Sundog775
Well-Known Member
Not sure where exactly to post my thoughts on this, since there now seems to be several threads following this same vein, but I'm guessing right here is as good a place as any 
.
Anyone new to this forum or Autel in general may not realize that for most of the past year, self-professed industry “experts” have been offering up their remarkable insight by providing with their opinions that Autel is a dying company destined for impending doom; that they can’t possibly survive another couple of months; that they have no idea of what they’re doing and they look like some two-bit outfit working out of someone’s garage. I can even remember one day last spring when the Autel website was down for maintenance that there was no shortage of “experts” jumping in to let us know that the end was here, that the company obviously had shuttered it’s operation overnight and left us all hanging, and we were all idiots for supporting a non-DJI company in the first place. And yet, here we are, with the introduction of an exciting new product and new east coast facility to improve what is already excellent customer service. I realize that when it comes to “trash-talking” it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone offering a legitimate opinion and some troll just looking for a reaction, but it would be nice if just one of the “naysayers” would admit they were wrong (not holding my breath on that one!).
Now that the dust from last week has settled a little, there’s a number of statements that I’ve seen folks putting out there that to me are simply “misrepresentations of reality”, and I think are worth looking at from a fresh perspective. Just one person's opinions, that's all.
For starters, I just don’t get this notion that we XSP owners have been “abandoned” by Autel. To me, “abandonment” would be if they sent everyone home, closed the doors and said they were just not going to do the drone thing any more. Clearly that is not the case. New products get introduced and old ones get discontinued every day. Maybe some people would have had less heartburn over the new model if they had called it the XSP2 instead of the EVO, but that wouldn’t make much sense from a marketing perspective.
Autel has acknowledged that they made a mistake by announcing two camera modules at the 2017 CES that they were unable to actually provide at the quality and price they felt was required, and have made a commitment not to repeat that mistake in the future. They have also made a commitment to provide ongoing support for the X-Star “as long as it is needed”. There are thousands of X-Stars currently flying; I don’t believe anyone at Autel has any intention of seeing them become obsolete paperweights any time in the foreseeable future.
Back in 1989 (yeah, I know, ancient history) when it was announced that by beloved Nikon F3 was going to be replaced by the revolutionary new F4, I don’t remember anyone saying they had been “abandoned”, “screwed over”, “scammed”, or “lied to” by Nikon. The company had, in fact, attempted to modernize the F3 by developing an autofocus version, but it quickly became apparent that in order to make all the improvements they felt were necessary would require an entirely new platform, hence the birth of the F4, which at the time was the most technologically advanced 35mm camera ever produced. Instead of feeling like they had been somehow left adrift by Nikon, most photographers I know responded by embracing the new technology and buying an F4. I actually see a lot of parallels with the XSP and the EVO (except of course, that back in 1991 when I bought an F4 it was a $2000 investment for just a camera body, as compared to only $1000 today for an incredibly advanced drone/camera package).
I also don’t believe it is an accurate statement to say that nothing Autel introduced at the 2017 CES ever materialized. Yes, they presented two camera modules that didn’t come to fruition. Every other piece of hardware they presented was offered as “conceptual”, and at least three of those concepts have actually materialized on the EVO - dynamic tracking, obstacle avoidance and a built-in monitor on the controller. As for the two modules, most of the comments I see regarding the FLIR Duo reflect disappointment over the poor resolution, and Autel has indicated they were not satisfied with the overall performance of the camera. Price, I’m sure, was also a factor, and while some people speculated that the thermal camera should run around $350 for the camera/gimbal module, that’s frankly absurd since a standalone Duo retails for $995. I believe the same is true of the 1” camera, and while I would have been willing to spend up to $1000 for an improved camera (that still would be considerably less than any DSLR I’ve purchased in the past 15 years), that’s clearly not what a lot of folks had in mind. I’m pretty sure that if Autel had gone through with the production of the two modules at a price of say $995 each, a lot of the same folks who are complaining now would be screaming bloody murder over them charging more more a camera/gimbal than they did for the entire drone. Kind of a “no-win” situation.
I guess it’s fair enough to call the XSP a “dying product”, but in reality just about every piece off technology hardware begins the process of “dying” the day it’s released. I’ve got a $500 iPhone 4 collecting dust in a drawer somewhere; I’m sure the development of the iPhone 5 was well under way the day I bought it, and I’m pretty sure whatever drone replaces the EVO is already on the drawing board somewhere. We live in a world where technology advances so rapidly that many products are already out of date by the time they hit the store shelves.
