Slashdot Mirror
The Only, Lonely Protester at CES (Video)
CES is not a political show, so it only drew one visible protester: Kelly Chong, who is mad at camera manufacturers for (he says) destroying his camera repair business. He managed to get mentioned in Forbes, in an article headlined CES: One Man's Protest Against The World's Camera Makers. And now he's getting three minutes and five seconds of fame on Slashdot. Is his protest justified? According to a 2012 article headlined How Nikon Is Killing Camera Repair, at least one major camera manufacturer now refuses to sell parts to independent repair shops. So Kelly Chong seems to have a legitimate beef. Will anyone listen to him? Will major, multinational camera manufacturers start selling parts to independent repair people again? And what about those of us who do (at least some of) our own repairs? Labor charges aside, it's often lots faster and easier to do a simple repair yourself than to box your camera up and send it somewhere, not to mention the waiting time for it to get back to you.
doesnt every advancing technology make archaic industries useless? i mean if horse upkeep people whined too much we'd never have cars either
but why should any company have to sell parts if they don't want to?
Back in your place, consumers. You barely even own what you own, much less have any right to fix it or pay someone else to fix it.
The economy of America will collapse unless you keep buying brand new stuff constantly. You don't want that, do you? Are you some kind of terrorist?
Economic terrorists. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
As a member of a large professional camera repair society (SPT), I can firmly say: f*** Nikon. Chong's point is entirely valid. Sadly enough, as a photographer, I love Nikon's DSLRs but I can't support them due to their policy towards independent shops.
...on the product in part. In particular, how much service is necessary to keep the device functioning essentially as it did when it was new, and how regular use impacts this.
Remember, a manufacturer, unless obligated by law, does not have to provide anything post-sale unless they've stated that they will. They don't necessarily have to provide parts, warranty, or service unless they've stated that in the sales literature to convince you to buy their product. Granted, depending on the circumstances if they don't give warranties or make repairs possible then their long term sales could suffer if buyers choose other manufacturers due to after-sales support, but that is a choice that they have.
I do understand the complaint, and I even have sympathy, but on the other hand, lots and lots of manufacturers in other fields, especially electronics fields, are doing the same thing. It's hard to buy parts for TVs or other AV electronics. It's even hard to find electronics repair shops that will do out-of-warranty service now, most only handle warranty work.
If manufacturers make quality products that run for a reasonable amount of time (with a different definition of reasonable for each and every market) and handle the rigors of use, then it's hard to make the argument that manufacturers are doing the wrong thing. After all, if a photographer drops his camera and it breaks, that wasn't the manufacturer breaking the camera, and it's likely that with the bigger camera makers, they have ruggedized models that can take that kind of use. But, the manufacturer does not necessarily have to make it easy for the owner to get the broken-out-of-warranty camera fixed either.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
All your business are belong to us!
Sincerely,
Nikon, Canon, Sony, Tamron
Making devices smaller and smaller means a tighter integration of components. Because cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper, It's often less expensive to simply buy a new device than to get it repaired. That being said, the choice there should be the consumer's, not the manufacturers. It really irks me that Apple can get away with preventing people from replacing batteries and upgrading storage so that they can rope the consumer in to having to constantly upgrade. Good for this guy.
Compare this to automobiles. Can you imagine the outrage if you could not buy auto parts? What if you had to go back to the auto manufacturer to have ANY part replaced.
In many cases, it's cheaper to buy a new camera than to have the old one repaired.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
CES is not a political show
Wow. Set off my bullshit detector in the first sentence.
Former President Bill Clinton pushes for stricter gun control during Consumer Electronics Show speech
I suspect we witness here a case of a political view, and even a politician, that is considered so mainstream that they no longer suffer the "political" qualification.
Just for the record, any "show" that has Bill Clinton as a featured speaker is political.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
If companies had an obligation never to make anyone worse off for every change they made to their business practices, there would be no economic growth. And morally, why does Nixon owe this man who has come to rely on them, anything. They never claimed that replacement parts would always be made available in the future.
You go, dude!
Here is the link for the petition, if anyone feels inclined in wasting some time.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Would like to watch when car manufacturers (all at the same time, sure) will start to follow NIKON'S policy.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The real issue is the "Design for Landfill" philosophy of all sorts of manufacturers.
Who really needs a TV that will never be moved to be less than an inch thick?
We really need to impose a tax on manufacturers to encourage them to design repairability into their products. I suppose availability of service parts would be another input to the formula for this.
