I really hope they don't use the word 'drone' when these go to market. This is my new least favorite overloaded word since 'hack'.
There are two kinds of autonomous flying machines that we call drones: small quadcopters that hobbyists fly around, and winged planes that our govt. uses to monitor and attack their enemies.
Most people think drone == drone. So there are two camps. The first thinks all drones are killing machines. This is wrong and causes irrational fear about our cool toys. The other camp thinks all drones are the friendly Amazon delivery helicopters. This reduces their concerns about a troublesome government program.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I just wish we'd separate the terms so we can deal with toys and war machines separately.
> There are two kinds of autonomous flying machines that we call drones: small quadcopters that hobbyists fly around, and winged planes that our govt. uses to monitor and attack their enemies.
In most cases (in both classes), aren't these remotely piloted rather than autonomous? (And there are several others -- the term is generally used for remotely piloted vehicles, including, e.g, target drones.)
> I just wish we'd separate the terms so we can deal with toys and war machines separately.
"Military drones", "Armed drones", "Predators", are all terms of various specificity that are in use to specifically refer to the "war machine" kind.
"Delivery drones", "civilian drones", and other terms of varying specificity are in use to specifically refer to the other kind.
I don't really see any problem when "drone" itself is used in a context where the kind of drone doesn't need further specification in the term, since the longer description already tells you which class it falls in.
I suppose they will use real drones,the ones that are semiautonomous(even military have not 100% autonomous machines, as they have problems recognizing another objects in the air so they need pilots on land).
About personal drones nos being as powerful as military, well, like computers it is about time. I have several drones with ARM processors on them that could do amazing things, bad things too.
I dislike the use of the word drone too. To me it means something that is autonomous. Most hobby quadcopters are not autonomous, although they could be with a sophisticated flight controller. So they can technically be autonomous but usually they are not. So "drone" is a generalisation. It's kind of like saying "I drove my vehicle" rather than "I drove my car".
Are they really worth that? Well, no not really :-) They desperately need to justify this valuation somehow. Watch this space. They'll be acquiring startups left and right most likely. And entering new markets. What is the flavor of the month? Drones of course. So, there you are.
That said, I think everyone will have very high expectations for this. But who will it be for? Drones are the new "toy for grownups", very similar to GoPro cameras. Anyone in the market for a DJI phantom, or one of the myriad Pixhawk-based "follow me drones" to hit kickstarter last year (airdog, etc.)
The current de facto standard is a GoPro on some sort of DJI or DJI-clone quadcopter. That's a monopoly the brand would be foolish not to try to exploit - and rebadging a clone quad with some GoPro-ness (physical robustness, integrated photography and control app, some follow-me features maybe) is a fair bet.
Great, more plastic trash. Nobody talks about what happens with these drones when they break, are outdated, or the owner dumps them: they end up in our oceans or landfill, which eventually makes its way to the oceans through floods. The companies should incur this environmental damage. Instead they only reap the profits and let us keep the damage.
I highly suggest reading the book "Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things" by Michael Braungart & William McDonough. Essentially the book explains how things currently are made in a "Cradle to Grave" style, meaning products are sourced from the earth and then deposited back in an unusable form. Cradle to cradle would be where a product is made and when it's life is up we reuse the product's materials to build a new product. This is not how recycling works. Recycling could be better described as "downcycling" in that every time say plastic is recycled it's grade is lowered and it becomes less useful due to being mixed with other plastics and contaminates. The book explains this much better than I and is also a great primer on material science.
Here's a simple example of how a consumer product can be created in a cradle to cradle fashion.
1) Raw materials are sourced from the earth.
2) Raw materials are manufactured together in a way where they can easily be seperated.
3) Product ends up with a consumer.
4) Product lifecycle ends.
5) Manufacturer pays consumer for the product.
6) Manufacturer uses product's raw materials for step 2.
This sounds really interesting; I'll check that book out.
That said, I'm sympathetic to your parents sentiment. If I was taught correctly, the "reduce, reuse, recycle" arrow diagram is meant to be exercised in order:
1) reduce (your consumption)
2) reuse (a product or material in its existing state; repair if necessary.)
3) recycle (as a last resort - it's expensive, and if the usefulness of the current <thing> isn't completely used, you're wasting it.)
This is why I (for better or worse), don't take the Prius owners seriously when they look down their noses at my still 100% viable 40-year-old air-cooled VW.
I'm convinced the push for greater recyclability of vehicle parts is having a worse effect. A new VW is full of plastic parts which seem to have a ten year lifespan at best. Too many of these breaking render the vehicle uneconomic to repair. The result is that eh vehicle is scrapped and parts recycled. Great- except that recycling takes an enormous amount of energy, and building a new car and getting it to the consumer takes another enormous amount of energy (and materials). It would have been better if the original vehicle had a longer economic life.
That is the book that got me so excited about the premise of Google's Project Ara a few years before it started. I really want that sort of initiative to succeed..!
I'm with you completely. With the re-usable resources I have in my RC-model 'section' of my personal laboratory, I can fabricate any number of different flying machines - quadcopter included. The only reason thats possible is because the idea of re-using parts is and has been an essential part of the RC/Flying-thing hobby sphere, for almost a century now.
The old saying goes: Build -> Fly > Crash -> Goto Beginning (Build..)
In the RC/Flying-thing hobby sphere, we're sort of experiencing our own "Long September" with the entry of all these new pilots, who don't seem to have much field discipline, nor construction/re-construction skill of any worth. It is really disturbing to see it happen at some flight fields, but it is a matter of market and economy - and, somehow, general willingness to commit to the hobby rather than just consume it.
For the cost of one ShinyCatalog-friendly disposable drone, (Parrot, I'm looking at you.. DJI too..), you can get yourself a full set of electronics and parts and other components, and use it to build yourself a fleet of different flying machines.
In short: crashing is part of the hobby. By parts you can crash easily; learn to build, too! building is a big part of the hobby - or at least, should be.
There are two kinds of autonomous flying machines that we call drones: small quadcopters that hobbyists fly around, and winged planes that our govt. uses to monitor and attack their enemies.
Most people think drone == drone. So there are two camps. The first thinks all drones are killing machines. This is wrong and causes irrational fear about our cool toys. The other camp thinks all drones are the friendly Amazon delivery helicopters. This reduces their concerns about a troublesome government program.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I just wish we'd separate the terms so we can deal with toys and war machines separately.