Sony could actually learn something from JVC...

GuyB

GuyB

Well-known member
JVC are allowing end users to upgrade their own cameras firmware. There is a new firmware for the HD700 which allows them to record MP4 rather than MOV without the SxS adaptor being attached, and the firmware is installed by users, not service centres.

There may be other problems with this camera (aka 1/3" & typical JVC noise & sensitivity problems etc) but Sony could learn a lesson on users upgrading their own cameras firmware.
 
Yeah, but nowing Sony they never will.
What is the reason they don't want us to do the upgrade?
Are they afraid that we will mess things up? I doubt it.
To send a camera in for upgrading costs a lot of money and has a lot of risks plus the inconvience of not having it for a while.
If all the owners of the cameras sign a request and send it to Sony; will it help?
Name and serial number will be enough.
 
GuyB said:
JVC are allowing end users to upgrade their own cameras firmware. There is a new firmware for the HD700 which allows them to record MP4 rather than MOV without the SxS adaptor being attached, and the firmware is installed by users, not service centres.

There may be other problems with this camera (aka 1/3" & typical JVC noise & sensitivity problems etc) but Sony could learn a lesson on users upgrading their own cameras firmware.
Click to expand...

JVC demonstrated the HM100 and HM700 at our local Final Cut Pro user's group last week. I dismissed the two as I had already reviewed them at NAB and made up my mind that they were lacking. The JVC rep mentioned the firmware update that you are referring to.

If I recall correctly, Motorola ran afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley when it gave out new-feature firmware updates at no cost to customers of Motorola radio systems. The entire experience gave me the impression that the HM100-700 line is in it's death throes and the firmware update was what we call a "hail mary pass."

YMMV

Christopher
 
cjwolff said:
JVC demonstrated the HM100 and HM700 at our local Final Cut Pro user's group last week. I dismissed the two as I had already reviewed them at NAB and made up my mind that they were lacking. The JVC rep mentioned the firmware update that you are referring to.

If I recall correctly, Motorola ran afoul of Sarbanes-Oxley when it gave out new-feature firmware updates at no cost to customers of Motorola radio systems. The entire experience gave me the impression that the HM100-700 line is in it's death throes and the firmware update was what we call a "hail mary pass."

YMMV

Christopher
Click to expand...
Yeah, but do you think we should be able to update the firmware by our self or not? IMO it is execptional not to do it yourself since nearly all products are updated via internet downloads.
I have a Nikon 300 and I have updated the firmware recently at no costs and no problems at all. I have this WD media streamer; update firmware no problems and no costs whatsoever.
What secrets is Sony tying to protect?
 
I don't know why evryone thinks that the JVC HD700 is such a bad camera. The image quality may not be as good as the Sony EX-1 but the ergonomics seem to be excellent.
 
Kenny_G said:
Yeah, but do you think we should be able to update the firmware by our self or not? IMO it is execptional not to do it yourself since nearly all products are updated via internet downloads.
I have a Nikon 300 and I have updated the firmware recently at no costs and no problems at all. I have this WD media streamer; update firmware no problems and no costs whatsoever.
What secrets is Sony tying to protect?
Click to expand...

Perfecting already released hardware with a firmware update is not the issue-adding new features to an already released product is when you will cross accounting rules. According to a reading of certain accounting rules relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, items that gain significant new functionality after the sale—due to a firmware update, for instance—can't have the revenue recorded at the time of sale. The revenue is reported over a certain period of time, called subscription accounting. In other words, if you aquired the JVC firmware update enabling the new features as part of a paid support agreement, everyone is in the clear. If not, there's a SOX issue.

Quoted from another site:
"Apple announced that their computers would begin shipping with Draft 802.11n support. Systems shipped with this hidden capability can easily be unlocked through software, but due to the accounting requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, Apple cannot freely add features to already-sold hardware and so must nominally sell an upgrade. This "upgrade" is included in the price of an AirPort Extreme Base Station for all computers owned by the purchaser, and Apple sells the "upgrade" separately (as the "AirPort Extreme 802.11n Enabler for Mac") for about US$2 in the United States and at similar prices elsewhere."
 
This is pure idiocy. One thing is selling a product that is supposed to have a certain feature later via an upgrade, but to advertise the product as having the feature. Here you pay for essentially a non-existing feature, so I can side with SOX. But adding a feature that was not mentioned in the feature list of an original product should be allowed, after all a customer have not paid for the new feature when he bought the product. If SOx prohibits this, it is nuts. Well, as always, when sh!t happens -- either in economics, or in politics or in say child care -- the government more often than not produces rules that are overly restrictive and lack common sense.

JVC fixed a rather strange discrepancy in the HM100/HM700 family, when the cheaper and smaller model could record in more formats than the more expensive model. I don't know whether this was an issue of licensing, with Sony wanting its piece of a pie (SxS cards), or something else. Apparently, this issue has been resolved now, and JVC delivered what it should have been delivered right from the start. All I can say is - finally. Slow clapping. Good job JVC. Obviously, those who already have got an SxS unit for their HM700 will be pissed, but whatever the case they did not pay JVC for this feature, they bought the camera knowing that it could not record XDCAM onto SDHC. It would be a sad irony if JVC will be punished for this.
 
JVC makes a big deal about the SDHC card for freelance work. Since SDHC cards are disposable you give the client he card and you do not have to worry about getting it back as long as you are paid. However handing off express cards to clients will put a hole in your wallet because you might never get these cards back.
 
I believe even before this upgrade, if you had the SxS module attached, you could record XDCAM EX to the SD cards, the SxS module just 'unlocked' the XDCAM EX file format. The new firmware just takes this hardware lock away which makes this camera much more accessible to PC users.
 
GuyB said:
I believe even before this upgrade, if you had the SxS module attached, you could record XDCAM EX to the SD cards, the SxS module just 'unlocked' the XDCAM EX file format. The new firmware just takes this hardware lock away which makes this camera much more accessible to PC users.
Click to expand...
So, how do they explain this "upgrade"? Did they cut a better deal with Sony?
 
I've got a feeling that will information will remain locked in a vault at Area 51...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top