Remember, a manufacturer, unless obligated by law, does not have to provide anything post-sale unless they've stated that they will.
Would like to watch when car manufacturers (all at the same time, sure) will start to follow NIKON'S policy.
CC.
They already kind of are. You can get more details here, at the Right to Repair coalition:
http://www.righttorepair.org/
Basically, various companies have realized that they can charge dealers exorbitant fees for diagnostic equipment if they make said diagnostics proprietary trade secrets, and then the dealers will have to funnel the costs to the consumer -- which is fine, because the dealers are the only place in town to get the cars repaired at. It's gotten so bad that I've even seen proprietary light bulbs for some vehicles.
at least one major camera manufacturer now refuses to sell parts to independent repair shops. So Kelly Chong seems to have a legitimate beef. Will anyone listen to him?
Probably not. If you build a business based upon the faults of someone else's products, do not be surprised when they decide to handle the problem themselves and put you out of business. If there is money to be made in repairs then you should not be surprised when the manufacturer gets into the repairs business. It's fine to make money on repairing and selling other people's products but if you are a middle man they WILL cut you out if they can.
If only we had some large collective of united people or even states, that would be willing to stand up and protect individuals from global powers that the individual could in no way protect themselves against. Hahaha I know what a silly thought, I like my shinny gadgets.
Shoot Pentax. Also, Slashdot -- please blur out Kenny's info on his ID. The last thing that guy needs is identity theft.
If more or all people were so proactive and brave (for a loose definition of bravery, anyway), this in the US would be much better for consumers. For one thing, mobile operators would have saner policies and there would be competition instead of a cartel of internet providers. GM food would be labeled as such and the composition of your food will also be declared (like it is in Europe).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Braun is doing something related with their shavers. I bought one a few years back, and on the shelf next to it were replacement blades, along with information in the packaging telling me to replace the blades every year. So I bought the blades annually as advised, and one year I start having a horribly uncomfortable shave. Upon further inspection, I discovered their replacement blades (advertised as being correct for my shaver) were no longer of the same geometry, and not sharpened the way previous blades were. So a product that should have lasted 15 years or more was binned after only six years because the replacement parts were substandard. This was a barely visible change, and I suspect a lot of people simply assumed their shavers were "worn out" and needed replacement (by a new $150 model).
To me, this was a completely unethical move. But now I'm trying to figure out how you would propose we deal with this kind of situation. Caveat emptor? Regulations on replacement part availability? Capitalism and competition?
John
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices, or, at the very least, let others provide them.
Theses comsumurism attitude coming from APPLE, where thing have be to be trow to the bin each year it's not very ecolo.
NOBODY EVER THROWS OUT THEIR OLD ANDROID PHONES
LOLOLOLOLOL
Serious question, though: What does Larry Page's arse taste like?
Become an authorized repair shop/dealer. Offset your cost by selling the parts to the individuals and independents yourself.
You can't buy parts from Ford. But, you can buy Ford parts form dealers and distributors all over the world.
He can't buy parts from Nikon, bit he can buy Nikon parts form dealers and distributors all over the world. Or, he can become such a dealer/distributor himself.
I think that the problem here is that the Slashdot staff's brains seem to be addled, perhaps the corporate KoolAid was tainted with antifreeze. They keep thinking they are reporting stories where there are in fact NO stories.
As a Nikon owner through 2 generations of digital camera body (D100 and D7000), I would sign it. Their policy is STUPID. Not to mention the silliness about encrypting/obfuscating parts of the white balance information in their NEF RAW format a few years back (eventually people broke the encryption). Furthermore, Canon is a lot more open about allowing modifying firmware of the camera than Nikon ever has been.
i.e. I chose Nikon years ago and invested in lenses, but I'd probably choose Canon over Nikon now. This spare parts nonsense just makes the choice even clearer.
Unfortunately the petition is for USA, and I'm in Canada, but I assume Nikon is being just as dumb here as in the USA. Maybe we need another petition.
In this case, the word "independent" has a different meaning than it has in any other context: it means that a business isn't certified by a product's manufacturer as competent to service that product. What form that certification takes may vary from one manufacturer to another, but certainly it always costs money; is it an egregious profit-seeking amount, or is it limited to covering the cost of administering the process? That probably varies, too, but you might expect a manufacturer like Nikon to price the certification process quite selfishly. It's not entirely unreasonable for manufacturers to want to protect their own reputation by ensuring that people who attempt to maintain their products in the field are competent to do so. It's also not unreasonable for them to expect to recoup their costs to ensure that (though using it for profiteering would be sleazy).
