DJI to restrict non-compliant drones at next software update

[jarred125]

You say unrealistic, I say resist as long as possible! I am still running XP on my home computer. Why? Because it does what I need. No issues, no viruses, no problem. But as more and more software stops supporting it I'm sure eventually It wont be able to do what I need and ill upgrade. But nobody is forcing me. It will probably be the same with the app. But some here make it sound like its an "update now or else" kind of thing and that is not the case. I'm sure the old versions of the app and firmwares have still got some time to go before they are just completely unusable.

Doing this on a PC is much easier than doing it on an iOS or Android device, iOS being a whole lot more difficult.

 

[Robert Granata]

I think the issue is though, that this came from the factory with this behavior. People are concerned about DJI modifying the behavior of the device they paid for after the fact. If I know that the product is going to do X when I buy it, that is fine, I agree to that when I exchange money for the product. If after the fact the product no longer does X because the manufacturer changed something that is not acceptable.

Think of it this way, if you were in a contract with a cellular provider and there was a material change in the contract you could legally walk away from that contract, keeping the product, and there was nothing the cellular provider could do about it.

Granted this seems to do nothing like that (so far, from reports) but the concern is always there with something you paid a lot of money for.

Unless you agreed to Terms and Conditions that allowed them to do it.

 

[jarred125]

Unless you agreed to Terms and Conditions that allowed them to do it.

Last I checked contracts are not legally allowed to stipulate "we can change the contract to whatever and you just have to agree!". Otherwise cellular companies would have been doing this a LONG time ago.

 

[TimesTen]

You say unrealistic, I say resist as long as possible! I am still running XP on my home computer. Why? Because it does what I need. No issues, no viruses, no problem. But as more and more software stops supporting it I'm sure eventually It wont be able to do what I need and ill upgrade. But nobody is forcing me. It will probably be the same with the app. But some here make it sound like its an "update now or else" kind of thing and that is not the case. I'm sure the old versions of the app and firmwares have still got some time to go before they are just completely unusable.

Please Disable SMB ASAP on XP

Disable netbt service
net stop netbt & sc delete netbt
net stop netbios & sc delete netbios

Disable Workstation Service
sc stop "LanmanWorkstation"
sc config "LanmanWorkstation" start= disabled
sc delete "LanmanWorkstation"

 

[Robert Granata]

Last I checked contracts are not legally allowed to stipulate "we can change the contract to whatever and you just have to agree!". Otherwise cellular companies would have been doing this a LONG time ago.

Well, I am certainly not a lawyer (don't even play one on TV), but I am pretty sure if they wrote their contracts in plain, simple, easy to understand english (like you and I do), the contracts for a phone wouldn't be 20 pages long. They hide what they want in legaleze (or legalsleeze).

 

[Nightowl702]

Please Disable SMB ASAP on XP

Disable netbt service
net stop netbt & sc delete netbt
net stop netbios & sc delete netbios

Disable Workstation Service
sc stop "LanmanWorkstation"
sc config "LanmanWorkstation" start= disabled
sc delete "LanmanWorkstation"

No worries!

 

[jarred125]

Well, I am certainly not a lawyer (don't even play one on TV), but I am pretty sure if they wrote their contracts in plain, simple, easy to understand english (like you and I do), the contracts for a phone wouldn't be 20 pages long. They hide what they want in legaleze (or legalsleeze).

Really doesn't matter how long the contract is. Again, if that type of thing was legal cellular carriers would have been including those in their contracts a long time ago. 20 pages or not, if it isn't legal it isn't going to stand up even if it's written into a contract.

 

[Robert Granata]

Really doesn't matter how long the contract is. Again, if that type of thing was legal cellular carriers would have been including those in their contracts a long time ago. 20 pages or not, if it isn't legal it isn't going to stand up even if it's written into a contract.

I defer to your legal acumen.

 

[Turnerm]

I think the issue is though, that this came from the factory with this behavior. People are concerned about DJI modifying the behavior of the device they paid for after the fact. If I know that the product is going to do X when I buy it, that is fine, I agree to that when I exchange money for the product. If after the fact the product no longer does X because the manufacturer changed something that is not acceptable.

Think of it this way, if you were in a contract with a cellular provider and there was a material change in the contract you could legally walk away from that contract, keeping the product, and there was nothing the cellular provider could do about it.

Granted this seems to do nothing like that (so far, from reports) but the concern is always there with something you paid a lot of money for.

If you use this argument then you'd have to agree that DJI sold you a product knowing that you were going to fly in areas where you weren't authorized. If you can't agree to that assumption then your argument is invalid.

All that's changing (that we know of... but that I fully expect to be true) is they are asking you to acknowledge a new TOS that basically says you understand and will abide by the laws that pertain to the areas that you will be flying in.

 

[Derlisz]

I think the issue is though, that this came from the factory with this behavior. People are concerned about DJI modifying the behavior of the device they paid for after the fact. If I know that the product is going to do X when I buy it, that is fine, I agree to that when I exchange money for the product. If after the fact the product no longer does X because the manufacturer changed something that is not acceptable.

Think of it this way, if you were in a contract with a cellular provider and there was a material change in the contract you could legally walk away from that contract, keeping the product, and there was nothing the cellular provider could do about it.

Granted this seems to do nothing like that (so far, from reports) but the concern is always there with something you paid a lot of money for.

Just like Sony when they have withdrawn option to install third party os on early ps3 just to withdraw from it and get slapped with class action lawsuit.

 

[jarred125]

If you use this argument then you'd have to agree that DJI sold you a product knowing that you were going to fly in areas where you weren't authorized. If you can't agree to that assumption then your argument is invalid.

All that's changing (that we know of... but that I fully expect to be true) is they are asking you to acknowledge a new TOS that basically says you understand and will abide by the laws that pertain to the areas that you will be flying in.

No, I don't have to agree to that. The material change is "your drone will no longer fly past X distance and X height until you register".

That was not something that was agreed to upon the purchase of my drone, it has nothing to do with the "I am going to fly it in areas I am not authorized".

The issue is once again, that if you disagree with the ToS the device that you already paid for will be crippled and it was not prior to that. It has nothing to do with flying unauthorized and everything to do with them changing the "rules" after the fact. They are not a governing organization and they do not pass laws. If they want to operate in that manner they should be offering a full refund in exchange for the drone.

Edit: Also, last I checked it already confirmed you will abide by the laws of the area you fly in. If you're within an area that is a NFZ it simply wont take off, if you're around an airport it already makes you check a couple of boxes saying you received authorization to fly (and even this is wrong wording, the tower does authorize you to fly). That is already baked in so there is no reason they need to modify the ToS for this.

 

[Nightowl702]

No, I don't have to agree to that. The material change is "your drone will no longer fly past X distance and X height until you register".

That was not something that was agreed to upon the purchase of my drone, it has nothing to do with the "I am going to fly it in areas I am not authorized".

The issue is once again, that if you disagree with the ToS the device that you already paid for will be crippled and it was not prior to that. It has nothing to do with flying unauthorized and everything to do with them changing the "rules" after the fact. They are not a governing organization and they do not pass laws. If they want to operate in that manner they should be offering a full refund in exchange for the drone.

Edit: Also, last I checked it already confirmed you will abide by the laws of the area you fly in. If you're within an area that is a NFZ it simply wont take off, if you're around an airport it already makes you check a couple of boxes saying you received authorization to fly (and even this is wrong wording, the tower does authorize you to fly). That is already baked in so there is no reason they need to modify the ToS for this.

Didnt you have to register when you first bought it? Isn't that what the first time activation was? Isn't this re-activation the same thing?

 

[jarred125]

Didnt you have to register when you first bought it? Isn't that what the first time activation was? Isn't this re-activation the same thing?

I registered at first agreeing to the initial ToS. Now if I want to continue flying my drone as it originally did I must agree to the new ToS otherwise the device I have already paid for becomes crippled. The point is, there is zero reason to have to "re-activate" after the original. Changing the ToS and then penalizing me if I do not agree with it after the fact is a terrible move for a company. Again, if that is how they want to play .. offer a full refund in exchange for the device.

 

[Nightowl702]

I registered at first agreeing to the initial ToS. Now if I want to continue flying my drone as it originally did I must agree to the new ToS otherwise the device I have already paid for becomes crippled. The point is, there is zero reason to have to "re-activate" after the original. Changing the ToS and then penalizing me if I do not agree with it after the fact is a terrible move for a company. Again, if that is how they want to play .. offer a full refund in exchange for the device.

