Why not charge for firmware updates ?

[daveleo]

Why would it not be good business practice to charge customers for firmware updates? At least to cover development and distribution costs + maybe a modest profit.

I understand that it theoretically might cut into new product sales, but I doubt it would cut deeply when the new products are real technical (hardware) improvements. Also the price charged for firmware updates would help with any "lost" new product sales.

Also, the reputation for product support (keep the firmware updating) would help new product sales (I think).

? ?


EDIT: Please also read #9 below for a clarification.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Because usually the firmware updates are for fixing bugs rather than adding features. Fuji is the only company that comes to mind that has done firmware that actually enhances their product and in that case maybe it makes sense.

But would I actually pay for Nikon or Canon firmware that would probably introduce more bugs and inconsistencies? Heck I'd probably be more apt to pay Canikon to leave my poor cameras alone and out of the reach of their incompentent software monkeys!

Someday maybe we'll get cameras that allow you to slip your smartphone into place where the LCD screen is while having myriad short range wireless control options... and have our choice of competitive apps to drive the thing. It would open us up to a lot of creative options and expand the market for the camera companies. But I doubt such a device would come out of Canikon, both of whom don't have the imagination or culture to innovate.

Remember these are the companies that copied Leicas, Exactas, and Kodak digital cameras. They certainly improved upon them, were great engineers, increased manufacturing efficiencies, etc. but they rarely innovated anything.

 

[stompyq]

An analogy that I can come up with is the US airline industry

I don't think many people like paying to check in bags, get extra leg room get food during flights etc. Likewise I don't think I should pay more to a camera manufacturer just because they sold me a half baked product

 

[btgc]

Again, we return to idea of almost free cameras, requiring subscription to use....pay-as-you-shoot. Not per click, for sure, but what about about $20+ per month? Like a phones.Or maybe per hundreds of shots (I'm not trying to convince for 36exp. batches here).

 

[JMQ]

Firmware is a support for a product (e.g. camera), which is different than a stand-alone software where an upgrade is usually sold rather than provided gratis.

I agree with Frank about bug fixes. In addition, many of the "enhancements" are a direct result of user feedback, which they should have thought about in the first place.

 

[thegman]

An analogy that I can come up with is the US airline industry

I don't think many people like paying to check in bags, get extra leg room get food during flights etc. Likewise I don't think I should pay more to a camera manufacturer just because they sold me a half baked product

I think the problem is that with software, we all know that it's possible to improve it after it's sold, unlike hardware. No product ever sold has been 'perfect', even the Leica M3, but as they are made of brass and screws, we know it cannot be improved much after sale, so we accept the imperfections.

Software is different, and can be improved, so now people expect it to be, often for free.

Fact is, my Rolleiflex is not perfect, and my Nikon D7000 wasn't either, but we act like Nikon has a responsibility to perfect the product via firmware, but Rollei/DHW Fototechnik don't have to, because it's hardware.

I think paid for firmware updates are a great idea, it keeps hardware going longer (cheaper and better for the environment), and provides incentive for manufacturers too.

 

[rluka]

The upgrade would logically be limited by the hardware. So, we have AF improvements, better image processing and likely gimmicks such as filters & shooting modes.
In the other hand, they have to make new models with hardware improvements their marketing dept. can put into sales pitch against the competitors'.
Make a choice, you can get most features by the cheaper upgrade. Or you could just buy the new model and get all the improvements including hardware. Dillema.

BTW, wouldn't it look ugly if the software actually cuts a lot into the new model sales ? Even if the nett profit is positive, the higher ups would still see sales number falling.
Not sure about scale though, because it seems like there's a lot of old stock in the current system too.

Software is different, and can be improved, so now people expect it to be, often for free.

