Vote Results - Next Big Thing 2020

By John Honovich, Published on Sep 14, 2015

Over 230 integrators and manufacturers told us what they believe will be the next big thing in video surveillance 5 years from now, in 2020.

The top two took more than 50% of the vote. They were:

Video analytics
Hosted video

Inside this note, we examine who they beat out and what rationales were given for each of the choices.

**** ************* *** *********** had **** ******* ********* patterns. *****, **** *** the ************ *******:

***, **** *** *** integrator *******, ***** ******* overall, *** **** ******** more ******* *** ***** high ********** *** **** for *.***.

Video *********

**** ** ******* **** *** ***** poll, ***** ********* *** top **** *** **** percentage ** ***** - 38-39%.

"***** *********. **'* ****, no ****** **** ****. We *** (***) ****** a *** **** *********** in ***** *********/******* ****** in ************ ******* ** security. ********, ******, ***., all ***** ********* *** working ** ******** **** are *********-*******, ***** **** trickle **** **** ******** applications."
"*** ***, ********* *** not ***** ** *** extra **** ***** *** resources ** ******* ****** analytics, ** **** ********* will ****** ****, ******* at **** **** **** can **** *** ******** of ***** *********."
"***** ********* ******* ** a ******* **** ****** the ********** (*** **** for ********) ** ****** actionable *********** *** ********* profile ****."
"**** *** ********** ************ will ** **** ** get ****** ****** **** the *********, *** **** will ******** *** ***** level *** **** ****."
"**** * ********** **** for ** ** ** the ***** ** ** affordable *****. ********* *********** is **** ***** *** a *** ** *** mentioned ******* ********** *** CCTV ******."
"* ***** **** ******* will ***** ** ******* a ***** *********** (******* stereo ****** ** ***** sensors) *** ****** ********* will ** ***** ** 3D **** *** **** provide **** **** ******* and ******* ********* ***** on *********"

***** **** * *** explicit ***** ********* ******* on *** *************** ****, including ***** *** *****************'* ****** *********** ********, **** ** "****** Armageddon ******* **** ********. I ***'* ***** *** new ******** *** ** built ******* ******** ******* an ******** ******."

Hosted *****

** ****, ****** ***** and **** ******* **** tied *** ******. **** has ******* ********** ** 2015, **** **** ******* votes **********. ****, *********** reflects ************** ******** **** ******* has*** ** *** **** 3 *****.

** *** ****** ****, manufacturers *********:

"* ***** *** ******* thing ** ****** *****. As *** **** ** network ********* *** ******* get ******* *** *******, there ** ** ****** to **** *** ***** on *** ***. *** hosted ***** **** ** a ****** *** ****-********* solution ** *****-****** ******."
"* ******* **** ***** Analytics ** * *********** service **** * ****** environment ***** ** ******** positioned ** * ******** inside **** ******** ******** markets, ********* *** **** risk ********** *** ******** relevant *********."
"******* *** ** *** "server" ** *** ****** server ************ **** ****** many ** *** ******** integrators *** **** ********* SMA /** / ****** HW *** ***** ** spec / ******* & patches / ******** ***. It **** ***** ** an *** ******* ****** that **** **** **********."
"********** ** *** **** of * ****** ******** will ** **** ** internet ***** *** ******* and ****** *** ******* of ****** ********* **** be * ******** ** what **** *** ***. Compound **** **** ******* based ********* *** ********* in *** ***** **** this * **** ******** draw."

*********** ********** ******** ****** in ***** ********* *** decling ********* *****:

"** ********* ****** **** comfortable **** ***** ********* they **** ***** ** see *** ******** *** will **** ***** ******* and ******** ** ** provide ** *** **** fashion."
"********'* **** ** **** things ** *** '*****' so **** ***** ** going ** ****** ********."
"*** **** ** ******** bandwidth ** ******** ***** the **** ** *** "pipe" ** ******* **** some ********. **** **** help *****-**** *** ******* that ******** **** ***** businesses *** *********** ********** organizations **** ***** ***-******* rather **** **-******* *********."
"**** ********* ************ / throughput ******* *** ******* more **********, ****** ***** will *** **** ****** over *** **** * years."

******

* ****** ** ****** wrote ** ***** *** choices. ***** *** *** highlights ** *********** ***********.

