Why not charge for firmware updates ?

[Kwesi]

Let me clarify a point. I am not refering to paying for firmware updates that fix bugs in original releases.
I mean updates that respond to user feedback or add new features or streamine menus. So your old product gets refreshed, in terms of its useflness and handling.

The company wins (they get paid to improve your camera) and you win (you are not pressured to sell it and buy a new one so fast.

On the surface it sounds like a great idea. In practice the consumer shies away from being an early adopter. thinking " if I wait I get a better camera for the same price" The manufacturer loses the initial product launch enthusiasm. Fewer accessories like lenses get sold. Manufacturer loses sales. Savvy customers wait till item is basically at clearance point before buying.
Manufacture is hampered from competing with newer similarly priced models from competitors.
Firmware updates are free now because it serves the manufacturers. Not because they love their customers. That perception is icing on the cake.

 

[daveleo]

On the surface it sounds like a great idea. In practice the consumer shies away from being an early adopter. thinking " if I wait I get a better camera for the same price" . . . . .

I don't understand what you mean by this.
Why does the buyer get a better camera if he waits?

All of the new (fancy, non-free) software is at an additional charge, whenever you download it.
Only bug fixes, security stuff, etc, come free, forever. The fancy add-ons (an 8X10 grid for example) always costs $$$ to download.

I am simply wondering if people on RFF would pay for "bell & whistle" software addons.

 

[mugent]

In my case, only when there's absolutely no alternative. An awful lot of computer software "upgrades" (and a lot of awful computer software "upgrades") seem designed mainly to keep software developers in work. The same is even more true of website redesigns. Many people are perfectly happy with stuff that just works.

Cheers,

R.

I do tend to agree, Mac OS X for example is steadily getting worse (the latest release seems to have turned a corner, and back on the right track though.), but I need to upgrade as a software developer.

I think most software gets better though, there are just a few exceptions.

 

[Brian Legge]

The market-acceptable way of releasing updates that provide new functionality at the moment is by selling apps.

Once cameras are at a point where you can download apps to run, I expect to see an iTunes like store emerge where people can sell apps. The mass market is much more accustom to that concept than paying for updates at this point.

I do think those writing this off as a bad idea are missing the reason the motivation behind it. The goal - a camera design where instead of buying a new body every 5 years, people can update and improve the body after the initial financial investment - requires an incentive for the companies making the camera to produce something like this.

This is really not all that much different than the popular talk about wanting to upgrade a cameras sensor rather than buying a whole new camera.

 

[Brian Legge]

Another place where this could come in to play is licensing.

Lets say a third party develops a new package for significantly reducing noise that can be run in-camera. The only way that Canon/Nikon/etc can use it is if they license or buy the software from the original developer.

If that cost is substantial, right now the camera manufacturer would likely hold on to it and release it with a new body (building the cost in to the bodys price). If the market accepted software sales for cameras, they may be able to sell it to existing users. Cheaper for users over all and gets it in to their hands faster.

Now instead of a third party, think about they investing millions of dollars internally developing similar software over a few years. Right now there is huge financial incentive for them to withhold it until they are selling a new body rather than enabling people to use it with their current body.

 

[Kwesi]

I don't understand what you mean by this.
Why does the buyer get a better camera if he waits?

All of the new (fancy, non-free) software is at an additional charge, whenever you download it.
Only bug fixes, security stuff, etc, come free, forever. The fancy add-ons (an 8X10 grid for example) always costs $$$ to download.

I am simply wondering if people on RFF would pay for "bell & whistle" software addons.

I think the manufacturer is better served if they have a third party developer create the fancy stuff for a fee to the end user. My guess is that people on RFF, my self included would pay for additional functionality. By the way an 8x10 grid is definitely not a fancy add on

 

[jarski]

could see this kind of future, if traditional camera firmware is replaced widely by ecosystems such as Android. maybe its not even business for camera maker themselves, but apps companies specialized to smaller segment of features. traditional firmware probably was never designed to be modular enough to be extended largely later on, when main know-how of the company is already concentrating to never versions and products.

 

[Murchu]

Let's hope that add an 8X10 grid to the screen ( I'd pay $25 for that alone, but I doubt it's coming).

Have you tried asking Fuji? They seem receptive to user feedback, and am sure you're not the only one that would favour having 4x5 crop lines available in camera given its such a common print size.

With dslr's, you could usually find third party screens that offered specific framelines like this - perhaps one exists for the X100 also ?