Panasonic Begins To Lock Out 3d-Party Camera Batteries 450
OhMyBattery writes "The latest firmware updated for Panasonic digital cameras contains one single improvement: it locks out the ability to use 'non-genuine Panasonic' batteries. It does so for safety reasons, it says. It seems to indicate that this is going to be the norm for all new Panasonic digital cameras. From the release: 'Panasonic Digital Still Cameras now include a technology that can identify a genuine Panasonic battery. For the protection of our customers Panasonic developed this technology after it was discovered that some aftermarket 3rd party batteries do not meet the rigid safety standards Panasonic uses.' The firmware warning is quite clear as to what it does: 'After this firmware update your Panasonic Digital Camera cannot be operated by 3rd party batteries (non genuine Panasonic batteries).'"
Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wants to make a buck stifling competition and innovation these days.
Too bad for them (Score:5, Insightful)
I am in the market for a new camera. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it will not be a Panasonic. If it had issued a warning after putting hte battery in, then it would be OK. This just sounds like the same crap Lexmark pulled. I still actively recommend against their printers.
Lock is anticompetitive, not consumer prot'n (Score:5, Insightful)
If Panasonic was concerned about 3rd party suppliers selling unsafe batteries, it could sell licenses with strict requirements or set up a certification program to test the safety of the batteries sold by these suppliers.
Locking out competition to create an artificial tie-in between the camera and the battery is anti-competitive, in my opinion. There are ways to ensure the safety of customers without a tie-in that undermines market-based competition.
Mind you, I only read the blurb- I don't know the details of what Panasonic is proposing. But the summary seems telling.
Antitrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the "Panasonic camera battery" market considered a market, in terms of antitrust law? If so, are they setting themselves up for antitrust action?
Standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
"some aftermarket 3rd party batteries do not meet the rigid safety standards Panasonic uses."
It would be interesting to see what standards they refer to. Is that a trade secret?
Grrrr. (Score:4, Insightful)
A better solution would of been "This firmware update identifies the use of 3rd party batteries and alerts the user to the risk of using them. It monitors the voltage output and shuts down the camera if it determines that the battery is insufficient or possibly dangerous. And invalidates the warranty too". This would of left open the choice to the user - after all there are a great many very good 3rd party batteries and they have saved my bacon in the past.
By monitoring the voltage I mean the camera can detect an abnormally fast voltage drop against its usage that might mean a defective or damaged battery - naturally it cannot detect if the battery is about to get white hot and set fire to the camera, but hey the user was warned and the warranty invalidated. I would expect the manufacturer to check the damaged camera EEPROM and say "aha! according to our data log you used not panasonic batteries, thats no repair for you!".
By removing the element of choice they raise the natural suspicion that this decision was taken on commercial grounds, not safety and risk a consumer backlash and dissatisfaction.
Re:No inherent problem (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is a problem because they're stifling my ability to choose what battery to use and positioning themselves as monopolist. Simple economics will show you that the ideal price point for a monopolist is higher than a competitive market. I'd rather not be screwed for no good reason. The "problem" Panasonic is claiming to solve is not their problem. If I buy an allegedly unsafe battery, why is that their problem at all? I can accept a disclaimer of warranty for some 3rd party batteries IF they have reproducible evidence of a problem, like CheapyVolts batteries burst into flames when used in Panasonic cameras. Fine. If I use CheapyVolts batteries anyway and my camera catches on fire, Panasonic can be off the hook on the warranty.
No, you don't get to dictate I can only use your batteries if you want me to buy your camera. Sorry. Try again.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
"As long as subsequent firmware updates can be applied without applying this one, I'm fine with it."
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any future updates will also have this (mis-)feature.
Re:I am in the market for a new camera. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lock is anticompetitive, not consumer prot'n (Score:3, Insightful)
How to ensure that you won't sell a single camera ever again:
Have you ever known anyone who buys a camera who doesn't immediately turn around and buy a second battery? I've never owned a camera, camcorder, etc. without having at least two batteries for the thing. When your battery runs down on a camera, you want to be able to drop in a new one, not lose the ability to capture memories until you can go back to the hotel and charge up for three hours. I'm pretty sure cameras with built-in batteries would be an absolute nonstarter for a sizable percentage of consumers. At best, they'd buy one once, then the first time they got screwed by it, vow to never buy that manufacturer's products again. Either way, it isn't conducive to long-term sales and profitability.
