OPEN LETTER - Upgrade Path from V1 to V2

[Jiri Bakala]

Hello everyone,

This started more than two weeks ago as a series of emails to Autel Robotics and their current CEO Mr. Gary DeLuca. I cc'd the support emails in US and Europe, only to receive ticket numbers and a "issue has been solved" from the European support email. I have sent the same email to the AR owner Lee Maxwell, followed up with Mr. DeLuca two more times at his AR and gmail email addresses to no avail. I believe that there are enough V1 owners that feel betrayed and underserved by AR and would, like myself, like an answer. As I mention in my, now open letter, I bought the system less than a year ago and to find ourselves collectively in the current situation is unacceptable.

I would like to invite and encourage everyone here to share their thoughts directly with the CEO and owner of Autel Robotics. Here are their respective email addresses:

CEO Gary DeLuca: [email protected], [email protected]
Owner Lee Maxwell: [email protected]

Support: [email protected], [email protected]

I hope we will jointly find a solution to this stalemate.





Dear Mr. DeLuca, dear Autel Robotics leadership!

I would like to share with you a few thoughts.

Bear with me here. A couple of months ago I finally caved and ordered the new (2019) Mac Pro. Following the ill-fated direction that Apple took in the early 2010’s with the design of the “Trash Can”, it finally, in the eyes and minds of visual creators everywhere, came to its senses and returned to the tried and tested “tower”design. Once I made that purchase, Apple offered me a buy back for the Trash Can and actually made it really attractive by paying about 40% of the original purchase price. Then, they send over a custom-fitted box with a pre-printed shipping label and even a tape to close the box with. All I needed to do was to drop it off at UPS and voila, a week later the promised buy back amount appeared on my credit card.

Now, let’s talk about your EVO II first generation drone, also known as the V1. Unlike Apple’s Trash Can computer, the EVO II V1 wasn’t a wrong direction, however, circumstances regarding electronic parts made the system un-upgradable within less than a year. LESS THAN ONE YEAR! The change to V2 with no backwards compatibility or upgrade path left a very bitter taste in everyone’s mouth. The fact that AR hasn’t offered any solution to the V1 user base seems truly hard to believe and extremely disappointing.

As an EVO II Pro V1 pilot, I, like many other professional users, have invested into a complete ecosystem, into an entire infrastructure, not just one toy to play with. Many of us have acquired scores of additional accessories, extra batteries, filters, cases, etc. It is, therefore, a real shock to realize that in less than one year, the company we put our trust into, recklessly abandoned this entire group of customers. We all came from somewhere; whether it be DJI or other competitors. We all did our research, looked at the system’s specs, learned about the company making the tool of our trade, and invested our money. For Autel Robotics to do what you have done and cut off this entire group the way you have, is simply wrong.

But it doesn’t end there. It undermines customer loyalty, not only with us, the affected ones, but also with others, who will wonder whether an episode like this may repeat. It will, and I am sure already has, drive people away from AR and toward competitors that value customer loyalty. To briefly bring back my Apple example: yes, Apple is a premium brand and it isn’t cheap, but they have over the years created a huge level of loyalty and trust. Trust that the company will be there for not just the most recent purchasers but for people with units that are 5, 6, 10 years old. And even buy back a machine that’s 8 years old for a decent price.

Now, don’t worry, I am not asking you to buy back my entire system, no. I am not asking for a free replacement either. I understand that you are in a business of developing and selling highly specialized equipment that takes time and money to create. I also realize that Autel Robotics is not Apple. What I want to propose, however, is, I believe, a win-win solution. In fact, it would not only satisfy us V1 owners but I believe it would also solidify customer loyalty to the AR brand, and create further opportunities to sell more equipment that you would otherwise. Let me explain:

The beauty of the EVO system is that the gimbal/camera is user replaceable and batteries and other components are compatible between the V1 and V2 versions. Hence, there is no need to swap anything else except the airframe and the controller. AR should offer an upgrade path to V1 owners to move to V2 airframe and controller. I wouldn’t expect AR to offer that for free - I believe that most of us are reasonable people and understand that there are costs involved in this. Since the upgrade would only involve the airframe and the controller, the costs could be reasonable and I think most of us would be quite happy to pay for this. We could mount our gimbal/camera on the V2 airframe and keep using the rest of our accessories. On top of that, many of the V1 users would also immediately purchase the V2 Smart Controller, hence expanding your sales.

