Mal_PV2_Ireland said:
Really? So you cant see that no fly zones are a good idea? You can downgrade if you wish or buy some other make of quad.
I can't see that being told what I can and can't do with a piece of equipment that I've purchased is a good idea, under any circumstance.
Would you be willing to buy a car that automatically limited speed to the published maximum speed limits on any roads? I wouldn't.
Would you be willing to buy an Internet connection that automatically limited you to only visiting sites that someone else had deemed were appropriate for supposedly others' safety? I wouldn't.
The same logic applies here. If I own the product, then I have a right to use it when and where I please. If people use it inappropriately, then fine - come after them with everything the law allows, throw the book at 'em, charge 'em, convict 'em, and punish 'em if necessary. But all people should not be given a gimped tool just because one or two may act stupidly.
What's next - placing functions to limit the types of pictures one can take because someone
might want to try and violate someone else's privacy? Building in logic to allow authorities (and private citizens) to place some sort of beacons out to prevent flight in areas that arbitrarily and capriciously chosen as "no fly zones"? (That's essentially what DJI did, after all.)
Forcing people to use older versions of firmware which were technically not designed for the specific product is not the answer, either. Advocating this as a solution is essentially supporting a dangerous action, putting the public and owners at risk of being exposed to whatever bugs were present in those versions (which may have been addressed in current versions of the software).
Users have a right to fully use the equipment they purchased without artificial restrictions placed by manufacturers. If DJI doesn't address this, hopefully someone else will - either through hacking their firmware and putting an option in there, or offering an alternative firmware that compatible with the P2V+.