I used to be a loyal 3DR customer and owned both the Iris+ and Solo. Both were very capable and had some outstanding features, but DJI pushed them out of the market pretty quickly. They did so by flooding the market with a broader range of models, and then reduced the price of their mid tier models which killed 3DR sales. The day I read that 3DR had sold their mapping software (Site Scan) to DJI, the writing was on the wall.
I unloaded all my 3DR stuff that weekend and now own a Mavic Pro and a Spark.
Having been following the industry for about 5 years now, I'm not sure there are any viable competitors to DJI. There are some smaller players like Yuneec, but the technology and price points can't compare to DJI. It's the same thing GoPro found out the hard way. Stumble once, and DJI just sweeps up the crumbs and forces you out of the market.
I thought the Solo was killed by a random flyaway malfunction...at least, that's what I read when I was trying to figure out why it was available for like 400 bucks. Is that not the case?
I ended up buying a Mavic Pro. Never even so much as saw a Solo in person. In your experience, how do they compare?
The Solo was rushed into production in order to try and compete with DJI's new Phantom 3 line.
The Phantom 3 was way ahead of the Solo in nearly every spec. Better camera (4K vs. 1080p), longer battery, longer range and better GPS. Many users I know attribute the controller issues with the fact 3DR used some proprietary GPS instead of the more common one the DJI models used.
The nail in the coffin though was the gimbal. The P3 came with a three axis gimbal, even on their entry model. The Solo, because it was rushed, at first didn't even ship with a gimbal and they said they would sell it separately as an add-on. Then it shipped with one that didn't move at all (http://macnn.mnmcdn.com/article_images/128157-md-26378-Solo_...), and when they finally got the three axis one on there, it was already too late. I also found out later a lot of the demo's they did the Solo's they were using had souped up GPS and other software they didn't have on the retail models people were getting.
My Solo had a lot of the common issues. It would take off fine, but only go about 75ft and then hover, then the gps would cut in and out and I'd panic and have to land it. Sent it back a few times and nothing was ever resolved. After my third replacement, I threw in the towel. My Iris+ was far more dependable and I only ever had really minor issues with it. A simple re-calibration always fixed any issues. I had a three axis gimbal on it with a gopro Hero 5 and it was always dependable. I ended up selling it because I could go from hauling around a huge Pelican 1650 case to my backpack with the Mavic.
After having both, I finally came to the conclusion DJI has a far superior product. They're innovating faster, and packing way more tech into their drones than any other company. Add in the fact they're making these things smaller and smaller. It makes it WAY easier to transport. Like I said, I can toss my chrome bag over my shoulder, walk into the city, unpack and get my Spark up in a matter of minutes, get some footage and get out before the cops show up. No way I could do that with either the Solo or the Iris. The startup time for both was several minutes (anywhere from 2-5 mins) to get a GPS lock. With the Spark and Mavic its almost instantaneous.
Hope this helps. My advice is to stick with DJI, even their entry models are better than most mid range drone models from other companies.
But for a pet project I also bought a cheap sub-80 euros clone off of alibaba (found the same on amazon.fr a few euros more expensive), and I have to say the quality of it was good enough for most usage I actually have, and it came with equipment to attach it, take it underwater, ...
To the point I realized, if I had neither now for my need that cheap one with a good sd card would be enough.
There is obviously a place for GoPro as a brand but given how the bazillion smartphone camera optics produced every years helped improve the field immensely in price/quality, their attempt to capture the market while having decent margins was doomed. Most people will prefer "good enough, third of the price".
I have the Eken H9 Action Cam. 46$ on AliExpress. Works just fine, battery lasts for about an hour and 20 min on a full charge at room temperature. I believe the GoPro lens has better distorsion correction and image stabilization for 7x the price, but otherwise the Chinese camera is good. It splits the recordings into 30 min files. I use it as a dash cam and to record Kendo training sessions from a fixed point.
There's a video review of this camera and other cheap cams on Youtube by a user named redskull.
