Answers from Olympus

[Clint D]

That statement WAS MODIFIED since then.

Why should I search for FW updates for you or anyone else???? If
you would have read correctly, you'll see no mention anywhere of
Sony having d'loadable FW updates.

The post I replied to said: "ALL BUT ONE digicam maker has the
firmware updates available to all from their website." Since the
main beef of this thread is that Olympus does not provide updates,
the statement implies that everyone else does. I was simply asking
you (or whomever made the claim) to back up that statement by
showing me where Sony provides their updates. The point is, Sony
doesn't provide updates and therefore the statement that Olympus is
not alone in this regard, is false.

I initially thought that maybe the quote was from someone else, but
they're your own words. Read for yourself:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=5385846

You didn't name Sony explicity, but for your claim to be true,
they, along with every other digicam maker besides Olympus would
have to provide downloadable updates. So the problem was not me
reading correctly, but you writing factually.
Show me the Sony link, or admit to making a false claim.

 

[Clint D]

"For hopefully the last time".... AS WELL:

NO ONE SAID THEY PROMISED the updates! It's just a matter of opinion whether or not one feels if they are cheating their customers by not offering the updates, and I simply happen to feel they are. It's just a difference of opinion certainly NOT WORTHY of all this BS. You too will 'get on that bandwagon' the day you have to get a FW update, then have to pay to ship it, pay to get it updated, wait weeks, etc.

I'm also NOT CLAIMING I'm "entitled" to ANYTHING. It just a simple observation of fact that so many others DO offer it. You're twisting comments around to suit your agenda....whatever that is.

Any new FW versions are going to be compatible with what ever is inside the 'cam. Similar to the BIOS on a mobo; they are not going to offer a BIOS update that stops supporting your CPU--by the same token I seriously doubt OM is going to offer a new FW that stops supporting (for example) a certain type of media, or CCD unit, etc.

I UNDERSTAND what you are saying. Now, UNDERSTAND what I am saying please.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why a few are so opposed to
being able to update the firmware themselves. THAT is my ONLY
point. I say again: why would anyone PREFER to have to PAY to ship
their cam to OM, wait weeks....wait.........wait.......put up with
possible shipping damage, pay to have it updated......when in 30
sec. and no wait we could do ourselves??? That seems like a
no-brainer to me. My other 'side point' after someone asked was
that the overwhelming majority of other digicam makers are offering
it, so OM should follow suit. No one ever said OM was "evil", just
jerks.

For hopefully the last time....

I don't think anyone ever said they PREFER to have to PAY to ship
their cameras back, etc. Look where I jumped into this. It was
when you said Olympus was CHEATING their customers by not offering
this service.

Big difference.

Certainly I would PREFER that they did, but they don't, never have,
and never promised to. Not getting a feature you weren't promised,
and didn't pay for is NOT being cheated. Pointing out that other
vendors provide this desirable service does not entitle you to it
from this particular vendor who doesn't. It's really that simple,
and that's all I've been trying to say.

SHOULD Olympus offer it? That's a completely different question,
and as I said, I'd be all for it, IF their system would ensure
that I'd get the right revision to mate with the hardware
components in my particular unit.

 

[Jola]

Both of you.

The idea is to have fun, I do.

And who in the hell cares if there is one or two less firmware providers? I can add a few if I like, HP for example also provides user firmware and although their cameras are crappy, I do think that they sell (give away?) a lot of them.

One or two bit players more or less does nothing to the principle.

But just let's not get personal and/or carried away!

 

[ChuckB #153143]

James ....

hustle down to the local community college and take a course in logic. Yours is flawed!

If there is a risk to letting users do it, I think it is reasonable (as a business decision) not to allow it.

And you responded with this:

Which means those companies that do allow it and in fact offer free
downloadable firmware updates made some UN-resonable decision!

It means nothing of the sort. Sometimes - and I think this is one
of those times - more than one alternative is reasonable. It would
be reasonable for me to have a donut for breakfast tomorrow. It
would be reasonable for me to have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow.
Olympus' decision seems reasonable to me. That doesn't mean that
every alternative is unreasonable. At least, not to me. Oh, I
nearly forgot to close with emphatic punctuation. At least, not to
me!

I didn't say every alternative is unreasonable. I said when one
option (such as there is no free firmware update) is reasonable,
then the EXACT OPPOSITE option (that is, there is free firmware
update) perhaps is unreasonable?

James

Regards,

Steve Price

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

 

[Altaman]

I too agree with you about not getting every firmware update. I will say however that having access to them if you wanted/needed them would be an excellent thing for Olympus to do.

