Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Patents Floating Airship Warehouse For Its Delivery Drones (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the it's-a-bird-it's-a-plane-it's-a-flying-warehouse dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: We've known about Amazon's drone delivery ambitions since 2013. But patent filings from Amazon, circulated today by CB Insights' Zoe Leavitt, reveal more details about how the e-commerce titan could make drone deliveries work at scale, namely through "airborne fulfillment centers." Yes, that's a warehouse in a zeppelin. The airborne fulfillment centers, or AFCs, would be stocked with a certain amount of inventory and positioned near a location where Amazon predicts demand for certain items will soon spike. Drones, including temperature-controlled models ideally suited for food delivery, could be stocked at the AFCs and sent down to make a precise, safe scheduled or on-demand delivery. An example cited in the filing was around a sporting event. If there's a big championship game down below, Amazon AFC's above could be loaded with snacks and souvenirs sports fans crave. The AFCs could be flown close to a stadium to deliver audio or outdoor display advertising near the main event, as well, the filing suggested. The patent reflects a complex network of systems to facilitate delivery by air. Besides the airborne fulfillment centers and affiliated drones, the company has envisioned larger shuttles that could carry people, supplies and drones to the AFCs or back to the ground. Using a larger shuttle to bring drones up to the AFC would allow Amazon to reserve their drones' power for making deliveries only. Of course, all these elements would be connected to inventory management systems, and other software and remote computing resources managed by people in the air or on the ground. The filing also reveals that the shuttles and drones, as they fly deliveries around, could function in a mesh network, relaying data to each other about weather, wind speed and routing, for example, or beaming e-book content down to readers on the ground. Amazon also recently patented a system to defend its drones against hackers, jammers and bows and arrows.

94 comments

  1. This is retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real world failures will doom this, so we might as well get it over with. I'm tired of reading this popular science bullshit straight from Bezos' e-peen.

    1. Re: This is retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm stunned to see all the critical posts. I really imagined that all the Star Track dorks here would imagine it was a star base and would be drooling all over the idea. Perhaps all of the Star Track dorks here are actually busy watching reruns of Voyager in eager anticipation of Star Track Discover, and not posting.

    2. Re: This is retarded. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Well, I think its pretty cool, but I also think they shouldn't be able to patent an idea they can't yet build.

    3. Re: This is retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Cock
      Star Suck
      Star Nlgger
      Star Lock
      Star Her
      Star Up

    4. Re: This is retarded. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I think its pretty cool, but I also think they shouldn't be able to patent an idea they can't yet build.

      They shouldn't be able to patent ideas at all, only specific implementations.

      A new propeller design that can be used on a drone: Patentable.

      Using that drone to deliver Chinese food: Not patentable.

  2. FAA TFRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever wrote this patent example obviously knows nothing about FAA security and flight restrictions around sporting events and other assemblies. Not gonna happen.

    1. Re:FAA TFRs by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Flight restrictions around sporting events? Is it even legal to have an outdoor NFL game without a flyover?

    2. Re:FAA TFRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoever wrote this patent example obviously knows nothing about FAA security and flight restrictions around sporting events and other assemblies. Not gonna happen.

      Exactly what makes it so disruptive and lucrative. Probably will float one over the Whitehouse too with a giant "You can't TRUMP these discounts!!!" (With an obvious 15% going to his majesty of course).

    3. Re:FAA TFRs by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Black Sunday 77 remake plot

    4. Re:FAA TFRs by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Actually, this is the problematic part:

      An example cited in the filing was around a sporting event. If there’s a big championship game down below, Amazon AFC’s above could be loaded with snacks and souvenirs sports fans crave.

      Do you really think the stadium owners will allow someone else to cut in on the revenue of the food and souvenirs they sell? They'd be asking for such a big cut that Amazon would barely make any money.

      Besides which, the first time a drone drops out of the sky, there's real trouble. Out in the wider world, if a drone malfunctions and falls, there's only a small chance it will actually hit someone. Inside a stadium, the odds go way up.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re: FAA TFRs by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. There is NFW that they are going to allow that shit.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:FAA TFRs by lgw · · Score: 2

      Besides which, the first time a drone drops out of the sky, there's real trouble. Out in the wider world, if a drone malfunctions and falls, there's only a small chance it will actually hit someone. Inside a stadium, the odds go way up.

