Socialist Party's policies

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

My previous post was somewhat simplistic. Planned obsolescence takes many forms beyond deliberately engineering something to fail. There are various ways to engineer planned obsolescence. Through the deliberate engineering of a reduced lifecycle so that the product fails, the stylistic obsolescence of a product and the engineering of generational incompatibility.

An example which I came across most recently of planned obsolescence would be the slight changing of the plastic mould on the newer Canon HF G30 camcorder so that the (otherwise identical) batteries from previous HF G20 and HF G10 camcorders no longer work. In addition, the batteries are chipped. Thus the consumer is forced to buy highly expensive battery packs from Canon and third party batteries may not be available.


y?

Just on your mobile phone , it is a great example of how a particular market works , the ideal is to develop a brand loyalty like Apple where devotees behave with almost religious fervour , when it is just another rapacious corporation as Bill Maher said. But the fact of the matter is consumers just junk perfectly useable phones just to have one .

But even outside of Apple did you wait until your last phone died before changing or did you just 'upgrade'

I agree with you on the Canon issue and I am not saying it doesn't go on , in the same way ( though not quite related) is the whole business on region codes with dvd/blurays etc .

And these are the kind of monopolistic tendencies we should be fighting instead of tilting at windmills .

Never mind what the marketing and planning guys tell you , the biggest factors as far as I can see in driving obsolescence and change are innovation and price .

If you are an Apple or Cannon and you have the brand name you can get away with it, but only for a time no matter how big you seem now . Just look at IBM and Microsoft.

The other thing is price - the fact of the matter is there is now a huge price war on what might be termed low tech manufacturing , the white goods of old , furniture ,that kind of stuff and for the vast majority of people the deciding factor is price . And the quality companies have been pulled into that environment and the only way to compete to cut costs - material and labour. And quality inevitably suffers

I am sure you can get a fridge freezer somewhere for a 1000 euro that will last 10 years ,but who will pay that when you can get one for 250 and squeeze 3 years out of it.

You are an advocate of a planned economy so you are seeing the current set up in a similar light , almost as if all the Davos crown are pulling the strings . inmo the reality it is just total chaos of competing interests no matter what the gurus of this world tell you .

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

But even outside of Apple did you wait until your last phone died before changing or did you just 'upgrade'

I lost my last phone. My current one was the cheapest available with a radio. No bells and whistles.

Never mind what the marketing and planning guys tell you , the biggest factors as far as I can see in driving obsolescence and change are innovation and price .

Government intervention is a major factor too.

The German car fleet was the oldest in western Europe until a few years ago. The German government introduced a scrappage scheme to explicitly encourage new car purchases to stimulate car production (and thus maintain/increase employment and economic growth).

I would speculate that part of the behind-the-scenes rationale for the ever increasingly punitive NCT was to stimulate motor sales and to renew the Irish car fleet more frequently (and the scrappage scheme was here too) to stimulate employment and "growth".

This despite the environmental damage caused through the manufacture of cars - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

You are an advocate of a planned economy so you are seeing the current set up in a similar light , almost as if all the Davos crown are pulling the strings . inmo the reality it is just total chaos of competing interests no matter what the gurus of this world tell you .

In a planned economy the irrationality of my above example would not take place. Maybe human resources could be directed in a more socially beneficial direction than the manufacture of cars for the sake of serving an economic logic which requires an unnecessary consumption stimulus to feed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Just to quote the prophet:

"Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie." - Capital, Volume 1

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/mar/26/germany-car-scrappage-scheme

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/AD96AF19A1BC9A2ACA257575001A2864

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In reality companies employ both methods simultaneously.

Canon are behind on the oul technological front and are losing market share to the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Gopro.

You can be sure that when they release something new to keep up it will be incompatibles with previous accessories. The likes of batteries.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

In reality companies employ both methods simultaneously.

Canon are behind on the oul technological front and are losing market share to the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Gopro.

You can be sure that when they release something new to keep up it will be incompatibles with previous accessories. The likes of batteries.

Or it might not as this is exactly the innovation that allows it to keep its current market share and recapture those lost customers .

