This Change Is Not a File

What is easily confused are policies at two different levels.

At the national level, two mandatory national standards will be implemented starting on May 1, 2026. One is the “Real-name Registration and Activation Requirements for Civil Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” addressing the question of “who can fly.” UAVs must complete real-name registration and pass system verification before they can activate and obtain flight capability. The other standard is the “Standard Specification for System Operational Identification of Civil Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” addressing the question of “who is flying.” According to interpretations by the Civil Aviation Administration, civil UAVs that lack operational identification sending functions should cease operation starting from May 1, 2026.

It’s no longer as simple as just affixing a real-name registration QR code like before. Previously, the general user intuition was that simply registering it after purchase would be enough to prevent misuse. Now, the regulatory logic is much more advanced: whether the machine can be activated, whether it can be identified while in flight, and whether the manufacturer provides interfaces and upgrade plans—all of these factors will become integral parts of the product itself.

At the Beijing level, it is more direct.

The “Beijing Regulations on the Management of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” will also be implemented on May 1, 2026. Beijing has designated the entire administrative area as a controlled airspace for unmanned aerial vehicles, requiring an application for all outdoor flight activities. More critically, sales, transportation, carrying, and storage are all subject to control: It is prohibited to sell or rent unmanned aerial vehicles and their core components to units or individuals within the administrative region of Beijing, and transporting or carrying drones and their core components into Beijing is also forbidden. The situation concerning existing drones that complete real-name registration and information verification will be addressed separately.

Therefore, what the outside world perceives regarding “DJI’s withdrawal” (or discontinuation) is not that sales are suddenly prohibited across the entire national market, but rather that the specialized Beijing market has been individually restricted. This distinction is crucial. National policy focuses on traceability requirements, whereas Beijing’s policy enforces high-intensity spatial control.

What is the Impact on DJI?

The most direct impact of DJI is that the Beijing consumer market has essentially lost normal retail scenes.

Jiemian News reported that after the afternoon of April 29th, DJI stores in Beijing will no longer sell drone products, and online platforms have also ceased shipping to the Beijing area. If Beijing users require subsequent repairs, the stores will not bear repair responsibilities; they must instead use self-mailing repairs from other provinces/cities or seek replacements through authorized service centers. This change is quite problematic for a consumer electronics company because it not only means losing sales in one city but also impacts the entire customer experience chain.

Drones are not cell phones. While a phone may be difficult to buy in Beijing, you can purchase it elsewhere, and it will function the same way when brought back. Drones are different; buying, carrying, flying, storing, or maintaining them might trigger the same set of regulatory controls. Even if Beijing users have the desire to purchase [drones], they are often discouraged by practical concerns such as, “Can I bring it back after purchasing?”, “Is flying allowed?”, and “What happens if it breaks?”

The second impact is the continued rise in product compliance costs.

DJI’s previous strength was transforming aerial drones into very mature consumer electronics products. The process—unboxing, activating, connecting the App, taking off, and shooting—became smoother and smoother. However, after new regulations, product experiences must embed more regulatory actions: refreshing real-name registration status, interacting with the UOM platform, applying for flight activities, reporting operational identification data, and explaining the relationship between no-fly zones and government controlled airspace.

Users will not perceive these things as “functional enhancements.” Users will only feel that it makes things more complicated/troublesome. However, manufacturers must implement them, and if done poorly, they will become post-sale issues.

The third impact is that DJI’s consumer advantages will be compressed, making industry capabilities more important.

In a place like Beijing, demand for personal aerial photography is severely restricted. The sectors that can genuinely navigate the necessary procedures are typically those related to emergency response, surveying and mapping, inspection, academic research, public safety, or film production—all areas with clear stakeholders and defined purposes. These applications do not necessarily prioritize “cheap and fun,” but rather focus on mission reliability, complete approval documentation, data traceability, and implementable services.

This isn’t necessarily all bad news for DJI. DJI already has product lines dedicated to industrial applications, covering scenarios such as agriculture, energy, and mapping/surveying. However, the potential scope for consumer-grade products will narrow. The narrative of average people buying a Mini and taking it on casual trips is becoming increasingly impractical in highly regulated cities.

