[Wheatfield]

Unless, of course, the customer's camera breaks when out of regular warranty then its's a different story. Of course, the customer could always file a lawsuit or piss and moan on some forum some place how the camera was a piece of junk and the camera company didn't care a whiff about customer relations. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

The point being, extended warranties on cameras have well over a 90% profit margin. The person who collects on one is very much an outlier.

[slartibartfast01]

Unless, of course, the customer's camera breaks when out of regular warranty then its's a different story. Of course, the customer could always file a lawsuit or piss and moan on some forum some place how the camera was a piece of junk and the camera company didn't care a whiff about customer relations. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

In the UK the Sale of Goods act allows a claim to be made for faulty goods for 6 years even without an extended warranty.

[swanlefitte]

In the UK the Sale of Goods act allows a claim to be made for faulty goods for 6 years even without an extended warranty.

It would still need to show the below wasn't met. A loaf of bread that has turned to mold after 6 years would certainly not meet the requirements, not even a Twinkie. The suite seems to be about what this part contains even though it is in the States.

For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.

[Serkevan]

The point being, extended warranties on cameras have well over a 90% profit margin. The person who collects on one is very much an outlier.

The moment you have to take an economic gamble based on a - supposedly, at least - random chance, it's... well, it's straight up gambling. Only you're trying to minimize the money you lose instead of maximizing the money you win.

And, of course, the house always wins.

[Rondec]

Pentax should have taken care of folks with this issue.

That said, the majority of the cameras affected by this are pretty old, it is unclear what appropriate compensation would be, and odds are really good that the only folks who would benefit from this will be the lawyers involved. If I had confidence that lawsuits like this would "clean up the industry" and prevent future issues from developing and companies taking care of their consumers after the fact, I would be more in favor of it. But I don't see anything changing, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.

From a company's standpoint, their goal is to get a product out of the warranty period with minimal warranty claims. Particularly on entry level products, like those mentioned here, controlling costs is paramount and so having longer warranties is unusual. I bought a K-S1 for my daughter for 300 dollars. It failed a couple of years after purchase and I had it fixed. But adding years on to the 1 year warranty would by necessity increase the selling price for that camera.

[Pål Jensen]

But adding years on to the 1 year warranty would by necessity increase the selling price for that camera.

It is 5 years in Norway according to law.

[Serkevan]

Pentax should have taken care of folks with this issue.

That said, the majority of the cameras affected by this are pretty old, it is unclear what appropriate compensation would be, and odds are really good that the only folks who would benefit from this will be the lawyers involved. If I had confidence that lawsuits like this would "clean up the industry" and prevent future issues from developing and companies taking care of their consumers after the fact, I would be more in favor of it. But I don't see anything changing, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.

From a company's standpoint, their goal is to get a product out of the warranty period with minimal warranty claims. Particularly on entry level products, like those mentioned here, controlling costs is paramount and so having longer warranties is unusual. I bought a K-S1 for my daughter for 300 dollars. It failed a couple of years after purchase and I had it fixed. But adding years on to the 1 year warranty would by necessity increase the selling price for that camera.

Oh, it will increase the selling price, but seeing as additional warranties are almost purely profit and increasing the price decreases the demand, a forced warranty expansion to a more reasonable 2 (most of the EU, if I'm not wrong) or 5 years like Pål said would almost certainly make the price increase lower than the "old" price of the extended warranty.

[reh321]

Oh, it will increase the selling price, but seeing as additional warranties are almost purely profit and increasing the price decreases the demand, a forced warranty expansion to a more reasonable 2 (most of the EU, if I'm not wrong) or 5 years like Pål said would almost certainly make the price increase lower than the "old" price of the extended warranty.

Once they do that, they might as well eliminate the K-n0 family and make the KP family the introductory line {as I have been advocating all along}.

[normhead]

Once they do that, they might as well eliminate the K-n0 family and make the KP family the introductory line {as I have been advocating all along}.

There are no indications they haven't done that already anyway.

