Weather | TV Guide | Horoscopes | Competitions

Hotmail
Messenger
Mobile

Panasonic profits: copy protected camera batteries

Send to a friend

Neerav Bhatt11 December 2009, 10:32 AM

Do you think Sony's overpriced MemorySticks are a rort? Get ready for Panasonic's new copy protected batteries.

Panasonic has changed its policy around generic batteries, following the model of Gillette razor blades, inkjet printer cartridges, the car servicing industry and other similar pricing models -- "sell the device cheap and make big money from the accessories."

Until recently, Panasonic had a policy of recommending official LUMIX camera batteries while still allowing the use of considerably cheaper generic camera batteries, at the customer's own risk.

Now, it has built technology into the batteries that shuts the camera down if anything other than an official Panasonic battery is inserted, part of a new worldwide policy banning the use of generic batteries.

Panasonic's LUMIX camera range has been a disruptive innovator in the digital camera area, with cameras such as the traveller-friendly TZ series of compact ultrazooms proving popular. Panasonic is also a co-inventor of the new Micro 4/3rds standard for interchangeable lens cameras -- another innovation pushing the compact camera market along beyond its traditional turf.

Not surprisingly this has attracted a sizable number of customers, many of whom buy spare generic camera batteries to use on photographic expeditions due to the high cost of genuine Panasonic batteries -- over $80 for a compact camera that might have cost only a little over twice that to buy new.

For example, two official Panasonic BCG-10E batteries for a currently popular $600 Panasonic TZ7 camera cost $180 from an Australian website, but two generic equivalents only cost $47 from a trusted American website (both prices included delivery).

Panasonic's decision to block the ability to use these generic batteries clearly makes the total cost of ownership for LUMIX digital cameras much higher and may discourage many photographers from buying them.

A Panasonic Australia spokesperson defended the policy change vigorously, stating that the decision was made "first and foremost to protect the customer's safety and their investment in their LUMIX camera."

They continued, "We permit the use of only genuine quality-assured Panasonic batteries with our products, as there have been reported instances of third-party batteries damaging the camera's electronics, overheating or even exploding."

"Using a genuine Panasonic battery ensures the optimum performance and user satisfaction [...] maintaining safety, quality and reliability for the life of the product."

The spokesperson confirmed that Panasonic had no current authorised third party manufacturers of compatible batteries, and no plans to licence other companies to make them, either.

Some manufacturers of cheap generic batteries claim that they've reverse engineered Panasonic's battery ID feature and their batteries will still work with the latest Panasonic LUMIX firmware, but even if this is if true, there's no assurance that these batteries will continue to work after another firmware update.

Panasonic is far from being the first manufacturer to apply copy protection to its hardware. Printer maker Lexmark even had a "breakthrough" licence agreement on its toner cartridges at one stage -- once you opened the box, you agreed to lengthy legal fine print on your use of the cartridge. Many inkjet printer manufacturers have attempted to disable refilling of ink cartridges via chips that disable the cartridge once it is emptied the first time.

What do you think: do you suspect Panasonic is using "safety" as an excuse to profit from sales of pricey batteries, or do the various problems with Lithium Ion batteries exploding, leaking and catching fire over recent years justify the change?

Comments

RSS feed

Email alert

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Panasonic have every right to disable the use of generic accessories with equipment they manufacture. Just as I have every right to remove Panasonic products from preferred purchase vendor list due to issues of compatability.

Simple really, and to be quite honest the only thing revolutionary about Lumix was the over priced hype. TCO? You lose Panasonic!

11 December 2009, 10:51 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

petert (Senior member):

Quoting Raindog:
Panasonic have every right to disable the use of generic accessories with equipment they manufacture. Just as I have every right to remove Panasonic products from preferred purchase vendor list due to issues of compatability. And that applies to any manufacturer, not just Panasonic.

On that issue I absolutely agree with you. Panasonic may well have rights, but so too does each purchaser/consumer. If you don't like what Panasonic has done, then don't purchase their electronics. That is the only way to send a clear message to Panasonic.

11 December 2009, 11:23 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

K (Cornerstone member):

Quoting petert:
Panasonic may well have rights, but so too does each purchaser/consumer. If you don't like what Panasonic has done, then don't purchase their electronics.

Yep, it's a company business and design choice. You can still get digital cameras (both compact and SLR) that run on generic AA NiMH rechargeables or lithiums. Up to the customer to decide if this is a factor in their purchase decision.

11 December 2009, 3:30 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting K:
Up to the customer to decide

Could well be taken out of consumer hands, if we all want to protect endagered species like baby fur seals and ozone clouds, we may well see legislation prohibiting sales of products with deliberate obsolesence necessitating premature disposal. Only a mater of time before such action get the attention of those who brought us ROHS. There is already considerable pressure being applied for commonality of phone chargers, no doubt bateries will soon recieve similar attention.

11 December 2009, 3:42 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Phred (Cornerstone member):

It's a little rich of Pana$onic, at least they could reduce the cost of a 2nd battery, or include a 2nd one in the box.

