4 ms·

Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

17 points by TallGuyShort 17y ago

wmeredith 17y ago
This seems like user-hostile behavior to me. It would stop me from buying one of their cameras.
yhuiopkjui 17y ago
It also solves the problem of people keeping their digital camera for more than a year now that they have realized that they don't need twice as many megapixels. Oh sorry - we don't make the battery for the 2008 model anymore, but the 2009 model with chrome fins (although the same imager) is on sale!
sounddust 17y ago
If I would have read this story anytime before 2007, it would have angered me. But in the past few years, I've read about so many instances of poorly-constructed exploding batteries (most of which were from 3rd parties) that I have a hard time passing judgment on Panasonic for this.
- shizcakes 17y ago
  I agree. From a user perspective, it seems monopolistic and restrictive, but what about from Panasonic's perspective? How much money do they lose dealing with warranty claims caused by defective 3rd party batteries?
  - stuff4ben 17y ago
    I don't think it's warranty related at all, I think this is all about brand image and marketing. Think about it, when a camera explodes, the press announces that PANASONIC CAMERA EXPLODES! Then in the fine-print a day later they update the story saying it was a third-party battery that was to blame. But no one remembers that, they only know that Panasonic cameras explode and so they stick with Canon or Nikon or whatever. Sure this sucks for the consumer, but Panasonic has to protect their brand somehow from the nefarious crappy batteries. If I were in charge, I'd opt for the big ugly sticker on the box and in twenty other places, that says using non-Panasonic batteries might cause explosions and if it does you're SOL, or something to that effect.
- gamache 17y ago
  But honestly, what do they care if a third-party battery explodes in the user's hand? IMO a better way to deal with this would be for the firmware to record when a third-party battery is used, but not prevent it; in this way, Panasonic could shield themselves from spurious maintenance requests (and lawsuits), while still allowing the camera's owner to ultimately decide how the camera is used. This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines; if you're having Mac problems, and you have third-party RAM installed, AppleCare will tell you to take a hike.
  - micks56 17y ago
    Product Liability Law in many jurisdictions requires manufacturers to correct problems when they become known. Some jurisdictions require the correction for already sold and shipped product (Hello, this is Panasonic. Send your camera in for firmware update.) Other jurisdictions only require correction for new sales (Those cameras will merely ship with the updated firmware). In any event, recording when a third-party battery is used does not shield a manufacturer from liability. In fact, it will be excellent evidence for the Plaintiff that the manufacturer knew of the design defect, and failed to correct it. Furthermore, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the consumer. Two counts lost by Panasonic.
    - Janzert 17y ago
      But this implies there is a defect in the camera that causes the explosion. The defect, and product liability, is in the battery.
      - micks56 17y ago
        Not according to the law. The Plaintiff's lawyer will allege that the camera is defective where it does not have the necessary safety devices to accommodate third party batteries. Courts consider that a design defect. Manufacturers have a non-delegable duty to install safety devices in their products.
  - superjared 17y ago
kqr2 17y ago
Panasonic should have a certification process to allow 3rd party batteries that meet their safety standards.
- beefman 17y ago
  What makes you think they can afford to do that? And enforce it. There are already numerous international standards (ISO, etc) on things like Li-ion batteries, which of-label manufacturers are happy to ignore, lie about, or just implement incompetently.
  - kqr2 17y ago
    Panasonic wouldn't have to pay for it. The 3rd party manufacturer would go to a testing lab (recognized by Panasonic) and pay for certification. Once they receive certification, they could be added to the approved vendor list.
beefman 17y ago
I used to think you should never buy OEM parts (for your car, your computer, etc). I thought the aftermarket could even provide superior versions of parts, or at least, the same thing for less money. Then I got a job in hardware engineering. Now I _always_ buy the OEM part. Some examples: * Remanufactured toner cartridges -- much more likely to contain toxic substances that can vaporize into the air when printing. And have fun guessing whether they stated the page counts accurately. * Seagate HDDs vs. Apple HDDs -- same drive, right? Wrong. Apple writes custom firmware, based on extensive testing. You may recall the data loss issue that came out last year with these (Barracuda 7200.11) drives... but not with the Apple firmware. * No-name Chinese Li-ion batteries. Tested them myself, and they outright lie about the mAh. They're also almost certainly less safe. * Got Bosch platinum plugs for my VR6 Jetta. Better than stock, right? Wrong. Finally found a mechanic that truly understands the VR6, and the stock plugs (NGK) were chosen for a reason. Other examples abound. It isn't worth your time trying to outsmart the engineers that made your device by going with a part made by someone with no accountability (no brand to protect, no phone number you can call, etc).
- froo 17y ago
  "Now I _always_ buy the OEM part. Some examples:" I thought I would provide another example as this was one of those things that always amused me. Back when my brother was alive, he was a Porsche enthusiast, he owned several at the same time (4) and his first love was his 944 that he raced. Anyway, the door handles on a 944 are the same as a standard VW part, with one slight difference. One has "PORSCHE" etched into the plastic while the other didn't. A luxury that increased the cost of the part by nearly 15 times. The funny thing was that with the 944 series, there were many non porsche parts used in the production of the car. The body was made by Audi (which we learnt one summer while stripping all of the noice cancelling rubber off the body... not a fun job)
dangoldin 17y ago
They could potentially let you downgrade to another firmware version that does not have this check. In that case you accept the liability if the batteries do explode.
azbob 17y ago
Lithium polymer batteries are no joke. They can explode and mess you up if you happen to be too close to them when they do. Panasonic is only trying to protect the consumers of their products.
BearOfNH 17y ago
Based on the comments I think Panasonic is within their rights here, but still I would probably not buy from them. I'll stick with cameras using rechargeable AAs. Possibly somebody will figure out how to make a knock-off battery that the camera recognizes as genuine Panasonic, putting us back at square 1 again.