      God as my witness, I thought these turkey drones could fly!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:FAA TFRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WKRP....

    8. Re:FAA TFRs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money worth they make is dependent on the size of the interest rates. With short rates even small money is worth the while. Plus added hard to monetize or calculate value effects like fame, publicity, name, face, presence... though those would tend to be included in other relevant economic data at decision time. Plus we do not quite want there to be monopolies. I want to order arduinos and battery power packs from an airborne warehouse when I am camping and to have them delivered by drone to my own DIY air reception station... 3:-D3

  3. nice idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice idea you only need the energy to run it. Floating in the air takes a lot of energy.

    1. Re:nice idea by colinrichardday · · Score: 2

      Or a lot of helium.

    2. Re:nice idea by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Or a lot of helium.

      Maybe if they hired the right managers all that hot air could be put to actual use.

    3. Re:nice idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things will be death traps! Has everybody forgotten about the Hindenburg?!?!

    4. Re:nice idea by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Floating in the air takes a lot of energy.

      You fail at physics.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:nice idea by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      These things will be death traps! Has everybody forgotten about the Hindenburg?!?!

      The Hindenberg used hydrogen. Hydrogen is highly flammable. Helium is not.

      I can't believe I even have to post this. I guess Poe's Law made me do it.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:nice idea by zlives · · Score: 1

      wonder if this will have the patented arrow defense as well.

    7. Re:nice idea by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Not really needed.... you could shoot at WW1 zeppelins all day as the hydrogen wasn't kept at high pressures. They just had a guy wandering around with a bucket of epoxy to patch holes. It wasn't until the incendiary bullets that they had any major issues.

    8. Re:nice idea by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      What sealed the fate of the Hindenburg was the following:

      - damp mooring lines (from rain) that could conduct electricity between the ship and the ground
      - a thunderstorm that increased the strength of ambient electric fields
      - a tear in the ship's outer skin that exposed the metal frame and caused a leak of hydrogen to the outside

      All of this caused a discharge between the mooring lines and the metal frame in the vicinity of a leak. Kaboom.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:nice idea by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen in a rigid airship is kept in bladders, a tear in the outer covering wouldn't cause a massive leak. A blimp is a different story where the craft is kept rigid by pressurized gas. A zeppelin is NOT a blimp. Different animal even if they look similar from the outside.

    10. Re:nice idea by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      So painting the rigid exterior (that's not air tight, FYI) in rocket fuel had no impact on the flammability? I'm curious why you would leave that off your list

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    11. Re:nice idea by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The Hindenberg used hydrogen. Hydrogen is highly flammable. Helium is not.

      Pretty much all the helium airships crashed as well. Maybe not crashed and burned, but well and truly crashed. And some of the hydrogen airships survived until decommissioned. Fire is far from the only enemy of airships.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  4. SAM PATENTS FLYING SHIT FROM THE GROUND TO A BLIMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch:

    Sam, that being me, has announced he has patented flying shit from ground based "warehouses" to Airborne Fulfillment Centers. These ground based "warehouses" are like the standard blimp full of shit we all know and love, but on the ground.

    "With this patented new technology", I was quoted as saying, "we can fly goods produced on the ground to an AFC so that they may then be flown to the ground for delivery".

    Apple is expected to announce they have invented this technology when they reveal their half baked version in three years. U2 will headline the presentation.

  5. Hindenburg 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agent Lana Kane: OK then. What did you want to talk about?
    Cyril Figgis: Um, well, uh, a lot of stuff really.
    [there is a loud explosion]
    Cyril Figgis: Starting with the fact that we just bombed Ireland.
    Agent Lana Kane: Um, pretty sure that's Wales.

  6. oh the humanity by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Funny

    oh the humanity

    1. Re: oh the humanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huge manatee? Where?

  7. Amazeppelins! by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Funny

    (That's all I wanted to say.)

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  8. Try reading at least the headline by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Traditionally at Slashdot, we don't read the article.
    We do, however, read the headline, which generally gives a grossly exaggerated and politically skewed summary of the topic.

