>Mr. Raptopoulos is one of the founders of Matternet, a tiny Silicon Valley start-up that is building a UAV transportation system that he says will be useful in developing countries that lack passable roads.
Developing countries trope, Check!
>For the transportation of crucial goods, small drones have several distinct advantages over ground-based vehicles, he says. They're fast,
ridiculous comparison (drone faster than a truck?)
>energy efficient,
"green" trope, Check!
>and—most importantly—they don't require huge investments in infrastructure to start working.
Right, because a handful of trucks is not as useful as a handful of drones!
Now I'm going to watch Andreas R.'s video:
>1. "1 Billion people are totally cut off for some part of the year."
Has it occurred to him that their culture doesn't mandate UPS delivery?
> It will take them 50 years to catch [ to our road system ]
Has it occurred to him that their cultures don't want or need roads like ours?
And if the roads are washed out due to rain, how are you going to charge the batteries in remote locations? certainly not with solar power! A typical UAV battery might be 24 Watt hours. That's 20 minutes charging in full sun from a typical large panel. So, you can only charge about 12 batteries per day in remote locations. You can move 24kg per day autonomously in sunny weather
sigh... we are certainly living in a narcotized world!!!
Because the best place to compete with huge established logistics chains is in places with well-developed road & rail infrastructure?
> ridiculous comparison (drone faster than a truck?)
Familiar with the term "As the crow flies"? And even the slowest drone is faster than the truck that's stuck in mud / can't pass the washed-out bridge / broke an axle in a pothole.
> And if the roads are washed out due to rain, how are you going to charge the batteries in remote locations? certainly not with solar power!
Stockpile them when conditions suit? Higher capacity fixed-site batteries recharged under better conditions? Wind?
Scale the charging stations? If this article[1] is accurate, India is looking to upgrade >50% of its cell-phone towers (1-5kWe) over the next few years. No doubt others will be looking to do likewise, especially if they're currently paying for diesel + transport.
Modular/turnkey installations of that size should become much more common/affordable.
> * You can move 24kg per day autonomously*
Which might be plenty if all you need are those few rather important vials of anti-venom and the roads are impassable (but you're not rich enough to actually afford a medivac).
Is it just me or should, "unveiling of the project on '60 Minutes' Sunday carried three important public-relations payloads for the firm.", be followed by a list of three items?
How about this: Instead of dispatching drones from a warehouse, how about dispatching them from a delivery vehicle? So the Semi filled with orders drives into a town (doesn't even have to park), and these drones fly back and forth from it delivering packages -- it saves the driver the need to stop at each address, yet it also allows deliveries further from the warehouse.
A drone carrier. Generally I'd make a joke about skynet, but the concept is really awesome.
Another interesting drone concept I'd like to see explored: self driving package truck that drives around to the locations, sends an SMS to the person when it is near (I imagine would could have a decently complex system of commands with SMS such as scheduling preferred time, location, or rescheduling a failed delivery).
A little flight deck on top of a parked UPS truck. But I think abigger issue might be things like (1) signatures; (2) porches, yards, dogs; and (3) multi-tenant high-rises (without doormen, etc). Some of these could be worked-around (eg, landing pads on the roof...or bolted on the side of a building...including a 'chute' to the basement)
I keep seeing this sentiment everywhere. I don't know why people thinks this is a joke, that it is: "illegal," "implausible" and "kind of silly". Yes, Bezos did this to help boost up sales and set up PR to help the lobbying, but that isn't the only thing about it. Why are people so stuck up on the silliness of the idea? Have people stopped being able to exercise their imagination and executing on it? Just because you can't conceive yourself pulling it off does not mean someone else cannot...
Not only do I think Bezos has the imagination and will to pull this off, I know this is being implemented in places outside of the US. It's already happening. Right now. And if it is happening, right now, is it implausible? Is it silly?
By the way, I make a distinction between something we can do and something we should do. I am not sure this is something that is good for the world even though I don't think this is a silly idea. I see another facepalm moment coming up when the folks who have been saying this won't happen start screaming angrily that this shouldn't be happening.
Bezos did this to boost sales and get free publicity. It still is plausible in a few cities in the US, but I'm sure there will be certain locations where it will be prohibited.
Why couldn't the drones used for delivery indoors, like in an arena for beer delivery? I could see it being adopted indoors first.
For me, it's not a silly idea. Without ideas like this, we won't be pushing the envelope and eventually adopting a similar technology at some point.
I've never seen Bezos make a move that did not have at least both a short-term and a long-term effect, if not more. "Bezos did this to boost sales and get free publicity" is a statement underestimating Bezos. The narrative is simply too narrow of scope.
Yours seems to be a common sentiment, but I think there are any number of plausible reasons for doing this including:
-Leverage in dealing with other forms of last mile delivery when it comes to negotiating costs and contracts.
