Come on DJI. Goggles 3 and Mavic Classic

[4 inch pistons]

I see where the Goggles 3 now work with the Mavic 3 Pro but not the Classic. Before I bought the Classic I read that the only difference in the two was the cameras. So why doesn’t it work on both?

 

[mavic3usa]

If the Goggles 3 works with the Mavic 3 Pro, that would be a surprise to many of us. Source?

 

[4 inch pistons]

The Goggles 3 lets you choose the Avata Air 3 and Mavic Pro.

 

[mavic3usa]

The Goggles 3 lets you choose the Avata Air 3 and Mavic Pro.

Ok, not exactly sure what that means but I don't have the Goggles 3 to confirm; perhaps someone else will drop in and provide the update.

 

[4 inch pistons]

Checked it today and it now reads Mini 4 Pro. Hummmm

 

[dave canada]

i wonder how much extra time is put in to keep euipment from working on oyher drones ,why not one goggle that works on any dji drome ,is it about the money or is it that hard to do ??

 

[Droning on and on...]

i wonder how much extra time is put in to keep euipment from working on oyher drones ,why not one goggle that works on any dji drome ,is it about the money or is it that hard to do ??

Having lots of experience with software development, my guess is no effort is put in to keeping thing from working together... It's quite the opposite, there's usually some work necessary to get each variant of some product family to work with something new.

Often the reason is technically trivial, like adding the new device to places in the code that get the model or some other identifier, and then make some sort of choice as to what code to execute. It can point to exactly the same code to execute as for an already supported model, but the branching code must be updated to do that. See the "switch" statement in Java.

Depending on the design of the code, there may be many of these, so the engineering effort to support a new model of something can be non-trivial, even if the code to implement that support is technically trivial, while tedious and time-consuming to implement.

The decision not to make this effort is a strategic marketing one, or driven by ROI.

 

[dave canada]

Having lots of experience with software development, my guess is no effort is put in to keeping thing from working together... It's quite the opposite, there's usually some work necessary to get each variant of some product family to work with something new.

Often the reason is technically trivial, like adding the new device to places in the code that get the model or some other identifier, and then make some sort of choice as to what code to execute. It can point to exactly the same code to execute as for an already supported model, but the branching code must be updated to do that. See the "switch" statement in Java.

Depending on the design of the code, there may be many of these, so the engineering effort to support a new model of something can be non-trivial, even if the code to implement that support is trivial.

thanks i don,t need to wonder about things i don,t completely understand and don,t use it for a reason to mistrust ,I think i got to the point there

 

[Droning on and on...]

thanks i don,t need to wonder about things i don,t completely understand and don,t use it for a reason to mistrust ,I think i got to the point there

Just wanted to dispel the notion that DJI is doing something sinister, when there is a far more common (and likely) reason.