Connect with us

Technology

The Emergence of Commercial Drones

Published

on

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, have actually been around for about a century.

Even in 1918, the U.S. military had its first UAV, which acted as a “cruise missile” in combat. Nicknamed the Kettering Bug, it was essentially a flying bomb with 12-foot wings made of cardboard and paper mâché, running off a 40-horsepower Ford engine.

As you might imagine, the military has been a catalyst over the years for the development of UAV technology, which has allowed commercial drones to become cheaper, lighter, and more sophisticated. Today, drones aren’t just for delivering military payloads in foreign lands – UAVs will also be delivering your packages, taking photos, providing wireless internet services, and monitoring conservation efforts in remote locations.

The Commercial Drones Market

The following infographic comes to us from IFLY, a Drone Economy Strategy ETF focusing on the “development, research, and utilization of drones”.

It shows the history of military drone applications, and how that has led to today’s emerging market for commercial drones.

The Emergence of Commercial Drones

According to BI Intelligence, the total drone market today is close to $10 billion.

And despite the military market remaining the largest for now, it is worth noting that the commercial drone sector will grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19% between 2015 and 2020. Eventually, it will pass the military market in size, as that is only growing at a 5% clip.

The Emerging Opportunity for Commercial Drones

The growing market on the civilian side will impact a variety of industries, including private security, law enforcement, real estate, media, film, construction, mining, agriculture, and utilities.

Hardware for commercial drones is important, especially in the early stages. However, as we see in other sectors, it will likely be the software that makes the difference in many applications. As it becomes cheaper to customize commercial drones, the door will be opened to allow new functionality in a wide array of niche spaces. Sophisticated drones could soon be doing everyday tasks like fertilizing crop fields on an automated basis, monitoring traffic incidents, surveying hard-to-reach places, or even delivering pizzas.

At the end of the day, the impact of commercial drones could be $82 billion and a 100,000 job boost to the U.S. economy by 2025.

Comments

Technology

How Do Esports Companies Compare with Sports Teams?

With some esports companies more valuable than traditional sports teams, we visualize esports vs sports in franchise value.

Published

on

Esports Companies VS Sports - Share

How Do Esports Companies Compare with Sports Teams?

Are esports on the same level as “real” sports? These comparisons range from tricky to subjective, but the monetary value of companies speak for themselves.

The world’s largest esports companies have definitely risen to the occasion. Valued at almost half-a-billion dollars, they’ve started to pass some sports franchises in value.

In the above graphic, we compare Forbes’ valuation of the top 10 esports companies in 2020 against median franchises in the “Big Four” major leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL). Despite competitive gaming’s rapid growth, there’s still a long way left to go.

Esports Impress but NFL Teams Reign Supreme

The world’s top esports companies have grown quickly, and impressively.

As of 2018, there was only one esports company worth more than $300 million in valuation. By 2020, four of the top 10 were valued at more than $300 million.

Esports CompanyGames with FranchisesValue (2020)
TSMLeague of Legends$410M
Cloud9League of Legends, Overwatch$350M
Team LiquidLeague of Legends$310M
FaZe ClanCall of Duty$305M
100 ThievesLeague of Legends, Call of Duty$190M
Gen.GLeague of Legends, Overwatch, NBA 2K$185M
Enthusiast GamingCall of Duty, Overwatch$180M
G2 EsportsLeague of Legends$175M
NRG EsportsCall of Duty, Overwatch$155M
T1League of Legends$150M

When compared to traditional sports valuations, esports companies have already reached major league hockey status.

TSM, the world’s most valuable esports company in 2020, has a higher valuation than five NHL franchises. In fact, four esports companies were estimated to be more valuable than two NHL franchises, the Florida Panthers and Arizona Coyotes.

But other sports leagues are further away. While the median value of an NHL franchise in 2020 was $520 million, the MLB, NBA, and NFL all saw median values of over $1.6 billion.

Esports vs. Sports FranchisesLowest Valued TeamHighest Valued TeamMedian
NFL$2.0B$5.7B$3.0B
NBA$1.3B$4.6B$1.8B
MLB$980M$5.0B$1.6B
NHL$285M$1.6B$520M
Esports (Top 10)$150M$410M$188M

Differences in Esports vs Sports Structures and Growth

Try as we might to make a clean apples-to-apples comparison between esports and traditional sports teams, there are significant differences in the business models to consider.

For starters, major esports companies own multiple franchises and non-franchise teams across many games. Cloud9 owns both the eponymous Cloud9 League of Legends franchise and the London Spitfire Overwatch franchise, for example, as well as non-franchise teams in Halo, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Fortnite, and other games.

The revenue streams for esports companies are also extremely varied. Companies like TSM, 100 Thieves, FaZe Clan and Enthusiast Gaming made 50% or more of their revenue from outside of esports, having instead expanded into diverse companies with an equal focus on content creation and apps.

But it’s this greater ability to diversify, and the still-increasing size of esports fandom, that continues to grow esports valuations. In fact, TSM’s estimated 2020 revenue of $45 million is less than half of the Arizona Coyotes’ estimated revenue of $95 million, despite a $100+ million valuation difference in favor of TSM.

That’s why the continued maturation of esports is only going to make traditional sports comparisons easier, and closer. Instead of having to pit companies against franchises, direct league-to-league comparisons will be possible, and the differences will likely shrink from billions to millions.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Technology

Global Stars: The Most Innovative Countries, Ranked by Income Group

From Switzerland and China to Vietnam and Tanzania — here are the world’s most innovative countries, taking income per capita into account.

Published

on

The Most Innovative Countries, Ranked by Income Group

Innovation can be instrumental to the success of economies, at macro and micro scales. While investment provides powerful fuel for innovation—the relationship isn’t always straightforward.

The 2020 ranking from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reveals just that.

The above map breaks down the most innovative countries in each World Bank income group, based on data from WIPO’s Global Innovation Index (GII), which evaluates nations across 80 innovation indicators like research and development (R&D), venture capital, and high-tech production.

While wealthier nations continue to lead global innovation, the GII also shows that middle-income countries—particularly in Asia—are making impressive strides.

Fueling Innovation

The economic and regulatory spheres within countries can have an enormous impact on their level of innovation—and vice versa, as innovation in turn becomes an economic driver, stimulating further investment.

The positive feedback loop between investment and innovation results in the success of some of the top countries in the table below, which shows the three most innovative countries in each income group.

Income GroupGroup RankCountry (Overall Rank)
High1🇨🇭 Switzerland (#1)
High2🇸🇪 Sweden (#2)
High3🇺🇸 United States of America (#3)
Upper Middle1🇨🇳 China (#14)
Upper Middle2🇲🇾 Malaysia (#33)
Upper Middle3🇧🇬 Bulgaria (#37)
Lower Middle1🇻🇳 Vietnam (#42)
Lower Middle2🇺🇦 Ukraine (#45)
Lower Middle3🇮🇳 India (#48)
Low1🇹🇿 Tanzania (#88)
Low2🇷🇼 Rwanda (#91)
Low3🇲🇼 Malawi (#111)

Switzerland, Sweden, and the U.S. are the top three in the high-income group. Considering that Switzerland has the second-highest GDP per capita globally, it is not a surprise leader on this list.

Upper middle-income countries are led by China, Malaysia, and Bulgaria. Note that China far surpasses other nations in the upper-middle-income group ranking, reaching 14th spot overall in 2020. Others in the income group only appear in the overall ranking after 30th place.

Below are several income group leaders, and some of their key areas of output:

  • Switzerland: First in Knowledge Creation, second in Global Brand Value
  • U.S.: First in Entertainment and Media, Computer Software Spending, Intellectual Property Receipts
  • China: First in Patents Registered
  • Vietnam: Second in High-Technology Net Exports
  • India: First in Information and Communication Technology Services Exports
  • Tanzania: 23rd in Printing and Other Media

Shining a Light on Global Innovators

Since 2011, Switzerland has led the world in innovation according to this index, and the top five countries have seen few changes in recent years.