How complicated could this be? What are the real benefits in customer and brand loyalty? I believe they would be significant. The knowledge that the company you are dealing with is always there to support its customers is truly priceless.

A side note here: over the years I have owned and flown several different drones. Having been an EVO II owner for less than a year, I have been, until this recent debacle, proudly promoting the product and you to all my colleagues in the industry because I truly believed that the EVO II system is a head and shoulders above the competition. So, this turn of events feels like a punch in the gut.

I do have a few additional suggestions, admittedly inspired by the Mavic 3 release; I would propose that you could offer, as an option, an unlock license for pro-level codec, such as ProRes422HQ or similar, for those who require it. This is what SONY and ARRI do with their professional cameras.

In closing I would like to say this. Consider, you have created a fantastic system with many incredible features and a huge potential for expansion. Recklessly mistreating a loyal group of customers by locking them into a dead-end situation would be an unfortunate and massively damaging end to an otherwise flourishing relationship with people looking for quality, reliability, and most importantly, loyalty.


Respectfully,

Jiri Bakala
EVO II Pro Pilot

 

[rvl]

Sorry, I'm a bit pessimistic
My impression is that AR uses consumer drones only to better promote corporate products. The company is not oriented on consumer support and doesn't show big moves in this direction.
Good letter anyway

 

[Andrew01]

I'm with you on this. If we don't speak up, they can't hear us. They need to know that this isn't something that will blow over, it's serious damage to the brand. As someone who has been promoting Autel as well, and have people come back to me saying I misled them down the wrong path, it's quite a gut punch.

From my own observation, most people buy drones based on what's on YouTube. What the reviewers have to say about it, what the footage looks like, and how they were treated. And those people aren't exactly happy with the situation either, and then the whole audience and a huge chunk of the customer base is gone. They'll remember Autel as one to avoid because they're the ones who screwed over their users, unless they choose to show they're better than that. The X-star and Evo 1 situations were bad enough, but this is different. This time there are enterprise units involved. If they think those large customers aren't watching this after having made large investments, they're only fooling themselves.

I'd prefer for Autel to win in the market as their product is really good. But I can no longer support them by recommending them to other pilots who come to me for that answer, until they make this right.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm curious to know what is the desire to go from the v.1 to the v.2 Evo 2 ? Is it that v.1 Smart Controllers are currently only available on the 2nd hand market ? Other than that, there is no difference, correct ?

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

I'm curious to know what is the desire to go from the v.1 to the v.2 Evo 2 ? Is it that v.1 Smart Controllers are currently only available on the 2nd hand market ? Other than that, there is no difference, correct ?

My understanding is that there's very little difference in a practical sense, as in what you can actually do with one versus the other. I haven't used a V2 so I can't say from experience.

My own concerns are:

• The drone and the controller each become useless if the other is lost, damaged, stolen, etc.
• A future, upgraded drone purchase will also require another controller purchase. This directly contradicts promises Autel Robotics previously made in their marketing pitches.
• Resale value of both the drone and controller are affected in unpredictable ways. I looked at a few auctions for V1 drones on eBay today that had very low bids considering the accessories included. The V1 controller, on the other hand, was listed on Amazon for more than twice MSRP when I was making drone-related ads for one of my sites the other day.
• The discrepancy complicates insuring the drone and controller. What's the replacement cost of unobtanium?
• Most of all, Autel's failure to address any of these concerns (along with their prematurely killing off support on earlier-model drones) gives me reason to wonder about their commitment to customer support. Will they just drop support for the V1 drones and controllers at some point? They say no; but they also promised forward compatibility when they marketed the controller, so their word already has been tarnished.

I just take things day by day. I'm happy with both the drone and controller, albeit with some reservations (such as the Smart Controller's inaudible volume, which I'll fix myself the day the warranty expires). I also have them both insured.

But I also find myself looking into designing and building my own drone next time around, using the most ubiquitous, off-the-shelf parts from the RC model aircraft world that I can find to avoid parts obsolescence. I've built (and flown) manned aircraft and ULVs, as well as RC models, so why not a drone? Then I wouldn't have to deal with nonsense from any of the manufacturers.

The biggest problem would be insuring it. In the absence of something analogous to an Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA, I imagine that liability insurance would be very difficult to get.