But whatever it does it will be in response to the competition now . And if they don't get the message they can go the way of all those household German companies they replaced .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Canon have been planning in-built generational and intragenerational incompatibility for years. This is not conspiracy it is fact.

They produce quality products and have a loyal consumer base.

However they are lagging behind in some key technological areas like 4k resolution and mirror-less cameras and so their once loyal following are moving elsewhere.

Canons fault. But the planned obsolescence does not seem to have bothered people as much as the lagging technology.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Canon have been planning in-built generational and intragenerational incompatibility for years. This is not conspiracy it is fact.

They produce quality products and have a loyal consumer base.

However they are lagging behind in some key technological areas like 4k resolution and mirror-less cameras and so their once loyal following are moving elsewhere.

Canons fault. But the planned obsolescence does not seem to have bothered people as much as the lagging technology.

That is the exact point I am making coolemon - in my very first post on this issue - I alluded to it ,how can you really plan something when you have no control over the competition ? They can abuse their position for a period of time ( as did Microsoft,IBM,Intel) but sooner or later innovation and price will get you.

It is a mad world out there

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alias no.9

No company designs products to fail, they design to meet a specific service life which doesn't mean that they all suddenly fail the next day.
For example Ford reputedly design their cars to meet a 7 year service life and most Ford's will easily. There are still lots of 8, 9, 10 year old and older, much older, Ford's in everyday use.
A company's reputation suffers if their product does not meet a reasonable service life, there's no point in them having a new product to supercede the old because they won't get repeat business, the easiest kind of business you can get, and they won't get word of mouth recommendations, the next easiest kind of business you can get.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said in another post that I don't think a hypothetical socialist economy would necessarily be an anti-competitive one. Competition comes in various forms and it does not need to take place in a monetary capitalist framework.

An awful lot of important technologies came about through the state. And while it could be argued that a state is in competition with other states, I don't think competition is a necessary pre-condition for innovation. Innovation, at its most fundamental, is the building on an existing knowledge base. University researchers do just that all the time and in all fields - with commercial applications in mind or not. And they do so not always for material reward either.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I said in another post that I don't think a hypothetical socialist economy would necessarily be an anti-competitive one. Competition comes in various forms and it does not need to take place in a monetary capitalist framework.

An awful lot of important technologies came about through the state. And while it could be argued that a state is in competition with other states, I don't think competition is a necessary pre-condition for innovation. Innovation, at its most fundamental, is the building on an existing knowledge base. University researchers do just that all the time and in all fields - with commercial applications in mind or not. And they do so not always for material reward either.

But we had had little or no innovation from those planned economies for 50 years , why do you think that is ? And why would we now ?

And agreed a huge amount of research and innovation is by or at the behest of the state , but even at that level one side was vastly superior to the other.

There is no escaping the fact that for 50 years we had a cold war and on every level one side won . We didn't build a wall to keep people in.

I really don't understand how you can ignore 50 years of 'socialism' and the destruction it caused .

And saying the west was equally as bad in other areas is not an answer . I fully accept that and those are the issues we should be focused on.

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

No company designs products to fail, they design to meet a specific service life which doesn't mean that they all suddenly fail the next day.

A service life determined by the company.

Planned obsolescence of this form is difficult to prove by virtue of the fact that the "planning" takes place behind closed doors. And for some strange reason there seems to be very little research in the area.

But I studied mechanical engineering for two years and planned obsolescence and product life cycles were part of the course.

You can be sure that planned obsolescence is being used.

The modulisation of car components can be seen to be a form do planned obsolescence. Instead of replacing a small cheap component an entire unit or module needs to be replaced. The units various working components are then obsolete by virtue of the failure of a small and otherwise replaceable component of the unit.

A company's reputation suffers if their product does not meet a reasonable service life, there's no point in them having a new product to supercede the old because they won't get repeat business, the easiest kind of business you can get, and they won't get word of mouth recommendations, the next easiest kind of business you can get.

Reality is more complicated. Background deals and lobbying of governments to bring in scrappage schemes and stricter NCT's is a form of planned obsolescence as well.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

But we had had little or no innovation from those planned economies for 50 years , why do you think that is ? And why would we now ?

And agreed a huge amount of research and innovation is by or at the behest of the state , but even at that level one side was vastly superior to the other.

