Would you buy firmware?

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to release paid firmware upgrades.

That could be a good idea for DSLR makers given the macroeconomic conditions and likely slow the growth of DSLR market.

I recall how many new functions were added to routers using firmware upgrades. Lots of the bells and whistles on the DSLRs are plain software too. I would bet all of the cameras out there have sufficient memory to have their software extended significantly.

So would you spare 100$ to get things like: preferred minimum shutter speed, focus micro-adjustment, improved auto iso, selections on some of the camera behaviors like priority of flash power boost over sensitivity boost (Nikon vs. Sony behaviour); improved noise reduction.

I guess just looking at the A700 there are 10s if not hundreds of small tiny items that can be improved and possibly released to public for a reasonable fee.

I wonder why electronic vendors refrain from the software upgrade model that has made software companies like Adobe and Microsoft giants. For example Asus issues free upgrades to its currently sold models of the windows OS. I would find it perfectly acceptable to get charged for this, but get longer term support for my device.

I would pay for an firmware update of the 7D , does it count ?
--
http://vitorfonseca.elementfx.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitorfonseca/

Bart
--
x700 - 7xi - 7 - 7D - A700... two more 7s to go...

I would like to be able to select certain functions and load them into the camera. Similar to the old Minolta function cards.

You could order Firmware as needed and load the camera. It would be great to have a second card slot that the camera could have Firmware on a dedicated memory card.
--



In god we trust, all others are suspects

Yes I would if the price is right and the update is substantial enough to improve the image quality. I hope there would be firmware reviews once that happens though.

... that if firmwares were paid, companies could work more on them and then release'em with more frequency?

That COULD be a good idea, but....

What if companies started releasing cameras with the most basic controls and then asked you to pay more $ to upgrade the firmware and then have some more stuff to control?

(for instance, companies start releasing cameras without WB control and then you have to pay $X to upgrade your firmware to have WB control. I know, this is extreme, but it's just an exemple)

Perhaps I'm a bit too greedy, but I think I (we) already pay enough for their cameras, lenses, flashes and everything... so why pay more?

--
I'm lazy to post my pics here. So you can look at them here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neonights

--NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....

DSLRs cost enough n don't last long enough so why in Hell should we pay for Firmware...Get a Life mun...

MrScary (DennisR)
Swansea, Wales. UK

http://copernob.jalbum.net/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scarecrowdr
http://community.webshots.com/user/mrscarecrow
http://www.russ4to.KMD5DImages.photoshare.co.nz

I would if it comes at reasonable costs and it contains solutions I mentioned in a previous post. However, I know it will not work cause these updates will be offered illegally instantly.

lock

Firmware upgrades are usually, correcting the mistakes the manufacturer created first time out

It would just create slip shod workmanship, to get the camera out, and we would all then have to pay to have a correctly set up camera

Jack McH
--
Chillu chi nun si fa l'affari sua, ccù la linterna va circannù guai:
He who doesn't mind his own business
uses his lantern to look for trouble.

well we pay for v1 and bugfixes. I suppose though the marketing department now prohibit engineering teams to do feature upgrades even if they are easy. Simply put them in the next model to get more sales. However with possible slow down of market growth it may become too expensive to compete with the current pace - one to one and a half year product cycles. The firmware upgrade though would give you

1. longer cycle
2. additional revenue from captive market

As for the "basic cameras" I would thing this is far away. Competition is strong so if say Sony plays the cut down software trick we can always go to Nikon or Canon or Pentax that offer good enough initial software, right?

neo_nights said:

... that if firmwares were paid, companies could work more on them
and then release'em with more frequency?

That COULD be a good idea, but....
What if companies started releasing cameras with the most basic
controls and then asked you to pay more $ to upgrade the firmware and
then have some more stuff to control?
(for instance, companies start releasing cameras without WB control
and then you have to pay $X to upgrade your firmware to have WB
control. I know, this is extreme, but it's just an exemple)

Perhaps I'm a bit too greedy, but I think I (we) already pay enough
for their cameras, lenses, flashes and everything... so why pay more?

