[HN Gopher] Using FujiFilm SDK on a Camera Voids Its Warranty
___________________________________________________________________
Using FujiFilm SDK on a Camera Voids Its Warranty
Author : dennisvennink
Score : 104 points
Date : 2022-03-24 17:10 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fujifilm-x.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (fujifilm-x.com)
| Maursault wrote:
| I, for one, can forgive FujiFilm... because, even though recently
| finally discontinued, they gave us FujiChrome Velvia 100 (& 50).
| themerone wrote:
| This is illegal in the US due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
|
| They can only void the warrenty if they can prove that the damage
| is the result of the SDK usage.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > 5.2 YOU AGREE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, ONCE A PRODUCT IS USED OR
| CONTROLLED BY OR THROUGH THE DIGITAL IMAGING SYSTEM, SUCH PRODUCT
| SHALL BE OUT OF SUCH MANUFACTURER-WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
| PRODUCT AS SEPARATELY SPECIFIED BY FUJIFILM, FUJIFILM'S
| AFFILIATES, OR THEIR BUSINESS PARTNERS.
|
| Brutal. Consumer protections are lagging badly behind in the
| software era. It's bad enough that commercial software has broad
| disclaimers against ensuring any kind of functionality, but this
| stuff is starting to creep into hardware too. I think right-to-
| repair is a good start.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I think it's totally valid to void warranty when customers
| modify product software. If users do things like disable
| temperature limits and mess up their camera, then I see no
| reason why the company (and be extension, other customers)
| should foot the bill.
|
| Giving away the SDK, regardless of warranty revocation, is a
| step ahead of most camera manufacturers.
| hexo wrote:
| No, it's not valid. At all. I think it is illegal in some
| countries and should be illegal everywhere. It was enough of
| these "practices".
| Manuel_D wrote:
| If I swap out my car's engine with a more powerful one and
| screw up the drivetrain will warranty cover it? If I load
| broken firmware onto my device that screws it up, why
| should the company be on the hook? Replacing firmware is no
| different than replacing any other component.
|
| What countries force companies to provide warranty when
| users load faulty firmware onto devices?
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| > If I swap out my car's engine with a more powerful one
|
| yes, legally required to be covered in the us.
|
| > and screw up the drivetrain will warranty cover it?
|
| No, not legally required to be covered in the us.
|
| The difference is the law specifies the manufacturer can
| not assume a leads to b, they have to _a reason_ to think
| b was caused by a.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| A more apt analogy would be the MVD plugged a dongle into
| the canbus plug and now your warranty is void.
|
| I mean, this is exactly what they are doing.
| cge wrote:
| That's not the problem. The problem here is that Fuji
| appears to be claiming that _any_ use of the SDK voids
| the warranty _entirely_ , regardless of the defect. t
| would be like if you swapped out your car's engine with a
| more powerful one, and then, from a completely unrelated
| fault, its navigation system stops working.
|
| In the US, my understanding is that this is explicitly
| not legal, per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. FujiFilm
| can choose not to offer a warranty at all, but if they
| offer one, then it must cover defects on modified devices
| unless they can show that the modification caused or
| contributed to the defect.
|
| In the EU, it is my understanding that it is legal to
| have a guarantee with terms like these. However,
| regardless of any guarantee the manufacturer may offer,
| there is a statutory guarantee in the EU for most
| products, which completely ignores the terms that the
| manufacturer might prefer. This _usually_ ends up being
| weaker than Magnuson-Moss in terms of duration and
| modifications. But it usually means that for six months,
| the seller must prove that the fault with the product was
| caused by the consumer, and for two years, if you can
| show that the problem is from a defect with the device
| originally and not from you, then you can still get
| repairs, replacement, or a refund.
| DannyBee wrote:
| The short answer is: The warranty must cover damage not
| caused by your modification.
|
| There are no countries i'm aware of that require you
| warranty damage caused by user modification. Lots of
| countries require that you do not void the entire
| warranty, or refuse service, of any damage _not_ caused
| by the modification, and generally the manufacturer has
| to show the damage was caused by the modification if they
| want to refuse service.
|
| In this case, Fuji is trying to void the _entire_
| warranty. That is not legal in a lot of countries.
