> In order to continue delivering X10s and supporting our customers, we have to take the drastic step of rationing batteries to one per drone. ... We are extending the software license, warranty, and support term for all drones fulfilled with less than a full complement of batteries by the length of time it takes us to deliver all batteries in the kit.
Proactively offering their customers support due to the inconvenience, solid customer service move there.
The US "sanctions on Chinese" are limited to US federal agencies not being allowed to use Chinese drones.
China now confidently banning Skydio entirely and also blocking them from getting batteries probably means that China has concluded that it is impossible for the US to make batteries on their own. People will bring up the recent lithium discoveries in the US but has completely forgotten the amount propaganda that has been pushed against "open pit mining" targeting both the left and the right (Joe Rogan, RFK jr.)
https://dronelife.com/2024/09/10/house-passes-countering-ccp...
While it might be hard for the US to make lithium batteries that are competitive economically, there are still many countries in the world that can make them economically that are not China, eg. SK, Japan, Taiwan, and the rest of SEA. For Skydio, surviving these sanctions is just a matter of moving their supply chain away from China.
If no other batteries are as cheap as the ones from China then these sanctions could push up the price of the competitor's drones.
It is not impossible for the US to develop batteries. The problem is that it will be costly in terms of investment and the resulting product will necessarily be more expensive for consumers. While this happens Chinese companies will dominate their internal market, Asian markets, Africa and South America. The US is trying to start a fight where their consumers will be left with high inflation and a protectionist market with low innovation.
Can't say that I feel bad for them. Skydio builds inferior drones and sells them at exorbitant prices. Instead of innovating, they opt to lobby and ban the competition (DJI and Autel).
This is not atypicalâhowever, the more you dig into the topic, the more shady they get. Worthwhile watch:
First I was surprised because I was under the impression that Skydio was nowhere near DJI in terms of functionality and quality, but then I see it's about Taiwan..
I feel like China is watching intently the ru-ua situation, and depending how it pans out with international support, Taiwan may find itself in hot water.
I've always felt like China doing a "hot war" in Taiwan would be really uncharacteristic of them. What I think is more likely is that they sponsor parties/social movements in Taiwan that support reunification. Eventually I'd imagine Taiwan would do a referendum on whether or not to join the PRC.
The way I would frame it if I were China: 1. Re-join PRC and lose some civil liberties, but hopefully not have any worse material quality of life. 2. Stay in the US sphere of influence, and continue to be the hypothetical "first theater" of WWIII. Taiwan would need to increase military readiness and always live with the threat of invasion looming.
âSupreme excellence consists of breaking the enemyâs resistance without fighting.â -- Sun Tzu
DJI has had two insight that their Western competitors lacked:
- The market wants cheap and durable high-quality cameras that can fly. Drone/flying-centric features are secondary.
- Software and "AI" features are important but they don't have moat and can be easily copied.
Skydio had more reliable person-tracking feature earlier than DJI but their camera quality has almost always been inferior to DJI.
I find the author's letter a bit tone deaf. It acknowledges that China is sanctioning Skydio for military reasons, but ignores that the US is doing the same.
You mean with DJI? It's not remotely symmetrical. The US does not prohibit DJI from buying US parts to use in their drones. The US do not prohibit US citizens from buying DJI drones. Only the US Dept of Defense is prohibited from buying DJI equipment.
The US does this because DJI is considered a Chinese Military Company [1] (nb that DJI disputes this and asked to be removed from the list). China is sanctioning Skydio because they sold some drones to Taiwan.
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/31/2003384819/-1/-1/0/126...
Last month the U.S. House of Representatives voted to "bar new drones from Chinese drone manufacturer DJI from operating in the United States"[1], and even more recently there has been reports that customs is, using some arguably phony justifications, holding up imports of DJI drones[2].
While you are right that the US has not fully passed and officially enforced a country-wide DJI ban, saying that the US is "just" banning DJI usage by the dept of defense, ignores a number of developments suggesting that the US is in the process of a more expansive ban.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-votes-bar-new-dron... [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-customs-halting-some-dro...
I'll also add that earlier this year, the US put a number of Chinese consumer technology companies, including DJI, on a public blacklist that designates them as "Chinese military companies". This is a clear use of the United States' diplomatic power to hurt and discredit Chinese tech businesses. Whether the US should be doing that is another issue. At the end of the day these sorts events are a common biproduct of large power politics, but the point is that China's actions are not unwarranted.
