This is Part 2 in a two-part series that summarizes my views on why video/film/cinema – not agriculture and farming — will be the largest driver of sUAS commercial businesses. In Part 1, I explore thoughts on the market for video/film/cinema, and below I outline why I believe agriculture will lag in market uptake.
The March 2013 market study produced by the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) titled “The Economic Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the United States,” says precision agriculture and public safety will make up more than 90% of the market growth for unmanned aerial systems. The report confidently states, “…the commercial agriculture market is by far the largest segment, dwarfing all others.”
I don’t buy it, and here’s why:
Let’s start with the AUVSI forecast. Read to what one commenter said in my last post;
“There is a basic problem with the AUVSI study methodology – it took the total arable land area of Japan and divided it by the number of registered UAS performing agricultural roles in that country to provide a demand factor. It then divided the total amount of arable land in the United States by that same demand factor and used this to forecast its prospective future demand for the agricultural sector as a whole. The problem is, the Japanese agricultural land areas do not correlate in size, capacity, or type of agriculture as performed in the United States. In fact the Japanese usage is largely restricted to spraying of rice paddies on small allotments as a replacement for labor which has shifted to the cities. The only possible comparison that the Japanese land area to UAS numbers ratio that could have potential validity is to compare the Japanese ratio with the total amount of land used in rice cultivation in the United States. That is a very different equation than that used by the AUVSI study and can be predicted to give a very different set of economic figures as a result. AUVSI has used very bad modelling to build its argument on, and its figures should be used very, very, very cautiously.”
He’s right. So how do we get a proper forecast? That will take some time to work out and look for material from me on that later. For now let’s look how modern agriculture has historically adopted and used technology, because the devil’s in the detail.
Read more here:http://droneanalyst.com/2014/06/11/film-or-farm-which-is-the-bigger-drone-market-part-2/
Comments
@Gary - I spoke direct with the authors of the AUVSI report Darryl Jenkins and Bijan Vasigh and the AUVSI sponsors. It was interesting to say the least. As suspected the report was created to help Congress members try secure test sights. So, the numbers had to be big enough for that, but not too big as not to pass the GAO sniff test. Bottom line the authors don't believe the forecast anymore, but AUVSI still does. It's clear neither has their head in social media to see what's really going on in the markets - and that's deadly in 2014.
Colin
I like you article and I actually tend to agree with what you are saying. I would say that aspect of video / photography is actually a part of the function you would find in agriculture as well as the other things you listed such as construction site review and real estate applications. Considering overall RC technology to allow us to fly has been around for a while, the addition of the quadcopter platform and the focus of adding on video / camera has really driven the explosion. More people will end up putting a video camera on the quadcopter than advanced sensors. I see the aspect of the sensors as very exciting and will be helping push the aspect of our devices as flying robots - check out the Language Matters from BirdsEyeView Aerobotics - they are pushing for the term "Aerobot" which I like.
The use of the UAV for agriculture may be biased due to the safety aspect - I myself do most of my flying around farm fields, I want open space and only trees to hit if something goes wrong. Video / Photography will often have you flying in areas that if something fails has a greater chance of putting people and property at risk.
I am just excited that we are continue to move forward and hope that everyone out their flying is aware that what we are doing now will have a great impact on what we will be able to do later. Props to all those out there working on advancing the technology
I have a felling the real amazing obvious use has not been bumped into yet.
@ Jethro - Great comments, thanks. Great to read that you have a handle on the reliability and accuracy issues. These are important. I agree 3DR is moving in the right direction on those. However, once those are in place (and even now) I believe there are technology adoption and business model issues that practitioners must address before we see significant ag market growth.
I agree that the issue here is finding the expertise to interpret the data. The combination of cheap sensors and cheap drones has made it easier then ever to capture big data sets, however this is useless if you can't interpret the data.
In addition to that there are untold complexities involved in getting a Drone to reliably and accurately survey a field and at the end of the day capture interpretable data.
Key issues involve:
The hardware is close, the software is just not there yet, but I think 3D Robotics is truly moving in the right direction by putting an emphasis on the 'ecosystem'.
We are all eagerly anticipating the Drone Code Foundation and getting APM to work with Linux will provide an unprecedented influx of talent.
Perhaps this will lead to things like automatic data interpretation... Drone Deploy is interesting in that regard.
I think it is safe to say that DIY Drones is the right place to be as all of this unfolds!
Luckily Northrup Grumman has bought into the RMAX so agriculture is not quite as important now. I think that's to fill the Skeldar and S-100 sized hole in the line up.
@Gary - Oh my. With all the chart data broken down by state the report feels like it was intended to be a lobbyist call to action for legislators than a true market forecast. I also note with interest that Yamaha Motor Corporation (brand owner / distributor of RMAX) is a Diamond Corporate Member.
The AUVSI study was a total thumb suck that they then allowed to create a false impression of relaxed rules for agriculture. They had to make a noise about that study as they had spent $301,931 on consultants to create it.