| Zak wrote:
| In the US, car manufacturers are required to honor the
| warranty for the rest of the car after you swap the
| engine _unless_ they can prove your engine swap caused
| the failure they don 't want to repair. They will
| probably have little difficulty proving that for a
| scenario like a more powerful engine breaking a
| transmission. They'd have a much harder time claiming it
| caused the heated seats to stop working.
|
| This SDK seems to be for PC-based remote control apps,
| not camera firmware. A well-designed camera firmware
| would not accept remote control commands that exceed the
| hardware's safety limits.
| rosndo wrote:
| Not illegal, just not binding.
| jchw wrote:
| Hardware should be designed to be resilient to broken
| software to whatever degree possible.
|
| And then still, warranty should cover defects in the face of
| modified software.
|
| The SDK is not some hack downloaded from some shady website.
| It's not a third-party unauthorized tool. This isn't like, "I
| transformed my Tesla into an ICE car and then asked them to
| fix it." It's like, "I paired my phone via Bluetooth to the
| entertainment system and now they won't fix my defective AC."
|
| Yes it's hard to prove that hardware wasn't broken by broken,
| unauthorized software modifications. Is there even a small
| amount of evidence that the warranty burden caused by
| software modifications is significant? Many stores are happy
| to cover occasional consumer error even if they're not
| actually liable to, and that is SURELY more common than
| firmware modifications.
|
| Not to mention the directions this could go into. Oh, malware
| exploited our phones and then modified the system firmware?
| Sorry, your warranty is void because you ran unofficial
| firmware, goodbye.
|
| (Obviously, and especially in the last case, if you _do_
| break your device on your own, or someone else does, then of
| course manufacturer warranties do not cover that. That's a
| whole different wheelhouse. But your warranty should not be
| entirely void over software. This is the same as those
| technically-not-legally-binding "warranty void if removed"
| stickers everyone unfortunately tolerates.)
| opencl wrote:
| The SDK basically gives remote shutter control and file
| transfer. There is nothing in it that could plausibly damage
| anything.
| judge2020 wrote:
| There are a lot of changeable settings listed in those
| header files, chances are some combination of settings or
| other highly-tuned SDK usage could put the camera to work
| and potentially cause it to overheat (eg. forcing a
| specific shutter speed while also capping the movie shutter
| speed, perhaps) since they're not testing the use cases you
| could theoretically enable via the SDK.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Then that's a defect in the product, not the fault of the
| user, and should be covered under warranty.
|
| (& the defect should get fixed. Nobody wants to brick
| their camera.)
| ceeg wrote:
| wouldnt shutter control give the possibility of the image
| sensor overheating from extended exposures? I could
| absolutely be talking out of my ass but I thought I
| remembered that being a risk when I flashed ML to my Canon
| for star photos.
| muhehe wrote:
| Basically every camera I have had has a "bulb", which is
| pretty much as-long-as-you-want exposure. Never heard of
| sensor overheating even after hours of exposure.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Overheating is more of an issue for the image processor,
| at high frame rates. During bulb mode, the sensor is on
| for a long time but it's only one frame being handled by
| the image processor.
| buildbot wrote:
| Any CCD based camera will certainly heat up a lot, and
| cmos as well to a lesser degree without good/active
| cooling.
|
| Most cameras time out at about an hour maximum unless
| they are special purpose astro cameras.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The worst I can thing of is extra noise from the heat
| build up from the sensor being energized for extended
| period. This is one of the many reasons that image
| stacking is so advantageous. Cold winter nights imaging
| Orion is probably not going to notice it nearly as much
| as those hot summer nights trying to image Milky Way.
| (I'm hoping to take my camera cooler out for a spin this
| summer. Just a modified pelican case with insulation and
| ice chest freezer packs. lo-tech)
| jug wrote:
| Good luck enforcing this in an EU court lol
| DannyBee wrote:
| Even in consumer places like the US, this is generally illegal.
|
| They would not be able to refuse warranty service without
| showing that your use of the SDK was the reason the camera
| failed (and the burden would be on them).
|
| IE they can't say "Yes, the lens popped out because it was
| defective, but you used the SDK so tough crap"
| tomaskafka wrote:
| Funnily I had exactly this happen with HTC One - yes, your
| phone camera has degraded inside a warranty period and all
| photos have purple fade, but since you unlocked the
| bootloader, you're out of luck, bye.
| DannyBee wrote:
| I've had good luck without having to resort to legal
| process. But some companies are recalcitrant about it.
| [deleted]
| e2le wrote:
| Is that even legal? It seems similar to the "warranty void"
| stickers which are nothing more than an illegal scare tactic
| that many individuals are conned into believing.