So ultimately the real beef of people like this fellow is that they either can't afford to cough up what it would cost to maintain the various certifications or simply choose not to do so because it goes against their religion or politics.
Ding. If customers care, they'll buy from different manufacturers. This guy doesn't have a right to those parts.
Customers definitely care. However, the ones likely to care the most are the ones with a significant investment in Nikon format lenses. These lenses don't work with Canon and there may not even be an equivalent for Pentax, Sony, or Olympus.
But, the manufacturer does not necessarily have to make it easy for the owner to get the broken-out-of-warranty camera fixed either.
There's a difference between making it easy and making it harder to obtain OOW camera repairs. This is Nikon doing the latter. It would appear they're clamping down on the supply chains for replacement parts to only those "authorized repair stations" (read: approved money funnels) to either increase the cost of ownerships for OOW cameras or to make it so difficult to get OOW repairs that you're nearly forced to purchase a new camera.
Also, anyone who says "Nikon doesn't have a monopoly" isn't familiar with the way camera systems work. Nikon, Canon, etc have a pretty strong monopoly on any non-rich photographer who has bought into their lens system over the years. You can't easily jump ship to another manufacturer when you've got 3 years worth of salary sunk into proprietary glass.
The Right to Repair proposals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-repair_act should extend to all consumer products.
People and companies should be able to sell or not sell to whomever they want. Yes they are doing it because they are trying to make more money. Is that a bad thing? Are the camera companies obligated to prop up a secondary market out of charity? The customers decide if they want to buy a camera from a company that limits repairs to official repair centers (that have whatever customer service, costs they have).
If the customers don't care about the choice to bring their camera to a local repair shop, then there is no point in having them be there. It sucks losing a job, but we can't keep obsolete jobs around just so people never need to learn a new trade. Maybe we need to make it easier to learn new trades or something, but stagnation is just not an option.
If the customers do care about this choice, than any of the major camera companies could theoretically beat their competition by being the only company to provide this choice. If all these companies care about is money then this is exactly what they should do. Customers demand other things like megapixels and portability. Why don't they demand the choice to take their cameras to local repair shops?
Maybe the customers are ignorant about the advantages of this choice? Well then protesting is probably the right thing to do to bring attention to the situation.
I suspect that it is all about money. Not so much unregulated greed, but just about trying to control their products. Some of the local repair shops are probably good, others probably think they are good and actually suck. It is probably just easier for them to have official repair centers where they can control how their products are repaired. When you have official repair centers, there is no question of whether the fault is the repair center or the manufacturer when things go wrong because they are the same. If a repair goes bad in a local shop, the local shop can just blame it on Nikon and say their camera's just suck. Whether true or not, I think that's kind of what the manufacturers don't want. They want to be able to control the way their products are repaired.
This isn't so foreign. I can open an Apple repair shop and demand Apple sell me spare parts, so I can undercut their own repair centers, but I probably won't get very far. There are companies that sell 3rd party apple repair parts, but they don't expect any support from apple. They are lucky just not to get sued.
I wouldn't mind "Ending is better than mending," except I have no soma. Where's my soma, dammit?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
As a very small time hobbyist manufacture (3-10 items a month sold typically on ebay) I would see this as crippling and would stop bothering to build my product at all. Thus thrusting the few customers I have into not having it at all. I'm sure they would thank you for your regulation.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Because you are an asshole. You want not only to be able to refrain from providing replacement parts to your customers, but to sue anyone who does. If you can't do the job right open space for those who can.
When a new SLR body can be upwards of $6000, it's NOT going to be cheaper to get a new one.
What makes you think he's an immigrant?
[citation needed]
Kid-proof tablet..
I'm guessing your point is that you can't make spare parts for EVERYTHING, due to scale, and costs of doing that.
This is a different situation, they are making the parts, but just refuse to sell them to certain people. How the law should be written to distinguish between those two is beyond me, but I'm fairly sure we have a small army of law makers that can figure out how to word it.
Those who can, do.
Sorry in my niche, there wont be anyone else who can/will. It's get stuff from me or effectively not at all. In stead of the $150 that I sell it for I'm sure you could go to a manufacturer and have the dies made and molds cast and begin building the parts but it'll be close to $15k minimum by the time you're done.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The difference there is all the parts are available (as required by law). What the makers did was change diagnostics to require specific tools they own and are illegal to replicate (patented, trademarked, copyrighted, etc.) to prevent independent repair shops from having the same capabilities as the dealerships. That obviously anti-competitive behavior is explicitly within the law, as there are no tool restrictions, just parts.
