Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst

enri <enridress RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
> the original vehicle.

It's unlikely that the cost of repairing the Civic would exceed its value,
or even be a large fraction of its value. You bought an inexpensive camera;
you used it for three years and 5000 shots; it doesn't really matter
whether the failure was an expensive part and you're the only one it's
happened to or a ten-cent gear that's happened to thousands of them.

Digital cameras are fragile. Since people want them small, light, fast and
cheap, things like short lifespans or trouble points on lens systems, card
doors, etc. are common.

Bummer. But I think you're shoveling too much on Kodak.

--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net>
wrote:

>> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>>
>> enri


>>
>Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
>since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
>wearing out, should I complain to the designer?

Go ahead and Goggle LS443 "error 45", you will find out that they
are many, many entries, suggesting that a *lot* of people had this
problem. Not to mention the large amount of LS443 cameras sold "for
parts only" sold in everyday in Ebay.

Other Kodak camera models do not show such frequent problems. In my
book this is a classical case of engineering design flaw.

Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
motions.

enri
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 09:45:53 -0400, enri <enridress.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
>tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
>designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
>(Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
>motions.

MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri wrote:

> They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
> camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
> expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
> camera available for about $250 new.

An unimpressive experience and definitely on the low end of customer
satisfaction, but probably not actionable except to cross them off your
list of brands for future purchases. Post-warranty repairs are at their
discretion and struggling old-guard companies that damn near missed the
whole digital boat just aren't going to have the resources to do it
right. I suspect they didn't do the core design in-house, in this case,
and they probably have poor commonality across their various models, so
repairs on old models will be even less cost-effective than the
notoriously low norm on mass-market consumer electronics.

Two experiences of my own that you've reminded me of:

About 10 years ago I was working for a place that bought D*ll machines.
One desktop came with a non-functioning monitor: "DOA" as we say. Well,
such things happen, and the tech came the next day with a replacement -
a refurb unit. But we paid for a new one, we said. Well, they said,
warranty replacements are handled with fully-warranted refurbs, no
matter how soon the problem crops up. But it was DOA, we said. Tough,
they said, DOAs are handled as warranty calls. So we paid full price
for new equipment and never, not even for a minute, got it.

At least X***x put in the fine print on their quotes that some models
of their big printers were fully reconditioned "factory rebuilt" units,
so they could make a stronger case that you were stupid to have dealt
with them to begin with.

> I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
> out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
> cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
> Lockheed Martin).

You are aware, of course, that diagnosis, labour and shipping far dwarf
the nominal cost of the part, so whether it's 10 cents or 10 bucks is a
bit of a red herring. I'd guess that any repair relating to the lens
would require a nontrivial alignment and testing effort, so this is
probably a significant repair. To make the job feasible at all they'd
probably have to replace some large subsystem, like the whole
retractable lens assembly, constituting most of the camera's value.
These were all made at some contract factory overseas which has long
since retooled for other clients, and it would be ludicrously
uneconomic to make more of them now. They would have kept some number
on hand for warranty repairs, used up the leftovers for post-warranty
work, and now they're gone.

> What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
> company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
> more than $500 without doing very much about it.

The picture I get is what I said above: a desperate old-guard outfit
struggling to keep a share in a market that their name is no longer
synonymous with, and finding out along with their remaining customers
that they really aren't up to it.

(Cynically, if they'd designed it "right", all units would have failed,
with a uniformly random distribution of problems, the day the warranty
expired. That all the failures are the same part means that all other
components were overdesigned!)

But I do agree that $500 is a price point that should put the thing
above the disposable level.

> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
> the original vehicle.

Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
- and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
position.

> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.

Effort is money, and the burden of any post-warranty repair or
replacement will unavoidably fall on the consumer. They've calculated
that a sustainable price to do the repair would result in the vast
majority of customers - maybe even you! - not taking them up on it. So
they've said screw this, let's let folks buy a more current model for
about what we'd have to charge them to fix the old one. Frankly I'd
expect many folks to prefer it.

Chip C
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
>>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
>>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>>>
>>> enri
>
>
>> Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>> parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>> pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
>> Nothing lasts forever. BTW, I can't buy 'design flaw' is this case
>> since it is a part that failed. Parts wear out. Lots of MY parts are
>> wearing out, should I complain to the designer?
>
> Go ahead and Goggle LS443 "error 45", you will find out that they
> are many, many entries, suggesting that a *lot* of people had this
> problem. Not to mention the large amount of LS443 cameras sold "for
> parts only" sold in everyday in Ebay.
>
> Other Kodak camera models do not show such frequent problems. In my
> book this is a classical case of engineering design flaw.
>
> Also, years and years of handling failures of optical assemblies
> tells me that 5000 shots is not a large number. Typically a properly
> designed gear assembly for a modestly priced Zoom lens has a MTBF
> (Minimum Time Between Failures) of over 50,000 "shots" or lens
> motions.
>
> enri
>
One must be able to decide whether the part was not correctly
manufactured (part failure), or was specified incorrectly/inadequately.
Many companies order parts from a given supplier, in the normal course
of manufacturing, and if a part fails, then a company can take a 'bum
rap'. I suggest that it is unlikely that you KNOW which is the case,
and are just assuming that the error was in Kodak's specification, or
lack of testing.

