I'm not sure why it's causing all this buzz when Amazon did it. Domino's did this several months ago and it didn't create nearly as much noise.
With reference to the last paragraph about automatic cars : I think it will take much longer than expected. This is for a simple reasons that computer controlled cars aren't likely be 100% crash proof either (maybe 99.999% but not 100). Even if the computer controlled cars reduce road accidents 10 folds, the (reduced) number of accident victims will still create noise and not let this play out. I mean I can't think of people taking kindly to that at all. People would always believe that the accident wouldn't have happened if they were at the wheel.
I don't see how it is reclaimed, if you sit in a car and do other stuff instead of looking at the road you're going to be nauseated. Unless your commute is mostly in a traffic jam that makes you stop completely.
You can reclaim lost sleep. I get car sick if I start doing stuff, but I can definitely nap. I also wonder if the car sickness is something you can get rid of with time/practice.
I do get nauseated normally... But I found a solution: hold whatever it is you are working on/with in front of you at eye level, not in your lap. That way your head is in its normal driving position, and your peripheral vision is picking up the cues that correlate with your inner ear that cause the dizziness when they don't mesh.
I used to think this as well, but at first automated cars will require a licensed driver, capable of taking over during emergencies. The same probably goes for sleeping. This will all be tied into the issue of liability when it is your personal vehicle. When the technology is more founded and trusted, perhaps the restrictions will be lessened over time; however, where I live still has prohibition era type liquor laws... politicians aren't keen on loosening those types of laws even if it makes 100% sense.
This will be the case for personal car use, but if Google (or someone else) starts a taxi service, then it may be possible to hop in a economically priced, automated car for the ride home. In the case of a taxi, the driver is not liable in the case of an accident nor or they responsible for driving the vehicle in an emergency. I really hope this type of transportation becomes more popular than owning a personal vehicle because of this distinction, owning a car (especially multiple cars per family) is a waste of money if it could be reasonably avoided (as it could be in urban settings with sufficient population density).
That is my worry as well, but the supporters of this technology point to lawmakers who are opening the door to this technology and will likely sheild the developers from some liability except for gross negligence. If the accidents are reduced 10X then as a whole that is something the government can support and will create laws around.
I'm not even talking about the legal angle yet. The bad publicity that happens due to a tiny TINY number of accidents will stop it from gaining traction in the market... or at least that's what I fear. I mean, put yourself in the place of an accident victim. Would you later on say that it wasn't the computer's fault? Most likely not.
Whatever the incident rate with human drivers, there is always someone to be held responsible: a person who was at the wheel at the time of the incident. I wonder if people would go for even a sizeable reduction in the incident rate, while losing this someone-to-blame feature?
As the saying goes "Build a better road (or car) and they'll build a better idiot."
Data shows very clearly that human error (behavior) - exclusively - is responsible for the vast majority of crashes. Engineering decisions (roadway design, vehicle defects) are sometimes factors, but not often the cause of crashes. Roadway and vehicle safety countermeasures are reaching their limits in terms of cost effectiveness. From a data-driven perspective, the humans must be removed from the driver's seat eventually.
Counter argument : A manual vehicle (let's say a motorcycle) and a computer driven vehicle come together and the motorcyclist dies in the incident. Who takes the blame?
There are a lot of things to be sorted out before we can start using auto-drive cars... Technology-wise, we're very nearly good to go.
I think the big difference is that when Dominoes did it, they fully acknowledged it was purely a stunt, and that they couldn't get actual regulatory authority to make it a real service. (And it did receive an appropriately-high level of attention considering it was fully acknowledged as just a publicity stunt.)
Amazon has stated it firmly as "we're going to do this - we're going to work with the government to make this a reality." That's the difference.
Thoughts that immediately came to my mind - acknowledging that it's only a demo:
1. How does Amazon intended to get its little plastic snap case back? 2. I don't want 50 drones buzzing over my house every day. I don't want 10. 3. Shoot down a drone - free prize inside! 4. I'm really happy with 2 day delivery and the fact that they are already talking about Sunday deliveries - no more weekend delay.
Or say, how do they deliver a package to an apartment building on the street that requiers the postman to go through a set of doors, possibly security doors, and sign the parcel over to the concierge etc.
I think people are under some bizarre notion that this will be rolled out nationwide, to every barn and shed. Likely like with a lot of things, it would only be implemented in certain areas. Look at something like LTE coverage. If they can't even get you a decent mobile data connection or hell, broadband connection, do they really think they'll be getting 30 minute drone deliveries?
I for one have no interest in this technology at present. You will be paying a substantial premium for this service, and while i'm just pulling figures out of thin air, or rather not even using any figures, i'd be willing to be that a lot of the time it would cost a lot more than if you just spent the extra and bought it in a shop. Just look how few people actually pay the 4-5x price increase for saturday shipping, VERY few in comparisson to total sales. The widespread use of amazons free economy shipping has clearly shown that people are more than happy to wait a few days for their products.
I would be interested to see the figures of free, standard, and expensive next day.
I'm confused about your first concern. Why would you elect for 30 minute delivery to an apartment building if you were not going to be there to receive it? It would be almost *no* additional effort to have the drone trigger a text alert when it is 5 minutes out, and you head downstairs and pick up the package yourself. If concierge were going to be signing for your package for you to pick up later in the day wouldn't you instead opt for their same day delivery service (where available) which is cheaper? Or overnight?
I'm also confused about "Just look how few people actually pay...for saturday shipping" followed by "I would be interested to see the figures..."
I am actually thinking that you could leave your window open. The drone would fly in, drop off your package and fly back out. Gets around having to bypass all those layers of security. :p
1. I think they'll just go with cardboard disposable boxes, or figure out a postal service pickup for the disposable cases. 2. Fair point - I think this, along with getting regulatory approval on the safety point, will be its biggest hurdle. 3. Really? Do people do this? Do you shoot at UPS trucks? Do you steal packages off porches? Sure some idiot will inevitably do that, but just wait until they get prosecuted. 4. I'm happy with 2 day delivery, but I'd be much happier with one day, or 30 minute, delivery. Quicker is always better! And there are plenty of folks that would pay a large premium.
