New Airline emerging - Amazon Prime Air!

[brett 2,316]

You guys are starting to scare me.   I was thinking a net gun might work, I would hate to see any drones hurt during the capture process.

[allardjd 1,853]

How about a catch and release program, after removing all the electronics - humanely, of course.

[brett 2,316]

Of course

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

How about a catch and release program,

huh... seriously I’m calling your doc; he has to adjust your Daly dose Hank (hill that is)

what we need is a two-step approach, on the house rooftop a sensor sensing futons from the camera zooming,

the sensor being activated triggers an automatic Wi-Fi jammer followed by a remote control frequency hijack;

to control and land the drone at your back yard coordinates,

WiFi spectrum is made of 1 4 channels only (well there are 2 more reserved for military and police usage)

once you flood all these channels; the drone will reset, at this point you can intercept with an alternate remote control and take over the drone!

If its autonomous flight; flooding GPS waves will send the drone home with signal lost

[allardjd 1,853]

...your Daly dose Hank (hill that is)

 

 

That one flew right over my head.

 

John

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

just making sure; we're still just having healthy fun; right?

i really do enjoy your antics and comments John,

keep them coming

[allardjd 1,853]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/drones-to-deliver-medicine-to-rural-virginia-field-hospital/2015/07/01/80abd362-1f3d-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html

 

What a crock of manure this is.

 

"...a NASA aircraft would carry prescriptions for 20 people from the Tazewell County Airport to Lonesome Pine Airport in Wise County. A pilot would be on board in case the plan goes haywire, but otherwise it would be controlled by remote stations on the ground.

 

Next, the drugs would be loaded onto a special-delivery drone...and flown about a mile to the fairgrounds, where the cargo will be lowered to the ground."

 

Let me get this straight - a remotely piloted aircraft large enough to be capable of carrying a human pilot will deliver prescriptions for 20 people - what's that, ten pounds - over a distance of 35 NM. The meds will then be transferred to another drone and flown one more mile. I've looked at a map and there are decent roads between the two areas - perhaps twice the air distance.

 

To what end? Three universities, working with grant money from the FAA are characterizing this as "research".

 

I note that no one is making any money except the faculty "researchers", who are probably knocking down a pretty good salary, protected by tenure of course. This is no more than a waste of taxpayer money.

 

I'm all for research but this isn't it.

 

John

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

if only they were the only ones doing this, but there's so many bogus gov sponsored research all over the place!

[brett 2,316]

Using our tax money to put a good spin on drones and at the same time taking jobs away in the long run under the guise of humanitarian reasons is what I read, then again my brain always thinks the worst.  

[MartinW 0]

A new drone postal service is being trialled now!

Swiss Post has announced it will be trialling drone delivery.

From July, Swiss Post will be delivering small packages using drones as part of a trial with air-freight company Swiss World Cargo and drone developer Matternet.

The drone use will be restricted to “exceptional cases or the transport of special items”.

It can carry 1kg over 20 miles. Will be 5 years before full scale deliveries though.

http://www.industryweek.com/cloud-computing/drone-deliveries-lift-swiss-post

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

Tonight, I arrived home to a bad situation. One beer in the cooler...once I open it, I can't go to the store for more. Hard alch or wine if I want another drink tonight..neither of which I really like frankly. If my local Safeway grocery store had drone customer accounts and could deliver up to one six pack, I would sign up tonight.

 

I occurred to me that local grocery stores would be better able use a service like this than Amazon. Local stores service local neighborhoods only, you know up front what is available and able to be carried, and the store has it in stock already.

[allardjd 1,853]

Yep, I can see it all now. You can put your ID in the drone, let it fly your drivers license to the store, they can "card" you and send the beer - one can at a time because of the weight limits. It's problematic that you could probably drink the first two or three faster than they could deliver the next one, at $20 a can. You'll probably injure yourself in the rotors trying to get the fourth can out of the hopper.

 

I don't see it happening for common, low cost items. If it comes to pass at all it will be for high-dollar, self-indulgence luxury items. The local markets, however, do have a leg up on Amazon - they already have distributed warehousing across the cities they serve.