There is no escaping the fact that for 50 years we had a cold war and on every level one side won . We didn't build a wall to keep people in.

I really don't understand how you can ignore 50 years of 'socialism' and the destruction it caused .

And saying the west was equally as bad in other areas is not an answer . I fully accept that and those are the issues we should be focused on.

I said in previous posts that you cant compare the Eastern Bloc to the west in the way you would like.

By any standards the USSR produced remarkable technological achievements.

Soviet style central planning had huge problems in terms of producing consumables. The problems of economic calculation, lack of information and feedback applied. In this respect the market capitalism of the west was superior.

But moving forward, that is not to say that rational planning, or even central planning, cannot be improved on.

An inspiring attempt was the cybersyn of the Allende regime.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

That is the exact point I am making coolemon - in my very first post on this issue - I alluded to it ,how can you really plan something when you have no control over the competition ? They can abuse their position for a period of time ( as did Microsoft,IBM,Intel) but sooner or later innovation and price will get you.

It is a mad world out there

You can plan for example that your next product has batteries that are incompatible with your previous products.

You cant guarantee that the new product will be bought though. But that's what marketing is for.

oscarBravo

coolemon wrote: »

You can plan for example that your next product has batteries that are incompatible with your previous products.

I recently bought a Canon EOS 1200D. Its battery isn't compatible with my old 1000D.

I can buy an aftermarket battery for it for about a tenner, however - not that I feel the need to, because the battery life of Canon DSLRs is outstanding. More interestingly, it works perfectly with all my old Canon (and Canon-compatible) lenses (which would cost several hundred euros to replace).

If I wanted 4k imaging, I could have bought an EOS-1DC. (Wait, didn't you say Canon didn't do 4k? Hmm.) If I wanted a camera without a mirror, I wouldn't have bought an SLR.

Interestingly, if I did buy an EOS-1DC, I could still use all my existing lenses with it.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

I said in previous posts that you cant compare the Eastern Bloc to the west in the way you would like.

By any standards the USSR produced remarkable technological achievements.

Soviet style central planning had huge problems in terms of producing consumables. The problems of economic calculation, lack of information and feedback applied. In this respect the market capitalism of the west was superior.

But moving forward, that is not to say that rational planning, or even central planning, cannot be improved.

I don't mind coolemon , compare it the way you would like if you wish . I still don't see it.

Of course there were fantastic technological achievements ,but the totality was a dismal failure .

As I say I not absolving the west , the list of crimes/cock ups/cover ups is enough to fill Encyclopaedia Britannica 10 times over right from Suez./Vietnam/Civil Rights/ Allende and our own home grown fcuk ups like Northern Ireland , child abuse ,property bubbles etc, but through it all the system managed to function and provided a rising standard of living decade after decade that is unprecedented in history .

How can you deny the reality ? If you were advocating more or tighter regulation or more democracy or curbing the multinationals I am sure we would have a huge amount of common ground , but to think the East bloc has anything significant to recommend to us is beyond my understanding.

coolemon

oscarBravo wrote: »

I recently bought a Canon EOS 1200D. Its battery isn't compatible with my old 1000D.

I can buy an aftermarket battery for it for about a tenner, however - not that I feel the need to, because the battery life of Canon DSLRs is outstanding. More interestingly, it works perfectly with all my old Canon (and Canon-compatible) lenses (which would cost several hundred euros to replace).

If I wanted 4k imaging, I could have bought an EOS-1DC. (Wait, didn't you say Canon didn't do 4k? Hmm.) If I wanted a camera without a mirror, I wouldn't have bought an SLR.

Interestingly, if I did buy an EOS-1DC, I could still use all my existing lenses with it.

Canon do 4k but not at the lower end of the market and at the much lower price point. Unlike its competitors. Nikon are falling behind as well apparently.

Many batteries are chipped to prevent battery compatibility. I already stated that the Canon HF G30 has been deliberately designed not to take G20 and G10 batteries.

Godge

coolemon wrote: »

Canon have been planning in-built generational and intragenerational incompatibility for years. This is not conspiracy it is fact.

They produce quality products and have a loyal consumer base.