--
I'm lazy to post my pics here. So you can look at them here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neonights

Click to expand...

we wouldn't need 'fixes' via firmware updates if things were done right the first time.

Anyone willing to pay for firmware updates is supporting sloppy work or worse, corporate greed.

Remember the original Rebel Canon 300D was intentionally crippled via firmware (later unlocked to full potential by a Russian hacker).

Kiril Karaatanasov said:

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to release paid firmware
upgrades.

Click to expand...

Kiril Karaatanasov said:

2. additional revenue from captive market

Competition is strong so if say Sony plays the cut down software
trick we can always go to Nikon or Canon or Pentax that offer good
enough initial software, right?

Click to expand...

Ok, so it's a great revenue source. Now Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. catch on and do the same thing. Then what?

Though I understand from my own experience it is very difficult (if not impossible) to deliver the perfect product when development deadlines are controlled more from a marketing perspective.

Firmware updates are for bug fixes and features that were not quite ready for prime time.

No to "fixes", as noted in another post here, why should we pay for something to be fixed that was not done right the first time.

Yes to "enhancements", adding functionality that was not originally in the camera. One poster said that DSLRs are too expensive and don't last long enough already, that he would not pay for firmware. But it the firmware keeps to camera up to date with features not originally available on the camera, but possibly available on newer cameras, then it will actually extend the life of the camera, at least as it relates to having to buy a new camera every X years to get all the latest features.

Regarding enhancements, you could even pick and choose what features you want formware to add, shop for the enhancement firmware that most fits your needs.

Just thinkin' out loud.
--
Richard Lane
http://www.pbase.com \jacqueaux
See profile for equipment

But I would pay for firmware SDK.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

I think continual development of firmware for current and past models fosters loyalty and would make users feel that they are buying into more of a 'system' rather than the throwaway mentality currently, especially if features trickled down. I'm sure all the WRT router firmwares are a huge drawcard with a commercial payoff for companies that make it easy for the community to extend their product. Similar projects like http://www.rockbox.org/ and http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK have a strong effect on my purchasing choices.

--

I'd absolutelly pay for custom firmware. By the way, This is a great idea for any programmer!!!

To fix a camera flaw, such as the ISO issue, No. To change or add something that is not a camera build flaw that can be done via a FW update, yes. Like Micro lens adjust.

--
Thanks,

Digitalshooter!

My first Digital Camera was a Sony Mavica!

Sorry, no add here for a personal website!

digitalshooter said:

To fix a camera flaw, such as the ISO issue, No. To change or add
something that is not a camera build flaw that can be done via a FW
update, yes. Like Micro lens adjust.

Click to expand...

That is the prefect answer until you get into arguments with people who assume anything the camera does not do that they think it should is a flaw.

HDR bracketing
Exposure compensation on a button.
Flash Sync
User Memory UI...

All have been called flaws.. when in reality everyone is just a design decision that was made.

Even having no High ISO NR Off on the A700 was design decision.. one the we didn't like and after seeing V4 realize really hurt the camera.. but it was not a "bug"

This would make this much more complex...

If Sony monetized some feature upgrades.. but got pounded on the forums
for charging for bug fixes. Happens to software companies all the time.

I think what we have here is a good idea for a feature in itself is ... software modes for a fee.. vs paid FW upgrades. $1299..$50 gives you micro adjust or HDR bracketing, or time-lapse or get all three for $100... now if you need none of these then you are not paying for them...

It would be a way to keep the camera upto the competition non hardware features... like live preview etc.

---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com

Very very bad idea.

That idea might sound good to some people but it would lead to nothing but trouble. First of all, why should one pay for something like bug fixes? If you start paying for it, there won't be any incentive for camera makers to release a stable product with the necessary features...

"hey, let's release a camera without mirror lock-up and force the suckers to pay for a firmware update or better yet upgrade to the more expensive model." Oh wait, Sony does that already.

If anything they should release and open source the code to these firmware. It could only lead to good/stable/optimized firmware. This is specially true of Sony, and Nikon, Canon... Well, all of them. I know I'm dreaming...

but as a consumer, you really should be expecting more from the camera makers.