When a consumer product fails, it is also often the case that the user
routinely used a device in ways not anticipated by the manufacturer,
which can lead to component failure. This is another 'imponderable'.
It may be that the part was weak, the usage was extreme, or that the
part was not correctly specified. I can't see how you can choose
between those alternative explanations for failure.

Concluding, without definitive information, that Kodak was at fault
leads me to believe there is bias in your conclusions.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:13:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net>
wrote:

>> Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
>> expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
>> reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
>>
>> "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
>> changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
>>
>> enri
>>
>No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
>a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
>failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
>find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
>cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
>will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
>time (the Rolls Royce example).

"The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
will stay perhaps forever.

Having said that and having heard your arguments, as well as the
arguments of other posters, I will now swallow my anger and feelings
of impotency and treat Kodak as another company caring very little
about my opinion.

enri
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Ron Hunter <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net> wrote:
> No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only
> that a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
> failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you
> MAY find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of
> many zoom cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a
> camera that will last longer, and will have parts available for a
> longer period of time (the Rolls Royce example).

Absolutely. As I said and as others have said, the market forces for
consumer point-and-shoots are absolutely contradictory to durability
under their normal usage conditions. Failure, even widespread and
consistent failure, of very delicate and easily-abused things like lens
extension systems is common across makers and models.

I have an Olympus C-3000; the whole line is prone to damage of the
extender. The only real solution is to put "lens armor" on it, which
reduces the pocketability of the camera.

I bought my daughter a slimmer Oly P&S, which requires you to close the
front protective shutter to within a fraction of an inch of the extended
lens assembly - no less and no more; the window is VERY small - and this
has proven difficult to do without great patience and delicate handling.
I can see lots of damage occurring from mommies and daddies trying to get
the damned lens closed so they can chase Junior.

OTOH, I bought a Canon A-95 for general family use, and I don't have a
single complaint with it. Small, fast lens extension and retraction, and
nothing about it requires delicate handling or seems fragile.

I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
the cam damage-prone in their hands.

In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
when new models are released.

--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:27:52 -0000, James Gifford
<nsp DeleteThis @nitrosyncretic.kom> wrote:

>
>I suggest that anyone buying a digicam of any price range do a ton of
>homework - the info is out there, on various review web sites - and then
>go to a B&M store and handle, handle, handle the two or three final
>candidates to make sure they suit your intended usage style and to make
>sure they don't have a "gotcha" that will prove to be irritating or make
>the cam damage-prone in their hands.
>
>In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts - easily
>damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors, easily
>scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start showing up
>when new models are released.

You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
camera into the market.

enri
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri <enridress DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>> In particular, pay attention to early reports of fragile parts -
>> easily damaged lens assemblies or card doors, fragile connectors,
>> easily scratched screens. It doesn't take long for this info to start
>> showing up when new models are released.

> You are right. I learned a posteriori that the infamous error E #45
> was known in Dec 2002, only months after the release of the LS443
> camera into the market.

As I've found each time I've researched a new cam (and I buy more than
most, some for professional use and some for family use), I've found the
online digicam and camcorder community to be a surprisingly well-organized
and - with caution - reliable source. Sometimes everyone bitches about a
"problem" that I don't see as a drawback, but a little comparison of
opinions, reviews etc. and you can derive a pretty clear picture of which
cams might suit you and which are dogs to be avoided.

--
|=- James Gifford = FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY -=|
|=- So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? -=|
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net>
wrote:

>Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.