It used to be not free. Windows and Mac OS & non-freeware applications.
Then came the mini-computers (smartphones, tablets)
I would love it if users can pay for new OS on those devices instead of buying new phones with marginally better hardware.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Was Lieca charging for upgrade from m8 to something, or was it hardware upgrade?
I have only two Canon DSLRs and they are bugs free with optional fw upgrades.
Charging for upgrade while under warranty is stupid. After warranty it is no reason.
I newer hear about dysfunctional or troublesome firmware upgrades on Canon.
I'm at P.O.T.N since 2009 and never seen complaints about fw upgrades on Canon DSLRs.
Canon and Nikon are on top because they are smart.
One of my Canon cameras was released in 2005. They still do one of the important HW fixes for free.

 

[daveleo]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

Dave, I think it would be hard to convince people that the new features were not implemented to fix deficiencies in the initial product.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why not?

Because half the time the firmware "updates" create as many new problems as the old ones they solve.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

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.

Basically, they do this today to keep you as a customer. When they start to charge money for firmware which is considered a freebie today, people will turn noses looking for a better cheese.

 

[rluka]

^ That
Smartphone generation. Even non-free software updates have to be free for a lifetime.
And...

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.

Repeating...

Would you buy hardware for minute difference in performance ? For sure megapixel aren't so alluring anymore, while dynamic range and high ISO performance have to be much better than their products now.

In the other hand, I believe they have to keep making new product because new product has shinier bling to fight the competitors. But when calculating the reduced volume because part of the users will just buy the firmware. Smaller volume, harder to compete with price except... maybe if it's a product that can be so much different than the others, such as the Fuji X so that higher price is no issue.
And they still have to improve sales number... that can't go down.

 

[sevo]

Dave, I think it would be hard to convince people that the new features were not implemented to fix deficiencies in the initial product.

Right! Besides, there always are issues that have to be addressed in firmware updates - testing these separately from a "upgrade" stream might cost more than giving away one solitary version for free. And then there are all the support issues related to the product branching out into multiple software upgraded variants. Even software only companies mostly shun that and try to keep customers on one of a few versions of the product - for a maker selling a product whose cost are mostly in the hardware (like cameras), it makes no sense at all.

 

[RichC]

We already get paid-for firmware updates with new features - they're called "cameras"!

The manufacturers aren't in business to be helpful but to make profit, and they'd sell fewer new cameras if they released features for current models instead of saving them for new models.

If you look at the firmware features added to new camera models, there's several that could have been updates to older models - some extremely useful, but this never happens, and never will.

Charging for firmware is not a viable alternative: for better or for worse, camera manufacturers are on the treadmill of early technological obsolescence, with which we as consumers are complicit. Technology companies - including camera manufacturers - cannot survive in this business environment without bringing out new models regularly and, importantly, being seen to do so. Releasing firmware updates would lead to fewer new models or, at best, new models perceived as being less innovative (since they'd have fewer new firmware features).

This is one side-effect of today's rampant corporate capitalism...

As we're a photography forum, here's a project I did on technology: http://www.richcutler.co.uk/photography/digital-archaeology/

 

[CliveC]

The biggest reason I can think of is that they'll artificially cripple the cameras at launch, then get you to pay for features that should've been there in the first place.

 

[Kent]

Minolta used to charge for the firmware updates. I remember my Dimage 7.
That caused an uproar, because it mainly minimized bugs!

That is not acceptable. If a company sells a buggy feature and forces the customers to pay for repair.

BTW, Sony has also implemented new features in their firmware, such as the focus peaking. And it was also free of charge.

Why not look at it as customer relation strategy, instead of a new way to make money?

 

[Frank Petronio]

Boy we really love our camera companies don't we? They must rank somewhere behind the tobacco industry and loansharks ;-p

 

[Sid836]

Support for their products is a way to maintain their competitiveness. If they start selling it they will fail big time. And would be the first to give away its place in the market to its competitors.

 

[doolittle]

I can see a role for third party companies selling alternative firmware for older cameras. It's already happening for free with Magic Lantern firmware for Canon cameras.
I don't know what the legal position would be charging for the service, but I can see it as an attractive proposition for those looking to give a new lease of life to an older camera.