[nebula8804]

No because DJI, XPENG, BYD, and a ton of other Chinese companies have this 'move fast and break things' mentality X100 that most American firms don't have. They ran circles around GoPro and their attempts. Closest analog is Tesla/SpaceX but who knows if even those guys last long term when the guy running it is so easily distracted by nonsense (eg. Buying Twitter, starting yet another company, playing hours of Polytopia etc. )

[palata]

> No because DJI, XPENG, BYD, and a ton of other Chinese companies have this 'move fast and break things' mentality X100 that most American firms don't have.

Respectfully, that's ridiculous. The Silicon Valley has a long tradition of "move fast and break things".

No no no, this time, it's just that the Chinese companies are simply a lot better than the Western drone companies. Yes, there are many excuses to make ("it's cheaper for them"), but even without considering the price, the Western drones mostly feel like DJI 10 years ago.

The Parrot Anafi has been fairly nice for a few years now, but for some reason Parrot struggles to sell them (I suspect that US companies dismiss them because they are not from the US?). Skydio just announced a new drone that seems reasonable. Both quite a lot more expensive than DJI, so here is your excuse.

[nebula8804]

>Respectfully, that's ridiculous. The Silicon Valley has a long tradition of "move fast and break things".

Some companies do...like Tesla, SpaceX, and Netflix. Their iteration rate is amazing.

>No no no, this time, it's just that the Chinese companies are simply a lot better than the Western drone companies. Yes, there are many excuses to make ("it's cheaper for them"), but even without considering the price, the Western drones mostly feel like DJI 10 years ago.

You haven't explained why? Move fast and break things mean to iterate fast, that includes finding way to cut the cost, improve specs, and just make the overall product better.

>The Parrot Anafi has been fairly nice for a few years now, but for some reason Parrot struggles to sell them (I suspect that US companies dismiss them because they are not from the US?). Skydio just announced a new drone that seems reasonable. Both quite a lot more expensive than DJI, so here is your excuse.

Is it or is it not competitive what what DJI is selling on the market? These drones are a innovation smorgasbord in so many different fields: cameras, weight, embedded electronics, avionics, and not to mention their software is good enough to not make people dismiss all the other things and go elsewhere. The fact they can offer all of that at a lower price point is (in my opinion) a sign of things to come in other industries: electric cars, space travel, renewable energy.

[palata]

> Their iteration rate is amazing.

Sure, some companies do. Though what I see from the SpaceX launches I don't respect much. They just don't care at all about the impact on biodiversity around the launch site. I would be happier with slower but more sustainable.

> You haven't explained why? Move fast and break things mean to iterate fast, that includes finding way to cut the cost, improve specs, and just make the overall product better.

Difficult to say why. They have really good people and they have built a pretty solid technology, I guess. Their software really sucked in the beginning (10 years ago), but then it got much better.

"Move fast and break things" is also often an excuse to do bad engineering, IMO. "We hacked it because we need to go fast", and then the whole product is a piece of crap and people wonder why.

> Is it or is it not competitive what what DJI is selling on the market?

Nobody can remotely compete with DJI. I just meant "if you are ready to pay for something that is not DJI for ideological reasons".

> The fact they can offer all of that at a lower price point is (in my opinion) a sign of things to come in other industries: electric cars, space travel, renewable energy.

Electric cars and renewable energy are part of a much, much more complicated problem. We just don't have any viable way to replace fossil fuels entirely, so we will have to use less energy (and hence degrow, hopefully in a controlled and smart way).

Space travel is a joke. We need fundamentally new physics if the hope is to go live in another solar system, and I don't understand why people are excited about the idea of surviving in a spaceship. Instead of paying really smart people to work on that useless idea, we should pay them to find clever solutions to degrow. Use less, better, smarter, more sustainable technology everywhere in society.

[dotancohen]

  > They just don't care at all about the impact on biodiversity around the launch site.

Why would you single out SpaceX for this? Not only is that argument applicable to every single other launch provider on the planet, it is also applicable to almost every single factory and even city on the planet. How is the biodiversity in Los Angeles? How big are the areas affected by SpaceX launch facilities compared to the area affected by Los Angeles?

Furthermore, SpaceX's newest rocket burns methane. That means that it is creating a market for a potent greenhouse gas, that is often otherwise just vented to atmosphere as a byproduct of oil extraction. Burning methane creates carbon dioxide, which has 1/20 the climate impact of methane. That rocket, therefore, actually is a net benefit to reduce greenhouse warming.

[palata]

> Why would you single out SpaceX for this?

Because I was answering a comment that mentioned specifically Tesla, SpaceX and Netflix?

> That rocket, therefore, actually is a net benefit to reduce greenhouse warming.

Whaaaaat? With that kind of logic, you could breath underwater. I don't even know how to start answering that. As long as you conclude from "manufacturing and launching a rocket" that it is "net benefit for the environment", you should go back to reading about the problem.

[coldtea]

>Respectfully, that's ridiculous. The Silicon Valley has a long tradition of "move fast and break things".

The SV doesn't do hardware for the most part, and any companies (SV or not) that do hardware, don't iterate that way and that fast. Watching GoPro evolve is like watching molasses.

Something like Tesla would be one of a few of counter-examples...

[hylaride]

I'm not going to argue against the fact that the Chinese firms can't and don't do better than American firms (because they can and do do better in many cases), except that it's impossible to know how much or to what extent Chinese firms have financial (or other) backing from the government there. It's an open secret that many "strategic" industries get varying levels of support, often under the table.

BUT: However they got there, DJI is so far ahead on the consumer/commercial side I can't in good faith recommend any alternatives unless you're doing work for the federal and some sensitive state-level government entities.

[bloodyplonker22]

Come on. American software startups literally invented that motto. Just because you may be working at a slower paced company doesn't mean America does not have it.

[coldtea]

They invented the motto for BS social apps and pivoting until they're bought or IPOed.

Not the same as hardware at all.

[holoduke]

American startups are only focused on getting an ipo or exit as soon as possible. Such thing doesnt exist in the mentality of the Chinese.

[nebula8804]

I did label a few American companies that are operating at that speed. Nevertheless in many different fields China is determined to win and they will move as fast as possible to make that happen. Its a foregone conclusion in Renewable energy, nuclear, a lot of consumer electrics, and soon EVs.

[drstewart]

Ah yes, "breaking things" and nuclear are surely what I'd call a winning combination.

[nebula8804]

If you look at China's innovation in nuclear tech they have soared past the US. That ship is LONG gone.

[bowsamic]

American companies invented it as a marketing label to sell to VCs. Chinese companies actually do it