Lately I have been following the kikstarter project “The pocket Drone” which is having a huge impact.
First of all I am a bit pissed off because in the kikstarter project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/airdroids/the-pocket-drone-your-personal-flying-robot there is just this mention to Ardupilot!
• APM compatible flight controller 6-axis accelerometers, 3 axis gyroscopes, barometric sensor (altitude)
There is not any comment or anything relating DIYD or 3DR!
Second in this interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyvfu23eMOQ they present the product without even mentioning Arducopter, but when they are asked on what OS do they use they say “currently is based in the arducopter OS, is using an opencourse plataform that we’ve added layers on top” (I am sure you did…) at minute 8:30 if you want to here it.
I think that is totally immoral that a guys that all what did was print a tricoper and arrange with Chinese manufacturer for cheap electronics, pretend to be what they pretend to be!
But the truly important problem is not that. On both sites they are giving to understand that this is product that does not need any special attention or precaution, even less any experience! In a lot of moments things like “it always seemed like either mom or dad (the photographer) was missing from family pictures. We’re proud to announce the launch of The Pocket Drone to address these challenges. Many of our supporters are calling it the "GoPro of drones." “ are said. What! How can you compare a product like Arducopter to a GoPro camera? That just needs you to press a button to record! When in the documentation is said hundreds of times that this is something to take seriously (and I think is not said enough).
So I think this is actually a fraud, they are pretending to sell a thing that they are not selling, but even more important to my point of view is that for the moment there is 1200 people that has not any experience with drones that bought one (I say 1200 because there is 1200 totally RTF kits sold at the moment on Kikstarter).
So in a few months at least 1200 people will go out with a drone thinking that is as easy to control as a gopro. And they all, all without any exception will crash and god knows what else!
I find it really worrying, and I think that since we are the community that is actually behind that project (even though they pretend we’re not) we should take some actions about it. Not allowing that people is tricked, and not allowing not necessary accidents to happen.
Comments
G'day SS - I took a look at the thread over at dugn. Good luck with your complaint.
I have listed what I think are some of the most memorable comments made by the AirDroids over the past 12 months. Enjoy!
"we didn't really have a good media plan up front, or to sustain it and really what's driven us to some degree is luck"
"I mean people are looking for something like what we have articulated. That's the one thing we got right and that's what's overcome, frankly, all of our other failings to follow basic Kickstarter best practices"
"I think there's a limited number of lessons that we have to teach other people"
Update can be found here.
7 months on from the successful conclusion of the campaign and a full 4 months past the originally proposed shipping date (and well past extended dates given in earlier updates), backers of the Pocket Drone appear to be getting somewhat disillusioned. Looking at the latest update it isn't difficult to see why.
From their kickstarter page:
That is straight up misinformation and an insult to this community which the 'pocket drone' relies for hard and software development.
Bruz/Kevin/Jonathan - Welcome to the community and thanks for your helpful posts.
Kevin - Great first impression video. The footage looks good too! The water on the lens shows which sequences are stabilised and which are not, corroborating with your narrative. Any chance of seeing some select snippets of the raw 1080 HD footage used to make this video? Also, I notice that you are flying on conventional props instead of AirDroids' innovative folding design. Have you had a chance to play with the folding ones yet?
Johnathon - The advantage of having access to friends who are already competent flyers will be instrumental in helping you get to know your craft.
How DJI market the Phantom is one example with which you can compare of how companies market consumer focused multirotors, and they are no stranger to criticism when it comes to they way they market that product. The comparison must accurately reflect the situation though. You correctly identify and reference a lack of distinction between selling points, but ignore clear differences at the other end of the spectrum. Take the difference between Phantom's FAQ page and that of the Pocket Drone. Prospective Phantom buyers are forewarned of the possibility of issues with things like RCX signal integrity and GPS lock, the need for sensor calibration of sensor and they are shown where to find instructional manuals.
There is no suggestion here that unless your experience "involves spending more time troubleshooting than actually using the product, then you're doing something wrong", we are simply giving context to the reality owning and operating your own flying robot.