However they are lagging behind in some key technological areas like 4k resolution and mirror-less cameras and so their once loyal following are moving elsewhere.

Canons fault. But the planned obsolescence does not seem to have bothered people as much as the lagging technology.

As have the other camera companies.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6486649711/weak-yen-masks-hard-times-as-mirrorless-and-dslr-sales-decline

It seems that capitalism is working as customers are moving to other companies with more innovative products and away from the traditional camera manufacturers.

You picked a good example to demonstrate how planned obsolescence is curtailed in a capitalist economy. Without that market mechanism, it is difficult to see how the practice could be restricted in a socialist society, unless we are all still using slide projectors and dark rooms.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

I don't mind coolemon , compare it the way you would like if you wish . I still don't see it.

Of course there were fantastic technological achievements ,but the totality was a dismal failure .

As I say I not absolving the west , the list of crimes/cock ups/cover ups is enough to fill Encyclopaedia Britannica 10 times over right from Suez./Vietnam/Civil Rights/ Allende and our own home grown fcuk ups like Northern Ireland , child abuse ,property bubbles etc, but through it all the system managed to function and provided a rising standard of living decade after decade that is unprecedented in history .

How can you deny the reality ? If you were advocating more or tighter regulation or more democracy or curbing the multinationals I am sure we would have a huge amount of common ground , but to think the East bloc has anything significant to recommend to us is beyond my understanding.

Maybe I am wrong, but the rate of improvement in standards of living were closing between the West and the Soviet Union to the point that if they maintained their trajectories the Soviet Union would have overtaken that of the west - according to Noam Chompsky anyway.

This article here appears to say that comparatively the USSR had improved indicators that the West during similar industrialisation phases: http://ftp.iza.org/dp1958.pdf

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Maybe I am wrong, but the rate of improvement in standards of living were closing between the West and the Soviet Union to the point that if they maintained their trajectories the Soviet Union would have overtaken that of the west - according to Noam Chompsky anyway.

This article here appears to say that comparatively the USSR had improved indicators that the West during similar industrialisation phases: http://ftp.iza.org/dp1958.pdf

But they imploded before that, the west didn't . And I have the greatest respect for Chomsky but in certain areas he is clueless .

coolemon

Godge wrote: »

As have the other camera companies.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6486649711/weak-yen-masks-hard-times-as-mirrorless-and-dslr-sales-decline

It seems that capitalism is working as customers are moving to other companies with more innovative products and away from the traditional camera manufacturers.

You picked a good example to demonstrate how planned obsolescence is curtailed in a capitalist economy. Without that market mechanism, it is difficult to see how the practice could be restricted in a socialist society, unless we are all still using slide projectors and dark rooms.

I mentioned Nikon in a previous post. I already said that competition is not exclusive to capitalism. Competition takes place outside of market capitalism all the time.

States compete with one another to produce arms. But not necessarily with the intention of selling them off. What matters is the comparative factor. That would seem to motivate innovation. But is not necessarily exclusive to capitalism.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

A service life determined by the company.

Planned obsolescence of this form is difficult to prove by virtue of the fact that the "planning" takes place behind closed doors. And for some strange reason there seems to be very little research in the area.

But I studied mechanical engineering for two years and planned obsolescence and product life cycles were part of the course.

You can be sure that planned obsolescence is being used.

The modulisation of car components can be seen to be a form do planned obsolescence. Instead of replacing a small cheap component an entire unit or module needs to be replaced. The units various working components are then obsolete by virtue of the failure of a small and otherwise replaceable component of the unit.



Reality is more complicated. Background deals and lobbying of governments to bring in scrappage schemes and stricter NCT's is a form of planned obsolescence as well.

Of course the target service life is set by the company, they're responsible for the design, it's a design specification.

There are however feedback loops that are entirely outside the company's control. They must compete on both performance and price with other competitors.

If they don't make it robust enough compared to the competition, their reputation will suffer and consequently their sales and profit margin will suffer.

If they overengineer the product putting extra cost into it that doesn't translate into extra value or performance for the customer, their profit margins suffer and this can be further compound by competitors producing cheaper products which meet all the customers expectations.

