Panasonic: no third party batteries

[Tessa]

From dpreview: "Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify genuine Panasonic batteries and prevents the use of any third party battery packs. The company says it has taken this move to ensure safety of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging, internal heating or short circuit in third-party batteries."

Wow... I really hope Canon doesn't do anything like that.

[Yohan Pamudji]

Low blow, Panasonic. Why does the cynical side of me think it's just a matter of time until other companies follow suit?

[AngryCorgi]

Call me crazy, but they may just be minimizing the opportunities for lawsuits featuring sketchy batteries mated to their cameras. Just a thought. Their batteries are a bit on the pricey side though.

[Yohan Pamudji]

I'm assuming Panasonic have done their fair share of CYA in their product manuals trying to steer people away from non-genuine Panasonic accessories, and by doing so they've put the responsibility in the hands of the user. Common sense would say that because of that any lawsuit from a user injured while using a 3rd party battery would lose. Then again lots of laws aren't common sense so who knows.

[AngryCorgi]

Remember the lady that sued McDonald's because her coffee was hot (causing minor burns when it spilled on her while she was driving)? Common sense would state that coffee, freshly brewed, is HOT! She won a lot of money.

[RDKirk]

Panasonic makes batteries. Batteries are a profit center for them.

Canon does not make batteries, but they do need batteries built to close specifications that will work properly in their cameras, and because of that it's essential to offer batteries guaranteed to do so. Batteries are probably not a profit center for Canon.

[mattograph]

In a sense, they aren't. But in a sense, they are. Apple makes iPods, not iPod docks. But they charge $39 for about $1 in technology and $2 in parts.

That's a lot of margin.

If Canon decides to do this, and shooters can only get the Canon batteries, thats lots of extra cash for little effort.

Of course, who said the panasonic shooters HAD to run the firmware update?

[whitesell]

Originally Posted by mattograph

Of course, who said the panasonic shooters HAD to run the firmware update?

But how many people read the fine print and realize this little gem is in the new firmware, and just do the update because it must be better??

[mattograph]

I wonder the opposite. How many people actually pay attention to the firmware updates? I never ran one until the 1D3 episode. I run them now, but I read about what they do first.

Rebel, 30D, 40D -- never ran em. I figured if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[RDKirk]

In a sense, they aren't. But in a sense, they are. Apple makes iPods, not iPod docks. But they charge $39 for about $1 in technology and $2 in parts.

And I sell portraits in mandatory frames, and I do have a markup on my frames (btw, "markup" and "profit" are not the same thing--you can have a markup without making a profit). Moreover, my defect guarantee is only applicable if I frame the portrait and it stays in my frame.

[Yohan Pamudji]

I haven't ready any reports of 3rd party batteries exploding or catching fire, but I've read plenty of reports of OEM batteries doing so. Various laptop batteries, iPod, etc., all OEM. Not trying to draw any conclusions though; I'm just saying.

[mattograph]

If you read your canon warranty carefully, you'll find that you void it just be THINKING about 3rd party batteries!

Damn! I just did it!!!

[NinetyEight]

Originally Posted by Tessa

................The company says it has taken this move to ensure safety of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging, internal heating or short circuit in third-party batteries."

Very good of them to think of our safety..... Does this mean Canon (& Nikon etc.) are being negligent

[CanonJosh]

Thats just, business.