    1. Re:Try reading at least the headline by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Given many of the comments these days, I am not convinced that many people (or bots, can't really tell) even endeavor to read The Fine Headline.

      Maybe we should limit everything to 140 characters. Works for the Prez...

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Try reading at least the headline by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Obama tweets?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  9. Prototype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did we start patenting imaginary ideas without proof they work?

    1. Re:Prototype? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      When did we start patenting imaginary ideas without proof they work?

      1450.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Prototype? by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When did we start patenting imaginary ideas without proof they work?

      It has been standard practice since the mid-1980s.

      The patent system has been converted into a system for large corporations to erect entry barriers and hobbles for competitors. They can afford to create a portfolio of merit-less patents to use as legal weapons against competitors and defenses against other large corporations with similar merit-less patent portfolios.

      Invention, innovation, advancing the public good through demonstrations of superior art, have almost nothing to do with it anymore, except accidentally. But the corporations are very happy, and that's what count these days.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Prototype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent system has been converted into a system for large corporations to erect entry barriers and hobbles for competitors. They can afford to create a portfolio of merit-less patents to use as legal weapons against competitors and defenses against other large corporations with similar merit-less patent portfolios

      Only Patent trolls are using the "merit-less patents" as legal weapons. The large and patent insatiable corporations are using them as trading cards between themselves like a game of Pokèmon, and will general sell or license the patent to startups or buy the startup if they have high potential value.

      The patent trolls give the patent game a bad name and should be subject to penalty.

  10. Black Sunday by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  11. Think of the possibilities! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Blimps (or Zeppelins, if you really want to make them rigid instead) suffer from the combination of two problems: They're huge and fragile. Which is not as much a problem as long as there is no good reason to force it to come down, That's why those ad blimps you see at sporting events are flying up there. What's to gain by making it crash?

    It's a WHOLE different matter if that blimp is filled to the brim with merchandise that I might like or flying over a target that I might not like.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Think of the possibilities! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      They aren't terribly fragile, there is a fair amount of redundancy in modern ones. But junk filled dirigibles floating over major cities? What kind of dystopic future is that? Of course, since you have the thing up there, you would just have to put advertising on it. And communications gear. If you think that the FBI wandering over Baltimore with a Cessna and a high res camera is a problem, wait until you see these things....

      And since I'm annoyed and over tired, why the hell is this idiot general concept patented? TFA isn't talking about specific implementations just vague low grade science fiction drivel. Now, instead of being on the Internet, it's using a drone.

      Go back to shooting people into orbit like the rest of the crazy billionaires, Jeffrey.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Informative

      Practicality be shagged, I fucking totally love Zeppelins.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Think of the possibilities! by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Blimps or Zeppelins

      In your scenario they are called piñatas.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      How do you think they could be brought down? They aren't really vulnerable to small arms fire. If you built a fleet of sizable quadcopter drones with fuel supplies and flamethrowers you might be able to do it. But I think we can trust people not to do that.

    5. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior Art:
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j1o-LTKvfHg/UFqJa7cQVqI/AAAAAAAAF3s/POTtvuthfV0/s1600/MAD328-329.jpg

    6. Re:Think of the possibilities! by evilviper · · Score: 1

      They're huge and fragile.

      The British air force in WWI had a very difficult time taking down German Zeppelins that were bombing their cities with impunity for two and a half years. It was only the invention of the incendiary round, combined with the use of hydrogen as the lifting gas, which eventually made them vulnerable targets. If Germany had adequate supplies of helium, the Zeppelins might be remembered as invulnerable terror weapons like the V2 rockets are.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Ponder this: This blimp carries a few thousand bucks worth of merch. Now imagine you could make it crash where you can steal that easily.

      That's the upper level of what you should invest into bringing it down.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we're talking about VERY different times. The average consumer drone has a better lift/drag ratio than military plane of that time. They're also not dependent on oxygen for pilots and engines and hence can without a problem climb a lot higher.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Think of the possibilities! by Kohath · · Score: 1

      You probably can't make it crash. And if you try you'll get caught and go to prison for a long time.

    10. Re:Think of the possibilities! by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      At last a suitable target for sky pirates. The steampunks must be wetting themselves with excitement. (And, of course, with condensation. All that steam has to go somewhere.)

