Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I’ve owned a lot of Gopro cameras, having done video capture for a variety of motorsports, and they just got too expensive for what you get.

You can be more expensive if you’re better, or you can be worse if you’re cheaper, but they’re both the downsides while living purely off brand recognition.

They also blew up in a time where there wasn’t any real competition. Sony had action cameras but they were bulkier and expensive, and didn’t have the features of GoPro.

These days other brands give better quality video in better quality hardware and more functionality, for cheaper.

GoPro is a US company designed in U.S. with manufacturing in Thailand, China, and Mexico.

Insta360 is a Chinese company designed in Shenzhen and built there, too.

People think this doesn’t matter, but GoPros are used all over in aerospace. If we replaced the brand with Insta360, that puts a big attack vector all over the place.

A similar pattern happened with drones with DJI, intentionally killing all non-Chinese drone brands. And with BambuLabs (founded by ex-DJI) with 3D printers (the only good non-Chinese printer that doesn’t cost 10-100x as much is Prusa, and they’re facing extremely strong headwinds).

Legitimately better Chinese products (incredible engineering) that have massive industrial policy support, probably industrial espionage support (as in the case of DJI for certain), massive influencer marketing campaigns, and near zero cost of capital. When China wants to deindustrialize non-Chinese industries for strategic and/or natsec reasons, they are incredibly good at it. (And note it’s not US-only, China targets basically ANY brand that isn’t Chinese. China absolutely does this to Europe as well… and you can see them doing it in real-time with automotive.)

The only surprising thing to me is how people just act like it’s not happening. I guess for people who don’t have any experience working on federal government adjacent aerospace stuff, the idea of natsec considerations for IT hardware seems entirely abstract, but it’s incredibly real if you do.

If your country’s industrial and defense policy relies on individual consumers making choices that are worse for them on almost all metrics, it’s time to think about on worse payroll your politicians are.
Absolutely true. But China’s industrial dominance is also the government immiserating its people, just in a different way. Domestic consumption in China is famously low, work culture is famously bad (996,etc). And this is because of what their government, not the people of China, have chosen to do.
loading story #48962005
loading story #48963135
loading story #48960622
> who’s payroll your politicians are on

It doesn’t even have to be foreign - it can just be corrupt self interest.

What other explanation is there for attacking Venezuela and Iran?

loading story #48962290
Its more like lack of policy. To be clear, we are talking about China winning IoT hardware industry in this case. That’s not a policy.

You could ban Chinese IoT devices. Or spur local industry. But we aren’t talking about the military relying on Chinese hardware or something.

This is the idea behind a tariff
loading story #48963093
Reads to me like it's free market doing its job, if you think of countries as companies. US just needs to step up its game.
It's not really a free market when one country is heavily subsidizing it's industries
It is not as though other countries could not choose do the same.

It seem to me that China choosing to subsidize industry it is not so different than the US choosing to subsidize Roads, Autos and OIL.

In both cases it does seem to work splendidly as intended.

Other than political inertia (or economic reasons far beyond my ability to fathom) there is nothing to stop the US from following suit.

I accept "free market" is a term of art probably from before global trade reality and could be narrowly redefined to mean whatever one wants (or wanted when it was coined) but in my ignorance I see it simply as free to choose actions and responses.

But I am far far away from opinions I am qualified to hold, think I will shut up now.

I think the overwhelming and undeniable success and prosperity of China is the biggest concern to the west, the neoliberals consistently predicted their immediate downfall that never came. Except we are all still led by the same neoliberals proven wrong about everything, the contradictions everywhere are driving us all into collective insanity. If we don't manage to purge our media and governments from these vile people the only path forward is collective decline, increased totalitarianism and our repression leading to a war with China. Wars don't always end in the right side winning, and the cold war was won by the wrong side.
Thanks, not to disagree but it may be best to use plain language as I do not know what a neoliberal is to me never mind what it means to you.

I do know liberal is used as a derisive term by the people we (US) are being led by which leads me to cognitive dissonance parsing your statement.

So ridiculous. So a bit of subsidy is ok, but no more than the US does? As a country that’s suffered from the US subsidising its own industries, my sympathy is zero.