Many are rebrands of SJCAM models (I think at least). I call them "GoFaux" or "FauxPro" :-)
A year or two ago I got a 1080p one from Hobbyking for about £40 and used it when snorkelling (the waterproof case came for free). It has been great and my only complaint are the buttons on the waterproof case are a bit stiff to press. Video quality is excellent. I dont have a GoPro to compare it against, but from what I've seen on YouTube et al, it certainly seems competitive (sorry I dont have any clips online).
There are many, many, many on amazon - prices vary a lot though so with 10 minutes you can usually filter out the optimistically priced items and find the sensible zone. I'd not expect to pay more than about £50 for a 4K + Wifi one
Those cheap chinese knock offs are made with cheap components and I have no doubts that the factory conditions are terrible. I wouldn't be suprised if the supply chain for these cheap cameras will be shutdown with China finally being serious about pollution.
I don't disagree about the conditions, but if that doesn't stop people from buying their 15 bucks t-shirt or their overpriced Nike, it's not going to stop them with their cameras
True, but I still bring it up because it's a conversation worth having. And if one more person starts to realize the harm in buying cheap goods from China, hopefully we will eventually change this trend. I for one try to only buy goods that are made locally to me. Sure, it will cost more but I look at it as an investment.
>>And if one more person starts to realize the harm in buying cheap goods from China, hopefully we will eventually change this trend.
Textiles and clothing are already starting to be made in India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam because Chinese factories are too expensive for simple manufacturing. Globalism ensures that "harm" will be exported from rich countries to the poor ones. The economic incentives are extremely powerful, and a handful of well-meaning people won't fix that.
What happened in China - and is currently happening - is that their industrial revolution occurred and they are now making increasingly better products with an increasingly more educated and skilled workforce, no different than what happened in the United States. As prices of labor and factories go up, the low-hanging fruit is exported elsewhere.
Check your - or your friend's, since you try not to buy clothing like this - Nike shirts and see where they are made. Anything new is likely not to be made in China.
Very well could be. But it's certain that any cheaply made item is going to have poor working conditions, poor quality of life, and poor return on investment. I think we need to define what I mean by "expensive" because, for example, an iPhone can be thought of as expensive purchase but I honestly think it is too cheap. What I mean is that we need to evaluate the total cost of ownership. "Is this item that I'm buying made in a way that benefits humanity?"
For example, the LED light bulb market had such promise but now is flooded with cheaply made bulbs that are made with components that will fail before they should. The pollution cost to mine all the rare earth materials that go into these light bulbs are not reflected in their final cost, and in my opinion, they should be.
The items I have made in China are superior in quality and the customer service I get is better than American factories by a huge amount. All Chinese factories due is pick up the margin that American companies try to live off of (and yes, this includes costs of labor); this does not mean or guarantee that there is poor return on investment.
Your theories are not very well-founded, and frankly, pretty racist. The idea that a bunch of engineers in China can't make equivalent - or better - products than those in the United States is ridiculous and shown to be false by everyday life in the devices we use.
>>The pollution cost to mine all the rare earth materials that go into these light bulbs are not reflected in their final cost, and in my opinion, they should be.
This is a separate issue from the second sentence you posted. Maybe you are right. But almost no politician is interested in discussing these issues. Ironically enough, the most vocal supporter you have on this issue is Donald Trump.
In some cases, I’ve gotten products off AliExpress that were made far more robustly internally than the name-brand product they were imitating (not direct knockoffs pretending to be authentic, just obvious imitations).
The economics of buying from AliExpress/Alibaba can work out slightly differently than buying from a Western company that’s sourcing from China. Cutting out the middleman allows them to sell it at a price that I find cheap while they’re still able to capture far more profit than from a wholesale purchase. Potentially improving conditions vs if you bought the non-knock off.
Not to say that happens in every case. Nor as a broad comment on the conditions of factory work in China. But food for thought on the benefit of buying directly from Chinese companies.
Those cheap chinese knock offs are made with cheap components
I would have to dig deep into my prior comments to find the source, but it was in response to my comment that GoPros don't seem to be a better user experience than the "cheap Chinese knock-offs" (direct quote). Then someone came along with a link pointing out that a GoPro is the cheap Chinese knock-off. They just silk screen their name on it.
"Those cheap chinese knockoffs" are the same parts as the GoPro, made in the same factories. Just buy the cameras and compare them and you'll see this is obvious.
