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).'"
This will cause the Don't Buy Panasonic [google.com] movement to be even stronger.
My completely uninformed guess about how this happened. Panasonic executives: "How can we sink the company?" Their answer: "Get a story about us doing something abusive on Slashdot. Slashdot readers understand technology and will make sure everyone knows."
No, canon has a much bigger marketing department (which is why you see 4000 canon products in every store but almost no Pana products)
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.
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.
Panasonic began doing this battery lockout awhile back, I remember seeing their camcorders reject third party batteries about a year or 2 back. Canon makes excellent cameras, doesn't attempt to shoot you in the leg with a battery lock-in, and their RAW format plays well with many software options (free and otherwise). If I was looking to buy a camera right now, you can bet it wouldn't be a Panasonic, regardless of how close it compares to a Canon.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday June 24, @04:01PM (#28458637)
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.
If the damage is caused by a faulty battery, you turn the device over to the battery manufacturer along with the failed battery. They pay for your replacement equipment.
Done it twice, first with a Panasonic cassette camcorder and then with a Kodak C743. Duracell paid both times for the damaged hardware.
Panasonic has already been doing this with their HDC-HS100 HD camcorders, I tried a 3rd party battery, it would power up with an error message about the battery then shut down.
Ugh. I can't wait for the day when they start only accepting CameraBrandNameHere memory cards. It's easy enough to ignore Sony and find something that uses SD.... but if they try to turn the memory card market into the ink cartridge market we geeks will need to organize a riot.
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.
I'd think that Sega vs Accolade would essentially apply in this case. The supreme court has ruled that if somebody makes a product that requires the violation of a trademark or copyright in order to make it interoperate with another part, then they cannot enforce their IP rights against those who violate them purely to make devices interoperable.
Courts generally don't like legal loopholes - at least not the supreme court. Sure, you can tie up soembody in court with a clever legal theory that clearly violates the intent of a supreme court decision, but eventually they'll find against you. I suspect that since there have been a few rulings along these lines now that lower courts aren't going to look kindly on playing games with IP law to stick it to consumers.
As I see it, the camera is using the (unofficial) battery to post and load the firmware, only to realize that the battery is illigal, and then either eisplays message or halts. I just find it funny that it has to use the very device that it intends to block to power the check.
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.
How to ensure that you won't sell a single camera ever again:
Build the battery into the camera.
There is no step 2!
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.
It would be interesting to see what standards they refer to. Is that a trade secret?
Many cheap li-ion batteries do not include the protection circuits [wikipedia.org] or safety features [wikipedia.org] that keep li-ions from going flat or turning into bombs.
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.
At least in the United States, a manufacturer is not legally allowed to void a warranty for the use of third-party products unless they can show that the third party product caused the damage involved in the warranty claim... not that it can cause damage, but that it did cause damage. So no, they cannot detect the battery and invalidate the warranty. Doing so would put them in violation of Magnuson-Moss.
My understanding is that the law was created to curb an issue of car manufacturers saying "Oh what's that, you used a third party air filter in your car and not the 3x as expensive Ford one? Sorry, your warranty is void" even though the problem was in your suspension. Electronics are obviously a lot more of a grey area for whether the accessory damaged the unit or not.
Yeah. There's even a citation for it in the Wikipedia page on M-M. It's section 2302, paragraph (c).
(c) Prohibition on conditions for written or implied warranty; waiver by Commission
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if--
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.
The Commission shall identify in the Federal Register, and permit public comment on, all applications for waiver of the prohibition of this subsection, and shall publish in the Federal Register its disposition of any such application, including the reasons therefor.
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.
Well, you get the idea. Any wagers as to how long it'll take for this to hit the legal system? I'm sure the resultant flare-up will be most entertaining. Time to invest in popcorn futures.
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.
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.
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.
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 rechargeable AA cells - which was one of my requirements when selecting a camera: No Funny Batteries. NiMH 2500mAh cells run about $10 per 4, and my responsible 2-hour charger handles them all. And in a pinch I can use disposable cells with it. Why anyone would would want anything else is foolish, despite how thin it might make the camera.
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 re
Any battery with the same specifications should work..
At the risk of incipient tar-and-feathering, let me offer a contrasting point of view.
