk.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

We use Exacq and 100% of the review process is done on-site or while connected using a VPN connection. For small clips, going over VPN is fine, but for large clips/extraction, I don't recommend using VPN. In those cases I will use the VPN to connect to allow my local Exacq client to connect to the remote Exacq server, but I'll bookmark the footage to make sure it isn't over-written.

I agree that the cloud is the next step (of course it won't be for everyone), but I can also see the downside of everything being in the cloud. There are always pros and cons, personally, I like the hybrid option. I want a server on site, but I like the option of uploading very critical footage to the cloud and I also like the idea of Exacq's video relay service (for those that don't want to use a VPN and/or deal with port forwarding).

Agree: 2
Disagree: 1
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

It may seem pedantic, but I think there's a very big difference between your words "have" and "become." I wholeheartedly agree that most systems will have a cloud component, but I don't see every system, particularly for wide-scale enterprise, become wholly cloud. Particularly if we're not defining things like Amazon Outposts as "cloud," which I don't think we should for this kind of discussion.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

but I think there's a very big difference between your words "have" and "become."

Sure, if you define a VSaaS as purely cloud-hosted, then I agree, they won't become purely cloud-hosted.

But what is the distinction now between Eagle Eye and Open Eye, two companies that are widely viewed as being VSaaS companies despite have recorders on-site and Exacq and Avigilon, two companies that have recorders on-site and have now added in cloud?

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

I think the language is getting in the way of the business model.

VaaS - Video as a Service - a recurring revenue model for video management via the cloud. Various hardware configurations all based on a monthly or annual fee for service.

VMS - Video Management System - a capital investment in an on-premise recording and video management solution with advanced forensics and live real time monitoring and remote capabilities owned by the end user.

Hybrid - A video management system that can be managed and accessed via the cloud but recognizes that trying to push 100 cameras to the cloud for storage is just dumb. This model allows for recurring monthly/annual fees due to minimization of personnel to manage the system while ensuring the greatest integrity of on-prem storage solution.

EE and OE approach from VaaS model from inception. Avigilon and Exacq approach from a VMS model from inception. Due to their evolution as companies and the evolution of the efficiencies on both sides, each will begin to infringe on the other out of necessity for the success of their business models.

Minimize management. Maximize efficiencies. The most effective hybrid will become the most desired.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 6
Unhelpful
Funny

This is something that i was off on my predictions but i agree about the future of vsaas. I see another possibility. I actually see the potential of users using 3rd party cloud vsaas as a prerred method of managing their systems and hardware. Some thoughts i have:

- with 3rd party vsaas analytics and cloud computing becoming more prevelant, will this reduce the need for on camera analytics and advanced features within the camera itself? Also, the UI's of the Vsaas's, if they become preffered over managing the camera/vms/nvr via its built in web interface, will we see cameras become more basic?

- are we going to start seeing more cameras have "plug ins" that will make them compatible with certain 3rd party vsaas? Or even deeper, are we going to see an Onvif type organization that would ensure compatibility between many different camera brands across many different vsaas?

- i dont know about costs so perhaps this isnt viable but the 3rd party vsaas who can offer a free basic option to get people hooked wins. Im thinking essentially a free p2p server with no cloud storage but would come with a standardized app and web interface. Then offer analytics and cloud storage as upsells.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny

I actually see the potential of users using 3rd party cloud vsaas as a prerred method of managing their systems and hardware.

are we going to start seeing more cameras have "plug ins" that will make them compatible with certain 3rd party vsaas?

The logistical challenge is that the major hardware providers have little interest in adding in these 3rd party cloud VSaaS options. Whether it is Dahua, Hikvision, Hanwha, Axis, etc., each of these 3rd party cloud VSaaS offerings are relatively tiny and hard to justify the trouble of pre-loading these 3rd party offerings. You can or may be able to add those plug-ins yourself but the friction / time in doing that reduces the appeal.

Also, more importantly, every hardware manufacturer has major incentive to offer this themselves and not to promote 3rd parties (again because those 3rd parties are small and are not generating major demand for the manufacturers).

will this reduce the need for on camera analytics and advanced features within the camera itself?

I don't think it will. One, again, the hardware / camera manufacturers have lots of incentives to add this on their side and it's probably long-term cheaper to do it on the camera than send video to the cloud and process it there.

Net/net, I think the cloud 'winners' will primarily be those that offer their own cameras or recorders and add cloud to that.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Also, more importantly, every hardware manufacturer has major incentive to offer this themselves and not to promote 3rd parties (again because those 3rd parties are small and are not generating major demand for the manufacturers).

