Why not charge for firmware updates ?

[Boris Stupak]

Better to release the source code and let users take over.

Look at all the Canon hacks that are floating around the web. They improve the video, change resolution, do all sorts of things, and are free for the download. (doolittle already posted this while I was typing)

The first Canon Rebel DSLR inspired a whole host of firmware hackers, mostly Russian.

My Lumix DMC-GF1 can now do full HD video because of firmware hackers.

If camera makers came out with full rewrites of firmware for older cameras, bringing them up to higher standards, for example, letting them create DNG raw files, I would not mind paying a reasonable fee, but I doubt this would be economically feasible, and of course they want you to buy new cameras.

 

[daveleo]

Interesting comments.
Some say it wouldn't work on the supply side (companies like the camera business model as it is) and some say it won't work on the demand side (customers won't buy into it).

I guess the market really does love new and improved models as much as companies love making and selling them.
I was thinking that the market longed for extended product life.

 

[majid]

Apple used to charge for major iOS version updates on the iPod Touch (when they were free for iPhones and iPads), not sure if they still do. They cited some BS about accounting regulations and different revenue recognition rules for subsidized vs. unsubsidized products, conveniently ignoring that iPads are also unsubsidized.

 

[willie_901]

Being helpful and profitable are not mutually exclusive.

Free firmware improvements may cannibalize new product sales in the short term, but it builds brand loyalty in the long term. I applaud any company (not just camera companies) with a long-term strategy.

Developing firmware with no flaws that makes the most of the existing hardware is an admirable goal. But when products are delayed people complain. When products are released sooner with adequate, but immature, firmware people complain. People complain.

Some firmware upgrades are required to accommodate new lens technology or new accessories, like M/LTM adapters. Why not include other improvements at the same time?

Magic Lantern provide free (donations accepted) firmware for some Canon products. Most of their firmware is for video enhancements but there are still photography improvements as well.

I would likely avoid camera companies that charge for firmware upgrades.

 

[Tejasican]

I have a NEX5. It got a firmware update and then was abandoned. I look at Fuji X users and I see a camera with multiple updates supported several years from launch with new features added along the way. All other things being equal which camera am I most likely to buy next? Fuji. By catering to their customers and taking care of them in the form of upgrades they generate good will and brand loyalty that would cost them millions more by traditional advertising channels. This also allows Fuji to price their product a bit higher as a result. Support matters.

This is essentially one of the main reasons that I bought an iPhone and paid more for it- I know that chances are that I will have four years of software upgrades and be able to run the most current OS. With Android and Windows phones I might get the next revision, but I most likely will not. I can say the Apple costs more, but if I have to buy a phone for every OS upgrade it actually doesn't.

Canon appears to have unofficially outsourced the new feature thing to Magic Lantern and the like, which is interesting. Ideally, I would like to see companies support their product for three to four years on software and then release the code into the wild so that the community can work with it and expand from there. There are a lot of people who cannot afford the latest and greatest that can be introduced to your brand down the road that way.

 

[RichC]

I guess the market really does love new and improved models as much as companies love making and selling them.
I was thinking that the market longed for extended product life.

I wish! One of the reasons I hang out here is l like using cameras made in in era when (some) things were built to last!

Unfortunately, people like us are niche consumers. Look at the feeding frenzy online and on the streets when Apple releases a new phone, for example...

It's only going to get worse before it gets better: the Millennium Generation has grown up with this rampant consumerism, and the values of Generation X and earlier are fading away. And you need to add technological change into the mix. At worst, things will continue as they are, as we deplete the world's resources and pollute. At best, we will have environmentally friendly, recyclable devices with designed life-spans of a couple of years and less. Either way, consumer goods designed for longevity, repair and upgrading are the past; even if the wheel turns and these values will return, it will be many, many decades before they appear on the horizon.

To quote from an article I wrote:

"Tool-making defines our species, but the pace of technological change in the Information Age is unprecedented. This revolution is exemplified by the mobile phone – no other technology in the entire history of human communication has spread so widely or so fast: at the start of the 1990s, less than 0.5% of the world’s population owned a mobile phone, but today this figure has risen to a staggering 75% (5 billion handsets).

"However, consumer electronics quickly become obsolete: for example, the product life cycle of a mobile phone is typically less than 12 months. Two iconic products illustrate this short lifespan dramatically: there have been 11 generations of Canon’s flagship compact camera, the PowerShot G, since its release in 2000 – each model becoming obsolete after only about a year; and the first iPhone – released in mid-2007 – has been superseded by four generations of new models, with a fifth imminent."​

Since I wrote this early last year, Canon has already released two more models of its flagship camera: the G15 and G16! A $500 camera designed to be landfill after 12 months!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

Canon has API SDK.
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/sdk_homepage

Some are using it.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/

 

[brbo]

Apple used to charge for major iOS version updates on the iPod Touch (when they were free for iPhones and iPads), not sure if they still do. They cited some BS about accounting regulations and different revenue recognition rules for subsidized vs. unsubsidized products, conveniently ignoring that iPads are also unsubsidized.

