Watch Out For Panasonic's Proprietary Battery Cameras
Many of Panasonic's cameras will only work with official Panasonic batteries—the newest models require "an embedded security ID chip," while older models have been issued a firmware upgrade that locks out third-party vendors. This is already pretty obnoxious, but what makes it even worse is Panasonic can't keep up with demand, so the batteries they insist you buy for your camera aren't available.
James writes,
New consumer digital cameras introduced by Panasonic in 2009 have been disabled to require the use of Panasonic original batteries with an embedded security ID chip. The problem? Panasonic cannot supply batteries! Third-party batteries (at a cost of $10-20) no longer work.
Panasonic brand batteries ($40 to $80) with the security chip have never been available from Panasonic or anyone else. Users have only the battery supplied with the camera, and when it's depleted you are done taking photos for the day. In an effort to sell over-priced batteries that they are unable to supply, Panasonic has crippled a line of fine, expensive cameras ($300 - $1,200 retail). The situation has existed for months and involves sixteen of their latest cameras.
Today, three new cameras were introduced and each will work only with the unavailable Panasonic batteries. While Panasonic frames their decision as a safety issue, the lack of any batteries from any source [see the B&H, Panasonic, and Crutchfield websites for examples] clearly indicates this is a failed marketing ploy.
Panasonic issues firmware update for existing cameras that prevents use of less expensive 3rd party batteries
Panasonic claims battery change is a "safety issue"
Panasonic locks down sixteen camera models
Post a comment
Comments:
The conspiracy nut in me says it's an diabolical plot of planned obsolescence. Your rechargeable battery stops charging like it's supposed to? Guess it's time for a new camera! :O
Or do they mean just depleted for the day, and it affects heavy picture takers who need spares available?
Either way, it stinks.
I can't imagine it'll be too long before third party manufacturers just forge a securty chip. Or for some kind of firmware unlock to happen to disable that "feature"
@downwithmonstercable: Not that I'm discounting the issue at all - this is ridiculous. Just saying it's only a matter of time until consumers take matters into their own hands and take care of things.
I've always liked Panasonic products, so this is disturbing. I will be less likely to choose Panasonic in the future.
So, besides the obvious feeling of WTF why would you buy this BS, I'm wondering if this is totally legal? I would assume (bad thing to do by the way) that this is, considering that you can use any other brand of camera.
Even if it is, it doesn't seem all that smart. I personally (and this is just a personal oppinion) don't see Panasonic as having that large enough of a market share that they could pull BS like this. Sony, yeah they could, but people see a Sony product and have a joygasm.
Is this the first or one in a long line of blunders for this company? I honestly don't follow them so I wouldn't know thats why I ask.
@downwithmonstercable: I hear Ya. But Panasonic will likely (over)use the DMCA to stop anyone who tries to forge a chip in the US.
It's bad enough that there are X Zillion different size, shapes and voltages for consumers to worry about. Now only a particular manufacturer's battery will work at all? Panasonic used to be a pretty good brand, but this trick is just stupid. How about a movement to standardize batteries by size and shape as well as by voltage? Like AA, AAA, etc. but for electronics.
Airport vending machine pricing model. Better to sell one at 500 percent mark-up than five at 100 percent. It's spreading to everything.
On the plus side, it'll be good for the environment.
There's a thread on the dpreview web site about this (in addition to the note linked to in the story). Apparently, there are some places where you can get at least some of the OEM batteries, but it does certainly look like a manufacturing/distribution snafu that's led to a truely terrible marketing disaster for Panasonic. I suspect they'll lose significant market share in their high-end market over this. Which is a shame, because their fixed-zoom and micro-four-thirds cameras are remarkably innovative and fill a really nice sweet spot in the market.
We as consumers really need to take a stand against this crap.
Same deal with ipods. I should be able to easily disassemble anything I buy, and do what I wish to it, as long as I don't use it to commit a real crime. And no, jailbreaking is not a crime.I own my damn iPhone. I can jailbreak it if I want to.
Here is the Maker's Bill of Rights from Make: Magazine:
* Meaningful and specific parts lists shall be included.
