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.
Every major manufacturer of printer cartridges has counter-measures to prevent remanufactured inkjet and laser cartridges. These are designed to prevent "3rd party" cartridges.
Epson is probably the nastiest, An encrypted chip and a fuse that gets blown after a certain period is on their newer models.
Regardless, if there is money to be made, someone (especially in China. They seem to be very good on circumventing consumable copy protection), will make an acceptable aftermarket part which appears to be authentic.
I never understood the obsession with 3D Parties or their camera batteries.
2D for life, bitches.
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.
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.
"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
Quick google shows knockoffs at under $20, and the Panasonic unit at $50 for the DMW-BCF10
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
I'm sure all future firmware will include this. And I'm sure all new cameras will include this without the ability to go back.
Now I can cross Panasonic off my TV short-list - thanks for making life a little easier Panasonic!
Haven't Panasonic learned anything from Sony's collection of examples of what not to do if you want to keep your position as a market leader?
Panasonic makes cameras?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It'll be even better on cellphones: in an offline environment, any authentication feature will ultimately boil down to embedding a password of some kind(either an actual password, or something moderately more complex, like the serial number signed with the manufacturer's private key) which will always be vulnerable to extraction and cloning(there'll be no way for device A to tell that the serial number of its battery is shared by 100,000 other batteries from the same clone shop).
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...")
This will cause the Don't Buy Panasonic 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."
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.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
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?
The "official" reason why you are not allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon
is that oregon pavement is wet and hazardous, and only trained grunt's can navigate
the treacherous pavement.
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.
What a coincidence! Today my wallet decided to lock out Panasonic products. Oh well. Canon is better anyway.
It works for Apple.
Somebody needs to brush up on their history.
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.
I don't care why you're posting AC
But probably in the legal opinion of more than one lawyer, at least in certain jurisdictions.
Ironically, IAAL.
Li-ion @ 20 degrees C will lose about 20% of its capacity per year without usage. that means in a few short years it will be time for you to buy a new camera whether you want one or not. I bet there are lots of perfectly good cameras thrown away because their proprietary lithium ion batteries lost their capacity and got discontinued.
Of course, one can always rebuild the original Panasonic battery pack. just buy a similar voltage and slightly smaller size lithium ion (3.6 or 7.2v usually) on ebay and you should be able to retrofit it inside the original battery pack.
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.
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.
Maybe they're not doing this to make a buck. If they were doing it to make a buck it strikes me that they wouldn't be so up-front and honest about what the latest firmware update will do to your camera. Perhaps they are just genuinely that uppity and believe that if 3rd party batteries can't meet their quality and safety regulations, then they have to protect their devices from that. It's still not a good reason, but certainly better than screwing over the general population for the sake of making an extra buck.
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".
I use third party Li-ion camera batteries in my electronics projects to provide portable, rechargeable power solutions, and most of the cheap knock-offs will have the same pins; Positive, Negative and Thermistor. However, the Thermistor pin will just be hooking into an internal 10K resistor that doesn't change with temperature. The battery will still fit in the camera, but the temp sense pin is merely a dummy pin. From that perspective, I can see a safety concern... In this case though, I think Panasonic is just trying to tie their camera to their preferred battery suppliers.
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.
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.
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.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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!
... with releasing their KX-6500 printer. First they released the printer along with cheap accesories (toner and drum module - sold separately). Two years later drum module price almost tripled and at this point its price became comparable with new printer price. Early users of this printer were basically screwed as drum had to be replaced after approx. two years of moderate use. Since then I don't touch Panasonic products, even with a ten foot pole.
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, you can compare reviews to see how the cameras/brands compare.
I was about to ask to subscribe to your newsletter about network-enabled shavers.
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
"What a coincidence! Today my wallet decided to lock out Panasonic products. Oh well. Canon is better anyway."
People ask those with experience what to buy and why. Some well-placed scorn such as "good luck buying batteries for that piece of shit" can put off potential customers.
If corps can stick it to us, we can stick it to them with equal or greater gusto. :)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The Sansa e200 has a replaceable battery(and supports Rockbox, and microSD expansion, which is handy. And Woot.com has a tendency to sell refurbed units for peanuts from time to time). Not as elegant as Apple's entry; but perfectly competent. Excellent for exercise music purposes.
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.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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....
they would provide an advanced menu option to allow 3rd party batteries that the user deems safe.
i wish i could stop
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.
I have bought two digital cameras in the last couple of years and both have been Canon. Two reasons. First both cameras take AA batteries -- either Alkaline or Nickle metal hydride. Second is that the firmware in the camera is upgradeable and there are upgrades from sources other than Canon. Now I have not upgraded the firmware, and have no plans right now to do so -- but at least Canon did not weld the hood shut! The ability to use standard batteries was the BIGGEST single factor in selecting these two cameras. If Panasonic wants to go lock down proprietary then they are off my list of possibles from the beginning.
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
... think of the children?! Where am I going to go for my 3rd party battery explosion lottery kicks now?
Every dcraw-based software can open correctly LX3 raws. This was to me the 2nd most important selling point of this camera, 1st being the fabulous optic. (I've never liked canon glasses, but I reckon that's just me).