19 ms·

DJI is, by far, the best drone equipment brand for photography, industrial usage, etc. It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-te

• empath75 2y ago
  It's definitely economic protectionism but it's mostly protectionism for national security reasons. I assume the US is going to start manufacturing drones for war in large numbers in the near term and they need to be made at home (or at least by allies).
  • svachalek 2y ago
    This seems likely. For those that haven't been following the war in Ukraine, now that all the Cold War munitions have been mostly used up, drones are now the primary weapon of both sides due to literal "bang per buck". It seems clear that drones are the 21st century weapon of choice.
    • surfingdino 2y ago
      > It seems clear that drones are the 21st century weapon of choice. Only for targeted attacks. The Russian way of prosecuting war is still a shower of shells, rockets, and a mob with guns. Drones are retail, Russians do wholesale.
  • zamadatix 2y ago
    If this were the case I'd expect it to be related to all drones from China though. It also doesn't seem needed given the contracts can just state the requirement without extra hoopla.
  • Tepix 2y ago
    Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?
    • klipklop 2y ago
      Except you can totally use a DJI drone for war. I saw a video the other day of such a drone modified to drop airsoft grenades. Does not take much to replace it with the real thing.
      • redserk 2y ago
        Might as well just shut down and ban all RC hobby shops because RC Airplanes can carry heavier payloads than all of DJI's consumer/prosumer lines -- and are much easier to modify.
        • mrguyorama 2y ago
          Ease of piloting is a huge differentiating factor and the entire reason why public drone regulation didn't exist until every tom, dick, and harry could reasonably keep something in the air long enough to bother someone else, despite hobby RC airplanes being around decades before drones. Non-FPV drone flyers can drop 40mm grenades from 100ft and hit a CEP of like a couple feet, and that's with literally four drops of practice and unsophisticated munitions. Untrained RC plane pilots can NOT do that.
      • surfingdino 2y ago
        It's not hard to find videos of DJI drones dropping real grenades onto Russians, sometimes straight into the open hatch of a Russian tank. It's harder than it looks on video, but when it works the end result is quite irreversible for the Russians.
    • dji4321234 2y ago
      HAHA. DJI drones are amongst the most popular tools of war in the Ukraine conflict. Sometimes they drop bombs directly, but more commonly they're used as long-ranged lookout stations and RF-repeater "hovering motherships" for bomb-equipped one-way FPV drone operators (as well as just general reconnaissance tasks). That said, I don't think this law has anything to do with war, just simple economic protectionism driven by Skydio and other US drone lobbyists. Getting rid of DJI's excellent $7,000 enterprise drones lets Skydio sell their $15,000 + cloud-subscription enterprise drones instead.
  • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    I don't understand your argument: what has DJI - a manufacturer of personal use drones - with the US military wanting to build weaponized drones in the US?
    • kube-system 2y ago
      The same reason the US props up any other militarily relevant tech, whether or not always used for that purpose. Protectionism of local industry. See: chipmakers, telecom tech, aerospace tech, etc.
  • mardifoufs 2y ago
    Yeah the thing is that the US always, always justified everything by using the "national security" excuse/narrative. When another country does it to the US and its corporations, which has by far the longest modern history of getting involved in other nations national security, then it suddenly becomes an attack on free trade and pure protectionism.
    • nirav72 2y ago
      >always justified everything by using the "national security" Is it any different than China wanting data access from U.S companies that attempted to open their business there? I'm not in favor of this ban. I think they should've at least forced DJI to keep the data local before going for an outright ban.
      • mardifoufs 2y ago
        I completely agree but the difference is that we already know China is a totalitarian one party dictatorship. They don't necessarily try to hide it to. That's not the case in the US, but it always sneaks in through dogwhistles like "national security". I mean who wants to be against that, right? But yes it's obviously better for the US to at least keep the data from going overseas. But that's not really what we've been seeing with this potential ban and tik Tok. It's just outright banning stuff under the same "national security" boogeyman. Again, yes China does the exact same thing but I don't think we want to imitate China out of all nations. The cold war wasn't won by imitating the Soviet Union.
• lawlessone 2y ago
  >If the United States does this, it might as well join the European Union's decadence in killing tech startups by stifling the competitiveness of their market... I can still buy a DJI drone here in Europe. What stifling are you referring to?
  • arcanemachiner 2y ago
    Off the top of my head as a non-European: GDPR, 2-year warranties and other consumer protection laws
    • lawlessone 2y ago
      :-)
    • nkrisc 2y ago
      Oh, those pesky consumers getting in the way of the innovation of the free market with their protections. If only they could be fully exploited for maximum value extraction without interference.
      • stavros 2y ago
        That's exactly what I think when I read one of these "EU stifles innovation" comments. It sounds to me like the equivalent of not wanting socialized healthcare because "the poors" might get it, not caring about the fact that you're the one who will benefit. This is the "everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" of consumer rights. Everyone in the US is a temporarily embarrassed capitalist overlord.