17 points by TallGuyShort 17y ago

This seems like user-hostile behavior to me. It would stop me from buying one of their cameras.

It also solves the problem of people keeping their digital camera for more than a year now that they have realized that they don't need twice as many megapixels. Oh sorry - we don't make the battery for the 2008 model anymore, but the 2009 model with chrome fins (although the same imager) is on sale!

sounddust 17y ago

If I would have read this story anytime before 2007, it would have angered me. But in the past few years, I've read about so many instances of poorly-constructed exploding batteries (most of which were from 3rd parties) that I have a hard time passing judgment on Panasonic for this.

shizcakes 17y ago
I agree. From a user perspective, it seems monopolistic and restrictive, but what about from Panasonic's perspective? How much money do they lose dealing with warranty claims caused by defective 3rd party batteries?
- stuff4ben 17y ago
  I don't think it's warranty related at all, I think this is all about brand image and marketing. Think about it, when a camera explodes, the press announces that PANASONIC CAMERA EXPLODES! Then in the fine-print a day later they update the story saying it was a third-party battery that was to blame. But no one remembers that, they only know that Panasonic cameras explode and so they stick with Canon or Nikon or whatever. Sure this sucks for the consumer, but Panasonic has to protect their brand somehow from the nefarious crappy batteries. If I were in charge, I'd opt for the big ugly sticker on the box and in twenty other places, that says using non-Panasonic batteries might cause explosions and if it does you're SOL, or something to that effect.
gamache 17y ago
But honestly, what do they care if a third-party battery explodes in the user's hand? IMO a better way to deal with this would be for the firmware to record when a third-party battery is used, but not prevent it; in this way, Panasonic could shield themselves from spurious maintenance requests (and lawsuits), while still allowing the camera's owner to ultimately decide how the camera is used. This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines; if you're having Mac problems, and you have third-party RAM installed, AppleCare will tell you to take a hike.
- micks56 17y ago
  Product Liability Law in many jurisdictions requires manufacturers to correct problems when they become known. Some jurisdictions require the correction for already sold and shipped product (Hello, this is Panasonic. Send your camera in for firmware update.) Other jurisdictions only require correction for new sales (Those cameras will merely ship with the updated firmware). In any event, recording when a third-party battery is used does not shield a manufacturer from liability. In fact, it will be excellent evidence for the Plaintiff that the manufacturer knew of the design defect, and failed to correct it. Furthermore, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the consumer. Two counts lost by Panasonic.
  - Janzert 17y ago
    But this implies there is a defect in the camera that causes the explosion. The defect, and product liability, is in the battery.
    - micks56 17y ago
      Not according to the law. The Plaintiff's lawyer will allege that the camera is defective where it does not have the necessary safety devices to accommodate third party batteries. Courts consider that a design defect. Manufacturers have a non-delegable duty to install safety devices in their products.
- superjared 17y ago