Pretty interesting idea overall though, and I'm curious about what hardware they will use and their average cost. Like some others said below, you can get the AR.Drone 2.0 for $300 and the DJI Phantom for $450 (http://quadcopterhq.com/best-quadcopters/) though both of those aren't really up to the task of hauling goods and weight. I'm thinking in the $2,000 range and custom built, but we'll see!
I can't wait for faster deliveries to places that already have ready access to everything, not to mention how little this will actually impact congestion.
If this is developed in-house, I have to guess that $10k is an absurdly high number. Sure, the basically pilot scale production with which octocopters are produced means they are aggressively trying to offset all the R&D costs for available units today (in addition to potentially making big per unit profits). But I really can't imagine that a metal framework, 10-mile radio communication module, on-board sensors and controllers, a GPS unit, 8 brushless DC motors, and a battery will cost $10k. The actual bill of materials is going to be more like $500-1000.
Instead of comparing it to low-volume commercial octocopters, I think it would be more like the cost of 2 Parrot AR Drone.2 Quadricopters (~$300 each) and an older iPhone (~$400) glued together.
I don't think a drone designed to carry up to five pounds is going to be twice the cost of a Parrot AR that weighs about one pound and has very limited range. You need a much larger motor to carry five pounds, which means more battery capacity to run it, plus the range issue. The R&D costs for the first prototypes is likely already into the hundreds of thousands, and they're not even really doing what's needed.
I thought the range issue was limited by the phone to AR interface? And I'm quoting retail costs for the Parrot drones, not even the bill of materials (which are being sold for more like $250-270).
But you're right - its going to be more than that - I still have a hard time believing that its going to end up costing $10k per drone, certainly not from a bill of materials standpoint. I think the bill of materials would run probably around $2-3k after checking prices for brushless DC motors (which is probably going to be the most expensive part). That's still with off-the-shelf parts. After that, I guess it really just depends on volume of the drones produced to offset whatever R&D cost went into the project. I dunno, don't you think that Amazon had to know the costs before they decided to start R&D in the project? Unless they really haven't put any R&D in it, and it really is just a publicity stunt, which is possible. But operating under the assumption that they are actively researching the feasibility of drone delivery systems, I think it must be under the pretense that its financially viable.
Whether it is actually viable, it another matter entirely. FCC/FAA may never approve, would only work in areas that are not as population dense because of the difficulty to delivering to apartments, etc. I think its still unlikely to come to fruition anytime soon, but my guess is that it won't be a technological cost limitation.
What I think is interesting is they'll initially need plenty of drones when they launch in an area because imagine getting overrun with those delivery requests and all the drones are already out delivering.
Also interesting is they'll probably have the drones land in a huge warehouse on wireless chargers, similar to how the newest smartphones are charged nowadays.
It is high, just look at this TED conference http://youtu.be/9yEl0-bCA9M (wich by the way I watched recently , seem amazon is reading my mind ) the drop some figures and drone cost is $3000 and per travel cost is very low. Amazing project.
Not sure I'm following you on 'this will only speed up services for places that already have access.' This seems like the ideal way to handle remote deliveries in rural areas. Cities seem like the worst places to use it.
These small UAVs have relatively limited range (10-25 miles straight). Adding batteries to increase range adds weight means you need more batteries... Amazon's talking a 10 mile radius, which wouldn't cut it in rural areas.
This would necessitate living near an Amazon depot, wouldn't it? What's the fly range on a civilian drone, 18 miles straight? I suppose they could build their own with long ranges. But then I'd kind of worry about atmospheric effects on products (extreme cold or moisture) or it being dropped etc etc. Sure is a cool concept though, this is what the future was supposed to be.
There too much uncertainty about flying a multicopter above people's head. If a motor fails or the GPS signal is lost this things turns into a very dangerous object. You also have to make sure that during the multicopter descent no kids is playing around -you don't want them to put their fingers close to the propellers (http://goo.gl/r1WQ4Y). Think about the liability "Amazon drone falls from the sky, one killed"
This is correct. Look, automation on an existing, extremely well understood infrastructure using machines that we have 100+ years of experience with is one thing. FLYING is inherently dangerous. If your car stops working usually the worst that happens is that it coasts to a stop.
I just can't believe so many smart people think we will ever have stuff like this, or jetpacks, or flying cars. Until we have anti gravity that is essentially foolproof, there is simply no way we are going to be using air transport with anyone but expert human hands at the controls. Drones for killing is another matter, of course.
This seems false. I saw a article recently the FAA is worried pilots are losing the ability to actually fly. Why? Too much automation in cockpits. I'm guessing a passenger jet pilot does very little flying at all these days.
Pretty much the exact opposite of your theory. And you also brought up drones, which are everywhere.
And your statement "if a car stops working it just coasts to a stop" is also crazy. More likely it will lead to a crash, probably a crash much more likely to be dangerous than a drone dropping out of the sky, because 99% of the time the drone will land on empty space, whereas the car will be on a narrow road and almost certain to hit something before it stops.
Besos to Bezos for a well timed (Black Friday/Christmas buying season) publicity stunt. Surprised that so many people took the bait. Of course it's based on a possible future reality, but would it ever be practical? On so many levels it's not as outlined my your paragraphs of caveats. But I love the way Bezos thinks - he's got vision and hutzpah.
What I don't get, and I've not seen discussed, is where exactly will the drone land and leave the delivery? Thinking back on everywhere I've lived they're all surrounded by wires, trees etc. Some were multi-unit apartments. At my current place the obvious option is right in the middle of the driveway, which 1) won't work if I'm parked there 2) is in the way if I'm not parked there 3) is highly visible for theft. Are the drones meant to swoop in, locate my door, and fly right up?
I think it's likely we'll see something sooner in the way of packages delivered by drone from the UPS truck to your door. Much of the labor involved when for example UPS delivers packages is the driver stopping in front of your house, hopping out of the truck, carrying the package to your door and then hopping back in again. I think we'll see a small fleet of drones delivering small packages from the truck while the driver handles larger items and things that require special attention like signatures, etc. That will address the proximity and range issues Amazon will have to solve to realize what Bezos announced on Sunday. You wouldn't be seeing 30-minute delivery times, but it would definitely reduce cost on the part of shippers.
I would think that they amortize the cost payback over a one-two year term, not a one-two month one. That would bring costs down quite a bit for shipping.
