[HN Gopher] Snap launches its first drone called Pixy
___________________________________________________________________
Snap launches its first drone called Pixy
Author : ovenchips
Score : 361 points
Date : 2022-04-28 16:58 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pixy.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (pixy.com)
| chimen wrote:
| Just what the world needed. Another annoying device out in the
| sky to fly over your fence, in your yard, in the park, cinemas,
| public places, restaurants, concerts, at the beach or...in your
| face.
| spiderice wrote:
| We must be living in different worlds. The number of times I've
| been annoyed by a drone is.. 0. The rare times I even do see
| someone fly a drone I think, "Oh cool, someone having fun fly a
| drone".
|
| I think learning to enjoy life and not getting smugly annoyed
| by the tiniest of inconveniences is a trait that people need to
| practice.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| It's possible the previous poster lives in a place with more
| tourists than you do
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I lived by a popular park in SF and started getting annoyed
| by them, especially since it felt privacy invading because
| there was nowhere else that could look into my 3rd story
| window.
|
| Don't think it should be banned or anything though.
| omot wrote:
| This is sooo cool.
| shisisms wrote:
| Won't there now be 1000s of flying selfie sticks bumping into
| each other?
|
| Looks beautiful. Feels like dystopian comedy.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| This is a really good business idea, it's going to be very
| successful. I also hate everything about it.
|
| The selfie sticks were bad enough but just like you say soon
| every idiot tourist is going to have an autonomous drone
| following them wherever they go, capturing hours of social
| media material that no one's going to care about. Unless they
| catch you doing something that goes against their boring norms,
| because then they'll plaster it all over without a care for
| your privacy. I must have seen a dozen videos of "creepy old
| man naked in the woods near our children" or some similar
| phrasing when it turned out every time it was just some hippie
| nudist who thought he'd have a bit of peace and quiet being
| outdoors, far away from the city. But you can't go anywhere
| these days without these gopro morons filming your every move.
| rabuse wrote:
| What makes you think this will be even remotely successful?
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| Because people love taking pictures and video clips of
| themselves and this makes it a lot easier to get shots from
| different angles. It's perfect for the self-obsessed crowd,
| for social media influencers, travel bloggers, etc. There
| is already a competitor and I'm sure future products are
| going to be improved in terms of sensing, autonomous flying
| and image quality. I'm not saying Snap is going to be
| market leader, just that such drones are going to sell.
|
| Also autonomous flying has been in the works for other
| applications for years, now it's simply trickling down to
| the cheap consumer level where it can get sold to people
| who've never operated a quadcopter before and a going to
| buy this as a fun disposable gimmick.
| dmix wrote:
| $250 seems like a steep price point.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| i have drones. drones are hard to use. the killer feature of
| snapchat is that it's easy to get content up. you have to keep
| posting new content cause it decays fast. phones are especially
| good at taking photos and videos and making them accessible. you
| may go somewhere or meet someone and within a few minutes have 5+
| pictures you want to post. or a couple videos you think would do
| well. you may have them posted within 1 minute of taking them
|
| drones you have to set up. find a space for them. link them to
| your phone. tell people to get ready for the shot. make sure the
| location is good. probably do this 3-4 times cause it's really
| hard to get a good camera angle the first time. or the timing
| right.
|
| all of this means even getting one "post worthy" image or video
| might take you 20 mins. or even an hour. or as i've done many
| times you spend an hour or more messing around with it and don't
| like the footage and throw it all away
| hernantz wrote:
| Similar exp with a gopro
| foolfoolz wrote:
| gopro is this on steroids cause the image quality is so high
| and file sizes so big you can only really process them at
| home on a desktop. so do all this work and then take it home,
| upload to computer, and then maybe process it. i still have
| hundreds of gigs of footage i haven't had the heart to throw
| away yet but also likely won't review again
|
| proud owner of gopro karma and like 5 gopro cameras. the
| karma drone i have a fraction of the amount of content from
| compared to the cameras because it's that much harder
|
| good example of this is skiing. i would bring my gopro with
| gimbal and get amazing quality stabilize footage or hold my
| phone in my hand and get good quality but not amazing. of the
| videos i watch or share, like 95%+ are from my phone.
| accessibility is huge
| schimmy_changa wrote:
| I think the idea here is that snapchat is trying to solve that
| user issue drones have. If they can make using a drone as
| simple as TikTok made posting a short edited video, then they
| succeed here. There are lots of people who want to take drone
| images, but don't know how to start / what drone to buy / etc.
| This could (I give it a 30% chance) solve the problem.
|
| Another analogy could be the polaroid camera that
| 'democratized' casual pictures - this could be the equivalent
| 'democratization' for drone photography.
| foolfoolz wrote:
| i don't see any mass adoption of drones. the only time drone
| photos/videos will be common is when your phone can fly.
| bringing a drone around is a hassle. they are generally big
| (esp compared to a phone), extremely fragile, expensive, have
| short battery life. they are everything that made digital
| cameras hard and more. they would have to be so much better
| than what we have, but phone images and videos are already so
| good i don't see it happening
| jclardy wrote:
| This product is trying to be the antithesis of that. I have a
| few DJI drones and I share the same experience - you bring a
| drone to fly/shoot with a drone, it isn't something you do
| spontaneously.
|
| But this drone is not the same as a "traditional" drone, it
| appears you just set the mode, then let it fly out of your
| hand. No fumbling through an app for BT connection (Until you
| want to post the content, but Snap glasses make this super
| easy, the drone will be the same.) No looking for somewhere to
| launch because the props are guarded and the thing weighs less
| than a cell phone. No controls needed since it is all just
| gestures. If it runs out of battery I imagine it just lands
| wherever it is at. And it is the size of a sandwich, so it fits
| in a small bag - so you don't need a separate carrying case.
| achow wrote:
| WSJ has good review including how it works:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/snap-pixy-review-dont-call-it-a...
|
| https://archive.is/zW515
|
| Excerpt:
|
| Turn the Pixy's dial to one of its four flying modes..
|
| Hover: Here, the Pixy reverses a couple of feet and floats in
| front of you like a hummingbird. In the Snapchat app, you can
| customize, up to 60 seconds, how long you'd like it to capture
| video
|
| Reveal: Like a traditional drone shot, the Pixy reverses and
| flies upward to reveal your scene. My favorite of the bunch, it
| won't fly more than 30 feet away from you (you can shorten that
| distance in the app) and it only goes about 15 feet up in the
| air.
|
| Follow: The Pixy will follow you around very, very slowly.
|
| Orbit: The Pixy will reverse to 5, 8 or 15 feet (whichever you
| set in the app) then make a full circle around you before flying
| back.
|
| There are two cameras on the Pixy: One points down, stabilizing
| the drone and detecting your hand, aka its landing pad. The other
| faces outward, tracking you and capturing video and photos.
| Flight patterns are preprogrammed so it doesn't rely on any
| additional sensors for navigation or collision avoidance.
| ketzo wrote:
| Thank you for this! Based on their quick video, I wasn't quite
| sure of the control scheme. Four basic modes with a little bit
| of extra control seems ideal for this kind of product.
| nathan_gold wrote:
| I find it interesting how people always judge products based on
| their v1.
|
| Yes it has flaws, but early adopters will put up with it, and
| future iterations will be much better. I think we need to ask
| ourselves whether, if some things improved, this is a good idea.
|
| And I like it.
| matsemann wrote:
| Some of these shots can easily be replicated with a 360 camera
| (InstaOne, GoPro MAX etc) mounted on a pole. Not as hip, perhaps,
| but makes tracking drones seem a bit unnecessary in many cases.
| dmarchuk wrote:
| I'm a bit surprised they don't mention Snap anywhere on the site
| except for a link in footer (something like "by Snap"). Generally
| I would expect much better experience from a single page website
| promoting one product.
| moritonal wrote:
| I looked through (edit, most) their site, and can't find any...
| specs? Nothing about the length of each flight (but it proudly
| says it can do 5-8 flights). Nothing about the video encoding, or
| photo-quality, how many people it can track or how it handles
| crowds. Even the basics like, what phone's does this support,
| BLE-5 ect?
|
| With no information elsewhere and not actually being able to
| puchase the device, is this acutally "launched" or just
| announced?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Had to go to 'pixy support' at the bottom, but it still doesn't
| tote the length of each flight.
|
| https://support.pixy.com/hc/en-us/articles/5039928089236-Pix...
| raylad wrote:
| Max flight time is 60 seconds according to a settings screen
| in this video:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LwntvUVUV8&t=22s
| throwaway413 wrote:
| So, 5-8 minutes max of flight time per battery...sigh. Even
| assuming 60-sec is the "default" flight time.
| isp wrote:
| The video appears to imply that 30 seconds is the default
| flight time.
|
| So I'd estimate 2.5 - 4 minutes of flight time per
| battery.
| throwaway413 wrote:
| So almost 1/10th of the Mini 2 flight time, for 6/10ths
| the price, and like 2/10ths the featureset and quality of
| capture.
|
| Do people really love Snapchat that much that they'd
| choose such a trade off for app integration alone? Seems
| like a tough sell.
| ehnto wrote:
| I think this is a drone targeted at people who don't want
| a drone though. If you did want a drone, you wouldn't get
| this, you can't even fly it around. But if you want drone
| snaps, this is probably way better than dicking around
| with a mavic. Click the button, drone snap incoming, and
| you didn't do squat. No flying, no SD cards or file
| handling. Drone shot triggered straight from the app, and
| sent straight back into it.
| simulate-me wrote:
| It has 0/10th of the controller though.
| kart23 wrote:
| you can buy one by clicking the shop button. it says it'll only
| ship in 12 weeks though.