The modulisation of components can prove a pain in the ass when it comes to replacement but that's not a given and the reliability of cars has increased massively through their deployment, sure you can't adjust your ignition timing at the distributor cap but your ignition timing will be set optimally much more of the time by the sensors and ecu, how often do you see people sitting in their car on a cold morning, turning it over again and again hoping it might start this time? 25 years ago this was commonplace.

The major advantage for Product Designers / Manufacturers is that standalone subsystems can be developed independently and integrated into a range of more complex products. It shortens product development cycles and costs massively. If you're able to make something that performs better than the competition, they will catch up so you need to get the product out there as soon as possible to benefit.from the advantage for as long as possible.
Many modern products could not be developed and produced for the prices they're sold at without this approach.

Finally, the NCT is far from perfect but €55 for a thorough check of your car is damn good value.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

But they imploded before that, the west didn't . And I have the greatest respect for Chomsky but in certain areas he is clueless .

And the West had the great depression and participated in two world wars. Indeed many western nations were on the verge of implosion. had those wars not occurred they may very well have imploded due to internal strife.

The German middle and upper classes backed Hitler against an "imploding" Germany that was being taken over by Workers Soviets and internal 'socialist' revolts.

Things are not always straight forward. Libya did not "implode" for example. Islamic extremist nuts were backed by the West to force an "implosion". We see the same with Syria now.

Cuba did not "implode".

There are many reasons why the USSR no longer exists. And from what I can gather it was not because its people wanted it gone. Rather a bureaucratic and political elite steered it in the direction it went.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

You can plan for example that your next product has batteries that are incompatible with your previous products.

You cant guarantee that the new product will be bought though. But that's what marketing is for.

I'm no camera buff but I'm fairly familiar with batteries. I would have thought for the most part the rest of the camera would comfortably outlast the battery. Why would you want to use an old battery on a new camera?

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

And the West had the great depression and participated in two world wars. Indeed many western nations were on the verge of implosion. had those wars not occurred they may very well have imploded due to internal strife.

The German middle and upper classes backed Hitler against an "imploding" Germany that was being taken over by Workers Soviets and internal 'socialist' revolts.

Things are not always straight forward. Libya did not "implode" for example. Islamic extremist nuts were backed by the West to force an "implosion". We see the same with Syria now.

Cuba did not "implode".

There are many reasons why the USSR no longer exists. And from what I can gather it was not because its people wanted it gone. Rather a bureaucratic and political elite steered it in the direction it went.

But all this proves my point ! the west thrived and prospered despite these calamitous events .

''Rather a bureaucratic and political elite steered it in the direction it went''

Here you have the fundamental issue in a nutshell - show me one socialist economy where such an elite did not take over the state and maintain their hegemony for over half a century ? That is why they all fail - there are run for the benefit of the few and not the many.

They may all start from a generous impulse but inevitably they end up like this, just like right wing dictatorships

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

I'm no camera buff but I'm fairly familiar with batteries. I would have thought for the most part the rest of the camera would comfortably outlast the battery. Why would you want to use an old battery on a new camera?

One reason is that third party manufacturers will not have had the time to duplicate the battery packs.

If I wanted an extended battery pack for a G30 when it came out first I would have had to buy it off Canon as they modified the battery housing. Third party manufacturers would not have had the time to produce them and get them to market. Canon then has an initial upper hand.

The same with the Gopro Hero 4. Extended third party battery packs are not available to the same extent as they are for the Hero 3 as the batteries have been made incompatible between generations.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Here you have the fundamental issue in a nutshell - show me one socialist economy where such an elite did not take over the state and maintain their hegemony for over half a century ? That is why they all fail - there are run for the benefit of the few and not the many.

The Spanish Revolution is an example. Not perfect though.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

One reason is that third party manufacturers will not have had the time to duplicate the battery packs.

If I wanted an extended battery pack for a G30 when it came out first I would have had to buy it off Canon as they modified the battery housing. Third party manufacturers would not have had the time to produce them and get them to market. Canon then has an initial upper hand.

The same with the Gopro Hero 4. Extended third party battery packs are not available to the same extent as they are for the Hero 3 as the batteries have been made incompatible between generations.

How long before those batteries became available ?

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

How long before those batteries became available ?