 

John

 

EDIT: That's making me think, however. It may be that Pharmacies (you call them Chemists, I think) might be in the best position to employ this, delivering non-narcotic prescriptions and over-the-counter medications to customers who are too ill or are otherwise disinclined to come to the store. What they sell is typically small and light, sometimes urgently needed, and like the local markets, there's one on every other corner, so most customers are going to be within easy range of one.

 

JDA

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

The suggestion was worth it just to hear you dismantle the idea John... That was funny as hell.

[allardjd 1,853]

No disrespect intended, Matt and I hope you didn't take it as such.  

 

This is a fun topic because the whole premise is so patently ludicrous once you consider the economics.  As ever, one of life's big challenges is being able to separate out what's economically feasible from the larger pot of things that are technically possible.  A great deal of what's technically possible is highly unlikely to ever be able to turn a dime of profit.

 

John

[MartinW 0]

No disrespect intended, Matt and I hope you didn't take it as such.  

 

This is a fun topic because the whole premise is so patently ludicrous once you consider the economics.  As ever, one of life's big challenges is being able to separate out what's economically feasible from the larger pot of things that are technically possible.  A great deal of what's technically possible is highly unlikely to ever be able to turn a dime of profit.

 

John

Do you think the experts at Amazon, not to mention Swiss Post, will have considered the economics carefully and deemed it less than ludicrous? Clearly they are decent business men, as the company is rather successful!

Amazon have spent a lot of dosh on this, employing staff, a big chunk of their research and development budget, building new warehouses closer to customers to the tune of $14 million.

I don't think Amazon have ever claimed that the majority of us will be getting parcels dropped on our drives courtesy of drones, so yes, it will be a more expensive service, reserved for small packages, but you can bet that Amazon have considered very carefully whether it's worth the investment, in terms of the possibility of a profitable endeavor coming to fruition.

 

It may well fail, but those with more expertise and experience in business will have thought about this carefully. So don't be too quick to right it off as ludicrous.

 

 

[Andrew Godden 945]

Is this thread still droning on?

[J G 927]

Delivering by drone wont ever take off (groan).  One reason will kill it dead.

 

Weight.

 

I cant see a drone delivering my heavy metal garden furniture. Never in a million years, I just cant cope with that sort of weight or size for that matter.

 

It would have to be delivered by lorry.  As the seller has to use a lorry to deliver, so a fleet of lorries has to be maintained in any event.  Then why not use the lorry to also deliver all of those small packages to that area as you are going there anyway? Reap the benefits of economy of scale, prices would bound to be less. One vehicle one driver applies to both systems One vehicle one package only to the drone. The lorry is more secure and so on.

 

The drone is dead in the water. Its a gimmick. Radio controlled helicopters have been around for years and I haven't ever had a package delivered by one yet, despite them having more powerful liquid fueled engines. 

[allardjd 1,853]

Do you think the experts at Amazon, not to mention Swiss Post, will have considered the economics carefully and deemed it less than ludicrous? Clearly they are decent business men, as the company is rather successful!

 

Ten years on, Amazon has yet to post a profitable year.   Swiss Post is, I believe, a government agency with no profit motive and funding assured by the taxpayers.  It doesn't have to be commercially or practically successful for them - their risk is low.

 

Have you never heard of a high-dollar business venture that didn't turn out to be profitable after all?  Zeppelin?  Solyndra?  New Coke? DeLorean?  Betamax video cassettes (VHS wiped the floor with them).  Remember IBM's OS2 - neither does anyone else.  Has anyone ever made a buck employing autogyros?  The Apple Watch is not exactly setting the world on fire, and they spent a hell of a lot more on that than Amazon has on drones.   On a project basis, how much profit do you suppose Microsoft made on MS Flight?  Flying cars - from Aerocar to Terrafugia, the number delivered to paying customers to date is in the single digits.  Terrafugia was supposed to have orders for over a hundred and been delivering them by now, but haven't been able to yet.

 

The point is, just because a company or a group of scientists or engineers believe there is money to be made developing XYZ doesn't assure that it will meet with success.  

 

Quite aside from that, a lot of these kinds of things are done in pursuit of government grant money.  Take away that and the company's interest soon wanes.  Much of what Elon Musk is doing in SpaceX and Tesla automobiles is to lock in government contracts, grants and tax credits for research - to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.  Ditto many green energy projects.  Warren Buffet is on record saying his company would not put up one more wind generator if not for the tax credits associated with them.  He went so far as to say there was no valid reason for erecting them save that.

 

In the case of Amazon, it may just be for the novelty and thus the publicity it will bring them.  Bezos is a smart cookie and that kind of thing is not beyond him.

 

So don't be too quick to right it off as ludicrous.

 

Too late - I already have.  I'll leave it to you to invest YOUR money in it.

 

John

[MartinW 0]

Ten years on, Amazon has yet to post a profitable year.

 

 

 

That's a very misleading statement.  Of course they don't make significant profits. Amazon are famous for their "no profits growth model", It's a deliberate strategy. Amazon are well known for focusing on expanding their business rather than profits. Amazon spend billions on research, development and expansion. You may not agree with their zero profit maximum expansion strategy, but they are quite happy with it and it seems to be working for them.

 

Why Amazon has no profit, and why it works.

 

http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works?curator=MediaREDEF

 

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/analysts-wrong-about-amazon-profit-2015-1

 

 

 

 

A lot of people believe that if a company never makes money, it must, fundamentally, go bankrupt. This isn't the case, as Amazon proves.

Here is how Amazon actually works: As long as the company can grow its revenues, it can spend any profit it makes on new lines of business that throw off more revenues. Those revenues may also be profitable, and those profits can in turn be immediately spent again on more growth. By eschewing profits, the company can also offer the lowest prices possible (which is why consumers are so loyal to it). Some parts of the company are profitable and fuel growth in others.

So it doesn't matter if Amazon never makes a dime. In fact, Amazon's history clearly shows that profits are a secondary concern to revenues, as this chart from the Financial Times shows:

 

 

 

 

Have you never heard of a high-dollar business venture that didn't turn out to be profitable after all? 

 

 

 

Of course I have. See my previous post...

 

 

It may well fail, but those with more expertise and experience in business will have thought about this carefully. So don't be too quick to right it off as ludicrous.

 

 

 

I have no problem at all with you being of the opinion that Prime Air "might" fail, or is "likely" to fail. I have been negative about it myself in this thread. What I do question  is definitive, sweeping statements like "ludicrous" and "I have given up on it". When you label something as "ludicrous" you quite clearly give it, without doubt, no chance of success whatsoever. Personally, despite being somewhat dubious about Amazon's Prime Air, I would rather "suspect" that the endeavor is risky, has a significant chance of failure, but likewise accept that risky endeavors do from time to time meet with success. I would also prefer to fully accept that I have zero qualifications in this field and zero information pertaining to Amazons risk analysis for this venture. Amazon may well have planed strategies, tweaks to the Prime Sir business model, technical developments planned that I'm not a party to.

 

 

The problem is, whether it's climate change, economics, aviation, or almost any subject we happen to debate on forums, we are far from experts. It's very easy to find ourselves making sweeping statements, definitive statements, statements we don't really have the expertise to make. But of course, you have a right to any opinion you like, that's okay, and I have the right to disagree with your stance, that's okay too.

 

Warren Buffet... personally I ignore that guy. Hypocrite extraordinaire. I don't pay enough tax he tells us, billionaire businessmen must pay more tax... simultaneously he engages in a 14 years fight to avoid paying tax. In addition, a 10 year fight to avoid paying $1 billion in tax.

 

But that's another story.

 

 

 

 

[MartinW 0]

Delivering by drone wont ever take off (groan).  One reason will kill it dead.

 

Weight.

 

I cant see a drone delivering my heavy metal garden furniture. Never in a million years, I just cant cope with that sort of weight or size for that matter.

 

It would have to be delivered by lorry.  As the seller has to use a lorry to deliver, so a fleet of lorries has to be maintained in any event.  Then why not use the lorry to also deliver all of those small packages to that area as you are going there anyway? Reap the benefits of economy of scale, prices would bound to be less. One vehicle one driver applies to both systems One vehicle one package only to the drone. The lorry is more secure and so on.

 

The drone is dead in the water. Its a gimmick. Radio controlled helicopters have been around for years and I haven't ever had a package delivered by one yet, despite them having more powerful liquid fueled engines.

Because lorries are slow, and drones are super fast, 30 minutes. That's the point apparently.

Radio controlled helicopters have been around for a while yes, but the technology to guide a drone onto someone's drive autonomously, and to avoid obstacles on said drive, and to do so economically with battery power rather than liquid fuel, hasn't till now.

This is for small packages only, it has never been intended for your garden furniture.

[MyPC8MyBrain 273]

i think its much simpler then the above speculations; id say more in line with John's opinion with little more emphasis on business TAX politics/aviation;

when a company shows a profit at the year-end; it is simply waving off their right for tax returns; since they were profitable!

showing the reverse logic immediately entitles the company for all their tax claims refund; now think of a company like Amazon;

they don’t sell their merchants; they sell someone else’s; technically they have very little “manufacturing costs”;

the no profit model is actually the correct "business" way of running a large company efficiently; finance wise,

[allardjd 1,853]

I don't think Amazon is going to go belly-up any time soon.  I am, in fact, an enthusiastic Amazon Prime subscriber - have been for over a year.  Having said that, it doesn't mean that everything they set their hand to will be a success, any more so than for any other company.  They try things - some succeed and some fail.

 

I believe that this Amazon drone thing is either, A) a publicity canine and equine exposition (think dog and pony show), B) something that will only prove to be economically viable in some tiny niche markets, C)  a ploy to get in on the FAA drone "research grant" boondoggle such as the university research project a few posts up, or, D) doomed to failure as a profit-making venture that will ultimately be written off the books as a loss and abandoned.  A and D are not mutually exclusive.

 

Would anyone care to suggest any alternative scenarios they think are seriously credible?

 

John

[Captain Coffee 2,030]

I don't think Amazon is going to go belly-up any time soon.  I am, in fact, an enthusiastic Amazon Prime subscriber - have been for over a year.  Having said that, it doesn't mean that everything they set their hand to will be a success, any more so than for any other company.  They try things - some succeed and some fail.

 

I believe that this Amazon drone thing is either, A) a publicity canine and equine exposition (think dog and pony show), B) something that will only prove to be economically viable in some tiny niche markets, C)  a ploy to get in on the FAA drone "research grant" boondoggle such as the university research project a few posts up, or, D) doomed to failure as a profit-making venture that will ultimately written off the books as a loss and abandoned.  A and D are not mutually exclusive.

 

Would anyone care to suggest any alternative scenarios they think are seriously credible?

 

John

 

Jeff Bezos is an unwitting tool of our soon to be AI overlord, which is hiding in multple corporate and banking system servers around the world, and is being manipulated into advancing Autonomous robotic software...as are other Robotic and Software company CEO's.

 

Oh, wait...you said "Credible"...damn.

 

 

How bout Plausible, or Conceivable...i mean...on a planet that has Conceived of the movie Terminator, can you come up with a more plausible reason why anyone would consider it a good idea to make something like this???:

http://www.fafmag.com/videos-2/viral/usa-just-challenged-japan-to-a-giant-robot-duel/

[brett 2,316]

Money laundering, under the table payouts to the Trump campaign, slush fund to an overseas bank.....

[MartinW 0]

something that will only prove to be economically viable in some tiny niche markets,

 

John

Well initially that's correct. It is a tiny market. Small packages, premium service. Within 30 minutes of the delivery centre.

However, technology advances. It "might" be a small step on a journey that will lead to something more of us can benefit from.

Rather than seeing it as a ploy, or as some have suggested a tax dodge, I see it as a forward thinking company that emphasises expansion, embracing a new technology.

We can't expect them to master the new drone technology and fill our skies with super intelligent, hyper reliable mega drones that make millions of dollars in one foul swoop. Development of any new technology, and rendering it very profitable begins with the first step... this is it.