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).'"
Maybe good justification (Score:5, Interesting)
The justification they offer for this is not necessarily illegitimate.
If the camera has a built-in charger, then there is a very real possibility of battery fires or explosions if a 3rd-party battery doesn't match the characteristics that the charger was designed for. If you don't believe that can happen, then I suggest you review all the stories of exploding laptop batteries. It can and does happen.
On the other hand, if there is no built-in charger (my Canon cameras don't have built-in chargers), then they are definitely first-rate ass-pirates and players of the pink oboe.
Re:Too bad for them (Score:3, Interesting)
Great News (Score:3, Interesting)
Sad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Expect to see this "feature" soon on your 'pod. (Score:3, Interesting)
In an online environment, and any cellphone would qualify, checking serial numbers against a central database becomes trivial, as does uploading occasional battery health reports, to prevent the serial numbers of dead batteries being extracted and reused("Ah, authenticating battery #194394872349873, at full health and with 0 charge cycles. Nice try, #194394872349873 was reported deactivated by handset 35-209900-176148-1 three months ago, with 546 charge cycles...")
Re:No inherent problem (Score:3, Interesting)
No they're not. They are saying "Some of these aftermarket batteries are not equipped with internal protective devices to guard against overcharging, internal heating and short circuit. If these aftermarket battery packs were used, it could lead to an accident causing damage to your camera or personal injury." So they created a firmware update that would check for the presence of a Panasonic battery and refuse to run if one isn't found. Then they gave you a choice as to whether or not you want to run it.
I would assume that if you choose to not run the update, and you camera explodes or something, they would use the availability of this firmware update as a defense in any lawsuits that result.
Nobody is forcing you to run this update; nobody is stifling your choice; nobody is dictating what batteries you can use. You can choose to not run this update on your current camera, and you can choose to not buy Panasonic cameras in the future if they only support Panasonic batteries.
Re:Countdown to FTC action... (Score:3, Interesting)
It won't hit the legal system until another battery manufacturer figures out how to crack the system, and makes their batteries work anyway. At which point, Panasonic will probably file a DMCA lawsuit, which will get them a lot of bad publicity, and which, in the end, they will lose (as Lexmark did on their toner cartridges).
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seconded. My 3rd party battery for FZ18 (brilliant camera btw!) is 1000mAh whereas original one is 710mAh. I much more prefer the non original one, obviously.
Re:Too bad for them (Score:2, Interesting)
Me too! Damn, I wanted a DMC-GH1 [dpreview.com]!
Maybe it's not what it seems like... (Score:3, Interesting)
exactly the same (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly the same line HP gives for printer cartridges. But they can't tell if you refilled the cartridge and they rely on digital obfuscation to prevent people from making knockoff cartridges.
Hopefully the knockoff makers will figure out how to make their batteries report that they are actually "genuine".
not the worst camera asshattery I've seen (Score:5, Interesting)
Years back when the digitals were first hitting the market they were even more power-hungry than now. They could suck a set of batteries dry with just a half hour's use. Crafty owners thought they could get around this expense by using rechargeable batteries. Responsible manufacturers will anticipate problems and stick warnings on the box, on neon sheets inside the packaging, etc, when a potential fuckup could happen. The way these cameras were designed, rechargeable batteries would destroy them. I don't know how or why. All of the 1-star reviews on Amazon mentioned the recharge problem and how people had ruined cameras that Kodak would not RMA because they didn't read the manual. The only warning was on page 215 in one unbolded and otherwise unremarkable sentence.
I never bought another one of their products again. This was utter asshattery. Users would expect to be able to use rechargeable batteries, especially since other cameras on the market did not have this limitation. Certainly a warning on the box would have been helpful, or maybe one of those big neon cards that you simply cannot miss. Maybe a warning sticker taped over the battery compartment. But it's obvious that Kodak knew this would be a deal-breaker for people so they deliberately concealed this design defect.
Re:Too bad for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If I can't use common batteries, forget it (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly why I got a Canon SX10 last year instead of a CoolPix P80, Lumix DMC-FZ28K, Olympus SP-565UZ, or Sony DSC-H50.
Yes, Li-Ion batteries have about twice the power-to-weight ratios of NiMH, and yes they will last longer. But there's two big reasons to get equipment that uses standard AAs:
1. AAs are fungible. When hiking, I can get a flashlight and GPS receiver that take the same batteries, and if I run out of spares, I can transfer one to the other. When in town, I can quickly find a store that sells them.
2. AAs will be around in 5+ years. Li-Ion batteries die in an average of 4 years whether you use them or not. You can get them to last a little longer if you put them half-charged in the fridge. When the manufacturer stops making your model of camera, they'll stop making your model of camera battery. Now, whether or not they or anyone else keep spares sitting on the shelf for all eternity just in case you need to buy one is irrelevant - if you manage to get your hands on a "new" one, it'll be dead out of the box.
It's quite likely that I will either accidentally kill my camera in that timeframe (that's why I didn't buy a really expensive one) or that I won't care because future cameras will be even cheaper and even more wonderful. But it's not a certainty - and I'd still like something I paid a few hundred bucks for to have a chance of working 5 years after I buy it.