Sweden regained second place in 2019 and the U.S. moved into third—positions they maintain in 2020. The Netherlands entered the top two in 2018 and now sits at fifth.

Here’s how the overall ranking shakes out:

RankCountryScoreIncome Group
1Switzerland66.1High
2Sweden62.5High
3United States of America60.6High
4United Kingdom59.8High
5Netherlands58.8High
6Denmark57.5High
7Finland57.0High
8Singapore56.6High
9Germany56.6High
10South Korea56.1High
11Hong Kong, China54.2High
12France53.7High
13Israel53.6High
14China53.3Upper Middle
15Ireland53.1High
16Japan52.7High
17Canada52.3High
18Luxembourg50.8High
19Austria50.1High
20Norway49.3High
21Iceland49.2High
22Belgium49.1High
23Australia48.4High
24Czech Republic48.3High
25Estonia48.3High
26New Zealand47.0High
27Malta46.4High
28Italy45.7High
29Cyprus45.7High
30Spain45.6High
31Portugal43.5High
32Slovenia42.9High
33Malaysia42.4Upper Middle
34United Arab Emiratesx42.4High
35Hungary41.5High
36Latvia41.1High
37Bulgaria40.0Upper Middle
38Poland40.0High
39Slovakia39.7High
40Lithuania39.2High
41Croatia37.3High
42Viet Nam37.1Lower Middle
43Greece36.8High
44Thailand36.7Upper Middle
45Ukraine36.3Lower Middle
46Romania36.0Upper Middle
47Russian Federation35.6Upper Middle
48India35.6Lower Middle
49Montenegro35.4Upper Middle
50Philippines35.2Lower Middle
51Turkey34.9Upper Middle
52Mauritius34.4Upper Middle
53Serbia34.3Upper Middle
54Chile33.9High
55Mexico33.6Upper Middle
56Costa Rica33.5Upper Middle
57North Macedonia33.4Upper Middle
58Mongolia33.4Lower Middle
59Republic of Moldova33.0Lower Middle
60South Africa32.7Upper Middle
61Armenia32.6Upper Middle
62Brazil31.9Upper Middle
63Georgia31.8Upper Middle
64Belarus31.3Upper Middle
65Tunisia31.2Lower Middle
66Saudi Arabia30.9High
67Iran (Islamic Republic of)30.9High
68Colombia30.8Upper Middle
69Uruguay30.8High
70Qatar30.8High
71Brunei Darussalam29.8High
72Jamaica29.1Upper Middle
73Panama29.0High
74Bosnia and Herzegovina29.0Upper Middle
75Morocco29.0Lower Middle
76Peru28.8Upper Middle
77Kazakhstan28.6Upper Middle
78Kuwait28.4High
79Bahrain28.4High
80Argentina28.3Upper Middle
81Jordan27.8Upper Middle
82Azerbaijan27.2Upper Middle
83Albania27.1Upper Middle
84Oman26.5High
85Indonesia26.5Lower Middle
86Kenya26.1Lower Middle
87Lebanon26.0Upper Middle
88United Republic of Tanzania25.6Lower I
89Botswana25.4Upper Middle
90Dominican Republic25.1Upper Middle
91Rwanda25.1Lower I
92El Salvador24.9Lower Middle
93Uzbekistan24.5Lower Middle
94Kyrgyzstan24.5Lower Middle
95Nepal24.4Lower I
96Egypt24.2Lower Middle
97Paraguay24.1Upper Middle
98Trinidad and Tobago24.1High
99Ecuador24.1Upper Middle
100Cabo Verde23.9Lower Middle
101Sri Lanka23.8Upper Middle
102Senegal23.8Lower Middle
103Honduras23.0Lower Middle
104Namibia22.5Upper Middle
105Bolivia (Plurinational State of)22.4Lower Middle
106Guatemala22.4Upper Middle
107Pakistan22.3Lower Middle
108Ghana22.3Lower Middle
109Tajikistan22.2Lower I
110Cambodia21.5Lower Middle
111Malawi21.4Lower I
112Côte d’Ivoire21.2Lower Middle
113Lao People’s Democratic Republic20.7Lower Middle
114Uganda20.5Lower I
115Madagascar20.4Lower I
116Bangladesh20.4Lower Middle
117Nigeria20.1Lower Middle
118Burkina Faso20.0Lower I
119Cameroon20.0Lower Middle
120Zimbabwe20.0Lower Middle
121Algeria19.5Upper Middle
122Zambia19.4Lower Middle
123Mali19.2Lower I
124Mozambique18.7Lower I
125Togo18.5Lower I
126Benin18.1Lower I
127Ethiopia18.1Lower I
128Niger17.8Lower I
129Myanmar17.7Lower Middle
130Guinea17.3Lower I
131Yemen13.6Lower I

