What amazes me is the number of people who just dive right in and start flying MRs without even bothering to read the documentation. I could be wrong, but my sense is that, for better or worse, DJI is selling *way* more than any of its competitors. Further, they're the first with kits that don't *require* assembly from scratch and lot's of technical skills to get into the air. Even though I'm handy with a computer, soldering iron, and digital multimeter, it was the Phantom with Zen H3-2D that got me into this hobby. To some hardcore MR hobbyists, the Phantom is a toy. But the inaccuracy of that view is obvious from the thousands of posted videos taken with P1 and now P2 setups. This gives DJI access to creating and serving a portion of the MR market that is not yet ready for much of DJI's competition. The great unwashed masses who just charge the battery and go out and fly, for better or worse.
I think the user profile for the 'typical' DJI customer includes the entire spectrum of experience/skill, while the alternatives are heavily skewed to more technically experienced users, even if they are new to RC or MRs. This, combined with smaller absolute numbers at least partly explains the smaller number of problem posts for alternative FCs. If you do look, you will find problems with all of the platforms. As experienced pilots have noted, sooner or later everything crashes.
Careful review of DJI's history of real problems shows that there are actually a number of separate issues that tend to get confused and conflated leaving a very real sense of serious problems. For example posts refer to the FOD (flip of death) in relation to DJI FCs generally, failing to realize that these were specific problems due to FW issues with early batches of GPS/compass modules. There are also separate issues related to airframes (f450/550, s800, s800 EVO) vs. FCs (Naza, WKM, A2) vs. firmware (FW versions with specific issues). But there are also a large number of satisfied users who post to that effect (like me). Flyaways are scary, but some have clear causes that are not related to FC problems per se.
I learned from diving and underwater photography and videography that the single largest factor in reducing the likelihood of disaster is personal responsibility. RTFM. Peruse the forums. Maintain your equipment, use common sense, be cautious.
Sadly, this will not protect you from defective or faulty equipment. DJI *appears* to be recognizing that to maintain some semblance of market leadership, particularly among sophisticated users, they have to improve quality control and customer service. Time will tell if they are really seeing the light on this critical point.
Still I'm encouraged when even MombasaFlash, with his documented 'bad luck' with DJI QC problems, sees some concrete evidence of improvement...
Steve
This is a really interesting topic for me. Being so new to the hobby, I quickly recognized DJI as the largest marketing presence, but after only a few days research found countless mentions of 'fly-aways' and poor customer service. These are 2 things that will strike fear in the hearts of a noob like myself. I quickly moved on to other options...
I often hear the argument that dominant sales figures and a majority market share of products in the field cause the inordinate amount of complaints. I just did a search for sales figures, and the first 3 pages came up with nothing for DJI (not surprising being a Chinese company). The only mention I saw for sales figures was from 3DRobotics, who claim to sell 3000 RTF MRs per year, and 300 FCs per month. Even if we assume that DJI is selling far beyond these figures, I still wonder whether it's acceptable for so many people to have these issues. DJI products are not cheap. Even in a tech market as rapidly advancing as this one is, they are expensive enough to reasonably expect to not pay to 'beta test' a product. This technology is new enough that it doesn't seem likely that DJI products were all sound at first, but when popularity and sales rose, they lost some QC.
Deluge also makes a good point that typically the worst cases are represented in forums, while owners seek a solution to negative issues. While this makes sense to me, it may be similar to the auto industry: recalling 100k cars for an unpleasant odor is less dramatic than recalling 50 cars for exploding when the air conditioner is turned on (whether the vehicle is a Citroen or a tractor!). It's understandable that someone reading a post about a quad flying away without control is going to think twice about purchasing that product. It quickly becomes an issue of 'why risk it?', rather than doing the math of 'how many people have NOT had this experience?' Fair or not, for me the stories of people using multiple successful DJI products haven't outweighed the stories of people who lost thousands of dollars to a fly-away.
Couple this with the fact that I have read countless times DJI customer support referred to as "non-existent," and someone like me, new to the hobby, is likely to shy away (or at least research alternatives).
It seems these issues may create a gap in the market for a company who might spend a little more time and energy ensuring that our investments are safe (as safe as can reasonably be expected), and equally or more important, supported!
Just my .02
But I do know that if I had paid for DJI - both price and size of company would have suggested to me that I could have expected a little hand holding, whether I needed it or not. The fly-aways seem like they can be explained (at least partially), but I have to say - I have heard far less positive feedback about customer support. Why is that? Fortunately, there was someone here who had good results with their local DJI rep.