  12. Cool! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Something else for my boom stick to shoot at.

  13. And it's steam powered too by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually launching and retrieving flying vehiclies from massive airships is nothing new. the US Akron and US Macon were blimp aircraft carriers carring multiple planes able to both launch and retrieve.

    http://www.airships.net/us-nav...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    http://www.history.com/topics/...

    the russians even built planes that other planes could launch from
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    and Darpa still wants these:
    http://www.popsci.com/article/...

    and both the russians and Lockeed developed concept aircraft based on nuclear powered super planes with runways built into them:
    https://forums.spacebattles.co...
    russina surface effects nuclear powered sea skimmer concept:
    http://englishrussia.com/2015/...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:And it's steam powered too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But could they do it *on the Internet*??

    2. Re:And it's steam powered too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and with a computing device able to make server client connections?

    3. Re:And it's steam powered too by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Yup, and posting about it is nothing new either.

      https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re: And it's steam powered too by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I just read a book. It was nothing new. Every single word in it was either in other books I have read or the dictionary.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:And it's steam powered too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can we PLEASE STOP using precious and irreplaceable Rare Earth elements, you know Helium (He), for STUPID SHIT like this.
      There is no reason today's blimps can't be made to safely use Hydrogen (H).
      And no real reason to use blimps in the first place.
      Let alone fill and UTTERLY WASTE millions of little kids ballons with He every year either.
      Teach them about Hydrogen or resource depletion and conservation instead.

    6. Re:And it's steam powered too by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And no real reason to use blimps in the first place.

      Airships are good for lots of things, that they aren't good for everything doesn't change that at all. You're right about the H and He though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:And it's steam powered too by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      US Akron and US Macon were blimp aircraft carriers carring multiple planes able to both launch and retrieve.

      And both crashed in storms, as will Amazon's hare-brained idea if it ever (ahem) gets off the ground.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    8. Re: And it's steam powered too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry helium's easy to find if you actually look for it

    9. Re:And it's steam powered too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      READ MORE ABOUT IT BEFORE WORSHIPING THE IDEA, OPPENHEIMER.

      During her accident-prone 18-month term of service, the Akron served as an airborne aircraft carrier for launching and recovering F9C Sparrowhawk fighter planes. Akron was destroyed[5] in a thunderstorm off the coast of New Jersey on the morning of 4 April 1933, killing 73 of her 76 crewmen and passengers. This accident was the largest loss of life for any known airship crash

  14. Zeppelins and sporting events... sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not digging this. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075765/

  15. Eh No... by foxalopex · · Score: 2

    Actually the Hydrogen Blimps used in the World War were notoriously difficult to shoot down. The planes that eventually pulled it off were using explosive / incendiary rounds to pull it off. Regular bullets just wizz right through leaving holes. Nevermind the fact that firing your gun in the air in a populated area (this kind of distribution only really is effective in a city.) is probably going to get you in trouble. Nowadys they don't use hydrogen in Blimps. The Hindenberg mostly went up in a fireball because the shell was made of flamable material, not so much the gas.

    The drones might be shootable but the problem there is they'll have cameras that will likely spot you and it's not like you randomly shoot at aircraft right?

    1. Re:Eh No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fighter drones!

    2. Re:Eh No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring them down with T4 attached to drones as they travel across the country would be pretty awesome. A lot of loot to pick up.

      But my fantasy is to shoot them down with a P-51 Mustang.

    3. Re:Eh No... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But my fantasy is to shoot them down with a P-51 Mustang.

      You should probably plan to use a scale P-51. That's an awfully small and slow-moving target to attack with the real thing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. I don't get it by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    Someone explain why, if you know about a large public event in advance, why you would want a blimp to serve as home base when a truck can carry more weight, more cheaply, more easily serviceable, and without specialized people to look after it?

    Ideally suited for food delivery? Most food I know that people eat at sporting events is heated, requires heavy equipment to prepare/serve, etc. I don't get it.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traffic issues, a place to sell the items, labor costs, only able to sell to individuals in the immediate vicinity (1000 in the local area vs 100,000 in the entire event area) to name a few.

    2. Re:I don't get it by syntotic · · Score: 1

      Because you do not want a loader driver to suddenly realize he does not want to deliver there precisely (they have **reasons**, you see...), or that he wants to live in the place instead of that old fag and his feeble woman with the idiotic child genius...