That's true, manufacturer wouldn't want to promote 3rd party. Most likely manufacturer would release something of its own (EzViz of Hikvision for example). But also in recent years camera manufacturers became much friendlier to VSaaS providers for "plug ins" integration (example open platform introduced by few manufacturers).

I don't think it will. One, again, the hardware / camera manufacturers have lots of incentives to add this on their side and it's probably long-term cheaper to do it on the camera than send video to the cloud and process it there.

IMO, it's a constant game where resource demanding analytics is going to be on a cloud. Over time as "Camera" hardware improves and specific analytics becomes more mature (resource consumption wise) it will make sense to put it on the camera side.

Sean Nelson wrote:

Also, the UI's of the Vsaas's, if they become preffered over managing the camera/vms/nvr via its built in web interface, will we see cameras become more basic?

It would make sense for low end, streamlined ONVIF cameras or "Cloud" cameras. High-end cameras with a lot of proprietary functionality (cameras with custom analytics for example) would require quite involved Camera Web UI (and API) to set it up.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

with 3rd party vsaas analytics and cloud computing becoming more prevalent, will this reduce the need for on camera analytics and advanced features within the camera itself?

I agree, the more complicated features like the face recognition and LPR are better to do on the server side and not on the edge device. However, the "simple" analytics like motion detection, line crossing, object detection and classification, object counting, etc. can be successfully done on the cameras and there are many examples of such cameras already. And I believe some camera manufactures will keep investing in the edge analytics and the quality of such analytics will keep getting better and better.

Also, the UI's of the Vsaas's, if they become preffered over managing the camera/vms/nvr via its built in web interface, will we see cameras become more basic?

I am not seeing the cameras getting "more basic" in terms of capabilities and available features. Hardware is getting more powerful and capable of "doing more". However, I would like to see the native camera web UIs more simple and more focused of the device configuration part only, instead of pretending to be a viewer/player replacement.

are we going to start seeing more cameras have "plug ins" that will make them compatible with certain 3rd party vsaas? Or even deeper, are we going to see an Onvif type organization that would ensure compatibility between many different camera brands across many different vsaas?

Absolutely. It is already happening. Take a look at OSSA initiative for example to standardize the edge devices capabilities as an open platform and SAST implementation of it. Later this year, the SAST-based Bosch cameras will introduce the enabling 3rd party plugins capabilities through the app store, where the Android-based apps can be created by anybody. However, it is still not clear yet how much 3rd party companies are willing to invest in development of such applications.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

VSaaS and onsite VMS are not mutually exclusive. What is the difference between a "VSaaS" company that requires an onsite device and a "VMS" that requires and onsite device that both have "Cloud Capability" and are both paid for on a monthly recurring model? Many integrators lease equipment to their customers. This is essentially VSaaS and it's been done for years.

The argument that most business systems are going cloud does not mean security should be part of that. Being dependent on an internet connection that can be brought down by the ever increasing cyber attacks happening on small and large businesses means cloud is increasingly a risk to continuity and assets, not a benefit.

I feel is remains to be seen where real benefit of cloud within security systems lies and how well it will be adopted. The cloud movement is largely based on a push from developers and manufacturers because it is trendy and provides greater benefit to the vendor than the end user and because IT units who are more comfortable with cloud models are largely decision makers for security.

This all may shift. Security or ESRM directors may get greater stake in the future. Edge computing is becoming exponentially more powerful while less expensive. As economic and political conditions shift, cloud providers might need to charge ever increasing prices for renting servers. Yes, cloud, in some manner, will be an option for every VMS, but not the total eventuality like so many are divining.

Agree: 3
Disagree: 1
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

The argument that most business systems are going cloud does not mean security should be part of that.

I agree with that argument. Business systems have different characteristics and some are much stronger fits for cloud than others (e.g., hosting your own email server in your SMB office is a terrible idea).

Being dependent on an internet connection that can be brought down by the ever increasing cyber attacks happening on small and large businesses means cloud is increasingly a risk to continuity and assets, not a benefit.

That is a risk particularly of a pure hosted model where the video is being sent and stored directly on site. The 'hybrid' VSaaS model with recorders still inside one's network, even with a cloud component can mitigate that risk.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

"Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS"

I do not wish to argue for, nor against, your post title's premise.....

But just because there are customers that want a cloud-based option for storing/accessing recorded video doesn't mean that all customers want this.

i.e. the fact that most providers will add/offer a cloud option for video storage and/or AI processing does not necessarily mean that any particular VMS has 'become' a VSaaS.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

doesn't mean that all customers want this.