        • newfriend 2y ago
          This is a strawman. "Rich" people don't want socialized healthcare because of perceived or real disadvantages of that system. Not because "the poors might get it". Also the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is another strawman, used by those who dislike capitalism. People can and do support a variety of causes and policies without they themselves benefitting from them.
• cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China? This can happen much quicker and easier than you think. Some Chinese delusional leader is going to attack Taiwan and voila, all the import from China will immediately stop at that exact moment.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • balls187 2y ago
    > Okay, but what will happen if US goes to war with China? Actual armed conflict? Total annihilation. Neither side wants this. Its why China will not invade Taiwan, and why the US won't put its boot on the neck of the China.
    • cynicalsecurity 2y ago
      Okay, in a few years China senselessly invades Taiwan just because. Not a real scenario?
      • _lvbh 2y ago
        The US literally has troops 6 miles off the coast of China and they haven’t reacted beyond some complaining in press releases. China won’t be fighting either the US or Taiwan anytime soon
• cyrillite 2y ago
  I’ve just been considering getting into drone photography. Do you have any opinions or resources to share?
  • Velofellow 2y ago
    Other than waiting to see where things shake out with the Senate, perhaps Sony? I can't speak to manufacturer support, and not sure Sony will stay in the drone game in the long term where it would feel like a sound investment. I've been looking at other commercial-esque options (mainly photogrammetry) and came across Sony's"bring your own DSLR" drone. https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/professional-drones/ars-s1 https://pro.sony/ue_US/products/professional-drones/ars-s1
• petesergeant 2y ago
  > It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech Is it? I suspect China has zero regrets in embracing protectionism for social media. The American drone consumer will get squeezed for a few years, until the US develops decent home-grown suppliers in a strategic industry. Hard to think of a better limited use of protectionism tbh.
  • rayiner 2y ago
    Exactly! The Chinese leadership is smarter than America’s leadership: just look at what they do. They embrace protectionism when it makes sense.
• beloch 2y ago
  Speaking as a Canadian, U.S. trade protectionism is nothing new. It happens all the time and frequently targets allies like Canada rather than rivals like China. What U.S. citizens should watch out for is when U.S. protectionism winds up hurting the U.S.'s own economy. e.g. Tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber may have helped out a few U.S. softwood lumber producers with good lobbyists (and Jimmy Carter), but the increase in lumber prices had a much larger negative impact on the U.S. economy as a whole due to higher costs of building materials impacting pretty much everyone.
  • nostrademons 2y ago
    That's a large part of the issue, though. The narrative 10 years ago was that we were preventing Chinese from dumping low-cost crap on the U.S. market. Okay, fair enough, keep the crap out. But recent U.S. protectionism has been targeting very high-quality, best-in-class Chinese manufacturers that honestly outcompete anything their U.S. competitors bring to market. Without that competition, there's no incentive for U.S. makers to raise their technological game, and the sector just stagnates and falls behind the rest of the world. North America has the benefit of two oceans for national defense, but the risk associated with that is one of insularity and stagnation. Ask an indigenous person (if you can find one) how well being a couple hundred years behind European technological development worked out once hostile colonists are on your shores.
    • MonkeyClub 2y ago
      I don't think they were just > a couple hundred years behind
      • otabdeveloper4 2y ago
        They were, 16th century muskets aren't much better than bows and arrows.
        • jltsiren 2y ago
          They were at least 2000 years behind Europe in weapons and armor technology. Some cultures had bronze weapons, but no iron smelting or steel. Even before muskets started becoming common, European professional infantry had largely abandoned shields. Mass produced plate armor provided sufficient protection from arrows, and two-handed pikes were better than a pike and a shield. On the other hand, bows became more effective again as muskets improved. When a musket could penetrate any reasonable armor, personal protection became less important.
• questhimay 2y ago
  [dead]
  • darby_nine 2y ago
    none of this insight will help america compete with china. at first blush it seems like instead we're cutting ourselves off at the ankle.
    • hatsix 2y ago
      So... what WILL help america compete with China? (without playing the same game) How could the US build out a competitive drone industry with chinese manufacturers able to cut price because the Chinese government will cover the gap? Drones are not yet an "essential" piece of technology for the country as a whole. We're currently at "cutting ourselves off at the toe" territory... in a few years we'd be even more dependent and legislation like this would be catastrophic. Better now than in the 2026.
      • snypher 2y ago
        Surely the feds pumped a bunch of cash into electric vehicle domestic production, alongside a tariff on imports. We could start supporting domestic production of drones? There's obviously a market.