As for your prediction of shutdowns and seriousness of pollution, well, that remains to be seen. As someone who does import/export of goods in Chinese factories... I have my doubts.
I've got a Hero2 or Hero3, I think. I just don't know why I'd replace it. I mean, I wouldn't mind 4k video, I suppose (assuming mine can't do it, I really don't know). But it's a toy I rarely use, and I can't fathom why they needed Hero3/Hero4/Hero5/Hero6 Silver/Black/etc editions. I know the Sessions are smaller, but even after consulting charts on the matter, I'm confused about which one would be the best replacement for what I have -- and, again, a purchase I probably wouldn't repeat for another 8 years or so.
The DJI Mavic introduced right after the GoPro Karma pretty much ended its future. You would have thought gopro would have been partnered with so many drone makers years ago instead of going at it alone. That company needs a new leader.
Possibly. Given the number of competitors in the "adventure camera" business like Contour and a variety of Chinese manufacturers, they're going to end up taking hits on it. Their cameras are already very pricey -- part of the reason why I went with a Contour.
Another DJI victim. As an industry insider, if there ever was a company I'm impressed with is DJI.
Their technical depth and ability to evolve their product and get it to shelves on short cycles is unmatched.
Note drone entrepreneurs - if there's money to be made in drones, DJI will take it to itself.
The thing is that you simply can't compete with the vertical integration of DJI. Taking images and videos is still by far and large the reason to fly drones in the first place, and once you own the vertical stack and can integrate your imagers with the electromechanics (gimbal) you get to a very small and efficienct package.
Think about that: for every gram of camera, you need two grams of stabilizer, then you need four grams of drone and battery to carry that. While DJI just stabilize their optics and sensor, GoPro stabilizes an entire 80g, bulky camera. This is mainly why the Karma is so big and heavy compared to the DJI Mavic (there are some advantages to DJI in propulsion and batteries but those are pretty small; not a lot of proprietary tech in those fields).
DJI has miles and miles to go on the support, quality, and remediation side, though. I've owned three DJI drones, starting with a Vision 2 Plus, and I've never once had a positive support or defect experience. Not one. The software is clunky, but getting better, and they badly want to lock you into their ecosystem -- as in, you must sign in to their cloud system now to use their controllers, and it tracks all your flights.
The ability to say "yes, I know, DJI, the tiny grass strip 1km from my house is an airport, but I'm fully FAA compliant with this flight" requires a multitude of steps, involving both their app and a Web browser and copying and pasting serial numbers from fields that do not permit copying, then the authorization you get only lasts for 72 hours, so you have to do it again. Otherwise you have to pay to be a "big pants" customer, but even then the experience is less-than-ideal, with a lot of pros turning to Russian software that doesn't perform the legal validation checks, etc. You literally cannot obtain this authorization without an Internet connection, because they store your attestations for liability insulation. So if you're in the field, and you forgot to convince DJI that you're legal before you went out, you're driving back to cellular range.
DJI's interaction with regulation, in particular, is a very broad example of protecting themselves from liability by shunting a lot of work to users of the equipment.
They also assume you have an Internet connection by deferring to Google Maps, with no offline ability that I can find. Google Maps does support offline now, but the way they embed it in the controller software, if I'm out of cellular range (which is a lot), my map box is a giant grid that moves around with the drone and nothing else.
I wouldn't remotely consider them for professional work, the way they're going, and I say that having dabbled in cartography, farming applications, and aerial photography. Sure, they can get gear out, which is where you're coming from, but there's a lifecycle of gear ownership that they pretty much entirely ignore.
Also, the ability to say "yes, I know, DJI, my local government is requesting that you deny all flights in the area, but they are literally shooting innocent people and I would like to document that" is nonexistent by design.
Which, fair enough - Chinese company. But the fact that such a sentiment could also, from the point of view of the software, be something like "I need to deliver life-saving medicine and the bridge is out" does not factor into their decision-making.
That is totally fair. It's just a good example of why it would be nice to see more competition in this space rather than less.
Although on the other hand, it's just a tool. My hobbyist wrench doesn't refuse to work on a bolt that asks it not to. My professional screwdriver doesn't have extra authentication built in.
