Panasonic starts locking out third-party batteries with new firmware
By Donald Melanson 
posted June 25th 2009 11:47AM
posted June 25th 2009 11:47AM
[Via Slashdot]
posted June 25th 2009 11:47AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Discovered this issue a couple of months ago, when my sister purchased a Panasonic FS-15 camera.
Went to buy a compatible battery to find that the camera uses one of these new ID security batteries.
Cheap, they are not!
Is it just me? but who upgrades the firmware in there cameras?
Sometimes it adds features like RAW support, etc.
Won't buy a Panasonic then. Bye bye FZ-28.
One customer lost?
Will recommend against it to my friends. Ouch!
lx3 or dp2 are great ps. i rather bring those than a bulky slr on vacation.
If safety was a factor I believe they would just put something in the warrenty information for the camera's that states if you use non-oem replacement parts in the device that all warrenties are voided and all liability resulting from the device is removed. Which personnally i feel all manufactures should do in this day and age as standard practice. I have a neighbor that is always having me look at his computers and gadgets after he experiences problems, all of them he creates himself, and yelling how he is going to call/write to the manufacturer and threaten to sue if they don't replace his items. Usually its stuff like him buying a $3.00 car charger at BigLots that smokes the first time he plugs it in and causes his Verizon phone to act all screwy afterward. Then he seriously rants about Verizon giving him a crap phone and they better fix the damn thing. Sad thing is, I am sure he is closer to the norm than anyone wants to admit, and manufacturers should not have to pay for replacement costs, shipping, labor etc.. for people that cause the problems with these cheap parts and assessories.
this had better not be the beginning of a trend. what a complete bunch of garbage
But the worst part of the story.... PANASONIC BATTERIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE! They're not available from camera stores that stock the camera, nor from online retailers, not even from Panasonic themselves. What idiocy - lock the camera to ensure that consumers will be forced to buy a battery that you are unable to supply. While the newest Lumix cameras have been shipping for weeks, batteries for them have yet to ship from Japan.
I understand why they do this, Li-ion batteries can be dangerous if abused, and while some aftermarket batteries are just fine, those that are inferior have the very real risk of catching fire and the possibility of lawsuits, which is an aspect of society that I despise, but I don't see it changing any time soon.
That said, NiMH rechargeable AA batteries have gotten quite good, and cameras are so compact these days that in recent years I've been willing to accept a little more bulk to get a camera that uses standard AA cells. An added bonus is that you can use ordinary alkalines in a pinch which you can get anywhere. You're not gonna find a custom lithium ion pack at the corner store.
anti-trust?
Since you already own a Canon I'm guessing they haven't actually lost a sale. Unless they were planning on making better camera soon too.
Are there any IMPROVEMENTS in this firmware?
This would be ok for me if they sold their own batteries at a reasonalbe price, but charging 50€ for a simple spare battery AND locking out all competition menas bye bye Panasonic.
I bought an FX-40 just a few weeks ago, and I'm (a) happy that I bought it with the old firmware that doesn't impose this restriction, but (b) unhappy that I've given money to a company that behaves in this way. (I've never bought a printer that IDs it toner or ink, for example.)
For my FX-40, the original Panasonic battery sells for about £50 while the 3rd party version sells for about £30. I'm pretty confident that my spare has protection circuitry inside it but of course I can't be sure without X-raying it. Maybe they should make the case transparent so that we can actually see what's inside? Both prices seem excessive to me: it's only a fricking battery!
The ideal solution would be for rechargeable lithium cells to have a standard manufacturer-independent form factor, like primary lithium cells and all nickel and zinc cells do. Then we would have competition between multiple respectable manufacturers.
BTW note that the Panasonic charger doesn't check what sort of battery is connected (i.e. it doesn't have the 'D' pin), which rather waters down any safety argument doesn't it? I would have thought that any fire danger would be much more likely to occur during charging than during use.
I am one of the affected customers, i have a Lumix TZ7 and to be honest i dont really care. I would only ever replace a battery with an original as you have no leg to stand on if a 3rd party battery stuffs up your camera.
