The amount of idea-bashing coming out against this Amazon drone concept is astonishing. Aren't we supposed to the be champions of the future? Do you think for a second that your nail-in-the-coffin counterpoint hasn't already been brought up around the meeting table? Can't we focus on how instead of why not?
Drone deliveries are cool and futuristic idea, and I'm sure they will happen at some point.
But there is a big difference between "Bezos thinks drone deliveries would be cool in 5 years time", and "Amazon starts drone deliveries". The article rightly concludes that at this time, it's a PR trick for driving black friday sales.
The concept of drone deliveries isn't that novel: at least 10 companies have announced that they are working on or have put out promotional videos of the same thing in the last few years. The novel and interesting bit would be to figure out the real logistical difficulties, which Amazon nor the others have yet presented.
The Tacocoptor was the first thing that came to mind when I was watching 60 Minutes. The difference here is that Amazon has a really compelling reason, and more importantly, the capability (money/people) to push the technology forward. I think that's really exciting.
> Aren't we supposed to be the champions of the future?
If you mean as "hackers", to pick a word from the name of this website, who were for a long time, rightly or wrongly, supposed to be conscientious watchdogs of present and future technology, no.
If for no other reason, as technologists who witnessed Stallman, Assange, Bradley, Snowden, so on in their lifetimes, you're supposed to be first and foremost astute critics of the future that dominant forces of the realm of technology such as Amazon are aiming to build. And rather than enthusiastically applaud whatever new and possibly exciting technology they bring to the table that contributes to your present or future paycheck and their private profit, you're supposed to take political responsibility for the future you help build by being their employees, customers and unpaid evangelists.
We're talking about delivering packages, not stealing your privacy or freedom. Now, I'm sure we can think up ways on how it can be used for evil, but that hasn't been the focus of all the negativity. Landing on small children and having your packages stolen are hardly concerns I'd associate with names like Stallman, Assange, Bradley, and Snowden.
I was commenting in a general sense, on the notion I quoted, of which the current discussion is a mere symptom; not specifically about Amazon or package delivery. Yet the point is: when a technology giant talks about delivering packages in a new and technologically novel, yet questionable way, we shouldn't be talking about delivering packages; we should be talking in a broader sense about the political and economical implications of that new way, and how it's going to affect people in the foreseeable future.
The notion of being unquestioning "champions of the future" is a general trait of most HN participants, and in direct contrast to what you problematize, what I find problematic is the great wave of instant enthusiasm we're seeing among so-called "hackers" for Amazon's stated intentions.
Why are you so quick to claim it's a "less-than-carefully thought out [idea]"? If I recall correctly, Bezos even joked about how they need to make sure it doesn't land on people's heads. There was also mention of the forthcoming FAA rabbit hole to step into. They're not idiots, so give a but more credit where it is due. He fully acknowledges the technology is years away, but gives us a taste of what's potentially coming.
