Comment by henvic
12 days ago
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-tech. 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...
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?
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.
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".
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.
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_Chi...
But tell us all more about how we should be more concerned about a US company requiring an internet login.
2 replies →
> American brands are much, much more aggressive about making you connect to the internet, install our apps, create an account
This whataboutism ignores one very important point.
When you connect a device to an American company they might do things that we consider privacy violations, while still staying generally within the bounds of the law. We like to joke about data going to the NSA or something, but in the extremely limited cases where it does protections exist with oversight.
Contrast this to Chinese companies where by law every company is part-owned by the government itself. The Ministry of State Security literally has employees who show up to these companies every day like normal workers, but their job is to find and exploit intelligence on foreign individuals and businesses.
13 replies →
> 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 companies
3) China regularly blocks US companies for whatever reason they decide.
So yeah, we can say "but banning DJI won't solve the general problem of bad companies; we shouldn't just focus on China; is a ban really fair? etc etc. Or, we can just say "screw it -- China treats US companies like shit and we're not gonna just hand over all our drone info"
2 replies →
> direct internet access or an account with the manufacturer to work
Unfortunately this is required by regulators in many countries. In Thailand you can't fly a drone without a license. You need to obtain the license before activating the drone and provide your information and the license number at time of activation (which is tied to drone serial number).
It sucks but it's the law here.
shitty laws in thailand are no excuse for human rights infringements in the other 99% of the world
2 replies →
I would like to see a requirement that any drone sold in (or imported to) the US (or EU) has to be flashable - without having to desolder components, or any other such nonsense. Press some buttons and load new software.
An accompanying requirement would be to document interfaces to hardware subsystems (chip spec sheets would suffice).
With drones, the potential for mischief is too great to let malware be smuggled in.
Is this a politically and technically realistic goal ? Or am I talkin' thru my hat ?
Impossible, especially for drones, because it would allow people to trivially flash firmware to drones which can bypass restrictions like no-fly zones and reporting requirements which allow the FAA or other LE to answer questions like "who was flying a drone playing chicken with a low-flying Cessna"
3 replies →
Back before the war it was possible to obtain hacked DJI ROMs from the Russians that disabled all of these connections and restrictions including no-fly zones.
i agree, but we shouldn't require all firmware to be open-source and user-replaceable on only chinese devices; we should require it for everything, perhaps with narrow exceptions for things like pos terminals and certain kinds of industrial equipment
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.
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.
I don't think they were just
> a couple hundred years behind
2 replies →
Protectionism, like industry subsidies, is a double-edged sword.
- On the one hand, as SE Asia is intimately familiar with, it can create space to create globally competitive industries.
- On the other hand, it can also remove the incentive for local industries to invest and become technically competitive.
IMHO, what I'd like to see would be a stricter link between protection measures and R&D investment.
If an industry is protected, then it is required to prove it's improving itself + limit returns to shareholders.
E.g. steadily increasing CAFE fuel efficiency standards, requirements to demonstrate decreasing costs of production (lumber and/or steel), etc.
Too often, protection measures are implemented, the excess benefits are skimmed and go directly to shareholders, and the company doesn't increase its global competitiveness (e.g. US Steel).
Indeed, and we never seem to learn. Lumber prices in the US during Covid were eye-watering and wreaked havoc through the whole economy that is still being felt today, and it was almost entirely due to US protectionism of lumber.
I'm not a fan of protectionism either, but that particular example is not true at all.
Lumber prices rose because at the start of the pandemic, the industry predicted a housing crash and took drastic steps to downsize and then the exact opposite happened. And we were left with a garden-variety supply vs demand situation.
If it was just protectionism, prices in Canada would not have had sharply increased lumber prices at the exact same time: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/lumber-prices-covid-19-cost...
Yes, Trump's tariffs were exceptionally bad, stupid, poorly thought out, and poorly implemented, like the vast majority of the things he did.
But the fact that goofus fails at doing X doesn't make doing X always the wrong choice.
The US is the most protected "free trade" economy in the world, by far.
