Ah, I do remember you commenting favorably on drones and particularly their use for photography but couldn't recall if you had bought your own. Thanks!
I stand by that concept too. Plus medical use and search and rescue. There are now drones and AI able to rescue a climber stuck on a cliff. I don't think it has been done in real life but swarm AI can deploy a net and catch an object and return it to safety.
A recent TV feature on Amazon labs( I think it was CNN) featured the drones and according to Jeff Bezos 85% of Amazon packages are under 5 lbs. which is the focus area for drone delivery.A good percentage of the 85% is under 2lbs. I am not sure of US regulations but as a business case, I think they have the numbers to lobby hard for it to be made legal.
This is anecdotal, sure. But here goes.
Last year, I made 60 orders from Amazon, many of which had multiple items obviously. Of those 60 orders ( a vast majority of which were either blu-rays or books ), there were only two that would have come even close to 5 lbs.:
-- The Criterion Collection "Criterion Designs" book, which had a shipping weight of 5.5 lbs.
-- A 42" LG HDTV, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the sort of thing that Amazon is planning on delivering by drone.
Until Bezos puts the fantasists out of their misery by announcing the cancellation of the ludicrous drone experimentation, we can look forward to them droning on until kingdom come.
What percent of Amazon deliveries are even drone deliverable? Since the drones can't be very far from the dispatch center anyway, why not hire some college kids on bicycles instead? Whatever saves a few bucks is what they will do I guess. Isn't a professional drone pilot going to earn more than double what you would pay a bicyclist. Plus a bicyclist can deliver 100% of the small to medium size packages.
It's not even a matter of a "professional drone pilot" - at least right now, the FAA is requiring a licensed pilot to operate the drone, which I think is overkill, but whatever... So let's say each delivery takes only 15 minutes. That means a pilot can deliver 28 packages in a 7-hour work day (assumes an hour off for lunch). Let's say that pilot works 235 days a year. If the pilot is making something close to minimum wage, it's actually doable, but if the pilot gets into the $60,000 range + assign another 25% for benefits, it's costing $11.40 per package to deliver, not including the cost or maintenance of the drone. If you can get someone to pay $25 for receiving that package, then it's viable, but if it's a small up-charge on current delivery prices, it's not. The only way this ever really works (aside from all the other issues) is if you can have drones operated by automation, not by human pilots.
What I've found lately is that if you don't pay for upgraded shipping, it's not the shipping time that takes so long, it's the time BEFORE Amazon actually ships - the time in the warehouse. It seems to me that if Amazon put more effort into getting shipments out of the warehouse faster, they could provide faster delivery for far less money because a warehouse worker will always make far less than a drone operator.
And that doesn't account for the other problems: this is only good for small, lightweight shipments, people attacking the drones, stealing the drones, stealing the packages, getting signatures on delivery and the general paranoia about drones in the first place. About the only time this makes sense is to serve areas where the USPS, FedEx and UPS doesn't serve or doesn't serve well. This would never work in cities - even if local governments were bribed into permitting it, co-op and condo boards and community associations would quickly ban them. But to deliver to some family in the center of a 2000 acre farm or in a cabin high up on a mountain with only a dirt road? That might make some sense.
But I have to admit it will be a lot of fun to watch them try this. Personally, I don't think Amazon is seriously considering this. I think it's a hobby that gets them lots of free publicity and a marketing edge. I also think it's a message to the USPS, FedEx and UPS (as well as other such services in other countries) that if they don't give Amazon better pricing, Amazon will consider providing their own delivery services, so I think it's also a long-term negotiating ploy.
And there's one more thing: in the end, what do people buy from Amazon that's small and lightweight that you absolutely have to have so quickly? I've anxiously awaited books, music or video from Amazon and once delivered, didn't look at them for two weeks.
Amazon can probably make more money selling drones than using them for delivery.
I like to think I am open to new uses of technology, but this just makes no practical sense to me. The liability issues alone would make this a non-starter. As soon as one of these things fall out of the sky and cause a traffic fatality, or maim an unlucky kid, any and all cost-savings would be lost.
I don't think this works with a "pilot" per se. Too expensive. More like a flight supervisor who visually observes say, a dozen or so drones follow a radio beam up to the roof, and manages any that fail so that they land safely in a catch area. Then drives off to the next location.
I do not not never have owned a drone. The nearest I got was a helicopter that used AAA batteries when I was a kid of 7. I lost it when it flew over an Apple orchard near our house and I was very sad.
I am neutral on the whole Amazon concept, I wait to see how it plays out. The noise and pollution of hundreds of diesel driven trucks zooming around our neighborhoods is hardly non intrusive either.
I do wonder, when there are a lot of Amazon drones flying together before they split off to individual homes, if they will fly in a V formation though.
Ah, I do remember you commenting favorably on drones and particularly their use for photography but couldn't recall if you had bought your own. Thanks!
I commented several times on that, and I do have a couple of drones, configured for photography and search & rescue. The technology, logistics and regulatory challenges of using them for delivery are enormous, but it would be foolish to assume that it will never happen. As TS pointed out - similar challenges have been faced by other technologies that have prevailed.
