It begs the question ...

A story that popped up on Government Video's web site begs an important question: "The installation of a mid-sized internet-protocol (IP) video surveillance system now costs less than installing a corresponding analog system, says report by a Swedish university research group.

The independent study, conducted by Lusax, a research group at Lund University in Sweden, compiled data comparing the costs of installing analog video surveillance systems with the costs of installing IP video surveillance systems.

Lusax compared the cost of installing analog systems with IP systems by surveying integrators who were actively selling and installing both analog and IP-based systems. The integrators were asked to provide bids on installing both types of systems at a retail store with 14, 25 and 40 cameras, and for all three scenarios the IP-based system returned a lower total cost than the analog system.

Thomas Kalling, a professor and leader of Lusax, said he was not surprised by the results because “The market for IP security products has developed rapidly and is much more mature than only a few years ago.”

Both integrators and installers have learned to benefit from using standard, off-the-shelf products for recording and storage, which has a positive effect on the total system cost, Kalling said.

A similar study conducted in 2007 showed that an IP-based surveillance system was more cost-efficient in installations, but only when the number of cameras exceeded 32.

“We are continuing to see the increasing benefits that modern IP technology brings to its customers, including scalability, quality and total cost of ownership,” Fredrik Nilsson, Axis Communications Inc.’s general manager, said in a written statement. “As IP adoption grows, cost-effectiveness needs to grow as well. This study validates the efforts Axis has made to deliver products that support that belief. We expect to see this cost advantage increase in the future as IP innovation continues, especially with the rise of hosted solutions,” said Nilsson, whose company paid for at least part of the study ..."

Did you see it? My question is, why is quality not factored in the equation? How about not driving the market based on cost entirely. Why not focus on the purpose of CCTV, then fit the installation to that purpose. Usually, if you get a $400 DVR - it's worth less than that when the images it produces are worthless in court. The same goes for IP based systems. I've been less than impressed with the quality that comes out of them.