I'll make that decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe good justification (Score:2, Insightful)
If I can't use common batteries, forget it (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can't use AA or AAA batteries (or some reasonable equivalent) I'm not interested. Even my pro D-SLR has an adapter to use double As.
Just say no to crap like this. Who needs Panasonic? There are lots of choices out there.
Apple makes it difficult to replace batteries. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe good justification (Score:3, Insightful)
You, or Panasonic, are MOST WELCOME to PROVE that the rate at which 3rd party batteries fail dangerously, is notably higher than the rate at which Panasonic's own batteries fail dangerously...
Whenever there's a story about a cell phone, or a laptop, exploding, the first thing the PR people do is complain about unlicensed 3rd party batteries. When it's pointed out that it has the company logo on it, they complain of 3rd parties selling bad batteries with a forged logo. Doesn't matter if it's a brand new item you were just walking out of the store with, they will INSIST it was a 3rd party battery that blew up, and absolutely refuse to admit that their own batteries aren't perfect in every way... After all, for 4X the price, they MUST BE!
Re:No inherent problem (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't that way. The analogy could be that your [InsertBrandHere] DVD player allows you to play only [InsertBrandHere] DVD's and nobody else's. That's stiffling.
Your example is rather like trying to put AAA where only R20's fits.
Re:Maybe good justification (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Panasonic becomes a party in it when they get sued by somebody who was injured by an exploding battery. They will get sued, regardless of who made the battery. It was in their camera at the time it exploded.
Having done your level best to stop the 3rd-party batteries from working at all is a pretty good defense to come to court with. From a legal standpoint, it might be seen as recklessly irresponsible to _not_ do this.
To the guy who pointed out that even OEM batteries explode: if they (Sony in this case) have such a hard time keeping their own batteries from exploding, imagine how much harder it must be when you have no idea what kind of crap people are putting in there.
I'm just sayin', is all...
Re:No inherent problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No inherent problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe good justification (Score:2, Insightful)
You, or Panasonic, are MOST WELCOME to PROVE that the rate at which 3rd party batteries fail dangerously, is notably higher than the rate at which Panasonic's own batteries fail dangerously...
Whenever there's a story about a cell phone, or a laptop, exploding, the first thing the PR people do is complain about unlicensed 3rd party batteries. When it's pointed out that it has the company logo on it, they complain of 3rd parties selling bad batteries with a forged logo. Doesn't matter if it's a brand new item you were just walking out of the store with, they will INSIST it was a 3rd party battery that blew up, and absolutely refuse to admit that their own batteries aren't perfect in every way... After all, for 4X the price, they MUST BE!
Genuine batteries selling for 4x the price of no-name batteries? No incentive for the retailer to sell counterfeit batteries there. No siree Bob! They'd never dream of doing that in a million years so you'll find plenty of genuine Panaphonics, Magnetbox, and Sorny brand batteries in stock.
Seriously. Counterfeit goods. There's more of them out there than you'd think there were.
Re:Maybe good justification (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I do not buy it. In that case they could always just do not charge such batteries, issuing info
that the user you should use external charger for such "unrecognised" battery.
Re:Talk about knee-jerk responses (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, yea. That is why all those tens of millions of after-market batteries in use all around the world (in cell phones, laptops, mp3 players and what not) all explode, like, daily, no? Surely?
What exactly is the real-life "catch fire and explode" failure rate on lithium-ion batteries anyhow? Since the actual reported cases number in perhaps tens, compared to the actual number of the batteries out there the ratio must be something like 0.0000000001%. Walking to work is statistically more dangerous.
And then there are of course national standards bodies and ceritfication processes which most electrical and electronic components must undergo before being sold. And ... Surprise! This also includes after-market batteries.
So please could you stop with all the bullshit? Go peddle greed as "safety" or "concern for the consumer" to some more gullible audience. "Concern for the contents of the consumer's wallet" is more like it.
Re:Sounds like the printer industry (Score:3, Insightful)
The same Chinese laborer in the same Chinese factory is making the same Chinese originals and Chinese knockoffs.
THAT'S how they beat the protection.
They're the one's fucking implementing it in the first place.
This is unlikely to stick (Score:2, Insightful)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Static_Control_Components [wikipedia.org] for more details.
