200 acres should not take 4 hours. It should be coverable within 20-25 minutes with 75-65 overlap, flying height 120m with something like Mavic 3 getting a GSD of 3.5cm/px. Look at optimizing your flight overlaps and height.
It depends a lot on the terrain type - highly repetitive terrain requires higher overlap. It does sound like they have some broken setting somewhere though.
It's heavily pine forested mountain areas. With a 65-75% overlap, the SFM algorithms struggle to produce sufficient details. Additionally, because of the verticality of the terrain and very tall pine trees there's a need to have multiple angles to generate a good orthophoto. So the grid is denser than other environments for a reason. I'm continuously updating my flight plan based on the results generated -- squeezing density up/down based on observed results.
The 4 hours is an overestimate, it's probably genuinely closer to 3 hours flight time.
The area was partially clearcut about a decade back. Some areas are due for brush management and some for commercial thinning. Additionally, because it is alpine and contains a stream used by fish for spawning, it is interesting to see the variations in snow load and water flow in the stream year over year.
So there's at least a reason to get out each winter (snow load), spring (melt/brush growth/flowers), and summer/fall (stream health/identify trees once brush loses leaves).
I also like seeing if there's trees in stands dying at an unusual rate, which might indicate pine beetle infestations or sickness that I'd need to take care of.
Also, it's a fun hobby and a cool dataset to flip through.
Google just does not have enterprise DNA which requires providing long-term support for legacy systems. AWS on the other hand was able to achieve this through their customer obsession. But the absolute king in this still remains Microsoft which is why enterprises will adopt Azure with their eyes closed.
Even if the world should achieve complete peace, some power-monger will rise with an ambition to rule everyone. All the weapons of the world exist only to deter that individual.
It seems most people are arguing that the only alternative to 2 app stores is a large number of app stores. But what if the alternative is no app stores? Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it. Just like it works for desktops. The need for app stores is an artificially created need (by the marketing brilliance of Jobs).
I would argue that an App Store, on mobile has helped avoid virus, and malware on phones, unlike how Windows was able to contain it. Having a trusted App Store by a company, who understands security, and has a financial backing to commit to a secure system, is beneficial all the way down.
The App Store is an app delivery mechanism. The same application sandboxing, API access restrictions etc. can all apply even if they allow sideloading. In fact that's already possible today through their enterprise deployment program.
Yeah, an App Store is in no way an artificial need. There’s a reason fortnite is on the Google Play store even when they had the option of only installing through other methods.
For non-savvy users it mostly solves the “evaluating installer maliciousness” problem. For all users it enhances convenience (unified method for installing and uninstalling software) and software discovery. It is not a perfect solution to any of the above problems, but IMO it’s very good.
In the absence of Google Play, uninstalling software would be in the same place -> settings / apps / needless tap to see all the apps / the app / uninstall. Installing would be download the apk and open it which works today, although you generally have to set a setting somewhere.
There's certainly a discovery benefit to Google Play, but anybody could build an app discovery site and make an app from that with an embedded browser, open the downloaded apks with the system intent and get the permissions prompt etc. You don't even need the special app management permission if you embrace the system tools that are already there. You would lose automatic updates without that though (but then, a lot of people in India have auto-updates off to conserve bandwidth or storage space).
Google play certainly does some small curation function, but I don't know how useful that is, and you could still have Google Play services running background scans and malware blacklists.
And believe it or not a Store does not have much to do with covering your ass when it comes to malware. There is the same security check on mac regardless where the application comes from (its done at the OS level) The only thing the App Store does is verify the developer because they have to be resisted with Apple (and makes sure Apple gets that 30 cut). Mac already does that btw (you actually cant download an app from an unknown developer by default) unless you choose to in the settings.
"Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it."
This is the current situation on Android. It is similar to macOS or Windows. It comes with a store but users are free to install apps from whatever source they like.
>But what if the alternative is no app stores? Anyone can install whatever software they want on their device from wherever they want it
There was already an open, accessible, free app store called - 'Internet Browser' upon which Internet was built. These companies undermined it in collusion with the duopolies to hoard more data from their customers and are now crying wolf.
Do you mean web apps? Today they are powerful, but in 2008 browsers based web apps could not have access to a lot of things native apps could, I think, so native was inevitable, hence the AppStore.
The real problem with app stores is that selling your software direct to the user is a solved problem. In many casees the e-commerce platform you use to sell your own software
is better than the app stores for the seller (and in many cases the buyer). There really isn't much value until you start bundling the developer tools and libraries. Most of those libraries are derivative or are open source. So developers are trading no real (sorry but Apple's $100 is de minimus) up front costs for a percentage fee paid by the customer at each sale. This is probably optimal for small teams and solo devs...
Whenever I think of media, I keep going back to Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter. It seems a very appropriate metaphor that there is no personal ill-will on the part of the reporter but still the quill just keeps writing in a scandalous way.
The browser is very accessible and understandable as an environment as compared to different kinds of desktop environments that exist. Sometimes having an imperfect thing which exists is better than a non-existent perfect thing. Sure, a web application will never be as snappier as a native application, but it can be built, deployed and maintained by a much smaller team than what would be required for supporting desktop applications for multiple environments. If it feels 'good enough' to the users, they won't care.
>Sure, a web application will never be as snappier as a native application, but it can be built, deployed and maintained by a much smaller team than what would be required for supporting desktop applications for multiple environments.
A webapp has a wide range of operational costs that a native app doesn't. I can't see why a modern webapp would be cheaper to develop as well with similar programming languages. Their advantage comes mainly from the lack of the need to install software, and for the data to be accessible by every device.
An aspect that most people seem to be missing is that this gives the Indians an opportunity to create their own apps and social networks. This has two benefits, it is a safeguard against information propaganda, and it gives protection to the Indian software industry to grow.
