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
Hunter - If you don't think adhering to the guidelines laid out by Kickstarter is all that important, then I can respect that. As you say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do expect though, that there would be >1400 people out there who might not share your view on this.
With regards to your comments on laws and regulation. We really don't want to see a situation (or, more importantly, a culture) develop that provides law makers with any reason to think their intervention is required (or even justified). Au Contraire, as you might say.
No new law would be needed anyway, as there are plenty of consumer protections already in place to guard against the misrepresentation of a product or service such as this. Under Australian Consumer Law (I assume the US would have simular laws in place) there are requirements placed on sellers as well as a range of irrevocable rights granted to the consumer/customer. These are the type of laws we already have to ensure that the consumers don't get mislead or sold something that doesn't do what it is supposed to.
Here are just a few (distilled for obvious reasons):
* Seller must demonstrate/exercise Due Skill
* Seller must demonstrate/exercise Due Care
* Product or Service must be Fit For Purpose - It must fulfil any specific purpose or task specified by the seller (NOTE - A specified purpose does not have to be in writing and can be implied. Seller is off the hook if they can demonstrate that it is unreasonable to rely on supplier for guarantee of fitness).
* It is illegal to be false and/or misleading about the need for service, the quality or price of a product or service.
* A Non-Major Failure entitles a customer to repair or replacement.
* A Major Failure entitles a customer of a choice of repair or replacement (and within a reasonable timeframe), otherwise customer is entitles to have the product repaired elsewhere and the original supplier is liable for that cost.
* Termination of sale entitles customer to a full refund and compensation for reasonably foreseeable loss.
* A sales contract or agreement cannot remove a guarantee or a consumer's rights in the fine print
* Terms of service cannot override consumer guarantees
* A consumer cannot be forced to pay for something that should be free.
These laws apply to everything from TVs, to blenders, lawn mowers, cars, telecoms, you name it, and I can't imagine why it would not apply to a Drone. However, AirDroids are not selling the Pocket Drone. Instead, they are offering it as a reward for the money people pledge to help them build a business. Backers aren't making a purchase, they are evaluating the creator's pitch, as well as the attractiveness of the 'tangible reward' and/or 'special experience' AirDroids are offering in return for their support. So, conventional consumer protections probably don't apply when it comes to Pocket Drone backers. Kickstarter is a donation based crowd function platform, not a marketplace, and has it's foundation in a bond of trust between a project's creator(s) and the people whom wish to donate their money to contribute to that project's success.
If indeed you are such a vehement capitalist, then I should think that your sensibilities would be quite offended by what AirDroids have done. After all, they didn't exactly do all the hard work required to meet their competitors on a level playing field out on the open market, did they? Instead, AirDroids chose to construct a campaign for donations which is aimed at the wide-eyed and uninitiated masses.
In response to your belief that the responsibility falls on consumers to do their research, I agree. But only if this was a conventional seller/buyer arrangement which, as I have highlighted above, probably isn't the case when it comes to a Kickstarter campaign. Plus, as Timothy Reuter defines in this very thread, the Pocket Drone is aimed at a boarder audience that would not traditionally engage with this technology and whom aren't prepared to dig through forums. Nor do backers have any reason to scrutinise the campaign. Even if they did, they lack the requisite knowledge to understand what they are looking for or how this relates to the performance the product.
Get a law made. Until then, there are no regulations governing the usage of other footage passed off as another other than copyright violations. I'm truly playing Devil's advocate here. As I believe one should have the decency to display footage recorded by that product...but I am also a fan of freedom and capitalism, and believe consumers should do their own research before buying a product...as such you did.
betwen them and kickstarter? What about all of the people that are paying!
To advertize in televison, you are forced to follow some rules, like that any footage that you show, should be of the product that you sell...
I am not a lawyer, but to understand this you dont need to be one.
Au contraire Quadz, I read every single comment. So he broke a couple of kickstarter rules. That's between them and Kickstarter. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if you don't want to contribute then don't. But take every single commercial on television and tell me that they are %100 truthful and use ACTUAL footage from it working. If you can answer yes to that, then you make valid points towards this campaign.
What fraud? Please tell me? And what's this about contributing if you purchase an APM? That wasn't in the clause when I clicked the "Confirm order" button. It's very ignorant of anyone to say that these guys are doing something wrong. Many companies sell products to people that are potentially dangerous. What kind of world would we be if we required anyone who used anything to first be licensed on that? How would one practice? And lastly, how can anyone contribute if they have not developed anything new for the software? If I take an open-source component, build an awesome airframe, make it easy to use, inplement the open-source component, and sell it as a plu-and-play system, why should I be required to contribute anything other than money for the component?? That's how businesses work. They are taking products, improving or adding them to a larger product, and selling the larger product to people who do not have the time and/or means to start from scratch.
+1 Gary, at first i thought you were telling my story!
I see the point of some of you, that is inevitable that so many drones will be sold to people that is not really aware of what a drone is.
Anyway, i dont think that this excuses the campain for commiting a fraud!
I tell folks if they have not crashed they are not trying hard enough.
+1000 - That starter page is worth thousands of dollars, laterally...
I've been flying R/C for years and I still crash, just like everybody else in this hobby. There is a saying in the more traditional R/C community that goes something like "I you can't afford to crash it, don't fly it".
And there is a common misconception that inserting a autopilot somehow makes it crash proof. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you plan to stick with this hobby, the crash is waiting around the next corner. It's not a question of if you will ever crash, but how often.
For those interested in the new multicopter start here page it is here:
http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/if-you-are-new-to-multicopters-sta...
It is simultaneously hilarious, very instructive and I can say from experience myself entirely factual.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next