>It's all well and good for the unmanned vehicles to fly to a particular GPS site, but how does it then find the package's intended recipient?<p>The drones could be almost fully automated - fly to this GPS point above the person's house, at which point control is handed to a pilot for the landing & package drop.<p>>How is the transfer of the package enacted? What stops someone else stealing the package along the way?<p>I'd imagine <i>the same way it's done today</i>, the same way USPS/UPS handles packages - by dropping them on my porch and hoping my neighbors are honest.<p>>And what happens when next door's kid decides to shoot the drone with his BB rifle?<p>He gets a spanking and the drone gets repaired? The same thing that would happen if he shot the tires off the Fedex truck?<p>This article raises some good points about the political ramifications of drone technology, and some <i>excellent</i> ones about it being a PR move to squelch negative reporting, but I'm left with the feeling that, if he were alive a century ago, James Ball wouldn't be out of place writing an article titled "Sears & Roebuck to stop horse-drawn carriage delivery in favor of the automobile? Don't believe the hype".
There are some people that only see downsides, that compulsively expect failures. We call them nay-sayers. You want a handful of them in your organization, especially in tech, since they keep your head out of the clouds. But too often they tend to be averse to innovation and derail progress. James Ball, the author of the article, seems to be one of those people.<p>On October 9, 1903, two months before the Wright brothers flew for the first time, the New York times declared "The ridiculous fiasco which attended the attempt at aerial navigation in the Langley flying machine was not unexpected… it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years" [1]<p>I imagine someone like James Ball wrote that article, too.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.skygod.com/quotes/times1903.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.skygod.com/quotes/times1903.pdf</a><p><i>edit: rmc indicated I wrote date as 2013, fixed to 1903</i>
The important part is at the end:<p>"Bezos' neat trick has knocked several real stories about Amazon out of the way. Last week's Panorama investigation into Amazon's working and hiring practices, suggesting that the site's employees had an increased risk of mental illness, is the latest in a long line of pieces about the company's working conditions – zero-hour contracts, short breaks, and employees' every move tracked by internal systems. Amazon's drone debacle also moved discussion of its tax bill – another long-running controversy, sparked by the Guardian's revelation last year that the company had UK sales of £7bn but paid no UK corporation tax – to the margins."
I find it strange that The Guardian wants to call Amazon's effort a publicity stunt, but when a Sydney company announced plans for the world's first Book-delivery-by-drone back in October, The Guardian was happy to run that story without any skepticism:<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/15/drone-book-delivery-service-students" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/15/drone-book-deli...</a>
Doesn't matter what articles say. This stuff isn't happening any time soon (or any time at all may be).<p>I'm surprised the general population is inclined to believe such bullshit - in fact I'm surprised Amazon themselves are inclined to believe it.<p>Flying by "drone" is:<p>- more expensive<p>- not reliable (at all)<p>- prone to theft (of the drone, not the package, mind you)<p>- doesn't work at all in bad weather<p>- less efficient than current delivery methods<p>- easy & fun to circumvent (oh crap someone killed the 1300mhz range, our 10 000 drones just fell off the sky, military style, QUICK NEWS STORY)<p>it goes on and on, forever, literally... if anything I think automated driving cars are easier to get right.
Wow. Obnoxious on multiple levels:<p>"Amazon's drone debacle also moved discussion of its tax bill – another long-running controversy, sparked by the Guardian's revelation last year that the company had UK sales of £7bn but paid no UK corporation tax "<p>- Introducing your own newspaper into the debate negates any chance you have that this is in impartial journalistic piece. Secondly, I doubt Bezos is thinking about some UK tax noise when deciding whether or not to discuss drone's with 60 minutes.<p>"It's too late for the clickfarms already. But outlets and journalists who'd like to think of themselves as serious must stop regurgitating this crap. And, even more importantly, you,concerned citizen, must try to stop clicking on it."<p>- Let me lecture both my peers and my audience on how they need to behave. I'm uniquely qualified to do this because........well for no real reason actually except a heightened sense of self worth.<p>Hack job.