I see many references to the DJI lawsuits, with the implication that being sued by them is a death knell for any other drone company. I think it’s worth pointing out that while DJI is quite adept at filing lawsuits, they are not particularly successful at actually winning them. In fact, they have not won any suits they filed to date, and they currently actually have two patent infringement cases filed against them. They lost their suit with Yuneec, they lost their bid for an initial “cease and desist” order against Autel in the Delaware suit, and the Washington suit is seemingly “dead in the water” with no action at all for more than 4 months and nothing scheduled. Lawsuits are just one of the tactics used by DJI in the relentless pursuit of their stated goal of eliminating all competition and gaining control over 100% of the consumer drone market, and are just a part of life of any company presenting any kind of serious challenge to them.
As for the availability of repair parts, I don’t believe the lack of products listed on Autel’s website has anything to do with their ability to provide repairs. It’s been many months since I’ve seen the camera/gimbal assembly listed, and to my knowledge they’ve never offered the direct sale of items like motors and circuit boards. Regardless, I have never heard or read of a single case in which they were not able to repair a drone due to a lack of parts. That includes replacing defective batteries, even if shown “out of stock” on the website. They made a decision from the beginning that they wanted to be responsible for all repairs to ensure quality control and to learn where potential weaknesses may be. You can argue whether or not that’s fair, but it’s just their way of doing things.
If there comes a point in the distant future where compatibility between an unsupported Starlink app and an updated operating system actually becomes an issue, it seems the easy solution is to do what many of us already do, which is to use a device exclusively dedicated to the X-Star. Establish a working configuration, turn off automatic updates so that nothing changes, and you should be good to go for the foreseeable future.
With respect to the EVO, I think it’s an inaccurate characterization to dismiss it as merely a Mavic “clone”. Every report I have seen indicates that, beyond the inherent similarities that any folding quad would exhibit, it is truly a remarkable, innovative machine that stands on its own. Next week when the updated Mavic is presented, it will no doubt include some of the innovations shown on the EVO. Will people then refer to the new Mavic as an EVO “clone”? Probably not.
Finally, (I know this is lengthy and I sincerely appreciate your time if you’ve made it this far) I’ve seen several recent posts touting DJI’s “improved” customer service. If that’s truly the case, one thing you can be sure of is that it’s not because DJI has suddenly developed a caring “soft spot” for their customers, but rather a direct result of competition from companies like Autel. To me, that demonstrates the importance of continuing to support Autel, and the willingness to forgive missteps that are common in any new venture. Survival of competition is up to us, the consumer, and it’s the only way we can ensure that we will continue to have freedom of choice in the consumer drone market. I think that’s good for all of us.
.Anyone new to this forum or Autel in general may not realize that for most of the past year, self-professed industry “experts” have been offering up their remarkable insight by providing with their opinions that Autel is a dying company destined for impending doom; that they can’t possibly survive another couple of months; that they have no idea of what they’re doing and they look like some two-bit outfit working out of someone’s garage. I can even remember one day last spring when the Autel website was down for maintenance that there was no shortage of “experts” jumping in to let us know that the end was here, that the company obviously had shuttered it’s operation overnight and left us all hanging, and we were all idiots for supporting a non-DJI company in the first place. And yet, here we are, with the introduction of an exciting new product and new east coast facility to improve what is already excellent customer service. I realize that when it comes to “trash-talking” it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between someone offering a legitimate opinion and some troll just looking for a reaction, but it would be nice if just one of the “naysayers” would admit they were wrong (not holding my breath on that one!).
Now that the dust from last week has settled a little, there’s a number of statements that I’ve seen folks putting out there that to me are simply “misrepresentations of reality”, and I think are worth looking at from a fresh perspective. Just one person's opinions, that's all.
For starters, I just don’t get this notion that we XSP owners have been “abandoned” by Autel. To me, “abandonment” would be if they sent everyone home, closed the doors and said they were just not going to do the drone thing any more. Clearly that is not the case. New products get introduced and old ones get discontinued every day. Maybe some people would have had less heartburn over the new model if they had called it the XSP2 instead of the EVO, but that wouldn’t make much sense from a marketing perspective.
Autel has acknowledged that they made a mistake by announcing two camera modules at the 2017 CES that they were unable to actually provide at the quality and price they felt was required, and have made a commitment not to repeat that mistake in the future. They have also made a commitment to provide ongoing support for the X-Star “as long as it is needed”. There are thousands of X-Stars currently flying; I don’t believe anyone at Autel has any intention of seeing them become obsolete paperweights any time in the foreseeable future.