Learn to love Alaska
Many years ago, I owned a car for which I bought a new oil filter from the dealer. The filter came with a notice that I had to check the length of the spigot, and, if it was too long, I should shorten it. The spigot on my car was indeed too long. This was not a recall item -- no assistance was provided by the manufacturer in fixing the length of the spigot. Apparently the manufacturer felt free to change the specifications of my car after selling it. I complained about this, but to no avail. However, after some investigation, I found that the dealers had a similar notice, but the maximum allowed length of the spigot was a little longer, and the spigot on my car was not too long by this specification.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
on a Nikon d200. For starters, he did top notch service and was in constant contact with me the entire time. He apologized for the delay as he had to source parts from Canada.
Camera works great now (bad CF slot) and I can't tell it was ever taken apart.
I understand his POV, and shame on Nikon for making him protest.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Braun is doing something related with their shavers. I bought one a few years back, and on the shelf next to it were replacement blades, along with information in the packaging telling me to replace the blades every year. So I bought the blades annually as advised, and one year I start having a horribly uncomfortable shave. Upon further inspection, I discovered their replacement blades (advertised as being correct for my shaver) were no longer of the same geometry, and not sharpened the way previous blades were. So a product that should have lasted 15 years or more was binned after only six years because the replacement parts were substandard. This was a barely visible change, and I suspect a lot of people simply assumed their shavers were "worn out" and needed replacement (by a new $150 model).
To me, this was a completely unethical move. But now I'm trying to figure out how you would propose we deal with this kind of situation. Caveat emptor? Regulations on replacement part availability? Capitalism and competition?
It's more than just replacement parts, it's entire replacement units.
I had a shower pump from Simple Human break on me, the handle just came off in my hand. After contacting the manufacturer because it was under warranty, they sent out a whole new unit. I was kind of surprised they wouldn't just ask for it back and replace the arm.
When I got it, it was slightly different. The arm was much thicker and it made me happy they revised the design for the design weakness. But there was more different. The fit and finish, if that makes sense for what's essentially a wall mounted plastic pump, was a lot worse. There was curved metal trim that was more triangular than curved, like it was forced into space instead of bent. The metal backing plate was now all plastic, and the gap between both plastic sides seemed misaligned. Even the manufacturer logo on the front was not level or centered. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was a knock-off.
If I had to guess, they have top-quality (except for the pump arm, but maybe that made it to retail) units in stores, and, as a way to trim down on warranty claim costs, they replace broken units with less-expensive lesser-quality units.
More Twoson than Cupertino
This is a different situation, they are making the parts, but just refuse to sell them to certain people. How the law should be written to distinguish between those two is beyond me, but I'm fairly sure we have a small army of law makers that can figure out how to word it.
Perhaps the scale is different, but it's really the same. He is making parts, but just refusing to sell them except in the form of a finished product.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Also, anyone who says "Nikon doesn't have a monopoly" isn't familiar with the way camera systems work. Nikon, Canon, etc have a pretty strong monopoly on any non-rich photographer who has bought into their lens system over the years. You can't easily jump ship to another manufacturer when you've got 3 years worth of salary sunk into proprietary glass.
I'm not a photographer so this will probably sound ignorant (because it is), but what makes lenses proprietary? Isn't it just physics, light input/output? Is it really impossible considering the pro-level costs to build mounting adapters to mate different branded components?
More Twoson than Cupertino
A protestor with a valid point, and not hurting anyone or being to annoying about it?
Is today april first?
Jokes aside, this guy does have a valid point. Though, it makes me wonder, is there not some third party manufacturer he can go to?
Then there is no harm in forcing you to allow anyone who wants to do it, regardless. Besides, with 3D printing it is reasonable to think that at least replacement parts to your products, whatever you do, will be possible to be done sooner or later much cheaper than you think, if it isn't already possible.
What cannot be tolerated is giving someone exclusive rights to produce something and this person use it to prevent this thing to be produced at all.
As an owner of a Nikon Camera who had to send their equipment in for repairs to their repair center, the experience was horrible. 3 months without the camera and a cost that almost was the price of replacing the body itself. Had we not been already invested a lot into the glass for it, I would have told them where to deposit the camera I sent them.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Also, anyone who says "Nikon doesn't have a monopoly" isn't familiar with the way camera systems work. Nikon, Canon, etc have a pretty strong monopoly on any non-rich photographer who has bought into their lens system over the years. You can't easily jump ship to another manufacturer when you've got 3 years worth of salary sunk into proprietary glass.
