Xyte, maker of cloud-based support tools for AV, recently published its midyear 2025 AV Cloud Data Report. I encourage you to read it — it offers some interesting insight into how the AV industry views the cloud.

Before I go further, I should put my cards on the table. I’m a strong supporter of cloud-based tools and internet-accessible hardware. I’ve been using them for more than 20 years and have never looked back. I’m biased toward products that offer these features. Just as you should know my bias when reading this column, you should also consider the source when reading Xyte’s report. Xyte clearly has a bias toward encouraging the use and spread of cloud management.

One general impression I had while reading the report is that it seems written mainly to influence manufacturers to join the OpenAV Cloud initiative — and to encourage integrators to push those manufacturers to join. The report lists some founding members of this initiative, but I noticed none of them are control system manufacturers. A visit to the OpenAV Cloud website confirmed that none of the major control system makers are members. A chart in the report shows the breakdown of attendees at the OpenAV Cloud Summit, with just 8.7% coming from manufacturing. That made me wonder: Who is really driving this initiative?

I found part of the answer in other numbers from the report. About 60% of people surveyed at the summit said they use some type of cloud-based monitoring. (Only 60%? That’s a conversation for another day.) Of that group, half said they use four or more tools for this monitoring. Four or more? That’s a lot — but it’s also where the industry is today.

When asked about the biggest benefits of adopting open APIs, roughly 80% of respondents pointed to device monitoring, remote support and systems integration. All three of these benefits directly serve integrators, including in-house teams. So, it appears the biggest push for OpenAV standards is coming from the people who build and support devices — not necessarily from the manufacturers.

I find this tension fascinating: manufacturers showing lukewarm interest in open standards while designers and support teams overwhelmingly demand them. I agree with Xyte’s conclusion that this has the potential to drive major change in our industry. Manufacturers who support an open standard will do so knowing there’s a potential revenue boost. They could attract new customers while also increasing sales to existing ones. If integrators realize they can streamline installation, integration and support by sticking with specific manufacturers, they can avoid adding staff — and put those savings into buying more products.

The manufacturers most threatened by this shift will be those whose products can be replaced by software. The most obvious example is control system manufacturers. Moving to an open API model with a “single pane of glass” for support could allow integrators to skip control system hardware altogether, saving money and reducing the personnel needed for support.

For those companies, now may be the time to reassess your strategies and plan for a more open model. Eighty percent of customers are demanding it, and the companies that provide it will be the ones that thrive.