All batteries are not alike. The length of a proper battery specification for a consumer application is enormous (several hundred pages), and usually includes a requirement along the lines of, "No change shall be made to an approved product [i.e., the battery], whether or not such change affects performance to the specifications herein, without prior express written consent of the XYZ Corporation" -- in other words, once it's working in our application don't change anything, whether or not we've thought to control that parameter in the spec. The problem is, the consumer has no way of knowing that the battery he's buying actually meets the product's battery specification -- and there are plenty of motivational reasons for the knockoff battery supplier to cut corners. Even an ethical battery manufacturer has to work very closely with the consumer product design team to understand the details of the battery specification.
I spent 25 years designing portable products for consumer applications, and I stand before this frenzied mob to say that one of the largest problems one faces when engineering these products are non-standard batteries. The consumer buys a knockoff battery, and when the product sooner or later (a) catches fire, (b) has terrible battery life, or (c) exhibits some unusual behavior, I am here to tell you that the consumer will blame the product, rather than the battery, 100% of the time, driving warranty costs through the roof. This leads to incredible feats of over-engineering in the product itself, to account for as many types of battery variation as the engineering staff can think of, and that the development program cost and time goals allow. The ability to design for a specific type of battery -- and only that type of battery -- was a luxury often discussed among the engineers with which I worked, since we knew we were adding cost, size, and weight to our designs as "defensive engineering" against the knockoffs.
I can see that you remain unconvinced, so let me give you a few examples of battery specifications, and the problems caused when they are not met.
1. Internal resistance. Batteries do not all source the same amount of current when given the same load. Take a dozen manganese-dioxide AAA batteries from a dozen battery vendors around the world. Periodically place, say, a 10-ohm resistor across their terminals, and measure the voltage across the battery terminals over time. The difference between the open-circuit battery voltage and the voltage under load is controlled by the internal resistance of the battery. A fresh, good cell from a reputable manufacturer will have an internal resistance of approximately 1 to 1.5 ohms, so the voltage under load remains high, approaching the open-circuit voltage.
A cell from a less reputable manufacturer can have an internal resistance of several dozen ohms; when this cell is placed in a product that draws, say, 100 mA from its battery (for example, when sending an audible alert, or turning on a few LEDs), the battery voltage seen by the product can drop from the nominal 1.3 V to as low as 0.3 V, usually leading to a system reset. The consumer, of course, knows only that that crappy product from XYZ Corporation doesn't work (or stopped working sooner than expected, or does funny stuff when the volume knob is set too high); there's no way for him to know the internal resistance of the battery he bought.
Note that the internal resistance of all batteries increases as the battery is discharged, so a major part of power management in portable products is addressing this issue. Frequently, especially in products with high peak-to-average current drain ratios, battery internal resistance, rather than energy exhaustion itself, is the factor that determines battery life, so how fast internal resistance changes over the life of the bat
So, does this firmware protect against defective Panasonic brand batteries? You don't need to go further than a google for Panasonic battery recall to note that they ship defective batteries without short circuit and overheating protection with the best of them.
See, otherwise the 'consumer safety' angle sounds like a really lame excuse for exactly the monopolist positioning the GP suggests.
It happens quite often, actually. Anyone who's been flying R/C aircraft for any length of time has either seen it or knows someone that it happened to. A friend of mine damn near burned down his house
once.
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.
stop the evil-corporation conspiracy theory bullshit and do a little research.
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 Battery University is a good place to start.
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.
This is a real safety issue in which real people are being hurt.
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.
Nice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wants to make a buck stifling competition and innovation these days.
Adds strength to the Don't Buy Panasonic movement. (Score:4, Funny)
My completely uninformed guess about how this happened. Panasonic executives: "How can we sink the company?" Their answer: "Get a story about us doing something abusive on Slashdot. Slashdot readers understand technology and will make sure everyone knows."
Parent
Re:Adds strength to the Don't Buy Panasonic moveme (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Panasonic is not worse than canon (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Panasonic began doing this battery lockout awhile back, I remember seeing their camcorders reject third party batteries about a year or 2 back. Canon makes excellent cameras, doesn't attempt to shoot you in the leg with a battery lock-in, and their RAW format plays well with many software options (free and otherwise). If I was looking to buy a camera right now, you can bet it wouldn't be a Panasonic, regardless of how close it compares to a Canon.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Nice. (Score:5, Informative)
If the damage is caused by a faulty battery, you turn the device over to the battery manufacturer along with the failed battery. They pay for your replacement equipment.
