Live data from Hacker News

The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

joemorrison.substack.com

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#111
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late. President Trump already publicly gave away information on the capabilities of US spy satellites in 2019. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-tweeted-classified-satellite-im...

"gave away" old tech that just confirmed what everyone assumed. Your article even states it's not our best and most of the security agencies cared more about the process of how he did it then the image itself.

The article states both that it was and that it wasn't the best. It doesn't judge.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#112
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fed Ex (quite surprising) have decided that freely providing delivery dates to consumers is too value to leave to third parties... ...or to leave to the shipping endpoint customer, either. I can't tell you how many clicks it takes to determine when a particular shipment will arrive at my door. Off the top of my head: 0. Email from vendor: "your package has shipped!" 1. Log in to the Fedex account. 2. One would think…

You don't need to log in or even create an account at FedEx just to track deliveries. You just need the tracking number. It's the first thing you see when you go to the homepage of fedex.com

No, the tracking number only shows the delivery date for most carriers. You gotta login to see the delivery time.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#113

I'm confused what the author is trying to argue? 1. People don't want satellite data they want their problem to be solved So a company like Planet shouldn't (just) get satellite data they should solve problems. 2. Companies can't do 2 things at once well So Planet actually has to choose between solving problems or just getting satellite data 3. Companies like Arturo have good focus and solve the problem of climate ri…

Having worked in the sensing analysis market for a long time, I would frame the recurring business problem as follows, and it applies to sensing data generally, not just satellite imagery:

There is a large market gap between the sensor platform providers and the would-be end users of that sensor data. Business is constrained by the fact that the end users are not capable of consuming what is being produced and neither party in the transaction is really qualified to solve that problem.

Sensor platform companies can't make their data more consumable because they only know their data, not the analytic nuances of the end users nor the other sensor modalities that the end user may be using. They try, with the hope of improving revenue, but it almost never comes off. The end users are experts in their analysis problems and application domains but usually have no skill or capacity to write custom performance-engineered infrastructure software to bring the sensor data into their domain. This software often has pretty hardcore computer science requirements and there is minimal tooling, certainly not in open source, to make this easier or more scalable. There is clearly a market opportunity, but neither of the obvious parties is in a position to address it even for their own immediate benefit.

There are a few companies with expertise in building high-performance data tooling for analytic workflows across sensor modalities with enough application understanding to bring it into the end user's domain. There is a lot of commonality across application domains from the view of tooling requirements but you have to have expertise in several vertical domains to see it, so it is repeatable. These companies have neither the data nor the application but they bring them close enough together that they can "make the market" as it were. Currently this is a high-end contracting business rather than a general platform, so it doesn't scale. But if this tooling became part of a general platform, it would let the sensor data platforms focus on data collection without worrying about how to make the data more consumable for various application domains, which they were failing at anyway.

The state of software tooling for these sensing data applications is primitive, overfitted for single data sources, and not nearly scalable enough. Most other problems in the sensor data market are consequences of this reality.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#115
Me: 2 years at a satellite imagery company a few years back

This is mostly true, though I will add there are some repeatable insights that people will pay for. In the financial sector, there were plenty of people who paid for car counts data back in 2016 (though many customers did not renew) and there are still people today who are interested in oil inventories data, and mall traffic data (though satellite data is being augmented there these days). The general theme of the piece is correct imo though. When the company I worked at started, we thought there would be many use cases, it became clear after a while there were only a few insights with large markets, and after that a really long tail of custom asks.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#116

Is this true for all datasets that financial institutions might want to buy or only satellite imagery?

Not broadly true in my opinion. To give an example from the financial services industry: * Satellite provider or analytics firm sells "car counts" for retail stores * Financial institution is intrigued; this must correlate with sales, right? * But..why don't we just buy credit card transaction data and foot traffic data from clearing houses and GPS trace providers? I often liken satellite imagery to salt. It's great…

This was our experience with car count data which we sold to most of the sophisticated quant funds a few years back. We sold 'raw counts' and our own 'derived counts' that took into account cloud cover etc and was produced by our data science team. The quant funds completely disregarded our derived counts as useless.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#117
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with space imagery is that almost everyone who wants it has a niche use case But this is a good problem. It's like saying "the problem with motors is that everyone who uses them has a niche use case" (submarines, cars, airplanes, industrial machinery...). Or that "the problem with microscopy is that everyone who wants it has a niche use case". And indeed it does! Microscopes for biologists are different…

It's only a good problem when your niche customers have deep pockets to pay for their varied needs and high risk tolerance. Most variations can't be protyped out by some engineer on the weekends where they just spin out a startup with minimal risk to address the gap. The false assumption I deal with that drives me insane with so many individuals is that everyone thinks their specialized use case is a small variation…

>> find the problem sets that have the best match up and focus on those.

Or, abandon all of that. A space imagery company is a media company. They generate content. So do what other content creators do. Take everything you have and shovel it in front of people as fast as possible. Deliver it by any and every means available. Ask questions, but do so AFTER they have already made a purchase. Then judge what your customers want by what they choose to consume.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do yall have any plan to do work in the vis/IR space?

No, but I'm close with Albedo who is pursuing the same strategy in vis and IR: https://albedo.com/

Great! Checking them out.

Re: The satellite imagery industry still has no idea what customers want

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s very, very unlikely. It would risk giving away information on the capabilities of US national security assets. Which is classified literally as highly as it is possible to classify. We don’t even let the Five Eyes know that stuff, much less hand it to non-aligned militaries who we can’t vet. Plus, it doesn’t appear to be needed. The Russian military is proving to be god-awful at even basic field ops like…

> It would risk giving away information on the capabilities of US national security assets. But the actual satellites can be seen with the naked eye, and their orbits are known. The resolution is a linear function of their height, so it can be easily inferred, or at least bounded, by that of a "hubble" at a much lower height. If they are really worried about this scalar piece of data, they can easily blur the images…

Hah :) the first mistake you are making is to assume that all satelites are optical. :)
Post reply on HN