Live data from Hacker News

DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

dronedj.com

571–580 of 742 posts

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#571
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think the cause is? Unwashed eggs?

any number of reasons: language barriers, existing American firms anti-competing, smaller domestic markets, less centralisation, and, yes, in some cases, regulation, but, when it comes down to it, it's better to have smaller firms that don't (or less frequently) damage society than larger firms than do, even just from the perspective of wealth distribution.

> it's better to have smaller firms that don't (or less frequently) damage society

I'm not sure about that - I really like my lifestyle which would be nearly impossible to attain in Europe, but is very attainable for Americans.

I don't see how you're materially better off because you're forced to use foreign companies (Google, Facebook, etc.) instead of having your own.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#572

As someone who has a DJI Mini what are the options for a consumer drone made by a US company? Everything on https://www.diu.mil/blue-uas-cleared-list is either widely different, 15x as expensive, not purchasable by civilians at all, or all of the above. Parret appears to have stopped selling their consumer model entirely. Skydio 2+ seems like the closest thing but it also no longer appears to be for sale either. All…

I'll build a drone for you with open source components if you are shopping for one, it will cost more than a DJI but less than these other options.

Any guides or pointers on how to do this myself? Looking into pixhawk seems like most of the options are still pretty obscure. I own a 3D printer and am not afraid of a soldering iron :)

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#573

It's interesting to see how the reactions differ between here and the articles on the ban on TikTok. And some even thought that the users who wrote to their government representatives were bots! Whenever the US bans or sanctions something, that impacts people, whether it's drone nerds or teens looking at silly videos. It just so happens that most people here seem to be outside of the TikTok target demographic, so we…

What this thread and the tiktok thread really showed me is how many Chinese bots there are on HN.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#574
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just an excuse, after 10 years failing to compete. Western drone companies have received billions in investments to make competing drones, but repeatedly fail, for some reason. Western company can't compete, but that's on them. Banning DJI won't change anything, Western companies have to get their act together.

This isn't really true. Western drone companies haven't bothered competing in the consumer space, but they have made lots of advancement in the non-consumer space, where, arguably, the profits are better. Why try to compete with DJI for mail order drones going to kids when you can get a multi-million dollar contract with the Pentagon?

That didn't use to be true. There was once several Western consumer drone companies (3D Robotics, Parrot, GoPro, Intel, etc.) as recently as the mid-2010s. They gave up on the consumer space because DJI just totally ate their lunch, releasing better, cheaper drones year after year. I still remember how in any given year, the annual DJI drone releases would be smaller, cheaper, better, and fly longer than the other companies' drones (which were always a few years out of date) – AND they would have a whole range of consumer, prosumer, and professional drones and various kits and bundles for every market segment and price point. Nobody else could even remotely keep up.

Here's one Western article with some background: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-26/dji-s-dro.... According to it, by 2020, DJI had 80% of the US consumer drone market. It discusses how DJI ruthlessly operated its business and crushed all of its competitors. Even a later startup, founded by Tesla engineers who wanted to build batteries right into the frame, didn't do so well and was soon acquired by another company.

It's not that nobody bothered TRYING to compete with DJI. Everyone tried, both in the West and in China itself (e.g. Yuneec, Autel), but DJI beat them all. Their founder is basically the Chinese version of Musk.

From that article:

> A rather confounding issue Impossible has faced is that the purchase bids put up by police and fire departments often have specifications that guarantee the sales will go to DJI. To illustrate, Gore pulls up a request for proposal for a drone from the Kansas Highway Patrol that lists properties such as flight time, cameras, and payload capacities. The numbers match up exactly with those of DJI’s Matrice 210. “If the U.S. wants to be competitive in robotics and drones, the least it can do to jump-start its own industrial base is to award government contracts to American companies or at least let them compete for them,” Gore says. “There are about 1,000 police departments receiving DHS grant dollars and spending them on Chinese-made, DJI-made drones. We are using our federal dollars to fund what could become one of China’s first prime contractors.” [...] “DJI has incredible lobbyists,” Gore says.

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I agree with you, I doubt banning Chinese tech will remedy this problem. I don't mean this as a political issue, but in your comment I see one of the reasons Trump appeals to people. He promotes a mindset of "stop handwringing and just fix the damn problem." Here we know the following: 1) DJI devices have an always-on connection 2) Chinese government is unfriendly to US and exerts strong control over Chinese…

I'm not sure how that would actually "fix the damn problem"? My point is that American tech companies are just as data-hungry as DJI, probably more, and Chinese tech products are more likely to let users control their devices off-line than American brands. You're right though that creating a boogeyman and attacking it while ignoring the much larger and more complicated problems is great politics (and always has been)

See, that's exactly what I mean.

