Specifically about Google's Project X delivery drone project:
The first guy to head the project was one Nicholas Roy, an MIT Robotics professor whose professional claim to the position seems to be mentoring a pair of students who succeeded in building a drone that flew around a parking garage - predetermined layout, no weather. Completely out of his depth, he failed.
After he failed, Google hired Dave Vos, another guy who spent some time in an MIT graduate office - this time one in an aerospace specialty - who spent the last couple of decades in tech management positions. At least he had the experience to come in and say, hey, maybe we need some wind tunnels, maybe we need some professional tooling that's taken for granted in most aerospace companies, because trying to build an aircraft without that tooling is like trying to run a web-facing application off developer workstations instead of setting up a proper production architecture. And he, too, failed.
The real problem that Google (and probably Amazon too) faces is that they need to synergize two very different engineering teams to make delivery drones work. You need aerospace folks to build reliable aircraft, you need AI folks to give those aircraft targets to aim at, and you need them to sit on the same floor in the same building. The aerospace folks aren't going to move to the Valley because there's no aerospace hub in SV, and SV isn't a good place to start one because the necessary land - you know, the wide open spaces you need for runways and hangars - is a pipedream in SV. And the AI folks, you know, the ones the Big Four are paying close to a million dollars in salary and begging not to leave for a competitor - are never going to leave SV to work on delivery drones.
The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace company, give it some great AI folks, and come back in a year to check on their progress. But most of these Project X types like their ivory towers. It's how Google convinced them to join Project X in the first place, selling them on the promise that they'd be in the same ivory tower they were in back in MIT, just with guaranteed funding and a request to think about commercial viability. So, not gonna happen.
"The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace company"
It's a good long-term bet if it's a defense contractor that's been getting contracts for decades. Could hedge a bit against what the market might hit them with. Plus, they're trying to get tighter with government anyway. They'd likely acquire people good at doing that, too. Then start brining their tech or services in defense industry in general more than now.
> The aerospace folks aren't going to move to the Valley because there's no aerospace hub in SV, and SV isn't a good place to start one because the necessary land - you know, the wide open spaces you need for runways and hangars - is a pipedream in SV. And the AI folks, you know, the ones the Big Four are paying close to a million dollars in salary and begging not to leave for a competitor - are never going to leave SV to work on delivery drones.
I still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so as to make it economically impractical for most cases.
And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the travelling salesman's problem you're still mostly dealing with low value products. Now, if it was delivery of expensive (Rx) drugs, or maybe even heavy but valuable items like gold or jewelry, legal documents, etc. okay. people will pay for that and you can make a profit but toiletries and pantry goods?
You argue that as if it's a constant -- and that it's not is the point. The exact innovation they are stumbling on is a way to lower that cost to near zero.
Drone technology will eventually happen. The question is how far out it is. And make no mistake, when it does happen, it will truly be a revolution (without the hyperbole).
"I still don't get the foray into delivery of physical low value products. The cost of delivery is a sufficient portion of the total value of the products so as to make it economically impractical for most cases."
Shouldn't your conclusion be the opposite? If the cost of delivery is a large proportion of the good, then lowering the cost of delivery will have a larger impact on the economics of selling that good.
Peapod and Webvan didn't lower the cost of delivery because the human salary was still a large component of that cost. It might even have increased the cost for convenience.
We consider it a potentially viable avenue of future growth for our business - http://8-food.com/ - which aims to establish a network of robotics-based food preparation and retail service locations (think 'vending machines'), initially launching in mainland China. Let's address each challenge mentioned in this thread in turn.
The cost of delivery: We can charge for it as an optional feature (our normal model is pickup), and people currently pay far higher fees for manual human delivery across longer distances, which creates its own uniquely irritating issues in apartment complexes (multi-layered security, parking, buzz-ins, waiting for lifts, etc.).
low value products: People are willing to pay a very high premium for convenience. Half of US consumers' food budgets are spent on convenience.
power/range: For hot meals to nearby apartments, we are typically talking <1kg + <1km visible range.
fuel cost: We have on-site mains power.
AI: We can negotiate exclusive access to privately held airspace with strata management.
landing space: This is the greatest issue. Lower rise apartments in less extreme climates with open (shared or private) balconies are probably the best case. In many cases, it will simply be untenable.
This isn't by any means our focus but it's certainly an area we're keeping tabs on.
