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

First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

blog.hubspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 200 posts

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#121

Post by brc »

dkrich wrote: post #92

Amazon somehow got CBS and 60 Minutes to create a 14-minute free ad spot for Amazon on the eve of this huge shopping day. This is a fairly one-sided assessment of the situation. CBS and 60 Minutes benefit as much from the piece airing on the eve of Black Monday as Amazon, arguably more so, since Amazon needs little advertisement for its services. I watched the piece and frankly found it to be somewhat of a puff-piece…

What surprises me is the naivety of most people who seem to think that 60 minutes and the like follow their nose for stories instead of having complicated marketing and PR deals behind them. There is no way that 15 minutes of sunday night prime-time TV is just given away to a puff-piece because the shows editors thought it might make a good story.

Next thing people will be shocked that Oprah is paid to endorse products.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#122

Post by IBM »

phaus wrote: post #120
IBM wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not just the book (which by the way is getting excellent reviews from people other than Jeff Bezos' wife). It's about the worker strike in Germany and the other negative news about Amazon. They are following the Google playbook of creating goodwill and good PR through these types of "innovations" that are destined to remain as vaporware or never really considered by the company to be a real business for them…

Positive book reviews have little to do with accuracy. The overwhelming majority of people that are reading the book have no way of knowing what the truth is.

The reviews I'm talking about aren't the reviews on the Amazon book listing but reviews that address the investigative quality of the book and its sourcing. Critical reviews, not reviews by the average Joe.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#123

Post by r00fus »

froo wrote: post #105
grellas wrote: post #69

I am not a technology expert and I am not a marketing expert but, as a consumer, I have moved gradually over the years from using Amazon primarily for online book-buying to using it extensively for all kinds of retail buying needs. The Prime service has been central to that experience because human psychology appears to be perverse and something so small as "free" 2-day shipping, though not really free, seems to have…

> so small as "free" 2-day shipping The speed is not something that can be underestimated. I recently ordered from an online store here in Australia and it's been over a week since I made the order. They haven't even processed the order yet (not the first time this has happened to me).

However, I get effective 2-day delivery from Newegg (ground in CA). When it comes to buying random tech accessories I don't buy from Amazon primarily anymore.

Amazon is the king of shipping speed, but some aren't too far behind.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#124

Post by dingaling »

aestra wrote: post #96
swalsh wrote: post #35

People say that there's usually about a 10 year lag before tech from the military enters civilian use. Since drones showed up roughly 2003, it stands to reason that 2013 is when we should first starting seeing the tech become civilian viable. In fact that seems to be true, there's a whole lot of DIY material out there, and that's from people who don't have real world experience. I wouldn't be surprised if as military…

2003? First of all, I have no idea why people insist on calling UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) drones. It's a stupid term. Secondly, UAVs are much much much older than 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle The United States was flying UAVs in the friggin 60's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147 http://gizmodo.com/the-ryan-firebee-grandfather-to-the-moder...

The term 'drone' long precedes the Pentagonese moniker 'UAV'.

I think it originates with the de Havilland Queen Bee of the late 1930s, a radio-controlled conversion of the Tiger Moth trainer. With metalwork replaced by wooden components on account of their expected short lifespans, as they were used for gunnery training.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#125

Post by dingaling »

Crito wrote: post #77
alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been used since 1995. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

From that page, it seems like they didn't start sticking missiles on them until 2001, but stayed a bit hush about that for a while later. That's probably where the idea that drones in warfare is a more recent innovation comes from.

There were actually tests of Ryan Firebees firing Maverick missiles and HOBOS guided glide-bombs in 1971.

Nothing new under the Sun!

The precise variant was BGM-34 and was intended for attacking enemy air defences ( 'Wild Weasel' missions in the parlance of the day, now 'Lethal SEAD' ).

Edit: found a picture. '34A foreground, '34B rear.

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi%3AAMhZZiuS8ZwZo7fS9315...

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#126

Post by Iftheshoefits »

001sky wrote: post #65
wavefunction wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 unaffor…

> Wall mart [sic] typically only exists in rural poor areas

This is just absolutely, unequivocally not true, unless your definition of "rural" and "poor" includes urban centers of cities with tens of thousands of citizens with median incomes ranging from impoverished to affluent, especially in the south.

Walmart comes in and destroys the mom&pop operations who are less pricey than "whole foods or a boutique coffee shop that charge $5/cup" but can't compete with the cheap, shabby crap made by wage-slaves in third-world sweatshops that Walmart brings in.

Your post is very San Francisco-centric. I don't think you understand or have seen what it's like to live elsewhere. "Hipsters" aren't a "problem" anywhere else I've been, anyway.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#127

Post by olefoo »

001sky wrote: post #65
wavefunction wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 unaffor…

> Wall mart typically only exists in rural poor areas

This is factually wrong. Walmart (note the spelling) follows suburbs and population centers. They may have been mostly rural one or two decades ago, but they are now most likely to be found near an intersection of freeways within 10 miles of a downtown. See http://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/4330486 for a map.

As for the rest of your screed... it's possible to be down on Walmart AND Whole Foods at the same time.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#129

Post by downandout »

The CBS interview was primarily focused on Amazon's technology. It was only fitting that they show off something they are still tinkering with that shows what the future might be. The drones are easily possible - the technology already exists. If Amazon doesn't do it, lots of other private companies will.

But I am a little shocked that this cool little announcement has brought Amazon's critics out of the woodwork. IMO, if you try to ride the coattails of other things getting press just to get your very negative views out, you are just as bad as the entity you are criticizing. Congratulations, a few more people read your negative opinion of Amazon and its founder than would have had you not tied it into the drone story. Nearly all of them will still be shopping on Amazon this Christmas.

Re: First Victim of Amazon Drones: The Credibility of CBS and 60 Minutes

#130

Post by aestra »

dingaling wrote: post #124
aestra wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2003? First of all, I have no idea why people insist on calling UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) drones. It's a stupid term. Secondly, UAVs are much much much older than 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle The United States was flying UAVs in the friggin 60's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Model_147 http://gizmodo.com/the-ryan-firebee-grandfather-to-the-moder...

The term 'drone' long precedes the Pentagonese moniker 'UAV'. I think it originates with the de Havilland Queen Bee of the late 1930s, a radio-controlled conversion of the Tiger Moth trainer. With metalwork replaced by wooden components on account of their expected short lifespans, as they were used for gunnery training.

People "in the industry" call them UAVs so I am so used to that term that drone sounds so weird.
Post reply on HN