Now my C5050 is about 1 1/2 months old (V77) and I am still in the learning curve and figure I will be for some time to come. Let's say that my camera is working fantastic and after the warranty expires I try something different ("feature, memory card, whatever") and I have problems that could have been corrected with a firmware update.

Now I have to pay to ship the camera, pay to upgrade the firmware and be without my camera for god knows how long...is that fair to me? This is all the more reason to have upgradable firmware that can be performed by the enduser. To not allow this and to pretend they don't exist or make it difficult to get, is poor service on behalf of any company.

Another way to look at is is the "hidden" warranty provided by car manufactuers, it is there but you have to find it and fight to get it. With Olympus they can keep the costs down by just providing the consumer with the ability to do it themselves. Barring that if there is a newer firmware they should allow me to get it and not pretend it isn't there.

Altaman

Hi Clint

If I could be certain that every change in firmware is an upgrade
or an update (as opposed to simply a change to support some other
combination of hardware), and that I'd incur no risk by installing
it, I'd be first in line to do it every time a new version was
released and I'd be the loudest clanging bell in the crowd
insisting that Olympus ought to let me download it from their site.
I don't see how any rational person could disagree.

I don't mean to imply that I'm rational, of course.

Regards

Steve Price

 

[James_C5050]

Yes my logic was flawed. I should have known that for each and every reasonable option its opposite option or negation is always reasonable, too. For example, it's 100% reasonable and perfect for Olympus not to offer free downloadable firmware updates, and it's also 100% reasonable and perfect for some other companies to offer free downloadable firmware updates.

James

If there is a risk to letting users do it, I think it is reasonable (as a business decision) not to allow it.

And you responded with this:

Which means those companies that do allow it and in fact offer free
downloadable firmware updates made some UN-resonable decision!

It means nothing of the sort. Sometimes - and I think this is one
of those times - more than one alternative is reasonable. It would
be reasonable for me to have a donut for breakfast tomorrow. It
would be reasonable for me to have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow.
Olympus' decision seems reasonable to me. That doesn't mean that
every alternative is unreasonable. At least, not to me. Oh, I
nearly forgot to close with emphatic punctuation. At least, not to
me!

I didn't say every alternative is unreasonable. I said when one
option (such as there is no free firmware update) is reasonable,
then the EXACT OPPOSITE option (that is, there is free firmware
update) perhaps is unreasonable?

James

Regards,

Steve Price

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

 

[James_C5050]

Yes you are correct. For each and every reasonable option its exact opposite option is always reasonable, too. For example, if person A does not kill person B for no reason is reasonable, then its exact opposite, that is, person A does kill person B for no reason is ALSO reasonable.

James

I'm sorry, but what you wrote is exactly what I said you did. It
can be accurately paraphrased as "If Olympus' decision not to make
user uploadable firmware is reasonable, then other makers'
decisions not to do so must be unreasonable." You ended it with an
exclamation point, emphasizing how obviously right you believe this
to be. It isn't right, it's wrong. The exact opposite of a
reasonable decision can be reasonable. I believe that in this
case, it is.

To use my trivial example again, with only the most minor of
modifications to make it easier: I can decide to eat a bagel for
breakfast or I can decide to eat a donut for breakfast. These are
mutually exclusive (who cares why, it isn't important). That is,
deciding to eat a bagel includes deciding not to eat a donut.
Conversely, deciding to eat a donut necessarily includes deciding
not to eat a bagel. Both alternatives are reasonable, even though
they are exact opposites. If you think about the hundreds (maybe
thousands) of decisions you make every day, you'll discover that
nearly all of them involve deciding between reasonable, but
mutually exclusive, alternatives.

Regards,

Steve Price

If there is a risk to letting users do it, I think it is reasonable (as a business decision) not to allow it.

And you responded with this:

Which means those companies that do allow it and in fact offer free
downloadable firmware updates made some UN-resonable decision!

It means nothing of the sort. Sometimes - and I think this is one
of those times - more than one alternative is reasonable. It would
be reasonable for me to have a donut for breakfast tomorrow. It
would be reasonable for me to have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow.
Olympus' decision seems reasonable to me. That doesn't mean that
every alternative is unreasonable. At least, not to me. Oh, I
nearly forgot to close with emphatic punctuation. At least, not to
me!

I didn't say every alternative is unreasonable. I said when one
option (such as there is no free firmware update) is reasonable,
then the EXACT OPPOSITE option (that is, there is free firmware
update) perhaps is unreasonable?

James

Regards,

Steve Price

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

 

[Steve Price]

Hi James

That is simply breathtaking.

