It’s a debate almost as old as the security industry itself: open systems versus end-to-end solutions. The argument goes that end-to-end solutions from a single manufacturer tend to “lock in” an end-user to a certain company’s technology platform. In contrast, open systems offer greater flexibility over the long haul. However, the popularity of end-to-end solutions suggests a healthy continuing market for these systems. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: How willing are end-users to be “locked-in” to a single manufacturer’s system? What role do such systems play in the market?
How willing depends on what matters most to the buyer. With enterprise solutions, a buyer has two choices. They can either buy from a single vendor who provides an end-to-end solution, or they can go best in class and build a custom solution by integrating the best technology from each category of the end-to-end solution. With a single vendor, the buyer has a “single throat to choke” if something goes wrong and a faster response time. But because the vendor’s R&D resources can only go so far, the product is not as feature-rich as compared to the leader in the segment. On the flip side, integrating solutions from multiple vendors creates a more feature-rich solution but it's more expensive due to the development resources required. The role of single manufacturer solutions is to make the technology accessible to the masses, whereas multi-vendor solutions deliver innovation because they invest deeply in a specific area.
Interestingly there are plenty of “buyer beware” messages out there in the marketplace regarding locked-in systems, but some buyers still choose them despite the fact they may not be best-of-breed or capable across all the silos of the security spectrum. For some security customers, buying all your security systems from one supplier ensures it all works together seamlessly and there is one point of contact should problems arise. For some buyers that are time-poor or technically less well-versed, this may be an advantage. However, anyone who delves a bit deeper will understand that with modern well-integrated systems, there is no need to “make do” with being locked in anymore. Many good quality security systems will easily integrate (especially with the assistance of a good integrator/installer) so there are big advantages to taking this “mix and match” approach to finding the ideal combination of performance and cost.
While it might be tempting to go with the perceived lower upfront costs of subscription-based closed/proprietary systems, focusing on the short-term by investing in closed solutions can throw a wrench in a business’s operations. When an organisation’s needs outgrow their physical security system or when they want to use their existing investments to expand their operations beyond security, they’re either forced to accept the closed system’s limitations or replace their entire system. An open platform, unified security solution can help end-users achieve greater long-term value and choose the devices and systems that fit their unique needs while presenting them together in a unified fashion. With a unified platform customers can adopt new technologies and hardware as their business and security needs change. All systems are managed from a common infrastructure, making system functionality consistent across all tasks.
When security systems came to market in the 1980s, end users expected a complete solution. The early access control manufacturers did just that by providing simple software, panels, and readers. Fast forward to 2022, and end users’ expectations are no different. They expect a complete solution, too. The difference between then and now is how we get to the complete solution. It spans well beyond simple access control. The total solution involves effortlessly weaving multiple security technologies into various business systems and workplace cultures. To do this, systems must be developed with open-architecture hardware and software, meaning multiple applications can communicate with any part of the system. End users are not willing to be “locked” into a single system at all. The conversation shifts away from technology and is about service and support. A manufacturer that makes its components provides trusting product control, and reliable solutions, and alleviates the risks associated with those relying on third-party components.
End-users always leap when investing in a certain manufacturer's system. The larger the enterprise, the bigger the effort and the more embedded a system becomes in the day-to-day activities of the organisation. Leadership must proceed with caution, conducting significant vetting in the selection process. Some end-users have learned the hard way to avoid proprietary systems, especially those that are incompatible with common equipment or will not operate without the payment of high recurring monthly fees. For video solutions, a lower upfront Capex may look attractive, but when it is time to make a change, buyers can find themselves in a situation where they have a system that doesn't play well with others. Failure to pay the high monthly fees results in cameras that won’t work with any other system. Being locked in can mean a complete rip-and-replace is required if a system doesn’t continue to meet an organization's requirements.
In the past, end-users were more willing to be locked into a proprietary system. Looking back to 20-or-so years ago, major solutions were only compatible with their software and hardware and nothing else. As video surveillance has moved into the IT space, it has become more open-platform allowing organisations to choose what works best for their needs and budget. Servers, switches, cameras, software, and routers all need to work together, and the key to that is standards. ONVIF is a good example of a standards group that is facilitating this. Cameras and software that conform to those standards can be used interchangeably and easily upgraded with the latest technology. When integrators opt for a proprietary system, the end-user is stuck with that. However, if they had gone with a standard open platform, to begin with, they could easily replace faulty software, cameras, or servers and not be stuck with a solution that cannot be adapted or upgraded.
Every technology seems to follow roughly the same curve from birth to maturity. Along the way, adoption is driven by how non-proprietary the technology becomes. Early adopters may find themselves locked in because competitors are unable to keep up and/or technology developers leap-frog each other. However, technology eventually becomes more of a commodity, which is the result of developing competing but similar advancements. The point where the proprietary nature of a product intersects with the period where the cost/benefit of the technology is still fresh enough to remain desirable is the sweet spot for end users. The dilemma of competing attitudes leads to what we call the Proprietary Trap. Early adopters run the risk of being locked into a proprietary solution that falls out of favour. When this happens, end-users face the prospect of a “forklift upgrade.” As interoperability improves, end users are less likely to adopt a proprietary solution.