-Kickstarting the necessary legislative framework which will likely take many years to finalize.
-Goading other sectors of industry to start developing and testing the tech needed. Remember, Amz, is not shy about simply buying up companies to acquire technology it needs.
People tend to underestimate how fast technological progress can happen, even in the field they specialize in, and even if they're consciously aware of this bias. This is why we see everything from skepticism to outright claims of impossibility about commercial delivery drones, even within the RC model aircraft hobby. These guys have seen electric model flight go from being essentially impossible in the 1990s to dominating the hobby shortly thereafter (thanks mostly to the rise of lithium polymer batteries). Then, mostly in the last 5 years, they've seen model multirotors (quadcopters, hexacopters, etc.) go from being an idea, to being a reality for more hardcore hackers [0], to being easy to assemble from parts with very little electronics knowledge [1], to being off-the-shelf toys for 40 bucks [2] (thanks mostly to the open source community and the rise of cheap smartphone sensors like gyros and GPS). It's hard to believe that even most of the multirotor community thinks that commercial drone delivery is a scifi fantasy, given how far multirotors have advanced in 5 years. Personally, my mind would be blown if this isn't extremely commonplace in another 5 years.
As of 1999, 3G was supposed forecast go live in 2001. But iPhone whent live in 2007 with 2.5G ! Also, in the US 3G sucked and you needed 3.5g to really get usable performance (ie, data) in the field.
I wouldn't say underestimate, I'd say mis-estimate.
Sometimes things sneak up amazingly quickly when no one is expecting them, or actively dismissing them.
Sometimes things that we expect to happen don't, or take a lot longer to happen that anyone thought, or just turn out not to be worthwhile by the time they do happen.
Maybe drones will be delivering packages in a year, maybe they will end up like flying cars; something with huge potential that exists only as a novelty in the present.
This is incredibly true. I worked in a robotics research lab in 2008. I remember hours and hours of solving both dynamics equations and spending time messing with rotors trying to get a silly quadrator to move a few feet above the ground. If at that time you had told me that it would be efficient to productionize it today, I would have pointed out battery issues as well as a myriad of other reasons. However, the kind of progress we have had in robotics especially if you look at what companies like Bigdog are doing shows me how non-linear progress really is.
People tend to underestimate how fast technological progress can happen
It depends on the technology and the progress.
If you look at a history of technological progress, there's a very strong case to be made for it having peaked in the period 1880 - 1930 or thereabouts. At the beginning of this period, electric lighting, automobiles, airplanes, radio, refrigeration, indoor plumbing (outside very few exceptions), central heating (indoor plumbing is far more tenable when your mains and sewage pipes don't burst from freezing), steelmaking, widespread photography, cinema, and the beginnings of petrochemistry and pharmaceuticals.
The 1930s-1950s saw petrochemicals, synthetic fibers, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Radio, television, and microwaves. Solid-state electronics and computers. Aircraft and air transport.
Since 1975 has been a rather different climate. The period from 1933 to 1973 saw huge social and technological tranformations, enough that a person transported from one to the other would need significant acclimatization. From 1973 to the present there've been some changes in hairstyles and clothing, cars have gotten smaller and generally more efficient, airplane tickets cheaper (thanks largely to deregulation) but flights slower, and some technologies first pioneered in the late 1960s (WIMP computer interfaces, Unix, ARPANET (now the Internet), TCP/IP, and microprocessors), have become vastly cheaper and more powerful. _What you can do_ with the technologies hasn't changed so much as who can afford to do them (damned near everybody).
Robert Ayres, "Technological Transformations and Log Waves" describes much of this (in particular it lays out five technological transformations).
What we've seen since the 1960s has been largely confined to increases in computational power and some consequent results of that. In particular, better management of manufacturing and design processes, but all aspects which trace back to Moore's Law. Randall Lee Reetz on G+ frequently iterates over this theme (he's irrascable but technically very solid):
In particular, there's a great deal which was predicted or projected starting in the 1950s which hasn't materialized, most of which are hard problems of integration or massive resource utilization. We don't have colonies on the Moon, artificial-gravity space stations (the one assemblage of pressurized cans we do have is the most expensive single structure ever created by humans), orbiting power stations, flying cars, jetpacks, world peace, freedom from hunger, equitable wealth and income distribution (or even educational opportunity), or even highly reliable, privacy-respecting, integrated home management systems. Systems integration is a huge part of any techie's job description, and it's hard.
Regards the specific case of high-speed arial package delivery, outside a limited range and weight limit, I doubt this will be very widespread. Air freight exists, but it's limited to a minuscule fraction of all freight delivery. The EU saw 14.5 million tonnes of air freight in 2011. That compares with 3.6 billion tonnes of sea freight. Road/rail aren't clearly indicated below but are also substantial.