Shooting the messenger seems a little misguided. I would certainly hope that my contribution to this discussion wouldn't put Pocket Drone users off this community. I would hope that the advice and overview I offered Devin back on the 22nd of January will prove to be of particular use to Pocket Drone Backers looking to learn more about they craft. Devin was the first Pocket Drone backer to arrive here asking questions and I devoted hours to formatting a detailed and well referenced response to his questions. I just gave him all the info I could, suggesting that he learn all he can and wait to see how the sample footage turns out. Wouldn't you consider this to be highly informative and well balanced? I would like to think that anyone coming here and reading that, or this thread, will instantly get the impression that we speak out mind and that none of us here are beyond reproach. I think this thread also demonstrates that we are capable of discussing just about anything. I would also like to think that the attention attributed to the Pocket Drone, and the prominence issues like legality and safety feature in our everyday discussions, shows that this community is more than capable of critical peer review. These attributes, and particularly the latter, go a long way to demonstrate our collective ability to self regulate as community. Maybe I am being ridiculously idealistic, but I am of the opinion that this community must work towards achieving self regulation if we are to minimise our chances of being impacted by draconian policy measures in the future.
In response to your suggestion that things should be put in terms that a member of the photography community, to which you belong, can appreciate. Not all photographers are old school pros like you, but I will put this in terms that a bloke like yourself can relate to. As you know, a light meter is a useful tool. But, it is only a resource to someone who is prepared to take the time to understand how it works, achieve accurate readings, interpret it's galvanometer, and comprehend how this data relates to the frame they wish to capture. On it's own a light meter is no use at all. Also, your post here is not unlike if someone turned up at a film photography based virtual community and used their introductory post to assert that all this noise about the virtues of milled magnesium verses moulded ABS housings, AF verses AF-S lenses, sensor size, on chip processing, aperture, exposure, colour temp and composition is simply nonsense. Showing us some photos taken by a mate, and stating that he never needs to worry about hard shadows because his camera has P mode. Or arguing that it's no big deal for Nikon to use images from a D3X with FX glass and a full frame sensor to market the D7100 with DX glass and an APS-C sized sensor because there is only 1.22% difference in the number of pixels, or because Canon engages in exactly the same practice. From a novice's point of view these statements might seem perfectly reasonable, but to a seasoned professional like yourself they would seem rather nearsighted.
The lines of discussion here are for this community of observers who are simply participating in a discussion, calling it as they see it (just as you have done). It is not our place to actively seek out to Pocket Drone backers to offer service and advice, that is what the official Ardupilot wiki/manual is for. Hence the suggestion by some that reference to it should be provided to backers like yourself by the AirDroids team sooner rather than later. However most of us are happy to give the time to anyone who wishes to join this community and start asking questions, provided these new members have something to contribute and/or follow simple etiquette, like not asking questions which have been answered ad nauseam.
I am not at all concerned about Pocket Drone backers bringing about an aerial apocalypse, quite the opposite. Any concern I have is that there will be a proportion of backers whom will get little more than a few days activity out of their Pocket Drone, and that there will be a proportion of these the people for whom problems may be more than they perhaps had bargained for, with the technical implications of owning a drone proving (or seeming) to be insurmountable for them. I need not worry about you (who has access to assistance) or anyone else prepared to become active participants in Timothy's Drone User Group Network.
I am also really glad that you are so passionate about the Pocket Drone, and it is good to see that Kevin's post has reinforced your confidence in the product. I wish you all the best in the pursuit of your new hobby. Be sure to post plenty of updates along the way.
Of course it would be nice. But they are not gonna do it, as they didn't answer any of the questions that where asked.
The community should not only create the technology, but also try to make sure it is used as it should.
No. We are not here to help Kickstarter detect potential breaches of their guidelines, or cause them to scrutinise future drone based campaigns with greater veracity, though it would be nice to see AirDroids do the following of their own volition:
1a. Make it quite clear to their backers what change was made to the promo video, explaining why this was an important distinction to make, while outlining the difference between the video footage used to market it and that which will be produced by the product itself (make the differences and limitations between gimbalised and ungimbalised stabilisation known to backers in layman's terms). Perhaps an apology might not go astay.
OR
1b. Deliver the Pocket Drone with a suitably resolved 2-axis brishless gimbal capable of delivering video performance consistent with the videos they used to promote it. It would seem that they easily have the economy of scale to deliver.
AND
2.Circulate an update arming backers with a more realistic understanding of what they are purchasing, directing them to relevant resources which will allow them to do two things: (a) be afforded a fighting chance to ascertain whether the Pocket Drone is in fact easy to fly and simple to maintain as they may have been lead to believe, and (b) start their learning journey. This would be much fairer on backers, at least giving them 1 week to evaluate the proposition (something they should have been able to do before making their pledge).
