> Satellite latency too long?

Yes. Also, regardless of the human pilot, this is intended as a passenger aircraft. That necessitates people on board for it to operate as intended.

Sure but "earlier in the process"? SpaceX is trying to become passenger-safe as well, they just have the luxury of being able to sell something human-less in the meantime.

Meaning that they can then use the money they're making launching satellites and restocking the ISS to pay for the development of passenger rockets.

Boom can't do this. Unlike SpaceX, they need enough investment money to take them all the way to passenger-safe.

Also passenger safe for a few highly trained and risk aware astronauts is a lower bar than passenger safe for the general public.

It would not be certified for passenger travel without a human pilot.

Sure, take out the pilot. You still have passengers that need to survive.

Actually, supersonic unmanned cargo might be interesting, but probably isn't as interesting as manned passenger aircraft.

As far as I know the cost for going supersonic is extremely high compared to subsonic. There probably isn't much cargo that really needs to be there a few hours earlier. Even the military doesn't have supersonic cargo planes. All (most?) bombers are subsonic too.

As a percentage of cargo, small.

The military has used supersonic aircraft on cargo missions in exceptional cases, actually. Their supersonic aircraft tend to be vastly less efficient than even Concorde, though.

All (most?) bombers are subsonic too.

To answer that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

The only long range strategic bomber developed after the 50s that wasn't supersonic was the B-2 stealth bomber (not that there have been very many strategic bombers developed after the 50s).