I hope Panasonic can come out with higher capacity batteries for these cameras, the batteries are awfully light and feel like they could house a higher density cell.
Basically translates into a big "FUCK YOU" from Panasonic
Did you guys know that Panasonic batteries cost more than any other DSLR batteries on the planet? Their silly TS1 genuine batteries cost as much as TWO genuine Nikon EN-EL3e. Way to go Panasonic.
I am forwarding this all my fellow purchasers, Panasonic just lost a ton of business with this dirty trick. If one division is allowed to do this kind of things the others will as well.
This has been illegal since "United Shoe Machinery VS. US" deliberately made incapable screws for the same reason.
UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. 163
An attempt to monopolize.
We're at their mercy!
Isn't this the same crap the auto makers tried to pull many years ago, when they would void warranties of cars if they didn't use OEM parts? IIRC, I think Congress said you guys are out of your damn mind, and pass legislation outlawing said behaviors.
Could you imagine them saying the same about SD cards? Uhhhh no. Why put up with this crap? Fack them!
To the few people that claimed 3rd party batteries were unsafe up above, until 40 minutes ago my mom had two batteries for her kodak camera that I bought her this passed Christmas. One was a kodak and the other was an off brand battery....the off brand battery charged perfectly fine yesterday...the kodak branded battery just started a small fire in my kitchen while it was in the charger.
Hmm. Panasonic make some very nice professional HD camcorders (not the "semipro" consumer stuff, but proper ones) which I've been recommending. I can't see the pro camcorder market standing for Panasonic-only batteries - everyone has their favoured third-party battery and the cam manufacturers have to lump it (that's not to say they don't pass on massive licensing costs via said third-party suppliers, mind, none of these batteries are exactly cheap.)
For the home market stuff, though, it's just dishonest pricing - if they feel they have to flog overpriced batteries to subsidise the camera, then the camera's price is artificially low. And manufacturer's own-brand batteries are invariably ridiculously overpriced. Take my Pentax K10D DSLR, for example - Pentax (or Samsung) branded battery is listed at around $60 US, the unbranded variety I've been using are higher capacity and cost me five UK pounds each. I would be very unhappy to have to pay over forty quid for something which, realistically, one needs several of and which wear out fairly quickly - essentially, it's adding perhaps fifty quid a year to the cost of ownership.
Shot in the foot for Panasonic, I think. This kind of nonsense (along with rootkit CDs and a general over-fondness for DRM-and-to-hell-with-the-paying-customer) is why I never buy or recommend (new) Sony gear these days, at any price point. It'd be a shame if Pana follow them down that path.
Panny sux big time...had my "panny" battery in my ZS3 shooting on a long trip in another country. When the battery died in the middle of the day, I swapped it out with one of several "clone" batteries that I purchased on eBay. Imagine my surprise (and anger) when the LCD display came up with "This battery cannot be used" and then my Lumix shut down.
Arghhh!
To be honest, I think this is a good thing, but really they should lower the price of their own batteries to suit.
I bought a cellphone battery to replace my 2 year old sony one, and it was lucky to last 3 days without even a call.
I bought a epson printer and it broke the first time i used a cheaper cartridge (the oem epson ink costs as much as the printer did).
Moral of the story is most of the time you get what you pay for, and you dont always save money buy buying cheap.
This is a PR disaster for Pany. I've been trying to buy a ZS3 with a spare battery since I'll be backpacking and the thing goes through batteries quickly - especially when using the video. Well I've searched everywhere and cannot find a single Pansonic branded battery, or a third party battery that will work in the camera. If Pany was going to gouge customers, they should have at least ramped up their stock before they made this firmware change. Does anyone know if the old firmware is available anywhere?
i have just upgraded my LX3's software to the 1.3 version.
my third-party batteries ("CTA for Panasonic", of which i have two and they helped on couple trips and i couldnt tell difference from the original battery) work fine (after LX3 does not use DMW-xxx). but i'll be cautious now with the new software releases :-/