What is DJI, why is it being banned, and why should the general public care about this?
(In all seriousness, nothing I've read about "DJI" even explains the basics of the issue.)
(In all seriousness, nothing I've read about "DJI" even explains the basics of the issue.)
I think the sooner the west (read US/Canada and Europe, some say Australia/NZ) realized and wake up from their denial the better. Gone are the days of the narrative we're not going to export to you our superior and more expensive products, but now the narrative we're not going to import your superior and cheaper products, how the table are turning 180 degree. It's not uncommon to watch western Youtubers praising the good quality DJI products and at the same being critical of GoPro sub-par quality products, and they're not even reviewing the products but just honest remarks from professional users going about their filming and recording routines.
The issue is even bigger than that. It doesn't matter what the device does now, nor does it matter whether it is open or proprietary.
When it comes to national security, ask yourself "what could happen in a time of war?" Some obvious answers are:
1. If it connects to foreign service providers, those services could be shut off or changed to be malicious
2. If the device uses parts/support/updates from foreign service providers, those could be discontinued, or changed to be malicious
3. If you need the product, but don't make them locally, they may no longer be available.
etc.
It is a national security concern. Whether the cure is better than the poison only time will tell.
It reminds me.. when someone is cheating on a partner, they are more likely to think they are being cheated on too. I have experienced this, being accused non-stop when actually they were the one cheating all along.
Just because USA likes tampering with proprietary code and using NDA’s with Silicon Valley to bug just about anything they want (because they can), that paranoia consumes them that other countries are doing the same.
During times of war, other countries absolutely do the same.
Just looks at the western reactions about 'foreign agents' bill in Georgia.
But obviously an existential crisis is not the time that many governments stand on their principles, which is why 'war powers' tend to be justified under extenuating circumstances when countries end up at war.
There is no question, if there is another major war between world powers, they will invoke the authority to compel their industries to cooperate with the effort. If they don't, they'll quickly cease to exist.
> You cannot compete with China even if we annexed Mexico for cheap labor in order to manufacture high volume low profit drones.
DJI isn't making drones by hand, they have automated factories. But its only worth building an automated factory if you're selling at a massive scale. Banning DJI drones in the US lets you build a factory in the US that can eventually get costs down.
And it's also dumb to fund your opponent's war production lines.
1. It is a bad idea to use national defense in this manner. There are more honest tools that can be used, see two.
2. Using tariff or other trade tools can blunt the impact of DJI's market position and allow for US entrants to develop. [0]
A weakness of both nat-sec bans and tariffs is that they don't actually do anything to encourage a company like Anduril to make the pro/sumer stuff needed for volume sales to develop broad acceptance, fast iteration and well founded supply chains.
0. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/larger-lesson...
I anticipate exactly zero automated drone factories.
The point is that most people who will buy a $700 Chinese drone will buy a $1000 US drone if that's all they can get.
I am of the opinion that the US made a very serious mistake by opening up tariff-free trade with countries which do not have comparable labor and environmental safety laws. The Feds should have come up with reasonable estimates of what foreign manufacturing was saving by cheating that way, and charged them that amount of money to sell products in the US. Factories which wanted to avoid those tariffs could pay for, and submit to, an independent audit of their factories.
Instead we decided that it was fine for US manufacturing to compete on an "even" basis with nations who are fine with laborers losing fingers and/or getting paid slave wages, and manufacturers dumping their waste stream into a nearby river. We've paid a severe price for that misguided egalitarianism, and it's time to change course.
Was it a mistake if the goal was to get cheaper products at the expense of foreigners losing fingers?
I agree it is myopic policy for the long term, but certainly many voters are happy to push safety problems somewhere else.
And yes, over and over this was the desireded goal, I remember the election campaigns, the speeches, the white papers, the think tanks.
This has mostly been a success, looking at many such countries. The standard of living has gone up, for example China now has a "middle class" of sorts.
Environmental concerns were not on the radar at the time, not 50 years ago, not like today.
The intentions were reasonably positive and well founded. Of course, I agree reassessment is necessary, and it really should always be.