| moritonal wrote:
| This might be a locale issue, but from the UK I only see
| "Notify me" where I imagine you can puchase it?
| quenix wrote:
| Only available in US and France
| chrisshroba wrote:
| Say what you will about Snap, I'm all for fun new electronics,
| and I've often wondered whether a product like this could be
| viable. Excited to see how it does!
| mNovak wrote:
| To dive straight into the low end is viable only for a large
| corp that can subsidize it and/or the massive marketing blitz.
| I highly doubt they're making money on the $250 price tag
| unless they sell several million. Anyone else has to start at
| the high end / specialty, and work their way down.
| ryeights wrote:
| Please no! Drones are a public nuisance; I would really prefer
| for them to be banned from all public outdoor areas.
| WesleyHale wrote:
| like their glasses, there's a limited supply and then they're
| not produced for a while. I think it's taken them around 4
| years to do two iterations on their glasses.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| When Snap moved into hardware I had high hopes but by this point
| had written them off.
|
| Think this is a great step in the right direction and seems
| completely obvious once you see it.
| void-pointer wrote:
| People saying that this can't compete with DJI are missing the
| point.
|
| This product knows its target market (hint, not the people who
| browse HN) and, based on my initial first impressions, I think
| it's nailed it.
|
| Forgive me for a slightly contrived analogy, but if a DJI Mavic
| is a DSLR, and a DJI Mini is a portable point-and-shoot camera,
| then Pixy is a Polaroid. It's certainly not got the highest
| picture quality, doesn't have good altitude or range and the 30s
| flight time sounds laughable, but it's a nice looking,
| approachable device that looks like it could be used by anyone to
| take videos they currently can't with the devices they currently
| have (the mode dial is a brilliant idea.)
|
| I think this thing will sell very nicely. The big question for me
| is whether the Pixy wireless streaming to the phone allows
| exports out of the Snapchat app, if it does then all the biggest
| TikTok stars will buy one immediately and it will explode in
| popularity.
| pedalpete wrote:
| Completely agree with you. Not only that, but Snap (it seems)
| have done a great job in limiting the features so it only
| focuses on their core users use case.
|
| They didn't go for a skydio "follow me when I go for a run"
| they don't have a flight path. Though you likely could get the
| drone into trouble if you tried, a 30 second clip is enough for
| it to start flying, you move a few feet away, it follows you
| with a very close range, and then it is ready to land again.
|
| A great example of constraints making a better/simpler product.
| jpatt wrote:
| I think this may be the first casual consumer drone on the market
| compatible with the FAA's Operations Over People guidelines
| released last year:
| https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over....
| Before this, all flight over people required a waiver by the FAA.
|
| Drones under 250g, like the DJI Mini 2 would qualify as a
| Category 1 craft, allowing non-sustained flight over people and
| vehicles, but there was an element that the craft not have
| exposed blades capable of lacerating human skin, which the DJI
| Mini 2 fails.
|
| Pixy is 101g and looks to have an enclosed rotor design:
| https://support.pixy.com/hc/en-us/articles/5039928089236-Pix...
| [deleted]
| teeray wrote:
| This will get interesting from a regulations perspective. How
| much does it weigh? It looks like it might be sub-250g, which
| would exempt it from Remote ID and registration of flown under
| the recreational exemption. If not though, you'll need to stick a
| big old broadcast module on the top of it next year.
|
| Where this drone is more like a stickless selfie stick, I can see
| people using it during things like Stadium TFRs, flying over
| crowds inadvertently, etc.
| alexk307 wrote:
| For another 100 bucks you can get an entry level DJI drone that
| blows this thing out of the water in terms of camera quality,
| range, features. This is a piece of trash.
| Brystephor wrote:
| $100 is a 40% price increase.
|
| Think about how people buy chocolate. Sure, for $4 you can get
| a good chocolate bar that's quality, sources sustainable goods,
| is fair trade, etc. But you can also get a chocolate bar that
| tastes decent for $1-$2. The "good chocolate bar" is only $2
| more, but people are just looking for some chocolate.
|
| not to mention, the pixy flies itself and controls itself which
| removes effort + a learning curve and that has value.
| dymk wrote:
| People are saving $100 to waste $240 on a piece of plastic
| which will be amusing for a week or two, get boring because
| the image quality and battery suck, and then it goes to a
| landfill.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I asked elsewhere but can the DJI be easy to operate like this?
| Just hit a button, have it capture the moment, then it's done?
| I don't want to pull out a controller.
|
| Also at this price point $100 is meaningful. Many people go for
| whatever is cheapest.
| rexf wrote:
| Yeah, DJI is much more capable, but their drone pairing
| process (remote, drone, and app) is very painful & confusing.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Interesting that the Snap branding is pretty buried on the page,
| seemingly only in the about section at the bottom. The design
| language seems like it's snap, maybe that made it obvious enough?
| badwolf wrote:
| Similar to Spectacles.com
| InfoSportd wrote:
| I wonder if it can take 360 panoramic pictures The Orbit flight
| path seems that it looks at you. I would like something that
| looks outward. Contacted support but the rep couldn't answer my
| question.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This looks and feels like a rebranded drone from any random
| Chinese drone producer... is there anything novel about this
| other than Snapchat integration?
|
| Some of the _promo videos_ have terrible stabilization. Guessing
| this will fall even flatter than their glasses.
| nharada wrote:
| Ease of use and product design are certainly novel, not to
| mention marketing the product to a customer outside the
| traditional drone consumer segment (i.e. tech
| focused/interested adults).
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Yeah I suppose it would be interesting if the new market
| latches on, but I've seen a number of selfie-drones that more
| or less follow the same form-factor (albeit, less yellow) and
| have similar features.
| testmasterflex wrote:
| I don't think this will be a huge hit but it looks very cool!
| hacker_newz wrote:
| That color is just awful.
| olafura wrote:
| Refreshingly honest about the video quality you should expect in
| the main promo video. Typical problems like dynamic range, color
| profile, light bleed and tracking problems with the top of the
| head being cut off at one point. Pretty typical unless you spend
| more money on your drone or camera equipment. There are so many
| companies that fake the footage or pick much easier shooting
| locations.
| roughly wrote:
| I think this is going to be one of those things where we learn
| that nobody actually cares about any of that outside these
| forums. MP3s were garbage, early camera phones were garbage,
| Snap picture quality generally is garbage, bluetooth headphones
| suck, all of these things were and are decried by the tech
| community, and it turns out that people just don't care,
| because even at garbage quality it's still cool to have a robot
| take your picture.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Having a robot taking your picture only sounds cool go hacker
| news people ?
| filoleg wrote:
| The comment you are replying to claims the opposite of what
| you interpreted it as.
| evan_ wrote:
| The cool thing isn't "having a robot take your picture" the
| cool thing is "having a picture taken of you".
| majormajor wrote:
| Even without the robot angle "cool" aspect of a drone, it's a
| step along a progression that's shown clear demand: first
| selfies, then selfie sticks, then no-stick-needed non-selfie
| selfies.
| srcreigh wrote:
| Why isn't it trivial to cut out that noise?
|
| is it 4 motors? especially with data about current RPMs of the
| motors, with a FFT and some adjustments, it should be pretty
| trivial to deafen the sound.
|
| From my listening many motors are effectively pretty simple
| instruments with normal harmonics etc which are easy to model.
| I could be wrong though.
| meatmanek wrote:
| There's going to be a significant white noise component due
| to the turbulent airflow, which won't be as easy to cut out.
| sytelus wrote:
| There is probably a market for pocket drone that can carry
| iPhone and take selfie just like this.
| the_arun wrote:
| Isn't iPhone too heavy for drone to carry around
| photographing?
| walrus01 wrote:
| an actual FPV flight hobbyist 5" prop size class quadcopter
| (such as you might fly with goggles and a real remote
| control) can typically carry a gopro hero8/9/10 but a gopro
| is also a lot more compact, brick shaped, rugged, and has
| very extensively researched video stabilization systems in
| gopro's proprietary "hypersmooth" which writes the
| stabilized video into the HEVC file it records.
|
| putting something flat and large like an iphone on a 5" FPV
| quadcopter would be awkward and bad.
| ehnto wrote:
| Not that I think it should be done, but since the drone is
| carrying the phone, you could have the phone save a GPS
| point of where you are standing, and then the phone guides
| the drone away from that point to photograph toward it.
|
| Depending on GPS accuracy in the phone it could work well.
| GPS waypoint missions are already well established in the
| drone world.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| iPhone 12 mini weighs 135g, over half the 250g limit for
| mini-drones. It seems unfeasible for a pocket-size drone in
| the near future, unless the drone could pull power from the
| iPhone and not need its own battery.
|
| Mavic Mini has a payload capacity around 180g, but it also
| has a nice camera already.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Drones need power FAST for short bursts (aka one flight). I
| don't know if the iPhone battery supports that usage. It
| would be cool though if the phone could be a truly
| universal tool like that.
| hk__2 wrote:
| The pocket drone needs a way to know where you are in order
| to direct the camera at you and come back at the end. Right
| now they do so by pairing the drone with your phone (I guess
| using Bluetooth).
| kelnos wrote:
| I'd be pretty worried about an accident that damages my
| phone; I don't think I'd want something like that. But I
| wouldn't be surprised if some people do.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I was very surprised to hear the rotor buzz. Most drone promo
| videos pretend that when the motors spin, it makes moody beats
| sound.
| serf wrote:
| I was too busy being deafened by Frank Sinatra a split second
| after the rotor noise played to even remember hearing the
| rotor noise; rather than faking the silence they just over-
| wrote my memory of it in the advertisement with shock-and-awe
| style Sinatra -- I guess that's okay.