Steve Price

James

I'm sorry, but what you wrote is exactly what I said you did. It
can be accurately paraphrased as "If Olympus' decision not to make
user uploadable firmware is reasonable, then other makers'
decisions not to do so must be unreasonable." You ended it with an
exclamation point, emphasizing how obviously right you believe this
to be. It isn't right, it's wrong. The exact opposite of a
reasonable decision can be reasonable. I believe that in this
case, it is.

To use my trivial example again, with only the most minor of
modifications to make it easier: I can decide to eat a bagel for
breakfast or I can decide to eat a donut for breakfast. These are
mutually exclusive (who cares why, it isn't important). That is,
deciding to eat a bagel includes deciding not to eat a donut.
Conversely, deciding to eat a donut necessarily includes deciding
not to eat a bagel. Both alternatives are reasonable, even though
they are exact opposites. If you think about the hundreds (maybe
thousands) of decisions you make every day, you'll discover that
nearly all of them involve deciding between reasonable, but
mutually exclusive, alternatives.

Regards,

Steve Price

If there is a risk to letting users do it, I think it is reasonable (as a business decision) not to allow it.

And you responded with this:

Which means those companies that do allow it and in fact offer free
downloadable firmware updates made some UN-resonable decision!

It means nothing of the sort. Sometimes - and I think this is one
of those times - more than one alternative is reasonable. It would
be reasonable for me to have a donut for breakfast tomorrow. It
would be reasonable for me to have a bagel for breakfast tomorrow.
Olympus' decision seems reasonable to me. That doesn't mean that
every alternative is unreasonable. At least, not to me. Oh, I
nearly forgot to close with emphatic punctuation. At least, not to
me!

I didn't say every alternative is unreasonable. I said when one
option (such as there is no free firmware update) is reasonable,
then the EXACT OPPOSITE option (that is, there is free firmware
update) perhaps is unreasonable?

James

Regards,

Steve Price

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

--



Olympus Camedia C-5O5OZOOM + Olympus TCON-17 1.7X Tele Conversion Lens

 

[Inigo Montoya]

What do you mean by "modified"?

Are you claiming that someone edited your post, or that you backpedaled from that position?

Why should I search for FW updates for you or anyone else???? If
you would have read correctly, you'll see no mention anywhere of
Sony having d'loadable FW updates.

The post I replied to said: "ALL BUT ONE digicam maker has the
firmware updates available to all from their website." Since the
main beef of this thread is that Olympus does not provide updates,
the statement implies that everyone else does. I was simply asking
you (or whomever made the claim) to back up that statement by
showing me where Sony provides their updates. The point is, Sony
doesn't provide updates and therefore the statement that Olympus is
not alone in this regard, is false.

I initially thought that maybe the quote was from someone else, but
they're your own words. Read for yourself:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=5385846

You didn't name Sony explicity, but for your claim to be true,
they, along with every other digicam maker besides Olympus would
have to provide downloadable updates. So the problem was not me
reading correctly, but you writing factually.
Show me the Sony link, or admit to making a false claim.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I was merely stating that I would not want to do business with anyone who would claim to be cheated even though all the rules, terms, and obligations of the transaction had been fulfilled. Since you still appear to have failed to grasp this concept, it follows that I would not want to do business with you.
Nothing personal.

For the record, I wouldn't do business with anyone who called me an ASS either.

Yes, I (and Sony users I'm sure) think they ARE getting cheated out
of 9 months more warranty.

Remind me never to do business with you. I'll end up being called
a cheater for keeping to the terms and conditions set forth and
agreed to at the time of purchase.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

I wasn't trying to make a personal attack. I was trying to make a point about unreasonable expectations and claims of being cheated where no cheating had taken place.

Trust me -- if I'd wanted to be insulting I could do a much better job.

I'm interested in having fun, but also in exchanging useful, factual information regarding our "toys" here. As with my comments to you in another thread, wild speculation or worse, presenting speculative guesses as fact does no one any good, and causes confusion among newcomers who see nothing but conflicting information.

Both of you.

The idea is to have fun, I do.

And who in the hell cares if there is one or two less firmware
providers? I can add a few if I like, HP for example also provides
user firmware and although their cameras are crappy, I do think
that they sell (give away?) a lot of them.

One or two bit players more or less does nothing to the principle.

But just let's not get personal and/or carried away!

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Hi James

That is simply breathtaking.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Still shaking my head at that one.

I don't think I could have come up with a more brilliant application of the same broken logic he originally made if I'd tried.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

James ....
hustle down to the local community college and take a course in
logic. Yours is flawed!