******

* *** *********** ****** out ******, ***** *** definitely * ******* ** the **** ******* ** security ******** ** ****:

"* ******* *** ************* of ***** ********** **** be *** **** ******* of *** ******** ******** to **** *** (*** intended)!!! *** ******* *** a ************, ******* ************ agency ** ******* ******* to ****** * ***** into ******** ********** **** is **** ** ***** existing *** *** ********** value *** *** ********** to ** **** ** that ** **** ***** here. ** *** **** five ***** * ***** most ** *** *** tier ****** **** ** selling **** **** ** surveillance ***** *** ******* use."
"******. *** **** ******* how *** ***** ** supplementing ******** ** ***** facilities. *** **** & learning ***** *** ***** down *******. * **** a ** ****** ** mine & **** **** it ** **** ********* better ****** ** ******* coverage & ***** *****"

*********

********** ** *** ** with *** ****** ****-****** riots, **** ******* *** getting * *** **** attention *** ************ ** one ********** *****:

"******** *****. ******, ***** services, ******, *** ****** else *** ********* **** other ****** **** ***** wearing * ******. **** we **** *** ********* like ****** ***********, ****** counting, *** **** **** detection ******* **."

****

*** ********** ******** ******* video ************ ******** ** a *******:

"*** ******* ****** ** five ***** **** ** HaaS -- ******** ** a *******. **** *** cost ** * ***** IP ****** ** $****, providing ** *** $* per ***** ****** ** make *****. **** ***'* as *****-***** ** *** might *****; *****/****/******** ******** have **** **** *** many *****, ** *** should ***** ** *** different?"

****** ***********

*******, *** ********** ***** developments ** *** ****** side:

"* ******* *********** ******** will ** *** ******* improvement: - **** ******** needed - **** ***** in *** ******** ***** will ******* *********** (****** the ********* ***********) *** also ******* ***** ********* performance."

IPVM's ****

** *** **** ******, IPVM **** ***** *** own *********** *** ****.

*** ******* **** ** assessing **** **** ** the **** *** ***** is ************* **** ************ will ******** ******* *** by *** ****. *** example, ***** ********* *** been *** **** *** thing ***** ** ***** 2005 *** ******* **** way *****. *** ***** analytics ** ****** ***** or *** ***** ******** offering, *** **** ** always **** *** ********** does *** ******* ****** to ** *********** ***/** cost ********* *** *****'* needs *** ******** ** alternative *********.

Comments (28)

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

09/15/15 12:16am

What about "hosted analytics" Someone has it and would love to be that company.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | 09/15/15 01:23am

Foresight is 2020.

Mark Jones

09/15/15 12:47pm

Just my opinion, but I don't see hosted anything being in large demand. Customers, particularly businesses just will not pay it unless there is a valid business case. Now if they could get really huge storage (unlimited would be even better) and upgraded software, it would be a much easier sell. But as it is, integrators love RMR and customers are doing all they can to escape it (Hence the growth in the DIY market). Our company made the leap to Drive earlier this year, but the price of the product (storage and software) sold itself. It would take about 15 years to recoup the price of a server at the rate Microsoft and Google are selling it now. But do not underestimate the public uneasiness about Cloud security.

Analytics is the better bet, and I do like HaaS.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Mark Jones | 09/15/15 01:51pm

"integrators love RMR and customers are doing all they can to escape it"

That's a gem! I don't think it's totally true or fair but it does capture a basic tension between buyers and sellers here.

The thing is, over 5 years, cost of storage could change significantly. I have no idea how low it could get but since 'unlimited' cloud storage plans are already starting to be offered for general data, it could drop a lot even for video surveillance.

Mark Jones

In reply to John Honovich | 09/15/15 01:58pm

You are right John, I did paint that one with a pretty broad brush. My sentiment is clouded by 8 hours of study last night on that very issue. Over 5 years storage will change drastically. Even though it is 45 years old, Moores' Law is pretty accurate .

Steve Mitchell

In reply to Mark Jones | 09/15/15 02:02pm

There are several forces at play that will continue to cause friction in the adoption of hosted video. And for purposes of this argument I’m assuming “Hosted Video” means streaming of video directly to off-site recording in the cloud as compared to some hybrid model of on-site recording with remote access.

Generally, while most of your local resources enjoy rapid adoption of new capabilities along a smooth curve that follows Moore’s law, internet-wide bandwidth speeds tend to follow a rough stair step pattern with many years between leaps in capability. This due to the time it takes for the infrastructure to develop end-to-end. Today’s 1GB LANS are still not linked via 1GB WANS because of this. We’ve been living with pretty much the same internet speeds for the past 10 years and while I’m sure we’ll see more metro area fiber rollouts in the next 5 years I don’t think we’ll be able to count on that infrastructure for most deployments. Oh and keep in mind while we’re talking about increases in bandwidth, we’re simultaneously increasing our own demands on that bandwidth with things like 4K video.

