A couple days ago I linked to an Axis study that set out to prove that the cost of IP surveillance is now less expensive than its analog counterpart.
Now there is a healthy debate over at IP Video Market Info about the validity of this study. Check it out:
Debating Axis’s IP vs Analog Cost Comparison
Some of the major sticking points are:
The flexibility, scalability, and high quality images set IP cameras apart from analog. Remote access of live images from anywhere in the world including viewing video surveillance on your phone puts analog in the backseat, in my opinion.
Like any other kind of technology, over time, functionality continues to increase as the price goes down. There may be debate now over some marginal price differences but that surely will not last.
Join the conversation – what do you think?
ACTi announced their Standalone NVRs ENR-1100, ENR-1200, and ENR-2000 as End of Life and replaced…
Join Grandstream on May 28th for this to view Grandstream's updated IP Surveillance line and…
The VoIP Supply President, Paula Griffo, and I just got back from the MOBOTIX East…
If you've been looking at a MOBOTIX solution, chances are you've noticed MOBOTIX cameras record…
Known for their long lasting, robust, and unique IP cameras, MOBOTIX has been one of…
Grandstream announced today the release of their new outdoor, day/night IP camera: the Grandstream GXV3674_HD_VF.…
View Comments
I agree with the truth that IP systems are still much more costly than analog. This is one reason why we are not being able to rapidly roll out full IP based surveillance in the Taj Group of Hotels. Second point, most facilities do have some surveillance systems, mostly older analog versions. These cannot be dumped. Hence a hybrid solution is the best suited. We have done this at the Taj flagship hotel in Mumbai.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Hybrid solutions are great for adding features and longevity to your existing systems.