[reh321]

There are no indications they haven't done that already anyway.

They are still selling the K-70.
The question is what will follow - and we don't know that, but it has never stopped us from speculating, and speculate we shall.

[stillshot2]

I bought my K-30 used for around $250, used it for about 4-5 years until the aperture failed, then sold it for about $150 disclosing its aperture failure. I'd say $100 for the use I got out of it was about the same amount the camera would have already depreciated anyways. Now I use a K-3 and a K-x for backup, both solid cameras. I didn't need to upgrade to the K-3 but I don't regret doing it as it's clearly a better camera. It would be a nice gesture if Ricoh extended warranty coverage on affected cameras for that specific issue, but by now the cameras are already 8+ years old so that's expecting a lot. And if a batch of aperture blocks were faulty from the supplier, that really isn't Ricoh's fault unless they really did know about the failing parts and used them anyways?

[reh321]

I bought my K-30 used for around $250, used it for about 4-5 years until the aperture failed, then sold it for about $150 disclosing its aperture failure. I'd say $100 for the use I got out of it was about the same amount the camera would have already depreciated anyways. Now I use a K-3 and a K-x for backup, both solid cameras. I didn't need to upgrade to the K-3 but I don't regret doing it as it's clearly a better camera. It would be a nice gesture if Ricoh extended warranty coverage on affected cameras for that specific issue, but by now the cameras are already 8+ years old so that's expecting a lot. And if a batch of aperture blocks were faulty from the supplier, that really isn't Ricoh's fault unless they really did know about the failing parts and used them anyways?

The parts were not “faulty” - they passed acceptance inspection, but aged in such a way that was unpredictable when they were/are put in the product, which is why only the aperture control fails on some K-n0 cameras over time.

[slartibartfast01]

The parts were not “faulty” - they passed acceptance inspection, but aged in such a way that was unpredictable when they were/are put in the product, which is why only the aperture control fails on some K-n0 cameras over time.

We don't know what the acceptance criteria were. If there was a drawing specifying a PTFE former then they probably shouldn't have passed. I suspect the inspection involved checking the part number and taking the suppliers word that the performance of the changed part would be the same as the original. I wouldn't be surprised if the only testing done was to try the new part in the flash circuit of some cameras for a while and when that seemed to work they used them in the aperture block.
A company I worked for used thousands of tapewound iron cores and the specification drawings specified a minimum weight as well as physical dimensions. The inspection used to include weighing the cores and rejecting any light ones but after a period with no failures some bright spark decided to stop weighing the cores. You can guess what happened next, lots of humming transformers.
The acceptance criteria have to be fit for purpose. If they allow "faulty" components through then they aren't.

[reh321]

We don't know what the acceptance criteria were. If there was a drawing specifying a PTFE former then they probably shouldn't have passed. I suspect the inspection involved checking the part number and taking the suppliers word that the performance of the changed part would be the same as the original. I wouldn't be surprised if the only testing done was to try the new part in the flash circuit of some cameras for a while and when that seemed to work they used them in the aperture block.

I would be very surprised if their testing involved dimensional type data only. I also worked at an electronics company, working on their “Receiving and Inspection” computer system. In interacting with their workers, I saw a great deal of their specifications, and they involved all kinds of testing; the only parts which didn’t involve electronics testing were non-electronics parts, including structural parts where the inspections included not having any flash.

[stevebrot]

That said, the majority of the cameras affected by this are pretty old, it is unclear what appropriate compensation would be

In the U.S. at least, the depreciation schedule for business tax purposes on a digital camera is somewhere between three and five years (I forget which and am too lazy to look it up). That might be a good starting point to approximate value of years used at time of failure. The residual (depreciated) value would be a consideration for award.* Such would probably not be very satisfactory to many who complain on this site, particularly those who let the camera sit on the shelf for several years with very few photos taken, many of whom would like a replacement camera, preferably a new K-70.


Steve

* Not related to market value or replacement value at time of failure.