Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries • Hacker News Board

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#11

Post by superjared » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:10 PM UTC

gamache wrote: post #7

sounddust wrote: post #2

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.

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'…

"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.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#12

Post by beefman » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:18 PM UTC

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).

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#13

Post by beefman » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:23 PM UTC

gamache wrote: post #7

sounddust wrote: post #2

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.

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'…

Apple very carefully qualifies RAM for each of their machines. Not all RAM is the same... some can choke up modern high-speed FSBs. You're paying for all the work it takes to qual those parts.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#14

Post by gamache » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:25 PM UTC

superjared wrote: post #11

gamache wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

"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.

So in other words, Apple wouldn't deal with your problem while you were using non-Apple RAM. I think we agree here.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#15

Post by beefman » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:25 PM UTC

kqr2 wrote: post #3

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

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.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#16

Post by gamache » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:27 PM UTC

beefman wrote: post #13

gamache wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Apple very carefully qualifies RAM for each of their machines. Not all RAM is the same... some can choke up modern high-speed FSBs. You're paying for all the work it takes to qual those parts.

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Apple for their policy. Wonky RAM can cause all sorts of weird bugs, so Apple is right to avoid the diagnostic nightmare.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#17

Post by jcromartie » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:29 PM UTC

gamache wrote: post #7

sounddust wrote: post #2

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.

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'…

> This isn't unlike Apple's insistence on Apple-branded RAM being used in their machines;

I've never had this issue, and I've taken in two machines for service with non-Apple RAM.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#18

Post by dangoldin » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 9:38 PM UTC

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.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#19

Post by micks56 » Wed, Jun 24, 2009, 10:11 PM UTC

Janzert wrote: post #10

micks56 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But this implies there is a defect in the camera that causes the explosion. The defect, and product liability, is in the battery.

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.

Re: Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries

#20

Post by froo » Thu, Jun 25, 2009, 12:01 AM UTC

beefman wrote: post #12

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. An…

"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)