I'm not a photographer so this will probably sound ignorant (because it is), but what makes lenses proprietary? Isn't it just physics, light input/output? Is it really impossible considering the pro-level costs to build mounting adapters to mate different branded components?
I'm going to go lightweight on the descriptive because I'm not a physicist, and I only know what I've read and researched as a photographer. In addition, I'm loosely relating what I can recall.
"Proprietary" is covered in the mount and the wiring. There are mounting adapters that can mate different mounting types (even from different brands) but in all that I've seen, you lose any auto-focus and on-lens image stabilization. These are typically used by people who have some top-notch old lenses that don't have electronic features, they were completely manual to begin with.
Isn't it just physics, light input/output?
As far as the light in/out portion, if it can reach the sensor focused and sized to paint across the sensor, yes. You can see this from the boutique lens makers like Lensbaby (which has some pretty awesome creative lenses), and the alternative makers like Tamron and Sigma. However each of these makers produces different models of lenses for different lens mounts, which means the lenses you buy are still stuck with the mounting system of your camera maker.
Mounting Adapters also introduce a wide array of difficulties, as they increase the distance from the back of the lens to the surface of the sensor. Different lenses use different types of glass (even within the same lens) and also use different numbers of lenses. Adding more glass between the rear element of the lens and the sensor will almost always degrade photo quality, and trying to do it in a 1-size-fits-all adapter will definitely degrade most lenses photo quality. Some lenses zoom by moving the rear element as well, and some of these bring that rear element *very* close to the sensor, I'd imagine such lenses would be increasingly difficult to design adapters for. There are issues such as chromatic aberation (CA), lens distortion, barrel distortion, depth of field/focus (DoF), and diffraction that each lens is designed to avoid or correct when made. Adding anything between the lens and the sensor, even a few mm of air, can foul up those details and lead to shoddy images.
Also, anyone who says "Nikon doesn't have a monopoly" isn't familiar with the way camera systems work. Nikon, Canon, etc have a pretty strong monopoly on any non-rich photographer who has bought into their lens system over the years. You can't easily jump ship to another manufacturer when you've got 3 years worth of salary sunk into proprietary glass.
I'm not a photographer so this will probably sound ignorant (because it is), but what makes lenses proprietary? Isn't it just physics, light input/output? Is it really impossible considering the pro-level costs to build mounting adapters to mate different branded components?
it's the expense of replacing those lenses, since the method of connecting the lens to the body (where the image sensor is) is proprietary.
There are surprisingly few optical problems (assuming you've got the space to work with) - a Nikon SLR lens (flange focal distance of 46.5mm) can be mounted on a Canon EOS SLR (flange focal distance of 44.0mm) with nothing but an appropriately shaped, 2.5mm-thick bit of metal sticking the two together. (The opposite would need special optics in the way in order to get proper focus, since otherwise the focal plane will be too far from the film / image sensor.)
Mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras have very short flange focal distances (not being SLRs, they don't have a flappy mirror assembly between the lens and the image sensor). There's much more room to build adaptors that fit - potentially several centimetres when mounting an SLR lens rather than a few millimetres.
The main problem is all the electronic communications stuff present in modern lenses - for autofocus, setting the aperture and for the lens to communicate back its specifications, status and so on. Probably the most impressive range of adapters I've seen is from Metabones - some of which include full electronic compatibility between a Canon EF lens and a Sony NEX camera. (Not affiliated with them, and not a customer - primarily I'm hoping someone gets off their arses and builds a full-featured Nikon-lens-to-Canon-camera adapter. The existing dumb-bits-of-metal are great for video, but I'd like one that does everything, please!)
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
You could put conditions in to (effectively) apply this to only mass manufacturers.
How this is done I leave unstated, but I'd imagine you could do it by looking at a variety of factors.
This way, big companies making thousands of identical items can provide parts (because they have (require) the infrastructure to store/ship all the bits and pieces) play fair, but small folks like you or other "craftsmen" don't have yet more unreasonable demands placed upon them.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Physical connections, for the most part. You'd have to make an adapter, and keep in mind that changes the element spacing (eg the lens is now a bit farther from the sensor/film)
There's also some extra bits. For example, the lens assembly for my Canon has an electrical connector to support the focus mode switch (that's on the lens body) as well as to drive the focus servos.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You could make a cross-brand adapter, but it would only be acceptable for use as a lens extension. This is because fitting another piece in between the camera body and lens alters the geometry of the focal plane, which in turn alters the results of what you'd get for given optics. Not that lens extensions don't have use, but one that acts as an adapter would have an even smaller market because most photographers kit out with lenses that match their brand of camera.