AND
3. Deliver on this promise (14th Jan) - "We hear you loud and clear. We promise to post lots of Pocket Drone footage before anyone's credit card is charged so everyone can make an independent evaluation of video quality." This means letting backers see a variety of aerial videos shot not only outdoors, but actually performing some of the tasks claimed and shown as examples during the campaign such as filming scenery, surfing and kids sports, as well as showing functions such as follow me and autonomous flight. (Note - AirDroids are 7 days from logging on to check their bank balance, yet all they have put out there so far is a weak 3-minute video of the craft hovering indoors).
Should some moderator or someone send a letter to kickstarter, to explain the situation?
It seems that there was a video posted somewhere, i wasn't able to find it.
Anyway, i think that if there was any doubt on the legitimacy of the project it should be clear by now.
And... The AirDroids team is ignoring all what is inconvenient to them, and in 8 days they will have the campain funded.
Timothy Reuter - I thought it might be a bit clearer to respond to your comments directly:
"We are not trying to hide the fact that our system is using the APM, but rather to package it in a way that makes it accessible to a broader audience than traditionally engages with this technology"
The absence of what some would consider to be appropriate attribution on it's own probably isn't the issue. However, the masterful way in which you seem to be able to pass yourself(selves) off as innovators has a compounding effect. Take the way in which you infer you are responsible for (or are actively participating in) the development of things like adding obstacle avoidance, or improvements to DroidPlanner. This type of conduct seems to disregard the contributions of people like Randy, Tridge and Arthur in a most disrespectful manner.
"Many of you on this forum are experienced makers for whom assembling a custom frame and adding electronics is simple to do. I think it is easy to forget that for most people this is quite difficult, even from a kit, and a large set of consumers would like to be able to focus on using the technology rather than digging through forums to determine how to get it to operate."
I feel a bit silly making this point, as it just seems so self evident. Many of us, for whom assembling custom frames and adding electronics is simple to do, would love to be able to just focus on using the technology instead of digging through forums to determine how to get our craft operating. The reason we aren't always able to focus on using the technology, and are instead forced to resort to digging through forums, is because drones (not just my drones, your drones, 3DRs drones or anyone else's drones...) are just not that easy to fly or easy to maintain. Trawling forums, familiarising ourselves with the hardware and software, learning calibration procedures, and perfecting tips, tricks and techniques relating to everything from minimising vibration reduction to optimising weight distribution is simply what is required to keep a capable, well balanced, well tuned, well calibrated, well maintained drone in the air with the technology we have available to us today. In short - We don't just DIYD because we want to, we DIYD because we have to!
I would love to know how you expect a member of the broader community, who you yourself acknowledge is not prepared to dig through forums in order to determine how to get their craft to operate, and whom would not have otherwise engaged with this type of technology, is going to be able to perform even the simplest of ongoing maintenance procedures, such as:
1. Binding/Rebinding
2. Resyncing ESCs
3. Calibrate transmitter
4. Tailor RTF and other failsafes
5. Calibrate Magnetometer
6. Calibrate Accelerometer
None of the above procedures have anything to do with the functions aimed at "advanced users only" or even general mechanical maintenance. They are simply commonplace procedures that anyone using a Pocket Drone must become proficient in performing should they wish to get any more than a few minutes of joy out of their craft.
Then of course there are the inevitable crashes. We all crash, and we crash lots. Beginners crash particularly often. Crashing damages propellers, burns out ESCs, bends motor shafts, fills brushless motors with crap, fatigues wires, loosens connections, and generally results in the need for service and/or repair in some shape or form.
Mechanical repairs and maintenance are big challenges to be faced by Pocket Drone backers, just like the rest of us. The fact that most of us here build, or at least modify, our own craft isn't why our craft isn't the reason why they need constant care and affection, but it is the reason why we can maintain and repair them.
So, when the inevitable happens, what then for your backers who simply want to be able to focus on the technology? You have already highlighted the fact that this "large set of consumers" are unprepared to dig through forums in order to determine solutions, so what are they to do? How easy to fly and simple to maintain will their Pocket Drone be when it is grounded pending reconfiguration or maintenance? How to you foresee them getting back into the air each and every time they have an issue? What are your backers, who (as you yourself define them) wouldn't otherwise engage with this technology, to do when they need to: diagnose and replace bents rotor shafts, balance unique non-rigid propeller that aren't compatible with conventional balancing solutions, repair a bent/cracked/destroyed frame, swap out a blown ESC, or whatever else occurs?
