[aurumque]

Having been through a few acquisitions myself, I think there is a perverse incentive where buying and destroying any competition (real or imagined) leads to positive enough outcomes that it doesn't matter if the underlying asset is destroyed. Nobody would come out and say that, but when an acquisition is tossed aside there may not be enough repercussions to prevent it from happening again.

[tinco]

Intel bought a drone company that was producing the only drone that was good enough for my real estate inspection company to use. They acquired it and then killed it a year or two after. The inspection industry didn't have a proper drone for years after that until DJI started getting serious about it and produced the M30E.

It was just senseless, Intel doesn't have real or imagined competition from a drone company, it wasn't even close to being in the same market. They just believed the hype about drones being the next big thing and when they found out they were too early they decided they didn't have the patience to wait for drones to become a thing and they killed it. There was no long term vision behind it.

[zvr]

The high-end Falcon models were an engineering marvel and, as you say, nothing else in the market was even close.

I don't know about "real estate inspection", but another use case was for them to be used in oil rigs in the North Sea to inspect the structure of the rig itself. They had to be self-stabilizing under high winds and adverse weather conditions, and they had to carry a good enough camera to take detailed photos.

Unfortunately, while the technology was there, the market wasn't. Not many wanted to get a $35K drone to be able to sustain this business.

[tinco]

Exactly, but surely they weren't actually losing money? Why not keep the business afloat selling expensive drones to specialty companies until the broader market picked up as they envisioned it would when they bought the company. I think we paid more like $25k for our Falcons, though buying them wasn't on my side of the company. We would have gladly pay $35k for a next gen Falcon if they ever made one. Now DJI makes good enough drones for less than $10k, but there's a chance we still would've went with Intel just we could tell our customers we weren't flying Chinese drones.

In real estate inspection, we had the same sort of concerns, can't fly too close to the object for safety reasons, and we need high resolution photos to determine quality of the masonry, paintwork and roofing etc..

[throwaway2037]

Wow, this post is really specific. What special hardware is required on a drone for "real estate inspection"?

[tinco]

The company is still thriving, you can check out their website to find out more about what real estate inspection is about (in The Netherlands): https://www.aeroscan.nl/

[andyferris]

I believe it could be the weight of the camera and lens you would desire for good looking photos (think Sony a7 size). Good looking photos sell houses.

EDIT I just noticed the “inspection” part. Maybe they wanted good zoom to spy on the tenants? (Or maybe that’s a really uncharitable take).

[random_savv]

To me, high quality photos for real estate inspection means (e.g.) being able to take high resolution photos of a specific part of the roof so you can understand why there’s a leak. Not having to climb is a big deal!

[timewizard]

This is one of the main reasons we added anti monopoly provisions to our laws more than 100 years ago. Market dominance is a recognized factor in allowing this inversion of rewards to occur.

That's the face of it. Labor is a market as well. The impacts of these arrangements on our labor pool is extraordinary. It's a massive displaced cost of allowing these types of mergers to occur born out by the people who stand to gain the least from the merging of business assets.