| andkenneth wrote:
| And that's pretty much the idea - they expect you to put
| music over whatever you've captured anyway.
| [deleted]
| mrtksn wrote:
| They have plenty of videos, here is one without any music:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpz8Q2spioo
|
| I was positively surprised, despite the music. Some time
| ago I was very annoyed by all these "drone projects" on
| kickstarter or concept artist sites about drones following
| you all day as personal assistants, for example. IMHO,
| drone noise is just as limiting factor as the battery life
| and products should have it on their promotion materials,
| even if it is for a split second.
| sorry_outta_gas wrote:
| It also makes it seem more real and fun
| bozhark wrote:
| The image stabilization is garbage
| pigtailgirl wrote:
| wobbly:
|
| https://videos.ctfassets.net/svn43w404u4n/4oG6RAF5QALMWEBdlX...
| walrus01 wrote:
| not just wobbly but what small drone enthusiasts call
| "jello", significantly lower video quality than like a $399
| dji mini 2
|
| it is _cheap_ and non gimbal stabilized, so can 't expect
| much more
| marwis wrote:
| Are there no better digital stabilization algorithms? This
| seems like it could be fixed in post processing on your
| phone/cloud.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| I've used Mercalli to fix this in post-processing but
| it's not a simple fix.
|
| This is caused by a non-global shutter so you have to
| spend a lot of processing power to fix it.
| walrus01 wrote:
| there absolutely are, without a gimbal, by using a
| somewhat large sensor and movement/orientation/inertia
| sensor ICs to perform a software crop and stabilization
| as the video is recorded.
|
| such as the hypersmooth 2.0 or hypersmooth 3.0 on a gopro
| hero9 black/hero10 etc. but those are considerably more
| expensive cameras.
|
| search youtube for gopro hypersmooth 3.0 and you'll see
| some examples of the same gopro with and without
| hypersmooth turned on.
| slg wrote:
| That is nice, but there is still intentionally misleading
| marketing fluff like this:
|
| >Each rechargeable battery allows you to capture content for
| 5-8 flights, depending on the flight mode(s) selected.
| Rechargeable batteries can be swapped for easy use...
|
| Why phrase it like that? That gives zero impression of what the
| actual battery life is because I have no idea what a "flight"
| means as a unit of measurement. Just tell us how much time it
| lasts.
| qq66 wrote:
| The default flight is 30 seconds.
| bushbaba wrote:
| I have no idea on how many minutes it takes to get a photo. I
| personally like their metric choice.
| slg wrote:
| I'm not sure that I follow what you are saying. Are you
| suggesting the expectation is that each flight yields one
| photo? It takes milliseconds not minutes to take a photo. I
| would expect this thing to be taking photos nearly
| continuously during flight which would make flight time the
| most informative metric.
| qq66 wrote:
| Their target market measures the value of this thing in
| number of Snapchat Stories it can create so really the
| flights does make more sense. Their target market isn't
| going to want to divide 3 minutes by 20 seconds.
| MegaButts wrote:
| I don't think you're their target demographic.
| slg wrote:
| Asking for clarification on battery life means I'm not
| their target demo? That is rather condescending to their
| customers. Battery life seems like a basic thing someone
| might want to know before spending a few hundred bucks on
| something like this.
| serf wrote:
| >Asking for clarification on battery life means I'm not
| their target demo?
|
| I agree that it's condescending, but it's also obvious to
| me that there is a growing market trend to sell to a
| class of people that simply buy the Next Big Thing
| without ever learning about it, using it, or questioning
| the motivations behind it.
|
| In a way that's a great group to capitalize on, they may
| lack the education or desire to ask the tough questions,
| they don't actually use the product so you don't really
| need to support them well, and they tend to buy oriented
| strongly with advertisement.
|
| When I see a technical product marketed this way --
| bright colors, flashy every-person advertisement, zero-
| training-required, no real technical specs -- I always
| imagine that it's in that class of product. Sort of the
| opposite of 'prosumer' classed product.
|
| A titch bit more useful than a Funko Pop doll until The
| Next Next Big Thing is released by BigCo , the firmware
| gets dated, the batteries die and remain unreplacable due
| to a lack of support for The Old Big Thing, and then
| BigCo drops software support due to trying to shove
| people into the new model, and then it becomes under-bed
| trash with a dangerous LiPo in it.
| [deleted]
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| What is this supposed to mean?
|
| "Flights" is a bad metric if they don't define it.
| Whatever your age, gender, income, it doesn't change that
| it's meaningless.
| laptop-man wrote:
| I fly FPV drones, I have one very similar to that size.
| running a 1s 300mah lihv I get about 3 to 5 minutes. 5
| minutes damages the battery. but the tiny lihv never liv long
| enough anyways.
|
| I'd expect it to get close to that time, but it has so much
| more plastic around it. but then again it's not transmitting
| video.
| slg wrote:
| That matches with the estimate in another comment chain[1].
| That is low enough that listing it will likely be off-
| putting to many potential customers. It is why I think it
| is misleading to try to hide that number with a more opaque
| metric.
|
| [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195956
| natural219 wrote:
| I don't fault them for this specifically. IIRC the 30 minute
| airtime standard is some kind of FAA regulation; it's not a
| differentiator one way or another between drone products.
| jhugo wrote:
| This drone will definitely get nowhere near 30 minutes.
| maaaaattttt wrote:
| They're probably too ashamed of the actual value in
| minutes...
|
| Reminds me of some internal corporate presentations: when the
| numbers are good they show percentage increase and when
| they're bad the show absolute values, and when they're really
| bad they "forget" to give the time range of that absolute
| value...
| bastawhiz wrote:
| If you're using this for Snap, one "flight" is actually a
| pretty reasonable time unit. Snapchat videos can be a maximum
| of one minute.
| dvt wrote:
| I don't understand anyone that's bullish on SNAP. It's been my
| least-used social media app for years (except for FB proper, I
| still use IG daily), and doubly so now that TikTok is so
| addictive. Their glasses were a terrible flop, and this will
| probably be worse. There is absolutely no cohesive vision.
|
| Are you a software company, a hardware company? A social network?
| I guess this is what happens when an app that was mainly used for
| sending nudes in high school goes meteoric with Silicon Valley
| money. This is probabbly what would've happened to Flappy Bird if
| the owner hadn't shut it down.
| InfoSportd wrote:
| Orbit mode looks inward at you. Can it also look outward for a
| 360 panoramic view?
| woeirua wrote:
| This is a pretty good sign that its time to short SNAP. This is
| so far outside their core competency, and in such a crowded
| market, that they must be desperate to try this.
| andrewgioia wrote:
| I think this is such a fun/playful idea, kudos to Snap!
|
| Their first hardware product pretty much bombed but this is oddly
| one of the first consumer tech toys in a while that I've felt I
| wanted. I can definitely see this being a fun thing to bring out
| in the backyard or to cookouts/parties, especially as a dad with
| young kids too.
|
| A couple things I'd be a bit worried about:
|
| * Battery life would need to last long enough to use this on and
| off for a few hours. If it's like 15 mins then no way.
|
| * Would there be an audible hum in the video it records from the
| 4x propellers?
| OutsmartDan wrote:
| Tech specs buried here: https://support.pixy.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/5039928089236-Pix...
|
| No info about battery life anywhere to be found.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| From their FCC application:
|
| Battery: 3.85V DC, 860mAh, 3.311Wh
|
| https://fccid.io/2AIRN-006/RF-Exposure-
| Info/220100298SHA-004...
| mNovak wrote:
| Cool site by the way; FCC listings are always so hard to
| search
| isp wrote:
| "Each rechargeable battery holds 5-8 flights using the
| default flight modes." [1]
|
| [1] https://pixy.com/shop
|
| I believe each default flight time would be measured in
| seconds, so it's understandable that they are recommending
| their "Dual Battery Charger" (Two Pixy rechargeable batteries
| with USB-C charging station).
|
| They appear to have deliberately made the batteries as easy
| as possible to swap out, for this reason (based on the second
| half of the Learn - "How to Charge your Pixy" video: https://
| videos.ctfassets.net/svn43w404u4n/6RMiSJPQrtPdQdCoO5... )
|
| EDIT: See also -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31195565
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| You've gotten a lot of speculation in the answers from people
| who obviously haven't looked at the specs. The simple answer is
| there not going to be an audible hum in the video because there
| is no microphone ;)
| nickff wrote:
| No quad-rotor drone battery this size can last for hours; it's
| just not possible with the specific energy available in
| batteries. If the entire drone were a battery (i.e. the rotors
| and housing were mass-less), it could last 45 mins. I expect
| battery life to be around 20 mins.