A la "chicken tax" (A 25% tariff on light trucks)
>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?
I think the situation is far more nuanced than what will be debateable here, but I've had friends that tried to do tech startups in Europe and ended up moving to the US and doing it here. This is surely not a representative sample so take with a grain of salt, but generally speaking this is their (paraphrased) analysis:
In Europe it just takes a lot more capital investment to get started. You can't do it as a side-gig with a hope/dream working nights and weekends like you can in the US. The process to MVP is just way more complicated because there's a ton of compliance/legal stuff that has to be there at launch. The actual product might take 60 hours of work to build, but then there's another 200 hours of compliance to do which doesn't add any product value at all. You also typically have to hire an expert to help at least consult, because trying to do it all yourself just requires you to have a ton of expertise that no single person ever has. Hiring is also a mixed bag. Market salaries in Europe are a lot less which helps, but firing a bad fit is also way harder so there's big risk. You also can't offer stock-based comp as much in Europe as you can in the US, which all serves to make it harder to get launched.
Once you reach a certain scale, Europe can be just as friendly or more-so than the US, but that scale acts as a great filter for people that don't already have the deep pockets to fund things on their own to get to that point, and most investors won't take that kind of risk without validating product-market fit. The European culture of more longevity also makes it easier in some ways to keep a young company stable because people aren't constantly leaving and you aren't constantly in bidding wars for talent. Overall it's just a mixed bag, but that early filter is why you don't see as many working-class people doing a tech startup in Europe and making it big. On the flip side, when companies make it through that filter, they tend to be a lot healthier and more viable, and quality tends to be higher. Again these are generalities.
I suspect you're over-egging the amount of compliance that needs to be done and under-egging the filter of the existing big players mostly being American, who buy up competitors in order to maintain market dominance
I'm not talking about drone legislation here in Europe, but state overreach in tech in general + bad scene for startups compared to the US (for now...) due to politics.
Any concrete examples you are referring to?
18 replies →
That someone can buy new DJI drones in europe is right, but only the latest releases. You cannot use any of the drones you might have purchased over the last years anymore in europe because of the new regulations.
I don't think that's true. You just need some new firmware or something, no?
It's a meme on Twitter, essentially libertarians are pushing the idea that EU killed its tech industry through heavy reagulation and by tech they mean online advertisement.
They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks. There's also the top-list theme, making list of top-10 companies by market cap, claiming that if your country doesn't have monopolistic speculative giant public companies you must be failing.
It's very annoying because its very repetitive, I guess they are trying the Goebbles' propaganda technique of keep repeating something until people believe in it.
Someone really really wants to turn the European economy into this short term high growth long term who cares casino that the US has become.
I recently moved to Spain, after having lived in the US for a decade. It's only been a month for me and I definitely see the over-reaching over-regulation of EVERYTHING in the EU.
It's so much that it literally pushes young people to have a non-risk taking mindset. I have a friend who has some knife sharpening and tooling skills and she's been figuring how to do something with this (some kind of a business). I suggested why not get a garage and get the machinery you want and get started. She listed down all the regulations and how even thinking about it is not allowed.
Starting a business/startups is hard. The EU just adds 10-20 more hurdles to cross to get even with the US startup ecosystem. At least that's been my observation in the few weeks.
1 reply →
What's the counter examples to highlight Europe's tech successes? Skype? Nokia? Soundcloud? Spotify?
25 replies →
I had always assumed that the UK killed it's tech industry by selling it all off for short term gain. That needs regulation to prevent.
1 reply →
>They keep posting graphs of market capitalisation claiming that Europe must be failing because doesn't have speculative public trading stocks.
Say all you want about "speculative public trading stocks", but I trust public markets' pricing more than private markets[1] or the government[2].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-26/what-h...
[2] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/05/25/c...
6 replies →
There's no speculative stocks in Europe? Seriously? I guess if you ignore all the stock markets in Europe, sure?
Also, it's funny that you mention Goebels. It's ironic even when you repeat the same tropes about the US and how it's supposedly beholden to the capital markets and speculators.
