Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh
Yet when I point out Amazon and it's drone delivery investments, you poo poo it like it's not a legitimate business endeavor. When I point out the real investments it will take to enable a US national drone delivery service you make a statement that no company is investing in drone delivery (even though Amazon is) because it's not profitable and post pictures of horse-drawn school buss wagons.
|
Efthreeoh I think you must've missed the first & key point:
(1.) Air drone delivery has to be needed, reliable & profitable - It's not yet proven to be any of those things!
I didn't say air drone delivery "isn't legitimate", mostly since I have no idea what that means, rather I said air drone delivery hasn't proven to be needed, reliable, or profitable.
<- Key business point
That's really important from a regulatory perspective because, as I said, each Congressperson and/or regulator has to see why, where, and how said thing will benefit them and/or their constituents. For emphasis, air drone delivery cannot show that (other than hand-wavy speculation obvs, which ain't good enough).
To your point, air drone delivery very well may turn out to be a big deal (i doubt it tho maybe), but until it definitively is, whatever "investments it will take" are totally irrelevant.
That's like saying I have a sweet idea for an automated blow dryer for bald guys and it'll require HUGE investments so everyone should be all in right? No, one has to prove need, *want*, a business model, and reliability of a solution first. (using startup lingo for this-business-is-going-to-fail let's call air drove delivery "pre-revenue")
Lastly, I'll presume after some further thought it'll be self-evident why 3 decades of successful and profitable sale of natural disaster reinsurance financial products would be more predictive of environmental trends, than a trillionaire retail company investing in whirligigs nobody yet wants would be predictive of revolutionary new business models.
OH! almost forgot!
lol