Im not sure. But a company that knows its own design and manufactures stocks of batteries before the products release will have an upper hand for a period of time before a third party manufacturer gets its gears working and to market.

Good question. But I don't know the answer.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

One reason is that third party manufacturers will not have had the time to duplicate the battery packs.

If I wanted an extended battery pack for a G30 when it came out first I would have had to buy it off Canon as they modified the battery housing. Third party manufacturers would not have had the time to produce them and get them to market. Canon then has an initial upper hand.

The same with the Gopro Hero 4. Extended third party battery packs are not available to the same extent as they are for the Hero 3 as the batteries have been made incompatible between generations.

That actually seems a reasonable position to take on a new product. Your depending on a good reception of the product in the market in order to build a good reputation for the product. While there are undoubtedly excellent aftermarket batteries, I'm sure there are some really **** ones too.
I wouldn't risk the reputation of my new Camera Range by making it easy for the makers of **** aftermarket batteries getting them into my camera and diminishing the user experience, even if that means that good aftermarket batteries aren't easily usable either.
All this is predicted on the assumption that the camera comes with a rechargeable battery in the box and that camera users value battery life and would ask about battery life like mobile phone customers when researching a purchase.

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

I wouldn't risk the reputation of my new Camera Range by making it easy for the makers of **** aftermarket batteries getting them into my camera and diminishing the user experience, even if that means that good aftermarket batteries aren't easily usable either.

Yet at the same time that rationale was not used between, say, the Gopro Hero 2 and the Gopro hero 3 - where battery packs were interchangeable.

Allowing for interchangeability would, I assume, allow for better time for assessments and reviews of inevitably produced (and existing) third party batteries.

With the Hero 4, a whole new experimental phase will occur. If the Hero 3 batteries were compatible, bad batteries would have been weeded out by now and the good third party batteries known.

alias no.9

Just some other thoughts on the camera and battery, if I were making the decisions, I'd probably partner with a select few high quality aftermarket battery manufacturers to make their batteries available at launch.
Its possible or even probable that the protected revenue stream from additional batteries subsidises the upfront camera cost, bummer if you need a spare, but you're getting a discount if you can live with just one battery. It's most likely used as a way of making the camera more cost competitive against competitors.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Im not sure. But a company that knows its own design and manufactures stocks of batteries before the products release will have an upper hand for a period of time before a third party manufacturer gets its gears working and to market.

Good question. But I don't know the answer.

Every practice like this is an opportunity for some one else and in my experience the speed which these guys fill these niche markets is astonishing .

That being said I have bought back up batteries from such vendors for the 3 or 4 cameras we own, always based on price, but none of them seem to be as good as the brand name .I just carry them as a spare as the original is recharging.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

Yet at the same time that rationale was not used between, say, the Gopro Hero 2 and the Gopro hero 3 - where battery packs were interchangeable.

Allowing for interchangeability would, I assume, allow for better time for assessments and reviews of inevitably produced (and existing) third party batteries.

With the Hero 4, a whole new experimental phase will occur. If the Hero 3 batteries were compatible, bad batteries would have been weeded out by now and the good third party batteries known.

I've no knowledge of the products in question, I could speculate that they learned from the previous experience of making them interchangeable that some bad reviews and warranty returns were related to the use of aftermarket batteries.

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

I've no knowledge of the products in question.

The product in question is probably a bad example in that the Hero 4 is smaller than previous generations - and so probably requires a smaller sized battery.

But the Canon G30 could have used batteries from previous iterations but they deliberately prevented that.

Battery/camera manufacturers are chipping the batteries as well to try prevent interchageability and third party batteries.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Every practice like this is an opportunity for some one else and in my experience the speed which these guys fill these niche markets is astonishing.

Yes.

But I always have at the back of my mind the environmental damage caused by the "duplication" and requirements to now build new batteries because of planned obsolescence.

But that's a convenient externality for market capitalism. Indeed it is a significant failure of its value mechanism that it cannot factor in something so important.

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

Yes.

But I always have at the back of my mind the environmental damage caused by the "duplication" and requirements to now build new batteries because of planned obsolescence.

But that's a convenient externality for market capitalism. Indeed it is a significant failure of its value mechanism that it cannot factor in something so important.