It’s “just a tool,” but without the built in restrictions you can be sure there would be even greater numbers of morons doing stupid stuff with drones. DJI is doing what many companies from Facebook to Smith & Wesson have been critiqued for NOT doing: putting in some basic protections against entirely predictable user behaviors, and self-regulating in the hope of avoiding government regulation.
> Another DJI victim. As an industry insider, if there ever was a company I'm impressed with is DJI.
But, but HN says Chinese companies are inherently incapable of innovation because of culture/socio-politics/other pet peeve./s
DJI beat Lily (not that they were as advanced as they claimed with faked footage) and now GoPro. How is 3DRobotics doing? I haven't heard any news from/about them in a while.
IMHO, they are wrong. GoPro has build a very good reputation. If the margins are too small, they could increase their prices and slightly erode their reputation. If they quit, they lose what they have build. A long time ago, I have heard the story of a sotfware company that was on the verge of bankruptcy because of their small margin. They decided to triple their prices and update the packaging. They have lost half their clients and saved the company that became very profitable. When Oracle bought Sun, they almost double the prices of many services. If Sun did it, maybe it would last longer.
I purchased one of their panoramic cameras a while back for eval. The thing was ok, but under-specced and overpriced in the market, and their support was _awful_. Never again.
I agree. Investors tend to group GoPro in with FitBit and several other niche personal technologies. There are some nuances that get lost in translation from consumer to investor.
I have owned a number of their products, and have (twice) sent in a Hero4 for a free replacement after it stopped working. I use these cameras during long distance trips on my motorcycle, so I don't think the failures of those two cameras were entirely due to a manufacturer's defect. Still, no questions asked, they took care of me and even sent me a free gift after the second time one of my store-bought Hero4's malfunctioned.
I like the product and the connectivity has gotten a lot better with the Hero6.
There is a lot of space left in drone industry, but mostly in niches.
1. Serious UAV for serious aerial photography. DJI still suck there, but the distance from their best offer and the nearest competitor is around $180k USD
2. Serious UAV for remote sensing. DJI simply has no offers there other than a consumer handheld ir camera screwed on to a quad
3. High performance. DJI still can't approach mid-tier amateur aerobatic brands
4. Agricultural use, chemical sprayer. DJI has something for Chinese internal market, but they get steamrolled by domestic competition.
5. High payload. DJI have nothing made specially for this niche
GoPro is exiting the consumer space and decided it couldn't compete with the professional space, which DJI completely dominates.
I personally think it's a smart move by GoPro because I don't see any growth potential in the consumer space with flights being banned anywhere interesting.
The biggest problem I have with GoPro is price. I've lost a few cameras surfing and I'd be willing to give up quality for a concession on price.
Alternatively, if they made their product more find-able through some sort of tracking/recovery feature, I'd be happy to spend $600 on their camera.
Same type of problem with their drone, not enough features that protect the investment to make it worth the money. For instance, it isn't waterproof. That would at least give me a reason to buy it over a DJI model.
I've almost lost a camera kayaking a couple or three times, when the glue on the mounting base comes loose. I usually use one of those orange floaty things on it. I suppose you could also tie a tether between the camera and your board.
I lost a camera while whitewater kayaking. Flipped, hit something upside down, and the housing latch popped open letting the camera fall out. Amazingly, GoPro support sent me a free replacement.
I surf with mine all the time. Are you using the mount that came with the camera, or the actual surf mount that they sell?
The actual surf mount comes with a leash that you can tie to the camera. You can also attach one of those orange floaty blocks to your camera to make it easier to find.
Using GoPro-branded surf camera mount, tether, and float. One time the tether broke, the other time the tether pulled the plastic bit off the board.
Neither time did the float help me. Both times were in pretty heavy 2’ overhead surf and my body made contact with the cam while trying to pigdog through a pinching barrel but not making it.
The issue is they have been doing me too mentality for the last 3 years.
Cheap GoPro eroded their margins, and ignored the fact that for most people their cell phone is good enough for video.
Karma, and their gimbal is great, but products like Rylo saw the future as being motor-less. And after using it, I agree.