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| The Pixy is good for "5-8 flights using the default flight
| modes" and the default flight duration seems to be 30 seconds.
| Therefore, the battery will likely last you at most 4 minutes.
|
| https://support.pixy.com/hc/en-us/articles/5039935499924-Abo...
|
| https://youtu.be/2HVty_tuiVQ?t=44
| bduerst wrote:
| >Would there be an audible hum in the video it records from the
| 4x propellers?
|
| In the post-tiktok era, it's not that big of an issue.
|
| Most videos will have easily added audio overlays.
| whartung wrote:
| At a glance, I like it.
|
| They look like the "110 pocket camera" of the drone world.
|
| Little more than snapshots, handy, super trivial operation, I
| guess "5-10 shots per battery".
| malauxyeux wrote:
| > Would there be an audible hum in the video it records from
| the 4x propellers?
|
| And for those who are at the beach just trying to enjoy a
| little time away from the city. The folks at the beach near me
| are already fed up with ubiquitous Bluetooth speakers.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Cyclists as well.
|
| Someone should popularize an ultrasonic directional Bluetooth
| speaker for these use cases that won't destroy the peace of
| public spaces.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| A lot of people use it as a safety device so they don't get
| hit by a car that "didn't see them"
| vineyardmike wrote:
| And what if we could mount these directional speakers
| directly on someone's head! Then we could reduce the volume
| a lot so it's even quieter to neighbors. Maybe use some
| sort of physical bell or cup shape to direct it right into
| someone's ears without ultrasonics (for cost reasons). Then
| we might save enough that we can use 2x speakers to get L/R
| audio streams.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| To address your point rather than your sarcasm:
| headphones are unsafe while cycling because they block
| environmental sounds (though it's true that music from a
| speaker can impact attentional blindness. There is also
| the shared experience of listening to music with another
| person. The ability to create a "music bubble" around you
| without disturbing others satisfies both parties.
|
| Ultrasonic speakers aren't even exotic tech. I first
| encountered one in a museum at least ten or fifteen years
| ago.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| When using AirPods pro in the "transparent" mode I can
| still hear really good, so I am just using that when
| cycling right now.
| InGoodFaith wrote:
| I'm not the person you replied to but just dropping this
| here for others interested:
|
| There are some 'open-back' and 'open-ear' headphones that
| let you hear your environment passively.
|
| Others that have more active environment passthrough such
| as Ambient Sound from Samsung, also exist.
|
| This might be a useful gift for a cyclist or jogger that
| needs situational awareness.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Bone conduction?
|
| (Am fairly certain they aren't great if you are going for
| audiophile level reproduction - but from a safety
| perspective, they let you hear your environment - note, I
| have personally never tried them)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Quality isn't amazing, but it's acceptable and it isn't
| like you'd be enjoying a high quality audio experience
| with wind rushing past your ears using normal headphones,
| anyway.
|
| Also beats getting hit by a car that you didn't hear.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I got a pair of bone conduction headphones that allow me
| to still hear my surroundings while on my bike. Nothing
| goes in your ears that blocks sound.
|
| Agree with your point, though.
| recuter wrote:
| I am so tempted to start a hardware company that makes auto
| aiming bbguns, slingshots and one more thing... predator
| drones (in-app purchase doom metal and eagle noises).
| 1024core wrote:
| It's against the law.
| recuter wrote:
| I think if people are allowed their buzzing flying camera
| doodads everywhere my nose diving metal eagle raining
| sudden drone death from above is in good fun. Now I am
| the law.
|
| Besides the killer bird will obviously be powered by an
| AI, can't blame me for nothing.
| wyager wrote:
| Destruction of light/sound pollution sources in places
| otherwise free of such pollution is totally morally justified
| IMO.
|
| I was in Vegas a few weeks ago at a pool club. The bouncer
| was checking everyone's bags; not for guns, drugs, or
| alcohol, but for bluetooth speakers.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| > Destruction of light/sound pollution sources in places
| otherwise free of such pollution is totally morally
| justified IMO.
|
| What do you mean by "destruction"? If you mean actually
| breaking someone's speaker, then you're wrong and
| fundamentally don't understand externalities.
|
| If you read the original Pigouvian and Coasian theory
| behind externalities, you'll realize that inherent to the
| nature of an externality is each side, by getting their
| way, is externalizing on the other. If you mandate silence,
| you're forcing that silence on others just as much as them
| playing music is forcing that sound on you. It's morally
| equivalent. You just have a belief that the absence of
| sound is the preferred state but that's not inherent. If
| birds are making tons of concurrent bird songs, that might
| sound like a cacophony to you, but you have no right to
| just go and destroy the birds.
|
| You are right and where I sympathize with you is that those
| with speakers basically thrust their noise on others with
| no system to push back and find a socially optimal
| equilibrium. And that is unfair.
|
| But what we could/should do is either: (A) create beach
| decibel maximums such that a person's music cannot be heard
| beyond X feet from them. That way they would have to find a
| place where they aren't externalizing on others. I always
| try to do this when I go to the beach anyway. (B) create
| beach areas where noise is allowed and areas where it
| isn't. But this shouldn't be limited to just music.
| Boisterous people can disrupt a serene beach environment
| too.
|
| Both of these solutions attempt to create win-win solutions
| with some compromise, which is the whole point of how an
| externality is internalized. Just blanket letting one side
| win or the other side win is not solving the problem.
| genidoi wrote:
| I don't see how there are 'sides' to this. Blasting a BT
| speaker with your music, which the majority of people
| aren't likely to enjoy because of the huge variety of
| peoples taste in music, is a uniquely selfish thing to
| do.
|
| I don't know about you, but blasting my Spotify likes on
| a BT speaker in a crowded, and particularly an enclosed
| environment, would _not_ be an enjoyable experience. I
| can imagine it 's only enjoyable if one is sufficiently
| self absorbed enough to think that their music is
| universally enjoyed by everyone.
| jyrkesh wrote:
| Yeah, because you defined a line where the vast majority
| of people would agree.
|
| But you can slide the line over to a point where people
| would be more split on the issue. E.g. say you're alone
| on a public beach playing your music, and one other
| person walks up to also enjoy the beach and who doesn't
| want to hear your music. Should you turn off the music?
| Is there a db level that's acceptable? Should the other
| person be required to find a quieter spot further down
| the coast? Or should you have to relocate to an empty
| spot?
| ericd wrote:
| Use headphones.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| What about when it is a small group playing very low
| music such that it is quickly drowned out by the sound of
| the waves and the birds after 10 feet of distance.
| Headphones are actually impede their enjoyment of the
| situation there because (a) they cannot easily talk to
| one another with headphones in (b) they cannot enjoy the
| mixing sounds of nature and music. In many cases, folk
| music or classical music at low volume mixed with nature
| can be very enjoyable for people.
|
| The problem here is you see no value to their enjoyment
| of these things and thus weight their enjoyment of such
| experience at zero while their interruption of your
| situation as an invasion. But if you force them to stop
| listening to music, you too are disrupting or invading
| their lives. That's the two-sided nature of any negative
| externality and attempts to internalize it. We all need
| to view this from the perspective of social costs and
| social benefits (i.e. a utilitarian perspective across
| all people's happiness). The result is almost always a
| compromise between the two extremes.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| I was drafting an extensive response to this, but I am on
| a time crunch with my work schedule. If you are honestly
| interested in understand optimal solutions to
| externalities and handling the problem of social costs, I
| would recommend checking out Ronald Coase's paper "The
| Problem of Social Cost" for which he won the Nobel
| prize.[1]
|
| I will hopefully have time this weekend to draft my
| response.
|
| The TLDR is that, their "right to noise" impedes upon
| your "right to silence" but also your "right to silence"
| impedes upon their "right to noise". Giving either side
| the complete right and banning the other side is
| effectively having one force its way upon the other.
| Forcing silence is by definition an externality as well
| -- it just happens to be the side you value. But there
| are better middle ground solutions where we balance the
| benefits of each side.
|
| A very clean example of this is noise pollution next to
| an airport. If the houses next to the airport had a
| complete right to silence then we couldn't have
| airplanes. But if the airplanes had a complete right to
| noise, then quality of life around the airport would
| diminish way too much. Instead, the socially optimal
| solution lies in the middle. It is why zero pollution is
| actually NOT socially optimal as the costs of zero
| pollution are too high.
|
| For each additional decibel produced, the marginal social
| costs increase at a faster rate. Thus, people whispering
| at the beach or playing very low music such that it is
| quickly drowned out by the sound of the waves and the
| birds after 5 feet of distance is fine.
|
| A blanket ban on all music on the beach doesn't actually
| enable us to find the socially optimal levels in the same
| way as a blanket allowance of music on the beach. In the
| airport example, a blanket ban or allowance would prevent
| innovations in things like sound protective walls to
| internalize some (though never all) of the externality.
|
| [1] https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/coase-
| problem.pdf
| throitallaway wrote:
| Go to any nature area with hiking trails near decent
| population centers and you're likely to encounter this.
| If you want to "enjoy" music while in nature, wear
| headphones... I'd rather hear birds, the wind hitting
| leaves, approaching wildlife, etc. I don't want to hear
| your shitty music from 40 feet away.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| 1. Silence is the default mode, Bluetooth speakers
| require a much more active effort so that's not really a
| fair comparison.
|
| 2. Birds like any animal or creature acts on instinct;
| there's not an active decision on their part to disrupt
| the environment with sound, again not a fair comparison.
|
| 3. The idea of requiring a maximum dB doesn't really work
| in the sound doesn't just instantly drop off like that so
| the physics aren't really going to work out.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| > 1. Silence is the default mode, Bluetooth speakers
| require a much more active effort so that's not really a
| fair comparison.
|
| That is a logical fallacy called "Default Bias." There is
| nothing inherent about something being the default that
| makes it better. We should never have created writing,
| architecture, or anything new because the status quo was
| better? The status quo can be objectively bad and
| sometimes the active effort to change it is warranted.
| Systemic racism is the default. Lack of access to clean
| water was the default. Woman as stay-at-home moms and
| excluded from the workforce was the default.
| Additionally, "much more active effort" is a nonsense
| statement. Everyone is engaging in effort to get
| value/happiness. It is not for you to judge how much
| effort I am willing to exert for my own happiness. It
| took a lot of effort for women to not be silences in the
| political system through the suffragette movement. Many
| people just over 100 years ago in the US were saying that
| the default role for women was silence. (Clarification, I
| am not saying that there is not a value to silence or
| that people playing music is not a harm -- there is a
| value to silence and people blasting music is a harm --
| but it is not simply as black and white as you want to
| make it out to be on the social cost-benefit)
|
| > 3. The idea of requiring a maximum dB doesn't really
| work in the sound doesn't just instantly drop off like
| that so the physics aren't really going to work out.
|
| If there is other natural sounds that drown out the
| artificial sound, then the maximum dB rule is pretty
| effective. A beach with active waves and lots of birds is
| a great example of this. My level of noise is very
| relative to the ambient background noise.
| c54 wrote:
| This is a great response, you did a good job elucidating
| the deeper moral and interpersonal issue while also
| connecting with and understanding the reason the OP is
| upset and even suggesting real policy changes. Thanks!
