

Panasonic Now Forces You To Use Their Batteries - TallGuyShort
http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/info/dsc_battery.html

======
beefman
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).

~~~
froo
_"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)

------
sounddust
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.

~~~
gamache
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'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.

~~~
micks56
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 battery is used does not shield a
manufacturer from liability. In fact, it will be excellent evidence for the
Plaintiff that the manufacturer knew of the design defect, and failed to
correct it. Furthermore, the manufacturer failed to adequately warn the
consumer. Two counts lost by Panasonic.

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

~~~
micks56
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.

------
kqr2
Panasonic should have a certification process to allow 3rd party batteries
that meet their safety standards.

~~~
beefman
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.

~~~
kqr2
Panasonic wouldn't have to pay for it. The 3rd party manufacturer would go to
a testing lab (recognized by Panasonic) and pay for certification.

Once they receive certification, they could be added to the approved vendor
list.

------
azbob
Lithium polymer batteries are no joke. They can explode and mess you up if you
happen to be too close to them when they do. Panasonic is only trying to
protect the consumers of their products.

------
dangoldin
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.

------
wmeredith
This seems like user-hostile behavior to me. It would stop me from buying one
of their cameras.

------
yhuiopkjui
It also solves the problem of people keeping their digital camera for more
than a year now that they have realized that they don't need twice as many
megapixels.

Oh sorry - we don't make the battery for the 2008 model anymore, but the 2009
model with chrome fins (although the same imager) is on sale!

------
BearOfNH
Based on the comments I think Panasonic is within their rights here, but still
I would probably not buy from them. I'll stick with cameras using rechargeable
AAs.

Possibly somebody will figure out how to make a knock-off battery that the
camera recognizes as genuine Panasonic, putting us back at square 1 again.