Richard

 

[Dave Pitman]

My understanding is that there's very little difference in a practical sense, as in what you can actually do with one versus the other.

Hi Richard. That is my understanding as well. My following comments are not meant to belittle concerns nor to try and bolster Autel's position. Especially if they previously promised something that was not delivered.
Just observations from someone playing the game since 2012 and commercially since 2015.

The drone and the controller each become useless if the other is lost, damaged, stolen, etc.

If either is damaged, and a suitable replacement cannot be found on the 2nd hand market, do we know that if you sent Autel the broken component that they wouldn't repair or replace the item (at a cost of course) ? Or, is this an assumption that they wouldn't ?

A future, upgraded drone purchase will also require another controller purchase. This directly contradicts promises Autel Robotics previously made in their marketing pitches.

This has been the case with every drone I have ever purchased with the exception of home built which depends on what receivers you put into them. If you are referring to the v.1 smart controller that won't be compatible, I read the same complaints from those that have the v.2, right ? Also, the 1st and 3rd comments on your list point to the fact that there would probably be a fairly robust resale market for v.1 components because they are harder to find.

The discrepancy complicates insuring the drone and controller. What's the replacement cost of unobtanium?

Hull insurance doesn't care if the craft is not current and an exact replacement cannot be found. You can insure your craft for the replacement cost which can be the cost of a v.2 (or 3 or 4...) The insurance doesn't care.

The biggest problem would be insuring it. In the absence of something analogous to an Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA, I imagine that liability insurance would be very difficult to get.

None of these craft pass any kind of FAA certification nor receive an airworthiness certificate. No concern there. Likewise, currently, insurance, liability or hull, has no certification consideration or requirement.

DJI released a Phantom 4 Pro v.2 that was not compatible with P4P v.1 Almost every new iteration of DJI craft would not use components of the last iteration. I agree, that it would be much more consumer friendly if they did.

If the craft works for your needs, put it to work and move on. If it doesn't, then the v.2 likely won't work either. I have 2 P4P v.1s that are still doing the job I got them for. The release of the incompatible v.2 changed nothing in that regard.

For those that are bitter about having a newer model pop up much sooner than they thought, that sucks. I get it. But it is nothing new. We all get to vote with our future purchases, at least !

 

[GeekOnTheWing]

If either is damaged, and a suitable replacement cannot be found on the 2nd hand market, do we know that if you sent Autel the broken component that they wouldn't repair or replace the item (at a cost of course) ? Or, is this an assumption that they wouldn't ?

It's my assumption. I like the products, but I have doubts about the company's long-term support commitment.

This has been the case with every drone I have ever purchased with the exception of home built which depends on what receivers you put into them. If you are referring to the v.1 smart controller that won't be compatible, I read the same complaints from those that have the v.2, right ?

I'm specifically referring to Autel's marketing materials for the V1 controller, which was promised to be compatible with future drones. It isn't, and they've done nothing to compensate for the diminution of value.

Randall had the right idea, but apparently it didn't go over too well with corporate because they never ratified it after he left.

Also, the 1st and 3rd comments on your list point to the fact that there would probably be a fairly robust resale market for v.1 components because they are harder to find.

Maybe. It's hard to say. Drones live more dangerous lives than controllers, so I would expect the controller prices to fall over time as attrition takes its toll on the drones.

Hull insurance doesn't care if the craft is not current and an exact replacement cannot be found. You can insure your craft for the replacement cost which can be the cost of a v.2 (or 3 or 4...) The insurance doesn't care.

It complicates it because the loss of either the drone or the controller requires replacing both, unless you can find one on the used market.

None of these craft pass any kind of FAA certification nor receive an airworthiness certificate. No concern there. Likewise, currently, insurance, liability or hull, has no certification consideration or requirement.

I'll have to ask my agent about that. I'd be reluctant to issue liability insurance on something someone built in their garage. At a minimum I'd want to inspect the machine before insuring it.

But then again, I'm not in the business of making money by taking risks, so I really don't know for sure. I've had homebuilt ultralights insured based on a few pictures, so I suppose it's possible.

If the craft works for your needs, put it to work and move on. If it doesn't, then the v.2 likely won't work either. I have 2 P4P v.1s that are still doing the job I got them for. The release of the incompatible v.2 changed nothing in that regard.