Given a choice between 1) a guy in a red suit and a flying sleigh and 2) 54,000 delivery drones; I'm not sure which of the two delivery methods I find less plausible. The size of the average Amazon delivery box, high fuel cost of helicopters and the inability of drones to deal with inclement winter weather should be clear signs that this plan would fit better in an episode of The Jetsons.
As for who would actually use drone delivery, I can imagine parts being delivered to replace critical infrastructure. Stuff like IT equipment and medicine come to mind that would have a valid use for a 30 minute turn around time. (Granted, the selection of equipment that would weight under 5 pounds narrows the utility.) I used to work at a data center who had contracts in place for 4 hour turn around time for failed parts. Knocking that down to 30 minutes does have some merit.
Somewhat to my own surprise, i don't actually want this,at all. It will get really crowded,really fast and i thought we are working in the other direction towards less chaos,less pollution. Millions of buzzing drones 24/7 is not quite that.
While this is currently far fetched and I would imagine at least a decade out for even limited real, production use I don't think the "but people can shoot them down, steal them!" argument useful.
You can already do that. Hang out around my neighborhood for a while and you could probably easily find 10 packages sitting unguarded on people's porches. Or people could just go up to the UPS guy with a gun and a mask and say "give me all the stuff on your truck".
It's not a meaningful drawback that someone could somehow get a hold of these in-flight.
People are such suckers for giving this story so much attention. There is no way they make money off drones. Nobody is going to subsidize the cost. Nobody needs their package delivered enough to pay $100+ to have a drone deliver it. And I doubt it will ever cost less than that. Just imagine how many of these things will get shot down just for fun. At the rate youth unemployment is rising you're going to have dozens of gangs hanging out near amazon warehouses waiting for a chance just to win bragging rights, to say nothing of the cargo or the drone itself. No way. Not gonna happen. Not even close. People dont realize what kind of world we live in or how far things have gone in terms of social inequality. Sure, people get that technology is changing fast, but they dont seem to realize that other even more breathtaking changes are happening.
I think it is interesting, but I still see pitfalls. When/how/if could these be done as actual drones and when/how/if as remote piloted vehicles?
The FAA proposed rules are rather early and not fully fleshed out from what I have seen.
You also aren't likely to see these operated within city limits of most big cities (I think operating below roof height is likely to be verbotten in most/all cities, though maybe you could do roof top deliveries in a city...though a lot of buildings don't have roofs accessible to residents).
Also, what about liability? These WILL crash. Frequently, maybe not. But there will still be mechanical failures that take them down, or crash in to power lines, or trees, or houses, get knocked down by a wind gust, etc.
I am not strictly speaking to Amazon, a giant multinational which has resonable deep pockets. I am speaking of smaller drone operates and such. I think just like driving a vehicle, if you want to fly a drone, you should be required to have liability operator insurance to do so (cause if you crash your drone in to my house, darn right I am going after you with a suit).
Also operating restrictions in general. Are you going to be able to fly it 50ft over my house? What about 15ft? I assume most of these are going to be gas powered, I don't need people flying giant weed whackers 10 ft over my house on a whim, thanks very much.
I see the potential, but I also feel like laws and regulations as well as tort need a lot of filling in before its viable in a lot of ways, both as a delivery mechanism and anything else "wide spread".
Just like driverless cars.
Both are likely coming, but both need a lot of law, case law and regulation to happen first. For instance in a non-piloted drone or automated car, who is responsible in an accident? The owner? The notional "pilot" even if they aren't controlling it? The manufacturer? All of the above?
More than likely electric as gas has too much vibration for the gyros/accels on board and there lies the problem.
If he really wants this to be a reality and not just camera time, Bezos needs to produce a new energy source.
ATM lithium polymer are the best bang for the weight and they have their limitations (although they have impressive amounts of power for their size and weight) - charging rate, discharge rate, amount of times they can be charged, etc. Just google lipo fire and you will see what happens when one of these let go, usually during charging. My thought was it was for camera time, hope he proves me wrong. The hobby side of multis would be happy for this as currently lipos are the best option for us with the vast majority in the 12.6 & 16.8V with currents for an octo up to 80-100A bursts if not more for what Bezos is suggesting.
Interesting article. I think it's nice to see Amazon trying to bring this fictional concept to reality - new breakthroughs in the way we live our lives have to start somewhere, even if that means this service will be very poor. (I assume there are all sorts of problems with this system that will take a while to get around)
As for cars - I don't think we're too far off from that. People won't like it at first, but they will quickly adjust to it and it'll become the norm.
All being worked out by the hobby side of multirotors. Many Open Hard/Software Projects they could take and then tweak it to their desire, probably not giving the IP from the projects they picked it up from.
Most of the issues you raise here were addressed in the Sixty Minutes interview. For example, this is a project for the future, five year or more from now, pending FAA regulations, etc. It is intended only for very small parcels, within ten miles of a fulfillment center. Hopefully those yellow plastic delivery boxes used for each shipment are recycleable and don't cost too much.
You might want to look into trying to fly with two parents and three kids, with a transfer thrown in just for fun. Trust me, we've flown as a family, and it's no more fun than driving and often less so.
Screaming kids in the car? Find a place to stop. Screaming kids in the plane? Too bad! You've got another hour or two! Oh, and hauling the luggage into the airport for two car seats and all the assorted clothing is a royal pain. Plus, if you fly you then need to rent a car (minivan) and work that into your schedule.
If we were traveling more than 2000 miles one way, yes plane becomes more ideal, but for shorter distances the cost is actually less and the time spent on travel isn't much worse. Plus, we got to stop and see family/friends in three places along our route, vs. only going one place with a plane.
I don't really see how this will be entirely practical, and likely the biggest obstacle will be the last 50 feet. GPS, optical and acoustic sensors, combined with waypoint software work really well today to map out routes for photos etc. but these don't need "front door accuracy". Amazon will. If you get your package delivered to the pile of leaves in the backyard, or to the gutter in the street, or perhaps to your roof, you likely won't give Amazon Air good reviews. Yet how is a drone supposed to decide where exactly where the appropriate delivery spot is for every Amazon customer and every address?
There won't be cars that drive themselves because of the fact they wouldn't be able to figure out who to blame when inevitably there was an accident that wound up wrecking an entire highway.
As for drones delivering packages, this will be field tested and when people begin to complain about drones landing on innocent children in a park somewhere, they'll be forced to suspend the program.