  17. I think this says something sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about our society and what we value, bread, circuises, and trinckets delivered by air.

  18. Really dumb. by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of previous generations, it seems. The Hindenburg, the best of German engineering, needed special mooring masts, could not survive and had to evade rough weather, and overall had a horrible safety record, around a thousand times worse than modern planes.

    1. Re: Really dumb. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      The Hindunberg!!! Somebody should invent computers, flight control systems, and other modern technology that would make that a ridiculous thing to say!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  19. we need a troll trace for patent trolls! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    we need a troll trace for patent trolls!

  20. Re: Fist! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

    You forgot the "ed" at the end, which is no doubt WHERE you were f***ed.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  21. Doctor Who by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    There was an audio drama episode of Doctor Who from Big Finish titled The Warehouse, episode 202 of the monthly series, that dealt with something similar except the warehouse was in orbit. Big Finish creates audio dramas featuring the Doctors before the latest return to TV and gets the actors to reprise their roles. I'm enjoying them much more than what Steven Moffat has been putting out over the last couple of seasons.

  22. Well, now we know by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Wile E. Coyote really does work for Amazon.

  23. Goodbye stores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hail Amazon

  24. disaster relief? by jsepeta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Amazon could position their zepellins near areas affected by natural disasters, where they could supply the needy with clean water, blankets, clothes, food

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:disaster relief? by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Naw, the government would make that illegal. Can't have anyone profiteering on a disaster after all! People are required to just suffer with whatever emergency supplies are already in the area rather than pay a higher price for someone to hurry up and bring some in.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:disaster relief? by AlejandroTejadaC · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is exactly what I though when I first read about this. Ideally, drones should be able to follow an encrypted signal to find the exact spot to drop their delivery.

    3. Re:disaster relief? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      If Amazon makes a profit doing that, they'll get in trouble for "price gouging". It makes more business sense not to sell needed equipment or supplies to disaster victims.

      Certainly it doesn't make business sense to make any special effort to bring needed goods to disaster victims for sale -- because if they charge extra to cover the extra costs it's "price gouging" again. That really too bad for disaster victims who need stuff and would be willing to pay to make it worth Amazon's trouble.

    4. Re:disaster relief? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People are required to just suffer with whatever emergency supplies are already in the area rather than pay a higher price for someone to hurry up and bring some in.

      They won't have to pay a higher price, because Amazon can make a profit without jacking up their prices to take advantage of a natural disaster.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:disaster relief? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why charge any extra? The concentrated demand _decreases_ costs/

  25. around a sporting event by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because the feds let every tom dick and harry into the surrounding airspace during major sporting events.

  26. Patent B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't patent something just because new technology is added. It's been done before!

    1. Re:Patent B.S. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Tell them about it - http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacg...

  27. Damn Ruskies again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commies all of them!

  28. Very wasteful idea by Higaran · · Score: 1

    This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, if the wanted to set up mobile warehouses they could very very easily do it with maybe custom 40ft ISO shipping containers. Lets use their example of a sporting event, there are already mobile trailers setup outside of stadiums at every game selling shirts, you could sell alot of shirts out of a 40ft iso box. They could also make their own custom 53ft trailers, they can be setup like mini stores, with steps one side or more, and even an area could be made as a stock room. The systems are already in place to move them, and plus they could be restocked much more quickly and easily than a freaking blimp, once they are empty just move them back to the ware house and load them up.

  29. I can't decide ... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    Whether life is coming to resemble Buck Rogers ...

    If there's a big championship game down below, Amazon AFC's above could be loaded with snacks and souvenirs sports fans crave.

    or Snow Crash

    Amazon also recently patented a system to defend its drones against hackers, jammers and bows and arrows

  30. Amazon? by maxjax · · Score: 1

    Amazon? .. I thought this was Trump's new business plan.

  31. For apple? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    The only thing I can think where this would be a thing would be when Apple comes out with the next super-dooper phone. I know guys that HAVE to have it the moment it comes out. Their old phone is already sold to someone else.

    Other than that, I don't see this as a viable business. Weather can doom it as well. Hope I don't have to fly around these things.