* Cases shall be easy to open.
* Batteries should be replaceable.
* Special tools are allowed only for darn good reasons.
* Profiting by selling expensive special tools is wrong and not making special tools available is even worse.
* Torx is OK; tamperproof is rarely OK.
* Components, not entire sub-assemblies, shall be replaceable.
* Consumables, like fuses and filters, shall be easy to access.
* Circuit boards shall be commented.
* Power from USB is good; power from proprietary power adapters is bad.
* Standard connecters shall have pinouts defined.
* If it snaps shut, it shall snap open.
* Screws better than glues.
* Docs and drivers shall have permalinks and shall reside for all perpetuity at archive.org.
* Ease of repair shall be a design ideal, not an afterthought.
* Metric or standard, not both.
* Schematics shall be included.
Too bad. I love my little Luxix P&S for things where I want a little P&S, and I've recommended newer, better models to no fewer than three family members. I guess I'll have to think twice about that in the future.
I'm speechless....really.
To be honest this doesn't address the real problems with consumer grade cameras. The 'megapixel wars' are making their products worse and worse every year. They should honestly reserve the megapixel wars for the DSLR category. Keep consumer grade stuff sub 10 mega pixel. There's no need for it, and it just degrades the picture quality in exchange for more pixels. Sorry lots of crappy pixels do not equate to one good pixel.
You'd think that companies would learn the Betamax lesson. They should teach that in business school.
This practice should be banned. It wouldn't need to be banned, but most people are morons who don't pay attention to this sort of details and buy locked in crap anyways. Jeez.
@satoru: I have the Panasonic Lumix and hate it, mostly because the pictures come out looking totally without depth. Makes me regret selling my old Canon Elph, even though the zoom button was shot.
@MostlyHarmless: it would, except nobody actually believes that karma works that way. Karma isn't a curse.
I love Panasonic stuff (3 TV's, 3 VCR's, 2 DVD's, receiver, and car stereo) and am seriously in the market for a camera RIGHT NOW. I WAS seriously biased toward a Panasonc model. Won't be buying their brand now. How stupid of them.
@ARP: IIRC, the DMCA has exemptions for interoperability, for exactly this sort of purpose. There was a case involving chipped Lexmark ink cartridges... don't recall what the outcome was, though.
I don't understand peoples complaint with the company. Don't buy from Panasonic and if you own a Panasonic Camera, sell it on eBay, and buy a Canon or whatever other brand you wish. Don't put up with a company that forces you to use only their disposable products like batteries. I gave up my PS3 because Sony only makes non-removable batteries in their controllers and I didn't feel like being stuck for $60 every year and a half to buy a new controller/battery combo not even mentioning the fact that you would be throwing out a perfectly good controller just because it has a dead battery.
Wow! I've purchased two Lumix cameras in the past and am just about ready to upgrade. You can bet I'll take this into consideration.
I always look to see if a printer I'm thinking of buying has remanufactured cartridges available for sale. I never thought to think of spare camera batteries.
Thank god my Panasonic Lumix camera takes ordinary, removable AA batteries! I will be sticking with it for a very long time.
@Duckula22: Yes, people are morons because they don't have the time to inform themselves about every single issue involving every purchase they make, not limited to batteries, mac compatibility, linux compatibility, country of origin, use of child labor, corporate policies on same-sex partners...shall I go on?
Information may be free, but the time it takes to inform yourself has a cost. In cases like this, regulation decreases the overall burden to the economy.
@lpranal: So what you are saying is that it is basically a Government agency: Well intentioned, but utterly toothless, and unable to really enforce anything.
This isn't (probably) as nefarious as it seems. People who counterfeit their batteries can hurt their reputation (bad batteries can explode, exploding devices bad for everyone).
Without some authentication going on, the device could be using substandard power.
Some industry standardization and compatibiliy in these currently proprietary batteries would be nice, though. And there may end up being a market to crack this protection (see printer cartridges).
Dick move, Panasonic.
Of course, Apple does the exact same thing with the A/V cables for their iPods.