The amount of idea-bashing coming out against this Amazon drone concept is astonishing. Aren't we supposed to the be champions of the future? Do you think for a second that your nail-in-the-coffin counterpoint hasn't already been brought up around the meeting table? Can't we focus on how instead of why not?
Here's how I would do it:<p>I'd sell/give away clip-on baskets with a fat QR-code or similar imprinted on the inside bottom (or with embedded iBeacon-like-tech or even infrared lights similar to the Wii) to all customers who want to use this service and ask them to attach it to a window-sill, preferably upstairs or to the the back of the house. This would allow the copter to make a secure drop. As the copters are weight-limited anyway the baskets could also be.<p>It's also worth noting that as this service is for urgent items (why else would you pay extra for a 30 min service) why would you need to worry about the recipient being out? With GPS built-into mobile phones, 4G internet, bluetooth and iBeacon-like tech you could inform the recipient just before delivery or even better and it directly to them (or a special basket placed on the ground).
I'm also surprised that Jeff Bezos, well known for avoiding the press, spotlight, and all interviews, was suddenly being interviewed by a prominent television network.<p>Moreover, Bezos, who almost never talks about products in advance, was talking about something which won't be available for at least several years -- complete with a video demo.<p>I believe that Amazon has been investing time, money, and energy in this delivery-by-drone system. And I'm even excited by this possibility, far-off as it might be, and unlikely to come to my part of the world (i.e., Israel) in the foreseeable future. So this wasn't a <i>just</i> damage-control press tour, as the Guardian author seems to think.<p>But something is going on here, and I can't put my finger on it. Maybe Amazon is just trying to encourage more people to buy from them during the US "holiday shopping period," as it's known. Maybe this is something of an attempt to soften the negative image that Amazon workers' conditions have received lately. (Several of my relatives were talking about it over the weekend, so it has struck a chord with some people.) Maybe it's a "don't hurt us, since we're doing such cool things" image campaign. I'm really not sure. But this does seem rather out of character, and I'm glad that at least someone is raising questions about it.
The article reminded me of all the buzz surrounding the Segway. There was so much buzz, in fact, people had a heyday trying to figure out what it was. Most thought it was some kind of personal flying device - which led to long discussions about the implications and roadblocks such a device would encounter. Which is very similar to having packages delivered via drones.<p>In the end, the Segway hardly lived up to all the hype. I mean, Bezo's himself was quoted as saying, "Cities will be built around these devices." Which should give you a good idea of how masterful he's at over hyping certain things. I now take most of his announcements with a pound of salt, considering his colorful history.
As someone who builds these for a hobby, the biggest problem is battery life and range.<p>The battery life life of the craft is determined by the weight/battery capacity ratio. Since is hardly any aerodynamics, the multicopter is constantly fighting the force of gravity by delivering an equal force using its motors and props.<p>An optimistic range estimate for current batteries would be about 10 mi, but the craft would also have to return, so make that 5mi.<p>Now imagine what happens when you attach a payload to it.<p>Regulations may change, and flight controlers keep getting better, but batteries would need significant improvement for this to become viable.
This is a mixture of the Guardian being stereotypically British, seeing the problems in everything, and ignoring the vast suburban reality of much of the US, where the problems would be smaller and the idea that much more practical, even if it's not necessarily easy.<p>It clearly is inevitable that at some point things will be delivered in this manner, but simply whining about it in this way is just an attempt to take away from anyone that tries to make progress, because heaven help the Guardian if they ever acknowledge someone in the private sector contributing to the advance of humanity.
It's pretty obvious what is going on here:<p>1.) The Guardian et al. complain about working conditions at Amazon.<p>2.) Amazon puts out PR hinting that many of those workers will be replaced by automation before too long.<p>3.) The Guardian says it's just shopping season hype to distract from the working conditions and such.<p>Basically Amazon just called their bluff, and is now under pressure to deliver some seriously impressive results. How can a reporter complain about working conditions for drones? Will they go full-on Luddite and try to blame Amazon for destroying jobs? This should be interesting.