Re:Nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone wants to make a buck stifling competition and innovation these days.
Well, I wouldn't buy a Panasonic to start with, but I don't think that's their primary motive.
I worked for some time as a camera dealer/repair shop. We would often see people come in with a damaged camera, pop out the 3rd-party battery and replace it with the Genuine one, and try to claim the Warranty.
This costs the camera makers a lot of money repairing equipment that they really shouldn't have to, since they can't tell what kind of battery was in the device.
Personally, I think a better move would be for the firmware to simply set some type of non-resettable internal flag showing that a non-approved battery was loaded, and display some type of alert option. If such a device was returned for service/refund/exchange, you could void the warranty if the flag was set.
No need to prevent the use of such batteries outright. But I can sort of sympathize with them, there are some pretty cheap batteries that are almost guaranteed to split/leak/explode. And if they can't put a stop to the warranty claims from such items, people will abuse it to no end. Simple formula- right before the warranty expires, load in a very cheap off-brand battery that you have intentionally over-stressed, and use it until it pops and ruins the camera. Voila, for the price of a battery + shipping you can have a brand new $1,000 camera.
Re:Apple makes it difficult to replace batteries. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, in case you didn't know they lock out (iPhone) A/V cables now! And not only one-time, by mistake - there's a war going on and each firmware version is blocking some more cables, just to have after some weeks new cables on ebay for like 1/5 of the price of the original cables (but they work only until the next firmware...).
Panasonic is not worse than canon (Score:4, Interesting)
In the digital compact market Panasonic is holding its own fairly well. Although the newest models indeed have these nonsensical battery firmware updates, the FZ28 can go head to head easily with the canon SX10.. And if you don't upgrade firmware, the LX3 with the 1.1 FW is one of the best cameras in its segment. Similarly for the tz7.
Yes, canon has the brand hame, but if you have a look at DPReview [dpreview.com], you can compare reviews to see how the cameras/brands compare.
Re:Apple makes it difficult to replace batteries. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too bad for them (Score:2, Interesting)
If it's for my convenience and safety (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't I turn it off?
I can decide to turn off my airbag. I can decide to turn off my antivirus suit (or I can decide not to use one altogether). I can decide to keep my alarm off when I leave the house. Why can't I decide to use inferior, crappy batteries, knowing well that I put my camera, the picture quality and maybe the life of my dog at risk?
Another thing that crossed my mind: Is a firmware update that cripples part of the system grounds for a return, even after use for a prolonged period of time? Unless the update is reversible, the camera might cease to work for me. I probably bought the camera under the impression that the feature that was removed was part of the deal, it might have been a critical deciding factor in my choice. If it is, we'll see a lot of happy customers who can toss a dated piece of electronics, get the full price returned and buy a new cam with more features. If it is not, we'll see a lot of companies that sell something, only to cripple it later when you can't back out from the sale. False advertising at a whole new level.
My Digital Olympus uses... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Talk about knee-jerk responses (Score:3, Interesting)
That is not true. RC models use all sorts of batteries, depending on type and application. Lithum-polymer is used pretty much exclusively in flying models, due to its energy density, where the additional expense and charging regime is an acceptable (to some people) compromise.
Flying RC models are custom by definition because they are all sold in the form of kits, where the electrical (and other) components can be swapped by the end user, drastically altering the characteristics of the device. Also there is no "standard" charger being made available for the device, modellers use a variety of chargers, some home-built. Subsequently no one can certify a battery for use with a particular combination of a charger and the motor, the controlling electronics etc.
See above.
A sweeping generalization, which you have no way of demonstrating.
No, in case of lithium polymer batteries they are hoped (i.e. the catastrophic failure rate is deemed "low enough") to not explode when charged this fast. The same battery charged in 10 hours (with 1/10 of the current) has a few orders of magnitude lower chance of catastrophic overheating. That is a choice that R/C modellers (and the silly vendors supplying them) make. Since lithium polymer is not stable enough to be certified for mass use in consumer electronics, combined with risky "rapid charge" techniques employed, it's a wonder that R/C modellers do not require an approval from the local fire department and that most still have all their fingers.
Taking wild risks with unstable chemicals for the sake of satisfying their impatience in their "hobby" you mean....
Canon and AA Cells (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't sound like this new system will prevent this. Making a battery explode/leak is not a problem if you're really dealing with a malicious customer.
If the batteries are really that problematic, then may be, they should just try to make their battery chambers more liquid-resistant and/or explosion-resistant.
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
They couldn't not honor the warranty just because of that provision. They'd actually have to point to a problem caused by the 3rd-party batteries.
If the batteries leak, that's one thing. But try proving the defect in the lens was due to batteries.
Re:Nice. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Panasonic is not worse than canon (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a Leica lens. It's a Leica *designed* lens. There's a BIG difference there.
Leica lenses are made with better glass.
It's probably not going to make a difference to 99% of people, but the way that Leica's diluted their name is just...well...the name used to mean something. Now it's just a name.