If the karma had built a battery-less Fusion, they would have had something that was new, instead of trying to play catch up and gerry-rigging a GoPro to a drone.
I still have hope, but they got take more risks and build their future not someone else's.
The Rylo camera looks amazing. If GoPro doesn't get something equivalent or better out in the next 6 months I think the Rylo camera will destroy them in the consumer market. It appears to take everything that's annoying about casually using a GoPro (aiming it, capturing steady video, tracking a subject) and make it go away, or be fixable in their app.
Isn't their Fusion (https://shop.gopro.com/cameras/fusion/CHDHZ-101.html) camera supposed to be the equivalent of the Rylo? I see nothing the Rylo can do that it can't, although the Rylo looks far nicer doing it.
Who, GoPro? They're just about synonymous with what I guess are called "action cameras" (small, rugged cameras used to record sports, often from the perspective of the athlete).
This is what happens when American companies offshored all of their production to China. Eventually the Chinese companies figure out that they can do the whole thing themselves, and do it better.
63 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadI've looked at quite a few drone startup projects (as investments). I'm not sure everyone fully understands how formidable DJI is right now.
They are the Apple/Amazon AWS of the drone market.
I used to be a loyal 3DR customer and owned both the Iris+ and Solo. Both were very capable and had some outstanding features, but DJI pushed them out of the market pretty quickly. They did so by flooding the market with a broader range of models, and then reduced the price of their mid tier models which killed 3DR sales. The day I read that 3DR had sold their mapping software (Site Scan) to DJI, the writing was on the wall.
I unloaded all my 3DR stuff that weekend and now own a Mavic Pro and a Spark.
Having been following the industry for about 5 years now, I'm not sure there are any viable competitors to DJI. There are some smaller players like Yuneec, but the technology and price points can't compare to DJI. It's the same thing GoPro found out the hard way. Stumble once, and DJI just sweeps up the crumbs and forces you out of the market.
I ended up buying a Mavic Pro. Never even so much as saw a Solo in person. In your experience, how do they compare?
The Phantom 3 was way ahead of the Solo in nearly every spec. Better camera (4K vs. 1080p), longer battery, longer range and better GPS. Many users I know attribute the controller issues with the fact 3DR used some proprietary GPS instead of the more common one the DJI models used.
The nail in the coffin though was the gimbal. The P3 came with a three axis gimbal, even on their entry model. The Solo, because it was rushed, at first didn't even ship with a gimbal and they said they would sell it separately as an add-on. Then it shipped with one that didn't move at all (http://macnn.mnmcdn.com/article_images/128157-md-26378-Solo_...), and when they finally got the three axis one on there, it was already too late. I also found out later a lot of the demo's they did the Solo's they were using had souped up GPS and other software they didn't have on the retail models people were getting.
My Solo had a lot of the common issues. It would take off fine, but only go about 75ft and then hover, then the gps would cut in and out and I'd panic and have to land it. Sent it back a few times and nothing was ever resolved. After my third replacement, I threw in the towel. My Iris+ was far more dependable and I only ever had really minor issues with it. A simple re-calibration always fixed any issues. I had a three axis gimbal on it with a gopro Hero 5 and it was always dependable. I ended up selling it because I could go from hauling around a huge Pelican 1650 case to my backpack with the Mavic.
After having both, I finally came to the conclusion DJI has a far superior product. They're innovating faster, and packing way more tech into their drones than any other company. Add in the fact they're making these things smaller and smaller. It makes it WAY easier to transport. Like I said, I can toss my chrome bag over my shoulder, walk into the city, unpack and get my Spark up in a matter of minutes, get some footage and get out before the cops show up. No way I could do that with either the Solo or the Iris. The startup time for both was several minutes (anywhere from 2-5 mins) to get a GPS lock. With the Spark and Mavic its almost instantaneous.
Hope this helps. My advice is to stick with DJI, even their entry models are better than most mid range drone models from other companies.
There are so many things that they could have added to GoPro 5 or 6, and so little they did add, that it's embarrassing. Plus their drone fiasco.
But for a pet project I also bought a cheap sub-80 euros clone off of alibaba (found the same on amazon.fr a few euros more expensive), and I have to say the quality of it was good enough for most usage I actually have, and it came with equipment to attach it, take it underwater, ... To the point I realized, if I had neither now for my need that cheap one with a good sd card would be enough.