...Never to be restarted.
Police tried to use drones to monitor speeders. Didn't happen, program shut down, and all for less reasons than this has to be shut down.
It sounds futuristic, but let's be serious. Things stay the same. Look how long we've had the same basic design for the commode, toilet paper, tires, and the bathtub.
The future is just more of the present 99% of the time.
This drones thing is total BS. We're not going to see drones making deliveries in 5 years. We're not going to see it in 25 years. It's too impractical to have drones flying around dropping objects. At best you'll get some sort of automatic delivery bot that runs on the ground. It's never going to be practical or safe to have dozens of drones buzzing around everywhere.
People will always find something to complain about. For some, it's almost as if it's their profession.
If it reduced accidents tenfold (say 100,000 fewer) a year, yet they caused 5,000 a year, they throw hissy fits over the 5,000 and ignore the saved 95,000. It's the pathetic way it is unfortunately.
I do think they'll eventually win out, but not in the next few years. I'm thinking 20 or so. People, on the whole, HATE change.
As for the drones, i heard NYC and LA first. I'm curious as to how you get a drone to deliver a package to someone in a building with 1,000+ units in it. Drop it on the roof and tell them to check the roof in 30 minutes?
Excellent response, Jarred. Been there, done that.
Even back in the day when I had "only" three kids, that would be FIVE plane tickets. Gee, I could afford to buy them, except those darn kids want stuff like food and clothes.
And don't forget about the lack of flexibility. Suppose one kid gets sick the day you planned to travel (either direction)? At least in a car you can usually tweak your schedule.
But best of all, in total seriousness, our family trips were great "bonding" times rather than the total horror depicted in most movies. And I still know almost every Sheron, Lois, and Braham song by heart.
I am with you there, Jarred. I've got 3 under 6. No way I'd fly them. We went to Florida from Maryland a couple of years ago when it was just 2 kids and no way I would have considered flying. Cheaper to drive and easier, even if it takes more time.
With 3, hahahaha. Not going to happen. We have to go back to Florida twice next year for a family reunion in February and a wedding in April. Driving, for sure. It's 18-20hrs, by car, but it isn't the end of the world. Just pack everyone in to the car a little before bedtime and drive through the night. I nap for a couple of hours ahead of time and I am fine driving through the night. Then my wife takes over in the morning after breakfast for a couple hours while I nap again and take over around lunch and roll in soon after lunch. That is for a 1,000 mile drive.
Though this coming fall we are leaving our kids at home and flying I Cali for my brother-in-laws wedding. I wouldn't drive everyone 2,500 miles and I won't fly them that far/in general. Once the oldest are out of car seats and the youngest maybe takes a booster I'd consider it.
this invades on people's rights to earn a fair wage. You can't just eliminate jobs like that or cut in line because you want to. Sure it's only amazon at first but then what?
I'm glad that someone has focused some attention on those inconvenient questions dealing with the practicality of delivery drones.
The fawning, uncritical tech press fell for Bezos' publicity stunt hook, line, and sinker. To most of them, practical and incremental is boring when pie-in-the-sky pontification warrants hero worship of the tallest order. They smugly view themselves as the leading edge thinkers that everybody else must follow (which explains why they are bloggers and reviewers, right?). Yet, their blathering reflects a contempt for how end users actually use technology.
As other commenters have pointed out, aside from the economic considerations, the biggest hurdle here is simply getting the drone to navigate the final 100 feet. You have kids playing near their homes, cars pulling into driveways, people walking on sidewalks, security doors, porch steps, etc. And then you have the obstacle that I haven't seen anyone talk about -- how does a drone navigate around utility lines?
For both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, the FAA has safety standards as to how much clearance is needed for a landing zone. Even for a drone, I doubt that the FAA will declare a front porch as having sufficient clearance for a drone to land, especially with other low level obstacles.
As they say, the devil's in the details and most of the tech press obviously cannot be bothered by such inconveniences.
If amazon made the drones themselves, they could get the cost down to as low as $400 a drone. I'm speaking strictly Bill of Materials Cost. R&D Cost is going to be significant.
The most expensive components will be the various sensors (Sonar, Li-Dar, Camera,) and SOC, the rest of the stuff is not that expensive.
Am i the only one who read this and thought "wow, that would be a stupidly easy way to get your sh*t stolen while its being delivered".
Seriously, unless these drones are flying at some crazy heights, a kid with a slingshot could knock one of these well enough out of balance to cause it to crash, and then bam, free stuff for the kid, and wrecked drone for amazon.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
75 Comments
Back to Article
dishayu - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I'm not sure why it's causing all this buzz when Amazon did it. Domino's did this several months ago and it didn't create nearly as much noise.With reference to the last paragraph about automatic cars : I think it will take much longer than expected. This is for a simple reasons that computer controlled cars aren't likely be 100% crash proof either (maybe 99.999% but not 100). Even if the computer controlled cars reduce road accidents 10 folds, the (reduced) number of accident victims will still create noise and not let this play out. I mean I can't think of people taking kindly to that at all. People would always believe that the accident wouldn't have happened if they were at the wheel.
jamyryals - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
People will be incentivized to use automated systems by lower insurance rates. It will happen, and I cannot wait to reclaim my commute time.Murloc - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I don't see how it is reclaimed, if you sit in a car and do other stuff instead of looking at the road you're going to be nauseated.Unless your commute is mostly in a traffic jam that makes you stop completely.