So then dont update and keep flying under the original TOS

 

[Nightowl702]

And has anybody actually seen the new TOS? How does it differ from the original?

 

[jarred125]

So then dont update and keep flying under the original TOS

There have been many points already brought out about this and why it is not a valid excuse.

If you're running this on iOS and you do anything that requires a restore (new device, replacement device, etc etc etc) it will download he latest app from the App Store, eventually forcing you into updating.

If you have to send your drone in for repair, DJI (as most companies do) will flash the latest firmware to the device, now forcing you into this agreement or crippling your device.

There are many other arguments against this concept.

The point of all of this is, you purchased a device and agreed to an initial ToS. Forcing someone to agree to another ToS after the fact is shady at best.

What if you purchased a car that originally was allowed to exceed the speed limit, the manufacturer did a repair to it (say a recall of some sort), then flashing firmware to the ECU which forces the car to never exceed a certain speed because that's their new "thing". Is that now the same car that you purchased?

The point is, this is a change to the terms of service and if you don't agree you are penalized for a product you already purchased. I am not saying I personally will have any issue with the ToS .. I don't know, I haven't read it. But what if I did? Should I be penalized now?

 

[MavicKhan]

No, I don't have to agree to that. The material change is "your drone will no longer fly past X distance and X height until you register".

That was not something that was agreed to upon the purchase of my drone, it has nothing to do with the "I am going to fly it in areas I am not authorized".

The issue is once again, that if you disagree with the ToS the device that you already paid for will be crippled and it was not prior to that. It has nothing to do with flying unauthorized and everything to do with them changing the "rules" after the fact. They are not a governing organization and they do not pass laws. If they want to operate in that manner they should be offering a full refund in exchange for the drone.

Edit: Also, last I checked it already confirmed you will abide by the laws of the area you fly in. If you're within an area that is a NFZ it simply wont take off, if you're around an airport it already makes you check a couple of boxes saying you received authorization to fly (and even this is wrong wording, the tower does authorize you to fly). That is already baked in so there is no reason they need to modify the ToS for this.

Perfectly explained.

...there are also individual requirements that were considered fulfilled at the time of the purchase and that might now be compromised, depending on what actually comes along.

For, instance, myself, I bought the Mavic to also be used in international travels.

If it is true the system might start requiring random logins (...because of whatever might go wrong on their side after adopting the publicized approach...) while I am, say, in northern Iceland where there are many areas without cellular coverage, what kind of confidence will it give me?

MK

 

[Turnerm]

I registered at first agreeing to the initial ToS. Now if I want to continue flying my drone as it originally did I must agree to the new ToS otherwise the device I have already paid for becomes crippled. The point is, there is zero reason to have to "re-activate" after the original. Changing the ToS and then penalizing me if I do not agree with it after the fact is a terrible move for a company. Again, if that is how they want to play .. offer a full refund in exchange for the device.

This isn't true. Simply do not use the new app. Fly as you always have. Simple.

But let me ask you this. Did you actually READ and AGREE to the TOS of the DJI GO4 app before you decided to purchase your Mavic? If you did then you are in the less than 1% of users in the world. You accepted the TOS and flew. Now suddenly you're super upset that they are changing their TOS and asking you to accept the new ones. If the new TOS was the first TOS you would've agreed to it and gone about your happy way and this would be a non-issue.

People are just looking for a reason to be pissed. Plain and simple. The sky is not falling.

 

[Nightowl702]

It would be kind of funny if the new TOS were exactly the same as the original. From everything I have seen this just appears to be another NFZ update and some stricter rules for China. So what exactly is everyone expecting DJI to change in the new TOS?

 

[jarred125]

People are just looking for a reason to be pissed. Plain and simple. The sky is not falling.

And folks like you are here to minimize anything that a company does "because".

If this were something other than a drone (say something you depended on for daily living) you would be throwing a fit about it.

The issue has nothing to do with the original terms of service that I did or did not read (I did not, btw). The issue is now again that if there IS something in this ToS I do not agree with, that's just too bad! Sorry, that $1,000 device you bought is now worth about $100!

Edit: I am really trying hard to figure out what you guys don't get about this. You're simply hoping that DJI, out of the goodness of their heart, isn't saying you must agree to something that you do not agree with. The point is, this is that "slippery slope" where "hey we did this last time and all these people didn't care, so lets ratchet it up a bit!"