Actually, they won't, but that's beside the point. As you said -
Nothing lasts forever.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Chip C wrote:
> enri wrote:
>
>> They offered to replace the damaged camera with a refurbished DX7630
>> camera for $125.00 + $10.95 shipping plus the old camera shipped at my
>> expense, i.e. roughly $150 for a refurbished, an euphemism for "used",
>> camera available for about $250 new.
>
> An unimpressive experience and definitely on the low end of customer
> satisfaction, but probably not actionable except to cross them off your
> list of brands for future purchases. Post-warranty repairs are at their
> discretion and struggling old-guard companies that damn near missed the
> whole digital boat just aren't going to have the resources to do it
> right. I suspect they didn't do the core design in-house, in this case,
> and they probably have poor commonality across their various models, so
> repairs on old models will be even less cost-effective than the
> notoriously low norm on mass-market consumer electronics.
>
> Two experiences of my own that you've reminded me of:
>
> About 10 years ago I was working for a place that bought D*ll machines.
> One desktop came with a non-functioning monitor: "DOA" as we say. Well,
> such things happen, and the tech came the next day with a replacement -
> a refurb unit. But we paid for a new one, we said. Well, they said,
> warranty replacements are handled with fully-warranted refurbs, no
> matter how soon the problem crops up. But it was DOA, we said. Tough,
> they said, DOAs are handled as warranty calls. So we paid full price
> for new equipment and never, not even for a minute, got it.
>
> At least X***x put in the fine print on their quotes that some models
> of their big printers were fully reconditioned "factory rebuilt" units,
> so they could make a stronger case that you were stupid to have dealt
> with them to begin with.
>
>> I took the trouble to find out which part needed replacement finding
>> out that the part in question is a plastic gear costing less than 10
>> cents (I know this because I worked optical production issues at
>> Lockheed Martin).
>
> You are aware, of course, that diagnosis, labour and shipping far dwarf
> the nominal cost of the part, so whether it's 10 cents or 10 bucks is a
> bit of a red herring. I'd guess that any repair relating to the lens
> would require a nontrivial alignment and testing effort, so this is
> probably a significant repair. To make the job feasible at all they'd
> probably have to replace some large subsystem, like the whole
> retractable lens assembly, constituting most of the camera's value.
> These were all made at some contract factory overseas which has long
> since retooled for other clients, and it would be ludicrously
> uneconomic to make more of them now. They would have kept some number
> on hand for warranty repairs, used up the leftovers for post-warranty
> work, and now they're gone.
>
>> What emerges from this picture is the image of KODAK as a greedy
>> company which offered to the market a product having a design flaw for
>> more than $500 without doing very much about it.
>
> The picture I get is what I said above: a desperate old-guard outfit
> struggling to keep a share in a market that their name is no longer
> synonymous with, and finding out along with their remaining customers
> that they really aren't up to it.
>
> (Cynically, if they'd designed it "right", all units would have failed,
> with a uniformly random distribution of problems, the day the warranty
> expired. That all the failures are the same part means that all other
> components were overdesigned!)
>
> But I do agree that $500 is a price point that should put the thing
> above the disposable level.
>
>> Image buying a Honda Civic having a design flaw resulting in a
>> transmission problem; the company refuses to repair your vehicle but
>> offers a different *used* vehicle for half of the original price of
>> the original vehicle.
>
> Imagine a Honda dealer telling someone in 2005 that they carried no
> parts, and would provide no service, for a 19xx model, but would offer
> them a $YY trade-in allowance against a newer warranted used vehicle on
> the lot, even though your car's a junker that they'll have to pay to
> get rid of. Perfectly resonable, even generous, for some values of XX
> and YY, no? So it's a good measure of their customer service commitment
> - and their cash flow - but it's not a qualitatively unacceptable
> position.
>
>> This is not a "lack of parts" problem, it is simply too much effort to
>> install the part. This "too much effort" is their own engineering
>> fault, and the burden for it should not fall on the consumer.
>
> Effort is money, and the burden of any post-warranty repair or
> replacement will unavoidably fall on the consumer. They've calculated
> that a sustainable price to do the repair would result in the vast
> majority of customers - maybe even you! - not taking them up on it. So
> they've said screw this, let's let folks buy a more current model for
> about what we'd have to charge them to fix the old one. Frankly I'd
> expect many folks to prefer it.
>
> Chip C
>
Chip,
Some of your remarks are WAY off base, and not related to reality.
Before you make such statements about a company, check their P&L
statements, and their sales and market share figures, so you don't look
like an idiot.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:13:32 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Are you implying that reliability lies only in the realm of *very*
>>> expensive camaras? I suggest you review the US auto industry
>>> reliability problems of the 60's and 70's vs. Japan auto industry.
>>>
>>> "Six Sigma" and "Kaizan" are now common terms in US auto industry
>>> changing our perceptions of automobile reliability forever.
>>>
>>> enri
>>>
>> No, I am implying that you don't KNOW that Kodak was at fault, only that
>> a part often fails in a certain model of camera. If you explore
>> failures in other similar cameras from a range of manufacturers, you MAY
>> find that the complaint isn't specific to Kodak, but common of many zoom
>> cameras. And, yes, if you pay more, you will probably get a camera that
>> will last longer, and will have parts available for a longer period of
>> time (the Rolls Royce example).
>
> "The buck stops here" should be a phrase of wisdom in this case. The
> blame game is of no interest to me or to the teeming millions affected
> by the problem. The issue is one of confidence, once is its broken it
> will stay perhaps forever.
>
> Having said that and having heard your arguments, as well as the
> arguments of other posters, I will now swallow my anger and feelings
> of impotency and treat Kodak as another company caring very little
> about my opinion.
>
> enri
>
>
I am sure they care about your opinion, but one should base his opinion
on reality, not supposition. The camera is discontinued. I am sure
that if Kodak maintained parts stocks for every camera it ever made, you
would probably have had to spend a LOT more for the camera. Now you
know why a Rolls Royce costs so much!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:24:56 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you should have bought a Rolls Royce. They will always make
>> parts for any car they ever made. Of course this COSTS. After 5000
>> pictures, you should be ready for a new camera with current technology.
>
>
> Actually, they won't, but that's beside the point. As you said -
> Nothing lasts forever.
>
Check with Rolls Royce. Give them the motor number, and the model, and
if they don't have the part, they will have it made for you. That's the
way they have always done business. I doubt it has changed.
Of course their cars aren't 'consumer' devices.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst