Snap launches its first drone • Hacker News Board

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#181

Post by trompetenaccoun » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:36 PM UTC

andrewgioia wrote: post #12

I think this is such a fun/playful idea, kudos to Snap! Their first hardware product pretty much bombed but this is oddly one of the first consumer tech toys in a while that I've felt I wanted. I can definitely see this being a fun thing to bring out in the backyard or to cookouts/parties, especially as a dad with young kids too. A couple things I'd be a bit worried about: * Battery life would need to last long enoug…

You've gotten a lot of speculation in the answers from people who obviously haven't looked at the specs. The simple answer is there not going to be an audible hum in the video because there is no microphone ;)

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#182

Post by slg » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

laptop-man wrote: post #171

slg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nice, but there is still intentionally misleading marketing fluff like this: >Each rechargeable battery allows you to capture content for 5-8 flights, depending on the flight mode(s) selected. Rechargeable batteries can be swapped for easy use... Why phrase it like that? That gives zero impression of what the actual battery life is because I have no idea what a "flight" means as a unit of measurement. Just te…

I fly FPV drones, I have one very similar to that size. running a 1s 300mah lihv I get about 3 to 5 minutes. 5 minutes damages the battery. but the tiny lihv never liv long enough anyways. I'd expect it to get close to that time, but it has so much more plastic around it. but then again it's not transmitting video.

That matches with the estimate in another comment chain[1]. That is low enough that listing it will likely be off-putting to many potential customers. It is why I think it is misleading to try to hide that number with a more opaque metric.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195956

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#183

Post by Brystephor » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:40 PM UTC

alexk307 wrote: post #142

For another 100 bucks you can get an entry level DJI drone that blows this thing out of the water in terms of camera quality, range, features. This is a piece of trash.

$100 is a 40% price increase.

Think about how people buy chocolate. Sure, for $4 you can get a good chocolate bar that's quality, sources sustainable goods, is fair trade, etc. But you can also get a chocolate bar that tastes decent for $1-$2. The "good chocolate bar" is only $2 more, but people are just looking for some chocolate.

not to mention, the pixy flies itself and controls itself which removes effort + a learning curve and that has value.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#184

Post by rabuse » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:40 PM UTC

hacker_newz wrote: post #128

fredley wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Snap Inc. is a camera company. > We believe that reinventing the camera represents our greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and communicate. https://snap.com/

A camera company with terrible camera quality.

I don't get how so many people are praising this garbage product in the comments. It's $230 for cheap crap everything; battery, camera, plastic.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#185

Post by slg » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:41 PM UTC

MegaButts wrote: post #170

slg wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. Are you suggesting the expectation is that each flight yields one photo? It takes milliseconds not minutes to take a photo. I would expect this thing to be taking photos nearly continuously during flight which would make flight time the most informative metric.

I don't think you're their target demographic.

Asking for clarification on battery life means I'm not their target demo? That is rather condescending to their customers. Battery life seems like a basic thing someone might want to know before spending a few hundred bucks on something like this.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#186

Post by jmull » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

lewisflude wrote: post #2

Weird scrolljacking, just made that page feel a bit sluggish.

Honestly, until I saw this comment I didn't realize there was anything past the first screen...

I had tried scrolling before but now I realize you have to keep scrolling even though nothing is happening.

Jankiest scroll-jacking I've ever seen.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#187

Post by ehnto » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

throwaway413 wrote: post #136

isp wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video appears to imply that 30 seconds is the default flight time. So I'd estimate 2.5 - 4 minutes of flight time per battery.

So almost 1/10th of the Mini 2 flight time, for 6/10ths the price, and like 2/10ths the featureset and quality of capture. Do people really love Snapchat that much that they’d choose such a trade off for app integration alone? Seems like a tough sell.

I think this is a drone targeted at people who don't want a drone though. If you did want a drone, you wouldn't get this, you can't even fly it around. But if you want drone snaps, this is probably way better than dicking around with a mavic. Click the button, drone snap incoming, and you didn't do squat. No flying, no SD cards or file handling. Drone shot triggered straight from the app, and sent straight back into it.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#188

Post by InGoodFaith » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

germinalphrase wrote: post #175

vineyardmike wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if we could mount these directional speakers directly on someone’s head! Then we could reduce the volume a lot so it’s even quieter to neighbors. Maybe use some sort of physical bell or cup shape to direct it right into someone’s ears without ultrasonics (for cost reasons). Then we might save enough that we can use 2x speakers to get L/R audio streams.

To address your point rather than your sarcasm: headphones are unsafe while cycling because they block environmental sounds (though it’s true that music from a speaker can impact attentional blindness. There is also the shared experience of listening to music with another person. The ability to create a “music bubble” around you without disturbing others satisfies both parties. Ultrasonic speakers aren’t even exotic…

I'm not the person you replied to but just dropping this here for others interested:

There are some 'open-back' and 'open-ear' headphones that let you hear your environment passively.

Others that have more active environment passthrough such as Ambient Sound from Samsung, also exist.

This might be a useful gift for a cyclist or jogger that needs situational awareness.

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#189

Post by ryan_j_naughton » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

genidoi wrote: post #109

ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 see how there are 'sides' to this. Blasting a BT speaker with your music, which the majority of people aren't likely to enjoy because of the huge variety of peoples taste in music, is a uniquely selfish thing to do. 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 enjoyabl…

I was drafting an extensive response to this, but I am on a time crunch with my work schedule. If you are honestly interested in understand optimal solutions to externalities and handling the problem of social costs, I would recommend checking out Ronald Coase's paper "The Problem of Social Cost" for which he won the Nobel prize.[1]

I will hopefully have time this weekend to draft my response.

The TLDR is that, their "right to noise" impedes upon your "right to silence" but also your "right to silence" impedes upon their "right to noise". Giving either side the complete right and banning the other side is effectively having one force its way upon the other. Forcing silence is by definition an externality as well -- it just happens to be the side you value. But there are better middle ground solutions where we balance the benefits of each side.

A very clean example of this is noise pollution next to an airport. If the houses next to the airport had a complete right to silence then we couldn't have airplanes. But if the airplanes had a complete right to noise, then quality of life around the airport would diminish way too much. Instead, the socially optimal solution lies in the middle. It is why zero pollution is actually NOT socially optimal as the costs of zero pollution are too high.

For each additional decibel produced, the marginal social costs increase at a faster rate. Thus, people whispering at the beach or playing very low music such that it is quickly drowned out by the sound of the waves and the birds after 5 feet of distance is fine.

A blanket ban on all music on the beach doesn't actually enable us to find the socially optimal levels in the same way as a blanket allowance of music on the beach. In the airport example, a blanket ban or allowance would prevent innovations in things like sound protective walls to internalize some (though never all) of the externality.

[1] https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/coase-problem.pdf

Re: Snap launches its first drone

#190

Post by serf » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #49

olafura wrote: post #36

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.

I was very surprised to hear the rotor buzz. Most drone promo videos pretend that when the motors spin, it makes moody beats sound.

I was too busy being deafened by Frank Sinatra a split second after the rotor noise played to even remember hearing the rotor noise; rather than faking the silence they just over-wrote my memory of it in the advertisement with shock-and-awe style Sinatra -- I guess that's okay.