Grow up...

[Ed Nazarko]

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you think that the people running one of the more successful camera companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem, you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich (they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Raul]

Ed,

How insensitive can you be.

Regards
Raul

 

[phat dinh]

guess he doesn't own a dslr...

Ed,

How insensitive can you be.

Regards
Raul

--
d1x
sb-80dx
24-85 D
80-400 VR
Stroboframe Pro-T
682 Bogen Monopod
http://www.pbase.com/phatdinh

 

[Joe Desbonnet]

It's standard practice to offer firmware upgrade to bugs (free of charge). Its expected. A company that failed to do so would soon find itself out of business.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[greg n]

Very good comments.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Ed Nazarko]

I can match any of the people out there who are responsible for things like massive numbers of useless medical tests, speed limiters on cars, and labels on hairdryers that say "do not use in shower." The difference is, I can put it on and take it off. I think they actually believe in their righteous indignation.

Frankly, Nikon owes nothing to anybody on this; they're being extremely generous by upgrading a sold product instead of charging for it the way Microsoft would (hey, it's a full version number, where's your upgrade fee?), and people are whining. Would people be whining if Nikon had decided not to roll out the upgrade? Nope, because they'd never have known.

And we'll probably never know again.

Ed,

How insensitive can you be.

Regards
Raul

 

[Ed Nazarko]

What'd you pay Adobe for moving from Photoshop 6 to 7?

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Ed Nazarko]

Wrong. Four times over.

Have you ever paid to upgrade software?

Ed,

How insensitive can you be.

Regards
Raul

--
d1x
sb-80dx
24-85 D
80-400 VR
Stroboframe Pro-T
682 Bogen Monopod
http://www.pbase.com/phatdinh

 

[Ed Nazarko]

I read the list. I own the cameras. I don't see bug fixes, I see upgrades. What on the list of new capabilities do you consider bugs? Most software companies charge for those. At least those who own massive marketshare, like Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft do.

And if y'all keep at this, Nikon will figure that out too. I think free upgrades are better than paid ones, don't you?

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[greg n]

their whole business is upgrades, sort of like the D100 to the D200 that would not be free. And go to microsoft's web page and see how many patches you see, now that is a similar compar........

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Marc Loren]

As far as I'm concerned, firmware ver 2.0 is really ver 1.0, anything prior was a BETA release and us dumb consumers have been beta testing NIkon's D100 for free! Just call me the Master Beta :0)

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Ed Nazarko]

Yeah, that's pretty true of the software industry as a whole. I've yet to get a Microsoft OS that worked as advertised until about the fifth update release - it's why they have two or three digits to the right of the decimal, to make room for the inevitable. And they're not alone. We're all Masta Betas. (ever wonder why so many people have bad eyesight these days?) ;-)

But, the cameras worked well enough when delivered to get massively positive reviews. The same people now in a froth over this were making fun of Canon and singing Nikon's praises a few weeks ago. Honestly, in most of the software companies I know, anybody who proposed a free upgrade for a version number to the left of the decimal would lose their job for reasons of insanity. There are huge fistfights over whether you should charge for upgrades to the right of the decimal.

I'm sure Nikon thought this free upgrade program was a very generous, open handed, unusually customer-sensitive move. Now they're probably having second thoughts. "We're sorry. We made a mistake. We'll do the upgrade for $100."

I'm hugely thrilled to be getting new features, which I'm sure (I'd hope) are hiding some bug fixes, for free. From their business plan to Microsoft and Adobe's ears... I'm tired of tithing to Gates and Co.

As far as I'm concerned, firmware ver 2.0 is really ver 1.0,
anything prior was a BETA release and us dumb consumers have been
beta testing NIkon's D100 for free! Just call me the Master Beta
:0)

 

[Ed Nazarko]

Those are patches. How many free Microsoft updates have you seen that incremented the version number to the left of the decimal? Right of the decimal are bug fixes, and delivery of features promised but not delivered. Left of the decimal is new stuff of significant value. It's an industry tradition.

Nikon is a master of upgrades - they usually make you buy a new camera. I like this model a lot better, don't you? Bad enough they keep bringing out great new lenses that I have to keep buying.

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[greg n]

no one is complaining about upgrade, we all are happy there are upgrades, we just want it to be user friendly or at least know why it cannot be. seems pretty fair to ask that.....

But, the cameras worked well enough when delivered to get massively
positive reviews. The same people now in a froth over this were
making fun of Canon and singing Nikon's praises a few weeks ago.
Honestly, in most of the software companies I know, anybody who
proposed a free upgrade for a version number to the left of the
decimal would lose their job for reasons of insanity. There are
huge fistfights over whether you should charge for upgrades to the
right of the decimal.

I'm sure Nikon thought this free upgrade program was a very
generous, open handed, unusually customer-sensitive move. Now
they're probably having second thoughts. "We're sorry. We made a
mistake. We'll do the upgrade for $100."

I'm hugely thrilled to be getting new features, which I'm sure (I'd
hope) are hiding some bug fixes, for free. From their business
plan to Microsoft and Adobe's ears... I'm tired of tithing to
Gates and Co.

As far as I'm concerned, firmware ver 2.0 is really ver 1.0,
anything prior was a BETA release and us dumb consumers have been
beta testing NIkon's D100 for free! Just call me the Master Beta
:0)

 

[Jeff-D100-Owner]

The real story is that apparently they've designed it poorly so that upgrades are so difficult that only they can apply them. Why I do not know.

And it's not an issue of how much it's costing them. I wish they had designed the camera so it would be far cheaper and faster for them and me to apply a firmware update. I hate shipping delicate things which may be damaged in shipping. And I really hate being without something which I'm still paying for.

It will certainly be something I think of when I get my next camera.

