Axis cameras help save money despite higher price, growth manager tells Solution Conference

Buying decisions for security camera systems are usually based on two factors: Price and performance. Buyers—regardless of whether they only need one piece of hardware, or want to revamp their whole infrastructure of hundreds of devices—typically consider capital expenditure, or simply price per unit, and the specifications of the camera.
 
Even if they do the initial math right, however, they might end up with suppar devices and spiraling operating costs. The situation is indeed more complex and involves more than two variables, said Jonatan Dychawy, Product Growth Manager at Axis Communications.
 
Axis, which held its biennial Solution Conference in Taipei on June 10, looks back on a long history in video surveillance. The Swedish company was the first manufacturer to introduce an IP security camera, in 1996, and it has since continued to carve out its niche in a market increasingly dominated by Asian brands.
 
Part of its allure is its strict adherence to quality and security standards, which is backed up by the fact that it develops its own chips. Its proprietary system-on-chip (SoC)—called ARTPEC—is in its 9^th generation and comes with a AI-powered smart analytics, from convolutional neural network-based object classification to smart motion detection and audio analytics. Axis believes not just ARTPEC’s edge AI speaks for itself, but also its guarantee that no hidden backdoors have been built in by third-party OEM partners.
 
Needless to say, Axis products come at a price point that’s higher than many of its competitors.
 

The true cost of the hardware

At the event in Taipei, Dychawy had a message to those asking themselves whether the higher price is justified, especially if there are cheaper products in the market that offer the same performance.
 
“You have to go beyond the data sheet to truly see the value,” he said. “How do you put quality on a data sheet? For example, color fidelity? Latency? Can you really see the difference between four milliseconds versus three milliseconds in the end?”
 
During his presentation, Dychawy showed security cam footage of the same scene captured by cameras of four different manufacturers—three of which remained unnamed—that had roughly the same specs. They differed only slightly in terms of image quality, and buyers would likely go for the one that seemingly “has the best value,” as Dychawy put it.
 
The picture got more complicated when Dychawy asked the audience to consider the respective data volume the cameras produced—and hence the server capacity or cloud subscription plan they’d have to buy in order to run their cameras, adding significantly to the costs they incur.
 
“You have to consider the total cost of ownership (TCO),” he said. “If you want cheap, you can always find cheap. But if you’re not able to do what you need without adding more costly gear, there are consequences to it.”
 
“Customers expect a camera to be used between 7 to 10 years,” he said, citing internal survey data. “You have an acquisition phase, and then you have an upscale, downscale, decommissioning phase… There's a tendency for some customers to only focus on acquisition, and then they forget the rest.”
 
Costs during the lifespan of a camera also include electricity, maintenance, firmware updates, cybersecurity management, storage upgrades, replacement parts and cleaning services, he stated.
 
“Then there are things that are really hard to put a price tag on. System failure. Downtime. If the camera breaks, what happens? We have customers that need to provide 24/7 surveillance. Because if not, it's a penalty, it's a fee, it's a liability, it's a cost,” he said.
 
“Our study shows that, on average, 70% of the cost comes after buying the camera and pressing record for the first time,” Dychawy said, adding that the number is based on an eight-year project for which Axis surveyed distributors, integrators and users worldwide.
 

Up to 70% saved

Dychawy cited several cases the company conducted during those years.
 
One case involved a “prestigious university with a strong sustainability focus” that operated a security system of 400 analogue cameras before switching to Axis. In the five years before the upgrade, it paid US$41,000 for electricity for the cameras—a cost that it could reduce that to US$12,500 over five years after the switch.
 
Dychawy said “you might think it’s because it was a switch from analogue to IP cameras,” but—had the university switched to other brands—its electricity bill would only have dropped to US$37,500 on average.
 
With Axis, the school saved 70% on electricity, versus 15% in a scenario in which they would have opted for another brand, Dychawy added.
 

An expensive bargain

In another case, Axis was bidding against an “Asian competitor” on a public infrastructure project involving 50,000 cameras over a large geography. The Axis cameras were supposed to cost US$400 each, while that of the competitor were listed as US$250 apiece.
 
However, factoring in the lower storage needs of the Axis devices and the lower data volume they submit to the cloud, despite similar “usable image quality,” the switch to Axis helped the utility save a large amount in operating costs.
 
“The costs saved per camera over a five-year span amounted to US$4,900,” Dychawy said as he compared the real costs of the Axis infrastructure with the cost projection of the Asian competitor.
 
“Initially we were talking about our competitor offering a cost advantage of US$150 per camera,” he added.
 
Dychawy said Axis is confident it can convey the message that its products cost users less—despite initially coming at a higher price point.
 
The company therefore offers detailed projections of the cost structure of its products over their whole lifespan—a service that all its branch offices offer free of charge, Dychawy said.