I like to think I am open to new uses of technology, but this just makes no practical sense to me. The liability issues alone would make this a non-starter. As soon as one of these things fall out of the sky and cause a traffic fatality, or maim an unlucky kid, any and all cost-savings would be lost.
As opposed to a delivery truck causing similar damage?
I think it's far, far more likely Amazon will have self-driving vehicles and specialized robots for "the last fifty feet" to deliver to the door before they can implement widespread quadrocopter delivery that is time and cost efficient.
How many days from the first flight until someone gets hit and injured? I was almost hit by an photographer's drone last September in Gda%u0144sk Poland. It smashed to pieces against a popular landmark and showered the pavement a few feet from me. Planes crash, cars crash, drones will crash and injure and kill people, for what, so Amazon can have a marketing gimmick? How many drones would it take to distribute what an average UPS truck can fit, 100s, and they can't even carry products weighing more than several pounds.
How many days from the first flight until someone gets hit and injured? I was almost hit by an photographer's drone last September in Gda%u0144sk Poland. It smashed to pieces against a popular landmark and showered the pavement a few feet from me. Planes crash, cars crash, drones will crash and injure and kill people, for what, so Amazon can have a marketing gimmick? How many drones would it take to distribute what an average UPS truck can fit, 100s, and they can't even carry products weighing more than several pounds.
Granted, I can only say that I've looked for an hour or two, off and on -- but I can't find a single instance of a human being killed by a drone, once you dismiss actual drone ATTACKS (that were obviously meant to kill people).
A growing number of people shilling technology for technology’s sake are using this “argument”, and it’s making me suspicious. Then they turn right around and scream that the opposite is happening with automation and that we should demand free currency for simply being alive because they “ARE” going to take all our jobs…
With the current consumer drones, sure. But the military has already used drones for many years to perform long-range unmanned operations. It's just a matter of time before some of that technology makes its way into consumer drones. With Amazon's level of interest, it's likely already within the price range of big companies.
Almost all long-range military drones -- I believe all that actually deliver ordnance -- are airplanes, not copters. They would need to land on a runway or street. They're also huge.
Almost all long-range military drones -- I believe all that actually deliver ordnance -- are airplanes, not copters. They would need to land on a runway or street. They're also huge.
Right, but there are still plenty of things which could make copter drones feasible for delivering over fairly long distances. High-density/lighter battery cell technology (an active area of research), a network of landing stations which ensures there's a place to land/recharge within range of the last one, mid-air handoffs to another drone, etc.
Comments
I stand by that concept too. Plus medical use and search and rescue. There are now drones and AI able to rescue a climber stuck on a cliff. I don't think it has been done in real life but swarm AI can deploy a net and catch an object and return it to safety.
Santa would be far better using these! Santa has filed an application with the FAA too I bet
A recent TV feature on Amazon labs( I think it was CNN) featured the drones and according to Jeff Bezos 85% of Amazon packages are under 5 lbs. which is the focus area for drone delivery.A good percentage of the 85% is under 2lbs. I am not sure of US regulations but as a business case, I think they have the numbers to lobby hard for it to be made legal.
This is anecdotal, sure. But here goes.
Last year, I made 60 orders from Amazon, many of which had multiple items obviously. Of those 60 orders ( a vast majority of which were either blu-rays or books ), there were only two that would have come even close to 5 lbs.:
-- The Criterion Collection "Criterion Designs" book, which had a shipping weight of 5.5 lbs.
-- A 42" LG HDTV, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the sort of thing that Amazon is planning on delivering by drone.
What percent of Amazon deliveries are even drone deliverable? Since the drones can't be very far from the dispatch center anyway, why not hire some college kids on bicycles instead? Whatever saves a few bucks is what they will do I guess. Isn't a professional drone pilot going to earn more than double what you would pay a bicyclist. Plus a bicyclist can deliver 100% of the small to medium size packages.
It's not even a matter of a "professional drone pilot" - at least right now, the FAA is requiring a licensed pilot to operate the drone, which I think is overkill, but whatever... So let's say each delivery takes only 15 minutes. That means a pilot can deliver 28 packages in a 7-hour work day (assumes an hour off for lunch). Let's say that pilot works 235 days a year. If the pilot is making something close to minimum wage, it's actually doable, but if the pilot gets into the $60,000 range + assign another 25% for benefits, it's costing $11.40 per package to deliver, not including the cost or maintenance of the drone. If you can get someone to pay $25 for receiving that package, then it's viable, but if it's a small up-charge on current delivery prices, it's not. The only way this ever really works (aside from all the other issues) is if you can have drones operated by automation, not by human pilots.
What I've found lately is that if you don't pay for upgraded shipping, it's not the shipping time that takes so long, it's the time BEFORE Amazon actually ships - the time in the warehouse. It seems to me that if Amazon put more effort into getting shipments out of the warehouse faster, they could provide faster delivery for far less money because a warehouse worker will always make far less than a drone operator.