    > As a country that’s suffered from the US subsidising its own industries
What country and what industries? I am curious. Do you think that you own country does not do the same to others?
> What country and what industries?

New Zealand. Meat exports and dairy.

and the US famously never subsidizes any of its industries...
> Between 2005 and 2024, Chinese firms received on average three to eight times more subsidies than competitors in OECD economies.

https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2026/06/industrial-subsidies-h...

I can't read this seriously while being unable to buy any Chinese EVs here in the US.
You can't buy Chinese EVs in the US because China is overtly running a dumping campaign for them. It's an interesting story, read up on it!
That is (factually) a giant overstatement, and ignores domestic US politics.

It's almost like you believe the US remains interested in promoting free trade.

If it did, it wouldn't be levying illegal and constantly changing import tariffs, in violation of international trade agreements that it has signed up to.

Wait - what?

You cannot buy them because they are dumping them??????

"Dumping" is a term of art in international trade.

It's the thing that happens when a foreign exporter sells goods in your country below their production cost (or far below what they're charging domestic customers). It's done to fuck up the foreign markets for those goods, or, in China's case, as a relief valve for malinvestment.

China drastically overfunds EV production. There's a whole weird story where provinces apparently competed to get slices of the EV production business, which resulted in a large number of competing firms, producing far more vehicles than the Chinese domestic market could consume.

This isn't just a US thing. Europe tariffs the heck out of these cars.

The whole SV is based on dumping. And was for decades.
I don't know how this is supposed to respond to what I just wrote. If an EU country restricted contracts or usage with Google or OpenAI, I wouldn't call them out for doing so. All I'm saying is that it's especially clear why Chinese EVs are impeded from selling in the US.
Yes, I am well aware of the definition of dumping - that fails to explain why people cannot buy them.

If they're being dumped there is an oversupply, and people are spoilt for choice. The market is awash with the dumped product.

Not being able to buy them is the exact reverse of that.

The entire point of anti-dumping actions is that left unregulated, people will buy these unsubsidized cars.
Right - your comment was very poorly articulated - and loaded with supposition.

Your claim is that the reason people cannot buy the vehicles ISN'T because they are being dumped BUT because the government SAYS they are being dumped and has therefore actively prevented them from being sold.

The supposition is that it's an accurate claim by the governments - there are reports that the Chinese manufacturers are being restricted by their government and that there has been a period of over production, but how much of that is true and how much is propaganda is very difficult to actually ascertain.

loading story #48963785
What’s the level of subsidy that’s ok?
I'll take a stab. How about something like not more than 50% greater than OECD average per industry? My point: It seems reasonable that some countries was to specialise in certain areas. For example: Taiwan and (East!) Germany chose to build-out their semiconductor industry starting in the 1980s. It has paid pretty good dividends with a healthy amount of industrial subsidies. I also think the OECD should be raising tariff rates to protect against ridiculous levels of Chinese subsidies.
Appeals to fairness are difficult to accept when the rest of us out here in the world have been hurt by the US imposing tariffs and sanctions on us over the past few decades, and with intense chaotic energy in the last few years.

How do we make a system everyone is to abide by when the US can just rewrite the rules when it suits? Order collapses when a huge country behaves this way.

Quite a few members of the OECD have already done so.
Which industries are the US leading in because of subsidies?
Arms, weapons, fighter jets and so on. The US sounds a trillion $ a year subsidizing the military industrial complex.

The US chose their market (arms). The Chinese chose consumer goods. Go figure.

Basically every "made in USA" consumer product has a DOD contract. The DOD is mandated by law to purchase from US companies, so there is a huge sector of small-to-medium businesses which only exist because there is a guaranteed order coming every quarter for uniforms or boots or other equipment that would likely be 1/3 the price if they were contract-manufactured in China or Vietnam.

Not saying this is uniformly bad, because without the law the number of businesses with the ability to manufacture this stuff would trend toward zero, but it is a form of subsidy.

