Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#51

Post by mc32 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49
mc32 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but fuel isn't free, vehicles are not free (shrinkage isn't free). Margins on these goods is very poor (1% [1] makes or breaks an outfit). Now, let's say you're right, they want to get the technology right and want to drive prices down like FedEx did back in the '70s for overnight deliveries. Why not start with high value items --items where cost of delivery is a small fraction of the value of the good. Like Fed…

If the drone is a lower-cost delivery mechanism, then it has the greatest impact on low-margin items. Tablets can afford FedEx. Lettuce can't.

Doesn't that aid my point? Why did they choose to try to prove same day delivery with items which cannot sustain the cost of deliveries (yet) given current technology. Why not prove the concept with higher value items and then move down the chain --as FedEx did. This approach seems a bit backwards to me.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#53

Post by ComteDeLaFere »

RangerScience wrote: post #46
solatic wrote: post #43

Specifically about Google's Project X delivery drone project: The first guy to head the project was one Nicholas Roy, an MIT Robotics professor whose professional claim to the position seems to be mentoring a pair of students who succeeded in building a drone that flew around a parking garage - predetermined layout, no weather. Completely out of his depth, he failed. After he failed, Google hired Dave Vos, another gu…

> there's no aerospace hub in SV > the wide open spaces you need for runways and hangars ...AMES? I don't know how active it is as an aerospace hub, but it DOES have all that.

And I'm pretty sure Lockheed Martin is still right next to Moffett, as well as the SV campus of Carnegie Mellon. I think there might be too much going on in this little strip of land to completely discount aerospace.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#54

Post by contingencies »

mc32 wrote: post #14

I still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so as to make it economically impractical for most cases. And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the…

We consider it a potentially viable avenue of future growth for our business - http://8-food.com/ - which aims to establish a network of robotics-based food preparation and retail service locations (think 'vending machines'), initially launching in mainland China. Let's address each challenge mentioned in this thread in turn.

The cost of delivery: We can charge for it as an optional feature (our normal model is pickup), and people currently pay far higher fees for manual human delivery across longer distances, which creates its own uniquely irritating issues in apartment complexes (multi-layered security, parking, buzz-ins, waiting for lifts, etc.).

low value products: People are willing to pay a very high premium for convenience. Half of US consumers' food budgets are spent on convenience.

power/range: For hot meals to nearby apartments, we are typically talking fuel cost: We have on-site mains power.

AI: We can negotiate exclusive access to privately held airspace with strata management.

landing space: This is the greatest issue. Lower rise apartments in less extreme climates with open (shared or private) balconies are probably the best case. In many cases, it will simply be untenable.

This isn't by any means our focus but it's certainly an area we're keeping tabs on.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#55

Post by grigjd3 »

aetherson wrote: post #50
grigjd3 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest part of the cost of delivery on a product is, very often, the human being.

Is it? That's true of taxis, but the scale is pretty different for package deliveries, where you have a single driver conveying a LOT of different packages at once.

The scale applies to all costs though. Is there any reason to think that a person, a vehicle, maintenance and fuel, and taxes aren't relatively flat costs compared to the stuff inside the truck. Sure more weight means a bit more fuel, but it's hardly a linear relationship, and gasoline is far more affordable than a driver.

However, think about the problem some. glassdoor says UPS drivers make ~65K a year. Gotta add ~15K to that to consider benefits and payroll tax (and I believe I am underestimating here). Let's say the vehicle costs 150K and can be driven 10 years. That's 15K per year. Let's assume 150 gallons of gas a week (lots of driving going on). That's ~25K a year. Then let's assume maintenance of the vehicle is 10K per year. We've gotten up to 50K per year on additional expenses. Look, my estimates may be off, but likely not enough off to say that the driver isn't the most expensive part.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#56

Post by a_imho »

exergy wrote: post #48
Tempest1981 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, what are the other options? * Government? Would be targeted as waste. (Maybe sneak it into NASA?) * Startup? Would anyone fund it? No short term payout. * Non-profit? * Billionaire's pet project?

Perhaps it's the fact that I'm inexorably falling deeper into academia every year, but government research is definitely NOT a waste from my perspective. Some of the best PhD students, working on some of the most interesting projects in my experience all had DOE or EPA grant projects. I think this sort of research deserves a lot more money since, in my (biased) opinion, it pushes humanity forward through public acces…

I think it is meant as not cost effective, as governments are usually very wasteful in redistributing resources.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#57

Post by webmaven »

diggan wrote: post #37
hueving wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

incognito doesn't include cookies from your regular sessions

Sure, my point being that you should search for the URL, not just go to it without cookies. So your refer header is set to be from Google

My experience has been that the additional step of searching for the headline isn't necessary for publications that implement an "X free articles a month" policy, since they don't make any exception for search results in any case.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#58

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mc32 wrote: post #51
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the drone is a lower-cost delivery mechanism, then it has the greatest impact on low-margin items. Tablets can afford FedEx. Lettuce can't.

Doesn't that aid my point? Why did they choose to try to prove same day delivery with items which cannot sustain the cost of deliveries (yet) given current technology. Why not prove the concept with higher value items and then move down the chain --as FedEx did. This approach seems a bit backwards to me.

No, I don't think it aids your point.

Let's say I can deliver it (for whatever "it" is) $1 cheaper with a drone than with a truck. Let's say I'm delivering a $300 tablet. Nobody cares about the $1. (I mean, yes, some business - either the seller or the delivery business - cares about the $1. But it's not enough to move the needle on customer behavior. If it would, a reasonably smart seller would drop their price $1.)

But if I'm delivering a head of lettuce, that $1 difference is going to make significantly more customers have lettuce delivered. And the seller can't drop their price $1 to achieve the same effect, because they have 1% margin. More: If the seller lowers the price 98 cents and keeps 2 cents, the seller just doubled their margin on that head of lettuce.

I think your point is also valid - working from the top of the value chain down is a fine strategy, and FedEx is a great example of it. But working from the bottom up ("disrupting from below") is also a very useful strategy, and Intel is a good example of it. They started making chips to power calculators. They didn't start by trying to replace IBM mainframes.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#59

Post by saosebastiao »

david927 wrote: post #28
mc32 wrote: post #14

I still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so as to make it economically impractical for most cases. And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the…

The cost of delivery You argue that as if it's a constant -- and that it's not is the point. The exact innovation they are stumbling on is a way to lower that cost to near zero . Drone technology will eventually happen. The question is how far out it is. And make no mistake, when it does happen, it will truly be a revolution (without the hyperbole).

I've worked in Supply Chain and Logistics at one of the biggest and most innovative players in the arena, and I can tell you that 99% of the "innovations" that get talked about are complete unadulterated bullshit. As in orders of magnitude more expensive than traditional delivery models.

There's plenty of innovation, but drones are not one of them. They will fail hard. The physics alone is a huge obstacle, but the planning, logistics, and optimization possibilities that they create or take away guarantee it will only ever be used in insignificantly tiny niches, if at all.

Re: Silicon Valley Stumbles in World Beyond Software

#60

Post by saosebastiao »

misterbowfinger wrote: post #40

This article seems to focus on Drone deliveries, but forgets that Amazon has been re-inventing logistics for years now.

Not very well. They're very good at coming up with new ideas, but very poorly applying them to their situation. Amazon gets credit for trying, but they should get more credit for propping up bad ideas with operating losses for long enough that outside observers eventually think they might be good ideas.
Post reply on HN