It would be very cool if they will be able to do this, I've toyed around a bit with multicopters and know a thing or two about the current state of non-military UAV's, here are my thoughts:<p>- They use a octocopter; that's great for the payload, plus it adds some redundancy; If a motor fails the others take over to get back safely without crashing. A bad thing about this is that it's a heavy lift, so more battery drain, so it needs a bigger battery == even more drain. I think you can get 30 minutes of flight time at the max out of that, with a lot of heavy batteries.<p>- Multicopters carrying payloads use powerful electronic motors; You do not want to put a finger near a spinning prop, for safety reasons a UAV within reach of people or animals should always be controlled by a human, what if someone runs up to the package to pick it up and the UAV automatically spins up to return to home?<p>- Auto landing is possible, but might be dangerous; The current systems (for example ArduPilot) use GPS and acc/baro/gyro/compasses to achieve autonomous flight. It works if your in field without trees around you, but the system can't find the best spot to land for you, so you need to land it by hand for this delivery service, controlled by a pilot over FPV (first person, wireless video connection).<p>- Experimental FPV ranges over 10 miles are possible, but not fail proof, especially in a non-line of sight environment or while landing (low to the ground).<p>Hate it to be a nay-sayer, this will have a future but the tech isn't here yet at this moment to accomplish it fully autonomous and safe.
It would not be that hard to write an app to authenticate the person picking up the package to the drone.<p>You don't know when the UPS guy is going to show up, but presumably, with this system, it's fast enough that you will be right where the order is dropped off.
They're trying to solve a very real problem for their industry. I would also point out that others may want to get involved. To wit: Google mainstreamed the idea of automating cars yet mercedez, bmw, etc. will probably beat them to the punch en masse. Whether amazon solves it or walmart/target/USPS/FedEx/UPS/etc. we all win.
First and foremost, if Amazon Drones deliver within 10 miles radius in 2018, why on Earth won't you let me drive to your facility (10 miles) and then pickup my crap personally? Just build a platform you drive by you punch your order number, confirm it then a basket with my junk drives by to the front. No need to wait 5 years to make my life much easier.<p>Second of all, you wont see the air being open to commercial solutions until the government is done with it. Its just how things work. Neither FAA nor any other government organisation will allow anyone to ask questions why is amazon flying stuff around but yet the streets are not patrolled by unmanned aircrafts? or a fire put out by a team of cooperating drones? Until then (10 years?) Jeff is just advertising himself, a day before cyber Monday (like article is indicating) and as usually he's doing great job!
I'd love to see some sort of crowd sourced solution for this system where Amazon offers up what it sees as the biggest technical/legal limitations and asks the internet for its solutions.<p>So far in just the HN threads, I've read some pretty innovative ideas (QR code landing pads that homes can setup for the drones). I'm pretty sure with the hive mind of the internet this problem can be solved by the collective engineer/lawyer/politician/etc<p>We put men on the moon I think we can put amazon packages in people's backyards!
So I wonder which will first reach practicallity the flying car, as touted by the guardian <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/30/flying-car-terrafugia-transition-aircraft" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jan/30/flying-car...</a> or Jeff Bezos?<p>Oh, and here is a 2007 guardian article about flying cars:<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/aug/31/3" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/aug/31/3</a><p>And here is an older one poo-pooing the idea: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jun/16/1" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jun/16/1</a><p>Now I ask, which is hype and which is journalism?
The part that strikes me the most about this article: "Opening up crowded urban areas full of terror targets to large numbers of flying platforms is always going to be packed with conflicting interests and difficulties"<p>Yes, because urban areas full of terror targets aren't already full of platforms for weapons delivery. It's not like anyone can strap on a backpack and walk into a crowded mall.<p>Terror is not that real a threat. If you're worried about the terror prospects, you've already lost. Terror has been possible since the invention of explosives. Most people are friendly and cooperative, and do not value random acts of violence. Real work to combat terror involves improving the lives of marginalized people, and hunting down the few rabid dogs that are spreading their disease.
