Denver-based Boulder Imaging argue that you can buy your machine vision technology from the component manufacturers, from a vision system integrator, or from a vision solution provider. I think their analysis is oversimplified, but why don’t you read their piece and make up your own mind? “Did You Know... There Are 3 Types of Computer Vision Companies?”
So why do I think this is a simplification?
What Boulder are overlooking is the experience of the integrator plus their use of off-the-shelf components. The best integrators have been around a long time and have great depth of experience. Plus, utilizing standard hardware and software means repair, support and upgrading is relatively straightforward.
Of course, not every integrator does a top-notch job on every project, but when things go “pear-shaped” as one of my colleagues likes to say, it’s my belief that the customer is at fault.
Yes, yes, the customer is always right, but often they don’t do a good job of managing the integrator. In fact I’d go further and suggest that many buyers of vision integration services don’t even realize they should be managing their integrator.
Wouldn’t that make a great theme for a series of blog posts?
Posts
1 comment:
A "Vision Integrator" and "Vision Solution Provider", to me are the same thing, both of which I would call an integrator. By their definition an integrator is an incompetent integrator and a solution provider is competent. I agree with the underlying point which is "buyer beware" because there are integrators with a wide range of skills. To a buyer someone with a few hours of training on a yellow camera using a search tool may look attractive ($) versus a solution from a company that understands the full scope and how to properly apply vision which often leads to $$$ by comparison. (At least until the $ solution needs to be replaced)
Post a Comment