Back in 1989 (yeah, I know, ancient history) when it was announced that by beloved Nikon F3 was going to be replaced by the revolutionary new F4, I don’t remember anyone saying they had been “abandoned”, “screwed over”, “scammed”, or “lied to” by Nikon. The company had, in fact, attempted to modernize the F3 by developing an autofocus version, but it quickly became apparent that in order to make all the improvements they felt were necessary would require an entirely new platform, hence the birth of the F4, which at the time was the most technologically advanced 35mm camera ever produced. Instead of feeling like they had been somehow left adrift by Nikon, most photographers I know responded by embracing the new technology and buying an F4. I actually see a lot of parallels with the XSP and the EVO (except of course, that back in 1991 when I bought an F4 it was a $2000 investment for just a camera body, as compared to only $1000 today for an incredibly advanced drone/camera package).
I also don’t believe it is an accurate statement to say that nothing Autel introduced at the 2017 CES ever materialized. Yes, they presented two camera modules that didn’t come to fruition. Every other piece of hardware they presented was offered as “conceptual”, and at least three of those concepts have actually materialized on the EVO - dynamic tracking, obstacle avoidance and a built-in monitor on the controller. As for the two modules, most of the comments I see regarding the FLIR Duo reflect disappointment over the poor resolution, and Autel has indicated they were not satisfied with the overall performance of the camera. Price, I’m sure, was also a factor, and while some people speculated that the thermal camera should run around $350 for the camera/gimbal module, that’s frankly absurd since a standalone Duo retails for $995. I believe the same is true of the 1” camera, and while I would have been willing to spend up to $1000 for an improved camera (that still would be considerably less than any DSLR I’ve purchased in the past 15 years), that’s clearly not what a lot of folks had in mind. I’m pretty sure that if Autel had gone through with the production of the two modules at a price of say $995 each, a lot of the same folks who are complaining now would be screaming bloody murder over them charging more more a camera/gimbal than they did for the entire drone. Kind of a “no-win” situation.
I guess it’s fair enough to call the XSP a “dying product”, but in reality just about every piece off technology hardware begins the process of “dying” the day it’s released. I’ve got a $500 iPhone 4 collecting dust in a drawer somewhere; I’m sure the development of the iPhone 5 was well under way the day I bought it, and I’m pretty sure whatever drone replaces the EVO is already on the drawing board somewhere. We live in a world where technology advances so rapidly that many products are already out of date by the time they hit the store shelves.
I see many references to the DJI lawsuits, with the implication that being sued by them is a death knell for any other drone company. I think it’s worth pointing out that while DJI is quite adept at filing lawsuits, they are not particularly successful at actually winning them. In fact, they have not won any suits they filed to date, and they currently actually have two patent infringement cases filed against them. They lost their suit with Yuneec, they lost their bid for an initial “cease and desist” order against Autel in the Delaware suit, and the Washington suit is seemingly “dead in the water” with no action at all for more than 4 months and nothing scheduled. Lawsuits are just one of the tactics used by DJI in the relentless pursuit of their stated goal of eliminating all competition and gaining control over 100% of the consumer drone market, and are just a part of life of any company presenting any kind of serious challenge to them.
As for the availability of repair parts, I don’t believe the lack of products listed on Autel’s website has anything to do with their ability to provide repairs. It’s been many months since I’ve seen the camera/gimbal assembly listed, and to my knowledge they’ve never offered the direct sale of items like motors and circuit boards. Regardless, I have never heard or read of a single case in which they were not able to repair a drone due to a lack of parts. That includes replacing defective batteries, even if shown “out of stock” on the website. They made a decision from the beginning that they wanted to be responsible for all repairs to ensure quality control and to learn where potential weaknesses may be. You can argue whether or not that’s fair, but it’s just their way of doing things.
If there comes a point in the distant future where compatibility between an unsupported Starlink app and an updated operating system actually becomes an issue, it seems the easy solution is to do what many of us already do, which is to use a device exclusively dedicated to the X-Star. Establish a working configuration, turn off automatic updates so that nothing changes, and you should be good to go for the foreseeable future.
With respect to the EVO, I think it’s an inaccurate characterization to dismiss it as merely a Mavic “clone”. Every report I have seen indicates that, beyond the inherent similarities that any folding quad would exhibit, it is truly a remarkable, innovative machine that stands on its own. Next week when the updated Mavic is presented, it will no doubt include some of the innovations shown on the EVO. Will people then refer to the new Mavic as an EVO “clone”? Probably not.
Finally, (I know this is lengthy and I sincerely appreciate your time if you’ve made it this far
) I’ve seen several recent posts touting DJI’s “improved” customer service. If that’s truly the case, one thing you can be sure of is that it’s not because DJI has suddenly developed a caring “soft spot” for their customers, but rather a direct result of competition from companies like Autel. To me, that demonstrates the importance of continuing to support Autel, and the willingness to forgive missteps that are common in any new venture. Survival of competition is up to us, the consumer, and it’s the only way we can ensure that we will continue to have freedom of choice in the consumer drone market. I think that’s good for all of us.