The house they always passes legislation that will never be implemented to support the base or send a message.
That signal only has meaning if the Senate or administration takes it up. For example, before the great flip of segregation advocates, the house passed legislation making lynching a federal crime for nearly 50 years. The Senate never allowed it to leave committee for a vote.
The meaning of the signal is unclear without understanding the dynamics. The MAGA idiots control it, so thereâs a lot of performative legislation to keep the crowd occupied.
Arguably sanctions poker should be played asymmetrically until one side folds due to uneven damage. If both sides play for even damage then neither side should sanction.
I mean in general, starting with Huawei.
Huawei got sanctions after catch on spy activity.
Who else you know?
From the article's opening sentence, it's clear that they are being sanctioned for doing business with Taiwan's Fire Agency, and not for any military reasons.
A few weeks ago, China announced sanctions on Skydio for selling drones to Taiwan, where our only customer today is the National Fire Agency.I donât really think a sanctioned entity is under obligation to argue âboth sidesâ. I doubt Chinese companies under similar conditions will do so, or have done so in the past.
Funny thing is, when I talk to Chinese people in China, nearly all of them understand why the US and China are fighting: economic reasons. There isn't the same level of hate/demonization of the US in China as there is the opposite in US.
People in China seem to be able to separate the emotions from the situation and able to understand the circumstance logically. Meanwhile, in the US, it's become more of a hate thing through nonstop anti-China propaganda.
People in the US can recognize that the fighting is caused by economic reasons, and surely the average American citizen and the average Chinese citizen don't hold animosity towards each other on a personal level.
I think manufacturing jobs moving to China hurt the middle class in the US, and that's caused a disdain for China (and US politicians who push for things like that). But otherwise, I don't think the China rhetoric is too out of touch with reality. It would be very interesting to talk to someone in China and directly compare perspectives.
Is this actually true? From what Ive seen and read, the US is constantly demonized in the Chinese media.
Nah it's more than that.
China is different. Really different. Our old adversaries the Russians/Soviets are like brotherly chums compared to the Chinese.
China has always had a separate sphere of influence, distinct language, culture, religions, geography. It's way out there.
Look at all the conflicts the West has had with Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Those were not merely economic wars. There was ideology involved at every step. Go back thousands of years, and see the Assyrians evangelizing China (not so effective or memorable.) See the Jesuits and other missionaries landing in Asia and making some inroads, then getting expelled, persecuted, martyred.
The big trouble is, with China, Americans have freely entangled ourselves economically with them for a long, long time. And this made for a tacit friendship, while we were fundamentally opposed in other aspects. But China patiently manufactured luxurious silk, delicious opium, cheap toys, and worthless crap to send us, and they Hoovered up all our debt, and our garbage and "recycling", and they bought controlling interests in businesses such as banks and whatnot.
But an economic relationship is not a friendship, it's transactional, and hopefully it's equalizing, and our economic agreements have been stable enough, but they're not strong enough to overcome ideologies.
So now you can see, perhaps, why Americans are scared and looking to extricate ourselves. I wouldn't say it's about "protectionism" because that has some negative or extreme connotations. I'd just say we're trying to be not so globalist, because the globalism eventually comes back to haunt us.
>If there was ever any doubt, this action makes clear that the Chinese government will use supply chains as a weapon to advance their interests over ours.
In particular this sentence demonstrates a näive credulousness.
Kissinger would be laughing.
This is great. Now everyone will get serious decoupling battery supply chain from China. Maybe companies making EVs will understand the stake.
But how are they going to compete with the huge state-supported battery makers from China?
By state-supporting our own battery makers? Or does the Chinese government have more money than we do?
According to the government, the US has infinite amounts of money because they can always print more...
We'll have to up our slave-labor game while we're at it.
Will the US government sanction itself then?
If batteries can't be sourced from China, there is no competition. If they can be, tariffs to balance out the subsidies.
We urgently need more tariffs on goods made in China. The most important feature of tariffs is not the revenue but incentives they create. We need near total âfriendshoringâ by 2027
Tariffs are useless if you don't have investments to replace that product with local alternatives. Tariffs by themselves will not make the replacements appear (and here is the important part) with the same quality of the taxed product. Most countries that apply tariffs end up with inferior products and a monopolized internal market.
From a national security perspective, and with the recent Israeli exploding pager development, I think a move away from Chinese batteries, forced or not, is a good thing.
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.