For sure, not all customers want this. My point is that enough customers do want this and will want it strongly enough that commercial VMS providers will have to provide this or their competitive position will be so weakened in the next 5 years that they would risk their overall business viability.

providers will add/offer a cloud option for video storage and/or AI processing does not necessarily mean that any particular VMS has 'become' a VSaaS.

It depends on what your definition of VSaaS is. If by VSaaS one means "add/offer a cloud option for video storage and/or AI processing", then by definition it is. What is your definition of VSaaS?

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

If by VSaaS one means "add/offer a cloud option for video storage and/or AI processing", then by definition it is.

So by adding a cloud-based 'option', traditional VMS platforms 'become' a VSaaS?

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

I had to go back up ttt to see the publish date, because I feel like this article could have been written years ago. No offense to you John, it’s well written and full of valid points.

I guess my point here is that Nx has had their cloud offering for years now. Being one of the “smaller guys” in the VMS space, I don’t see them as a cutting edge provider. If anyone is caught off guard by the cloud access model, you haven’t been paying close attention for quite some time.

Or maybe I missed something more to the discussion here? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

I feel like this article could have been written years ago. ... I guess my point here is that Nx has had their cloud offering for years now

I agree that Nx has had this for a while and so have a few others.

What is different now is that you have a critical mass of suppliers supporting cloud, so that is decreasingly viewed as a niche offering and more as a fundamental thing that every legitimate product must-have.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Hey there, As a former VMS employee for the last 10 Years (Genetec) I can tell you, this article is spot on. The challenges associated with VMS, seem to demonstrate how dated the model is. Besides the benefits, and "ease of deployment aspects" there are some definite considerations for Systems Integrators. Ease of Deployment plays to the DIY concept, and for most of the systems a flat VSAS system should fit the bill. These tend towards the discussion on "online" store fronts, and friction-less sales. Limited or no-channel required. In addition, VMS is usually sold regionally, with a sales territory associated with a zip cod, brick and mortar, with techs and trucks. This is challenging to manage when everything is cloud and avail "anywhere". Complex systems, and interfaces to 3rd party platforms (ACS) should require a Systems Integrator, but if you are not adding value, and additional services, you could be in trouble.

VSAS will be highly disruptive for Manufacturers, and Resellers. And if you don't have a VSAS offering, "Uh Oh!"

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

"For most, this is time-consuming and something they do not understand well, making it either immediately frustrating to set-up...."

So, this is the excuse that VMS Manufacturers are using! Owners are too dumb or too lazy to set up their systems properly!

If VMS Manufacturers would take the time to create clear documentation on how to set up remote access then maybe the owners would "understand" it better.

I do not want to put my video "out there" where it can be viewed by someone I don't know and whose intentions are unknown.

Agree: 5
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

If VMS Manufacturers would take the time to create clear documentation on how to set up remote access then maybe the owners would "understand" it better.

Problem is that so many integrators and end users choose to port forward, creating the cybersecurity mess that the industry has faced in the last few years. Related: Hikvision Hardening Guide Recommends Port Forwarding, P2P 'Fail To' 'Quick And Steady Access' - Hikvision Defends Port Forwarding

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

In my opinion, the problem always seems to be money related. My integrator doesn't have an in office tech. Their installers know how to program IPs and they document the IP/user/pass of the camera and sometimes (depending on the tech) they'll include the MAC address.

They are able to make more money by not having an in house tech. I asked my integrator about specific features about the system capabilities, VMS capabilities, etc and he stated that he'd need to talk to his distributor to get more information. I do appreciate the fact that he did tell me he would get more info and get back to me, but I want to talk to another tech person to go over the system options and have a meeting/phone discussion on these various topics. Eventually I get the information I need (usually), but it takes many phone calls/emails and too much of a time gap between the question and the answer because I'm relying on a 3rd party who has to contact yet another person to get the answer.

This isn't only with one integrator, I've worked with a few and they all seem to have this same model. This could be that my integrator is not as much focused on low voltage as they are high voltage or it could be that my projects are not big enough (typically less than 20 cameras, but these cameras are often in industrial/commercial areas that require fiber, wireless pt to pt options, etc) which is why I usually need to design/research to determine what I want before I call my integrator to discuss my options.

If my integrator hired the type of person I'm asking about, I'd say the pay should be somewhere between $90k-$110k based on experience, and most shops want to put that in their pocket. I don't blame them, but these systems are getting more complex (in a good way).

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

they all seem to have this same model.

I, along with a few other integrators, may encourage you to look a little higher as you evaluate your solutions providers. What you have asked for above is exactly what we (and a select group of other integrators) specialize in.

So, no marketing here, but don't give up on your quest...

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

"The Cloud" = somebody else's server.