That's what I'm doing. I have no problem with the machines. I just have doubts about the company.

For those that are bitter about having a newer model pop up much sooner than they thought, that sucks. I get it. But it is nothing new. We all get to vote with our future purchases, at least !

Meh. That's expected in anything tech-related. It's the short support that bothers me, not the progress.

I mean, I do repairs on manned aircraft for pilot friends once in a while; and it's exceedingly rare that I can't find parts, no matter how old the bird is, nor even if the company went out of business decades ago. The parts may be PMA or TSO and usually are overpriced, but they can be had.

If sUAS manufacturers want to drop support for older aircraft, they should either license the parts to other companies, or open-source the specs. There's no good reason not to other than trying to coerce new purchases.

The abundance of spare parts in the manned aircraft world is a result of regulators deciding that it's not in the public interest for aircraft to lack replacement parts. That's why we have PMA and TSO. I can think of no good reason why the same should not apply to sUAS.

Richard

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm specifically referring to Autel's marketing materials for the V1 controller, which was promised to be compatible with future drones. It isn't, and they've done nothing to compensate for the diminution of value.

I think you will find the exact same senitment from purchasers of the v.2 learning that the next craft (nano) likely will not use the SC. There is a pattern exactly the same as DJI.

It complicates it because the loss of either the drone or the controller requires replacing both, unless you can find one on the used market.

I'll have to ask my agent about that. I'd be reluctant to issue liability insurance on something someone built in their garage. At a minimum I'd want to inspect the machine before insuring it.

The underwriter just wants to know the value you place on the hull and they charge you a premium based upon that. If you insure you v.1 drone for $1500 value, that is what they will pay, or, replace it if they can, depending on your policy. If you take the approach that you will only value your hull at $900 to save premium $$ because you will not loose the RC, then you will only get $900 if they pay out. See the pattern?

That's what I'm doing. I have no problem with the machines. I just have doubts about the company.

That's where you get to vote with your future purchases. It's a free market. DJI's software is far more mature that Autel's. But since I've been bitten by geo a couple of times, I've chosen to compromise on the software in order to avoid geo. I still do use DJI craft all the time, though. Currently, there is no silver bullet.

If sUAV manufacturers want to drop support for older aircraft, they should either license the parts to other companies, or open-source the specs. There's no good reason not to other than trying to coerce new purchases.

Have you heard of the lack of Inspire 1 batteries (for example) ? Nothing new here. We are not dealing with Cessna, Piper, Beachcraft, etc. We are dealing with Chinese toy makers. It would be easy for them to offer up licensing to manufacture parts for things they don't want to support. But so far, they don't.

We are all able to gripe and complain when we don't like it. And I'm no exeption. And we can heap praise when we do like something. But the truth is, that DJI, Autel, etc. do not follow these forums and they only react to the cash register. They do not care about customer loyalty, but only the next sale. I'm not talking about the dealers, I'm talking about the manufacturers.

If you want to move above this level you are going to have to up the ante.

Freefly Systems – Camera Movement Systems for Filmmakers

Freefly enables smooth video from any perspective. Through professional UAVs, Camera Stabilization and Controllers, Freefly drives filmmaking innovation.

freeflysystems.com

 

[PingSpike]

We all spoke up and bombarded Autel with communications for weeks on end when this was first announced.

It didn't work then, it certainly won't work now

 

[kenautelevo2pro]

i think it's the other way around. v2 owners should be fighting to get swapped into v1 equipment.

v1 to v2 is not an upgrade, it's mostly a lateral move.

 

[herein2021]

The reality is, for the consumer/prosumer drone market DJI and Autel are it and I think it is safe to assume that most if not all Autel consumers are ones that had a bad experience with DJI products so until real competition shows up open letters aren't going to do any good. You can pick DJI with its geofencing and rampant spying or you can pick Autel with its V1/V2 fiasco and rapid obsolescence of older products.

Also, lets not forget that DJI did the same thing with their smart controller which is not compatible with the Mavic 3. The only way either of these companies make money is through HW sales, so really IMO all of this is to be expected. The only other revenue option for these companies would be to sell their controller software based on a subscription service which of course would be far worse for everyone so rapid planned HW obsolescence is the lesser of two evils.

I also don't see any real competition having a chance anytime soon if even GoPro with their Billion dollar market cap was unable to even begin to make a dent in DJI's sales.

