The Interesting Thing About Google's Delivery Drones Is Not The Drones, But Massive Societal Shift They Envision
from the the-sharing-society dept
Alexis Madrigal, over at The Atlantic, has the big scoop story concerning Google's project to create delivery drones, in its Google X moonshot factory. The project, unimaginatively dubbed Project Wing, has many people comparing it to Amazon's similarly announced plans for delivery drones. And, of course, for years before that, we discussed ideas like the TacoCopter (and the LobsterCopter) which some people were trying to build to deliver food via drones. Google has confirmed the project (notably never using the term drone, but instead "self-flying vehicles") with this video:While most people are comparing this to Amazon's drone delivery idea, or talking about the nature of "instant gratification," it seems like many are totally missing the much bigger thinking behind Google's effort here. Like most truly disruptive innovations, the interesting thing here isn't in just delivering packages faster, but how such a move could totally reshape society -- a vision that the team behind this at Google apparently are well aware of. From Madrigal's writeup, this key part is buried in the middle, but is the most important point. This isn't about faster delivery. This is about how faster delivery can totally change our relationship to physical things:
People like to mock ideas like "the sharing economy" for putting things like homes and cars to more efficient use rather than leaving them idle all the time. But drones that can move things about easily, quickly and efficiently really could absolutely change how we think about property and ownership. Now, for those who are worried about Google, they might not like Google being at the center of this, but it's hardly likely that they'll be the only player in this space.The idea goes like this: Because people can’t assume near-instantaneous delivery of whatever they need, they stockpile things. They might have a bunch of batteries, slowly decharging in a drawer, or a drill that they use for 10 minutes a year. Each of these things is a personal possession that sits around, embodying all this energy and industrial effort unproductively.
If this sounds familiar, it should: It is the argument—even down to the drill example—that organizations like Worldchanging made in the mid-00s for the creation of “product-service systems.” Those ideas, in turn, became key planks in the original conception of the “sharing economy,” imagined as one in which the world could make much less stuff because efficient, digital logistics would let each asset be used by more people.
“It would help move us from an ownership society to an access society. We would have more of a community feel to the things in our lives,” Teller preached. “And what if we could do that and lower the noise pollution and lower the carbon footprint, while we improve the safety of having these things come to you?”
But this is also why the FAA's restrictions could be so damaging. The FAA, like so many government bureaucracies, has trouble viewing the future. They only view it through the prism of the past. So, drones are seen as toys that might "interfere with airplanes." The FAA is in absolutely no rush to allow commercial drone use (which is why Google's tests are all being done in Australia), because to FAA bureaucrats, what's the big deal? Drones are toys. The fact that they could reshape certain aspects of the way society works doesn't even enter the picture.
But if you're trying to understand where the future of innovation is going, dismissing projects like this as just being about toys -- or even just being about delivering things faster -- means that you're missing everything.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: consumerism, delivery, drones, economics, google x, ownership, predictions, sharing, sharing economy
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, BUT: their task gets markedly easier if the sky is full of drones -- free for the hijacking -- because that reduces their TCO quite a bit. It also provides them with an environment in which the presence of a drone or drones isn't anomalous.
Building weapon systems is tedious, error-prone, expensive, risky, and generally hard. Having someone else build them for you and then furnish them to you at zero cost is far more effective. See "ISIS" for a timely example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My biggest concerns are twofold. If these things are transporting expensive packages someone might try to 'shoot' or take it down to take the items on it. I guess if they are transporting specialized items, like a book that no one else besides the person ordering it would really care about, it might be OK.
The second is safety issues. Wind, weather fluctuations, rain, etc... might cause the thing to hit someone or damage property. A falling drone hitting someone at high velocity doesn't really seem that safe to me and if you have a bunch of these flying around all it might take is for a gust of wind to cause two of them to maybe collide or cause issues and fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The items would be in boxes, so someone would ether have to know what's in the box already, or would just have to randomly shoot down a drone and hope. Maybe really stupid criminals, but probably the same odds as someone smashing in your window and hoping to find something valuable. That's why they always warn you to put your valuable stuff under a ratty blanket or coat. Why bother smashing a window on a hope?