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > If you mandate silence, you're forcing that silence on
| others just as much as them playing music is forcing that
| sound on you.
|
| Except that personal audio sources are much more feasible
| than personal noise suppression, especially if you also
| want to be able to carry a conversation.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| That is very true and a reason why an individual
| listening to music alone should bias towards a personal
| audio source to internal his sound externality. That is
| because there is virtually no additional benefit to the
| individual to play music loudly than to play it in
| headphones when it is just for his benefit.
|
| But you are ignoring that a substantial percentage (if
| not majority) of music enjoyment situations are
| simultaneously social situations. Personal audio sources
| are objectively sub-optimal in that situation. Thus,
| there is a cost to those enjoying the music of using a
| personal audio source. Silent discos result in a total
| inability to talk to one another. If you are playing
| ambient music as you have conversations, then a personal
| audio source simply doesn't work.
| jyrkesh wrote:
| Without necessarily supporting it, there's a property-
| based take as well, in which you have complete rights
| over the air, water, light, noise, etc. within your
| private property boundaries. As a society, we've largely
| agreed that there are too many logistical challenges and
| societal benefits to take a hardline stance here, but you
| _could_ make a case that any unwanted pollution into your
| property (without agreed upon compensation, which do
| exist today in the form of easements) would be equivalent
| to trespassing.
| BrandonWatson wrote:
| This will be a very underappreciated observation.
| badwolf wrote:
| 5-8 flights up to ~30 seconds each. I think that's pretty
| acceptable, vs a constant buzzing
| [deleted]
| adriand wrote:
| I have to agree that this seems like a lot of fun. A lot of
| people in this thread are focusing on quality and comparing to
| other, more capable and more expensive drones. However,
| something small and relatively cheap that you can carry on a
| strap around your neck seems like a unique value prop. So long
| as it passes the bar of reasonable durability and quality I
| could see a lot of people wanting one.
| stavros wrote:
| Oh don't worry, there's no way this will fly for 15 minutes.
| inasio wrote:
| I'd be surprised if they get 15 minutes, I've played with the
| DJI mini and barely get that (per battery), and this one looks
| bulkier and with worse aerodynamics. That said, you probably
| don't want a noisy drone just hovering next/over your party all
| the time, and they do include a couple of batteries, swap is
| super easy.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| This also requires no operation & has no open propellers
| azinman2 wrote:
| Can the mini follow me around and just take the video I'd
| want to capture the moment? The pixy seems very easy to
| operate. I don't want to have to be thinking about
| controlling the thing.
| dimatura wrote:
| It does have a follow feature, but honestly I've never
| tried it. It's pretty easy to pilot, fwiw, and like most
| DJI drones has an incredible price to quality and features
| ratio. I'd be surprised if this drone comes anywhere near
| in range/image quality/features/etc. The form factor
| reminds me of the tiny-whoop class of FPV drones, which are
| super fun but not great outdoors as they will easily be
| blown away by even light wind. But I can see this having a
| certain appeal, as a drone version of a polaroid camera.
| It's also very cute!
| azinman2 wrote:
| With its follow feature, can I just turn it on and have
| it go? I want something where I don't stop the moment and
| most certainly do not have to have a controller or really
| anything external.
| nanidin wrote:
| Interesting because I have a Mavic Mini and it flies
| consistently for 20-25 minutes and I've had it for more than
| a year.
| ehnto wrote:
| It's really dependent on what both of you are doing with
| the drones. If you are boosting around fast and high, it's
| going to be less. If you are just hovering around the house
| then it's going to be longer.
|
| Battery health and actual charge capacity could be
| different too, depending on how the batteries are stored
| and how they have been treated etc.
| andrewgioia wrote:
| Gotcha, I have no experience with drones so that's a bit of a
| bummer but you're right--this would not be hovering
| continuously so if the "total play time" could be over an
| hour with a fast battery switch that could be enough.
| danenania wrote:
| Yeah, I was thinking something like this would be useful
| for filming myself surfing (to get a better idea of all the
| things I'm doing wrong), but I have no drone experience
| either and didn't realize that such short flight times are
| the norm. Sounds like that kind of use case won't be
| realistic for quite some time.
| [deleted]
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >Would there be an audible hum in the video it records from the
| 4x propellers?
|
| 100% yes and this is why every drone video ever has music over
| it.
| lacraig2 wrote:
| They might be able to pair the video from the drone with the
| microphone on your phone and get something reasonable (if the
| drone is far enough away).
| firmnoodle wrote:
| If they can put a dog nose and tongue on a video with AI, I
| would guess maybe removing the sound of the drone is
| possible.
| powcontech wrote:
| AI is not even required, it would be quite easy to filter
| out the frequency of the noise from the rotors using
| technology that has existed for decades if not almost 100
| years, indeed Butterworth was designing his filters in the
| 1930's
| jjkaczor wrote:
| If I were a drone manufacturer of this type of camera
| drone, I would release free/downloadable audio
| profiles/captures of my drone operating at different
| speeds, to allow filtering to remove them based on the
| flight profile... (Maybe keep a log of propeller speeds,
| sync'd to the video)
| devmunchies wrote:
| not just drone vids, pro video (e.g. hollywood) all add sound
| in post. Foley Artist is a fun job.
|
| A solution would be to have Snap(tm) mics that i clip on to
| my shirt and it syncs with the video while recording.
| sahila wrote:
| No need for an external mic if they can just use your phone
| app + mic.
| chaps wrote:
| Why would they clip? Surely they should snap onto your
| shirt.
| devmunchies wrote:
| at first i thought you were being pedantic somehow and
| then I got the joke.
| mikeryan wrote:
| _100% yes and this is why every drone video ever has music
| over it._
|
| That and even without the buzz anything most drones picked up
| would not be meaningful sound. Most are too far away and
| moving too much to pick up voices, better to just record off
| your phone to get conversation and/or ambient noise.
|
| I'm almost surprised they even put a mic on this thing,
| though I'm sure from a product marketing perspective people
| would ding them for not having one.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Drones are little noisy battery hogs, there's no way around it.
| Both your worries will absolutely be true.
| ahmed_ds wrote:
| I kinda feel sad for Snap for even trying.
|
| I remember Snap was one of the very first meme stock. They failed
| with their camera spectacles. They failed to keep up with
| computer vision compared to TikTok and shift towards Gen Z. They
| failed to come up with a decent creators monetization system.
|
| Recently I read that they are signing MOUs with entertainment
| companies that involved AR tech. And now they are involved in
| making drones. Drone is a super hard market to enter even with
| some industry experience, case in point Gopro.
|
| Snap really shows how much the entire social media as an industry
| is struggling. Snap's future is bleak, it would be interesting to
| see how long they last.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Huh? Snap has really buckled down and gone from a forgone
| conclusion to having record quarters of revenue growth and
| monetization. They have repeatedly focused on digging in and
| trying new things.
|
| Spectacles wasn't a ground-breaking idea, but it was a GREAT
| innovative shot which was hard to copy by FB at the time.
| Similarly this is another great innovation hard to have others
| copy. Is it niche? Yeah probably, but it shows they are looking
| at ALL the interesting areas.
|
| For what it's worth, Snap has been ahead of the game on AR
| filters and AR tech for a while. Releasing this doesn't imply
| they aren't also doing work there.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Yeah, many would think so, me included, but I also recognize
| strange as it is, there is a whole younger generation that it
| has been the defacto communications app for like 4-5 years now,
| so that's something to ride.
| crowbahr wrote:
| I mean this in the kindest way possible: I suspect you're out
| of touch.
|
| Snapchat is used by more than 90% of 13-24 year olds in the USA
| and Gen-Z increasingly prefers it to any other form of
| communications social media. The ephemeral, personal nature of
| snap has been enormously popular with the youngest generation,
| and there's no sign of it stopping. Latest Q1 reports show
| daily users up 18% annually, 2 million more than forecast.
|
| Are they looking for more money? Yes, as is their fiduciary
| responsibility as a publicly traded company... but that doesn't
| mean they're flagging.
| dymk wrote:
| They're down 45% in the last 6 months. 53% the last 12.
| They're flagging. None of their cutesy hardware has taken off
| in the past (remember spectacles?).
| windowsrookie wrote:
| In the last 6 months Netflix is down 71%, Nvidia 23%,
| Facebook 36%, AMD 25%, Amazon 14%, General Motors 29%,
| Alphabet 20%, Volkswagen 32%, etc.
|
| Are these all flagging companies as well?
| dymk wrote:
| I take your point, but Netflix probably yes. Facebook,
| maybe. VW and GM, probably yes.
| ckardat123 wrote:
| I think it's worth noting that their stock is still up 185%
| since March of 2020. In spite of the prior failures at
| hardware, the app is still incredibly popular among young
| people.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Also worth adding that they are only up %6 from the IPO
| price.
| [deleted]
| simulate-me wrote:
| ARKK, the top performing ETF of 2021, is down 60% over the
| last year. Tech, in general, has declined substantially,
| mostly due to interest rates rising.