Boogaloo - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
> if you sit in a car and do other stuff instead of looking at the road you're going to be nauseated.This is far from universal. In fact, a quick search shows that the vast majority of people don't have any issues with motion sickness.
c4keislie - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Not everyone gets nauseated in the car... For instance I do not.kirsch - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
You can reclaim lost sleep. I get car sick if I start doing stuff, but I can definitely nap.I also wonder if the car sickness is something you can get rid of with time/practice.
codylee - Sunday, December 8, 2013 - link
I do get nauseated normally... But I found a solution: hold whatever it is you are working on/with in front of you at eye level, not in your lap. That way your head is in its normal driving position, and your peripheral vision is picking up the cues that correlate with your inner ear that cause the dizziness when they don't mesh.nafhan - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
You can probably sleep in the care without getting nauseous. From my perspective, a commute where I can sleep is a good commute.djscrew - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
agreed, also the potential to eliminate drunk driving accidents... Also I'm not sure what Murloc is talking about... sounds like a personal problem3DoubleD - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I used to think this as well, but at first automated cars will require a licensed driver, capable of taking over during emergencies. The same probably goes for sleeping. This will all be tied into the issue of liability when it is your personal vehicle. When the technology is more founded and trusted, perhaps the restrictions will be lessened over time; however, where I live still has prohibition era type liquor laws... politicians aren't keen on loosening those types of laws even if it makes 100% sense.This will be the case for personal car use, but if Google (or someone else) starts a taxi service, then it may be possible to hop in a economically priced, automated car for the ride home. In the case of a taxi, the driver is not liable in the case of an accident nor or they responsible for driving the vehicle in an emergency. I really hope this type of transportation becomes more popular than owning a personal vehicle because of this distinction, owning a car (especially multiple cars per family) is a waste of money if it could be reasonably avoided (as it could be in urban settings with sufficient population density).
3DoubleD - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Oops, by "Driver is not liable" I meant "taxi passenger is not liable"Hubb1e - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
That is my worry as well, but the supporters of this technology point to lawmakers who are opening the door to this technology and will likely sheild the developers from some liability except for gross negligence. If the accidents are reduced 10X then as a whole that is something the government can support and will create laws around.dishayu - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I'm not even talking about the legal angle yet. The bad publicity that happens due to a tiny TINY number of accidents will stop it from gaining traction in the market... or at least that's what I fear. I mean, put yourself in the place of an accident victim. Would you later on say that it wasn't the computer's fault? Most likely not.Zoomer - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
It is far more likely to be the human's fault.jdvorak001 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Whatever the incident rate with human drivers, there is always someone to be held responsible: a person who was at the wheel at the time of the incident. I wonder if people would go for even a sizeable reduction in the incident rate, while losing this someone-to-blame feature?nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
As the saying goes "Build a better road (or car) and they'll build a better idiot."Data shows very clearly that human error (behavior) - exclusively - is responsible for the vast majority of crashes. Engineering decisions (roadway design, vehicle defects) are sometimes factors, but not often the cause of crashes. Roadway and vehicle safety countermeasures are reaching their limits in terms of cost effectiveness. From a data-driven perspective, the humans must be removed from the driver's seat eventually.
Zoomer - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Workaround: They could always retake control by grabbing the wheel, tapping the brakes, etc. They were not paying attention? Too bad.dishayu - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
That seems like a reasonable workaround.Counter argument : A manual vehicle (let's say a motorcycle) and a computer driven vehicle come together and the motorcyclist dies in the incident. Who takes the blame?
There are a lot of things to be sorted out before we can start using auto-drive cars... Technology-wise, we're very nearly good to go.
CharonPDX - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I think the big difference is that when Dominoes did it, they fully acknowledged it was purely a stunt, and that they couldn't get actual regulatory authority to make it a real service. (And it did receive an appropriately-high level of attention considering it was fully acknowledged as just a publicity stunt.)Amazon has stated it firmly as "we're going to do this - we're going to work with the government to make this a reality." That's the difference.
nathanddrews - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Thoughts that immediately came to my mind - acknowledging that it's only a demo:1. How does Amazon intended to get its little plastic snap case back?
2. I don't want 50 drones buzzing over my house every day. I don't want 10.
3. Shoot down a drone - free prize inside!
4. I'm really happy with 2 day delivery and the fact that they are already talking about Sunday deliveries - no more weekend delay.
hughlle - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Or say, how do they deliver a package to an apartment building on the street that requiers the postman to go through a set of doors, possibly security doors, and sign the parcel over to the concierge etc.I think people are under some bizarre notion that this will be rolled out nationwide, to every barn and shed. Likely like with a lot of things, it would only be implemented in certain areas. Look at something like LTE coverage. If they can't even get you a decent mobile data connection or hell, broadband connection, do they really think they'll be getting 30 minute drone deliveries?
I for one have no interest in this technology at present. You will be paying a substantial premium for this service, and while i'm just pulling figures out of thin air, or rather not even using any figures, i'd be willing to be that a lot of the time it would cost a lot more than if you just spent the extra and bought it in a shop. Just look how few people actually pay the 4-5x price increase for saturday shipping, VERY few in comparisson to total sales. The widespread use of amazons free economy shipping has clearly shown that people are more than happy to wait a few days for their products.
I would be interested to see the figures of free, standard, and expensive next day.
Tegeril - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I'm confused about your first concern. Why would you elect for 30 minute delivery to an apartment building if you were not going to be there to receive it? It would be almost *no* additional effort to have the drone trigger a text alert when it is 5 minutes out, and you head downstairs and pick up the package yourself. If concierge were going to be signing for your package for you to pick up later in the day wouldn't you instead opt for their same day delivery service (where available) which is cheaper? Or overnight?I'm also confused about "Just look how few people actually pay...for saturday shipping" followed by "I would be interested to see the figures..."
abazigal - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I am actually thinking that you could leave your window open. The drone would fly in, drop off your package and fly back out. Gets around having to bypass all those layers of security. :pQuadcopterHQ - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link
1. I think they'll just go with cardboard disposable boxes, or figure out a postal service pickup for the disposable cases.2. Fair point - I think this, along with getting regulatory approval on the safety point, will be its biggest hurdle.
3. Really? Do people do this? Do you shoot at UPS trucks? Do you steal packages off porches? Sure some idiot will inevitably do that, but just wait until they get prosecuted.
4. I'm happy with 2 day delivery, but I'd be much happier with one day, or 30 minute, delivery. Quicker is always better! And there are plenty of folks that would pay a large premium.
Pretty interesting idea overall though, and I'm curious about what hardware they will use and their average cost. Like some others said below, you can get the AR.Drone 2.0 for $300 and the DJI Phantom for $450 (http://quadcopterhq.com/best-quadcopters/) though both of those aren't really up to the task of hauling goods and weight. I'm thinking in the $2,000 range and custom built, but we'll see!