"Wind, weather fluctuations, rain, etc."
Most expensive drones have software in them to automatically (and faster then a human ever could) correct for wind, extra weight, loss of a propeller, that kind of thing using GPS. I would assume that the ones Google would be using are even smarter then that. Remember, they did buy that robot company with that really creepy dog thing not all that long ago. Maybe this is why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On top of all that, your phone GPS is a low grade GPS. Good enough for driving instructions, but it doesn't need to be that accurate. Higher end GPSes like property surveyors and military equipment can be accurate to within an inch (that stuff is far too expensive to put in a phone).
The expensive drones that the average person can buy can already do all this, so I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I would assume (and probably accurately) that Google has even better toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most expensive drones have software in them to automatically (and faster then a human ever could) correct for wind, extra weight, loss of a propeller, that kind of thing using GPS. I would assume that the ones Google would be using are even smarter then that. Remember, they did buy that robot company with that really creepy dog thing not all that long ago. Maybe this is why.
Correcting for wind is one thing - having anough power to overcome the wind is quite another. Recently a drone flew away in the UK because it passed through a wind shear layer and had insufficent power to exceed the wind velocity.
As a simpole rule of thumb - if its big enough to overcome the wind it's way too big to be a cheap delivery mechanism that can safely be flown automatically in the vicinity of people.
Remember Google also bought a D wave which is provably incapable of working as advertised.
Remember all the big companies that invested in cold fusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"if its big enough to overcome the wind it's way too big to be a cheap delivery mechanism that can safely be flown automatically in the vicinity of people. "
This brings up an interesting question of how you measure "safe".
On the one hand, the larger a bird is the more stable it is in the air (precisely because it is less susceptible to being buffeted around by winds) -- so in terms of risk of accident, the bigger it is the safer it is.
On the other hand, if a small bird crashes, the potential damage is much less than if a big bird does. So in terms of the effects of an accident, the smaller it is the safer it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, that does bring up an interesting twist to a delivery system made of drones. Is the weather clear enough for a delivery?
I'm not arguing that a business can be made out of this. I'm just saying that it's technically possible. Do I think Google will? Oh hell no, they're not even going to try. This is just one of the many things that Google has announced that they're fiddling with, but nothing will come directly from it. I'd expect that they're just going to use what they learn here and apply it to something else we haven't even thought of yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A single drone can't carry much in the way of explosives. And, being a single drone, it can only hit one target.
On the other hand, it's an awfully small, evasive target to hit if you're trying to take it out. I don't believe that there exists a weapon system capable of doing so in an urban environment. (Picture one flying above a downtown street at 100 feet. How, EXACTLY, do you plan to take it down before it reaches its target, and how, EXACTLY, do you plan to do that without inflicting a heck of a lot of collateral damage on everything and everyone in the vicinity?)
But it's not even necessary to involve explosives: in case anyone's forgotten recent history, flying objects make decent kinetic weapons. Particularly if they're directed straight down so that the v-squared part of mv^2 is large.
But this is all just the beginning. A competent attacker won't just use one drone: they'll use many, in order to either (a) hit multiple targets simultaneously or (b) swarm onto a single target. Armed or unarmed, that's a lot of high-speed objects to contend with. (Even merely disabling them -- so that they drop out of the sky passively -- could inflict a lot of casualties and damage depending on where it happened.)
We've already seen hideous security problems with "smart" cars. We've already seen hideous security problems with "the Internet of things". There is no reason to think that we won't see hideous security problems with drones, too. So attackers will be able to acquire them, whether by hijacking them in flight, or by compromising their C&C networks, or by the simple expedient of breaking into the warehouse where they're stored and loaded them into a truck. And when the inevitable happens, we will of course hear "nobody could have foreseen", as we always do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are going down the path of what Bruce Schneier calls a movie-plot threat.
Quoting from his essay:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that -- so far -- nobody seems to have undertaken a comprehensive study of the risks, whether their source is architecture, design, operation, fabrication, environment, third parties or anything else. Until that work is done, and until we have at least some idea of the scope and nature of the risks, EVERYTHING is a movie plot threat. And nothing is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny story. Undertaking a comprehensive study of the risks of a system looks absolutely nothing like trying to enumerate everything that can go wrong. That would be more like undertaking an empirical study of the risks, and is guaranteed to miss everything you can't think of.
The problem with movie plot threats is *not* that they aren't possible, it's that it's not worth protecting against a particular threat unless the protection offers broad benefits.
Armour-plated rotors protect against the single group of threats of the rotors being damaged by some projectile... a rotor system that survives loss of all but one rotor, or loss of power, or sudden turbulence, and glides to the ground at a much lower than terminal velocity - that protects against great swathes of threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only reason this could be a concern is if drones would be a substantially more effective attack vector than something else. I'm not seeing it - with the tiny amount of explosives a drone could carry (or the even tinier kinetic energy) it seems like the van full of fertilizer is still a way bigger threat. The only exception would be targets that aren't accessible to public street traffic. Is it possible one of those could be attacked? Sure, but is it really worth banning drones because of that fear? I guess in the US these days it's worth banning almost anything out of fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A van full of fertilizer is not going to be positioned directly in the flight path of a commercial airliner 12 seconds after takeoff. It's not necessary for a swarm of drones in that position to be carrying any explosive or significant kinetic energy; see "bird strike".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nobody is paying attention to what is happening around the airport that would work. Fortunately, there are controllers that would stop everything if a swarm of drones were hovering around the end of a runway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It says something for the makers of the world that such devices have not been built and used, but then such people do not usually want to impose their will on others, unlike those who go into management and politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cost/benefit would only make sense for a small number of targets. Terrorists usually go after easy, high-impact targets. I can think of three terrorist attacks against well-defended targets. One used a truck, and the other two hijacked aircraft.
Just to be clear I'm not saying it's not possible to have a terrorist attack with one of these. I'm just saying it's not something to worry about, because the difficulty of getting small, cheap drones is not the factor that's keeping terrorists from using them. Therefore the increasing availability will not result in a an increase in terrorist attacks. They might happen, but it would be attacks that terrorists would make anyway, just using a different technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They would still have to get explosives, which hasn't gotten any easier. And if you're talking about terrorists operating inside the US with easy access to high explosives, I think drones are the least of our problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you have to be 16 years old to buy gas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gasoline is great for starting fires, but it's not a particularly powerful explosive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: flying bombs
a) the same could apply to cars, vans, baby carriages..
b) people who are going to break the law ANYHOW, won't care too much if the FAA have approved their usage or not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: flying bombs
Also none of those things come equipped with remote control systems that feature baked-in miserable security.
Thus the security problems posed by drones are both qualitatively and quantitatively different than those posed by these other items.
That doesn't meant that drones are a bad idea. It does mean that some very serious thinking, designing, implementation and testing needs to go into them before they're permitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: flying bombs
And that makes drones more effective weapons why? Are flying things naturally scarier? What does flying allow a drone to attack that those other conveyances can't? Consider that baby carriages can be taken in elevators.
Also none of those things come equipped with remote control systems that feature baked-in miserable security.
So an explosive drone can be hijacked, and re-routed to a safe area with nobody around to land? That actually sounds awesome!
I'm not sure how much it matters if a non-explosive drone is hijacked.
That doesn't meant that drones are a bad idea. It does mean that some very serious thinking, designing, implementation and testing needs to go into them before they're permitted.
A quick look around the web shows me a huge community of amateur drone flyers in many countries. I think all that's not permitted at the moment is commercial use... or as others have already commented multiple times, if this is a threat then it already exists, and allowing commercial use will not increase the threat (of attack by drones) at all. It may be a bad idea for other reasons, but not for the reasons you're trying to push.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gosh golly see whiz ideas that seem great to a bunch of geeks and geekettes sitting around Googleplex just doesn't very often seem to turn into anything the public really craves.
So using Google as a barometer of the future or some sort of measuring stick for innovations isn't really the best idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You just don't seem to understand that to hit home runs you have to swing for the bleachers and be prepared to strike out a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google swing for the fences and points to the bleachers, but rarely hits them out of the park. Even when they look to have hit a home run, it seems to be a mirage.
For what it's worth, many in the smart phone world consider Android to be a real problem child, with way too many flavors of out of date operating systems and way too many variations and permutations. Writing software for it is a major PITA. So it's a success in some ways, but perhaps ripe to be wiped out by something better soon.
And don't get me wrong, Google has plenty of successes as well. It's just weird to see a company with clearly huge access and the ability to influence what the entire world sees and does not being able to move forward in very many areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"with way too many flavors of out of date operating systems and way too many variations and permutations."
Yeah, hows that working out for Apple? A more open platform may be hard to program for, but Windows is still king and if anything can kill it it's not Mac but Linux.
The way I see Google, they don't want to move with the crowd or just ahead of the crowd, but they want to lead the pack. Leading means that you can easily take a wrong turn.
I'd follow the same philosophy as Google if I had that kind of money. Throw anything and everything at the wall and see what sticks. Even if something doesn't stick, the technology behind it can be repurposed to make something else stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Having said that Google has had a reputation for starting random projects, keeping them for a number of years or whatever, and then suddenly discontinuing them after some people have become reliant on them perhaps because they don't think enough people use it. This gives people uncertainty and discourages people to rely on anything new that Goolgle tries knowing that in a year from now it might be discontinued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but the thing is, neither email systems nor mobile phone operating systems were anywhere near part of Google's "core business areas" when they started working on them. They don't have "some successes in their core business areas;" they try new things, and the ones that are successful become core business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Citation needed for all of that.
No experts that have written articles I read, which I do on an hourly basis pretty much, have said anything of the sort. That also includes some of the awesome male and female developers who are known and lauded in the XDA Developer forums.
While there are numerous versions of the OS, the majority of devices are on Jelly Bean and Kit Kat at this point in time. To be a bit more precise, devices on Jelly Bean account for about 54% of Android devices and devices on Kit Kat account for roughly 20% of Android devices. This means about three quarters of Android devices out there are running literally the latest version of the OS or the one just before it, which is not that out of date and in point of fact a pretty good version to be running. The reason for this is that even the latest devices like Android Wear can work with them and pair easily to them.
Also, any developer worth his or her salt uses the Android SDK and all it contains to properly code for the various devices (since there are so many in various shapes and sizes) and versions of the OS.
In other more not so nice terms, you're full of shit until you prove otherwise. I can and will cite sources that prove you wrong, but since you made the claim the onus is on you to back it up first before I rip it completely to shreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only people struggling with the different versions are those trying to stream video or do other hardware-intensive things that are bypassing the API.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blech, Visual Studio...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whatever is full of shit? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Somebody, someplace, is working on what's next, and since neither you nor I nor anyone else actually know what next is, there is a need to try a bunch of stuff. Only some of it will work, and even less will be 'next'. Is Google doing better than 1/10,000?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see how the article said anything about using Google as a barometer. In fact, it says it's likely that others will go down this path as well. It just says that Google's *vision* of where this goes shows that the impact of drones is likely to be much bigger than what many folks envision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outside of their core businesses they are generally failures
All that crazy stuff about writing their own web browser - who is going to use that? IE is going to have 90% of the market forever (unless Firefox takes some of it).
And remember when they said they were going to compete against Apple in smartphones? Crazy again, no way they'll even get 10% market share.
And then they said they were going to design their own cloud-based laptops and compete against Microsoft? No way anybody will buy any of those.
And the time they were going to introduce an email service? Ha.
And - I heard they want to make their own maps of the whole world! How will that ever pay, I can't imagine.
Yup, all of Google's attempts to branch out into new businesses are doomed to complete failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: outside of their core businesses they are generally failures
And the time they were going to introduce an email service? Ha."
Yes, GMail exists, but it's a piece of shit used exclusively by gullible and naive morons who don't know any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: outside of their core businesses they are generally failures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The criminal side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The criminal side
I think physics might just be the best deterrent to using them as flying targets. Clay pidgin shooting is a giant pain in the ass, and they're much closer.