 

[PingSpike]

@herein2021 completely agree. Reluctantly, as someone who has invested heavily in Autel, but you've hit the nail on the head

 

[AstroNoot]

They said "it's because of the chip shortage" and "V2 has an upgraded networking chip".

It's not because of the chip shortage. V2 is basically a "USA version" of the Evo 2. Has US/Taiwan/Whatever made chips instead of ZTE(Chinese)
Even if it uses an additional frequency, as many users report, it's inferior to the V1.

Proof of the V2 chip beeing inferior is the fact it can't support a Livedeck, a.k.a multiple video streams, like the V1.

Ok, we get it Autel, business is business. But it was such a bad move to handicap your consumer series just so you can get those sweet government contracts. Autel is making like 6 other drone models. Was it so hard to integrate a "USA version" in the production line, along with the "normal one" a.k.a the V1? They've got by far the shittiest strategy for running a long-term business...

 

[YuKay]

Hello everyone,

This started more than two weeks ago as a series of emails to Autel Robotics and their current CEO Mr. Gary DeLuca. I cc'd the support emails in US and Europe, only to receive ticket numbers and a "issue has been solved" from the European support email. I have sent the same email to the AR owner Lee Maxwell, followed up with Mr. DeLuca two more times at his AR and gmail email addresses to no avail. I believe that there are enough V1 owners that feel betrayed and underserved by AR and would, like myself, like an answer. As I mention in my, now open letter, I bought the system less than a year ago and to find ourselves collectively in the current situation is unacceptable.

I would like to invite and encourage everyone here to share their thoughts directly with the CEO and owner of Autel Robotics. Here are their respective email addresses:

CEO Gary DeLuca: [email protected], [email protected]
Owner Lee Maxwell: [email protected]

Support: [email protected], [email protected]

I hope we will jointly find a solution to this stalemate.





Dear Mr. DeLuca, dear Autel Robotics leadership!

I would like to share with you a few thoughts.

Bear with me here. A couple of months ago I finally caved and ordered the new (2019) Mac Pro. Following the ill-fated direction that Apple took in the early 2010’s with the design of the “Trash Can”, it finally, in the eyes and minds of visual creators everywhere, came to its senses and returned to the tried and tested “tower”design. Once I made that purchase, Apple offered me a buy back for the Trash Can and actually made it really attractive by paying about 40% of the original purchase price. Then, they send over a custom-fitted box with a pre-printed shipping label and even a tape to close the box with. All I needed to do was to drop it off at UPS and voila, a week later the promised buy back amount appeared on my credit card.

Now, let’s talk about your EVO II first generation drone, also known as the V1. Unlike Apple’s Trash Can computer, the EVO II V1 wasn’t a wrong direction, however, circumstances regarding electronic parts made the system un-upgradable within less than a year. LESS THAN ONE YEAR! The change to V2 with no backwards compatibility or upgrade path left a very bitter taste in everyone’s mouth. The fact that AR hasn’t offered any solution to the V1 user base seems truly hard to believe and extremely disappointing.

As an EVO II Pro V1 pilot, I, like many other professional users, have invested into a complete ecosystem, into an entire infrastructure, not just one toy to play with. Many of us have acquired scores of additional accessories, extra batteries, filters, cases, etc. It is, therefore, a real shock to realize that in less than one year, the company we put our trust into, recklessly abandoned this entire group of customers. We all came from somewhere; whether it be DJI or other competitors. We all did our research, looked at the system’s specs, learned about the company making the tool of our trade, and invested our money. For Autel Robotics to do what you have done and cut off this entire group the way you have, is simply wrong.

But it doesn’t end there. It undermines customer loyalty, not only with us, the affected ones, but also with others, who will wonder whether an episode like this may repeat. It will, and I am sure already has, drive people away from AR and toward competitors that value customer loyalty. To briefly bring back my Apple example: yes, Apple is a premium brand and it isn’t cheap, but they have over the years created a huge level of loyalty and trust. Trust that the company will be there for not just the most recent purchasers but for people with units that are 5, 6, 10 years old. And even buy back a machine that’s 8 years old for a decent price.