The fact that companies like Facebook and Google are spending billions of dollars/year on undisclosed research projects is in my view a gigantic failure of corporate governance. I think investors are going to be hugely disappointed when they find out that they thought they put their money into Internet advertising cash cows, and now that money is gone, spent on building jetpacks and space elevators. I do think those projects are very cool, but this is not the proper way to pursue them.
Then what is? Seems to me to be very similar to the glory days of PARC and such where they seemed to have the funds to research just about anything. Lets not forget that Xerox brought the world the GUI, laser printer and Ethernet by funding PARC, even if they in the end was not who ended up monetizing the tech (laser printer excluded).
Just as an example, in Q2 of this year, Alphabet had a 21% YoY increase in revenue, and a 43% YoY increase in profit. Gigantic failure indeed.
Besides, they're public companies. Investors might not know exactly which moonshot projects they're investing in, but the overall numbers are published four times a year. There's no major surprises.
I think investors realize that they are putting their money into advertising cash cows, and Google investors are pretty satisfied; that money isn't "gone." If anything, it's the talented workers who go to Google for the promise of jetpacks and find themselves writing adwords code.
All you need is one of those projects to work to recoup the losses many times over. Relying solely on advertising revenue forever is probably a bad idea.
It's never been a secret that the company is controlled by the founders. Any investor who invests not realizing this, and that they're going to throw money at research projects like this, has only themself to blame.
Not very well. They're very good at coming up with new ideas, but very poorly applying them to their situation. Amazon gets credit for trying, but they should get more credit for propping up bad ideas with operating losses for long enough that outside observers eventually think they might be good ideas.
This article reads like Google tried the MVP route with physical products and discovering that physical space is a far less forgiving operating environment.
I enjoy how the article sometimes seems to have the point of view that this is the first time engineers ever had to work this way. I don't think they are taking software engineers and asking them to create drones. These seem like a lot of the same problems Boeing would have making drones or that UPS would have trying to make deliveries if such drones already existed. Nothing unique to Silicon Valley companies in this respect
The world of the future is software. We're on the slow and exciting path of better and better digital representations of reality... everything from cheap orientation sensors to ADCs that were in the realm of science fiction a few years ago.
The same is gradually happening with things like batteries, motors, etc. Everything is becoming more standardized and more like software.
The current limitations have to do with both physics and engineering, and also software reliability, but those barriers are all receding. Solar Cell roof shingles are an idea likely had by many kindergarteners, but the genius has to do with making a longer-term bet and creating the financing to make it into a viable business in a world that rewards short-term results.
The important thing is that a Billionaire today can make a bigger impact than a superpower government could a decade ago. The glorification of the bygone era of massive infrastructure investment voiced by Thiel at the GOP convention can be alternately viewed as a wish that we had more Musks taking big gambles and a general cynicism about the tech elite who develop cults of personality after a single, largely luck-driven, often low-tech home run.
The Interstate highway system was a buildout that could happen because of the solving of coordination problems that had prevented escape from a local maximum. As governments lose relevance, it is up to the Musks of the world to usher in both the technological vision and the social coordination solutions.
[+] [-] solatic|9 years ago|reply
The first guy to head the project was one Nicholas Roy, an MIT Robotics professor whose professional claim to the position seems to be mentoring a pair of students who succeeded in building a drone that flew around a parking garage - predetermined layout, no weather. Completely out of his depth, he failed.
After he failed, Google hired Dave Vos, another guy who spent some time in an MIT graduate office - this time one in an aerospace specialty - who spent the last couple of decades in tech management positions. At least he had the experience to come in and say, hey, maybe we need some wind tunnels, maybe we need some professional tooling that's taken for granted in most aerospace companies, because trying to build an aircraft without that tooling is like trying to run a web-facing application off developer workstations instead of setting up a proper production architecture. And he, too, failed.
The real problem that Google (and probably Amazon too) faces is that they need to synergize two very different engineering teams to make delivery drones work. You need aerospace folks to build reliable aircraft, you need AI folks to give those aircraft targets to aim at, and you need them to sit on the same floor in the same building. The aerospace folks aren't going to move to the Valley because there's no aerospace hub in SV, and SV isn't a good place to start one because the necessary land - you know, the wide open spaces you need for runways and hangars - is a pipedream in SV. And the AI folks, you know, the ones the Big Four are paying close to a million dollars in salary and begging not to leave for a competitor - are never going to leave SV to work on delivery drones.