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Jeff-D100-Owner]

Have you ever paid to upgrade software?

I've never been unable to use the software for a week because I had to UPS my computer somewhere for a software upgrade to be installed. When I install software it usually takes about 15 minutes and then I'm working again. No mailing. No waiting.

 

[Jeff-D100-Owner]

Upon reading that, I shouldn't have said "designed it poorly". Actually I really love my D100. It's just too bad they didn't consider easy firmware upgrades in the design as this is certainly a weakness.

And it's not an issue of how much it's costing them. I wish they
had designed the camera so it would be far cheaper and faster for
them and me to apply a firmware update. I hate shipping delicate
things which may be damaged in shipping. And I really hate being
without something which I'm still paying for.

It will certainly be something I think of when I get my next camera.

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Jeff-D100-Owner]

What'd you pay Adobe for moving from Photoshop 6 to 7?

Did Adobe ask you to FedEx your computer to them for a week to install it for you leaving you to work on scratch paper with a pen?

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

I don't remember UPS-ing any hardware to Microsoft to accomplish an upgrade either.

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Ed Nazarko]

I'll wager that the design is "poor" for the same reason the EEPROM's in cars are hard to reburn. They don't want people screwing around with it. As I said in another post elsewhere, this is the only EEPROM-based system I know of, with an enthusiast customer base, where people aren't selling modified versions, or modified code. A lot of auto EEPROMs actually have traps built into them, and code in components that communicate with the EEPROM, to disable the car if any reprogramming is done.

Yes I've had it done to many cars I've owned, most of them cars I raced. No, they don't run dirtier - they run measurably cleaner, even without all the anti-smog gear. (Needless to say, also a lot faster.) They just aren't idiot proof any more, they require constant tuning, attention, and manically detailed maintenance.

I for one am glad I don't have to reburn the eeprom's on four cameras. My time is worth more than that - I could be billing hours in my day job, or tweaking, printing, and selling photos in my other more satisfying job.

And it's not an issue of how much it's costing them. I wish they
had designed the camera so it would be far cheaper and faster for
them and me to apply a firmware update. I hate shipping delicate
things which may be damaged in shipping. And I really hate being
without something which I'm still paying for.

It will certainly be something I think of when I get my next camera.

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.

 

[Ed Nazarko]

No, they charged me hundreds of dollars, though, and sucked up 20 or so hours of my time with screwy, poorly designed upgrades that didn't take account of all the filters, color profiles, requiring me to redo settings that I'd spent a couple years developing. And the upgrade also didn't work the first couple of times they were run. I'd ship my computer, gladly, to avoid that. I don't get much of a kick out of it, and have other things I can do that I do enjoy a whole lot more.

And Microsoft requires me to tell them all about what's on my computer, and requires me to talk with them if I do any other upgrades to my hardware, assuming I can get through to them without holding for hours. (Imagine: "Ah, you bought a Sigma lens, well, forget about you.") Oh yeah, a huge number of their full version number upgrades also don't upgrade correctly. I don't find being their techie very satisfying.

What Nikon's doing gets them no marginal revenue, costs them dozens of times, maybe hundreds of times, as much for each piece of hardware. Why do you think that is? Maybe it's because the CCD is a commodity and widely available, and the hardware chunks easily copyable.

The only real proprietary bits they've got are hiding in the EEPROM. 90% of what Phil Askey and the reviewers are talking about is the result of that software. I'd protect it pretty aggressively if I was them.

What'd you pay Adobe for moving from Photoshop 6 to 7?

Did Adobe ask you to FedEx your computer to them for a week to
install it for you leaving you to work on scratch paper with a pen?

What'd you pay Microsoft for moving from version to version of Office?

I don't remember UPS-ing any hardware to Microsoft to accomplish an
upgrade either.

What's Nikon charging for this?

Duh.

Most peoplle here are grown up and mature. Maybe a little vexed and
in need of a good cool off... but calling people making complains
about Nikon childish is not helping..

AND PLEASE, PLEASE STOP CREATING NEW THREADS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. CAN
WE KEEP IT UNDER ONE OF THE MANY THREADS ALEADY CREATED SO THAT WE
CAN MOVE ON AND DISCUSS OTHER THINGS!!!

Somebody's offered to UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF YOUR GEAR. Don't
forget, they're NOT OBLIGED TO EVEN OFFER YOU upgrades. (What you
buy today doesn't have to meet the specs of tomorrow...not even of
today...) They've offered to do the work FOR YOU. They've done
this so that you don't inadvertantly or foolishly destroy your
product (which they would bear no responsibility for if you did
destroy it.) They're doing it at their expense, not yours. And
that bothers you?

Hmm. As Joan Rivers would say, Grow Up!

I can't believe all the angst about Nikon requiring you to return a
camera to do a firmware upgrade. Think about how many hundreds of
thousands of dollars (maybe millions) it's costing Nikon to do
this. No bean counter would have let them spend this kind of
money, unless the alternative cost a lot, lot more. Or do you
think that the people running one of the more successful camera
companies in the world are oblivious to economics? I can tell you
that their pricing strategy and management is first class.

And to those who think this is a good reason to sue Nikon: be sure
to properly document your loss of revenue from having your camera
in for the upgrade, the court will expect to see it. (Just a
thought: if having one camera in for upgrade is a big problem,
you're probably not in this as a business anyhow.)

If you create a class action suit, you'll make the lawyers rich
(they get at least a third of the TOTAL value of the suit) and
you'll get - the right to ruin your own ROM because you had a short
power fluctuation during the update (any of you flash your
computer's BIOS without it being on an UPS? BAD IDEA. Big PC
manufacturers get dozens of calls a day about this.) Or because
your camera's batteries weren't fully charged even though you
thought they were. Or because you got interrupted while doing this
and missed a step.

This is apalling.