Now, don’t worry, I am not asking you to buy back my entire system, no. I am not asking for a free replacement either. I understand that you are in a business of developing and selling highly specialized equipment that takes time and money to create. I also realize that Autel Robotics is not Apple. What I want to propose, however, is, I believe, a win-win solution. In fact, it would not only satisfy us V1 owners but I believe it would also solidify customer loyalty to the AR brand, and create further opportunities to sell more equipment that you would otherwise. Let me explain:

The beauty of the EVO system is that the gimbal/camera is user replaceable and batteries and other components are compatible between the V1 and V2 versions. Hence, there is no need to swap anything else except the airframe and the controller. AR should offer an upgrade path to V1 owners to move to V2 airframe and controller. I wouldn’t expect AR to offer that for free - I believe that most of us are reasonable people and understand that there are costs involved in this. Since the upgrade would only involve the airframe and the controller, the costs could be reasonable and I think most of us would be quite happy to pay for this. We could mount our gimbal/camera on the V2 airframe and keep using the rest of our accessories. On top of that, many of the V1 users would also immediately purchase the V2 Smart Controller, hence expanding your sales.

How complicated could this be? What are the real benefits in customer and brand loyalty? I believe they would be significant. The knowledge that the company you are dealing with is always there to support its customers is truly priceless.

A side note here: over the years I have owned and flown several different drones. Having been an EVO II owner for less than a year, I have been, until this recent debacle, proudly promoting the product and you to all my colleagues in the industry because I truly believed that the EVO II system is a head and shoulders above the competition. So, this turn of events feels like a punch in the gut.

I do have a few additional suggestions, admittedly inspired by the Mavic 3 release; I would propose that you could offer, as an option, an unlock license for pro-level codec, such as ProRes422HQ or similar, for those who require it. This is what SONY and ARRI do with their professional cameras.

In closing I would like to say this. Consider, you have created a fantastic system with many incredible features and a huge potential for expansion. Recklessly mistreating a loyal group of customers by locking them into a dead-end situation would be an unfortunate and massively damaging end to an otherwise flourishing relationship with people looking for quality, reliability, and most importantly, loyalty.


Respectfully,

Jiri Bakala
EVO II Pro Pilot

Your main mistake was expecting any CEO or owner to plough through such a lengthy missive.
• These guys only consume bullet points - and not too many at once!

 

[AirStreamPictures]

I suggested something similar to Randall before he left. I bought my drone (as with much of by photo gear) from B&H, and was on their notification list for the V1 controller. They never got to the preorder stage, and then it was discontinued. Frustrating.
I do understand the issues that made that necessary, but I don’t understand the lack of an economical upgrade path that takes advantage of the modular nature of the Evo II package.

 

[Ungava]

Hello everyone,

This started more than two weeks ago as a series of emails to Autel Robotics and their current CEO Mr. Gary DeLuca. I cc'd the support emails in US and Europe, only to receive ticket numbers and a "issue has been solved" from the European support email. I have sent the same email to the AR owner Lee Maxwell, followed up with Mr. DeLuca two more times at his AR and gmail email addresses to no avail. I believe that there are enough V1 owners that feel betrayed and underserved by AR and would, like myself, like an answer. As I mention in my, now open letter, I bought the system less than a year ago and to find ourselves collectively in the current situation is unacceptable.

I would like to invite and encourage everyone here to share their thoughts directly with the CEO and owner of Autel Robotics. Here are their respective email addresses:

CEO Gary DeLuca: [email protected], [email protected]
Owner Lee Maxwell: [email protected]

Support: [email protected], [email protected]

I hope we will jointly find a solution to this stalemate.





Dear Mr. DeLuca, dear Autel Robotics leadership!

I would like to share with you a few thoughts.

Bear with me here. A couple of months ago I finally caved and ordered the new (2019) Mac Pro. Following the ill-fated direction that Apple took in the early 2010’s with the design of the “Trash Can”, it finally, in the eyes and minds of visual creators everywhere, came to its senses and returned to the tried and tested “tower”design. Once I made that purchase, Apple offered me a buy back for the Trash Can and actually made it really attractive by paying about 40% of the original purchase price. Then, they send over a custom-fitted box with a pre-printed shipping label and even a tape to close the box with. All I needed to do was to drop it off at UPS and voila, a week later the promised buy back amount appeared on my credit card.

