Rincewind
Second Officer
Taiwan
Offline
|
I thoroughly second Ray on this one!
As you must know, Dave, CS is not your employers main strength, but following you on the forums makes me think that they are actively trying to change for the better. Without trying to be insulting, the guys that preceded you were a bit, well, either brusque, or evasive. I've got the impression that you tackle complaints head on, and give reasonable answers.
As for the main topic of this thread... I'm not sure what "many" means. I've never had a problem with a total of four batteries, on two different P3As, and over 100 flights. It had also not come to my attention up to this point. I will make sure to be careful for the behavior described above, and report if I see it on my birds.
That being said, and at the risk of sounding a bit cynical, one also has to take cost effectiveness into account. In the thread, someone was saying that, even if it affects less than 10% of users, it should be looked at carefully. I'd say 10% is a huge number! If one in every ten cars sold by any company would be dangerously faulty, that car maker would really be in trouble! I think the figure might be more similar to less then 1%, or even 0.1%. The problem is that, any company, even at the risk of getting into big big trouble later on, needs to set a limit to their QA at some point.
For example, in medical instruments sterilization, it is impossible to obtain 100% sterility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St ... y%29#Quantification). Furthermore, as you keep adding 9s after the decimal point (99.9%, 99.99%, 99.999%, etc.) costs mount up exponentially. In order to make a profit, medical suppliers need to balance the risks of "dirty" instruments, with the cost of "spotless" ones. You could argue, therefore, that such a company is codifying the price of someone's live into their finances, since someone, sometime, will get one of the "not that clean" catheters, and die from a hospital related infection which is traceable not to negligence, but to "cost effective" procedures. Will this cost the company money in the long run (legal trouble, damages, etc.)? Perhaps, but the truth is that, in most cases, this has already been taken into account in the cost calculation when deciding the sterilization process. And I'm not sure that's such a bad idea either, I mean, when the chances of getting infected by a catheter are smaller than, say, being hit by lightning, do you really need more (although, having said that, I'd hate to be the both the guy with the infection, or the one hit by lightning)?
I think DJI might be striking a similar deal here with their batteries. They must have calculated the quality level at which point there is an optimal balance between most people being able to fly safely, while at the same time having to repair a minimal number of machines. As I said above, I'd hate to be the one that got struck by lightning, and commiserate the OP for it, but my impression is that that can, happen with any purchase you make, not just from “evil” DJI. |
|