Deelron - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I can't wait for faster deliveries to places that already have ready access to everything, not to mention how little this will actually impact congestion.quickbunnie - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
If this is developed in-house, I have to guess that $10k is an absurdly high number. Sure, the basically pilot scale production with which octocopters are produced means they are aggressively trying to offset all the R&D costs for available units today (in addition to potentially making big per unit profits). But I really can't imagine that a metal framework, 10-mile radio communication module, on-board sensors and controllers, a GPS unit, 8 brushless DC motors, and a battery will cost $10k. The actual bill of materials is going to be more like $500-1000.Instead of comparing it to low-volume commercial octocopters, I think it would be more like the cost of 2 Parrot AR Drone.2 Quadricopters (~$300 each) and an older iPhone (~$400) glued together.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I don't think a drone designed to carry up to five pounds is going to be twice the cost of a Parrot AR that weighs about one pound and has very limited range. You need a much larger motor to carry five pounds, which means more battery capacity to run it, plus the range issue. The R&D costs for the first prototypes is likely already into the hundreds of thousands, and they're not even really doing what's needed.quickbunnie - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I thought the range issue was limited by the phone to AR interface? And I'm quoting retail costs for the Parrot drones, not even the bill of materials (which are being sold for more like $250-270).But you're right - its going to be more than that - I still have a hard time believing that its going to end up costing $10k per drone, certainly not from a bill of materials standpoint. I think the bill of materials would run probably around $2-3k after checking prices for brushless DC motors (which is probably going to be the most expensive part). That's still with off-the-shelf parts. After that, I guess it really just depends on volume of the drones produced to offset whatever R&D cost went into the project.
I dunno, don't you think that Amazon had to know the costs before they decided to start R&D in the project? Unless they really haven't put any R&D in it, and it really is just a publicity stunt, which is possible. But operating under the assumption that they are actively researching the feasibility of drone delivery systems, I think it must be under the pretense that its financially viable.
quickbunnie - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Whether it is actually viable, it another matter entirely. FCC/FAA may never approve, would only work in areas that are not as population dense because of the difficulty to delivering to apartments, etc. I think its still unlikely to come to fruition anytime soon, but my guess is that it won't be a technological cost limitation.Iketh - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
What I think is interesting is they'll initially need plenty of drones when they launch in an area because imagine getting overrun with those delivery requests and all the drones are already out delivering.Also interesting is they'll probably have the drones land in a huge warehouse on wireless chargers, similar to how the newest smartphones are charged nowadays.
Iketh - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
Another interesting point is these things crashing and causing road accidents or simply falling on someone's head....odnan92 - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
It is high, just look at this TED conference http://youtu.be/9yEl0-bCA9M (wich by the way I watched recently , seem amazon is reading my mind ) the drop some figures and drone cost is $3000 and per travel cost is very low. Amazing project.Tetracycloide - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Not sure I'm following you on 'this will only speed up services for places that already have access.' This seems like the ideal way to handle remote deliveries in rural areas. Cities seem like the worst places to use it.themossie - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
These small UAVs have relatively limited range (10-25 miles straight). Adding batteries to increase range adds weight means you need more batteries... Amazon's talking a 10 mile radius, which wouldn't cut it in rural areas.tipoo - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
This would necessitate living near an Amazon depot, wouldn't it? What's the fly range on a civilian drone, 18 miles straight? I suppose they could build their own with long ranges. But then I'd kind of worry about atmospheric effects on products (extreme cold or moisture) or it being dropped etc etc. Sure is a cool concept though, this is what the future was supposed to be.JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
They said 10 mile radius, so 20 miles total flight distance, probably with an extra 25% just to be safe.jo.roberts - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
For me it is a PR stunt.There too much uncertainty about flying a multicopter above people's head. If a motor fails or the GPS signal is lost this things turns into a very dangerous object. You also have to make sure that during the multicopter descent no kids is playing around -you don't want them to put their fingers close to the propellers (http://goo.gl/r1WQ4Y). Think about the liability "Amazon drone falls from the sky, one killed"
snuuggles - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
This is correct. Look, automation on an existing, extremely well understood infrastructure using machines that we have 100+ years of experience with is one thing. FLYING is inherently dangerous. If your car stops working usually the worst that happens is that it coasts to a stop.I just can't believe so many smart people think we will ever have stuff like this, or jetpacks, or flying cars. Until we have anti gravity that is essentially foolproof, there is simply no way we are going to be using air transport with anyone but expert human hands at the controls. Drones for killing is another matter, of course.
bill5 - Friday, December 13, 2013 - link
This seems false. I saw a article recently the FAA is worried pilots are losing the ability to actually fly. Why? Too much automation in cockpits. I'm guessing a passenger jet pilot does very little flying at all these days.Pretty much the exact opposite of your theory. And you also brought up drones, which are everywhere.
And your statement "if a car stops working it just coasts to a stop" is also crazy. More likely it will lead to a crash, probably a crash much more likely to be dangerous than a drone dropping out of the sky, because 99% of the time the drone will land on empty space, whereas the car will be on a narrow road and almost certain to hit something before it stops.
nedjinski - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Besos to Bezos for a well timed (Black Friday/Christmas buying season) publicity stunt. Surprised that so many people took the bait. Of course it's based on a possible future reality, but would it ever be practical? On so many levels it's not as outlined my your paragraphs of caveats.But I love the way Bezos thinks - he's got vision and hutzpah.
