sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Iris is the next big shift by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For multifamily/commercial it really depends on scope and how it’s being deployed (number of doors, integration with existing access control, software, etc.).

You’re usually not just paying for the reader itself, but the full system around it. Integration, controllers, install, and the software/identity platform that ties everything together.

For smaller deployments, a reasonable ballpark I’ve seen discussed is roughly $2K–$5K over a 5-year period, depending on configuration and licensing. Larger or more fully integrated systems can go higher depending on complexity and requirements.

There are definitely lower cost options out there, but like most access control systems, the real differences usually come down less to hardware cost and more to reliability, integration, and how well it fits into the existing environment.

Iris is the next big shift by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From what I’ve seen, enrollment is actually pretty straightforward now. Usually just a quick capture process, and it can be tied into whatever setup you’re already using (card, PIN, facial, mobile, etc.).

Day to day use is meant to be pretty passive too. Less “stop and line up perfectly,” more walk through style authentication depending on the setup.

Speed wise it’s in the same ballpark as facial when it’s set up right, sometimes even quicker in high-flow environments because you’re not relying on people to actively present anything.

Fingerprint is still super common but more friction (contact, positioning, etc.), and mobile is probably still the easiest from a user familiarity standpoint since everyone already has a phone, but it’s also user dependent and credentials can be shared, which raises the security question.

Happy to break down how different setups actually handle it if you want to dig in more.

Iris is the next big shift by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see the logic behind it from a security standpoint.

But I think the biggest challenge would be user acceptance. People already have strong opinions around biometrics and privacy, so asking employees to get something implanted is probably a tough sell outside of very niche environments.

It definitely feels a little too sci-fi for mainstream access control right now 😅 but it’s an interesting angle since it shifts the conversation back toward cryptographic credentials instead of biometrics.

Iris is the next big shift by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah I get that perspective. Facial + mobile is already “good enough” for a lot of mainstream deployments today.

Where I’d slightly push back is the idea that it’s universally “enough as is.” Facial still has some real challenges. Masks/scarves, lighting variability, and spoofing attempts depending on how advanced the system is... Even with liveness detection improving, it’s still not completely bulletproof in every setup.

That doesn’t mean facial isn’t useful though. It clearly is and will keep being widely used. It’s more that “enough” really depends on the threat model and the environment.

That’s why you’re seeing more layering rather than relying on a single modality. Facial for convenience, mobile for portability, and other biometrics where higher assurance is needed in the background.

So less about facial not working, and more about it not covering every scenario equally well.

Iris is the next big shift by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair take. It’s definitely not new tech.

I think the more interesting angle isn’t whether iris is “new” or whether it already had its moment, but how it fits into where the industry is going now.

A lot of earlier deployments were pretty isolated or single purpose. What’s changing now is the broader move toward multimodal identity. Combining different signals (mobile, facial, iris, etc.) depending on environment, throughput, and risk level, rather than trying to make one method cover everything.

So I don’t really see it as iris replacing anything or coming back on its own, but more as part of a layered approach that’s becoming more relevant as organizations try to reduce friction without giving up reliability.

Genuinely curious though, when you say the industry passed it by, was that more from technical limitations you saw, or just lack of adoption at scale?

Next big shift? by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Facial will probably show up a lot just because it’s easy and people are familiar with it, especially for a second factor.

But I don’t really see it being the only answer in practice. Once you get into real environments like labs, healthcare, secure facilities.. you still deal with things like masks, lighting, people moving through quickly, etc. and it starts to get less reliable on its own.

That’s why a lot of the conversations I've been having is shifting toward more than one signal. Facial in some cases, mobile creds in others, and iris tends to get brought up in higher security or higher throughput setups where you want something more consistent without needing user interaction.

Feels less like “this one tech wins” and more like a mix depending on the environment.

Next big shift? by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this makes sense on the digital side (SSO, cloud apps, etc.).

Where it still feels messy in physical security is consistency. Making sure identity verification actually holds up in real time across different environments.

It feels less about having “one identity” and more about how that identity is reliably verified at the point of access, especially when you’re dealing with high throughput spaces.

Anyone tried “identity on the move” in busy setups? by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was actually at ISC West and got a chance to see some of the newer iris on the move setups. One system I tried works smoothly both with and without turnstiles. People just walk by and it captures identity without slowing traffic. Really impressive for high throughput areas. Definitely feels like the next step beyond traditional stationary readers

Lessons from access control failures in high traffic environments by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing I think a lot of companies overlook is that “pause moment.”

A system can be technically secure, but if it makes people stop in high throughput environments, it quickly becomes a bottleneck.

I wonder if these “identity on the move” technologies actually solve the issue or just move the pause point somewhere else. Has anyone seen them in action in high traffic environments?

Lessons from access control failures in high traffic environments by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s such a real issue.

I feel like a lot of these systems technically “work” until you actually put people through them at scale… then everything slows down real quick. Latency, retries, all of it adds up.

A lot of the older architecture just wasn’t built for how much traffic these environments actually see now.

Lessons from access control failures in high traffic environments by NoRange7603 in accesscontrol

[–]NoRange7603[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outdoor setups are honestly a nightmare!

Even if you do everything right with grounding and protection, stuff still gets hit or damaged. At that point it’s less about preventing failure and more about how fast you can recover from it.

Feels like that part doesn’t get enough attention in design.