Nordic countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland continue their strong showing across innovation factors—like Knowledge Creation, Global Brand Value, Environmental Performance, and Intellectual Property Receipts—leading to their continued presence atop global innovators.

But the nations making the biggest moves in GII ranking are found in Asia.

China, Vietnam, India, and the Philippines have risen the most of all countries, with all four now in the top 50. China broke into the top 15 in 2019 and remains the only middle-income economy in the top 30.

In 2020, South Korea became the second Asian economy to enter the top 10, after Singapore. As the first Asian country to move into the global top five, Singapore joined the leaders in 2018, and now sits at 8th place.

In another first for 2020, India has now broken into the top 50.

Innovation Input & Output: The Overachievers

While annual rankings like these confirm the importance of a robust economy and innovation investment, variations in the relationship between input and output are not uncommon.

The correlation between wealth and innovation isn’t always straightforward, and neither is the connection between innovation input and output.

Below is an overview of the GII inputs and outputs, as well as several of the world’s overall leaders in each pillar.

Input variables can be characterized as factors that foster innovation—everything from the quality of a country’s university institutions to its levels of ecological sustainability.

Input PillarsInput ExamplesInput Leaders
Institutions
Human Capital & Research
Infrastructure
Market Sophistication
Business Sophistication
University Institutions
Regulatory Environment
Intangible Assets
Entrepreneurship
R&D Spending
Venture Capital Deals
Researchers
1. Singapore
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. U.S.
5. Denmark
6. U.K.
7. Hong Kong, China
8. Finland
9. Canada
10. South Korea

Output factors include innovation indicators like the creation of new businesses, and even the number of Wikipedia edits made per million people.

Output PillarsOutput TypesOutput Leaders
Knowledge & Technology
Creative
Registered patents
Creative goods and services
Scientific publications
National feature films
Entertainment and media
High-tech manufacturing
1. Switzerland
2. Sweden
3. United Kingdom
4. Netherlands
5. U.S.A.
6. China
7. Germany
8. Finland
9. Denmark
10. South Korea

Countries with impressive innovation outputs compared to input levels include:

  • China: 26th in inputs, but sixth in overall innovation outputs
  • Netherlands: 11th in innovation input, but fourth across outputs
  • Thailand: 48th in overall input, first in business R&D
  • Malaysia: 34th in overall input, first in high-tech net exports

Innovation Fuel Reductions Up Ahead?

Although financial markets have ignited, the economy as a whole has not fared well since lockdowns began. This begs the question of whether a steep decline in innovation capital will follow.

In response to the 2020 pandemic, will spending on R&D echo the 2009 recession and aftermath of 9/11? Will venture capital flows continue to decline more than they have since 2018?

Because innovation is so entwined with the economic growth strategies of companies and nations alike, the WIPO notes that the potential decline may not be as severe as historical trends might suggest.

No Stopping Human Innovation

Thankfully, innovation opportunities are not solely contingent on the level of capital infused during any given year. Instead, the cumulative results of continuous innovation stimuli may be enough to maintain growth, while strategic cash reserves are put to use.

What the GII ranking shows is that inputs don’t always equal outputs—and that innovative strides can be made with even modest levels of capital flow.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Join the 230,000+ subscribers who receive our daily email

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Popular