I would have been more impressed if he showed off a fleet of electric/autonomous self driven deliver robot trucks, because that is more realistic to amazon.
First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
61–70 of 200 posts
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing huge ridiculously expensive military drones, which are essentially small planes, with what Amazon is showing us, which are essentially small helicopters. There's no way in the world these tiny drones can fly 10 miles each way, carry 5lbs of payload, deliver the package perfectly on the driveway/doorstep, and cost low enough to not be a financial nightmare. That's not even accounting for dealing with…
I assumed that they would be gasoline powered. The power to weight ratio of 2-stroke engines is ridiculous, and certainly plenty to handle the demands of this sort of vtol craft.
I think an all-electric fixed wing/helicopter hybridization would make more sense. VTOL is probably only strictly required at the consumer end, on the Amazon side they could do CTOL and cruise on the same wings.
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#63This presumes CBS and 60 Minutes had any credibility remaining after 60 Minutes got caught pumping up a fictional account of the Benghazi raid as fact; coincidentally the subject of a book to be launched days later Simon & Schuster (a publisher owned by CBS). [0]
[0]: http://goo.gl/DkZDRx
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing huge ridiculously expensive military drones, which are essentially small planes, with what Amazon is showing us, which are essentially small helicopters. There's no way in the world these tiny drones can fly 10 miles each way, carry 5lbs of payload, deliver the package perfectly on the driveway/doorstep, and cost low enough to not be a financial nightmare. That's not even accounting for dealing with…
Sorry, but who are you? Who are you to stand up and call Amazon's idea unviable? Why is their idea unviable? Because they have no proof? Well you certainly proved how unviable the idea is with your lack of proof. Quite frankly, when it comes to Bezos vs "ye", I have to say that the billionaire owner of one of the most successful stores in our world is SLIGHTLY more credible than "ye", random commenter who has no doma…
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also even if the book '... portrays Bezos as a ruthless tyrant and a "penny-pinching ballbuster,"' would that dissuade anyone who was already planning on it from shopping at Amazon? To me, regardless of the truth, being "penny-pinching" given Amazon's razor thin margins seems like a good trait for the CEO.
What about "ruthless tyrant?" I'm making a point to shop locally now. I've already seen what supporting Walmart has done to our country.
Have you ever shopped there? Or do you just repeat what you read all the time? Wall mart typically only exists in rural poor areas, and I doubt a drive-by HN commenter has any sense of proportion on the real issues at play. Wall-mart migh mean more competition for mom & pop stores, but they also bring reliable and affordable access to otherwise unaffordable or trans-port prohibitive goods and services to people that don't have the wallet or the access to shop at whole foods or a boutique coffee shop that charges $5/cup. The reality is that even for successful stores such as these, the owners are absent, the employees make non-living wages (corrected for rent), and the extant competitors are out of business or severely harmed. Think of all the gentrification in the mission in the past 15 years...all of those (poor) people are more fucked by hipsters and their fancy shit than anyone ever was by Walmart.
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing huge ridiculously expensive military drones, which are essentially small planes, with what Amazon is showing us, which are essentially small helicopters. There's no way in the world these tiny drones can fly 10 miles each way, carry 5lbs of payload, deliver the package perfectly on the driveway/doorstep, and cost low enough to not be a financial nightmare. That's not even accounting for dealing with…
Sorry, but who are you? Who are you to stand up and call Amazon's idea unviable? Why is their idea unviable? Because they have no proof? Well you certainly proved how unviable the idea is with your lack of proof. Quite frankly, when it comes to Bezos vs "ye", I have to say that the billionaire owner of one of the most successful stores in our world is SLIGHTLY more credible than "ye", random commenter who has no doma…
Give me a break. There are a lot of technical issues to drones that should be evident to most people, no matter "who they are". I'm at a loss to understand why you think they shouldn't be able to voice that.
Why is their idea unviable? Because they have no proof?
Proof is usually a good start, yeah.