@suburbancowboy: Great ideas (and Make is a personal favorite mag). While I'd lovbe for schematics to be available, their presence in packaging may confuse some people.
So, what you're saying is people have gotten dumber over the past 30 years ago?
The manual for both of the two TVs my parents bought before I was born included a service schematic foldout.
I think this has more to do with quality control than markup. I'm sure there's a profit motive, but there's also a tidal wave of generic crappy batteries of dubious lineage that explode or catch fire. At least this way you know who to sue for that hole in your side, but you're probably less likely to have that happen since there's actual, you know, quality control going into the cost of that battery.
@H3ion: that's already happened. You have a wide selection of cameras that will take AAs (read: use Eneloops/Precharged or Hybrids!), and several good brands that don't seem to have added proprietary lock-in for non-standard cells.
However, as Lexmark showed, this is total BS. Hopefully our AG will be alerted to it, and do something, rather than let it go to court agaiin.
@supergaijin: That's the excuse these manufacturers use for locking out third party suppliers. Like HP claiming that third party ink will damage your printer - it's a plausible lie and nothing more.
The truth is that the sale of accessories and replacement parts is the profitable end of the business. Think of an inkjet printer; how much did it cost new, and how much does it cost for enough ink to run it for three years?
Now Matsushita wants to do it with batteries. It's hard for them to sell $20 batteries for $80 because of the competition. So they lock out the competition and guarantee themselves an ongoing revenue stream on replacement batteries. Consider that the average lithium pack lasts around a year in this kind of service and you'll see that they stand to make some very good money by forcing people to pay their inflated price.
@supergaijin: given that the worst scares over the problem were from a big name manufacturer (Sony), I doubt it. In addition, there are both safe chemistries to choose from, and protection mechanisms that can be added to otherwise "unsafe" cells.
@supergaijin: If Panasonic made it practical for their customers to buy extra Panasonic batteries, you might have a point. Since they aren't doing so, the end result is to screw their customers.
Shhhhh...don't anyone mention a word of this to Sony!!!!!!!
Of course, they've probably already gone on to bigger and better things like copyrighting all the pictures you take to Sony.
Just to think I was about to buy a Panasonic Camera. Oh, thats right, I still will.
Purpose of the propriatary batteries? One little hidden reason is to keep Grey Market and Scammed Cameras off the market as one of the common tricks of the sellers of Grey Market and Scamming products has been to substitute alternative (read cheaper) batteries into the original products all in the name of making an extra buck.
Grey Marketers and ebay Scammers are up in arms over the issue. Screw them.
I'm surprised there's no way to disable the system. If there was really a safety reason, I'd assume there should be an annoying message that says something like "warning! this battery is not a genuine Panasonic battery! Non-genuine batteries usually explode. If you want to disable this warning replace this battery with a genuine Panasonic battery or push these three buttons 1,300x in this undecipherable sequence. The warning will remind you in an hour that the battery will probably explode. With Love, Panasonic"
@MostlyHarmless: It certainly did me and I am in the market for a new camera.
If your product is planned to fail early or has simple parts that can not be replaced by me you just lost me as a customer.
I've always liked Panasonic electronics, especially Technics. Oh well, guess I'll stick to my Canon cameras that take AA batteries, and chose other brands for my audio equipment.
Way to shaft the customer, Panasonic. Off to www.pioneerelectronics.com I go.
@suburbancowboy: I looked at a La Pavoni espresso machine yesterday. It is user repairable, basic components and readily available parts. I had a nerdgasm. I kitchen appliance I can maintain and fix? Sign me up.
@satoru:
Ended the megapixel wars have. Fuji and Nikon are leading the way for the next major innovation - 3d imagery. Fuji will be first to market, but Nikon is trying to buy Metris...
@☠Grяrяrяrяrя sings the doom song now!: Too late, Sony does exactly the same thing with some of their batteries, including some for their video camcorders. They've been doing this for years and Panasonic is just playing catch-up.
Law of Karma would dictate that the plant manufacturing the batteries would cease production, and the resulting shortage would cause customers to swear-off panasonic cameras for good.