In the long run, if they keep this up, they'll find out how it will likely affect their sales.

11 December 2009, 10:58 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Phred:
It's a little rich of Pana$onic,

The more insidious motivation is that such moves give Panasonic total control of the life cycle of their products. (plus or minus a year or so)

Some minor changes to the batteries of new models or even a simple firmware code change, can render existing Panasonic cameras obsolete at the whim of the vendor. Good business for the vendor in forcing the consumer to purchase a new device. Well good business until the consumer wises up. Anyone with a clue will avoid products without generic compatability like the plague.

11 December 2009, 11:05 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

K (Cornerstone member):

I can understand why electronics businesses have an interest in protecting their income streams, but the brand name markups on batteries are huge. Yes, you could justify this by saying "extra quality and safety testing" or whatnot, but last time I bought a generic battery for a Canon DSLR it cost me $10 vs the $199 for the original!

11 December 2009, 11:03 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

CBR1100XX (Cornerstone member):

Panasonic has every right to protect their product, as do all companies.
What I dislike is that they are using a phoney baloney reason like 'safety' to distract the public from it's real reason ........ money!

Although if I was the company making the battery packs for Panasonic, I'd be pretty chuffed.

So it's all perspective really.

11 December 2009, 1:20 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Your Average Joe (Regular user):

Quoting CBR1100XX:
phoney baloney reason like 'safety'

Yeah, the business strategy is sound but the reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.

What the spiel should have been is something of this ilk:

"Panasonic has spent decades on marketing and R&D to develop a trusted name in A/V Entertainment and do not wish to have aftermarket suppliers tarnishing that reputation with poorly/cheaply made replacements"

Sounds a bit more credible then 'safety'

11 December 2009, 2:03 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Your Average Joe:
Yeah, the business strategy is sound but the reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.

Any Business strategy liable to alienate customers or that negatively differentiates a product against its competitors isn't particularly sound.

A little like banks and bananas, or taxes purporting to be environmental policies, the public soon see through and then someone else is left to clean up the mess.

Quoting Your Average Joe:
"Panasonic has spent decades on marketing and R&D to develop a trusted name in A/V Entertainment and do not wish to have aftermarket suppliers tarnishing that reputation with poorly/cheaply made replacements"

Why would a consumer give a flying fig about Panasonics reputation post sale? More to the point why would they want to pay a premium for it. Like most of these consumer products the only subtle difference is the label, they likely all emerge from the same Asian factories.

11 December 2009, 2:19 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Your Average Joe (Regular user):

Quoting Raindog:
why would they want to pay a premium for it.

Because in the real world, people will pay more knowing it will be a premium product based on the companies past efforts and reputation.

Quoting Raindog:
Why would a consumer give a flying fig about Panasonics reputation post sale?

Purchase decisions are based on pre-sale reputation, not post-sale.

11 December 2009, 2:32 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Your Average Joe:
Because in the real world, people will pay more knowing it will be a premium product based on the companies past efforts and reputation.

The real world of sticker based engineering, those of use with a little more experience don't think a sticker equates to quality.

Red sway bars are the same thing painted red, the real of paying 4 times the prices isn't real for very long.

That real Mobil-1 sign outside the dealer workshop has no correlation to the black goop they really put into customers cars for handbook services. (funny thing is the black goop is probably better for your car anyway.)

The Real graphics car box with the real picture of the ficticious lizard may inspire a few to pay well over the odds for something that can really be purchased much cheaper.

Quoting Your Average Joe:
Purchase decisions are based on pre-sale reputation, not post-sale.

Replacement spares are generally purchased post sale. Panasonic cunning plan is likely to result in a lot of purchasers vowing to never touch their stuff again.

11 December 2009, 2:48 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Your Average Joe (Regular user):

Quoting Raindog:
those of use with a little more experience don't think a sticker equates to quality.

People get, and deserve what they pay for.
History is replete with examples of unhappy consumers saving a few dollars at the point of sale, against better judgement and advice.

11 December 2009, 3:00 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Your Average Joe:
History is replete with examples of unhappy consumers saving a few dollars at the point of sale

No doubt, just as history if littered with infinite example of those duped paying well over the odds for sticker engineering.

Like I said before those with a bit of experience can tell pearls from swine. :)

11 December 2009, 3:04 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Aubrey (Advanced member):

Wasn't it the same sort of consumables and accessories lock-in that nearly sent IBM to the wall a few decades ago?

I'd really like to see TCO emphasised far more in consumer tech product reviews - including for smartphones and software.

11 December 2009, 3:25 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

LOL. Stop all your bellyaching and whining!
Try living in an Apple world

Jobs and the Woz have been doing this for decades.

11 December 2009, 3:30 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
Try living in an Apple world

Jobs and the Woz have been doing this for decades.

Goes a long way towards explaining why Apple remain a minority player doesn't it?

