DJI and "Pay for Play"

jimmymac · Dec 1, 2018

Dave Pitman said:
CERTIFIED AND LICENSED USERS:

DJI would like to know how much and how often you will be willing to pay to unlock your assets. (you knew it was coming)

You have the opportunity to take the survey and let DJI know (in a polite way please) how you feel about artificial restrictions placed upon properly certified users and then the scheme of charging a sizable fee, possibly annually, to remove them.

Industrial Unlocks

Took the suvey. This is ridiculous our government's already regulate the air space and we need to get approval from them we do not need dji's approval for that.

Balsimar · Dec 1, 2018

I'm just getting started, having passed my part 107 test just last week; I was leaning towards DJI for my first UAS purchase, but will take a closer look at Yuneec, after reading about this.

Mike Nevins · Dec 1, 2018

This is exactly why I have been saying from the beginning, that DJI (A foreign Chineese company) dictating to private US companies what they can and cannot do. We already have the FAA, and DJI need to stay out of the regulating business as they have no authroitity to rgulate ANYONE in the USA. Nuff said. Except our federal government should tell DJI to go pound sand and just produce aircraft, not regulate us. Call your congressman, Senator, Governor.

VintageSlots · Dec 2, 2018

Dave Pitman said:
According to Tahoe Ed (DJI enterprise support), DJI will still offer unlocking like is available now for no cost. If you would like DJI to evaluate your operation to see if it meets "their standards" and pay the yet-to-be determined fee, they will allow you to turn GEO off until your next payment (should they decide on a subscription model).

Oh, and Ed says that the majority of commercial users support their geofencing scheme and have no problem with DJI maintaining a nanny position over certified operators in the same way as with casual hobby users. When asked for his data to support this claim he has no response.

Man we need Yuneec and others to step up their game.

I don't believe a word Tahoe says when it comes to DJI's version of GEO.

He is nowhere near being high enough in the food chain to make such statements.

In another forum he was asked to PROVE the majority of commercial users support their geofencing scheme.

His response was (paraphrased) everyone is picking on me so I am not going to support anyone in this forum anymore.

Oh, and one other thing, he was flying illegally with no Part 107 until late September of last year.

He didn't get his Part 107 until it was pointed out that he and Blade didn't have their Part 107.

Apparently, they thought they were above the law.

R Martin · Dec 3, 2018

Meta4 said:
And what American drone company do you have in mind?
I'm not aware of any.

BirdsEyeView Aerobotics - Welcome to the Revolution
Helicopter UAV and Helicopter Drone Dealer - Pulse Aerospace
Edge UAS Bundle

The first and third are mid-range priced while the Pulse is on the low high end ($60K +)

R Martin · Dec 3, 2018

Dave Pitman said:
Oh, and Ed says that the majority of commercial users support their geofencing scheme and have no problem with DJI maintaining a nanny position over certified operators in the same way as with casual hobby users. When asked for his data to support this claim he has no response.

Man we need Yuneec and others to step up their game.

I'm sure their users in the corporate office support this. More cash for the cow....

Tennessee Drone Services · Dec 8, 2018

John Githens said:
For similar reasons I also bring a Parrot ANAFI. Plus it is much safer to operate than any of my other drones. You never know for sure what's ahead at a new job site.

I too have since added Parrot's Anafi drones to our fleet as backups. No Geofencing is a big plus with that 21mp drone, but the height restriction is problematic for tower inspections! I contacted them about this and they gave me two workarounds and both void the warranty. But at least their support understood our predicament and offered up options- even if they were warranty breakers.

mdurbanek · Dec 10, 2018

*Comment edited by Moderator*

I believe that an entity like NPR, being supported by subsidies, has an absolute obligation to report accurately and without bias. Many Sheeple BELIEVE NPR because of their special status. Of course that is pie-in-the-sky reasoning, but it is important to call them out. (Rant over.)