There is obviously a place for GoPro as a brand but given how the bazillion smartphone camera optics produced every years helped improve the field immensely in price/quality, their attempt to capture the market while having decent margins was doomed. Most people will prefer "good enough, third of the price".
At least that's how I view it.
There's a video review of this camera and other cheap cams on Youtube by a user named redskull.
A year or two ago I got a 1080p one from Hobbyking for about £40 and used it when snorkelling (the waterproof case came for free). It has been great and my only complaint are the buttons on the waterproof case are a bit stiff to press. Video quality is excellent. I dont have a GoPro to compare it against, but from what I've seen on YouTube et al, it certainly seems competitive (sorry I dont have any clips online).
There are many, many, many on amazon - prices vary a lot though so with 10 minutes you can usually filter out the optimistically priced items and find the sensible zone. I'd not expect to pay more than about £50 for a 4K + Wifi one
Textiles and clothing are already starting to be made in India, Bangladesh, and Vietnam because Chinese factories are too expensive for simple manufacturing. Globalism ensures that "harm" will be exported from rich countries to the poor ones. The economic incentives are extremely powerful, and a handful of well-meaning people won't fix that.
What happened in China - and is currently happening - is that their industrial revolution occurred and they are now making increasingly better products with an increasingly more educated and skilled workforce, no different than what happened in the United States. As prices of labor and factories go up, the low-hanging fruit is exported elsewhere.
Check your - or your friend's, since you try not to buy clothing like this - Nike shirts and see where they are made. Anything new is likely not to be made in China.
The cycle continues.
But that's true for expensive cameras too.
For example, the LED light bulb market had such promise but now is flooded with cheaply made bulbs that are made with components that will fail before they should. The pollution cost to mine all the rare earth materials that go into these light bulbs are not reflected in their final cost, and in my opinion, they should be.
The items I have made in China are superior in quality and the customer service I get is better than American factories by a huge amount. All Chinese factories due is pick up the margin that American companies try to live off of (and yes, this includes costs of labor); this does not mean or guarantee that there is poor return on investment.
Your theories are not very well-founded, and frankly, pretty racist. The idea that a bunch of engineers in China can't make equivalent - or better - products than those in the United States is ridiculous and shown to be false by everyday life in the devices we use.
>>The pollution cost to mine all the rare earth materials that go into these light bulbs are not reflected in their final cost, and in my opinion, they should be.
This is a separate issue from the second sentence you posted. Maybe you are right. But almost no politician is interested in discussing these issues. Ironically enough, the most vocal supporter you have on this issue is Donald Trump.
The economics of buying from AliExpress/Alibaba can work out slightly differently than buying from a Western company that’s sourcing from China. Cutting out the middleman allows them to sell it at a price that I find cheap while they’re still able to capture far more profit than from a wholesale purchase. Potentially improving conditions vs if you bought the non-knock off.
Not to say that happens in every case. Nor as a broad comment on the conditions of factory work in China. But food for thought on the benefit of buying directly from Chinese companies.
I would have to dig deep into my prior comments to find the source, but it was in response to my comment that GoPros don't seem to be a better user experience than the "cheap Chinese knock-offs" (direct quote). Then someone came along with a link pointing out that a GoPro is the cheap Chinese knock-off. They just silk screen their name on it.
EDIT: Found the original, no link, but should be easy to confirm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12869304 Thanks, DDG!
As for your prediction of shutdowns and seriousness of pollution, well, that remains to be seen. As someone who does import/export of goods in Chinese factories... I have my doubts.
e: if you feel the need to down vote, please let me know why you disagree
Note drone entrepreneurs - if there's money to be made in drones, DJI will take it to itself.
The thing is that you simply can't compete with the vertical integration of DJI. Taking images and videos is still by far and large the reason to fly drones in the first place, and once you own the vertical stack and can integrate your imagers with the electromechanics (gimbal) you get to a very small and efficienct package.