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/11748/warranty-stickers-are-ille...
|
| https://www.ifixit.com/News/15464/warranty-voiding-stickers-...
| judge2020 wrote:
| Even if it's illegal it doesn't override user protection
| laws, so the statement has no effect and they'd need to prove
| your SDK usage caused an issue with the product to legally
| deny warranty.
| kahrl wrote:
| It's not just a scare tactic, it's how these companies
| operate. They will illegally refuse to service products they
| have an obligation to. Until there are massive class action
| lawsuits, this isn't changing.
| cosmotic wrote:
| Regardless of their written policy or silly warranty void
| stickers, the law dictates the warranty still covers all
| components not modified or damaged by the consumer. You might
| have to fight in court, but thats the law.
| noasaservice wrote:
| The text (at bottom, outside of the block):
|
| "AS STARTED ABOVE, USING THIS SDK TO CONNECT TO OR CONTROL, ANY
| COMPATIBLE FUJIFILM CAMERA WILL VOID THE CAMERA'S LIMITED PRODUCT
| WARRANTY."
|
| I'm sure the FTC would like to have a word, about revoking a
| warranty by using intended software.
| justin_oaks wrote:
| Exactly, this part of the agreement may not void the warranty.
| Just like stickers on the outside of a product that say
| "Warranty void if broken" don't void the warranty.
|
| In fact, those stickers themselves are illegal:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/11/601582169...
| oh_sigh wrote:
| In fact, the Magnusson-Moss act makes it illegal to void a
| warranty even for 3rd party, aftermarket modifications to a
| product, unless it can be shown that the aftermarket
| modification is the cause of or contributed to the warranty
| claim.
|
| So even if you had some random black box that you plugged into
| your cameras USB port, and it would send all sorts of wild
| commands to the camera, _that_ would not void your warranty
| unless the black box was actually responsible for the damage to
| the camera.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The thing is, if the image sensor overheats with this
| supposed camera stresser, how would they prove it? Do they
| start to keep tons of logs about API usage and deny a
| warranty claim if that log has been wiped?
| ISL wrote:
| Kind of surprising to see Fujifilm do this.
|
| On the flip side, it suggests that there are probably some
| interesting things that are possible with the SDK.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Not so sure about that. I bet it was just some lawyers adding
| the clause.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Here are the header files for the main api (i imagine) and
| the X-S10[0]. There's a lot of stuff you can do in there.
|
| 0: https://gist.github.com/judge2020/6ed181c1367979333baec948
| 4e...
| ciprian_craciun wrote:
| I am an amateur photographer, and I can't understand why the
| major camera brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) aren't open
| at least to the concept of SDK's to control their cameras (let
| alone opening the lens mount specifications)...
|
| It would make their cameras much more flexible and useful, thus
| perhaps gaining some users that currently use smartphones where
| it seems there is greater control over and integration with the
| cameras. On the other side, if one can implement in software what
| the producer doesn't want to implement in firmware, they might
| miss some future upgrade sales...
|
| I am currently thinking on buying a FujiFilm X-T4, and I was
| pleased to see there is a SDK, but now, finding out that using
| the SDK is practically forbidden (until the warranty ends), it
| makes me stop and think about my decision... What could the SDK
| do to the camera so that it voids the warranty? (On the other
| hand, given the quality of camera brand produced software, I can
| imagine the quality of the code that went into it...) :)
| daveslash wrote:
| I agree with you.
|
| This is a bit off topic, but I have a Sony a3000 and a6000. I
| have a non-sony USB camera timer/remote [1], and I'm pretty
| pleased with it. There seem to be similar products out there.