| trhway wrote:
| Where did they find a beach where drones are allowed to fly?
| especially given that the video seems to be shot in SoCal. I mean
| if you have you own private beach then of course a small drone
| would be a nice addition to it :)
|
| With civilian drone use pretty much de-facto banned, the military
| seems to be the only blossoming domain. One can imagine how a
| soldier sends a small drone to look around the corner and/or into
| the windows of the higher floors in a city battle like Mariupol.
|
| I remember seeing bunch of years ago guys in Stanford testing
| very small drone which would be parked by wrapping itself around
| your arm, and flying/following you on command.
| dsalzman wrote:
| I like the playful design. Reminds me of the Minolta Weathermatic
| Type A[1] with its flat yellow body and picture setting control
| knob on top. Looks fun
|
| [1] https://www.aperturepreview.com/minolta-weathermatic-a
| [deleted]
| ram_rar wrote:
| I wonder how are they able to call it Pixy. Isn't the word
| trademarked?
|
| https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:d0...
| meetups323 wrote:
| Description of Mark: The mark consists of the letters "PIXY" in
| a stylized font, with three partial circles representing smoke
| blooms over the letters.
| jkeat wrote:
| Link doesn't work, here's another reference:
| https://alter.com/trademarks/pixy-88492464
|
| > Camera containing a linear image sensor; Cameras; Motion-
| activated cameras; Optical sensors
|
| https://pixycam.com/
| vmception wrote:
| this drone could fill a BIG niche! drone manufacturers have been
| obsessing over the gadget enthusiast audience and that means
| neglecting the ability to do simple-but-manually complex things
| such as launch->detect you->frame you->follow you.
|
| If they really do that and add in motion gestures with automatic
| upload to the Snapchat app interface, that's killer!
| sho_hn wrote:
| While I think you're right about the product focus, FWIW, the
| Parrot drones/phone app have easy to use modes like this.
| vmception wrote:
| thanks! I haven't been following that space for a long time,
| seems like it has stagnated.
| paxys wrote:
| Interesting product, although nowhere does it say what the flying
| time/battery life is, which doesn't give me much confidence.
| nharada wrote:
| Looks like each flight is 10-20 seconds and you get 5-8
| flights[1] which is like 90 seconds of flight? Additional
| batteries are 20 bucks so I guess they're going with making it
| easy to swap batteries rather than giving it a long flight
| time.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/28/23043011/snapchat-pixy-
| dr...
| FpUser wrote:
| I do not like when it becomes a puzzle and multiple clicks to
| find tech specs. Also I really dislike this "lasts longer" style
| description of a battery life / flight time. I would very much
| prefer X minutes when hovering and no wind as a rough measure.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Why is this pictured outside? The last thing I think anyone wants
| is a high-pitched quad flying around each campsite / trailhead.
|
| Come to think of it, I cannot think of any place I'd like this to
| be operated. Perhaps concerts until they start falling on
| peoples' heads.
| usrusr wrote:
| Nobody likes a crowded beach. A video clogging your flash
| and/or bandwidth is a small price to pay for the solitude
| created by the buzzcam.
|
| (in reality, the total amount of annoyance dealt out will be
| severely limited by battery capacity)
| jkestner wrote:
| Not to be confused with the Pixy vision sensor.
|
| https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/254449872/pixy-cmucam5-...
| marstall wrote:
| cue my dystopian paranoia self: in a few short years technology
| like this will enable the effortless creation of a perfect,
| stylish, witty video of each and every day of your life, shot and
| edited in complete autonomy.
|
| Which shows you at your best.
|
| And expresses none of your fears, anxieties, inelegancies,
| loneliness, family trauma, time wasting or thoughtless cruelty.
|
| Fast forward another nanosecond in the singularity. Devices like
| this camera will connect to the internet & ingest your personal
| timeline. They will respond by themselves to your friends' posts,
| mimicking their trends, one-upping their flexes, out-cooling them
| in a constantly accelerating arms race.
|
| Our role in this algorithmic glammering will shrink to nothing as
| deepfakes expand in scope and become so much interesting than
| reality.
|
| in the end our bodies will become irrelevant, as we watch our
| "selves" and our "friends" enact reality in a second, much
| better, universe.
| woozyolliew wrote:
| Plus a day out to the park has become even more of a buzzy
| plastic hellscape.
| cupofpython wrote:
| and actual reality will have world peace*
|
| *all disturbances automatically nullified** immediately
|
| **nullification may include death
| the__alchemist wrote:
| What do you mean by that?
| cupofpython wrote:
| if people care more about the imagined world than the real
| world to the degree described in the comment i replied to,
| then there is no need for our real bodies to actually do
| anything other than exist. We only need imagine what we'd
| like to identify with, and the system will handle the rest.
| We could each be the supreme leader of our own world as far
| as we can observe
|
| A bunch of bodies existing in reality with minimal real-
| world activity would be a form of peace.
|
| Real world activity would be a disruption to that peace,
| and also unobservable to the imagined world since all
| content is mediated. So anytime a persons behavior does not
| fit into the imagined world system, they could be killed
| and no one would care or even know. Maybe everybody is just
| told that person had a heart attack or whatever.
|
| it's akin to the dangers of not having a free press but
| with all of those dangers hyper-industrialized
| [deleted]
| mNovak wrote:
| The camera quality doesn't look great, even in the promo videos.
| You'd think a software company can put on some some decent color
| balance at least. Also the video is very wobbly because it's such
| a small platform and no gimbal. That can be fixed in large part
| in software too.
|
| I suppose they're going for the artistically constrained angle,
| more like a disposable camera.
| mNovak wrote:
| Also it's really bugging me that multiple heads are getting
| cropped out of frame, in the promo. I would have assumed the
| immediate first feature would be a bit of ML to find the human
| and put them in frame, and I assume that's how it accomplishes
| the orbit and follow-cam shots, so why the awkward clipping?
| krashidov wrote:
| I feel like this is the worst part about Snapchat. Everything
| you record in SC looks like shit. It's so bad that I feel like
| it makes Snapchat feel cheaper on the social media hierarchy
| skizm wrote:
| Weirdly enough, I like that vibe about snapchat. They _are_
| the "cheaper" social media. Nothing is meant to last, and
| everything is meant to be low key, low stakes, "fun". You're
| not there to read articles or argue with people, just check
| out some random memes, dogs, attractive people, whatever and
| move on with you day. /2c
| djkoolaide wrote:
| Completely agree, and I can always tell when someone reposts
| a Snap video to IG.
| fullstop wrote:
| It's far worse on Android since they are creating the video
| from the "preview" window surface instead of directly from
| the camera interface.
| alephxyz wrote:
| I keep seeing that claim pop up here and on Reddit but
| their app has been using the camera2 api since at least
| 2019
| windowsrookie wrote:
| Yet for some reason it's still worse quality than an
| iPhone. I switched from an S21 Ultra to a 13 Pro Max and
| snapchat has noticeably better quality on the iPhone. I
| just wish they would allow you to use the ultra wide and
| telephoto sensors as well.
| eruleman wrote:
| I thought this was fixed?
| fullstop wrote:
| It is, depending on your phone make and model.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Good luck if your Android phone is not available in the
| US. Snapchat will very likely never whitelist it.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| "We are taking a video"
|
| [Come Fly with Me plays]
|
| ...
|
| What AI wrote this!? I'm so confused who is supposed to do what
| with this.
|
| Edit: I fully understand the product, I'm talking about the
| marketing material. Is it for children? Take for example
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfS0P-40_Bo ; that highlights
| the meaning and capability of the product. Pixy feels Sesame
| Street.
| quenix wrote:
| I don't know, I can think of multiple use cases.
|
| I for one think a flying, easy to use, autopilot camera is a
| pretty fun thing to have when going out hiking or to the
| beach with friends, for example. Just pack one in your bag
| and set it free pretty much whenever you want. It's basically
| a camera that flies around you and directs itself. Do you
| also not see "who is supposed to do what" with a regular
| camera? Why is this any different?
|
| Makes for fun memories!
| ryeights wrote:
| This little drone has approximately 0 chance of competing with
| the big players on video quality. Why not simply embrace its
| limitations, and make them a part of its character?
| elilev wrote:
| Can someone please explain to me how this is a $50B business
| blululu wrote:
| Is this a serious question? Snapchat has 300 Million Daily
| Active Users with a user base that skews affluent and young
| (globally). That's ~$1.50 per user which is relatively low
| monetization rate compared to rivals.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Site looks like garbage on Safari, just like the app I guess.
| iamleppert wrote:
| It's basically suicide to compete against DJI.
| holler wrote:
| I don't think they are competing against DJI. Did you watch the
| promo video? It's very clear who their target demographic is
| and it's not people who would buy a DJI.
| badwolf wrote:
| Oh! This is something I've been wanting for a while. I'm excited
| to try it out and see how it works out.
| dwighttk wrote:
| Would like something like this where I didn't have to use
| Snapchat.
|
| (I didn't scour the site, but the few minutes I looked at it did
| not lead me to believe this would work without Snapchat.
| Interesting how much they seem to hate text.)
| jqvincent16 wrote:
| A DJI Mini SE[0] would give you 2.7k video, longer range,
| better performance, gimbal stabilized video, longer flight
| time, and GPS stabilized flight for about $50 more. The Mini 2
| upgrades the camera to 4k but is a little pricier.
|
| [0] https://store.dji.com/product/dji-mini-se-tm?vid=105351
| azinman2 wrote:
| Can I operate without a controller? One is pictured in each
| image.
