When you make something more complicated it tends to break.
Then you fix it!
Haha. Unlike most of the people on this thread, I literally am not invested emotionally in this debate, but too true Septic, if it breaks fix it.
That being said, to ratio the motor to a gear box and then to a pulley mechanism to the the trigger assembly is a lot of extra redundancies. Most springers under a certain dollar amount can run into breaking/fixing scenarios as you rightfully and optimistically (always love that) point out. That being said, my Hw95 has never broken,ever. It is dead on always. It is simple. It is built like a tank. Now imagine taking that same rifle and adding 50 more points of potential failure: from the battery to the motor, the wires there, oh and the charging dock too, and then the gears and what they are made of (plastic gears tend to strip especially when used back to back as they heat up and can actually melt [I know this from racing high end performance RC cars, which would have a similar transmission like gear box as what would be needed]), and then you have the track or pulley system which can get jammed too as it pulls back the spring or piston, and then finally you have a more complex trigger system now too because first you need it to lock before the trigger disengages the tension, and there are about two ways to do this: one electronically where the motor ends its cycle on the lock, one electronically where the trigger engages an electronic servo or a solenoid to release the piston or air. You also additionally have more complexity with safety and your loading. Lastly any moisture issues with electronics complicates things. This is just a few things I can think of quickly.
I love new ideas, but the argument that it took hundred of years to arrive at a 747 when flight used to be thought impossible seems like a fallacious one to me by the OP (not you Septic). While I appreciate the optimism of the OP and some of the sentiment for handicapped shooters that lack the physical strength, and for some reason can’t afford a pcp, I think the fallacy exemplified in the logic above is one of begging the question. Allow me to explain.
OP has used the example of technologically achievement as a standard to judge whether or not this is a good idea. But that is not how one logically assess its merits, especially given that it may never be better than a simple mechanical springer for many reasons, reliability most of all. The question is: “is an electronic springer a good idea” or something along those lines. We already know it is possible, but does the device actually function to a standard of reliability, affordability, and precision as a regular springer. But if your claim is “this is a good idea” then asserting that given technological progress it is a good idea just like a Boeing 747 is circular logic. The reason a Boeing 747 exists isn’t because the Wright Brothers knew that their ideas would lead to an inevitable Jet, but rather that flight was a good idea in itself and at that moment in time; because of their good ideas many other ideas built off of theirs until the 747 was born. But let’s say the Wright brothers cited the printing press as a reason to justify having a Rube Goldberg machine being built inside their Wright Flyer. The claim would “it is a good idea to have a Rube Goldberg Machine inside a plane,” and whether a printing press existed or not had little to do with the pros or the cons of having a complex Rube Goldberg Machine inside an air plane in the first place. Obviously the electronic springer can function: but is it a good idea. In my opinion no, simply because it is adding weight and many parts that can break, and obviously the financial cost. That is, it is a bad idea in comparison to the simple mechanical process of a springer. Is it a bad idea in general? I don’t know, perhaps, perhaps not. But I would wager that it is still a bad idea even without anything to compare it to. The invisible hand of the market tends to kill bad ideas. If this was a good one, it should be in every gun store. But it isn’t. Reliability is doubtful, and the more reliably it is made would increase weight significantly, and finally those moving parts would probably cause accuracy to suffer.
Maybe just maybe in the future someone will think of a way to make it more feasible, but feasibility doesn’t answer to question of whether one ought to have one in the first place.
some people do get defensive of their beliefs. Drawing a line that closes them off to ideas that oppose their opinions. Whether that’s the case here or not doesn’t bother me. 
