[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)