| jqvincent16 wrote:
| The Mini SE requires the use of a controller. It's small
| and folds up. I didn't look into it enough to see if Snap's
| offering requires a controller or just uses a cell phone.
| azinman2 wrote:
| All of snaps marketing suggests no controller. That's the
| part that I actually care about - I'm willing to have
| lower video quality and smaller battery if it's easy to
| use in a regular social moment.
| dwighttk wrote:
| The video makes it look like you don't need a controller,
| it just floats around and maybe you can tweak things with
| your phone, but who knows what the non-marketing version
| will be like... first off I know it will be loud (they
| didn't have any drone sound in the video)
| bobkrusty wrote:
| anyone know resources Open source drone???
|
| without camera. Thanks.
| sithadmin wrote:
| This seems like it's begging for an FAA smackdown. Drones under
| 250 grams are exempt from registration, but are still subject to
| other restrictions.
|
| This thing seems to make autonomous flight decisions, so it can't
| possibly comply with FAA rules requiring a pilot in control. Is
| it smart enough to avoid flying over people or cars? Probably
| not. Betting it will also happily let users send it off into no-
| fly-zone airspace, and that it doesn't have any kind of a manual
| killswitch to force a landing if it decides to do a 'flyaway'
| malfunction.
| a-dub wrote:
| neat tech. although i think i prefer toys for children that
| encourage appreciating things that are created or earned rather
| than simply possessed.
| gffrd wrote:
| I look forward to hating my park, beach, and ski area visits!
| alex504 wrote:
| Please kill me
| robszumski wrote:
| No mention of Skydio so far...this seems like a big intrusion on
| their turf, although their drone is much more capable because
| it's full size.
| lewisflude wrote:
| Weird scrolljacking, just made that page feel a bit sluggish.
| [deleted]
| dopamean wrote:
| Seriously. I thought it was my computer at first.
| jmull wrote:
| Honestly, until I saw this comment I didn't realize there was
| anything past the first screen...
|
| I had tried scrolling before but now I realize you have to
| _keep scrolling_ even though _nothing is happening_.
|
| Jankiest scroll-jacking I've ever seen.
| bodhi_mind wrote:
| There is a pretty "permanent" NOTAM around Disney World that
| applies to
|
| >"...INCLUDING UNMANNED AND REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT, ARE
| PROHIBITED WITHIN A 3 NMR OF 282445N/0813420W OR THE ORL238014.8
| UP TO AND INCLUDING 3000FT AGL."
|
| I wonder if this will be enforced if people try to bring these to
| magic kingdom.
|
| https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_3634.html
| BryantD wrote:
| Yes, it absolutely will. Here's a story about this:
|
| https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-disne...
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Dji mini 2 is superior to this in every way for not much more
| money except for the tracking. The new version 3, coming out is
| rumoured to have active track.
| jarofgreen wrote:
| You can use https://flylitchi.com/ for tracking.
| ForrestN wrote:
| This is one of those moments where the thing itself as it exists
| now doesn't excite me, but you can already tell the next several
| iterations (maybe by a different company) could start to get
| really exciting. Having a little, quiet drone following you that
| can record things or communicate information to you via voice
| commands or beam live video to your phone might be really useful.
| No more getting lost! Just head up and see where you are. "Hey
| drone, pay for my coffee." "Hey drone, where's my dog?" "Hey
| drone, take a picture of us." "Hey drone, harass that person if
| they come within 20 feet of us, and take a photo of their face."
| "Hey drone, lead the way to the Hilton hotel." I'd love a little
| flying computer!
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| Just like LapTrap from the ClueFinders kids games!
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_ClueFinders https://cluefinde
| rs.fandom.com/wiki/LapTrap#:~:text=LapTrap%...).
| throitallaway wrote:
| This won't happen until there's serious advancements in battery
| or anti-gravity technology. This snap drone's batteries are
| rated for flight times in the single digit minutes.
| ryan_j_naughton wrote:
| This product is illegal right next to Snapchat's HQ in Venice
| Beach. You can't use drones on the beach in the state of
| California due to rich people being concerned about the paparazzi
| spying on them
| fishpen0 wrote:
| Honestly as someone living in Cali, I appreciate not dealing
| with the constant buzzing noise from 10 different tourists
| flying drones within earshot of me while I'm enjoying the
| beach.
|
| Nothing ruins a vibe like BBZbzbzzbzzzZzbzbzzzzzzzZzzzZz
| HigherPlain wrote:
| Privacy concerns are for everyone, not just rich people. Please
| don't bring culture wars into this.
| radiojasper wrote:
| All in all, it's a $250 toy that can hold 5-8 minutes of battery
| and has a terrible camera on top of the unavoidable hum from the
| rotors. I'd say it's a fun little gadget, but I can't see this
| gaining much traction.
| standeven wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. It's a cool first-gen product with typical
| first-gen issues. Hopefully the next version has a better
| camera, stabilized footage, and software to remove the hum.
| Then it would be very compelling.
| a5aAqU wrote:
| Kids are going to be flying those up to peek in your windows and
| skylights soon.
| camtarn wrote:
| Not these ones. There's no controller so you can't fly them
| anywhere - they just follow a predetermined flight path.
| dymk wrote:
| The one thing that drives me up the wall is being on a beach, or
| on a hike, and somebody brings out a drone. The whine of the
| rotors carries much farther than people would like to admit. The
| ambient screech makes a beautiful natural landscape feel like an
| anxious techno nightmare.
|
| Now make them cheap, connect it to social media, and target them
| at teens.
|
| Let's hope these don't take off (pun intended). At least they can
| only run for a few minutes per battery charge.
| bko wrote:
| As someone else mentioned, the intended videos are 30 seconds,
| which I think is reasonable. The battery last 5-8 recordings,
| so at most 4 minutes. It's really not a big deal IMO
| flatiron wrote:
| Totally unrelated but I feel like everyone smokes weed on the
| beach now. I'm not a prude, I don't care, I just don't want to
| smell it and have my kids ask about it all the time.
| walrus01 wrote:
| I'd much rather that people smoke weed on the beach than the
| typical behavior I see from groups of drunk people wandering
| from bar/club to another bar/club in the "entertainment
| district" in the evenings in any major city.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| It sure would suck to have to engage in some kind of
| discussion with my own children.
| flatiron wrote:
| What does this have to do with my comment? Or are you
| saying it should be a gift to go "some people smoke but you
| shouldn't smoke because it's breaking the rules and yes
| they are breaking the rules and no I can't make them stop"
| is really fun. A blast.
| dmamills wrote:
| A gift? Maybe depending on how full you are seeing the
| glass at any given time. But perhaps OP was trying to
| say:
|
| When you bring a human into the world, you are going have
| to explain a lot of it to them.
| flatiron wrote:
| In this thread: people explaining kids to people with
| kids
| sodality2 wrote:
| My dad used to tell me cigarettes tasted horrible but
| that doctors prescribed them as punishment for poor
| health. Seems to have worked!
| tdhz77 wrote:
| Atticus is that you?
| dymk wrote:
| Just tell them they'll learn about it in 8th grade from the
| goths that hang out next to the Arby's.
| Saris wrote:
| It would be nice to see some more effort put into noise. The
| tradeoff is shorter flight time, so I imagine that's why
| they're all loud.
|
| Drones with 8 or 12 bladed props can be surprisingly quiet,
| with essentially no whine at all.
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| Ive been wondering if balloon based or gliding drones would
| be gliding. So trade off some control for much longer flight
| times
| whatshisface wrote:
| > _It would be nice to see some more effort put into noise.
| The tradeoff is shorter flight time, so I imagine that 's why
| they're all loud._
|
| This is not necessarily true - the noise is a waste of
| joules, after all.
| poundtown wrote:
| i feel this after spending a weekend at the board walk in
| jersey. influencers all over the damn place..super soaker? nerf
| gun? target practice at the beach!
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| https://spyra.com/
| [deleted]
| outcoldman wrote:
| 100% agree with you. I own the drone, flew it like 10 times.
| The main reason, when I bring it with me on road trips - if I
| see people around, I don't feel comfortable spinning the
| motors. But those 10 times are mostly when there is nobody
| around in the BLM lands, I want to take a nice video of
| beautiful landscape for myself.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| You should hear canadian geese in nature, I'd take a drone over
| those any days. I was just in nature near Yosemite listening to
| those things squeek for hours while also crapping on
| everything. Nature isn't always silent...
| jumpman500 wrote:
| Yea I mean all crowded public places suck if you're trying
| enjoy the scenery and relax... I don't think this product would
| make it any worse. There's already plenty of ways to make a lot
| of noise and annoy folks.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Sounds like we need a cheap, portable and available EMP device
| :)
|
| Seriously though, noice by electronics should be considered a
| hazard.
| [deleted]
| lanamo wrote:
| drones make unwanted noise and ruin the atmosphere of natural
| settings. does the world need your boring selfies from an
| aerial perspective? No. absolutely not. Only worse than these
| snapchat plastic teeny drones would a V2 with built-in flood
| light, for added light-pollution. Let's spoil star-gazing, too!
| I feel the sudden urge to pick up a book about falconry...
| 1024core wrote:
| Drones are banned in National Parks and State Parks (in CA)
| anyways. So this sounds like a strawman.
| a254613e wrote:
| You sound so grumpy. People want cool shots from drones for
| themselves, deal with it.
| dymk wrote:
| More people want to enjoy a peaceful outdoors than those
| who want to play with loud fads in shared spaces. Deal with
| it.
| rsanek wrote:
| Source? I think the want to take a cool shot from a drone
| could actually make alot more teens go outdoors. I don't
| like drones either but incentivizing going outside
| through social media is an interesting concept and
| certainly beats them staying indoors.