Think about that: for every gram of camera, you need two grams of stabilizer, then you need four grams of drone and battery to carry that. While DJI just stabilize their optics and sensor, GoPro stabilizes an entire 80g, bulky camera. This is mainly why the Karma is so big and heavy compared to the DJI Mavic (there are some advantages to DJI in propulsion and batteries but those are pretty small; not a lot of proprietary tech in those fields).
The ability to say "yes, I know, DJI, the tiny grass strip 1km from my house is an airport, but I'm fully FAA compliant with this flight" requires a multitude of steps, involving both their app and a Web browser and copying and pasting serial numbers from fields that do not permit copying, then the authorization you get only lasts for 72 hours, so you have to do it again. Otherwise you have to pay to be a "big pants" customer, but even then the experience is less-than-ideal, with a lot of pros turning to Russian software that doesn't perform the legal validation checks, etc. You literally cannot obtain this authorization without an Internet connection, because they store your attestations for liability insulation. So if you're in the field, and you forgot to convince DJI that you're legal before you went out, you're driving back to cellular range.
DJI's interaction with regulation, in particular, is a very broad example of protecting themselves from liability by shunting a lot of work to users of the equipment.
They also assume you have an Internet connection by deferring to Google Maps, with no offline ability that I can find. Google Maps does support offline now, but the way they embed it in the controller software, if I'm out of cellular range (which is a lot), my map box is a giant grid that moves around with the drone and nothing else.
I wouldn't remotely consider them for professional work, the way they're going, and I say that having dabbled in cartography, farming applications, and aerial photography. Sure, they can get gear out, which is where you're coming from, but there's a lifecycle of gear ownership that they pretty much entirely ignore.
Which, fair enough - Chinese company. But the fact that such a sentiment could also, from the point of view of the software, be something like "I need to deliver life-saving medicine and the bridge is out" does not factor into their decision-making.
Although on the other hand, it's just a tool. My hobbyist wrench doesn't refuse to work on a bolt that asks it not to. My professional screwdriver doesn't have extra authentication built in.
But, but HN says Chinese companies are inherently incapable of innovation because of culture/socio-politics/other pet peeve./s
DJI beat Lily (not that they were as advanced as they claimed with faked footage) and now GoPro. How is 3DRobotics doing? I haven't heard any news from/about them in a while.
I have owned a number of their products, and have (twice) sent in a Hero4 for a free replacement after it stopped working. I use these cameras during long distance trips on my motorcycle, so I don't think the failures of those two cameras were entirely due to a manufacturer's defect. Still, no questions asked, they took care of me and even sent me a free gift after the second time one of my store-bought Hero4's malfunctioned.
I like the product and the connectivity has gotten a lot better with the Hero6.
1. Serious UAV for serious aerial photography. DJI still suck there, but the distance from their best offer and the nearest competitor is around $180k USD
2. Serious UAV for remote sensing. DJI simply has no offers there other than a consumer handheld ir camera screwed on to a quad
3. High performance. DJI still can't approach mid-tier amateur aerobatic brands
4. Agricultural use, chemical sprayer. DJI has something for Chinese internal market, but they get steamrolled by domestic competition.
5. High payload. DJI have nothing made specially for this niche
I personally think it's a smart move by GoPro because I don't see any growth potential in the consumer space with flights being banned anywhere interesting.
Alternatively, if they made their product more find-able through some sort of tracking/recovery feature, I'd be happy to spend $600 on their camera.
Same type of problem with their drone, not enough features that protect the investment to make it worth the money. For instance, it isn't waterproof. That would at least give me a reason to buy it over a DJI model.
The actual surf mount comes with a leash that you can tie to the camera. You can also attach one of those orange floaty blocks to your camera to make it easier to find.
Neither time did the float help me. Both times were in pretty heavy 2’ overhead surf and my body made contact with the cam while trying to pigdog through a pinching barrel but not making it.
Cheap GoPro eroded their margins, and ignored the fact that for most people their cell phone is good enough for video. Karma, and their gimbal is great, but products like Rylo saw the future as being motor-less. And after using it, I agree.
If the karma had built a battery-less Fusion, they would have had something that was new, instead of trying to play catch up and gerry-rigging a GoPro to a drone.
I still have hope, but they got take more risks and build their future not someone else's.
And you can buy it today.