I wonder if this pattern is true for all militaries in rich countries. I think it sounds like good economic policy. If you want to grow your military, then you need to make sure it is spent domestically. Also, the "finish good" may include lots of parts that were built overseas. Think about a Tomohawk missile: I am sure the microchips are all made overseas. That said, the intellectual property is developed domestically (or with very close allies) and final assembly is done domestically.
US Arms exports bring in around $13 billion a year. The military industrial complex is a domestic jobs program that sells the vast majority of what it makes domestically. The US is clearly not spending a trillion dollars a year subsidizing defense in order to make their products more competitive in other markets.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/arms_exports/

Sadly, consumer goods are the new arms (drones, batteries, etc)
Oil, natural gas, corn (for fuel), soybeans (for cattle feed)
If a country hands out enormous subsidies but yet isn't leading in anything, then maybe it's time to consider what structural reasons are causing these subsidies to be squandered and whose bottom lines are being padded.
What US industries get anywhere near Chinese level subsidies.
I heard that when some country wants to pay in a different currency than USD for oil, a coup suddenly happens, or a helicopter comes and the president gets kidnapped
loading story #48960769
Agriculture?
loading story #48963725
Ever wondered why everything in the USA contains corn syrup? Because sugar is artificially expensive (roughly double the global price) due to import tariffs that protect US sugar cane farmers.
EVs, mobile phones, are two massive industries where Chinese competitors are not only way ahead, but also basically banned.
It's not much more of a free market when giant corporations do.
Every country including the US does that.
Successful Chinese industries tend to be subsidized at the level of cities and regions. This creates fierce intra national rivalry that forces rapid evolution and excellence. Electric vehicles are an example.

Anything the federal government pumps money into tends not to do as well.

This particular complaint is tripple hypocritical. US whole deal is to sell under price until competition dies and only then bring up prices or remove offering.

It winner takes all econony is literally based on destroying the competition as such.

Ignoring foreign patents also played a big part in US industrialization.
Does it matter? When has capitalism cared about fair or free
Or when one country can print endless money while threatening the rest of the world with all kinds of punishment if they stop using it as a reserve currency.

Stop crying already. US subsidizes a boatload of things.

For us living in "the rest of the world", we only have a choice of being spied on by chinese or american companies, and american ones can do a lot more damage to us than chinese.

So if we're getting spied on anyway, why not buy a better product?

Perhaps a huge tell about national strategy is the fact that the owner has $10s of millions to loan to the company? US economic structure in post WWII era has increasingly focused on return on capital (and value extraction). How can that compete in long term with an economy which prioritizes reinvestment *in industry*?
One would presume that the founder is investing their money into something, probably equities, that is an investment in industry. They could be either selling those equities for a loan here or taking a loan against those equities to loan to GoPro (if the cost of capital is lower for them than GoPro, which seems plausible.)

I generally agree with your point about value extraction vs. re-investment.

loading story #48962500
People know it’s happening. What do you expect an average consumer to do about it? Pay more out of pocket due to the potential national security risks?
I would pay more to have a product the US doesn’t have its hands in.
You can't pay more to get a better drone than DJI's. You can pay more (although it's difficult) to get a worse drone. Much worse.
loading story #48963996
loading story #48962217
In today's environment people can't even make the choice to pay more. The productn are just priced out of reach!
> GoPros are used all over in aerospace. If we replaced the brand with Insta360, that puts a big attack vector all over the place.

What would the attack vector be? I’m not saying there isn’t any, I don’t know much about aerospace and this sounds interesting.

> What would the attack vector be?

The cameras. But quite how, I don’t know.

loading story #48964288
Cameras need to connect somewhere, somehow to offload their videos/photos. Whether that's network, USB, SD card, those are all attack vectors. Hell, even the files themselves can act as payloads.
loading story #48963236

    > GoPros are used all over in aerospace
What percent of GoPro sales are used by aerospace? My guess: It is tiny. Not enough to keep GoPro alive.
Also on Avinox motors on e-mtn bikes. Originally made by DJI, then spun off into their own company, and they are starting to eat the competition on all e-mtn bikes at this point. Bosch, TQ, Shimano, et al just can't compete, especially because Avinox is iterating at startup pace and all the rest are iterating at bike pace (slowly).
This is the key though: it’s not just supposed subsidies, because the Chinese companies are fundamentally just faster and more efficient
loading story #48962987
Simon Wardley has been shouting this from the rooftops, including detailed per industry timelines when China will take over, in 2015.
[flagged]
loading story #48960232
> the only good non-Chinese printer that doesn’t cost 10-100x as much is Prusa

They hardly have time to compete, busy as they are with foot-shooting practice.