In the consumer market, if the $1000 drone has a significantly worse user experience then people just won't buy it. Before DJI the consumer drone market was much smaller; by creating a cheap, high-quality product DJI caused more people to purchase drones, growing the market. If there's no competitive alternative the market will just shrink again; consumer drones aren't a necessity.
The DJI Mini 3 Prop is currently $899, and Skydio can't manufacture something like that in the US, and sell it for that amount of money. But I bet they could make something comparable at a sale price of $1100-1300.
Allowing Communists to dump goods in our market is optional. I don't know that I support a ban on DJI products, I have a Mini 2: I like drones, but not enough to drop a couple grand on a Skydio 2 (and note that they exited the consumer market, presumably because of the aforementioned price dumping making it infeasible to compete). I would be pissed off if it was permanently grounded. But at minimum I support tariffs which are heavy enough to give domestic industry a chance to compete on an even footing.
And given the evident relationship between drone technology and national security, I could be persuaded that a full ban is in the national interest. Perhaps (this is only sort of a joke) the NSA could release a full open-source jailbreak of every DJI product, and publish an API for the cloud components which any American compute provider could then offer.
Then block their servers. Let 'em know that we'll let them back in the country when Facebook can operate in China, and not before.
the time when the US could actually decide this sort of thing at close to planet scale is long gone. if you ban those devices, there will be countless other nations (including close friends of the US) where you will be able to buy them no problem.
What would stop someone from building their own cargo container sized drone factory that takes parts like motors, pcbs, batteries in one end and spits out finished drones on the other?
DJI drones are being used in significantly lower quantities as "base stations" and long-range reconnaissance applications, with the occasional bomb-dropping side run.
FPV drones are being used in much, much, much higher quantity than DJI drones, owing to their massively lower cost to produce due to ... the simpler and mostly orthogonal supply chain!
Financing a consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability with an end goal of enabling the construction of large quantities of one-way FPV drones, as the parent post to mine suggested, would not be a good strategy, IMO.
Having domestic consumer/enterprise camera drone production capability at all is of course a good idea, but the quantity needed in war fighting is significantly lower, at least with the current tools and techniques seen in Ukraine.
Single use drones could exist without subsidizing by the consumer industry. Ukraine is literally doing it with rubberbands. Anything else would simply lead to overdesign and basically the same problem we have now where the enemy is simply lobbing cheap artillery in volume while we simply do not have smart missiles to spare for Ukraine, nor for ourselves if we got into such a war. Lmao.
The American MIC is largely...maliciously incompetent. I work in this sector. Overdesigning, so you can slap a 500% profit margin on something with more features than ever needed. Then you lobby the generals in charge of project funding with dinners, gifts and more.
I'm under the impression that the supply-chain for Ukrainian drones basically leads to China in the same way that it does for Russia. For a "small" regional conflict, this isn't a problem to Ukraine because there's no way China could or would restrict supply of their cheap drones. But for a large-scale conflict, it would be a problem for the US to not be able to source drone motors by the 10,000's.
But yet they have no trouble procuring single-use (by definition) artillery shells that cost an order of magnitude more and require even more production volume?
The cost estimates for those are quite wide, but in terms of raw materials even those low-cost prices are kind of absurd right? $20,000 for a few motors, batteries, basically a modern smartphone and 20-40 pounds of explosive? The military expects that they will get a lot cheaper, which means you need to be able to counter them at least as cheaply.
R&D costs makes up the vast majority of the cost of Western weapons systems.
I think you're 100% right here.
It may seem absurd, but something that can take out a main battle tank would be well worth $20,000. An M1A2 Abrams costs $24 million. The latest model Russian T-90 is around $4 million. A Chinese Type 99 is around $2.5 million. The asymmetry is clear.
Some of that $20,000 is making sure it works reliably under any conceivable weather conditions, after it's been stuck in a storage container at +50 C/-30C for weeks or months, etc.
On the other hand, if you're just doing reconnaissance, maybe you'd rather send a swarm of 20 $1,000 drones instead (in an attempt to overwhelm the enemy's countermeasures).