The best course of action that Alphabet has is to acquire a proven aerospace company, give it some great AI folks, and come back in a year to check on their progress. But most of these Project X types like their ivory towers. It's how Google convinced them to join Project X in the first place, selling them on the promise that they'd be in the same ivory tower they were in back in MIT, just with guaranteed funding and a request to think about commercial viability. So, not gonna happen.
[+] [-] nickpsecurity|9 years ago|reply
It's a good long-term bet if it's a defense contractor that's been getting contracts for decades. Could hedge a bit against what the market might hit them with. Plus, they're trying to get tighter with government anyway. They'd likely acquire people good at doing that, too. Then start brining their tech or services in defense industry in general more than now.
[+] [-] RangerScience|9 years ago|reply
...AMES? I don't know how active it is as an aerospace hub, but it DOES have all that.
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply
Seattle?
[+] [-] sliken|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
And we have the example of Peapod and WebVan which didn't just foretell but proved unless it was for specialized markets, it's a proposal for hemorrhaging money. Even if you get automation and you perfect the travelling salesman's problem you're still mostly dealing with low value products. Now, if it was delivery of expensive (Rx) drugs, or maybe even heavy but valuable items like gold or jewelry, legal documents, etc. okay. people will pay for that and you can make a profit but toiletries and pantry goods?
[+] [-] david927|9 years ago|reply
You argue that as if it's a constant -- and that it's not is the point. The exact innovation they are stumbling on is a way to lower that cost to near zero.
Drone technology will eventually happen. The question is how far out it is. And make no mistake, when it does happen, it will truly be a revolution (without the hyperbole).
[+] [-] inputcoffee|9 years ago|reply
Shouldn't your conclusion be the opposite? If the cost of delivery is a large proportion of the good, then lowering the cost of delivery will have a larger impact on the economics of selling that good.
Peapod and Webvan didn't lower the cost of delivery because the human salary was still a large component of that cost. It might even have increased the cost for convenience.
[+] [-] contingencies|9 years ago|reply
The cost of delivery: We can charge for it as an optional feature (our normal model is pickup), and people currently pay far higher fees for manual human delivery across longer distances, which creates its own uniquely irritating issues in apartment complexes (multi-layered security, parking, buzz-ins, waiting for lifts, etc.).
low value products: People are willing to pay a very high premium for convenience. Half of US consumers' food budgets are spent on convenience.
power/range: For hot meals to nearby apartments, we are typically talking <1kg + <1km visible range.
fuel cost: We have on-site mains power.
AI: We can negotiate exclusive access to privately held airspace with strata management.
landing space: This is the greatest issue. Lower rise apartments in less extreme climates with open (shared or private) balconies are probably the best case. In many cases, it will simply be untenable.
This isn't by any means our focus but it's certainly an area we're keeping tabs on.
[+] [-] grigjd3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UK-AL|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digi_owl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|9 years ago|reply
Besides, they're public companies. Investors might not know exactly which moonshot projects they're investing in, but the overall numbers are published four times a year. There's no major surprises.
[+] [-] Retric|9 years ago|reply
Further even if these projects never return a dime directly they have a halo effect which helps the overall company.
[+] [-] bbctol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xcelerate|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tempest1981|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] misterbowfinger|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw20161123|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmarx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmmurf|9 years ago|reply
The same is gradually happening with things like batteries, motors, etc. Everything is becoming more standardized and more like software.
The current limitations have to do with both physics and engineering, and also software reliability, but those barriers are all receding. Solar Cell roof shingles are an idea likely had by many kindergarteners, but the genius has to do with making a longer-term bet and creating the financing to make it into a viable business in a world that rewards short-term results.
The important thing is that a Billionaire today can make a bigger impact than a superpower government could a decade ago. The glorification of the bygone era of massive infrastructure investment voiced by Thiel at the GOP convention can be alternately viewed as a wish that we had more Musks taking big gambles and a general cynicism about the tech elite who develop cults of personality after a single, largely luck-driven, often low-tech home run.
The Interstate highway system was a buildout that could happen because of the solving of coordination problems that had prevented escape from a local maximum. As governments lose relevance, it is up to the Musks of the world to usher in both the technological vision and the social coordination solutions.
[+] [-] maverick_iceman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JPKab|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webmaven|9 years ago|reply
- Copy the link.
- Open an incognito browser window.
- Paste the URL into the address bar / omnibox.
- Hit return.
[+] [-] ragebol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yannickt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xigency|9 years ago|reply
Open the article and see the headline. Copy and paste the headline into Google. Click the link.
WSJ and other sites show the full article to referrals from Google.
[+] [-] toephu2|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] st3v3r|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]