Even if someone did manage to shoot one down, these things have GPS and are constantly phoning home. It wouldn't be hard to track down the drown and then find who did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The criminal side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, though, taken to a logical conclusion, this would make living fully "ex-urb" (even more so than farm country) somewhat practical - indeed, in the end, together with telecommuting and remote learning, it could conceivably obsolete roads themselves (though I find that rather unlikely for a *long* time yet). I could see some folks opting to live in small communities of like-minded neighbours, with no access for mechanical land transport but still enjoying most of a 21st century lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can they make those things look like owls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 reason it'll never work - not economical
It takes fuel to lift weight off the ground, even more fuel then cars and trucks use, which only use fuel to go forward on the ground. Cars and trucks don't lose fuel fighting against the earth's gravity.
Worse yet, the heavier the load you're lifting, the more fuel the drones will burn. Not to mention the drones have to lift their own weight to. And the drones themselves might be quite expensive to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
That saves some of the fuel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
I imagine the best way to use drones will be making the post office obsolete. Send out a flight of drones every morning to drop of the mail. The drones can be stored close to the point of delivery to reduce flight time and cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
1) How can I make a light battery that can hold a high charge for a long time.
2) How can I make a solar panel that is 100% efficient.
I know people are working on this as we speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
Besides, there is nothing preventing some helicopter-like design tweaks to get significant lift from forward velocity. This would have some other advantages like the ability to make a semi-controlled descent to a safe(r) location in case of main power or multiple rotor failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1 reason it'll never work - not economical
People who say "this will never work" so often end up looking stupid later...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stockpile
Point is; I bought those batteries very cheaply, at a discount club. Just how much are the drone delivery guys going to get for 4 batteries when my remote goes down, and just how instantaneous is it? I need that remote, and I need it now.
There is at this point a savings in buying in bulk, there is a number where it is worth your wile if you will use it up in time and have the space to store it. 200 razor blades, 50 water filters, what ever, I'll take the savings & truly have it instantaneously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stockpile
It will be difficult to get over the "I want to own it" of this generation, but the next generation may find it convenient to not own a serving platter - and just have one brought to them for occasional use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stockpile
And yes, I agree there is a balance among speed, convenience, and cost, but this technology has the potential to make some significant shifts in how we do things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If so, Soviet technology is vastly underappreciated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They weren't total idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...dismissing projects like this...means that you're missing everything."
Loaded with explosives?! No new technology required. It is merely a curiosity that no one has bothered to do this YET. I'm thinkin' it's 'cuz trucks and passenger airliners hold a LOT more explosives.
Not economical?! Yikes, the cost saving and reduced environmental and carbon footprint from producing, storing, purchasing, etc. hugely fewer instances of everything and paying only for limited use alone overwhelms that argument. Of course this also implies the issues of why the approach will be so sternly resisted...reduced sales of all durable goods. Black & Decker wants EVERYONE to own a circular saw. Just like all sectors of the manufacturing sector the business model is not about eco-friendly cost savings for consumers.
"Disruption" is a magical word. Keep aiming for the parking lot, Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "...dismissing projects like this...means that you're missing everything."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transporters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think any of that impacts anything said here.
That said, my favorite story about Stanley Jevons, by the way, is that when he died, he had an entire room in his home filed, floor to ceiling, with paper. He believed that the world was going to run out of it.
Related to that, by the way: Jevons is a useful warning for those who bet against techno utopianism. Based on his work, he believed that, in part because of the Jevons Paradox, the world was in serious trouble in 1860, noting that the world would soon run out of coal, and the source of wealth and improvement would soon go away. Almost immediately after that, oil was discovered...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to get into a borrowing society
There have been plenty of ideas to start borrowing/ sharing programs where people can rent a drill for a project and give it back, but people seem to think it's better to buy a drill that they'll barely use instead of renting it.
So maybe Google's drones may not get off the ground, but maybe this will help move society towards a more "we don't really need to buy this if we can borrow it" attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to get into a borrowing society...We do?
Most of the sharing economy so far seems to enrich a tiny number of middle men who own the distribution platform, with inconsistent or questionable benefit to users/customers. I do NOT see Google in that role though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turkey shoot
You yanks love your guns, I imagine a lot of moving target shooting practice would be the result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]