When the Western drone startups fail at that they will turn to AI, agriculture, LIDAR/mapping etc. But all the money is in the consumer/prosumer market where DJI is earning billions every year which also makes them able to outspend competitors in the professional drone markets.
How is banning DJI drones in the US going to affect how they're being used in the war in Ukraine?
Or do you mean that banning them in the US will somehow stop them from being used against the US in the future?
It will not.
> Or do you mean that banning them in the US will somehow stop them from being used against the US in the future?
No.
This is about planning for the future. In the event of a war the US wants a large existing base of domestic drone manufacturers. Today, that just does not exist at scale as most are made in China. This is similar to efforts to re-shore chip manufacturing.
I don't think the US military generally uses off-the-shelf consumer products like the Ukraine military does, so does this actually affect them? They would be getting drones built to order from a military contractor anyway, so I don't think it really matters what the leading consumer manufacturer of drones is to the US military from that perspective.
Chip manufacturing seems like a slightly different situation in that if another country restricted US access to chips it would affect the entire US economy, so I think it has security implications in a broader sense where security is interpreted to include the stability of the US economy as a whole, rather than military supply specifically.
They rather famously switched to an Xbox controller for their rolling drones, and for their submarine controls, because they just work better. For quite a while, military-issued camelbaks still had bright blue caps because the contract to custom build the systems hadn't been settled yet. There are in fact plenty of electronics that they use that are not purpose built, that are bought more or less off the shelf.
All of that said, I still agree that the US military is unlikely to allow off-the-shelf drones at this time. Parts availability is the driver there. Its better to pay a contractor $3k a pop to buy a bunch of a DJI Mavics, spray paint them olive drab, and issue them to each platoon than it is to give every platoon $3k and say "go buy a drone", because then you can buy 6000 of the same replacement rotor or whatever.
Like oceangate?
If you don’t need accurate force-feedback, just highly reliable transmission of inputs, why wouldn’t you use the final iteration of a controller that millions of players have spent billions of hours using and abusing?
It’s not even a Bluetooth controller, it’s just standard USB. The folks who were shitting on that design decision (and not the carbon fiber hull decision), have no sense of what’s common, or even possible, on a microcontroller device.
Yes, because if you have no drone manufacturing in your country, you can't just spin on a dime and suddenly have military-grade drone manufacturing. Technology is a lot less about knowing what the atomic weight of cesium is and a lot more about employee A knowing that B knows how to solve instability problems and their contact at company C knows what to do when the blades spin apart. You can't build the massive networks of those relationship by just passing a law today and expecting to have a best-of-class industry tomorrow, no matter how much money you throw at it.
FWIW, we might be at peak drone for warfare anyway. At least vehicle based countermeasures are pretty obvious and will be put in place soon, although that won't be cheap either.
One of the largest drone manufacturers globally and backed by the Chinese government [0] and several Red Families [1]
> why is it being banned
It is very closely connected with Chinese government stakeholders, with worries around privacy and data retention [2].
There is also some lobbying by Skydio and Andruil [3][4].
They are also breaking sanctions against Russia with Russian forces using their drones [5][6] (though the Ukrainians are using them as well), as well as sanctions around Xinjiang [7].
> why should the general public care about this
They are a popular low cost drone option. It might also spark a rise in domestic drone vendors - especially in the industrial and defense space [8].
---------
Also, can we please have another source. DroneDJ is a DJI specific blog and as such is biased in favor of DJI.
Here's some reporting from AP - https://apnews.com/buyline-shopping/article/dji-drone-ban-in...
And the bill itself - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864
--------
[0] - https://ipvm.com/reports/dji-prc
[1] - https://tracxn.com/d/companies/dji/__-YU3B-qveVWiE0QN_8HPp2m...
[2] - https://info.publicintelligence.net/ICE-DJI-China.pdf
[3] - https://www.auvsi.org/policy-proposals
[4] - https://www.auvsi.org/member-organizations-list/all
[5] - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/21/business/russia-china-dro...
[6] - https://djirussia.ru/
[7] - https://ipvm.com/discussions/dji-xinjiang-human-rights-abuse...