Done it twice, first with a Panasonic cassette camcorder and then with a Kodak C743. Duracell paid both times for the damaged hardware.
Parent
Re:Nice. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Too bad for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Great News (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Too bad for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Re:I am in the market for a new camera. (Score:5, Informative)
yeah, but it's apparently legal for a battery maker to clone their battery "feature":
http://www.pcworld.com/article/121327/supreme_court_rebuffs_lexmark_in_toner_cartridge_fight.html [pcworld.com]
Parent
Re:I am in the market for a new camera. (Score:4, Informative)
I'd think that Sega vs Accolade would essentially apply in this case. The supreme court has ruled that if somebody makes a product that requires the violation of a trademark or copyright in order to make it interoperate with another part, then they cannot enforce their IP rights against those who violate them purely to make devices interoperable.
Courts generally don't like legal loopholes - at least not the supreme court. Sure, you can tie up soembody in court with a clever legal theory that clearly violates the intent of a supreme court decision, but eventually they'll find against you. I suspect that since there have been a few rulings along these lines now that lower courts aren't going to look kindly on playing games with IP law to stick it to consumers.
Parent
Re:I am in the market for a new camera. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
2D For Life (Score:5, Funny)
I never understood the obsession with 3D Parties or their camera batteries.
2D for life, bitches.
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.
Re: (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.
Apple makes it difficult to replace batteries. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lock is anticompetitive, not consumer prot'n (Score:4, Funny)
I had no problem opening up a Norelco to solder in new NiC. Coincidentally, I also did the same to a couple of Panasonic shavers.
How many megawhiskers where they?
Parent
Re:Norelco did this for years (Score:5, Funny)
I had no problem opening up a Norelco to solder in new NiC.
I meant "NiCd batteries."
I was about to ask to subscribe to your newsletter about network-enabled shavers.
Parent
Re:Norelco did this for years (Score:4, Funny)
Yes! Imagine all the time savings:
TWITTER: 7:42am - ajlitt has started shaving.
TWITTER: 7:46am - Battery Low.
TWITTER: 7:46am - ajlitt has stopped shaving.
TWITTER: 7:48am - Shaver on AC power.
TWITTER: 7:48am - Shaver on battery power.
TWITTER: 7:48am - Shaver on AC power.
TWITTER: 7:48am - ajlitt has started shaving.
TWITTER: 7:50am - ajlitt has stopped shaving.
TWITTER: 7:50am - Shaver on battery power.
TWITTER: 7:50am - Battery Low.
TWITTER: 7:51am - Shaver on AC power.
TWITTER: 10:37am - Battery at 100% charge.
TWITTER: 10:57am - Battery at 100% charge.
TWITTER: 11:17am - Battery at 100% charge.
TWITTER: 11:37am - Battery at 100% charge.
TWITTER: 11:57am - Battery at 100% charge.
TWITTER: 12:17am - Battery at 100% charge.
Parent
Re:Not just in your opinion (Score:4, Informative)
But probably in the legal opinion of more than one lawyer, at least in certain jurisdictions.
Ironically, IAAL.
Parent
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?
Re:Antitrust? (Score:4, Informative)
Is the "Panasonic camera battery" market considered a market, in terms of antitrust law? If so, are they setting themselves up for antitrust action?
in the same way that Apple-compatible computers [groklaw.net] is considered a market... (i.e. not at all)?
Parent
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?
Re:Standards? (Score:5, Informative)
It would be interesting to see what standards they refer to. Is that a trade secret?
Many cheap li-ion batteries do not include the protection circuits [wikipedia.org] or safety features [wikipedia.org] that keep li-ions from going flat or turning into bombs.
Parent
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:Grrrr. (Score:5, Informative)
At least in the United States, a manufacturer is not legally allowed to void a warranty for the use of third-party products unless they can show that the third party product caused the damage involved in the warranty claim... not that it can cause damage, but that it did cause damage. So no, they cannot detect the battery and invalidate the warranty. Doing so would put them in violation of Magnuson-Moss.
Parent
Re:Grrrr. (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is that the law was created to curb an issue of car manufacturers saying "Oh what's that, you used a third party air filter in your car and not the 3x as expensive Ford one? Sorry, your warranty is void" even though the problem was in your suspension. Electronics are obviously a lot more of a grey area for whether the accessory damaged the unit or not.