| dkarl wrote:
| Why do you want them to go outdoors, though? You could
| get more teens to go to the library by turning off all
| the lights and playing dance music at high volume, but it
| wouldn't serve the reasons that made you want them to go
| there in the first place. Instead of spreading the
| benefit of the library to more people, it would destroy
| the benefit of the library for everybody (and it would
| probably make a pretty poor nightclub, too.)
|
| If you want kids to get a little bit of exercise and
| breath clean air, clean up urban air quality and create
| walkable cities with park space. Then people who want a
| busy social outdoor space and don't mind a lot of
| mechanical noise will have a place to go where their
| enjoyment won't interfere with the enjoyment of people
| who want to hear birds and insects and trees moving in
| the wind.
| dymk wrote:
| > Source?
|
| No, thank you
|
| > could actually make alot more teens go outdoors
|
| That's not society's problem. I'm not trying to come up
| with ways to incentivize Lil' Jimmathy to see the great
| outdoors at any cost. People can go outside and respect
| others' desire to enjoy peaceful, beautiful nature, or
| they can stay inside and scroll on their phones.
| rsanek wrote:
| Interesting, I actually perceive it to very much be
| society's problem, and do consider it my responsibility
| to promote mental and physical health in my community. I
| found this post [0] useful in considering the difference
| between entitlement and responsibility.
|
| [0] https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229
| bko wrote:
| You should check out Coase Theorem:
|
| > A candy maker had had the same property for over 60
| years when a doctor moved next door. After eight years
| passed without incident between them, the the doctor
| built a consulting room right against the confectioner's
| kitchen. The doctor then found that the noise from the
| confectioner's equipment interfered with the doctor's
| ability to work, and in particular to hear with a
| stethoscope. The doctor filed suit to force the
| confectioner to stop using his equipment. The court
| recognized that the confectioner might suffer some
| hardship - thus admitting to the reciprocal nature of
| harm that Coase would later recognize - but it argued
| that to avoid even greater (unspecified) individual
| hardship and inhibiting land development for residential
| use, the confectioner must stop (9.)
|
| > Coase proposed considering how the parties might settle
| the dispute in a market transaction once the court made
| its findings; for space reasons I will present a
| simplified version of Coase's argument. Though the doctor
| had won, in a market settlement he would be willing to
| allow the machinery to continue to operate were the
| confectioner to pay the doctor a sum that was greater
| than the doctor's loss of income from having to either
| move or install sound abatement material. Conversely, had
| the confectioner won, in a market settlement he would
| have been willing to accept payment from the doctor to
| stop using the noisy machinery if the amount were greater
| than the confectioner's costs to move the equipment or
| install sound abatement material.
|
| https://michaelbrennen.com/2014/04/12/externalities-2-ron
| ald...
| js2 wrote:
| I'm not sure how that applies here, where the conflicting
| activities are both recreational and not producing of
| income. Enlighten me?
| bko wrote:
| It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the
| specifics. It's that most people normally have a visceral
| reaction one way or another. But in many cases there
| could be a voluntary solution where all parties are
| better off.
|
| For instance, consider a noisy neighbor is throwing a
| party. Suppose I complain but he really values the party
| and offers me $100 to let him keep the party going
| another hour. He obviously values it more than $100 so
| he's better off as am I. Similarly I could pay him to
| shut off the party, in which case we're also both better
| off.
|
| I didn't mean it literally like the drone payers should
| pay to use their drones in the park, although that's not
| a bad idea. The park goers could enjoy better service and
| accept some noise, making everyone better off.
|
| I just thought it was funny seeing someone argue about
| this and it reminded me of Coase and his work
| maxerickson wrote:
| The machinery in that case was shut down because it
| wasn't desirable in a residential area!
|
| The confectioner was operating out of a house and the
| doctor wanted to practice out of a shed in his backyard.
|
| So it would be entirely keeping with that outcome to
| declare that a park or whatever is intended for peaceful
| relaxation and ban noisy drones.
|
| Of course you'd have to do it with a straight face
| knowing that the park already has young people in poorly
| muffled trucks zooming around all the time.
| bko wrote:
| I don't know. The candy maker has been there 60 years and
| it didn't bother anyone. Does the doctor's right to
| operate sensitive equipment outweigh the right the candy
| maker has to use his machines like he's been doing for 60
| years? It's not obviously clear to me one way or the
| other
| a4isms wrote:
| People also want to run noisy, polluting dirt bikes and
| side-by-sides on every trail, everywhere.
|
| And people just like you say, "deal with it." And behold,
| we deal with it by setting access rules. Some wild areas
| have trails for motorized play, some prohibit it.
|
| Welcome to living in a society. We deal with things by
| taking everyone's needs into account and finding an
| appropriate balance.
| bduerst wrote:
| Eh, if only people were never bad actors and only used
| drones for that.
|
| I was at a soap box derby a couple weeks back and they had
| to pause the entire event for fifteen minutes because
| someone was flying a drone down by the course area.
|
| A couple hundred people were waiting on one person to
| remove their drone. Even after the announcers were asking
| the person to remove the drone they continued to keep it
| there.
| politician wrote:
| Can I use this as a spotter for my howitzers? Asking for a
| friend.
| tren-hard wrote:
| Super cool little fun product. I like that Snap tries to be
| different and take chances on hardware.
|
| Their glasses never really took off but they still iterated on it
| and did a second version and I'm sure some of the lessons learned
| there were applied to this product.
|
| I'm curious to learn about how it does indoors.
| Brystephor wrote:
| There's also a third version of spectacles too.
| fredley wrote:
| You thought the e-scooter debris in historic cities was bad, if
| these take off they'll be clogging up historic monuments in a
| European capital near you soon.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/tourist-drone-inciden...
| deanc wrote:
| What on earth is this pivot? From ephemeral messenger into camera
| sunglasses and a drone?
| fredley wrote:
| > Snap Inc. is a camera company.
|
| > We believe that reinventing the camera represents our
| greatest opportunity to improve the way people live and
| communicate.
|
| https://snap.com/
| hacker_newz wrote:
| A camera company with terrible camera quality.
| rabuse wrote:
| I don't get how so many people are praising this garbage
| product in the comments. It's $230 for cheap crap
| everything; battery, camera, plastic.
| Crabber wrote:
| >We contribute to human progress by empowering people to live
| in the moment
|
| How is every social media company so painfully self-unaware?
| Is this just a "it's impossible to get a man to see a problem
| he is paid not to see" kind of situation or do snapchat
| employees genuinely believe that they are helping people
| "live in the moment" by developing an app that encourages the
| exact opposite?
| spelunker wrote:
| They're just trying to find ways to increase engagement on
| their app, I think it makes sense.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Is it really a pivot? They are all about letting people share
| video stories made using their ecosystem. They pushed the
| software (filters, etc.) as far as they could so now they are
| pushing the hardware. You can't code a "first person view" or a
| "third person view" filter. So glasses & drones it is.
| usrusr wrote:
| Products and services for people who won't accept anything
| behind the lens distracting from the other side. A drone
| controlled by a simple mode wheel selecting from five
| behavior presets fits right in.
| paxys wrote:
| Photos, photos, photos
| mips_avatar wrote:
| I think it's interesting how much the FAA's 250 gram rule has
| impacted drone manufacturing. Even if it was technically possible
| I couldn't imagine a company like SNAP launching a drone like
| this in the previous regulatory grey area of drones.
| sofixa wrote:
| The EASA also makes a distinction between <250g drones >250g
| drones, in terms of registration and permissions required.
|
| However drones remain pretty hard to use across the EU, they're
| strictly forbidden in most places (cities, natural parks) and
| for the rest you need explicit permission from the county's
| aviation authority ( and sometimes even more, e.g. in Portugal
| if the coastline is visible you also need the Coast Guard's
| permission). Apparently lots of tourists are unaware and are
| getting fined for that, there was even a few cases recently
| where oblivious tourists crashed their drones in historical
| buildings.
| tgv wrote:
| > for the rest you need explicit permission from the county's
| aviation authority
|
| That unfortunately won't stop people who think they need this
| thing because all the cool instagrammers and tiktokers have
| it.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yep: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/tourist-
| crashe...
| lekevicius wrote:
| Pixy weighs just 101 grams. They could have easily gone for a
| more practical battery life (it seems it's around 5 minutes
| currently?!), but for some reason chose not to.
| 8bitben wrote:
| If you do anything with this drone that is commercial or non-
| private in nature, you still need a Part 107 certificate from
| the FAA to fly it. I expect that would include many influencers
| who wouldn't otherwise be flying drones at all.
| sithadmin wrote:
| If you do anything with this drone at all, you'll be flat out
| violating FAA regulations regardless. It seems to be mostly
| autonomous, and based on marketing and support docs, doesn't
| appear to have a way to comply with regulations requiring the
| Pilot-in-Command to _always_ have the ability to make
| flightpath changes. Gesturing at it or clicking a button on a
| phone to 'return to home' is not enough.
| simulate-me wrote:
| That doesn't seem to be a requirement of recreational drone
| usage: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm not sure where you got the "non-private" in nature piece.
| I took this "identification tool" on the FAA website, https:/
| /www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/user_identification_... ,
| and while yes, if you are, say, taking drone photos to hawk
| some particular product online, that would clearly fall under
| Part 107.
|
| But an influencer that's just taking vacation photos, even if
| it's of their impossibly fashionable vacation and it seems
| obvious that there is an ulterior motive of building their
| "brand", seems like they could easily argue they're just
| doing it for recreation and would thus fall under the
| Recreational Exemption.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-28 23:00 UTC)