Europe has its giants. Europe usually does not attack its giants. That's why you get megacorps like Maersk or Airbus or Volkswagen. The entire point is that it only attacks other giants (ie, not homegrown giants), hence the focus on legislation that mostly affects them but leaves European corporations mostly unscathed. Or why green legislation curiously doesn't affect German coal extraction (what a coincidence!) that much. Or all the other double standards Europe and some Europeans love so much.
The delusion here is this weird narrative of good, noble Europeans who are somehow only guilty of not being greedy.
6 replies →
I've heard offhand here that the ease of starting a business in general is easier in the US and that funding for tech startups is more available in the US due to policy.
Totally hearsay from me.
Regulation isn't going to stop innovation that much, or the tech industry wouldn't be in california. The primary difference is that the US is one homogenous, huge market.
If I build something in California, to California's laws, and it becomes a success, I can immediately sell it across the entire rest of the US, and I can expand across the US, using the same employment contracts as in california, same lawyers as in california, etc.
Sure, later on I can save money by making the Delaware version of my product with more cancerous chemicals, or have stricter NDAs in my Florida contracts.
But if I start with California regulations, I can expand to the entire US with a small team of employees.
There's nothing like that in Europe. If my product works in Germany, I'll need a french, spanish, italian translation to sell it in these countries. I can't just hire people from these countries either — they've got different holidays, different work hours, different unions I'll have to deal with. Different tax codes and agencies. And often these are conflicting with one another.
In the US, I need one or two support shifts in one or two languages. In the EU I need 27. In the US, I need one version of the product, with one plug. In the EU, unless I'm okay with 10A and a plastic chassis, I need a dozen different versions.
And even if the product can be used universally, European culture is significantly more diverse than US culture.
Is a phone call at 7am or 8pm more appropriate? Depends on whether you're in Germany or Spain. When a job applicant includes a photo of themselves and lists their parents' degrees and jobs on their own CV, is that appropriate or not? In Germany, that's often expected, in many other regions, a huge no-go.
To be successful in the US, I need to build one company. To be successful in the EU, I need to build a multinational corporation with 27 local branches.
15 replies →
Off the top of my head as a non-European: GDPR, 2-year warranties and other consumer protection laws
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.
35 replies →
What an utterly ridiculous response. In your eyes, businesses should be able to run roughshod over the consumer? Yes, maybe the laws could have been more polished or have been implemented in a better way, but the underlying idea of protecting the consumer is the important takeaway from these laws.
27 replies →
GDPR is really sensible legislation that largely only applies to companies who should be treating your personal data as sensitive data. I built a GDPR complaint system and was really happy about the security we put in place that we definitely wouldn’t have thought to do without these laws. Things like having someone you can ask and request personal data from at big companies is also an extremely well thought through idea. I don’t understand the issues people have with it to be honest…
4 replies →
:-)
Lol, as a European, thank god that people like you don't make our laws here
> 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.
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
1 reply →
Those drones will be built for war, how are they competing with DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?
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.
3 replies →
> DJI who refuses to let their drones be used for war?
As others point out, DJI can't control what buyers do (a good default).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say DJI won't manufacture drones for offensive war use. This sharply limits their usefulness to the US Military.
Either way, using US Mil as an excuse doesn't make sense for a ban. They won't be buying gear they have reason to mistrust.
As ever, reasons for the ban seem to be evidence-free speculation. Articles that omit this key part of the story aren't serving their readers.
1 reply →
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.
3 replies →
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.
> 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...
As you well know the scale and effort to dominate external consumer markets is nothing similar.
2 replies →
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
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.
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.
Repeat of Harley Davidson situation?
How can it be protectionism when the US has no consumer drone industry to protect?
I’ve just been considering getting into drone photography. Do you have any opinions or resources to share?
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
> 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.
Exactly! The Chinese leadership is smarter than America’s leadership: just look at what they do. They embrace protectionism when it makes sense.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Okay, in a few years China senselessly invades Taiwan just because. Not a real scenario?
1 reply →
[dead]
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.
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.
2 replies →