Slashdot Mirror
Panasonic Begins To Lock Out 3d-Party Camera Batteries
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).'"
Everyone wants to make a buck stifling competition and innovation these days.
There goes Panasonic off my list for an upcoming camera buy.
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.
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.
Is the "Panasonic camera battery" market considered a market, in terms of antitrust law? If so, are they setting themselves up for antitrust action?
"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?
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.
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.
"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.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'll make the decision on whether I trust the battery manufacturer when I buy my battery thank very much. Can't even trust Sony now can we?
explosions can and have happened with oem batteries. this isn't a safety precaution, it's a profit solution.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It works for Apple.
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!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
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...
Not at all the point that was being made. The equivalent example is a Sony DVD player only playing official Sony DVDs. This would indeed stifle your ability to choose which movies you watch. Your argument would have been valid if SecurityGuy complained that Panasonic wasn't allowing him to use film.
All very true for CURRENT Panasonic cameras. The problem is that they are likely to include this firmware in future cameras with no ability to rollback to firmware without it.
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.
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.
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.
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 likely to go down a similar path to the Lexmark vs. Static Control Components case - the court said that copywrite protections don't apply when they are required for plug compatibility.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int'l_v._Static_Control_Components for more details.
No, like how a Panasonic DVD burner would stifle your ability to burn non-Panasonic discs, if one did that.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
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.
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.
All mp3 players that use regular AAA batteries can use rechargeable batteries.
Cheers!
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.
they would provide an advanced menu option to allow 3rd party batteries that the user deems safe.
i wish i could stop