Only one item can be delivered at a time. It can’t weigh more than 5 pounds. It can’t be too big. It can’t be something breakable, since the drone drops it from 12 feet. The drones can’t fly when it is too hot or too windy or too rainy.

You need to be home to put out the landing target and to make sure that a porch pirate doesn’t make off with your item or that it doesn’t roll into the street (which happened once to Lord and Silverman). But your car can’t be in the driveway. Letting the drone land in the backyard would avoid some of these problems, but not if there are trees.

Amazon has also warned customers that drone delivery is unavailable during periods of high demand for drone delivery.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminds me of an insurance company that wanted to use drones to survey roof damage and in the long run they decided it was overall better to just use a camera on a long ass stick.

  • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok sure, there’s limitations. So what percentage of their current deliveries are actually possible with drones? If it’s above 0%, then there’s an opportunity.

    Beyond that it’s a finance/ risk/ reward/ regulation issue.

    Imagine a van which drives into a suburban housing estate and instead of parking individually at different houses for 5-10 mins each, spends less than 5 mins prepping a set of drones which take off from the roof of the van and return in minutes.

    It saves time and fuel. It doesn’t work everywhere, but it doesn’t need to.

    In fact it could be the same van. Do deliveries exactly as normal, and use a drone for the last half mile when convenient. It’s not either/or.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      The big win, I hear, is the massively rural areas;farms and cabins.

      The truck can apparently launch two drones at a time, and they save time and fuel – and don’t present a driving hazard for a panel van which now needs to turn around in a potentially winding driveway. Then the truck moves on to the next stopping point when all drones are back.

        • essteeyou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          So if Amazon thinks they could do it themselves, and cheaper, that seems like a good reason for them to focus on it.

          I still think it’s a gimmick, but them paying to outsource something is a reason to bring it in-house.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would like to take this time to thank the slow government FAA for preventing Amazon from clogging up the airspace with crappy drones and preventing a stupid system from taking off.

    Aside from all the functional downsides, I’d expect these to go the way of Tesla when hitting a larger scale. Lawsuits and traffic incidents.

  • Cheesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember people were hyped when they announced on Thanksgiving 2012 that drone delivery service was right around the corner. Brilliant marketing from them because people were hyped.

      • Moneo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll bite.

        Drones are loud as fuck and if drone delivery became common there would be a massive backlash from the public. Most people live in cities and do not have a yard to put a target on lol. Drone delivery in cities is almost certainly less cost efficient than truck delivery. Land drones are much more likely in cities, or just dudes with cargo bikes like in many European cities.

        So yeah drone delivery might “become a thing” but I doubt it will be mainstream.

        • skulblaka@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that’s not even getting into the point of how much easier and less illegal it is to snipe an Amazon drone out of the sky for its payload than it is to assault an Amazon delivery truck and driver. It may not be more common in the long run than porch pirates, because that’s also easy and low risk, but I 100% fully guarantee you our redneck population will be out in some capacity hunting for Christmas presents.

        • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Places like Los Angeles are mostly SFH. Most areas are already loud as fuck from road noise, proximity to airports, etc. Nobody will notice a few drones.

          If it becomes popular in LA, that’s pretty much definition of mainstream.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is remarkable to me how tolerant as a society we have gotten to noise. We just accept that someone has a right to drive modified motorcycles at 3am with 8 of their buddies.

            • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It isn’t legal (in US) and cops do occasionally set up decibel traps, especially in places frequently visited by motorcyclists, but I completely agree with you. Quiet nights outside of city feel strange now.

      • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have Wing in Australia and gotta say getting small tech delivered or medicine by drone is very convenient. It gets lowered instead of dropped.

      • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I won’t say never, but when and how will drone delivery be more efficient than a truck?

        Per package it’s more energy, it’s more risk, and the tech is harder.

        To purchase a fleet of drones big enough will cost more than paying a driver for a long time still.

        • setsubyou@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty much everybody in this thread who is laughing at Amazon’s drones is thinking of drones as they are right now. But Amazon is not using drones because it’s a good idea now. They’re using drones now so they already have the experience and the setup when inevitable technical progress happens.

          The drones might never work out or they might eventually work out, but this is exactly how Amazon got so big in the first place. They started selling books online when a lot of people still weren’t sure whether that could work and they started selling cloud computing almost ten years before anyone else thought to do that.

          • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair, but the flying drone delivery in my opinion doesn’t scale up.

            I think the real savings would be in something like a robot moving packages from the truck or a mobile base to the door.

        • ShadowRam@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Per package it’s more energy

          How you figure? compared to point to point electrical energy costs compared to moving a truck mass around streets with constant stopping/starting?

          • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s the same as a train, by moving bulk you reduce average costs. Plus drones have to stay in the air, and travel from their base for each package, whereas if a truck has two stops on a street it’s moving less distance.

            • ShadowRam@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Train isn’t doing point to point.

              You’re gonna have to actually do the calculations before making claims.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      That works for special use cases in rural environments. They use drones for mail delivery on some German islands, for instance. As a mainstream delivery option in urban environments this is just laughably impractical and that has been very obvious from day one.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s certainly more useful in locations with insufficient infrastructure.

      • lipilee@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        And maybe that craft could have wheels instead of rotors to mitigate the rain/wind problems… i think we might be on to something here!

      • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem is that the bigger and heavier the craft the higher it’s minimum drop height is going to be because it’s more dangerous and needs more clearance.

        Obviously it also becomes much more costly to run.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Haha, now I am picturing a huge Chinook delivering the smallest package of essentially bullshit to my door.

          Yeah, I am totally behind that idea.

      • histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        not even necessary a bigger capacity I mean it being just able to bring me like a bag of chips or something I forgot for dinner would be great

        • Fluke@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          While people will undoubtedly take the piss, for a number of reasons, it’s less energy expenditure / lower footprint than you getting in your car/truck and going to the store and getting them yourself.

          • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you factor in all the logistics and systems necessary to run the drone operations and all associated functions, is it likely to be much of a saving?

            I could see something like this as useful for medical prescription delivery, but that comes with its own issues and dangers.

            • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, almost definitely. Even if those systems have a relatively high power draw, they’re still not being powered by a low efficiency ice engine but are being powered by a grid that’s only getting greener. Also factor in the fact that a car+person is minimum about 1100kg that needs to be transported as opposed to the low weight items plus the weight of the drone (can’t be more than 2-3 kg)

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would it be less energy expenditure than a delivery van making multiple stops on its way to deliver you your bag of chips?

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Noise is absolutely a concern for flying things. The reasons we don’t yet have flying cars is not because they’re too expensive, but because they’re too loud. And this is specifically why the FAA won’t let me commute to work in an ultralight.

    The police want Bladerunner spinners so bad they can taste it. And the reason they can’t have them — or more helicopters — is the noise.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The average person can barely drive without murdering someone. Flying is even more complex than that, the noise is just a small problem compqred to that.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Flying cars would almost certainly not be directly piloted. Even in movies, by the time humanity has flying cars, it has automation to handle those flying cars.

    • You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have flying cars, they are called airplanes or more specifically civil utility aircraft. You know, like the Cessna 172.

      Flying vehicles aren’t more mainstream because of the cost. A new plane can cost over half a million dollars while a used plane can easily be over a hundred thousand dollars. And that’s just the cost of the plane.

      The other reason is because the rules are more strict and are actually enforced. If a pilot flew their plane like the average person drives their car they would be sitting in jail await trail for attempt murder.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reasons we don’t yet have flying cars is not because they’re too expensive, but because they’re too loud

      I’m sure being too loud is an issue, but it’s not the issue. That’s like saying the reason we don’t all have castles is due to municipal zoning laws. Sure, that would make having a castle harder, but it’s not the issue.

      Yes, “flying cars” are loud, but that’s a minor issue compared to the other ones. They’re expensive to operate. They’re dangerous both to their passengers and to people on the ground. They’re extremely expensive. The infrastructure isn’t available. They’d require training to operate, etc.

      If you could wave a magic wand and make all those other problems disappear, the noise issue would still be a blocker. But, the noise issue isn’t the biggest current blocker.

  • FapFlop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m just sitting here thinking personal home delivery maybe isn’t the most sustainable thing in the world.

    Perhaps we could invest the massive amounts of money that it takes to deliver goods to homes into better transit and post offices that don’t look like crap.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ve had mail delivery for what, 200 years? We used to have (and some places still do) have milk and vegetable deliveries. It’s not even that expensive.

      I had diaper pickup and laundry service a few years ago, which was amazing. Well worth the $.

  • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s obvious that autonomous drones are more difficult to create than they seem… I think delivery robots that go on the ground are much safer and more feasible. They can carry heavier packages, they are less dangerous and can travel at less dangerous speeds.

    • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      … and they can get robbed or kicked, their sensors sprayed shut… and repair costs a fortune. I don’t think delivery without a human makes much sense, maybe except for a drone that delivers to the Australian outback or a small island at the German coast.

      They want desperately to cut delivery cost by taking out the human they have to pay for it to do the work. To do so they spent billions they could have used to pay these people a decent wage and hire more of them. It is dumb.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t those same issues apply to humans though? You can beat up or kill a human delivery driver and take everything in the truck just as easily as you could with a hypothetical robot.

        • xX_fnord_Xx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is very true, but every porch pirate isn’t a moral free tweaker willing to do whatever it takes to score. I think the average down on their luck schmuck would have fewer qualms vandalizing an automated delivery system.

        • Wirrvogel@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I am from Germany, our crime rate is very, very low. I doubt that many people here would think beating up or even killing a person is “as easy” as doing it to a funny looking delivery robot. Depending where you are from, that might be different though. If you live in a place where people actually see no difference between both and do one as easily as the other, then please stay safe!

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Solution: every 17th drone is a decoy carrying a paint bomb to mark anyone who robs it or were just standing around not trying to defend it or defending it effectively enough. Then the Amazon corporate police can swoop in and deal with anyone with paint on them.

      • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are ways to prevent that, like alarms, notifying the police. These robots will absolutely have ways to be tracked at all times, cameras and all. You could also only use them for low value packages, so the effort is less worth it.

  • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hyperloop 2.0.

    Delivering something by air is the least efficient way to do so, unless it’s Avdiivka and you deliver a grenade. Yeah, making them now is cheap (and we overproduce these unrecycleable toys), but what the upsides of using them instead of, like, land drones, or human workers, or some rail-system? It’s cool and fancy the first time you order it, but what’s the reason behind it other than our entertainment? Why not to make a delivery guy shoot fireworks once they are here - as enjoyable, and as chinese as these drones.

    Why we want to produce this junk in the first place? And aren’t we afraid this shit records close-ups of each property itflies over?

    • Flipper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are places delivery with drones makes a lot of sense and is the best way to do it. It depends what the most important metric is.

      In an African country they are delivering medicin and bloodbaths with a drone plane to hospitals that need them for emergencys. That way they only need to have one central stock of these supply’s that can be quickly dispatched. Driving wouldn’t be an option that would take several hours over bad roads. Veritasium did a video about it.

      For Amazon deliveries it makes no sense at all.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you.

        I’ve mentioned ukrainian Avdiivka, a battlefield, that isn’t accesible by usual means (and where aerial drones can launch a surprise attack).

        The same goes to places with destructed or underdeveloped infrastructure.

        Drones can be used in the least accesible places. But they ate tested in places that are already covered by drivers.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree with you with the efficiency comment. In an ideal scenario, deliver by air can be super efficient. No road obstacles, shortest path trajectories, hell, the sky is 3D!

      It’s been tried before: messenger pigeons.

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can be efficient, but the major pro-land point is: what would it do having 0 fuel?

        A car would stop, a drone would drop.

        It’s an exception and no one would pilot a drone to it’s exhaustion, but either way holding it in the air is a costy investment.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do robo-taxis or electric bikes for rent deal with the fuel problem? It’s an already solved issue.

          However, you do have a point with malfunctions.

          • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            E-bikes and e-scooters are better, but I haven’t personally seen an infrastructure to use them unless they are personally owned and recharged at home. Are there stations for them in the US?

            Robo-taxis though are their own can of worms. Discussion about their capabilities can take days.

            • El Barto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The first thing you mentioned has nothing to do with fuel, which was OP’s original argument.

              As for the second thing, I’ve already said I agreed with OP.

                • El Barto@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m okay with being wrong. Check my comment history if you’d like in which I happily admit I’m being corrected.

                  But you didn’t say “depleted” or “out of fuel.” You said “broken.” And that’s different.

                  Can you admit that you misspoke, then?