DF
Dividend 15 Split Corp. II
stock NYSE

> Ouster more or less abandoned their DF line, which should tell you something about the desireability flash lidar
A lack of desirability of flash lidar cannot be inferred from Ouster abandoning DF, especially if demand for Movia S unfolds as predicted by GDV.

In what way is it inherently flawed? Slightly suboptimal from an "energy used to scan horizontal axis" standpoint, sure, but not inherently flawed. Are you aware that points from all 360 deg of the hfov are not necessarily output from the scanner? Besides, the military tends to prefer proven solutions over new ones, and Ouster's architecture has many many many hours of field testing on it, much of that in rugged environments. To be clear, I'm not arguing that Ouster's architecture is *the best possible one* for this use case. I'm just cutting through the pro-mvis bias here that keeps people from realizing there are other very good solutions to this problem out there that don't rely on microvision's tech.
I was being a little flippant with ouster abandoning the DF. They were trying to market them as mid range automotive sensors and probably realized this was never going to work out, so they gave up. Mvis effectively did the same thing with the ibeo-based sensors, where they are now only promoting them as the short range sensors that they are. I think you're right that Ouster's decision was based on the business case.

Your comment about the spinning not making sense for terrain mapping is incorrect. First of all, Ousters are used for terrain mapping today. Also, the fov for many of the *actual* mapping lidars on the market look an awful lot like Ouster's. Because the aircraft is flying, a wide and narrow FOV is preferable. Riegl, which is probably the most popular all around mapping lidar provider, uses a spinning polygon architecture like iris. This is a little more efficient than the ouster when you're only interested in a subset of the HFOV, but not enough to make the ouster a deal breaker.
Ouster more or less abandoned their DF line, which should tell you something about the desireability flash lidar, so you're kind of making my point for me.
The ouster draws less power than the mvis system as described, So I don't think that's an argument in microvision's favor. As I already said, an ouster setup is certainly more expensive than microvison, but I think the difference is less than what you are assuming based on all of the peripherals the mvis setup requires. I think the military will pony up money for superior capability. I doubt the military will want a lidar that comes with a bunch of limitations like movia due to its range. As it stands, movia air is probably most interesting for applications where there are few obstructions in the area that needs to be mapped, the mapping doesn't have to be done quickly, and the customer is very price sensitive. To me, this sounds more like private industrial applications, like monitoring mines or construction sites, rather than military applications. I do think one potential military application would be aiding a ground-based vehicle like Glen mentioned. Flying over a road is less likely to involve obstructions, and you could imagine a case where every large UGV has a few of these drones to help it plan ahead and navigate difficult areas.

Ousters RGB is limited to their spinning lidar which does not make sense for terrain mapping.
Their DF sensors that are more comparable to MOVIA do not offer this yet, and it will be harder to implement in those sensors. Even if they do implement this, could they bring the cost low enough or reduce power demand enough to make it work? The new OS sensors with RGB cost $3,000 to $28,000 each according to Google; their high resolution sensors start at $15,000.
You have a good mind for tech, so what are you thoughts about what MOVIA air is doing that is specialized for drone use: light weight, low power consumption, on-board 3D data processing/mapping/ data output), cheap.

> Ouster more or less abandoned their DF line, which should tell you something about the desireability flash lidar
A lack of desirability of flash lidar cannot be inferred from Ouster abandoning DF, especially if demand for Movia S unfolds as predicted by GDV.

In what way is it inherently flawed? Slightly suboptimal from an "energy used to scan horizontal axis" standpoint, sure, but not inherently flawed. Are you aware that points from all 360 deg of the hfov are not necessarily output from the scanner? Besides, the military tends to prefer proven solutions over new ones, and Ouster's architecture has many many many hours of field testing on it, much of that in rugged environments. To be clear, I'm not arguing that Ouster's architecture is *the best possible one* for this use case. I'm just cutting through the pro-mvis bias here that keeps people from realizing there are other very good solutions to this problem out there that don't rely on microvision's tech.
I was being a little flippant with ouster abandoning the DF. They were trying to market them as mid range automotive sensors and probably realized this was never going to work out, so they gave up. Mvis effectively did the same thing with the ibeo-based sensors, where they are now only promoting them as the short range sensors that they are. I think you're right that Ouster's decision was based on the business case.

Your comment about the spinning not making sense for terrain mapping is incorrect. First of all, Ousters are used for terrain mapping today. Also, the fov for many of the *actual* mapping lidars on the market look an awful lot like Ouster's. Because the aircraft is flying, a wide and narrow FOV is preferable. Riegl, which is probably the most popular all around mapping lidar provider, uses a spinning polygon architecture like iris. This is a little more efficient than the ouster when you're only interested in a subset of the HFOV, but not enough to make the ouster a deal breaker.
Ouster more or less abandoned their DF line, which should tell you something about the desireability flash lidar, so you're kind of making my point for me.
The ouster draws less power than the mvis system as described, So I don't think that's an argument in microvision's favor. As I already said, an ouster setup is certainly more expensive than microvison, but I think the difference is less than what you are assuming based on all of the peripherals the mvis setup requires. I think the military will pony up money for superior capability. I doubt the military will want a lidar that comes with a bunch of limitations like movia due to its range. As it stands, movia air is probably most interesting for applications where there are few obstructions in the area that needs to be mapped, the mapping doesn't have to be done quickly, and the customer is very price sensitive. To me, this sounds more like private industrial applications, like monitoring mines or construction sites, rather than military applications. I do think one potential military application would be aiding a ground-based vehicle like Glen mentioned. Flying over a road is less likely to involve obstructions, and you could imagine a case where every large UGV has a few of these drones to help it plan ahead and navigate difficult areas.

Ousters RGB is limited to their spinning lidar which does not make sense for terrain mapping.
Their DF sensors that are more comparable to MOVIA do not offer this yet, and it will be harder to implement in those sensors. Even if they do implement this, could they bring the cost low enough or reduce power demand enough to make it work? The new OS sensors with RGB cost $3,000 to $28,000 each according to Google; their high resolution sensors start at $15,000.
You have a good mind for tech, so what are you thoughts about what MOVIA air is doing that is specialized for drone use: light weight, low power consumption, on-board 3D data processing/mapping/ data output), cheap.