Not sure what you mean. Had a mk 4 or what the last one was - excellent. Now on core one (or what the name is for the enclosed one), also great.
Dunno, Prusa seems to have mostly forgotten about consumers as their industrial business is booming.

Stuff like this: https://sensofusion.com/dronefactory/

loading story #48961193
100%. It would strongly behoove the US to encourage domestic 3d printer manufacture (or friendly countries like Japan), to the point of bannning Bambu and Chinese companies. Obviously we are doing fine for industrial 3d printers, but the small scale consumer stuff is very important too.

If and when AI commiditizes professional services, it would be good to have modern industry to fall back on. With 3d printing the gap isnt insurmountable yet.

However, our country is run by lawyers, not engineers, so I dont have too much hope. At least a lot of our billionaires started out as engineers...

loading story #48963422
I'm not sure what stops some of these industries from essentially being more nationalist like China, but more centrist as a company like Palantir. If these risks are as big as you claim, a centralized authority should reverse engineer the things that work done in China or where-ever and use open source/build a better software stack that supplants what's out on the market currently.
I think the engineering is actually pretty irrelevant in terms of the competitiveness
The western countries deindustrialized themselves though. That's just capitalism chasing ever increasing profits and moving production to where it's cheaper, i.e.from west to China. In fact this was cherished because it increased share holder profits.
{"deleted":true,"id":48959246,"parent":48958977,"time":1784390239,"type":"comment"}
> China wants to deindustrialize non-Chinese industries for strategic and/or natsec reasons,

No. Not even close

China wants its place at the table.

With Erope and USA

People seem to think a developed China is a threat. But they are not staying in rural poverty for ever for our sake. That is not a threat.

They are not trying to "deindustrialise" anybody, just finding a place amongst equals

If you’ve spent a life and the market being supreme then it’s a shock. China’s economic system is wiping the floor with the west.

The U.K. has just nationalised a steel plant which had been bought by China to stop it from being destroyed, and of course the economic right wing hate this as steel is far cheaper to import.

Britain is on a hell of a trajectory. First Brexit then the rise of Reform.

If that scam of a man wins the next election, it’ll be quite the show.

loading story #48962522
loading story #48962925
loading story #48963394
As someone with both an Insta360 camera and a Bambu printer, I feel it, would love to buy GoPro and Prusa, but the value just isn't there.

For one, I had a GoPro whose sensor broke after about 20 minutes of recorded. I ended up getting 3 different replacements, all of which also broke. In the end I just forgot about it when my home burnt down in a wildfire. I got an Insta360 with better picture quality that's also been more reliable for a similar cost.

And I would have loved to buy a Prusa printer but I got a Bambu P1S combo for $600, an equivalent Prusa plus the $300 shipping to Canada would have been ~$2500 CAD. For making trinkets for my 3 year old son plus the few random other things I'd make it's not worth it to pay 4x the money.

Maybe it'll forever be this way due to the differences in cost of living but I do feel as though there's a million barriers to entry to building a business in North America, at least a business that's not fully online.

Unless Canadian prices are much much higher than US, the only Prusa that costs that much is a Core One L or a Prusa XL.

Neither one of those are equivalent to a P1S. They’re 2 tiers above it. Equivalent Bambu printers sell for about the same price.

I have printers from both companies. There are tradeoffs for each, but Prusa isn’t 4x more for an equivalent printer.

loading story #48961619
Lol your country and your capitalism helped build China.

Wasn't that the thing like ~30 years ago? All the western companies pushing manufacturing into China for increased profit?

Capitalism and the west gave all that power away :), you deindustrialised yourselves.

If GoPro is manufactured in China then it’s no more secure than Insta360.
China does not want to deindustrialize any country. Why do you think of everything in terms of war and domination ? China has built a industry capable of taking any product and make it better and cheaper. There is no psycho strategy behind it. They will do it till every chinese will live a comfortable life equal to an american. At that point america will be able to compete again.
The CCP has publicly explained that their strategy is indeed to dominate key sectors via gov subsidies, de-industrialize other nations and gain strategic leverage in the process.
Why doesn't America do that too? It seems to work really really well.
loading story #48964225
loading story #48962558
government first intervened in British Steel last year to prevent its then-owner, the Chinese company Jingye Group, from shutting it down https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/16/business/britain-national...
boo hoo china bad, buy my more expensive and shitty american product
The biggest attack vector against the world is is Israel and Zionism, not China. Stop bashing China. Its getting silly and infantile.
>People think this doesn’t matter, but GoPros are used all over in aerospace. If we replaced the brand with Insta360, that puts a big attack vector all over the place.