Y0ssar1an22 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
What I don't get, and I've not seen discussed, is where exactly will the drone land and leave the delivery? Thinking back on everywhere I've lived they're all surrounded by wires, trees etc. Some were multi-unit apartments. At my current place the obvious option is right in the middle of the driveway, which 1) won't work if I'm parked there 2) is in the way if I'm not parked there 3) is highly visible for theft. Are the drones meant to swoop in, locate my door, and fly right up?kdr9hu5 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I think it's likely we'll see something sooner in the way of packages delivered by drone from the UPS truck to your door. Much of the labor involved when for example UPS delivers packages is the driver stopping in front of your house, hopping out of the truck, carrying the package to your door and then hopping back in again. I think we'll see a small fleet of drones delivering small packages from the truck while the driver handles larger items and things that require special attention like signatures, etc. That will address the proximity and range issues Amazon will have to solve to realize what Bezos announced on Sunday. You wouldn't be seeing 30-minute delivery times, but it would definitely reduce cost on the part of shippers.phillyboy - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I would think that they amortize the cost payback over a one-two year term, not a one-two month one. That would bring costs down quite a bit for shipping.Dekker - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Given a choice between 1) a guy in a red suit and a flying sleigh and 2) 54,000 delivery drones; I'm not sure which of the two delivery methods I find less plausible. The size of the average Amazon delivery box, high fuel cost of helicopters and the inability of drones to deal with inclement winter weather should be clear signs that this plan would fit better in an episode of The Jetsons.Kevin G - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
As for who would actually use drone delivery, I can imagine parts being delivered to replace critical infrastructure. Stuff like IT equipment and medicine come to mind that would have a valid use for a 30 minute turn around time. (Granted, the selection of equipment that would weight under 5 pounds narrows the utility.) I used to work at a data center who had contracts in place for 4 hour turn around time for failed parts. Knocking that down to 30 minutes does have some merit.jjj - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Somewhat to my own surprise, i don't actually want this,at all. It will get really crowded,really fast and i thought we are working in the other direction towards less chaos,less pollution. Millions of buzzing drones 24/7 is not quite that.Kurge - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
While this is currently far fetched and I would imagine at least a decade out for even limited real, production use I don't think the "but people can shoot them down, steal them!" argument useful.You can already do that. Hang out around my neighborhood for a while and you could probably easily find 10 packages sitting unguarded on people's porches. Or people could just go up to the UPS guy with a gun and a mask and say "give me all the stuff on your truck".
It's not a meaningful drawback that someone could somehow get a hold of these in-flight.
Shadowmaster625 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
People are such suckers for giving this story so much attention. There is no way they make money off drones. Nobody is going to subsidize the cost. Nobody needs their package delivered enough to pay $100+ to have a drone deliver it. And I doubt it will ever cost less than that. Just imagine how many of these things will get shot down just for fun. At the rate youth unemployment is rising you're going to have dozens of gangs hanging out near amazon warehouses waiting for a chance just to win bragging rights, to say nothing of the cargo or the drone itself. No way. Not gonna happen. Not even close. People dont realize what kind of world we live in or how far things have gone in terms of social inequality. Sure, people get that technology is changing fast, but they dont seem to realize that other even more breathtaking changes are happening.JeffFlanagan - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
People are putting a ton of thought into what was obviously a cyber-Monday marketing gimmick.azazel1024 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I think it is interesting, but I still see pitfalls. When/how/if could these be done as actual drones and when/how/if as remote piloted vehicles?The FAA proposed rules are rather early and not fully fleshed out from what I have seen.
You also aren't likely to see these operated within city limits of most big cities (I think operating below roof height is likely to be verbotten in most/all cities, though maybe you could do roof top deliveries in a city...though a lot of buildings don't have roofs accessible to residents).
Also, what about liability? These WILL crash. Frequently, maybe not. But there will still be mechanical failures that take them down, or crash in to power lines, or trees, or houses, get knocked down by a wind gust, etc.
I am not strictly speaking to Amazon, a giant multinational which has resonable deep pockets. I am speaking of smaller drone operates and such. I think just like driving a vehicle, if you want to fly a drone, you should be required to have liability operator insurance to do so (cause if you crash your drone in to my house, darn right I am going after you with a suit).
Also operating restrictions in general. Are you going to be able to fly it 50ft over my house? What about 15ft? I assume most of these are going to be gas powered, I don't need people flying giant weed whackers 10 ft over my house on a whim, thanks very much.
I see the potential, but I also feel like laws and regulations as well as tort need a lot of filling in before its viable in a lot of ways, both as a delivery mechanism and anything else "wide spread".
Just like driverless cars.
Both are likely coming, but both need a lot of law, case law and regulation to happen first. For instance in a non-piloted drone or automated car, who is responsible in an accident? The owner? The notional "pilot" even if they aren't controlling it? The manufacturer? All of the above?
bob4432 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
More than likely electric as gas has too much vibration for the gyros/accels on board and there lies the problem.If he really wants this to be a reality and not just camera time, Bezos needs to produce a new energy source.
ATM lithium polymer are the best bang for the weight and they have their limitations (although they have impressive amounts of power for their size and weight) - charging rate, discharge rate, amount of times they can be charged, etc. Just google lipo fire and you will see what happens when one of these let go, usually during charging. My thought was it was for camera time, hope he proves me wrong. The hobby side of multis would be happy for this as currently lipos are the best option for us with the vast majority in the 12.6 & 16.8V with currents for an octo up to 80-100A bursts if not more for what Bezos is suggesting.
RU482 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
hey, get a high power rifle, sit a mile away from their warehouse with a large truck, and reap the rewardstreeroy - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Interesting article. I think it's nice to see Amazon trying to bring this fictional concept to reality - new breakthroughs in the way we live our lives have to start somewhere, even if that means this service will be very poor. (I assume there are all sorts of problems with this system that will take a while to get around)As for cars - I don't think we're too far off from that. People won't like it at first, but they will quickly adjust to it and it'll become the norm.
bob4432 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
All being worked out by the hobby side of multirotors. Many Open Hard/Software Projects they could take and then tweak it to their desire, probably not giving the IP from the projects they picked it up from.eaanders22 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Most of the issues you raise here were addressed in the Sixty Minutes interview. For example, this is a project for the future, five year or more from now, pending FAA regulations, etc. It is intended only for very small parcels, within ten miles of a fulfillment center. Hopefully those yellow plastic delivery boxes used for each shipment are recycleable and don't cost too much.bznotins - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
2000 miles by car? There's this thing called air travel. It's pretty cool. Might want to investigate that.JarredWalton - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
You might want to look into trying to fly with two parents and three kids, with a transfer thrown in just for fun. Trust me, we've flown as a family, and it's no more fun than driving and often less so.Screaming kids in the car? Find a place to stop. Screaming kids in the plane? Too bad! You've got another hour or two! Oh, and hauling the luggage into the airport for two car seats and all the assorted clothing is a royal pain. Plus, if you fly you then need to rent a car (minivan) and work that into your schedule.
