101–110 of 420 posts
All in all, it's a $250 toy that can hold 5-8 minutes of battery and has a terrible camera on top of the unavoidable hum from the rotors. I'd say it's a fun little gadget, but I can't see this gaining much traction.
Their glasses never really took off but they still iterated on it and did a second version and I’m sure some of the lessons learned there were applied to this product.
I’m curious to learn about how it does indoors.
Refreshingly honest about the video quality you should expect in the main promo video. Typical problems like dynamic range, color profile, light bleed and tracking problems with the top of the head being cut off at one point. Pretty typical unless you spend more money on your drone or camera equipment. There are so many companies that fake the footage or pick much easier shooting locations.
wobbly: https://videos.ctfassets.net/svn43w404u4n/4oG6RAF5QALMWEBdlX...
it is cheap and non gimbal stabilized, so can't expect much more
Are you a software company, a hardware company? A social network? I guess this is what happens when an app that was mainly used for sending nudes in high school goes meteoric with Silicon Valley money. This is probabbly what would've happened to Flappy Bird if the owner hadn't shut it down.
With civilian drone use pretty much de-facto banned, the military seems to be the only blossoming domain. One can imagine how a soldier sends a small drone to look around the corner and/or into the windows of the higher floors in a city battle like Mariupol.
I remember seeing bunch of years ago guys in Stanford testing very small drone which would be parked by wrapping itself around your arm, and flying/following you on command.
The camera quality doesn't look great, even in the promo videos. You'd think a software company can put on some some decent color balance at least. Also the video is very wobbly because it's such a small platform and no gimbal. That can be fixed in large part in software too. I suppose they're going for the artistically constrained angle, more like a disposable camera.
I feel like this is the worst part about Snapchat. Everything you record in SC looks like shit. It’s so bad that I feel like it makes Snapchat feel cheaper on the social media hierarchy
This product is illegal right next to Snapchat's HQ in Venice Beach. You can't use drones on the beach in the state of California due to rich people being concerned about the paparazzi spying on them
Nothing ruins a vibe like BBZbzbzzbzzzZzbzbzzzzzzzZzzzZz
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Destruction of light/sound pollution sources in places otherwise free of such pollution is totally morally justified IMO. I was in Vegas a few weeks ago at a pool club. The bouncer was checking everyone's bags; not for guns, drugs, or alcohol, but for bluetooth speakers.
> Destruction of light/sound pollution sources in places otherwise free of such pollution is totally morally justified IMO. What do you mean by "destruction"? If you mean actually breaking someone's speaker, then you're wrong and fundamentally don't understand externalities. If you read the original Pigouvian and Coasian theory behind externalities, you'll realize that inherent to the nature of an externality is each…
I don't know about you, but blasting my Spotify likes on a BT speaker in a crowded, and particularly an enclosed environment, would not be an enjoyable experience. I can imagine it's only enjoyable if one is sufficiently self absorbed enough to think that their music is universally enjoyed by everyone.
Refreshingly honest about the video quality you should expect in the main promo video. Typical problems like dynamic range, color profile, light bleed and tracking problems with the top of the head being cut off at one point. Pretty typical unless you spend more money on your drone or camera equipment. There are so many companies that fake the footage or pick much easier shooting locations.
There is probably a market for pocket drone that can carry iPhone and take selfie just like this.