Even when the service providers can provide the bandwidth, they will continue to charge relatively high prices for it. That is, bandwidth will never be free, and for the foreseeable future will be relatively expensive. I say relatively in relation to the alternative, like say, buying another 8TB drive for your NVR. As Mark pointed out, customers will not pay unless there’s a valid business case and while hosted video is neat, in the customer’s mind it doesn’t necessary provide any advantages over local storage in and of itself. “So, you’re saying I need to pay (every month, forever) to move every byte of video to the cloud, even though I only want to watch maybe 1% of that video?” There are some tangential benefits like durability and eventually longer retention, but the cost benefit will not be there until the transfer costs come down to almost nothing. I don’t see the business pressure pushing that down any time soon.

Finally, I think there’s an assumption that the software we use today in VMS systems on the LAN will simply migrate to hosted models. But in reality the fundamental systems architectures will need to be different for reasons of performance, security, reliability, scalability, manageability, functionality etc. And remember, new value will need to be created if this model will be worth it. The likely scenario is that new players need to emerge with entirely different systems that stake out their own market share and eventually erode those of the traditionally players. I assume when we say the “next big thing” we’re talking about something that disrupts the status quo. That won’t happen by propping up an instance of today’s VMS on a cloud based server and streaming cameras to it.

I am obviously in favor of video systems that leverage the cloud. By now all VMS systems really should use cloud based dashboards for system and health monitoring at the very least, as well as remote access. But streaming video that most people never watch across the internet will not fundamentally make sense for quite a while.

Mark Jones

09/15/15 12:49pm

If this industry ever figures out how to eliminate camera license fees that will blow the lid off.

Luis Carmona

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Mark Jones | 09/15/15 12:57pm

"If this industry ever figures out how to eliminate camera license fees that will blow the lid off."

That's something I'm sure a lot of people would like. But considering that's pretty much how 90% of the IT software industry works (per seat, per user, per client license, etc.) I wouldn't hold my breath.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #4

In reply to Mark Jones | 09/16/15 05:29pm

Sort of like Panasonic, and Samsung, and Axis.....

There are licenseless VMSs out there, you just lose some flexibility.

Mark Jones

09/15/15 01:02pm

Trust me, I'm not.

Undisclosed End User #3

09/15/15 04:21pm

I love my hosted solutions! You either pay someone to maintain and protect your data or you hire people to be on call 24X7 when something happens. What's the Recurring monthly costs of employing enough people to keep your systems afloat? What does it cost to hire an integrator to keep your VMS up to the latest version and support you when things go wrong? What does it cost to repair the damage done when your data is exposed? Why not offload those costs and liabillity to someone that does it for a living so the customer can get back to what they do best? [End user perspective]

Steve Mitchell

In reply to Undisclosed End User #3 | 09/15/15 05:17pm

Care to share what hosted solutions you're using as well as the types of cameras, counts, and what you're using it for?

Undisclosed End User #3

In reply to Steve Mitchell | 09/15/15 05:55pm

I use Eagle Eye Networks.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed End User #3 | 09/15/15 06:28pm

"What's the Recurring monthly costs of employing enough people to keep your systems afloat?"

How many people does it take to keep an NVR up? :)

Seriously, though, most NVRs just work. Lots of maintenance is the exception, rather than the rule.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | 09/15/15 04:50pm

In the near future, IPVM will issue its own Predictions for 2015.

Now that should be a whole lot easier...

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 09/15/15 06:20pm

Lol, fixed.

Hal Bennick

Trafficware, a CUBIC Company
In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 09/16/15 05:30pm

I think Y2K is going to mean the end of civilization.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #1

In reply to Hal Bennick | 09/20/15 05:14pm

We have 2k so why ask Y? I think 4k is the answer.

Nick Giannakis

09/16/15 02:26am

The top two options both have great end user benefits but I'd argue that the variables that determine 'The Next Big Thing' for physical security will have much more to do with re-seller channel benefits. In this category, hosted services have the clear advantage.