If we were traveling more than 2000 miles one way, yes plane becomes more ideal, but for shorter distances the cost is actually less and the time spent on travel isn't much worse. Plus, we got to stop and see family/friends in three places along our route, vs. only going one place with a plane.
sligett - Thursday, December 12, 2013 - link
They've taken the cool out of air travel in so many ways.Cmason - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
I don't really see how this will be entirely practical, and likely the biggest obstacle will be the last 50 feet. GPS, optical and acoustic sensors, combined with waypoint software work really well today to map out routes for photos etc. but these don't need "front door accuracy". Amazon will. If you get your package delivered to the pile of leaves in the backyard, or to the gutter in the street, or perhaps to your roof, you likely won't give Amazon Air good reviews. Yet how is a drone supposed to decide where exactly where the appropriate delivery spot is for every Amazon customer and every address?cspringer1234 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
A homing beacon that was shipped to you when you signed up for Amazon Air? Put it out where you want the package delivered?bob4432 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
You would be surprised how accurate multis (if set up correctly) are currently. I would say power is going to be more of an issue vs accuracy.bob4432 - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
Of course depending on the flight controller.HisDivineOrder - Tuesday, December 3, 2013 - link
There won't be cars that drive themselves because of the fact they wouldn't be able to figure out who to blame when inevitably there was an accident that wound up wrecking an entire highway.As for drones delivering packages, this will be field tested and when people begin to complain about drones landing on innocent children in a park somewhere, they'll be forced to suspend the program.
...Never to be restarted.
Police tried to use drones to monitor speeders. Didn't happen, program shut down, and all for less reasons than this has to be shut down.
It sounds futuristic, but let's be serious. Things stay the same. Look how long we've had the same basic design for the commode, toilet paper, tires, and the bathtub.
The future is just more of the present 99% of the time.
Nagorak - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
This drones thing is total BS. We're not going to see drones making deliveries in 5 years. We're not going to see it in 25 years. It's too impractical to have drones flying around dropping objects. At best you'll get some sort of automatic delivery bot that runs on the ground. It's never going to be practical or safe to have dozens of drones buzzing around everywhere.cboath - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
People will always find something to complain about. For some, it's almost as if it's their profession.If it reduced accidents tenfold (say 100,000 fewer) a year, yet they caused 5,000 a year, they throw hissy fits over the 5,000 and ignore the saved 95,000. It's the pathetic way it is unfortunately.
I do think they'll eventually win out, but not in the next few years. I'm thinking 20 or so. People, on the whole, HATE change.
As for the drones, i heard NYC and LA first. I'm curious as to how you get a drone to deliver a package to someone in a building with 1,000+ units in it. Drop it on the roof and tell them to check the roof in 30 minutes?
Arkive - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Congrats to Amazon for presenting some vaporware that generates them an enormous amount of free advertising at a very opportune time. Well played.justaviking - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
Excellent response, Jarred. Been there, done that.Even back in the day when I had "only" three kids, that would be FIVE plane tickets. Gee, I could afford to buy them, except those darn kids want stuff like food and clothes.
And don't forget about the lack of flexibility. Suppose one kid gets sick the day you planned to travel (either direction)? At least in a car you can usually tweak your schedule.
But best of all, in total seriousness, our family trips were great "bonding" times rather than the total horror depicted in most movies. And I still know almost every Sheron, Lois, and Braham song by heart.
azazel1024 - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
I am with you there, Jarred. I've got 3 under 6. No way I'd fly them. We went to Florida from Maryland a couple of years ago when it was just 2 kids and no way I would have considered flying. Cheaper to drive and easier, even if it takes more time.With 3, hahahaha. Not going to happen. We have to go back to Florida twice next year for a family reunion in February and a wedding in April. Driving, for sure. It's 18-20hrs, by car, but it isn't the end of the world. Just pack everyone in to the car a little before bedtime and drive through the night. I nap for a couple of hours ahead of time and I am fine driving through the night. Then my wife takes over in the morning after breakfast for a couple hours while I nap again and take over around lunch and roll in soon after lunch. That is for a 1,000 mile drive.
Though this coming fall we are leaving our kids at home and flying I Cali for my brother-in-laws wedding. I wouldn't drive everyone 2,500 miles and I won't fly them that far/in general. Once the oldest are out of car seats and the youngest maybe takes a booster I'd consider it.
justaviking - Wednesday, December 4, 2013 - link
D'oh!This was a REPLY to the conversation about driving versus flying (a page or two back). I don't know why it posted as a new topic.
I hope this one appears in the right place.
oranos - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
i prefer humansoranos - Thursday, December 5, 2013 - link
this invades on people's rights to earn a fair wage. You can't just eliminate jobs like that or cut in line because you want to. Sure it's only amazon at first but then what?abbeytim - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link
ooh and what about thieves now they just need to get a gun and shoot the drones down :DWoochifer - Friday, December 6, 2013 - link
I'm glad that someone has focused some attention on those inconvenient questions dealing with the practicality of delivery drones.The fawning, uncritical tech press fell for Bezos' publicity stunt hook, line, and sinker. To most of them, practical and incremental is boring when pie-in-the-sky pontification warrants hero worship of the tallest order. They smugly view themselves as the leading edge thinkers that everybody else must follow (which explains why they are bloggers and reviewers, right?). Yet, their blathering reflects a contempt for how end users actually use technology.
As other commenters have pointed out, aside from the economic considerations, the biggest hurdle here is simply getting the drone to navigate the final 100 feet. You have kids playing near their homes, cars pulling into driveways, people walking on sidewalks, security doors, porch steps, etc. And then you have the obstacle that I haven't seen anyone talk about -- how does a drone navigate around utility lines?
For both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, the FAA has safety standards as to how much clearance is needed for a landing zone. Even for a drone, I doubt that the FAA will declare a front porch as having sufficient clearance for a drone to land, especially with other low level obstacles.
As they say, the devil's in the details and most of the tech press obviously cannot be bothered by such inconveniences.
jasonelmore - Friday, December 13, 2013 - link
If amazon made the drones themselves, they could get the cost down to as low as $400 a drone. I'm speaking strictly Bill of Materials Cost. R&D Cost is going to be significant.The most expensive components will be the various sensors (Sonar, Li-Dar, Camera,) and SOC, the rest of the stuff is not that expensive.
Kutark - Monday, December 16, 2013 - link
Am i the only one who read this and thought "wow, that would be a stupidly easy way to get your sh*t stolen while its being delivered".Seriously, unless these drones are flying at some crazy heights, a kid with a slingshot could knock one of these well enough out of balance to cause it to crash, and then bam, free stuff for the kid, and wrecked drone for amazon.