Could Wasia become a Canon 3rd Party Vendor ?

[hbh]

This is probably a stretch, but it may be an intriguing thought.

When I worked for Canon Printer Division and later Software Development Division I qualified 3rd Party developers who would develop add on products to be sanctioned and sometimes co-marketed by Canon. The object was to enhance the product's marketability. If it were in Canon's interest, Canon would have the developer sign off a Non-Disclosure Agreement and then they would make them privy to whatever they needed to develop the product. These guys came from all walks of life. A case in point was the guy I helped use an early portable bubblejet printer's proprietary High Speed Graphics mode to print digital pictures of ID card back in the 80's. He sold a turnkey product to Costco. Hence the early Costco ID cards were a product of our work.

On the other hand, if the product being developed was in contradiction to the marketing strategy of the product Canon would simply not have anything to do with it. A good example of this was the Hewlett Packard software emulation products that developers tried to get Canon to help with. They thought they would get Canon's support but did not realize that Canon manufactured the HP lasers and this interfered with an important OEM relationship.

Wasia might want to approach Canon. The question is, would Canon benefit from sponsoring a third party developer/vendor to sell a firmware upgrade if it helped market the DR. It could go either way. Canon could sidestep internal politics, save face and make this a NOT FOR FREE upgrade sold by a third party that would differentiate it from the 10D. Most likely, Canon more will not support it... but you never know.

It occurs to me that Wasia might want to at least approach Canon about it to see if he can get 3rd Party Developer status, then get the real scoop on the proprietary issues and end up with a marketable product. Chances are he would get shot down, but I would encourage him to try it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[RicardoD]

Why even bother. The "crippled" features on the 300D is clearly a marketing decision and not limited by technical feasability or due to unreasonably high cost/timing to implment on a 300D.

Canon clearly wants those users who want 10D functions to buy the 10D with its price premium (and probably higher margin). What's nice is that the Nikon D70 has now changed the market landscape where those 10D type features should now be available at 300D pricepoint for Canon to remain competitive.

--
All the best,
Ricardo
Canon EOS-300D

 

[digital_steve]

Might somebody at Canon responsible for firmware be monitoring these hacks and having close looks at how they're done for future incorporation into "official" new releases? If they were to take the best of the hacks, try them out, and officially release them as firmware upgrades, what would we think?

A few thoughts from me,

d_s

This is probably a stretch, but it may be an intriguing thought.

When I worked for Canon Printer Division and later Software
Development Division I qualified 3rd Party developers who would
develop add on products to be sanctioned and sometimes co-marketed
by Canon. The object was to enhance the product's marketability. If
it were in Canon's interest, Canon would have the developer sign
off a Non-Disclosure Agreement and then they would make them privy
to whatever they needed to develop the product. These guys came
from all walks of life. A case in point was the guy I helped use an
early portable bubblejet printer's proprietary High Speed Graphics
mode to print digital pictures of ID card back in the 80's. He sold
a turnkey product to Costco. Hence the early Costco ID cards were a
product of our work.

On the other hand, if the product being developed was in
contradiction to the marketing strategy of the product Canon would
simply not have anything to do with it. A good example of this was
the Hewlett Packard software emulation products that developers
tried to get Canon to help with. They thought they would get
Canon's support but did not realize that Canon manufactured the HP
lasers and this interfered with an important OEM relationship.

Wasia might want to approach Canon. The question is, would Canon
benefit from sponsoring a third party developer/vendor to sell a
firmware upgrade if it helped market the DR. It could go either
way. Canon could sidestep internal politics, save face and make
this a NOT FOR FREE upgrade sold by a third party that would
differentiate it from the 10D. Most likely, Canon more will not
support it... but you never know.

It occurs to me that Wasia might want to at least approach Canon
about it to see if he can get 3rd Party Developer status, then get
the real scoop on the proprietary issues and end up with a
marketable product. Chances are he would get shot down, but I would
encourage him to try it.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Jim Forbes]

They might. They might, also, be looking at all this 'hack' goings-on and be figuring ways of preventing it in the future.

A few thoughts from me,

d_s

This is probably a stretch, but it may be an intriguing thought.

When I worked for Canon Printer Division and later Software
Development Division I qualified 3rd Party developers who would
develop add on products to be sanctioned and sometimes co-marketed
by Canon. The object was to enhance the product's marketability. If
it were in Canon's interest, Canon would have the developer sign
off a Non-Disclosure Agreement and then they would make them privy
to whatever they needed to develop the product. These guys came
from all walks of life. A case in point was the guy I helped use an
early portable bubblejet printer's proprietary High Speed Graphics
mode to print digital pictures of ID card back in the 80's. He sold
a turnkey product to Costco. Hence the early Costco ID cards were a
product of our work.

On the other hand, if the product being developed was in
contradiction to the marketing strategy of the product Canon would
simply not have anything to do with it. A good example of this was
the Hewlett Packard software emulation products that developers
tried to get Canon to help with. They thought they would get
Canon's support but did not realize that Canon manufactured the HP
lasers and this interfered with an important OEM relationship.