|
| If there is no USB SDK released by Sony, how are these
| manufacturers creating this USB control devices? Do they
| partner with camera vendors behind NDAs? Do they reverse
| engineer the protocol? Just curious.
|
| [1] https://www.amazon.com/Remote-Control-Wireless-Shutter-
| Relea...
| hadlock wrote:
| Gating features allows them to wait for a future model to
| release them there and drive sales. There's not much blood left
| to wring from the digital camera stone.
| ska wrote:
| > I am an amateur photographer, and I can't understand why the
| major camera brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) aren't
| open ...
|
| How much are you willing to pay for this? I suspect they've all
| looked at it, and decided the ROI wasn't worth it.
| pdpi wrote:
| I'm not sure they have looked at it, and I'm not sure they'd
| even examine this from an ROI point of view.
|
| Camera makers (even camera divisions in more "high-tech"
| companies like Sony) are very much traditional hardware-first
| companies, I'm fairly certain he idea of opening up the
| cameras is just alien to them.
| ska wrote:
| That's fair, it may be a blind spot. But even if it
| weren't, it's not clear it's would be a net win for them.
| ciprian_craciun wrote:
| Well, the camera is already ~1.5-2K EUR (without lens), thus
| I think the price already covers it... But if I must put a
| price on it, I would say ~100-200 EUR, but then it should
| come with at least 5 years of updates, and it should work on
| Linux. :)
|
| Also, just supporting some basic features, like shutter and
| all the exposure settings, shouldn't be that hard... I bet
| all of these are already implemented, because many cameras
| have smartphone applications that do allow to control all of
| these.
|
| Thus, the largest cost would be mostly documentation,
| packaging and support for the various OS. Which, although
| might end up being quite a non trivial amount, it could be
| seen as money well invested in brand building, especially
| since now, in 2022, only professionals or invested amateurs
| are buying these dedicated cameras...
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| I would happily pay a subscription for an iOS app. The
| usual argument against this is being commodified, but for
| the vast majority of the market, Canon has already been
| commodified in the shape of Apple and Samsung phones. They
| have to compete now on how good their hardware is, but
| their "stupid" hardware doesn't cut it without smart
| software. Their time in the broader marketplace is gone.
| They can get a small amount of marketshare back if they can
| make their hardware work with iPhones and Galaxies.
| Possibly just iPhones.
|
| I've got the cash for a great canon camera. I used to carry
| one around with me all the time. The size isn't what's
| stopping me. It's the UX.
| ska wrote:
| > Which, although might end up being quite a non trivial
| amount, i
|
| Right. Engineers usually underestimate how much this really
| is. Often by an order of magnitude or two.
|
| I'm pretty confident their margins aren't fat enough they'd
| be happy considering eating 1-2% (i.e. your numbers) on
| something that might help a fraction of install base. Hell
| they may already not be making next to nothing on these
| bodies.
|
| So it would be a real project, and it would cost them
| enough that (using your rough numbers) they'd need to sell
| probably a few thousand support contracts a year to justify
| doing it properly (supporting multiple cameras, customer
| support, testing etc.). So I imagine if they have looked at
| it, they've balanced that against the "brand building" as
| you put it, and aren't sure it's a net win.
|
| The prosumer space is funny for stuff like this, as people
| are often quite capable but not really willing to pay
| enough to justify the cost of real support. Some companies
| solve this by throwing something unsupported/unofficial
| over the wall, others (or their lawyers) decide the whole
| thing isn't worth the hassle.
| carl_dr wrote:
| > I am an amateur photographer, and I can't understand why the
| major camera brands (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.) aren't
| open at least to the concept of SDK's to control their cameras
| (let alone opening the lens mount specifications)...
|
| At least Canon and Nikon do.
|
| I use the Canon and Nikon SDKs in a product for work, and there
| are plenty of third party applications which allow control of
| their cameras.
|
| They might not officially offer support for them, but they do
| keep them updated for new cameras and I have had bugs fixed and
| questions answered.
|
| There are open source projects using these SDKs - See NINA [0]
| as just one example.