?!

iPad wasn't even introduced yet when Apple last charged for iOS update on iPod Touch.

 

[brbo]

"majid" is correct the original iPad was shipped before iOS 4 was released, it came with iPhone software, which was replaced right away with iOS 4. iOS 4 only works on iPod touch 2nd generation or later, and 3.1 was $10 as I remember.

majid is not correct in his statement that Apple charged for iPod Touch update while at the same time provided one for free for iPad. There was NEVER such an iOS update.

 

[f16sunshine]

I sure would pay for scanner driver updates from Nikon!
Keeping an older MacBook around just to use NS4 sucks.
Yeah sure. Vuescan ! But VS has framing and other issues that cannot be overcome.
Slightly OT... Sorry for that.

 

[BlackXList]

Occasionally there are threads which just don't make any sense to me.

Me too.

Why the hell would I want to pay for them?

I'm not under any obligation to buy into any manufacturer's upgrade cycle at all.

When I buy a camera, I have a tool that I want to use for a long time, or until it no longer functions.

The cameras aren't exactly cheap, why on earth would I want to be stung again and again for a few lines of code at a time?

may as well charge me every time I take the lens cap off😕

 

[rluka]

Pay cheaper for few lines of codes I want, rather than pay a lot for few lines of codes forcefully locked into new camera I don't want.

 

[mugent]

We pay for software upgrades on our computers, I don't see why cameras should be any different.

As a software developer, my rule of thumb is bug fixes should be free, trivial features should be free, but a major upgrade should be paid for.

I don't think the manufacturers would artificially cripple cameras to sell upgrades, or they'd get reviewed pretty badly, and not sell the camera at all.

If you don't like the features they are selling, then don't buy the update.

Bug fixes are a different matter though, the camera should perform to it's specification, if it does not, then any fix should be free.

 

[daveleo]

. . . . .

As a software developer, my rule of thumb is bug fixes should be free, trivial features should be free, but a major upgrade should be paid for.

I don't think the manufacturers would artificially cripple cameras to sell upgrades, or they'd get reviewed pretty badly, and not sell the camera at all.

If you don't like the features they are selling, then don't buy the update.

Bug fixes are a different matter though, the camera should perform to it's specification, if it does not, then any fix should be free.

That's very much my position as well.

I am noting the great diversity of opinions here. From "I will never pay for software improvements" to "I pay in advance at the time of purchase (Apple stuff) to get free improvements when they come along".

Shows the many market niches (even here on stodgy old RFF !) that manufacturers have to struggle with.

I would dream that Fuji and Nikon (my cameras) would offer software packages that modified viewing grids and maybe even alternative menus. But as was stated way above somewhere, manufactures hate to deal with similar products with different levels of software (but I could work around that as well, but let me not get argumentative about it).

The anticipated Fuji update for the X100 software got me thinking about this. Let's hope that add an 8X10 grid to the screen ( I'd pay $25 for that alone, but I doubt it's coming).

 

[Murchu]

Occasionally there are threads which just don't make any sense to me.

Add me to that list too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We pay for software upgrades on our computers, . . .

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.

 

[pvdhaar]

Sony has started making a distinction between free firmware upgrades and paid apps. Seems a sensible choice to me; what's intended to keep the camera compatible with new lenses and accessories, or which fixes existing issues remains free. It's for the added fluff (some of which can prove quite useful) that you can choose to pay.

 

[willie_901]

Many software updates are driven by security improvements. This is not true for the majority of digital cameras (cell phones and tablets excluded). However this category of firmware updates could increase as wireless and internet access become more common.

 

[daveleo]

Many software updates are driven by security improvements. This is not true for the majority of digital cameras (cell phones and tablets excluded). However this category of firmware updates could increase as wireless and internet access become more common.

Yes. Things like that I lump in with bug fixes - should not be charged to the customer.
That topic though - connecting your camera to the internet - opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it? Sounds like another good thread topic - how safe are the pictures in your camera when its online.

The paranoia never ends ! (at least mine doesn't)

 

[willie_901]

Yes. Things like that I lump in with bug fixes - should not be charged to the customer.
That topic though - connecting your camera to the internet - opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it? Sounds like another good thread topic - how safe are the pictures in your camera when its online.

The paranoia never ends ! (at least mine doesn't)

Well it's not necessarily paranoia. It's really a convenience vs risk evaluation. We all judge the benefits of convenience versus the risk of privacy loss differently.

People's mobile phone photos are connected to the internet. However, Google (Android), Apple, and Microsoft all have significant experience in securing their devices. Camera companies have little or no experience with internet security. Even a company like SONY could be siloed to the point where the camera business might not be able to access communications security expertise SONY uses in mainstream computer products.

The fact is a minuscule fraction of our photographs are of interest to anyone outside of ourselves and a few others. Criminals who invade computer and mobile devices usually do so for financial gain. They don't care about photographs.