The next big thing will be determined by re-seller rate of adoption rather than end-user demand, advancements in technology or network infrastructure and or the related cost. Sales is often based on relationships and people buy from people. Particularly in security. Therefore end-users are buying what their trusted vendors are selling.

The real driver as to whether or not hosted services are 'The Next Big Thing': business impacts for re-sellers. Easier install. More profitable. More cost effective to service. Generate RMR and enterprise value. I expect these variables will weigh much heavier on this topic. The obvious question is, how quickly will re-sellers adopt a hosted offering? I can tell you as a hosted provider, I'm bombarded by re-seller requests. The larger question is, can they sell it? Not all can. The sales process is unique. Those who can sell it are likely outpacing the rest of the industry by growth and adding more enterprise value to the bottom line.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Nick Giannakis | 09/16/15 10:06am

"The next big thing will be determined by re-seller rate of adoption rather than end-user demand"

Life for manufacturers would certainly be better if that was the case. However, let's say a 1000 re-sellers 'adopt' it, but no end user wants to buy it? Unless re-sellers have some magical power to force end-users to buy something they do not demand, sales are going to be hard to come by.

Classic example here: Axis AVHS. They got lots of companies to sign up but it never went anywhere because end users did not see the value of it relative to AVHS's cost and substitutes available (e.g., EMC Dumps Axis VSaaS).

"I can tell you as a hosted provider, I'm bombarded by re-seller requests. The larger question is, can they sell it? Not all can."

We rarely hear integrators asking about using Brivo. That aside, the reason all cannot sell it, is the limited value proposition of Brivo / hosted access control. In other words, most end-users do not see the value, regardless of how good the salesmen.

Ultimately, technology needs to improve to disrupt an industry, meaning that it delivers substantial increases in performance or decreases in technology. Without that, you can get as many resellers you want in the short term but it will not lead to long-term market success until end-users can capture the benefits.

Bill Nolan

02/24/16 06:06am

There are analytic solutions being developed with unique technology which will not be effected by Avigilon's IP.

These solutions are very innovative.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Bill Nolan | 02/24/16 11:24am

"being developed with unique technology which will not be effected by Avigilon's IP."

That's a matter for the courts to decide if Avigilon chooses to purse the matter. For example, a number of analytics manufacturers told us similarly (innovative, not effected) a few years ago when OV was litigating but as soon as OV targeted them, they decided to settle rather than spend the money to fight.

I do not think this is a good thing but it is a real risk, innovative or not.

Bill Nolan

In reply to John Honovich | 02/24/16 08:20pm

Glad you don't manage my IP Portfolio John.

So, we don't develop leading edge video analytics because the big guy might have a parent. Their IP tactics works on you.

Just leave VA to them.

they have achieved their strategy.

There are many ways now emerging, which will be in a different technological arena to that being used in VA currently.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Bill Nolan | 02/24/16 08:39pm

Bill, it sounds interesting, but I can't quite follow. Can you restate or at least clarify who you mean by "we", "you", "them" and "they"?

Bill Nolan

In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 02/25/16 05:39am

I was merely stating that there are new projects delivering video analytic technology, being developed.

These are real and will reach the market. They are based on their own patents.

The innovation of our industry in these area shouldn't be restricted by what Avigilon may do with their patent warchest.

Undisclosed #2

IPVMU Certified | In reply to Bill Nolan | 02/25/16 07:35am

The innovation of our industry in these area shouldn't be restricted by what Avigilon may do with their patent warchest.

Thanks.

I'm not familiar with everything in the war chest, but some like this one regarding meta data, if interpreted broadly, would certainly have a impact on new analytics IP.

Are these new analytics meta data-less?

Bill Nolan

In reply to Undisclosed #2 | 02/25/16 11:08am

You are you are correct, it could possibly use metadata I expect,but that isn't our method.

Suggest you try billnolan0@gmail.com.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Bill Nolan | 02/24/16 08:49pm

"So, we don't develop leading edge video analytics because the big guy might have a parent. Their IP tactics works on you."

If you stopped being so defensive, you would understand I am not criticizing you.

I am not saying that your technology isn't leading edge (I don't know but that's not relevant to Avigilon's tactics).

My point is that anyone can sue anyone for patent infringement and if Avigilon decides to sue you, you will have to make a financial decision to contest or settle. If they target you, they will not accept a verbal response of "trust us, we are innovative and different".

Read this IPVM report for free.

This article is part of IPVM's 6,599 reports, 889 tests and is only available to members. To get a one-time preview of our work, enter your work email to access the full article.