Here [1], CISA assesses China-made drones as a national security risk. That is a non-partisan agency. But your response is:

* American tech companies are just as data-hungry, if not more. -> irrelevant, this is about foreign cyberattacks or foreign data mining

* China produces more user-controllable devices than American brands. -> irrelevant

* Boogeyman -> Scare word

* Ignoring the much larger and complicated problem -> Deflects and says we can't do /anything/ unless we consider all angles and do /everthing/

This leads to endless handwringing, and is one of the reasons the left has support of only 50% of Americans, when it should be (in my opinion) a huge majority. Because we're endlessly caught up in the attitude of "nope, we really can't do anything in the face of obviously problematic issues." Gosh, it feels racist to ban a Chinese tech company (even though the Chinese government does actually target our cyber infrastructure). Gosh, what about the bad American companies?

[1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24362988/cybersecurit...

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#576
post #7

Seems a bit pointless banning the market leader?

> Seems a bit pointless banning the market leader? I guess that depends on what the goal is? If a foreign company is the market leader, banning it allows US companies to take over the domestic market without having to actually figure out how to be competitive with the market leader.

> without having to actually figure out how to be competitive with the market leader.

This assumes end users will accept an inferior product. Without some additional pressure - subsidies or hell even nationalism - a ban alone won’t magically create on par US companies.

China has been doing this for decades so we don’t need to guess here. They seem to always bring much broader societal, financial and other support not just restrict access

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#577
post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you, I doubt banning Chinese tech will remedy this problem. My experience is that American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account, subscribe to our newsletter etc. Look at the difference between iRobot and Chinese robot vacuums on Amazon - the difference is night and day.

And yet the US government isn't worried about a US company leaking photos of sensitive information to the US government. The same cannot be said of the Chinese government who may be happy to get extensive drone footage of everyday US infrastructure which can be used in a future war. Meanwhile, China won't even let Google provide a valid map of the country... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#Google_Maps_in_Ch…

This is always an interesting read for the rest of us neither in the US nor China.

On one hand I understand we'll need to move to more insular and protective policies and basically ban foreign technology in so many places, on the other hand I don't want a gov like Ethiopia to have the choice between having no technology or being spied to the bone by all of its tech providers. The EU would be the only place with a one in a million chance to pull it off, there sure must be another way ?

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#578
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the control apps tap into GPS so they know when you're in a restricted zone, the gov't could simply make them mark all of the US as a restricted zone and the drone will never fly. I have one, I'm not happy about this.

This is the correct answer. DJI will happily geofence any area in America to be able to keep selling their project here.

But will they happily geofence all of it if they are not allowed to keep selling their product?

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#579

This is so misguided it's breathtaking. Even if one buys into the supposed "harm" it's apparently trying to address, by targeting a specific corporate entity the proposed legislation won't do anything meaningful toward those ends. But it will confuse the market and hurt U.S. hobbyist consumers while being largely unenforceable anyway. It's one of those things that's just so dumb you assume it's only congressional ele…

Be thankful that consumer/hobbyist drones haven't been banned entirely already (banning other model aircraft along with them as collateral damage). Especially after all the footage of essentially-hobby-grade drones with familiar open-source flight controller software being turned into very effective weapons of war in Ukraine.

Everyone knew that they would be easy to convert into very effective weapons since the very start, no?

Re: DJI ban passes the House and moves on to the Senate

#580
post #175

I worry that this all removes the ability to have a sensible and legitimate conversation about DJI. Elise Stefanik can go fuck herself for all the reasons listed elsewhere, lets get that on the table. BUT we should be thoughtful, if not worried, about DJI. Here's a couple of reasons: 1) When the original Mavic Pro was released I showed mine to someone who had worked in US intelligence. His jaw dropped and said that b…

Re: 2/3, why not just legislate on what data can be sent abroad, thereby rendering DJI ineligible to operate in the US market, rather than adding them to a ban list? And preferably go one further and enact more stringent data privacy protections _no matter the drone manufacturer_.

I think it's really telling that Congress has no appetite to tackle part of the root issue (that US data privacy laws don't go far enough because it might "hurt" domestic companies who indiscriminately vacuum up user data) and instead just takes the easy route. There have been too many hacks and leaks in recent years to trust even "friendly" companies.

Post reply on HN