Despite this, there are actually a few lens extensions on the market that do exactly what you describe. These tend to be for cameras (typically digital, video, or otherwise not the standard 35mm format) that have their own peculiar lens mounts incompatible with anything else, but those cameras also have a very limited variety of lenses. Despite that they act as an extension and alter the focus, these adapters only exist so such cameras can have access to the wide variety of Cannon, Nikon, and maybe even Pentax lenses that are out there.
Oh. It also tells the camera's software what kind of lens is attached.
I'd imagine some of that is a form of DRM (like in ink cartridges) but it also provides the camera useful data about the lens characteristics that is used by to tune/drive focus, exposure, etc.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
There are problems with the line of thought that would espouse a "right to repair" as it is being stated here. You certainly have a right to do whatever you want with your own property once purchased; but it sounds a lot like what is being proposed is that manufacturers be forced to provide additional services (in the form of parts resale) that they may not want to, or else be forced to sell to consumers that they may not want to.
I think most people would agree that such regulation would be awfully convenient for the consumer. I would argue that thats irrelevant, and that there is no good justification for such regulation, and that it would remove long-recognized business rights (the right to sell to whom they want, the right to refuse to offer certain products).
at the very least, let others provide them
AFAIK they cannot legally prevent this....
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices
But this I believe would be dangerous. If a manufacturer does not wish to provide a product, I do not think it is anyone's business to tell them they must. If that's not good enough for you, consider that that may place considerable burden on smaller shops that dont really produce extra parts, and whose manufacturing process may not make it easy to get individual parts.
, but to sue anyone who does.
He never said this, and I dont think anyone would support that right. It is, I believe, illegal; I believe there have been numerous cases which establish the legality of aftermarket parts.
What is in question is whether anyone has the right to tell either this small hobbyist or the gigantic Nikon that they MUST provide parts-- which to me seems like a gross overreach of government power. A businesses right to do what business they want with whom they want has been recognized for a very long time.
Luckily the EU told them to sod off so we don't have this problem.
In fact in the UK the law goes a lot further. Products are expected to last a "reasonable amount of time", which for something like a car is 10-15 years. Obviously wear and tear is expected and you will need to put new oil in from time to time, but if the manufacturer decided to stop supplying essential parts after five years and made your vehicle unusable through no fault of your own you could claim a 66% refund (two thirds of the expected 15 year lifespan).
This actually happened to someone I worked with. The steering rack went and the dealer said they couldn't source a replacement part, so ended up exchanging the car for a second hand one and some cash based on the fact that he had only owned it for 6.5 years. It was a Korean brand IIRC.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Regulations on replacement part availability?
We have those in the UK and they work well. I'm not sure if 15 years is what the courts would agree the expected lifetime of a shaver is (laptops are usually 5-6 years, cars around 10-15 years) but if they decided on say 8 years and yours lasted six you could get back 25% of the purchase price.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Let me guess, You are the type that would crucify Samsung because you believe they copied from Apple, but you can not believe that perhaps they copied the business model as well?
What camera not to buy.
You cant order a fucking part are you fucking kidding me.
When a company refuses to sell a product or service, they should lose all exclusive IP rights to the product so that others can fill the void. The privilege of 'intellectual property' should at least carry a minimal price.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide repair parts for reasonable prices, or, at the very least, let others provide them.
The point is, a manufacturer should be obligated by law to provide parts for reasonable prices, let others provide them, or, at the very least, provide plans for parts and let others print them.
Enhanced that for you.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
This trend has been rearing its ugly head for a while, but Nikon is known to be particularly bad.
They are extremely stingy with their warranty policies and will try at every opportunity to invalidate your warranty using any excuse they can find.
Buy that lens in the US and you live in Canada (never mind that they're exactly the same product)? Get that camera repaired or even just cleaned at a reputable but not officially recognized business? Ever use a third party battery or accessory? They will seriously use these excuses to invalidate your *entire* warranty.
Is it really impossible considering the pro-level costs to build mounting adapters to mate different branded components?
Yes. Lens assemblies contain auto-focus motors or focus drive sprockets to allow the camera to control the focus of the lens. They are built to different optical geometries: the distance from the main objective to the plate (sensor). Most lens assemblies contain integrated iris. What this amounts to, is that you can't fit an adaptor in between the camera and the lens, as it would change the optical geometries and the lens wouldn't work. You could put some additional glass in the adaptor to correct for the increased offset, but this would degrade the performance of the lens and make for an expensive adaptor.
OTOH, it is possible to get 3rd party lens, eg. Sigma, that are made with a larger objective-plate distance, and removable fitting rings for different camera systems. Sometimes these lens are better than the manufacturers lens, and sometimes worse. The o-p distance isn't just an issue of compatibility though, it affects vignette, focal depth, bokeh, and other properties.
I recently ordered a replacement part from Parts Overnight (Australia's nominated Canon parts supplier). It took over a week to get my part. I get better service getting parts couriered from the US. Thanks Canon for your poor service. Thanks Parts Overnight for your even worse service.
My dad has a shop authorized by Philips. Not even fucking PHILIPS can get the parts. Nowadays if it's too complicated, you get a replacement. They don't stock parts, which is unveliebably stupid: a TV has 4 parts: the case, the panel, the PSU and the main board. it's always the PSU. but they won't stock PSUs, so, you get a new tv for a blown power transistor. For SOME models they do have parts (if the failure rate is too high, or if the problem has been identified and it's simple as replacing a transistor or photo-coupler)
One time we asked why.. off the record? Philips TV business is no longer based in Holland, it's now China. New policy from china: replace tv under warranty, FUCK the customer when warranty ends.
Then how did I get my Canon DSLR 18-55mm lens repaired by a one-man repair shop? I didn't have any problems but the wait. He had all sorts of old cameras in the shop that I'm sure he was in the middle of repairing, but my new(er) lens didn't faze him. A few gears later, it auto-focuses again, and I didn't have to ship it back to Canon.
Just wonder if there are 3rd party workshop that produce camera for the lenses.
If you think that the good parts from a point and shoot camera are the features and the good parts of the DSLR are the looks then you are doing it wrong.
If the money we spend on goods isn't reflecting the apparent throw-away / disposable nature of the item as expressed by their manufacturers' unwillingness to ever touch or see the things again, then perhaps there *is* some fault to be found in the manufacturers. And if the increasingly unserviceable build and now even legal protection that we find in these goods prohibits us from repairing or servicing the goods ourselves, then we know for *certain* that there's some fault to be found in the manufacturers.
I work in a charity secondhand warehouse where all day I have to sort what's saleable from what isn't, and often this involves servicing an item that's 90% saleable into something that can be cleaned up and put on the floor.
The trend I've seen is that later models are built so that they can't be gotten into easily, meanwhile the mechanisms inside the cases are of declining quality.
Plenty of WWI and WWII era power tools, sewing machines, and hand tools are still working perfectly well. I use some huge WWI-era steel shears for cutting mouse cords and TV power cords. The other day I tested a power drill that was manufactured in 1937 and it's a better drill than the pile of Black and Decker and other 1980's behemoth models we have sitting around as possibly repairable (I'm not taking an interest, the pile will end up with the scrap guy who will take the iron and copper out of the motors and chuck the batteries in the battery bin).
Vacuums are the worst offender. Old crazy-looking steel monsters built to match art deco are still running fine and are easily serviced using standardized belts and motors available from anyplace you can buy belts and motors. The steel cases are conducive to re-use. Best of all, you can use steel parts with them without breaking them. If the base on your motor isn't lined up right with the screw posts, you can drill new holes because it's a steel part. We use the vacuum in the warehouse because it's reliable.
Meanwhile, late-model Kirby, Dyson, and other plastic-vacs are made not to be gotten into and in a most annoying fashion. One vacuum had a rug cleaning attachment that needed a cleaning itself. However, the method used to make the head was one-and-done. The superglue they used to put the two halves of the plastic together ensured that if you broke the head open to clean it, you weren't getting it back together again.
Especially when you try to get into a model made in China, you find that every possible corner has been struck off. Numerous toys and tools, upon opening, reveal of philosophy of screw-the-consumer. In this case, Chinese work slaves screw their boss who screws the corporation who screws the retailer who screws the consumer. They all know that, for instance, instead of putting that last Step Number 25 on the instruction sheet into action, the Chinese factory foreman realized that you could shuffle a sort of half-action toy onto the kids who maybe won't notice the missing feature, by MacGuyvering it a little bit on the assembly line. So the little toy monster that's supposed to masticate its jaw wide open and closed in a rhythm instead half-opens its mouth which falls shut again. And so on.
Out of everything we get donated, 85% of it is going to the scrap heap or into the trash. Part of the warehouse expense is $3,000 a week on emptying a quarter-traincar sized trash bin attached to a compactor.