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#67It seems disingenuous for this blog to suggest that MacKenzie Bezos's negative review of the Bezos book was part of the same orchestrated spin campaign as the drone story. That review didn't simply object to the tone or the message of the book, but also pointed out specific factual errors the book made, errors that were later tacitly acknowledged by the author.
I agree. I'm totally on board that there was some serious negotiation by Amazon (Prime) to get the piece on Amazon Prime Air to air the eve of "Cyber Monday" so you'd see as much Amazon Prime as possible. I'd believe that it's intentionally out there to put quiet pressure on the FAA to lighten its regulations. I could even see it being run to distract from the Mother Jones-esque pieces about how terrible it is to be…
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#68In all of the criticism, I haven't seen anything remarking on the energy cost for this. I can hear a strawman in the audience saying "But drones are tiny/electric/cheap!" Not at these scales. Consider the (lack of) efficiency of quadcopters, the weights and distances involved, and the total sales volume for this service in even a small test market. I'd buy that flight itself is a viable option over wheeled vehicles w…
I don't know if fixed-wings would help much with a box hanging beneath the drone. But i agree the final version will be a lot more aerodynamic and probably have a horizontal and vertical flight mode. Amazon does stuff for long term profitability. They will do it if they know that it will eventually become cost effective with time and scale. Plus they will rationalize not having any margins (or even negative margins)…
The only reason it was "hanging" in the Prime Air video was for PR fluff.
Fixed wing transport is still amazingly good at cargo carrying, using "holds" in their monocoques.
Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes
#69If my experience is at all typical of other consumers, I would guess that Amazon's Prime strategy is central to its whole attempt to conquer worldwide retailing and therefore that amazing delivery capacity lies at its heart, whether instantly via things such as video streaming or highly expedited in the case of tangible products.
Now Amazon could continue to rest comfortably upon its existing accomplishments by which it has used third-party delivery services to achieve a big part of its goals. But it is not. Indeed, it is spending huge sums of money to build massive warehousing facilities all over the place in support of a long-term plan to achieve super-fast delivery. And, in doing so, it has abandoned its former (and highly effective) strategy of trying to avoid physical "presence" in the various states in order to avoid having to hold back sales/use taxes from its customers.
So, fanciful or not in their present state of technological development and in the present state of legal and regulatory tangles that might arise, drones of the type shown in Amazon's promotional materials can hardly be called a simple marketing ploy to divert attention from some otherwise critical publicity affecting Amazon or its founder. The huge benefits to Amazon as a universal retailer that might from such a delivery mechanism are stupendous and obvious. If it should prove unfeasible to gain these benefits owing to technological limitations, that is one thing. If regulators should attempt to freeze delivery mechanisms to current forms and bar new ones such as drones, that is yet another thing. Such barriers may prove insuperable and cause the effort to fail. But to accuse Amazon of not being ready, willing, and able to devote even vast resources to the potential use of drones as part of its broader strategy - and instead to be using this as a mere publicity stunt - is, in my view, to miss the obvious. Amazon has a long-term goal of becoming the primary shopping source for millions of consumers across a broad range of products. It wants to leverage technology in ways that help remove the physical-presence advantage used by traditional brick-and-mortar retailers. If it can do so by building vast warehouses and then finding a magic way of delivering products to consumers in ways that better what they can do by visiting the local retail store, why not go for it. And not just go for it but really go for it, with a massive investment of time, energy, and capital with the long-term view of using this strategy to achieve potential exponential growth over competitors.
Whatever else this is, it cannot be mere vaporware. The fact that its announcement may have been accompanied by conventional marketing hype and by what may have even been a cynical deal with news outlets to agree to promote it on a big shopping day only confirms the seriousness of the effort, in my view. People like to get excited about exciting possibilities. Steve Jobs knew that and his way of presenting has become legendary. Mr. Bezos has some of that same flair and, when combined with adept entrepreneurial skills, stands to make an amazing mark in the annals of commerce. He may win in the end or he may lose. But he is going for the big win and he is doing it with flair.
You may like what Amazon is doing or you may hate it but it can't be denied that it is bold, daring, and very real. The author here misses it altogether in suggesting otherwise.