Dave Pitman · Dec 10, 2018

Mike, with regard to NPR funding, it now receives a very small amount of federal grant monies.

While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues

NPR - Wikipedia

My point is not to try and influence your opinion on the organization as it's clear you have a strong bias. I will say that I have found that the few programs I listen to from time to time are pretty well balanced and, most importantly, usually well backed up with facts.

But to the topic, that particular story was terrible and I wrote the host and told her so. I suspect many others did as well.

Cheers,
Dave

mdurbanek · Dec 17, 2018

Dave Pitman said:
Mike, with regard to NPR funding, it now receives a very small amount of federal grant monies.

NPR - Wikipedia

My point is not to try and influence your opinion on the organization as it's clear you have a strong bias. I will say that I have found that the few programs I listen to from time to time are pretty well balanced and, most importantly, usually well backed up with facts.

But to the topic, that particular story was terrible and I wrote the host and told her so. I suspect many others did as well.

Cheers,
Dave

True Dave that I don't listen much, and my initial exposure to NPR was back when they were mostly federally subsidized. Flash forward to now, where during certain times of the year the only AM station we can get on the clock radio at 4:30 AM Pacific Time. I have heard a male and a female broadcaster be extremely political in their opinion. I can't tell you their names, but I'll pay attention next time before I rip the cord out of the wall! But thanks for setting me straight!

Mike

Weaponized · Dec 17, 2018

My first drone was a Mavic Pro Platinum and its use added value to my inspection process. So much so that I'm going to add an addition to the fleet. It will NOT however be a DJI product. I don't need all the cinematic "fluff" that DJI offers. What I need is a bird that gets off the ground and allows me to fly every single time, in the airspace the US government has authorized me to use.

If your product doesn't do that, you have little grounds to call your product a viable commercial platform, regardless of how many shiny beads you attach to it. DJIs unlocking protocol does not work 100% of the time.

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for something that's already broken?

mdurbanek · Dec 18, 2018

Weaponized said:
My first drone was a Mavic Pro Platinum and its use added value to my inspection process. So much so that I'm going to add an addition to the fleet. It will NOT however be a DJI product. I don't need all the cinematic "fluff" that DJI offers. What I need is a bird that gets off the ground and allows me to fly every single time, in the airspace the US government has authorized me to use.

If your product doesn't do that, you have little grounds to call your product a viable commercial platform, regardless of how many shiny beads you attach to it. DJIs unlocking protocol does not work 100% of the time.

Why would anyone in their right mind pay for something that's already broken?

Geez, Weaponized, I'm getting threatened over my resistance to letting the effing Chinese tell me where to fly. Like you, I obey the FAA rules.

Weaponized · Dec 18, 2018

mdurbanek said:
Geez, Weaponized, I'm getting threatened over my resistance to letting the effing Chinese tell me where to fly. Like you, I obey the FAA rules.

By who?

Dave Pitman · Dec 18, 2018

Brendan Schulman is the DJI 'Father' of GEO. I have "debated" with him for over 2 years regarding DJI's refusal to simply verify a certified user and then supply a global unlock.

Over the course of that time, he and other DJI employees have used every excuse in the book including that "it's too hard for them to verify" (no, it's really easy) to "the requirements of Part 107 are too easy so DJI needs to be in charge" (pure and complete *you know what*)

Now, they are wanting to offer a "pay us and maybe we'll do it" scheme? I've had it. It's too bad because for those that don't know it, Brendan Schulman came to the uas lime light by being a champion of RCers against the FAA's overreach in FAA vs. Pirker.

I'm sure Mr. Schulman is a nice guy. But his, and his complany's policy is crapola. BTW, if you find him in some social media or another and ask him about this, his canned response will probably be that "most commercial ops are in favor of DJI's geofencing and there must be something wrong with you for questing it." Don't let him off easy. When he was practicing law, he had to stay with the facts. Now that he is a lobbyist, well... sell baby, sell is his MO now.