Who do you trust? Why? Are you sure? Why?

Giving the Internet based server a hook into your network can be a security risk if the wrong person gets access. Once an endpoint device is compromised, the rest of the network is much more accessible and the intrusion is less likely to be detected.

Agree: 5
Disagree: 3
Informative: 2
Unhelpful: 1
Funny

"The Cloud" = somebody else's server.

Who do you trust? Why? Are you sure? Why?

The counter, or perhaps initial to this statement is:

"Do you trust your (X quantity) IT personnel with securing, updating, and maintaining security of this equipment in addition to the various end user devices deployed? Or, do you trust the company with 2000 cybersecurity employees?"

To me, this argument is pretty effective. While everyone feels safer with Chuck, the IT manager, Chuck is only one resource. Everyone has strengths, weaknesses, and workload to contend with.

Agree: 4
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Both are good points, and it begs the industry to start the process of standards and certification to move to the next step in accepting cloud solutions for security. It should be 3rd party and verifiable as well as kept up-to-date.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Who do you trust? Why? Are you sure? Why?

George, for sure, I agree that it is a risk. This is something we covered here last year - 'CCTV' Is the Past, Cloud Video Surveillance Is the Future

It is a bigger risk for people to port forward. With a proprietary cloud IoT system (which is what VSaaS is), the risk is that your provider (Arcules, Exacq, Genetec, Hikvision, whomever) is hacked. With port forwarding, the risk is that anyone in the world can hack / attack your devices.

This is appropriate to mention that Dahua has had a vulnerability in their cloud implementation for some time, reports Bashis. We will do a full report when his disclosure happens, scheduled for May.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

Port forwarding is one thing, I don't like it, but sometimes it is the only option. Now, let's add port forwarding with the default ports, default user, default password. Your problems are much greater, now.

This goes back to another comment I made, above, which is money. Depending on how a system needs to be implemented, it may require new hardware. People want to get it working with what they have, unfortunately they don't want to pay to be more secure. Also, usually adding security will require the user to perform an additional step, for example, launching a VPN program on their device before they launch the camera program to connect to the cameras.

It is unfortunate, but that's how it is.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

On-site VMS will lose market share, especially on the small and simple system scale, but there will continue to be demand for on-site video management and storage for years, possibly decades to come.

Exactly the same progression and for the same reasons on-prem access control servers still exist. The imminent demise of the on-site ACS server has been being hailed as "within the next few years" for... 15 years? More?

And biometrics will be entirely replacing physically-carried access credentials entirely "within 5 years" for another 20 years, as it has been for the last 30 years.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny: 3

The imminent demise of the on-site ACS server has been being hailed as "within the next few years" for... 15 years? More?

Steve Van Till doesn't count...

In all seriousness, I don't think "imminent demise of the on-site ACS server" is a common position in the industry.

I also, to be clear, don't think VMS servers are on-site are in risk of imminent demise, I think VMS server providers that do not include / offer cloud are in risk of imminent decline.

Agree: 4
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Or, do you trust the company with 2000 cybersecurity employees?"

To me, this argument is pretty effective.

I find it also somewhat misleading. Which company are you referring to that has 2000 cyber-security employees? Is the client contracting directly with one of the large cloud storage companies, or are there third parties involved? Who will do the security verification for all intermediate parties? How much work is involved in securing that pipeline and keeping it secure? While regulation could force this issue, such regulation does not currently exist, and there are no other promises to the end user, other than a salesman's enthusiasm.

That's why I don't sell cloud, and my customers are not misled into trusting it. It is true that some customers ask for it, since they read all the fluff in the industry advertising. But my job as a security adviser is to analyze realities and to recommend real solutions, not fads and trends.

What fascinates me the most are the broadstroke forecasts of how 'cloud' will conquer all. Yes, cloud providers want that, but let's not be misled by advertising, especially where security is involved.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

We use a hybrid approach. We use local servers with NAS storage that has cloud backup. Essentially our systems have three separate storage arrays. One on the server, one in the NAS and one in the cloud. We keep cloud backup limited to 3 days on motion only events. This keeps costs way down but gives our clients a higher level of security.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

What they call "cloud" is some company's server park. Yes, you can send your video feeds to any company you like, but if I were a responsible Security Manager I wouldn't do that.

Agree: 3
Disagree: 1
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

To say that every VMS will become a VSaaS is like saying every person in America pays taxes. TO say, all businesses are moving to the cloud is a stupid and biased comment. Will most, yes

Is business in this arena getting stronger, yes, is it significant, not yet.

I have thousands of clients, not hundreds but thousands and have been asked <10 times about cloud in last 2 years.