Re:No inherent problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Generic batteries are a must for any of my devices (Score:5, Insightful)
I have bought a number of music players, cameras and other electronic gadgets and my number 1 requirement is it must use standard off the shelf batteries (namely AA or AAA). This is for a number of reasons:
1) Avoid planned obsolescence - hardwired batteries (I'm looking at you Apple) mean the product will be useless by not holding a charge long before I'm done using it.
2) Emergency power - having proprietary batteries either hardwired or not means that if I run out of a charge while on a road trip or away from my charger, then I'm hooped - I have to wait up to hours for the battery to charge.
And now:
3) Stupid vendor lock in - I have better things to spend my money on than overpriced name brand accessories / supplies.
I look forward to the day when cellphones can efficiently run on 2 or 3 AAA's.
I just bought a lower end digital camera and steered away from Panasonic as soon as I realized they did not use AA or AAA batteries. Went with a Fuji S1000 - have been happy with it so far - uses the same NiMH AA batteries I have for my Olympus camera, iRiver MP3 player, and LogicTech cordless mouse.
Re:Nice. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Talk about knee-jerk responses (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because a) R/C aircraft batteries are frequently overcharged in home-built chargers by impatient R/C enthusiasts who just can't wait to fly their toy again, b) they are, unlike cell-phone, laptop and other consumer device bound batteries, sold "as is" with no fitness to a particular device or charger being certified because R/C models are by definition custom concoctions.
None of this applies to consumer devices such as digital cameras which come with a specific set of requirements and an associated charger. That is why UL (and in Canada CSA) can test and certify the batteries for consumer devices as safe.
There is no conspiracy involved here. Corporations do what corporations are meant to do: generate profit by any means they can get away with.
The "university" is a shill site run by a partisan party, i.e. the Cadex company, which is heavily involved in supplying super-expensive battery chargers. Cadex simply wants to sell you their crap.
If you are trying to make a point using a website, it would do you good to pick one run by an impartial, uninvolved party without an axe to grind.
Which, if true, would be the domain of UL or CSA or similar standard bodies which are in charge of consumer safety in electrical and electronic devices. Not some vendor vigilantes with dubious motives.
Nothing new here... (Score:1, Insightful)
Sony did this with a camcorder I purchased in 2001.
If they stopped doing it, I don't know because they are on my blacklist for a growing number of reasons.
Re:And that's why I didn't buy an iPod (Score:1, Insightful)
Cheers!
Re:Nice. (Score:1, Insightful)
No, see this is "offering the customer what he wants", right? The right to have batteries from one source, so the price? Sky's the limit.
Just like how we all asked for a mediocre PC operating system, one that comes with about 2,000,000 viruses to mess up our day's work, get our documents and dollars stolen, and have to pay someone to flush and fill it for $100 every once in a while.
Wait- was I the only one? :>
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but asking a question like: "can I only use a manufacturer-approved batteries" in ANY equipment never-ever crossed my mind. And, like many slashdoters, I shop for electronics and gadgets on a regular basis.
I do not assume that every product will have third party options available. But I do assume that if they ARE available and they work now, they will continue to do so in the future (pending equipment failure).
I understand, and can even support, that using third party options might void my warranty. But I'm always assuming that option to do that is my choice and my choice alone.
Re:If I can't use common batteries, forget it (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, AAs have their limitations. However, this really just points to a need for a few more battery standards for modern electronics.
Rather than everybody who comes out with a device inventing a new battery design, why not invent a few more standard cell sizes with standardized voltages? You could even write up charging specifications for them.
If there is a concern that charging specs would stifle new battery designs, then just specify the voltages and minimum capacities. Then design the physical shape so that any battery will plug into any device, but batteries will be keyed to specific models of chargers so that the charging specs can vary by make/model. That isn't actually hard to do - put a pattern of bumps/grooves on the battery, and matching bumps/grooves in the charger, and then a big empty spot on devices so that any pattern will fit.
If this was really about safety... (Score:2, Insightful)
they would provide an advanced menu option to allow 3rd party batteries that the user deems safe.
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
All the more reason for electronics vendors to settle on a VERY LIMITED set of power sources and connection types.
All the more reason for consumers to want electronics vendors to settle on a VERY LIMITED set of power sources and connection types.
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Duracell are a large, easy to trace company that are generally quite good.
What about the thousands of cheap chinese batteries which are flooding the market under all sorts of names today and are available from a whole variety of places ranging from dodgy ebay sellers right the way up to relatively reputable bricks & mortar retailers?