"We're also working to make sure we include information in our packaging that will educate our consumers about safety best practices before they launch into the air."
When you say "safety best practices" do you mean specifically from your point of view, rather than the customers? I ask this because the word safe/safety/injury or damage only appears on your campaign page (or on your website for that matter) is as a selling point relating to your folding props and or within a paragraph designed solely (to the extent possible) to indemnify Airdroids, it's employees and directors from the risk of future legal claims.
Nor is there so much as a hint of the potential risks associated with operating the drone, or the level of skill, care and respect which must be exercised. The words 'danger', 'risk', 'caution' or 'experience' do not appear anywhere. Yet you see value in stating that the Pocket Drone can fly over 5,000ft/1.5km (or up to 11,000ft/3.3km) from the Pilot, while making no reference to the fact that in most jurisdictions and under most common flying conditions they will be lucky to experience 25% of the smaller number. It seems clear that you are bent on serving up every last piece of information that might help you gain a backer, while avoiding like the plague any single piece of information that might even remotely cause them to that question whether the Pocket Drone is as well resolved, safe to use, easy to operate and simple to maintain as your average domestic appliance.
As for using the box to educate your backers. How big is the packaging going to be? No doubt you will be forced to print on both sides of if you are to have any hope of equipping your backers with so much as a skerrick of the knowledge required to pilot a Pocket Drone.
"Also, we think the Drone User Group Network plays a complementary role to DIY Drones in being an in person community alongside DIY Drones much larger and longer established virtual community. When we say the Drone User Group Network is the largest community dedicated to teaching people how to build and operate their own flying robots, we are simply referring to the fact that we are the largest community to our knowledge that puts on regular events where individuals can come and learn in person many of the things that are discussed here online. Perhaps we need to be clearer about the in person virtual distinction."
Diydrones is a virtual community of >49,000 members with a monthly site traffic of over 38,000,000 page views. It hosts an enormous volume of daily traffic through its site and functions as an irreplaceable resource to 10s of thousands of drone users. Diydrones runs competitions, and members organise and attend fly days all over the world (even I have been to one).
The Drone User Group Network has >3000 members (and growing fast) and is also virtual community. It's emphasis is on bringing people together in the physical sense does however give it a point of difference. But, even after the heavy promotion of the Pocket Drone campaign was in full swing, the dugn.org site (which features prominently in the Pocket Drone campaign and related press) was seeing only ~7,500 monthly page views (but, again, it is climbing fast during the KS campaign). This represents less than 1/5000th the volume of diydrones, or about the amount you would expect from a site benefiting from no specific inbound traffic and no content to collect organic traffic).
It is this contrast that makes claims that dugn is the "largest community in the world dedicated to teaching people to build and operate their own flying robots" seem pretty dubious.
"Our hope with AirDroids is to be able to take the amazing things people are doing in the broader drone community and make them available to new people. We felt that a business was the most sustainable way to accomplish that goal."
I do not know how your claim that the Pocket Drone is "Easy to fly and simple to maintain" could possibly be substantiated, and your claim that "a broader audience than traditionally engages with this technology" is going to find your APM equipped tricopter easy to fly and simple to maintain is just not based in any reality I am aware of.
Lastly, could you help me interpret your recent weather reports. Excerpts below for your reference:
AirDroids (KS Comments) feb7 - "the crazy weather in Indianapolis where we have been doing a lot of our testing has limited our flying. We will post at least one video by Tuesday, barring any significant weather events, and then we'll significantly ramp up our videos after that."
TJ Johnson (YT Comments) feb10 - " I will work on getting some videos in the wind, but it is hard to get the wind to blow when I want it to... lol. Maybe Ill see if I can find a big industrial shop blower and fly in front of that."
AirDroids (KS Comments) feb27 - "We know we're overdue on the videos and will have more soon. We tried taking some yesterday, but the 30 mph winds were not cooperating. The drone actually handled the conditions pretty well but the video was not pretty. We'll try again tomorrow if the weather cooperates and will definitely have more this week"
I am interested in knowing how the weather in Indianapolis can be so bad as to have prevented you from publishing any outdoor flights for the entire month of February? Or January for that matter? Is there some type of atmospheric phenomenon causing conditions to simultaneously be both too windy to fly and so calm as to have your team talking about bringing in an industrial shop blower to move your own air?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next