
GoPro Developing Line of Consumer Drones - whyenot
http://online.wsj.com/articles/gopro-developing-line-of-consumer-drones-1417020883
======
habosa
I really hope they don't use the word 'drone' when these go to market. This is
my new least favorite overloaded word since 'hack'.

There are two kinds of autonomous flying machines that we call drones: small
quadcopters that hobbyists fly around, and winged planes that our govt. uses
to monitor and attack their enemies.

Most people think drone == drone. So there are two camps. The first thinks all
drones are killing machines. This is wrong and causes irrational fear about
our cool toys. The other camp thinks all drones are the friendly Amazon
delivery helicopters. This reduces their concerns about a troublesome
government program.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I just wish we'd separate the terms so we can deal
with toys and war machines separately.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There are two kinds of autonomous flying machines that we call drones: small
> quadcopters that hobbyists fly around, and winged planes that our govt. uses
> to monitor and attack their enemies.

In most cases (in both classes), aren't these remotely piloted rather than
autonomous? (And there are several others -- the term is generally used for
remotely piloted vehicles, including, e.g, target drones.)

> I just wish we'd separate the terms so we can deal with toys and war
> machines separately.

"Military drones", "Armed drones", "Predators", are all terms of various
specificity that are in use to specifically refer to the "war machine" kind.

"Delivery drones", "civilian drones", and other terms of varying specificity
are in use to specifically refer to the other kind.

I don't really see any problem when "drone" itself is used in a context where
the _kind_ of drone doesn't need further specification in the term, since the
longer description already tells you which class it falls in.

------
sunnynagra
Google Link to get past pay wall:

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgopro-
developing-line-of-consumer-
drones-1417020883&ei=aXt2VN6kMoSuogTF_4KQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHFcQfN6FLbccvLm0E3PKqhvxxn1g)

~~~
frandroid
That's not working for me, even in an anonymous browser window.

~~~
anonfunction
No need for anonymous window, if you go to a WSJ link from google search
results it should work. Try clicking the first organic listing on this page:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=GoPro+Developing+Line+of+Con...](https://www.google.com/search?q=GoPro+Developing+Line+of+Consumer+Drones)

------
nakedrobot2
What is this really?

GoPro is now a _public company_.

Their IPO was for around ONE BILLION

Now their market cap is TEN BILLION

Are they _really_ worth that? Well, no not really :-) They _desperately_ need
to justify this valuation somehow. Watch this space. They'll be acquiring
startups left and right most likely. And entering new markets. What is the
flavor of the month? Drones of course. So, there you are.

That said, I think everyone will have very high expectations for this. But who
will it be for? Drones are the new "toy for grownups", very similar to GoPro
cameras. Anyone in the market for a DJI phantom, or one of the myriad Pixhawk-
based "follow me drones" to hit kickstarter last year (airdog, etc.)

------
Exenith
Why? There's plenty of consumer drones around already, heh...

~~~
andygates
The current de facto standard is a GoPro on some sort of DJI or DJI-clone
quadcopter. That's a monopoly the brand would be foolish not to try to exploit
- and rebadging a clone quad with some GoPro-ness (physical robustness,
integrated photography and control app, some follow-me features maybe) is a
fair bet.

------
michaelcrn
Great, more plastic trash. Nobody talks about what happens with these drones
when they break, are outdated, or the owner dumps them: they end up in our
oceans or landfill, which eventually makes its way to the oceans through
floods. The companies should incur this environmental damage. Instead they
only reap the profits and let us keep the damage.

~~~
anonfunction
I highly suggest reading the book "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things" by Michael Braungart & William McDonough. Essentially the book
explains how things currently are made in a "Cradle to Grave" style, meaning
products are sourced from the earth and then deposited back in an unusable
form. Cradle to cradle would be where a product is made and when it's life is
up we reuse the product's materials to build a new product. This is not how
recycling works. Recycling could be better described as "downcycling" in that
every time say plastic is recycled it's grade is lowered and it becomes less
useful due to being mixed with other plastics and contaminates. The book
explains this much better than I and is also a great primer on material
science.

Here's a simple example of how a consumer product can be created in a cradle
to cradle fashion.

1) Raw materials are sourced from the earth.

2) Raw materials are manufactured together in a way where they can easily be
seperated.

3) Product ends up with a consumer.

4) Product lifecycle ends.

5) Manufacturer pays consumer for the product.

6) Manufacturer uses product's raw materials for step 2.

~~~
bch
This sounds really interesting; I'll check that book out.

That said, I'm sympathetic to your parents sentiment. If I was taught
correctly, the "reduce, reuse, recycle" arrow diagram is meant to be exercised
in order:

1) reduce (your consumption)

2) reuse (a product or material in its existing state; repair if necessary.)

3) recycle (as a last resort - it's expensive, and if the usefulness of the
current <thing> isn't completely used, you're wasting it.)

This is why I (for better or worse), don't take the Prius owners seriously
when they look down their noses at my still 100% viable 40-year-old air-cooled
VW.

Edit: formatting, bracket-matching.

)))))))))

~~~
brc
I'm convinced the push for greater recyclability of vehicle parts is having a
worse effect. A new VW is full of plastic parts which seem to have a ten year
lifespan at best. Too many of these breaking render the vehicle uneconomic to
repair. The result is that eh vehicle is scrapped and parts recycled. Great-
except that recycling takes an enormous amount of energy, and building a new
car and getting it to the consumer takes another enormous amount of energy
(and materials). It would have been better if the original vehicle had a
longer economic life.