      • darby_nine 2y ago
        > (without playing the same game) Presumably this is the actual answer—they're just better at manufacturing than we are at this point. By a large margin, as well. There is no shortcut to reversing decades and decades of shipping entire supply chains overseas at greatly reduced cost. We're just going to get substandard products at a greater cost to both the taxpayer (subsidy option) and the consumer (market option). > How could the US build out a competitive drone industry with chinese manufacturers able to cut price because the Chinese government will cover the gap? You swallow your losses until you automate your way out of a labor disadvantage or give up. Frankly the only reason this is getting attention is because it's seen as a military asset. It's basically burning cash to make the pentagon feel better about itself and generate a few hundred jobs at great cost to the taxpayer and pretending this is making some effort towards something valuable.
• odiroot 2y ago
  Repeat of Harley Davidson situation?
• simianparrot 2y ago
  I disagree with the EU on a lot of things, but when it comes to tech and privacy in particular, they're the gold standard in putting individual people first. As someone deeply involved in my company's compliance with GDPR, it can't be overstated how important it is.
• Lisdexamfeta 2y ago
  All Xi has to do is stop barreling towards an invasion of Taiwan. The U.S., Europe, and Japan need to create and enhance a drone industrial base before China invades Taiwan. By the time it has invaded, creating the industrial base will be too late. Also, China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets.
  • sbarre 2y ago
    > China has created DJI through government-sponsored industrial policy, not via open markets. So like Boeing, Intel, Lockheed-Martin, GE, IBM, etc.. That's nothing new, just 50-100 years behind the west...
    • Lisdexamfeta 2y ago
      As you well know the scale and effort to dominate external consumer markets is nothing similar.
      • sbarre 2y ago
        Are you saying these US industries and companies have not dominated external markets?
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
  • nullifidian 2y ago
    the roots of silicon valley are in the decades of military contracts, initially, i.e. in the "government-sponsored industrial policy" https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?t=3546 https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?t=3546
• chme 2y ago
  Most hardware has no reason to require direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work. If some device requires internet access, then it cannot be trusted to not transmit personal data, therefore it should be possible to replace the software on that device, so that something that is trusted by the consumer can be installed. While DJI here might create good hardware, their internet and account requirement makes it uncontrollable by the consumer, so I do understand that some consumers or, the possible more security aware US, will not trust it. But for the same reason China and other countries might not trust Apple or similar. Trust is something that needs to be earned and which has to go both ways, if a company doesn't trust their users, and prevents people using their bought products however they like, then why should their users trust the company and let their uncontrollable software record their private lives and possible report back to them?
  • segasaturn 2y ago
    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.
    • chme 2y ago
      True. I was just talking about my experience with DJI. Where you buy a product, can use it for a bit, and then it stops working, because you haven't connected it to the internet or created an account. It is often the 'market leaders' that are so afraid to loose customers and their market position to implement customer hostile processes into their products.
    • hatsix 2y ago
      Depends on what you consider the "problem". As Congress sees it, the problem is two-fold... You have no control over your data. The company that does have control over your data is beholden to a foreign country not currently considered "a close ally".
    • 2y ago
• hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
  Yep. That's basically what's happening. It's China success envy syndrome. And instead of competing in healthy ways, political concerns roll out crushing policies that harm both investing opportunities and the ability of consumers to choose freely.
• throwaway48476 2y ago
  How can it be protectionism when the US has no consumer drone industry to protect?
• cm2012 2y ago
  The risk of relying on China for anything military related is too high. They have an aggressive, expansionary mindset and threaten war over Taiwan all the time.
• 83 2y ago
  You use protectionism like it's a bad thing, but I'm sure the folks in the military industrial complex see what's going on in Ukraine and realise it wouldn't be a bad thing if the US had some domestic small drone manufacturing capabilities. Banning DJI could both encourage some of that manufacturing, while also stemming the flow of data to China. We used to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly spy planes to map hostile countries - now a hostile country has a access to a huge number of drones providing live camera data. These drones are hard to track so the government doesn't always know if they've been flown near sensitive areas. It would be negligent of the government to not try to do something about it.
• hintymad 2y ago
  > It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech The US is embracing protectionism because we lost the manufacturing advantage. We lost the advantage because we outsourced our manufacturing to China with the pipe dream that we could keep the "higher end" of the value chain. It's as if we can magically have senior engineers without training junior ones in factories. It's as if the equally ambitious and talented Chinese fellows wouldn't want to climb up the value chain. As a result, we have lost talent. We have lost know-how. We have lost the supply chain. We have lost the intuition of how to optimize or scale manufacturing. What a shame.
• deciplex 2y ago
  > It's disheartening to witness the US embracing protectionism for high-tech. Worth noting that this is a different kind of protectionism than that sometimes practiced by developing nations to build up their local infrastructure and industry. In both cases you end up with higher domestic prices and lower quality of goods (at least at first) but at least in the case of the developing nation you do actually build up some domestic infrastructure and industry in the meantime. (Or, at least, you have the opportunity to do so.) That's not what's happening here as there is no build-up for us to do. This is just the US government acting on behalf of US companies to shield them from competition so they can soak the domestic market for every cent without interference. There's no way any of this is going to reverse or even slow down the trend of enshittification - in fact, it's going to accelerate it.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]