Forbes: crash of 3d robotics

[dannyf]

A nice article from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/10/05/3d-robotics-solo-crash-chris-anderson/

It tells far more than just drones.

[coppice]

Sounds like they combined sloppy engineering, with an assumption that there would be no serious competitors. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. 

[EmmanuelFaure]

sloppy engineering, with an assumption that there would be no serious competitors.

It seems to me that's a perfect definition for "startup".

[rollatorwieltje]

I'm so surprised venture capitalists still fall for the same crap every time. Why would you need several hundred people and millions of Dollars to produce something people are making in their own basement?
The Pixhawk autopilot they are using has been developed by a tiny team of students. Don't tell me it takes several hundred people to develop a quadcopter... Sure it requires some work to build a robust consumer level airframe, but really... I bet if you gave that Pixhawk team 1 million USD instead of 100 they would have developed the same machine. In 2009 they already had a working quadrotor prototype (I'm visible in one of their award videos, my only online appearance as far as I know ).

[dannyf]

 "so surprised venture capitalists still fall for the same crap every time"

It is called macro investing: rather than investing in specific winners, you invest in winning (macro) trends.

Driven by the fact that picking winners in venture is next to impossible. Instead, find the macro trend and invest in that.

[Kohanbash]

Many technologies suffer from this. When they first come out they are unique and investors jump on the technology. However, soon after, the technology becomes commoditized and the price to entry becomes much lower.