In what way exactly? The camera will magically communicate to the mothership?

I’ve owned a lot of Gopro cameras, having done video capture for a variety of motorsports, and they just got too expensive for what you get.

Sounds very similar to another US company - Garmin. They are still popular, but have been raising prices a lot every generation, because for a long time there was no real competition [1]. At this point, Garmin watches that have mapping support have an introduction price of >600 Euro. Even at that price point, zooming or panning maps is excruciatingly slow (sometimes taking up to 10 seconds to re-render) because they have used the same CPU/MCU for multiple generations while increasing screen resolution. They also haven't really innovated a lot as of recently and are moving some new functionality behind a subscription.

This has opened a large gap for Chinese competition. Now you can get a Coros Nomad that goes head-to-head with models like the Garmin Enduro for 350 Euro. They don't have full feature parity yet, but they are so rapidly adding features that they will at some point. Also, in contrast to Garmin, they seem to be using modern microcontrollers, so panning or zooming a map is insanely fast in comparison, while still having ~20 days of battery for daily use.

[1] Of the traditional competitors, Apple Watch Ultra and Galaxy Watch Ultra have gotten closer, but are nowhere near the battery life, robustness, mapping support, mapping + workout support, etc.

loading story #48959366
loading story #48959348
loading story #48960032
loading story #48959442
According to a quick search, GoPro has an Enterprise Valuation of $160M. That would be chump change for a large tech company. The brand has name recognition value in excess of that figure. I suspect some big company will happily buy it but not sure who. It has to be a company that wants to get into the camera market. I don't think the brand name is as valuable to an existing camera company-though I could be wrong.

Apple, Google, and Amazon could all make sense. Google would see the business as an opportunity to strengthen its existing IoT portfolio. Apple an opportunity to add to its integrated consumer electronics offering. Amazon would be more a play to improve GoPro's margins. They could easily push it with prime deals, etc.

I could also see Samsung getting in.

Regardless, expect to see more integration, AI features, etc, after acquisition.

One cool feature I've read about is that (at least some) GoPro cameras can save high-resolution IMU measurements to the recorded video files, timestamped and interleaved with video frames. This can be useful for mapping applications, e.g. https://joshi-bharat.github.io/projects/gopro/

Are there any competitors on the market that also have this feature? I've looked around a few times in the past and haven't found any. Many cameras say that they have an IMU, presumably for image stabilization, but they don't seem to record or expose that data.

loading story #48964196
> These days other brands give better quality video in better quality hardware and more functionality, for cheaper.

I had a GoPro many years ago. Eventually sold it because I needed the money for other things.

Been thinking about buying a new action camera eventually.

Got any recommendations?

The one that interests me the most of the ones I’ve seen is the Insta360 X4 Air plus an underwater case for it.

I want to be able to bring my camera swimming, bicycling, hiking, etc. And I think 360 degree cameras are pretty cool. Hopefully it’s not just a gimmick that loses its appeal after a few hours.

loading story #48958720
loading story #48958685
>other brands give better quality video in better quality hardware and more functionality, for cheaper

Would you mind providing a recommendation you have first hand experience with?

loading story #48961198
A gopro isn't worse than the competition, nor at a premium.

What makes gopro the standard in proper productions (and science etc) is that they're so hackable with the gopro labs software. With that, all the other cameras are toys in comparison for professional usage.

It also doesn’t help that you could probably get by with a hero 4 black even today lol

Man I still can’t believe how bad the rollout of the karma was. I remember at the time everyone in my professional circles was buzzing about it. Then they started literally falling out of the sky. Feel like they never recovered

loading story #48958291
loading story #48961238
loading story #48958680
loading story #48958572
> These days other brands give better quality video in better quality hardware and more functionality, for cheaper.

Such as?

loading story #48958845