Wasia might want to approach Canon. The question is, would Canon
benefit from sponsoring a third party developer/vendor to sell a
firmware upgrade if it helped market the DR. It could go either
way. Canon could sidestep internal politics, save face and make
this a NOT FOR FREE upgrade sold by a third party that would
differentiate it from the 10D. Most likely, Canon more will not
support it... but you never know.

It occurs to me that Wasia might want to at least approach Canon
about it to see if he can get 3rd Party Developer status, then get
the real scoop on the proprietary issues and end up with a
marketable product. Chances are he would get shot down, but I would
encourage him to try it.

Just my 2 cents.

--
Jim F

 

[digital_steve]

Jim, if that were true wouldn't they have to really watch how they do any "crackdown" on hacks to avoid alienating their customer base? From what I read here, most people (even those who don't install the hacks) appear to like that they're coming out.

d_s

A few thoughts from me,

d_s

This is probably a stretch, but it may be an intriguing thought.

When I worked for Canon Printer Division and later Software
Development Division I qualified 3rd Party developers who would
develop add on products to be sanctioned and sometimes co-marketed
by Canon. The object was to enhance the product's marketability. If
it were in Canon's interest, Canon would have the developer sign
off a Non-Disclosure Agreement and then they would make them privy
to whatever they needed to develop the product. These guys came
from all walks of life. A case in point was the guy I helped use an
early portable bubblejet printer's proprietary High Speed Graphics
mode to print digital pictures of ID card back in the 80's. He sold
a turnkey product to Costco. Hence the early Costco ID cards were a
product of our work.

On the other hand, if the product being developed was in
contradiction to the marketing strategy of the product Canon would
simply not have anything to do with it. A good example of this was
the Hewlett Packard software emulation products that developers
tried to get Canon to help with. They thought they would get
Canon's support but did not realize that Canon manufactured the HP
lasers and this interfered with an important OEM relationship.

Wasia might want to approach Canon. The question is, would Canon
benefit from sponsoring a third party developer/vendor to sell a
firmware upgrade if it helped market the DR. It could go either
way. Canon could sidestep internal politics, save face and make
this a NOT FOR FREE upgrade sold by a third party that would
differentiate it from the 10D. Most likely, Canon more will not
support it... but you never know.

It occurs to me that Wasia might want to at least approach Canon
about it to see if he can get 3rd Party Developer status, then get
the real scoop on the proprietary issues and end up with a
marketable product. Chances are he would get shot down, but I would
encourage him to try it.

Just my 2 cents.

--
Jim F

 

[icmp]

why would they need to monitor these hacks to look at how they're done?!? It's their camera and firmware that Wasia is hacking so HE can 'look at how it's done'. Canon knows full well what the camera does, can do, and can me made to do (or not do) via firmware. There's nothing someone hacking the firmware is doing that is't "in there" already, in terms of the camera's inherent capabilities and the firmware's potential to make use of it.

While Wasia must resort to reverse engineering the code and looking for opportunities to reprogram functions or exploit buttons without bringing harm to the remaining functions, Canon could quite easily flip on every conceivable capability of the camera on their own, using the programmers who know the camera and all the controller/cpu functions inside out and wrote the original code. No reverse engineering required, with full access to all the technical details, and a clear handle on what can be done, or not done, via firmware programming.

Many hold out hope for just that, while others believe Canon would never do it, and still others not caring much one way or the other. Something for everyone!

icmp

A few thoughts from me,

d_s

This is probably a stretch, but it may be an intriguing thought.

When I worked for Canon Printer Division and later Software
Development Division I qualified 3rd Party developers who would
develop add on products to be sanctioned and sometimes co-marketed
by Canon. The object was to enhance the product's marketability. If
it were in Canon's interest, Canon would have the developer sign
off a Non-Disclosure Agreement and then they would make them privy
to whatever they needed to develop the product. These guys came
from all walks of life. A case in point was the guy I helped use an
early portable bubblejet printer's proprietary High Speed Graphics
mode to print digital pictures of ID card back in the 80's. He sold
a turnkey product to Costco. Hence the early Costco ID cards were a
product of our work.

On the other hand, if the product being developed was in
contradiction to the marketing strategy of the product Canon would
simply not have anything to do with it. A good example of this was
the Hewlett Packard software emulation products that developers
tried to get Canon to help with. They thought they would get
Canon's support but did not realize that Canon manufactured the HP
lasers and this interfered with an important OEM relationship.

Wasia might want to approach Canon. The question is, would Canon
benefit from sponsoring a third party developer/vendor to sell a
firmware upgrade if it helped market the DR. It could go either
way. Canon could sidestep internal politics, save face and make
this a NOT FOR FREE upgrade sold by a third party that would
differentiate it from the 10D. Most likely, Canon more will not
support it... but you never know.

It occurs to me that Wasia might want to at least approach Canon
about it to see if he can get 3rd Party Developer status, then get
the real scoop on the proprietary issues and end up with a
marketable product. Chances are he would get shot down, but I would
encourage him to try it.

Just my 2 cents.