Yes, I only sell to medium and large accounts but when you factor lest say $20 per month for 2MP camera for 30 days storage X 24 month contract or 36 month contract X 350 cameras, I can buy the cameras and NVRs, people, manage, ect... and clients tell me they come out ahead and have write offs better than leasing services to the cloud.

Also, everyone thinks cloud services are more secure than non, ignorance is bliss! I have security certifications in many companies, including Cisco, Citrix, Microsoft and many more and been in security since the first PIX firewalls and Checkpoint. So you that are selling services don't try and run your mouth about how much better security is on the cloud, you will sound like the Democratic debates. All noise and no substance! Its just as easy to get through the cloud as it is on the ground. In fact , many cases, easier.

Do I think this is a strong merging marketplace, yes- one of the fastest, sites with few cameras first but as technology changes, cost may go down significantly, then larger sites with more cameras will jump to but no so fast. However, I have stock in several of these companies.

Agree: 6
Disagree
Informative: 4
Unhelpful: 1
Funny

To say that every VMS will become a VSaaS is like saying every person in America pays taxes.

No, because Americans have been paying taxes for hundreds of years. VMSes building in cloud capabilities is a recent phenomenon, most within the last 2 years.

TO say, all businesses are moving to the cloud is a stupid and biased comment. Will most, yes

We did not say that.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

That's just dumb. I just got done doing a 38 8mp camera job and a 51 4mp camera job in a village and town that have a 10/2 internet connection. Cloud that.

Agree: 3
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

That's just dumb... Cloud that.

Kris, thanks for your first comment! As we distinguished in the post, every competitive product will have cloud management option for sure but hosted cloud will still remain the minority for years to come.

More broadly speaking, I do think your case of a town with a 10/2 internet connection is increasingly the minority. On the other hand, for a 51 4MP system, even if one had a 100Mb/s, one still might have an issue, especially depending on what other applications were being used.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Sorry for my crabbyness. I am just sick of this cloud garbage. I really feel it isanother one if those situations where things are being pushed in a direction just because people feel that something has to adopt a new technology to be better and that the old technology is inferior so everyone that doesn't like the new technology is a caveman.

That last part or your reply proves my point. With 4mp become a minimum, 8mp and higher becoming a standard, cloud just does not make sense, not only in large systems, but even small to medium systems. That is just a ton of data going out. There are many places with upload speeds to support that, but I think people who live in those areas are surprised by the fact that there are very many areas that have garbage internet. I have a 20/5 with a 300 GB cap that still costs $80 per month.

I just don't even really see the benefit to cloud only. I could see it used as back up/sub stream back up if the user has the internet for it. A proper NVR or Server built for longevity should be able to handle upgrades for future analytics.

Plus, the cameras themselves now have great analytics, sd card slots and are network updatable. You can actually fit a ton of footage on a 256 GB card at h265 using analytics to record events. Why would anyone go cloud?

As an integrator, if there are truly legitimate benefits to cloud only I would love to know more to stay on top of things.

Agree: 4
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

Sorry for my crabbyness. I am just sick of this cloud garbage.

Lol, that's fine!

You can actually fit a ton of footage on a 256 GB card at h265 using analytics to record events. Why would anyone go cloud?

But you are roughly describing their Vekada, right? :) And they are definitely using and promoting cloud.

The reasons are:

  • Easier to install - phone home cloud setup
  • Easier to remotely access - no VPN setup, no port forwarding (also more secure there)
  • Easier to upgrade - they do it for you
  • Adding some cloud features - backup, analytics, etc.

So cloud as pure, send the video in the cloud, do everything in the cloud, is still pretty difficult to justify for most commercial video surveillance systems, but 'hybrid' as many are calling it cloud does have practical benefits today for most systems.

Agree: 2
Disagree: 1
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

I am not aware of the Verkada having SD storage on the cameras or not. I think they are overpriced junk. I am talking about most all of the cameras that I use. You can put a card in them, hook them up to a POE switch and skip an NVR if you really want.

A lot of the cameras and NVR's can also auto update now so they essentially "do it for you" as well.

Installation and remote access is not hard now. P2P makes it super easy. And as far as security goes, the jobs that you are talking about that would be small enough to use cloud, it is not really a huge issue. It is plenty secure, no matter what any one says, for your average residential system. So they are not "Easier to install". Even if I sold an IP system to a customer to do it themselves, it would be super easy.

For the bigger systems still small enough to use cloud, VPN or port forwarding is not hard enough to accomplish that it would even be an issue. Because that is assuming an integrator who does it for a living taking care of that.

Only reason I could see is for back up. But I guess that is just me.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
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.
Loading Related Reports