How Did DJI Respond?

In the short term, DJI’s response is relatively pragmatic: Beijing channels are removing products from shelves; online sales restrict shipping; after-sales service shifts to cross-regional mailing for repair or authorized service centers; and public documentation continues to guide users toward real-name registration and flight reporting.

This isn’t the most elegant approach, but it is a realistic one. Local regulations have explicitly prohibited the sale and rental of drones and core components to Beijing, leaving the company with little room to maneuver. Continuing to push sales is meaningless; instead, it will transfer compliance risks to the stores and users.

Even on DJI’s official support pages, they have actually been guiding users toward the UOM system for some time now. For example, the real-name registration page prompts DJI drone users to complete their registration at the earliest and mentions that they can check their verified identity status within DJI Fly. The flight reporting page also details procedures such as the UOM application process, pre-flight reporting, and post-flight submission. In other words, it wasn’t that DJI only started facing regulation on May 1st; rather, on this date, many things that were originally merely “advisory” became hard constraints for whether or not the product could continue to be used.

I think this is what makes DJI feel the most discomfort.

It cannot solely focus on hardware, nor can it be limited to just the image experience. It must also function as a compliant middleware layer: when users do not understand policies, the App must explain them; if a user cannot take off/launch, the system must provide reasons; when government platform interfaces change, the firmware and cloud services must adapt accordingly; and when existing devices no longer meet requirements, it must offer upgrade or replacement solutions.

Consumer electronics companies fear this kind of thing the most. Because these types of costs are difficult to reflect in specification sheets, and they are also hard to turn into a selling point that users are willing to pay for.

Future Development of Drones

Drones are highly likely to split into two main paths/tracks in the future.

One type is more like a tool. It serves specific tasks: requiring applications before flight, conducting identification during flight, and generating records after flight. It can be applied to scenarios such as inspection, surveying/mapping, agriculture, fire fighting, logistics, and urban governance. The focus here is not on spectacular shots, but rather on reliable processes, clear accountability, and data closed-loops. If the low-altitude economy truly wants to develop, it should rely on this path, rather than people just flying randomly in city parks.

Another trend is that it’s becoming a more restricted imaging toy. Consumer aerial photography will still exist, but it will become increasingly dependent on permissible flying zones, scenic area rules, local policies, and platform compliance. In the future, people buying drones may need to prioritize the use case—much like when buying a car—rather than focusing solely on battery life, image quality, and weight.

I don’t entirely agree with simply interpreting this situation as “suppressing DJI.” Beijing’s regulations are indeed strict and unfriendly to ordinary consumers. However, from a regulatory perspective, the biggest difference between drones and cameras is that drones enter public airspace. As long as it can fly, carry a camera, and traverse walls and roads, they cannot be regulated simply like standard consumer electronics.

The real problem is that regulation cannot rely solely on prohibition.

If the future only imposes restrictions like “cannot fly, cannot sell, or cannot carry,” then the drone industry will be relegated to specialized equipment used by a select few entities, effectively pushing out ordinary consumers and small business teams. A better direction for development would be to clarify the compliance procedures: specifically, which areas are permissible for flight, how long is the application process, why might an application be rejected, how to register temporary activities, how cross-city transport should be handled, how existing equipment can be upgraded, and how liability boundaries are determined.

DJI must continue moving in this direction. While making the hardware smaller, more stable, and safer is only one part, what is more important is productizing features such as identity recognition, geo-fencing, operational reporting, flight application processes, and after-sales workflow management. It might not sound glamorous, but it could be more critical than further improving image quality.

Drones have transitioned from free operation to institutional control—this shift has already occurred. For DJI, Beijing was merely the first city where this reality was made public. For ordinary users, in the future, asking “Where can I legally fly?” before buying a drone may be more important than asking “How clear are the shots this machine takes?”

References

• China Civil Aviation Administration: “Interpretation | Mandatory National Standard ”》
• China Civil Aviation Administration: [“Interpretation | ”](https://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/ZCFBJD/202601/t20260