|
As with
any new technology, there is an initial period of market education.
The more complicated the technology and/or the more entrenched the
current technology and business model—the longer the period of
market education. During this learning phase it is only natural that
there are gaps in knowledge and misunderstandings. It is from these
conditions that misperceptions and myths can grow and foster.
IP-Surveillance
technology is by no means highly complicated, but the “IP” portion
of it does take security out its natural state and move into the IT
realm, unknown territory for many. In this sense, new technology and
entirely new conditions can compound fears and stir support for the
status quo. The fact that IP-Surveillance competes directly with the
Digital Video Recorder (DVR) raises a number of issues, not the
least of which is that it challenges the current assumption that DVR
technology and the analog camera represent the end-point, and
therefore best, technology. Let’s face it, there is an entire
industry, from manufacturers to installer and integrators on down to
end users and their organizations, who have a vested interest in
seeing the DVR be the dominant technology. To add to these
“myth-making” market conditions, consider that the security industry
is one in which proprietary, single-brand solutions are common and
expected. IP-Surveillance solutions combine “best of breed” products
and services from a number of different vendors. This ends up being
great for the end user, but it is rather different from current
conditions and expectations.
Now
that we understand the reasons for the misperceptions and half-truths
that have grown up around IP-Surveillance, let’s examine some of
them more closely.
|