The only thing being ignored here is the fact that this week SCOTUS let stand New York State's requirement that Amazon collect sales tax. This would have been the big news story about Amazon this week if not for the suspiciously well timed 60 minutes drone and pony show.
Ok. What is the significance of SCOTUS and NY State's requirement that Amazon collect sales tax?
I thought Amazon was already moving towards the reality where they are collecting sales tax in all states, and have things in the works where that won't matter as much profit-wise down the road?
It doesn't matter to Amazon one bit. Amazon is probably going to open stores in various locations anyways which would make them have to collect taxes in those states.
The difference is that now sites like Newegg, which are completely online, will have to start charging and reporting taxes to states that mandate it. It's also a big deal that an individual state can regulate interstate commerce.
However, I'd also like to know @rafcavallaro's reasoning: what is the significance of sales tax ruling, and if it is, what is the significance of covering it up with a 60 Minutes broadcast about drone delivery? I could be wrong about what I am seeing. Or maybe @rafcavallaro's reasoning won't hold up if we actually examine it closely. Won't really know until we hear from the person.
"Probably going to" is not now. Amazon faces having to collect state sales tax now with no hope that the courts will intervene. I think this does matter to investor perception of amazon.
Instead of "Supreme Court to Amazon: 'collect state sales tax,'" we got "Amazon to deliver by drone." Big players, be they commercial or political, know how work the news cycle - thus is just another example.
keep dreaming (I would think that this is only possible right next to a warehouse, and I don't think that it makes sense to have a warehouse on every street corner with every possible products in inventory)
43 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 91.3 ms ] threadCan't sell ads... sell surveillance! </EVIL>
See pg's the submarine
Developing countries trope, Check!
>For the transportation of crucial goods, small drones have several distinct advantages over ground-based vehicles, he says. They're fast,
ridiculous comparison (drone faster than a truck?)
>energy efficient,
"green" trope, Check!
>and—most importantly—they don't require huge investments in infrastructure to start working.
Right, because a handful of trucks is not as useful as a handful of drones!
Now I'm going to watch Andreas R.'s video:
>1. "1 Billion people are totally cut off for some part of the year."
Has it occurred to him that their culture doesn't mandate UPS delivery?
> It will take them 50 years to catch [ to our road system ]
Has it occurred to him that their cultures don't want or need roads like ours?
And if the roads are washed out due to rain, how are you going to charge the batteries in remote locations? certainly not with solar power! A typical UAV battery might be 24 Watt hours. That's 20 minutes charging in full sun from a typical large panel. So, you can only charge about 12 batteries per day in remote locations. You can move 24kg per day autonomously in sunny weather
sigh... we are certainly living in a narcotized world!!!
Because the best place to compete with huge established logistics chains is in places with well-developed road & rail infrastructure?
> ridiculous comparison (drone faster than a truck?)
Familiar with the term "As the crow flies"? And even the slowest drone is faster than the truck that's stuck in mud / can't pass the washed-out bridge / broke an axle in a pothole.
> And if the roads are washed out due to rain, how are you going to charge the batteries in remote locations? certainly not with solar power!
Stockpile them when conditions suit? Higher capacity fixed-site batteries recharged under better conditions? Wind?
Scale the charging stations? If this article[1] is accurate, India is looking to upgrade >50% of its cell-phone towers (1-5kWe) over the next few years. No doubt others will be looking to do likewise, especially if they're currently paying for diesel + transport. Modular/turnkey installations of that size should become much more common/affordable.
> * You can move 24kg per day autonomously*
Which might be plenty if all you need are those few rather important vials of anti-venom and the roads are impassable (but you're not rich enough to actually afford a medivac).
Whine whine whine.
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cellular-to...
The three things:
1) Everyone talking about Amazon before holiday season. 2) Gave investors a taste of what is coming. 3) Cemented Bezos' image as a big thinker.
Another interesting drone concept I'd like to see explored: self driving package truck that drives around to the locations, sends an SMS to the person when it is near (I imagine would could have a decently complex system of commands with SMS such as scheduling preferred time, location, or rescheduling a failed delivery).
Not only do I think Bezos has the imagination and will to pull this off, I know this is being implemented in places outside of the US. It's already happening. Right now. And if it is happening, right now, is it implausible? Is it silly?
By the way, I make a distinction between something we can do and something we should do. I am not sure this is something that is good for the world even though I don't think this is a silly idea. I see another facepalm moment coming up when the folks who have been saying this won't happen start screaming angrily that this shouldn't be happening.
So is DHL (german link): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/DHL-will-in-Bonn-Pake...
Admittedly, thats still in the prototype phase.
http://qz.com/152788/australia-and-china-are-way-ahead-of-am...
Why couldn't the drones used for delivery indoors, like in an arena for beer delivery? I could see it being adopted indoors first.
