The product looks insane. Price point too.. Similar systems today cost 30K.
The problem with DJI is the generic firmware. I am still running old firmware because of all the crashes and complaints they have dramatically reduced performance / angle of attack, etc with each release.
For amateurs, it's rather expensive compared to the other DJI options out there. Especially if you already have a GoPro.
If you're a pro, you probably opt for something more customizable. You want a camera that you can get a great footage out and there is a nice and commonly understood post-processing and grading option available and not use some propriety camera.
So I think real pros would spend a bit more and attach their existing camera (GH4, Canon 5D III, etc.) system that they are familiar with to a large drone or if they want a smaller drone they'll go with the LX100 or some one of many Sony offering (if they don't need 4K)
That said, a non-Vision Phantom with a gimbal and a GoPro can probably also get satisfactory results for those same customers. Still, the price wouldn't be significantly less, and the Inspire 1 has a full 360 gimbal with yaw and separate camera controls (which is huge), seems to have more flight control features (last I checked, Phantoms didn't support waypoint navigation), and might have better video quality than a GoPro.
It would have been nicer if they had clear "follow me" feature. Even better would be one-touch pre-programmed flight pattern. I can imagine myself sitting on a summit of a hike or ski resort or beach and doing one-touch pre-programmed cinematic flight path to get that super-cool gimble stabilized video that makes a circle around me.
What's nice is the way they do 360d view, the 6s, the low drag, the smaller camera (setups with gopro - which is 4k too - or bigger are quite .. massive).. and they also seem to be catching up to the APM/Pixhawk on the software side.
Now price, non-opensource, etc.. of course. Still a nice piece of hardware.
As far as I know both PX4 and APM have half-baked optical flow code in various branches, but no out-of-the-box / off-the-shelf support in mainline (even though 3DR sell optical flow hardware).
Knowing DJI's past I'm not sure their integration is much better, but if it is, that's a big win IMO. Optical flow is awesome for new pilots as it makes the quadcopter's position hold ability in hover much more stable. It's one of the main reasons the AR.Drone works so well despite its relatively imprecise / high-latency phone-based control interface.
See video of a Canadian CT-155 Hawk (Not F-16 as titled)
For an airliner like an Airbus A320, a small bird can damage the engine fan blades and require an expensive repair. If the bird goes through the core even minor damage becomes very expensive to fix.
DJI's Phantom quadcopters (with newest firmware) enforce the 400 foot ceiling in software, not sure what their plans are with this one since it is being marketed as much more pro-sumer than than the Phantom line, but if Joe Schmoe Parkflyer flies one of these above 400 feet he is violating FAA regulations and theoretically could be charged large fines currently.
When you turn the Phantom on one of the first things it does is tries to get a GPS lock on its current position which it will use as the "home" point. This is a pretty important piece of data for the device to have (and the bright LEDs on the arms will light up red until it has it, warning you that taking off is dangerous) because if it goes into "return to home" failsafe for any reason (loss of connection to the controller, battery low situation, etc) the device will attempt to fly itself to that position (after first ascending to a programmable return-to-home altitude if needed to minimize risk of hitting obstacles like trees or houses).
The controller on the Phantoms also has a barometer which can be used for (relative) altitude change readings. I have no idea if it uses that at all in the 400 foot ceiling calculations.
It is extremely doubtful that the Phantom carries any sort of WGS 84 to local height mapping because that is a ridiculous amount of data (even at a fairly low resolution) to carry for the entire globe, and it has no link to any kind of lookup service for that, and if you based the height on sea level that would make the device pretty worthless in many places (eg. Denver which is more than 13 times higher than 400 feet above sea level at ground level).
I'm waiting to see some more real-world feedback as the Inspire 1 gets into the hands of more people. I can see myself seriously considering purchasing one... even without a very specific need at the moment (I consider myself more of a photo/video hobbyist than anything). Still, a part of me feels like there must be some kind of dealbreaker/issue that just hasn't come to light yet. I wonder how the camera compares to other options in the price range - not just in specs, but in actual image quality, dynamic range, color reproduction, etc.
The one thing that would make me more confident in buying one (other than a better reputation for DJI's support) would be some kind of statement (either from DJI or from customers' experience) of compatibility with GoPro.
Also, is anyone else annoyed that they don't stop the background video when you click to view the product video? Even on a new Macbook Pro, I get choppy video with both of them competing for resources. Even if it did play smoothly on my hardware, the background video is very distracting when you're watching the product video in a lightbox. Of course, clicking the YouTube link and watching in another tab worked better, but still..