It's Orwellian that the name given to a mechanical bird that is inferior in nearly every way to the real thing is "Smart." Its sole redeeming quality is the ability to be put to use by the military.
The author of the article claims that these machines are "celebrations of life," but to me they seem much more like celebrations of human control.
Consider: mass produced smart birds serving as open wifi access points, providing a network mesh that could span entire continents and is nearly impossible for any organization or government to censor or destroy.
Why is it nearly impossible for an organization to censor or destroy such a network? How is using fake birds such a big difference from using stationary access points?
You'd have to seek out and destroy nearly every node to disable it, otherwise it could just route around any damage or sabotage. And destroying so many flying things that are difficult to distinguish from birds would be no easy task.
Who would pay? Individuals. Buy a node, let it fly often, charge it otherwise, help create an open, uncensored communication network (such things are hardly unprecedented).
There is without a doubt beauty in problem solving and engineering. I guess I think the article doesn't stress how far we have yet to go.
Festo's SmartBird website proclaims: "With SmartBird, Festo has succeeded in deciphering the flight of birds – one of the oldest dreams of humankind." That's just sales talk. It's not true. The gull still flies better than SmartBird does.
I stand by my point that "SmartBird" is neither smart (compared to a bird), nor a bird.
The author of the article claims that these machines are "celebrations of life," but to me they seem much more like celebrations of human control.