For me, it's not a silly idea. Without ideas like this, we won't be pushing the envelope and eventually adopting a similar technology at some point.
-Leverage in dealing with other forms of last mile delivery when it comes to negotiating costs and contracts.
-Kickstarting the necessary legislative framework which will likely take many years to finalize.
-Goading other sectors of industry to start developing and testing the tech needed. Remember, Amz, is not shy about simply buying up companies to acquire technology it needs.
[0] http://rcexplorer.se/projects/2010/03/the-tricopter-v1-and-v... Notice that stabilization is accomplished "manually" with 3 gyroscopes.
[1] Thanks mostly to integrated multirotor flight controllers, which contain sensors and a CPU to perform stabilization, like http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19534__HobbyKing_....
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Syma-Channel-2-4G-Quad-Copter/dp/B0096...
Counter-example: Internet Bubble 1.0
As of 1999, 3G was supposed forecast go live in 2001. But iPhone whent live in 2007 with 2.5G ! Also, in the US 3G sucked and you needed 3.5g to really get usable performance (ie, data) in the field.
To borrow a quote that seems pertinent:
We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten -- Bill Gates
Sometimes things sneak up amazingly quickly when no one is expecting them, or actively dismissing them.
Sometimes things that we expect to happen don't, or take a lot longer to happen that anyone thought, or just turn out not to be worthwhile by the time they do happen.
Maybe drones will be delivering packages in a year, maybe they will end up like flying cars; something with huge potential that exists only as a novelty in the present.
It depends on the technology and the progress.
If you look at a history of technological progress, there's a very strong case to be made for it having peaked in the period 1880 - 1930 or thereabouts. At the beginning of this period, electric lighting, automobiles, airplanes, radio, refrigeration, indoor plumbing (outside very few exceptions), central heating (indoor plumbing is far more tenable when your mains and sewage pipes don't burst from freezing), steelmaking, widespread photography, cinema, and the beginnings of petrochemistry and pharmaceuticals.
The 1930s-1950s saw petrochemicals, synthetic fibers, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Radio, television, and microwaves. Solid-state electronics and computers. Aircraft and air transport.
Since 1975 has been a rather different climate. The period from 1933 to 1973 saw huge social and technological tranformations, enough that a person transported from one to the other would need significant acclimatization. From 1973 to the present there've been some changes in hairstyles and clothing, cars have gotten smaller and generally more efficient, airplane tickets cheaper (thanks largely to deregulation) but flights slower, and some technologies first pioneered in the late 1960s (WIMP computer interfaces, Unix, ARPANET (now the Internet), TCP/IP, and microprocessors), have become vastly cheaper and more powerful. _What you can do_ with the technologies hasn't changed so much as who can afford to do them (damned near everybody).
Robert Ayres, "Technological Transformations and Log Waves" describes much of this (in particular it lays out five technological transformations).
http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/RR-89-001....
I've discussed this at more length on G+:
https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/6sJbXhwj...
What we've seen since the 1960s has been largely confined to increases in computational power and some consequent results of that. In particular, better management of manufacturing and design processes, but all aspects which trace back to Moore's Law. Randall Lee Reetz on G+ frequently iterates over this theme (he's irrascable but technically very solid):
https://plus.google.com/+RandallLeeReetz/posts
In particular, there's a great deal which was predicted or projected starting in the 1950s which hasn't materialized, most of which are hard problems of integration or massive resource utilization. We don't have colonies on the Moon, artificial-gravity space stations (the one assemblage of pressurized cans we do have is the most expensive single structure ever created by humans), orbiting power stations, flying cars, jetpacks, world peace, freedom from hunger, equitable wealth and income distribution (or even educational opportunity), or even highly reliable, privacy-respecting, integrated home management systems. Systems integration is a huge part of any techie's job description, and it's hard.
Regards the specific case of high-speed arial package delivery, outside a limited range and weight limit, I doubt this will be very widespread. Air freight exists, but it's limited to a minuscule fraction of all freight delivery. The EU saw 14.5 million tonnes of air freight in 2011. That compares with 3.6 billion tonnes of sea freight. Road/rail aren't clearly indicated below but are also substantial.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statis...
I thought Amazon was already moving towards the reality where they are collecting sales tax in all states, and have things in the works where that won't matter as much profit-wise down the road?
The difference is that now sites like Newegg, which are completely online, will have to start charging and reporting taxes to states that mandate it. It's also a big deal that an individual state can regulate interstate commerce.
However, I'd also like to know @rafcavallaro's reasoning: what is the significance of sales tax ruling, and if it is, what is the significance of covering it up with a 60 Minutes broadcast about drone delivery? I could be wrong about what I am seeing. Or maybe @rafcavallaro's reasoning won't hold up if we actually examine it closely. Won't really know until we hear from the person.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6550765