|
| [0] https://nighttime-imaging.eu/
| Melatonic wrote:
| The Sony mirrorless cameras used to have some third party
| "apps" that were pretty cool but apparently are now all
| discontinued. And what the Magic Lantern team did for Canon
| cameras (especially the 5DmkIII) was absolutely amazing. I
| still miss features to this day.
|
| If you are looking for a new camera also definitely checkout
| the new Panasonic Lumix line of full frame cameras - they are
| damn amazing. Extremely intuitive UI, tons of features you do
| not find in other cameras, amazing video (especially with an
| external recorder - you can do 6K raw video) and built like a
| tank. And they all use L-Mount which is shared among multiple
| camera manufacturers with tons of lenses available from Sigma
| and others. The Panasonic lenses are pricey but also extremely
| high quality (probably because they also design super high end
| cinema glass)
| to11mtm wrote:
| Sony does have SDKs, They're just fragmented between older
| and newer models now. =/
| ISL wrote:
| For the bigger players, they miss out on market segmentation.
| An EOS M with Magic Lantern has a number of features that are
| featured on Canon's cinema line, for example. The M is perhaps
| no longer competitive in key ways, but had ML been available
| with today's level of polish in 2012, it would have eaten into
| higher-margin products.
|
| Fuji is perhaps best poised to enable open development -- their
| pricing structure is more around hardware variations on a
| common sensor/processing than strict differentiation in
| capability.
|
| The far future of camera development probably does look like
| open-source (or, at a minimum, common-versioned closed-source)
| software/firmware riding on commercially-manufactured hardware
| platforms (just like computers today). We're not there yet, but
| the technical success of Magic Lantern shows that the door is
| open.
|
| A dark-horse entrant like Sigma could, in addition to Fuji, be
| a hardware vendor that could crack open a "commoditize your
| competition" market.
| jseliger wrote:
| In the meantime, everyone except professionals and image-
| quality obsessives has moved to phone cameras, for which
| Google and Apple have developed incredible software. It's
| been obvious for at least ten years that camera makers need
| to improve their software, and they've not done so, or very
| minimally done so.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| I strongly suspect it's just easier from a customer support
| point of view, if you develop an application that causes the
| camera to overheat and fail.
|
| They really don't want to send you a new camera. The dangerous
| thing with code controlling hardware directly, is absent safe
| guards you can easily exceed the mechanical limits of the
| device.
|
| This is why seriously overclocking a CPU will definitely void
| the warranty, but at the same time CPUs are often marketed
| based on how well they handle overclocking.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| But in this case, the camera processor still retains final
| control over the commands from the SDK. This isn't a customer
| firmware, just a networking interface that simulates pushing
| buttons and changing menus. The firmware has just as much
| ability to reject damaging commands as it would if the user
| was physically entering them.
| Rucadi wrote:
| I suppose they have to demonstrate that the error you get derived
| from the use of the SDK.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Camera manufacturers really seem to try to shoot themselves in
| the foot as much as possible. They are putting on something
| interesting and immediately kill it for braid use. Nobody is
| going to publish software based on the SDK. At least nobody who
| doesn't want the threat of lawsuits hanging over them.
| Proven wrote:
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Fujifilm
| hereby grants to you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable,
| and royalty-free license to;
|
| (a) use, _modify_ and make a limited number of copies of the SDK
| solely for the purpose of the Development;
|
| Later in the same agreement...
|
| > 3.5 You shall not (and shall not permit others), to reverse
| engineer, reverse compile, or disassemble the SDK in any way(in
| whole or in part); and you shall not (and shall not permit
| others) to use any method to trace, decompile, or disassemble the
| SDK.
|
| So, which one is it?
| detaro wrote:
| You can do all modifications that do not involve things banned
| in the second quote?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| And what would those entail? How could one modify an SDK
| without disassembling or even debugging?
| gambiting wrote:
| An SDK typically isn't a binary blob - it's usually a
| collection of header files you can integrate into your
| projects, media assets, config files etc. All of those can
| by modified by hand without disassembling anything.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| That is true. It would be interesting to see this played
| out in court. When there are doubts around a certain
| clause on a contract of adhesion/license with non-
| negotiable terms, courts tend to side with the
| interpretation most favorable to the consumer.
| hexo wrote:
| That's certainly illegal here.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)