And of that 85% trash, ranging the percentage of trash in the domain of year of manufacture follows an exponential curve. You could say "because old stuff is gone, there's only newer stuff left", but that doesn't hold when you go out on the sales floor and the average age of what we're selling is much older than the average age of what we're throwing away.
So what is reflected is that newer things are shit, and older things are cool enough that customers look to purchase them. Don't get me wrong, we actively try to put everything on the floor that we receive. When we have the knowledgeable manpower, we repair all kinds of things. B
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Short post as I have no time.
Car industry was ten years when I worked in it. All parts by law had to be availiable for ten years.
It's one of the reasons we (Rover/BMW) sold all our tooling after ten years.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
It's the lens mount that makes the lenses proprietary. With the exception of m4/3 every manufacturer uses a different shaped and/or sized physical connector between the lens and the camera body. And on top of that it's the lens electronics that also make it proprietary. They all have different electronic coupling with different protocols that control autofocus, image stabilisation and the other fancy bits. It is possible to reverse engineer everything and make mostly compatible lenses, but it's not perfect. Just ask Sigma, Tokina or Tamron.
As far as adapters go, it's the flange distance that makes or breaks it. Each lens is designed to focus with the rear of the lens at a set distance from the sensor plane. In order for an adapted lens to work properly, the flange distance of the adapter + body must match that of the original system. m4/3 has tons of adapters for other systems because their flange distance (19.25 mm) is much less than that of the Leica M mount (27.8 mm), Canon EF mount (44 mm) or Nikon F mount (46.5 mm). No one makes adapters going the other way, say to use a m4/3 lens on Nikon F mount, because the lens would be unable to make use of it's full focal range. You're right that it is just physics, but sometimes physics isn't your friend.
I saw something similar with cellular phones a decade ago. You pay a bunch of money each month to insure your expensive, top-of-the-line shiny only to get a refurb 'free with new contract' phone. Let's hope that this does not require legislative action.
They can do all the 3d printing they want. I just wont guarantee any kind of replacement parts supplied by me. Typically I do give them out if someone needs them, (it is a hobby anyway) but if I was required by law to provide parts for any time after my small production runs I would no longer do them at all. Often times the molds don't hold out past a single production run.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Is this nation not founded on principals of fairness and equality? As citizens of the United States of America, we have the right to stand up when we feel like we are being taken advantage of whether it be an issue of race, gender or as consumers and businesses. We have the right to a democratic process. We also have freedom of speech. Mr. Kelly Chong is reaching out to the consumers and businesses who are affected by this new change in policy in hopes that they will join him in speaking out for change. To assume this small camera repair store is the only one suffering the consequences of a disregard for fair business practice shows ignorance. The State of California enforces an Antitrust & Business Competition Law. This law protects small business like Pro Camera Repair, Inc. from “unfair competition”. The availability of repair parts to a repair business is vital. Therefore, the removal of Nikon parts which have been supplied to this specific company amicably for decades would be considered “unfair”. This law was set in place to create a balanced competition between businesses and corporations. Just because a small business does not have thousands of dollars to pour into a large Civil lawsuit does not mean they do not deserve the rights which have been laid out for them in the Antitrust & Business Competition law. What better way to reach out for help, than to inform the public (consumers and businesses) that Nikon’s new policy is against California Law and takes advantage of businesses that have been working with them for decades. For more information visit: http://oag.ca.gov/antitrust
Yes!! Punish success!! exactly.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
It's not punishment. You're already storing the components, the only extra cost would involve sales/shipping of them. Hand the costs down if you feel like it.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
According to the Antitrust & Business Competition Law of the state of California, we do have a right to the parts in question. "Antitrust enforcement is an important component of a sound free-market economy. Vigorous, competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products." Please visit this link for more information: http://oag.ca.gov/antitrust
Agreed, people don't have a right to parts or information from manufacturers, but I wouldn't mind a disclosure requirement on cameras, computers, TVs, appliances, et cetera, that cost over a certain amount, e.g. $500 or $1000.
Disclosure should cover that company's repair record on similar products and components, average cost of repairs and upgrades during the expected life of the product, shipping cost responsibilities, and whether external services are available or not allowed....
We end up shopping on price and features because the manufacturers get to hide the total cost of ownership. I'm surrounded by a Nikon camera, a Tivo and a kitchen full of 3 y.o. GE appliances that all have exorbitant repair costs for what should be minor repairs or scratches.