kqr2 17y ago

Panasonic should have a certification process to allow 3rd party batteries that meet their safety standards.

beefman 17y ago
What makes you think they can afford to do that? And enforce it. There are already numerous international standards (ISO, etc) on things like Li-ion batteries, which of-label manufacturers are happy to ignore, lie about, or just implement incompetently.
- kqr2 17y ago
  Panasonic wouldn't have to pay for it. The 3rd party manufacturer would go to a testing lab (recognized by Panasonic) and pay for certification. Once they receive certification, they could be added to the approved vendor list.

beefman 17y ago

I used to think you should never buy OEM parts (for your car, your computer, etc). I thought the aftermarket could even provide superior versions of parts, or at least, the same thing for less money. Then I got a job in hardware engineering. Now I _always_ buy the OEM part. Some examples: * Remanufactured toner cartridges -- much more likely to contain toxic substances that can vaporize into the air when printing. And have fun guessing whether they stated the page counts accurately. * Seagate HDDs vs. Apple HDDs -- same drive, right? Wrong. Apple writes custom firmware, based on extensive testing. You may recall the data loss issue that came out last year with these (Barracuda 7200.11) drives... but not with the Apple firmware. * No-name Chinese Li-ion batteries. Tested them myself, and they outright lie about the mAh. They're also almost certainly less safe. * Got Bosch platinum plugs for my VR6 Jetta. Better than stock, right? Wrong. Finally found a mechanic that truly understands the VR6, and the stock plugs (NGK) were chosen for a reason. Other examples abound. It isn't worth your time trying to outsmart the engineers that made your device by going with a part made by someone with no accountability (no brand to protect, no phone number you can call, etc).

froo 17y ago
"Now I _always_ buy the OEM part. Some examples:" I thought I would provide another example as this was one of those things that always amused me. Back when my brother was alive, he was a Porsche enthusiast, he owned several at the same time (4) and his first love was his 944 that he raced. Anyway, the door handles on a 944 are the same as a standard VW part, with one slight difference. One has "PORSCHE" etched into the plastic while the other didn't. A luxury that increased the cost of the part by nearly 15 times. The funny thing was that with the 944 series, there were many non porsche parts used in the production of the car. The body was made by Audi (which we learnt one summer while stripping all of the noice cancelling rubber off the body... not a fun job)

dangoldin 17y ago

They could potentially let you downgrade to another firmware version that does not have this check. In that case you accept the liability if the batteries do explode.

azbob 17y ago

Lithium polymer batteries are no joke. They can explode and mess you up if you happen to be too close to them when they do. Panasonic is only trying to protect the consumers of their products.

BearOfNH 17y ago

Based on the comments I think Panasonic is within their rights here, but still I would probably not buy from them. I'll stick with cameras using rechargeable AAs. Possibly somebody will figure out how to make a knock-off battery that the camera recognizes as genuine Panasonic, putting us back at square 1 again.