11 December 2009, 3:43 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

Quoting Raindog:
Apple remain a minority player

As 'minority' is a subjective term, you may want to enlighten us.
Last I looked Apple is a multi billion dollar company with over 100 million iPhones sold.

11 December 2009, 6:15 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
with over 100 million iPhones sold.

that wouldn't even rate a percentage point.

11 December 2009, 9:51 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

dumaftw (New user):

Microsoft should be able to do this and block out third party everything see how that would go. Especially browsers in the EU that should piss some people off :)

11 December 2009, 9:27 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

dumaftw (New user):

Microsoft should be able to do this and block out third party everything see how that would go. Especially browsers in the EU that should piss some people off :)

11 December 2009, 9:31 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Halcon (Advanced member):

I never liked the Panasonic brand.
I have had a very bad experience with some of its products.
A top of the line Microwave oven didn't long last past the one year of life.
A Video Camera failed miserably.
A Television set lasting one year too.
The VTR unit died after one year.
All of these were purchased in one of the Harvey Norman stores near my area.
These cost me dearly, so after the failures I vowed to never buy a Panasonic product as these became useless; in other word, disposable items.
Any company that tries to over-react in protecting their interests will lose customers.
I own a Laser Printer, the toner cartridges cost $100 each (there are four in total) I bought a compatible set for about $80, just imagine if the company knows how cheap are these toner cartridges, they will try to put draconian measures to stop it from using this cost saving products.
In short, protectionism is bad for the consumer, freedom of choice should be granted for.
This is the result of the paranoia of the industry, Electronics, Music and Movie, as a result of this, few people buy these products.
This is an example of the sheer ignorance of greedy companies, looking for an excuse to justify such idiotic measures, this should be investigated by the ACCC and the Fair Trading as is uncompetitive and a total disrespect to the consumer.

11 December 2009, 11:31 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

David Neiger (APC staff):

I wonder what the ACCC would have to say about this?

14 December 2009, 8:54 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

K (Cornerstone member):

I suspect not much. Come to think of it, you can't get generic power adapters for Apple's MagSafe connection. Was a pain in the bum when I had to get a spare power pack for my MBP notebook. MagSafe has been around for years now and the opposition to that hasn't exactly been deafening (although present).

14 December 2009, 4:02 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Ryan Hothersall (New user):

What do you think: do you suspect Panasonic is using "safety" as an excuse to profit from sales of pricey batteries, or do the various problems with Lithium Ion batteries exploding, leaking and catching fire over recent years justify the change?

Yes I think it is mainly profit driven. Stories of batteries exploding are few and far between.

I have a panasonic tz 15, and I won't be doing any firmware upgrades that stop me from using a perfectly safe cheaper battery.

14 December 2009, 6:47 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Ausman (Regular user):

One day they will invent batteries that don't explode ;-)

15 December 2009, 2:33 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting Ausman:
One day they will invent batteries that don't explode ;-)
Probably not in our lifetime "Ausman" Can you imagine a world with a battery that you never had to replace :)

16 December 2009, 8:04 AM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

sneaky (New user):

Generic batteries lack quality control and damage cameras, this is a fact. Why should Panasonic repair a camera due to an battery of unknown origin or quality? By the way APC the rrp for the TZ7 battery is in fact $99 not $180 and with minimal effort looking can be bought under this price. Sensationalized reporting in my opinion.

18 December 2009, 4:28 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

sneaky (New user):

Should mention that nearly every warranty since day dot clearly states the use of non genuine parts are accessories will void warranty, surely consumer are aware this before purchasing. Maybe we should start bagging Canon for doing the same thing?

18 December 2009, 4:33 PM (3 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

muzzamo (New user):

It is actually possible to downgrade from the 1.2 firmware to the 1.1 firmware on many of these cameras, so not all is lost. Just google it :)

18 February 2010, 11:28 PM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting muzzamo:
It is actually possible to downgrade from the 1.2 firmware

That's a post purchase decision, for everyone else the best strategy is to remove Panasonic from their purchase options.

A tried yesterday to obtain a user manual for a 3yr 42" Panasonic Plasma TV, to find their support doesn't even acknowledge this locally distributed model. It just reinforces that Panasonic holds contempt for the consumer.

Poor show Panasonic on both counts, you wont be seeing my money, and my recommendations will be to avoid your products in any category.

19 February 2010, 9:27 AM (1 month ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Anonymousewiuu2945u389 (Frequent poster):

This is just crazy. At worst, Panasonic will now sell cameras with 'limited life' batteries, that only have around one tenth of the charging cycles (that probably expire a few days after the warranty ends), and then stop producing batteries for that camera claiming it's unsupported. At best, however, people will boycott Panasonic as they do myki (another classic case of over-the-top built in obsolescence. Honestly, a public transport card that you have to pay for and which stops working every four years? It's 'only' $10 per card, but $10 multiplied by all the current public transport users in Melbourne...)

20 February 2010, 10:26 AM (4 weeks ago)report abuse Send to a friend