And that doesn't account for the other problems: this is only good for small, lightweight shipments, people attacking the drones, stealing the drones, stealing the packages, getting signatures on delivery and the general paranoia about drones in the first place. About the only time this makes sense is to serve areas where the USPS, FedEx and UPS doesn't serve or doesn't serve well. This would never work in cities - even if local governments were bribed into permitting it, co-op and condo boards and community associations would quickly ban them. But to deliver to some family in the center of a 2000 acre farm or in a cabin high up on a mountain with only a dirt road? That might make some sense.
But I have to admit it will be a lot of fun to watch them try this. Personally, I don't think Amazon is seriously considering this. I think it's a hobby that gets them lots of free publicity and a marketing edge. I also think it's a message to the USPS, FedEx and UPS (as well as other such services in other countries) that if they don't give Amazon better pricing, Amazon will consider providing their own delivery services, so I think it's also a long-term negotiating ploy.
And there's one more thing: in the end, what do people buy from Amazon that's small and lightweight that you absolutely have to have so quickly? I've anxiously awaited books, music or video from Amazon and once delivered, didn't look at them for two weeks.
Amazon can probably make more money selling drones than using them for delivery.
I like to think I am open to new uses of technology, but this just makes no practical sense to me. The liability issues alone would make this a non-starter. As soon as one of these things fall out of the sky and cause a traffic fatality, or maim an unlucky kid, any and all cost-savings would be lost.
It just makes no sense.
I don't think this works with a "pilot" per se. Too expensive. More like a flight supervisor who visually observes say, a dozen or so drones follow a radio beam up to the roof, and manages any that fail so that they land safely in a catch area. Then drives off to the next location.
I do not not never have owned a drone. The nearest I got was a helicopter that used AAA batteries when I was a kid of 7. I lost it when it flew over an Apple orchard near our house and I was very sad.
I am neutral on the whole Amazon concept, I wait to see how it plays out. The noise and pollution of hundreds of diesel driven trucks zooming around our neighborhoods is hardly non intrusive either.
I do wonder, when there are a lot of Amazon drones flying together before they split off to individual homes, if they will fly in a V formation though.
Ah, I do remember you commenting favorably on drones and particularly their use for photography but couldn't recall if you had bought your own. Thanks!
I commented several times on that, and I do have a couple of drones, configured for photography and search & rescue. The technology, logistics and regulatory challenges of using them for delivery are enormous, but it would be foolish to assume that it will never happen. As TS pointed out - similar challenges have been faced by other technologies that have prevailed.
It's amusing how short sighted most people are, I guess that why Bezos is doing his thing, because he is not thinking like everybody else.
Amazon won't be using quadcopter toys from Best Buy, which is the cumulative experience of most naysayers.
I like to think I am open to new uses of technology, but this just makes no practical sense to me. The liability issues alone would make this a non-starter. As soon as one of these things fall out of the sky and cause a traffic fatality, or maim an unlucky kid, any and all cost-savings would be lost.
As opposed to a delivery truck causing similar damage?
As opposed to a delivery truck causing similar damage?
In 2013, there were over 32,000 automotive related deaths in the US.
But you know, I'll definitely be worrying about that drone falling on my head!
In 2013, there were over 32,000 automotive related deaths in the US.
But you know, I'll definitely be worrying about that drone falling on my head!
Are those FedEx or UPS fatalities? I doubt it's DHL. I don't see them around very much.
How many days from the first flight until someone gets hit and injured? I was almost hit by an photographer's drone last September in Gda%u0144sk Poland. It smashed to pieces against a popular landmark and showered the pavement a few feet from me. Planes crash, cars crash, drones will crash and injure and kill people, for what, so Amazon can have a marketing gimmick? How many drones would it take to distribute what an average UPS truck can fit, 100s, and they can't even carry products weighing more than several pounds.
Granted, I can only say that I've looked for an hour or two, off and on -- but I can't find a single instance of a human being killed by a drone, once you dismiss actual drone ATTACKS (that were obviously meant to kill people).
Can you?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
No, it has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
A growing number of people shilling technology for technology’s sake are using this “argument”, and it’s making me suspicious. Then they turn right around and scream that the opposite is happening with automation and that we should demand free currency for simply being alive because they “ARE” going to take all our jobs…
With the current consumer drones, sure. But the military has already used drones for many years to perform long-range unmanned operations. It's just a matter of time before some of that technology makes its way into consumer drones. With Amazon's level of interest, it's likely already within the price range of big companies.
Almost all long-range military drones -- I believe all that actually deliver ordnance -- are airplanes, not copters. They would need to land on a runway or street. They're also huge.
Almost all long-range military drones -- I believe all that actually deliver ordnance -- are airplanes, not copters. They would need to land on a runway or street. They're also huge.
Right, but there are still plenty of things which could make copter drones feasible for delivering over fairly long distances. High-density/lighter battery cell technology (an active area of research), a network of landing stations which ensures there's a place to land/recharge within range of the last one, mid-air handoffs to another drone, etc.