Now, let’s talk about your EVO II first generation drone, also known as the V1. Unlike Apple’s Trash Can computer, the EVO II V1 wasn’t a wrong direction, however, circumstances regarding electronic parts made the system un-upgradable within less than a year. LESS THAN ONE YEAR! The change to V2 with no backwards compatibility or upgrade path left a very bitter taste in everyone’s mouth. The fact that AR hasn’t offered any solution to the V1 user base seems truly hard to believe and extremely disappointing.

As an EVO II Pro V1 pilot, I, like many other professional users, have invested into a complete ecosystem, into an entire infrastructure, not just one toy to play with. Many of us have acquired scores of additional accessories, extra batteries, filters, cases, etc. It is, therefore, a real shock to realize that in less than one year, the company we put our trust into, recklessly abandoned this entire group of customers. We all came from somewhere; whether it be DJI or other competitors. We all did our research, looked at the system’s specs, learned about the company making the tool of our trade, and invested our money. For Autel Robotics to do what you have done and cut off this entire group the way you have, is simply wrong.

But it doesn’t end there. It undermines customer loyalty, not only with us, the affected ones, but also with others, who will wonder whether an episode like this may repeat. It will, and I am sure already has, drive people away from AR and toward competitors that value customer loyalty. To briefly bring back my Apple example: yes, Apple is a premium brand and it isn’t cheap, but they have over the years created a huge level of loyalty and trust. Trust that the company will be there for not just the most recent purchasers but for people with units that are 5, 6, 10 years old. And even buy back a machine that’s 8 years old for a decent price.

Now, don’t worry, I am not asking you to buy back my entire system, no. I am not asking for a free replacement either. I understand that you are in a business of developing and selling highly specialized equipment that takes time and money to create. I also realize that Autel Robotics is not Apple. What I want to propose, however, is, I believe, a win-win solution. In fact, it would not only satisfy us V1 owners but I believe it would also solidify customer loyalty to the AR brand, and create further opportunities to sell more equipment that you would otherwise. Let me explain:

The beauty of the EVO system is that the gimbal/camera is user replaceable and batteries and other components are compatible between the V1 and V2 versions. Hence, there is no need to swap anything else except the airframe and the controller. AR should offer an upgrade path to V1 owners to move to V2 airframe and controller. I wouldn’t expect AR to offer that for free - I believe that most of us are reasonable people and understand that there are costs involved in this. Since the upgrade would only involve the airframe and the controller, the costs could be reasonable and I think most of us would be quite happy to pay for this. We could mount our gimbal/camera on the V2 airframe and keep using the rest of our accessories. On top of that, many of the V1 users would also immediately purchase the V2 Smart Controller, hence expanding your sales.

How complicated could this be? What are the real benefits in customer and brand loyalty? I believe they would be significant. The knowledge that the company you are dealing with is always there to support its customers is truly priceless.

A side note here: over the years I have owned and flown several different drones. Having been an EVO II owner for less than a year, I have been, until this recent debacle, proudly promoting the product and you to all my colleagues in the industry because I truly believed that the EVO II system is a head and shoulders above the competition. So, this turn of events feels like a punch in the gut.

I do have a few additional suggestions, admittedly inspired by the Mavic 3 release; I would propose that you could offer, as an option, an unlock license for pro-level codec, such as ProRes422HQ or similar, for those who require it. This is what SONY and ARRI do with their professional cameras.

In closing I would like to say this. Consider, you have created a fantastic system with many incredible features and a huge potential for expansion. Recklessly mistreating a loyal group of customers by locking them into a dead-end situation would be an unfortunate and massively damaging end to an otherwise flourishing relationship with people looking for quality, reliability, and most importantly, loyalty.


Respectfully,

Jiri Bakala
EVO II Pro Pilot

Thanks Jiri for your post. I do agree it's time us V1 owners spoke up. I have personalized your email to AR and sent it away this morning. Unless I get a solution from AR, I will become a former client. Here is my email to AR.




Dear Mr. DeLuca and Autel Robotics leadership!