Not sure why people are fixating on autonomous drones. If this happens at all, the first drones will clearly be human controlled from the point they leave the warehouse to when they reach the delivery zone. They will be teleoperated and probably armed with a speaker and microphone so that the operator can speak to the recipient. There will be multiple cameras so if someone is interfering or trying to steal the payload, their face can be recorded so that they can be reported to the authorities. Unless there is extremely high winds or precipitation, weather doesn't have to be that huge a limiting factor either. Pointing out the problems of autonomous aerial navigation in this case is irrelevant.
It's disappointing to read all this negativity around the drone delivery story. Who knows if this will happen as soon as they claim, but it is a cool idea with a lot of genuinely interesting implications.<p>The fact that Amazon is trying to generate good PR is a tangental story in my opinion, and I wonder if investing in a drone delivery program just to show it off would be the most cost effective way to get good press.<p>I am also very unimpressed with the challenges that Mr. Ball identified. He probably had fun fashioning himself as some kind of technology muckraker, but please go after uninspired technology instead of taking easy shots at interesting and bold ideas.
If you read the article to the end, you realize that the author has big problems with Amazon, but they have nothing to do with drones. He is using an uptick in publicity about Amazon to voice his opposition to Amazon's business practices.<p>As to the issues he raised with the idea itself, the reality is that every single one of the issues will be resolved. This type of delivery, along with privately owned drones carrying out mundane tasks that would normally have us driving around town, is our future. It will happen, the only question is when.
Autonomous wheeled delivery would seem to accomplish Amazon's goals with the benefit of reduced cost per lb-mile. Vertical thrust air transport is very inefficient compared to ground transport - more energy is spent maintaining altitude than moving forward.<p>Autonomous ground delivery does suffer from reduced navigational flexibility (anything other than curbside delivery is tricky). But it potentially has lower operating costs and safer failure modes. It may also be easier to integrate into existing regulatory frameworks.
what makes the two events mutually exclusive?<p>If a start-up had done this, they'd write a blog called "how we hacked cyber monday" and the CEO would be your new man-crush, he'd then write an e-book called "PR hacking for profit and more profit", you'd drool when he spoke at the next TED, then a couple years from now your review of the prime air service would be full of OMGs<p>My point is it's a smart move now for the PR and in the future for what this tech could do, one does not damn the other. Amazon has more than proven its tech chops are beyond that of a just a website, combine that with the fact that the copter tech has been advancing on it's own at a fast pace and I think you'd be a fool to bet against Amazon on this one.<p>If they develop the technology, they're not restricted to using it in the USA. Some country will allow them, then it's another issue of the USA lagging behind due to regulations and we'll get it eventually. Bezos was more than transparent about 2015 being the best case scenario and not giving any true expectations. Either way, it's a matter of when, not if.
What I'm finding weird is that the skepticism over droned delivery feels like its more than the scope of Amazon.com, the world's largest internet retailer with super cheap prices, being able to deliver stuff via drones within 30 minutes. Doesn't that count for being anything sublime?<p>Would it be unpredictable that USPS/Fedex/DHL start doing something like it too?
There are things that you see as hype, and dismiss them. And then there is hype, which you desperately want to be true.<p>Somebody will figure out a way.
Yes, this story, at worst a pie-in-the-sky project of one company, that will fade into the background in a week, <i>this</i> is the thing we should be skeptical about.<p>The consequences if I did "believe the hype" are terrible, I'm sure, although I can't think of a single one right now.
I believe this is possible. Just look at these autonomous drones doing stunts: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvRTALJp8DM</a> Delivering a packet is much easier than the stuff the are doing in this vid.
I am not trying to be obstructive or distract the discussion - but it occurs to me that anyone can shoot down the drone and retrieve valuable artifacts that are being transported.<p>How would you safeguard against that?