I've offered my remedial course, but I think he skipped class.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=5391955

 

[Inigo Montoya]

"For hopefully the last time".... AS WELL:

NO ONE SAID THEY PROMISED the updates! It's just a matter of
opinion whether or not one feels if they are cheating their
customers by not offering the updates, and I simply happen to feel
they are. It's just a difference of opinion certainly NOT WORTHY
of all this BS.

Cheating implies a measure of dishonesty. If you mean to say they're doing you a disservice, not providing "world class customer service", etc., I can agree.

You too will 'get on that bandwagon' the day you
have to get a FW update, then have to pay to ship it, pay to get it
updated, wait weeks, etc.

Sorry, wrong. I sent my Uzi packing some months back to get a couple hot pixels fixed and to have them upgrade the buggy -74 firmware that would reset to AUTO ISO even when told not to. I paid for shipping even though both defects were "their" fault. I did not then, and do not now feel I was cheated in any way. In fact the whole process went smoothly.

I'm also NOT CLAIMING I'm "entitled" to ANYTHING. It just a simple
observation of fact that so many others DO offer it. You're
twisting comments around to suit your agenda....whatever that is.

I have no agenda other than for people to try and stick to facts. My initial reply was in direct reponse you this statement of yours:

..and yes, WE ARE being cheated when every other digicam maker HAS the firmware updates at their respective websites for FREE.

My response, while rather pointed (there was so much misinformation flying at the time, I'd had enough of it), was directed squarely at the claim of being cheated, not at receiving poor service, or what Olympus should or should not do.

Any new FW versions are going to be compatible with what ever is
inside the 'cam. Similar to the BIOS on a mobo; they are not going
to offer a BIOS update that stops supporting your CPU--by the same
token I seriously doubt OM is going to offer a new FW that stops
supporting (for example) a certain type of media, or CCD unit, etc.

You can doubt it, but face it you (nor I) know for sure. We're not the programmers. But then, I never said they shouldn't offer the firmware up, just that their reasoning was plausible, and that they were within their rights (and warranty terms) to operate as they see fit.

I UNDERSTAND what you are saying. Now, UNDERSTAND what I am saying please.

If you meant to say they were performing a disservice to their customers, not cheating anyone, then yes, I understand you now.

 

[Jola]

I wasn't trying to make a personal attack. I was trying to make a
point about unreasonable expectations and claims of being cheated
where no cheating had taken place.

Trust me -- if I'd wanted to be insulting I could do a much better

Yes, but then Phil Askey would ban you from the forum!

job.

I'm interested in having fun, but also in exchanging useful,
factual information regarding our "toys" here. As with my
comments to you in another thread, wild speculation or worse,
presenting speculative guesses as fact does no one any good, and
causes confusion among newcomers who see nothing but conflicting
information.

Yes, but when you have a complete block on information from the main subject, ie Olympus, you often have to rely on information from other sources (for example PQI, Transcend, Kingston), and from reading between the lines of Olympus e-mails, and on your personal experiences and of those of other users.

And on information obtained by browsing forums. Clearly one has to be circumspect when using unverified information, and I haven't used much obtained like this.

I find the experiences of other users quite valuable, not their speculative opinions, but their factual experiences. Sure I cannot verify what they say may or may not have happened to their cameras, but if it is consistent with my experiences I will believe them.

A lot of my opinions are also based on the fact that I believe that Olympus Technical are not stupid. For example, I have obtained pretty detailed information on how these firmware upgrade processes work with Nikon (P&S and dSLR), Canon, HP, etc cameras. A major assumption that I make is that Olympus is up to the same level ot technical expertise as at least those few companies.

If they are not, and they are indeed technically incompetent, then some of what I say will be wrong. But then we had better all sell our cameras ASAP.

Fortunately, I don't believe this to be necessary.

 

[Jola]

Couldn't agree more ...

I too agree with you about not getting every firmware update. I
will say however that having access to them if you wanted/needed
them would be an excellent thing for Olympus to do.

Now my C5050 is about 1 1/2 months old (V77) and I am still in the
learning curve and figure I will be for some time to come. Let's
say that my camera is working fantastic and after the warranty
expires I try something different ("feature, memory card,
whatever") and I have problems that could have been corrected with
a firmware update.

Now I have to pay to ship the camera, pay to upgrade the firmware
and be without my camera for god knows how long...is that fair to
me? This is all the more reason to have upgradable firmware that
can be performed by the enduser. To not allow this and to pretend
they don't exist or make it difficult to get, is poor service on
behalf of any company.

Another way to look at is is the "hidden" warranty provided by car
manufactuers, it is there but you have to find it and fight to get
it. With Olympus they can keep the costs down by just providing
the consumer with the ability to do it themselves. Barring that if
there is a newer firmware they should allow me to get it and not
pretend it isn't there.

Altaman