I would like to share with you a few thoughts regarding your EVO II first generation drone, also known as the V1. Having spent many thousands of dollars on DJI products, I watched with enthusiasm the evolution of the new EVO 2 Pro and decided to make my purchase in the spring of this year (2021). Very shortly thereafter came AR’s announcement regarding parts shortages for the drone and you would be forced to produce what is now known as the V2. I didn’t give it much of a thought as firmware can be modified to make changes transparent. I was looking forward to AR’s Smart Controller that I was sure I would be able to use with future drone products. The fiasco release of your SC was unbelievable. Unbelievable. Released for V2 models, then make a very limited one time run for V1 owners? No compatibility? Then watch deep pocketed V1 owners get sucked into buying obsolete SC’s. . The EVO II V1 is a great product especially the camera. It does however need serious upgrades in it’s flying characteristics. The change to V2 with no backwards compatibility or upgrade path left a very bitter taste in everyone’s mouth especially mine. . The fact that AR hasn’t offered any solution to the V1 user base seems truly hard to believe and extremely disappointing.

As an EVO II Pro V1 pilot, I, like many other professional users, have invested into a complete ecosystem, into an entire infrastructure, not just one toy to play with. Many of us have acquired scores of additional accessories, extra batteries, filters, cases, etc. It is, therefore, a real shock to realize that in less than 3 months of my purchase, the company I put our trust into, recklessly abandoned this entire group of customers. Like others, I came from other competitors like DJI. We all did our research, looked at the system’s specs, learned about the company making the tool of our trade, and invested our money. For Autel Robotics to do what you have done and cut off this entire group the way you have, is simply wrong.

But it doesn’t end there. It undermines customer loyalty, not only with us, the affected ones, but also with others, who will wonder whether an episode like this may repeat. It will, and I am sure already has, drive people away from AR and toward competitors that value customer loyalty.

The beauty of the EVO system is that the gimbal/camera is user replaceable and batteries and other components are compatible between the V1 and V2 versions. Hence, there is no need to swap anything else except the airframe and the controller. AR should offer an upgrade path to V1 owners to move to V2 airframe and controller. Since the upgrade would only involve the airframe and the controller, the costs could be reasonable. We could mount our gimbal/camera on the V2 airframe and keep using the rest of our accessories. On top of that, many of the V1 users would also immediately purchase the V2 Smart Controller, hence expanding your sales.

Customer and brand loyalty would be significant. The knowledge that the company you are dealing with is always there to support its customers is truly priceless.

You have created a fantastic system with many incredible features and a huge potential for expansion. Recklessly mistreating a loyal group of customers by locking them into a dead-end situation would be an unfortunate and massively damaging end to an otherwise flourishing relationship with people looking for quality, reliability, and most importantly, loyalty.


Respectfully,



Les Dalzell

 

[GeoDrone SRL]

I see no purpose in this...V1 does same thing as V2...Batteries are the same, camera is the same...
When did you heared about a Evo 1 controller broken and not fixed as there is no more on market?
The proper push here should be related to Autel Explorer app, not to give you a change...just sell your V1 and buy a V2 if does matter so much that dual band...I fly mostly in city and have no problems.

 

[Andrew01]

I see no purpose in this...V1 does same thing as V2...Batteries are the same, camera is the same...
When did you heared about a Evo 1 controller broken and not fixed as there is no more on market?
The proper push here should be related to Autel Explorer app, not to give you a change...just sell your V1 and buy a V2 if does matter so much that dual band...I fly mostly in city and have no problems.

To me this is really about controllers. If a V1 controller breaks, antennas are damaged, whatnot, then your bird is useless. I called Autel and pressed them on this scenario and they made clear there is currently no plan as to what happens in this scenario or if they help at all. And that's unacceptable.

 

[kenautelevo2pro]

To me this is really about controllers. If a V1 controller breaks, antennas are damaged, whatnot, then your bird is useless. I called Autel and pressed them on this scenario and they made clear there is currently no plan as to what happens in this scenario or if they help at all. And that's unacceptable.

i think it's pretty clear what happens when your v1 controller breaks. this isn't the first time in history this has happened and it's not the first time for autel either. you probably just talked to the wrong person on the phone and they thought you were trying to get something for free so they didn't want to commit to a "what if" over the phone. every case is unique and how autel handles it is personalized and based on the circumstances so from that standpoint, there cannot be a "plan" in place even though all of the mechanisms are in place to provide a solution.

 

[Brock Inspector]

The real solution will be found with the adoption of Right-to-Repair legislation in an overwhelming number of countries. Only then will we have access to the parts, schematics, and code needed to mix and match. I and others would like to see V1 modules installed in AE2 Enterprise machines so that they work with Live Decks. (Or the larger motors, arms, and props available for retrofitting my V1... and confirmation that the existing ESCs are up to the task)