Parent
Re:Grrrr. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. There's even a citation for it in the Wikipedia page on M-M. It's section 2302, paragraph (c).
Parent
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:Maybe good justification (Score:5, Funny)
In related news, Sony has announced that it will be installing new firmware locking-out Sony batteries in their laptops, citing safety concerns.
Parent
Who? (Score:3, Funny)
Countdown to FTC action... (Score:4, Funny)
In 5...4...3...2...
Well, you get the idea. Any wagers as to how long it'll take for this to hit the legal system? I'm sure the resultant flare-up will be most entertaining. Time to invest in popcorn futures.
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.
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.
Parent
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.
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.
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: (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 re
Re:No inherent problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Therein lies the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Any battery with the same specifications should work..
At the risk of incipient tar-and-feathering, let me offer a contrasting point of view.
All batteries are not alike. The length of a proper battery specification for a consumer application is enormous (several hundred pages), and usually includes a requirement along the lines of, "No change shall be made to an approved product [i.e., the battery], whether or not such change affects performance to the specifications herein, without prior express written consent of the XYZ Corporation" -- in other words, once it's working in our application don't change anything, whether or not we've thought to control that parameter in the spec. The problem is, the consumer has no way of knowing that the battery he's buying actually meets the product's battery specification -- and there are plenty of motivational reasons for the knockoff battery supplier to cut corners. Even an ethical battery manufacturer has to work very closely with the consumer product design team to understand the details of the battery specification.
I spent 25 years designing portable products for consumer applications, and I stand before this frenzied mob to say that one of the largest problems one faces when engineering these products are non-standard batteries. The consumer buys a knockoff battery, and when the product sooner or later (a) catches fire, (b) has terrible battery life, or (c) exhibits some unusual behavior, I am here to tell you that the consumer will blame the product, rather than the battery, 100% of the time, driving warranty costs through the roof. This leads to incredible feats of over-engineering in the product itself, to account for as many types of battery variation as the engineering staff can think of, and that the development program cost and time goals allow. The ability to design for a specific type of battery -- and only that type of battery -- was a luxury often discussed among the engineers with which I worked, since we knew we were adding cost, size, and weight to our designs as "defensive engineering" against the knockoffs.
I can see that you remain unconvinced, so let me give you a few examples of battery specifications, and the problems caused when they are not met.
1. Internal resistance. Batteries do not all source the same amount of current when given the same load. Take a dozen manganese-dioxide AAA batteries from a dozen battery vendors around the world. Periodically place, say, a 10-ohm resistor across their terminals, and measure the voltage across the battery terminals over time. The difference between the open-circuit battery voltage and the voltage under load is controlled by the internal resistance of the battery. A fresh, good cell from a reputable manufacturer will have an internal resistance of approximately 1 to 1.5 ohms, so the voltage under load remains high, approaching the open-circuit voltage.
A cell from a less reputable manufacturer can have an internal resistance of several dozen ohms; when this cell is placed in a product that draws, say, 100 mA from its battery (for example, when sending an audible alert, or turning on a few LEDs), the battery voltage seen by the product can drop from the nominal 1.3 V to as low as 0.3 V, usually leading to a system reset. The consumer, of course, knows only that that crappy product from XYZ Corporation doesn't work (or stopped working sooner than expected, or does funny stuff when the volume knob is set too high); there's no way for him to know the internal resistance of the battery he bought.
Note that the internal resistance of all batteries increases as the battery is discharged, so a major part of power management in portable products is addressing this issue. Frequently, especially in products with high peak-to-average current drain ratios, battery internal resistance, rather than energy exhaustion itself, is the factor that determines battery life, so how fast internal resistance changes over the life of the bat
Parent
Re:No inherent problem (Score:4, Informative)
So, does this firmware protect against defective Panasonic brand batteries? You don't need to go further than a google for Panasonic battery recall to note that they ship defective batteries without short circuit and overheating protection with the best of them.
See, otherwise the 'consumer safety' angle sounds like a really lame excuse for exactly the monopolist positioning the GP suggests.
Parent
Re:No inherent problem (Score:5, Informative)
Quick google shows knockoffs at under $20, and the Panasonic unit at $50 for the DMW-BCF10
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Refreshing! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent