Having questioned the marketing drive for Going Hybrid that we serialised from 5th – 9th October we now turn our attention to some of the cost based arguments that are commonly raised against IP CCTV.
A comment often labelled against IP systems is that they are more expensive than their analogue counterparts. While camera for camera, IP cameras are more expensive this is not the complete story when it comes to the cost of an entire IP solution. If it were, the only reason for buying IP would be its superior functionality and system capability. What is less well publicised is that when it comes to total costs, IP can often be the most cost-competitive solution.
We have attempted to address this before in an article where a leading manufacturer claimed a 750 camera system ended up costing £1.8M for an IP solution vs £600K for a hybrid solution but didn’t give a breakdown so you couldn’t compare apples with apples. When we looked at this from our end even though we upgraded the control room, provided redundancy and failover and UPS back up so that there would be no single point of failure, we could only spend £500K at end user prices. Click here to be sent the articles and cost breakdown.
When it comes to costs the main confusion seems to centre on what constitutes a hybrid system, with the same terms – NVR /DVR /Recording server – being used to describe very different solutions. Perhaps this is something ONVIF should start to look at to bring clarity to a confused dialogue – only if it walks, talks and looks like a duck can you call it a duck.
Tomorrow we will begin to look at some specific cost arguments against IP.