4 ms·

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-construct

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
  "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." Not true. Twice I've had Macs have issues and both had Crucial RAM. Each time I was asked to remove the RAM and re-verify the problem. Each time the problem persisted and was fixed by Apple.
  - gamache 17y ago
    So in other words, Apple wouldn't deal with your problem while you were using non-Apple RAM. I think we agree here.

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
"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." Not true. Twice I've had Macs have issues and both had Crucial RAM. Each time I was asked to remove the RAM and re-verify the problem. Each time the problem persisted and was fixed by Apple.
- gamache 17y ago
  So in other words, Apple wouldn't deal with your problem while you were using non-Apple RAM. I think we agree here.