Anyway, this is all getting too polite , so fcuk you

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

I've no knowledge of the products in question, I could speculate that they learned from the previous experience of making them interchangeable that some bad reviews and warranty returns were related to the use of aftermarket batteries.

The "reviews" could hardly be credible if the user bought a third party battery. That would not be Gopro's fault.

In relation to warranty. Third party batteries will inevitably be manufactured (and already are) for the hero 4.

So I don't think that is why.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

The product in question is probably a bad example in that the Hero 4 is smaller than previous generations - and so probably requires a smaller sized battery.

But the Canon G30 could have used batteries from previous iterations but they deliberately prevented that.

Battery/camera manufacturers are chipping the batteries as well to try prevent interchageability and third party batteries.

Is it feasible that the camera electronics are sensitive to **** batteries and they get warranty returns on this basis, again in that situation I'd be inclined to take steps to prevent it happening. I've seen at first hand the havoc a failing battery can have on a cars electronics, I'm assuming cameras need big bursts of power to process images.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Anyway, this is all getting too polite , so fcuk you

We should probably be in the tech forum talking about batteries

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

The "reviews" could hardly be credible if the user bought a third party battery. That would not be Gopro's fault.

In relation to warranty. Third party batteries will inevitably be manufactured (and already are) for the hero 4.

So I don't think that is why.

Early reviews are the most valuable and there are plenty people who think a battery is just a battery and wouldn't understand that their actions caused the problem, never mind disclose that they'd been using an aftermarket battery in their review.


Edit
On reviews here I'm really talking user reviews like on amazon rather than tech publications

marienbad

coolemon wrote: »

We should probably be in the tech forum talking about batteries

Actually its very interesting , I just bought the basic gopro model from argos for my grandson for Christmas , so I must check out the battery back up issue.

coolemon

alias no.9 wrote: »

Is it feasible that the camera electronics are sensitive to **** batteries and they get warranty returns on this basis, again in that situation I'd be inclined to take steps to prevent it happening. I've seen at first hand the havoc a failing battery can have on a cars electronics, I'm assuming cameras need big bursts of power to process images.

But if they wanted to - they could make the new product compatible with old batteries.

Canon are stingy shytes who wont even give you a 20c lens hood with their 500 euro lenses.

Many of their camcorders also do not have standardized hotshoe mounts and require the purchase of Canon external microphones to fit the proprietary mounts.

You can be sure that they want people to buy their new batteries by modifying them.

coolemon

marienbad wrote: »

Actually its very interesting , I just bought the basic gopro model from argos for my grandson for Christmas , so I must check out the battery back up issue.

It has an inbuilt battery.

You have to buy the more expensive versions to be able to use third party batteries.

Another nice little earner for them.

alias no.9

coolemon wrote: »

But if they wanted to - they could make the new product compatible with old batteries.

Canon are stingy shytes who wont even give you a 20c lens hood with their 500 euro lenses.

Many of their camcorders also do not have standardized hotshoe mounts and require the purchase of Canon external microphones to fit the proprietary mounts.

You can be sure that they want people to buy their new batteries by modifying them.

I don't own any canon product and am unlikely to but I do work in product design and like to tease out the motives for these kind of things.

coolemon

coolemon wrote: »

I said in another post that I don't think a hypothetical socialist economy would necessarily be an anti-competitive one. Competition comes in various forms and it does not need to take place in a monetary capitalist framework.

An awful lot of important technologies came about through the state. And while it could be argued that a state is in competition with other states, I don't think competition is a necessary pre-condition for innovation. Innovation, at its most fundamental, is the building on an existing knowledge base. University researchers do just that all the time and in all fields - with commercial applications in mind or not. And they do so not always for material reward either.

Could you explain one of these forms please, and how it might extend to everyone for all work?

Essien

There are more posts about Canon cameras and batteries in this thread than there are in a thread I started 3 weeks ago in the photography forum about a battery for my Canon camera

CramCycle

Godge wrote: »

That isn't what happens, our kettle is several years old.

I can never understand why Kettles are so rapidly turned over in this country. I just buy a descaler and pop one in every year or so. Everyone else I know throws out there kettle for a new one once every 1 to 2 years.