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

Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote:
> 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.

1) I think this is into UL territory.
2) They won't do it for free, or for the price in the '49 parts book.

> That's the way they have always done business. I doubt it has
> changed. Of course their cars aren't 'consumer' devices.

They are now. Much more so than in decades past. There's a point at which a
company has to stop acting like a gentleman's club and act like a business.
Just ask MG. Whoops, wait... ask Bugatti. Hmm. Try Studebaker. Uh...

Anyway, RR reorganized almost everything a few years and while they still
have the same affectations, they're a real 21st century car maker now.

--
|=- 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 

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net> wrote in message
news:Oxl0f.150$Uk7.0@fe05.lga...
> 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

Kodak issued a firmware update for the LS433 about a year ago. Not sure what
it did, but the information said it was related to the lens retraction
mechanism.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

Richard Bornstein wrote:
> I think the real problem is that the camera wouldn't be fixed after
> warranty. I have a Kodak and I am now worried, after the warranty is over,
> will i have to throw it away if there is a problem? I am surprised and
> disappointed that Kodak won't find a way to fix the camera even if the
> customer has to pay something.
>
>
> "enri" <enridress.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:v531k1tgrv0kege12o475o05uags9ureqv@4ax.com...
>> My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
>> intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
>> less than three years
>>
>> The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
>> which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
>> camera.
>>
>> A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
>> repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
>> there weren't any parts available.
>>
>> "Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
>> repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> 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 case of Iomega and its "click of death" Zip drive went to court
>> eroding its customer base and driving down the price of its stock.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Kodak could at least had issue a warning to its customers of a
>> potential gear problem; the problem was known to them shortly after
>> releasing the LS443 to the market. If one knows that the camera has a
>> gear problem one would not retract its lens so frequently to save
>> battery power.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Would it surprise you that you can't get a $500 TV fixed? A friend
found that problem recently. Companies just won't maintain parts
inventory after so many model changes. Even software companies cease to
support their products after a time.

US car companies won't even work on a car over 10 years old! You have
to go to an independent shop.

With an industry that is changing as fast as digital photography, it is
little surprise that a 3 year old product is considered not worth the
cost/effort to repair. I am sure that were my brother's 1.3 mp Olympus
to stop working, he wouldn't be able to get it repaired, even though IT
also cost $500.


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

David wrote:
>
> Kodak issued a firmware update for the LS433 about a year ago. Not sure what
> it did, but the information said it was related to the lens retraction
> mechanism.


Dear Valued Kodak Customer:

We are retracting all of our lenses.

Please send yours to the following address...
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

enri <enridress RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
>intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
>less than three years
>
>The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
>which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
>camera.

It's a common problem in a LOT of P&S cameras.

>A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
>repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
>there weren't any parts available.

Doesn't surprise me. The lifetime of cheap digital cameras is way
short.

>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.

Generous of them. They didn't need to do anything for you.

>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).
>
>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.

Here's a clue: ALL companies are "greedy". Those that aren't don't
stay in business.

Welcome to 21st century America.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer RemoveThis @sonic.net
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:09:25 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net>
wrote:

>I have had my current digital for just about 1.5 years, and am around
>2200 shots. I don't think I would want to continue using a hi-tech
>gadget with a rapidly improving price/performance ratio and increasing
>sophistication and capability for 50,000 shots. I won't likely LIVE
>that long!
>If a digital camera is 3 years old, it is probable hopelessly obsolete.
>

I've had my Olympus 8080 Zoom for just over a year - and I have about
5600 images in my Photoshop Elements organizer.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:15:23 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote:

>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.

I know we have a regular hereabouts who owned a Rolls until recently -
I'm sure he would know far more about parts and their availability
than I would.

Also, Rolls might be able to commission the fabrication of obsolete
parts on behalf of an owner, using original plans, tooling, or
specifications, but it certainly isn't built into the price of the
car. I'm sure that such fabrication would exceed the cost of a
complete, driveable car, in some cases.
 >> 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.TakeThisOut@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?


You should be able to admit though that if Kodak does not want to fix
the LS443 they could make things easier to the consumer by offering
its service manual for example. This would facility disassembly and
self-repair for people inclined to do so. After all, it is *the*
perfect camera for certain shots.

But NOOOO...: "They contain proprietary engineering specifications and
documentation, and therefore are not available to customers"


Now tell me, what is SOOO... proprietary in the specifications of an
obsolete camera or in the description of what screw goes where and
what parts dissamble first?

This is a typical case of the spanish proverb portraying gross egoism:

"El Perro del Hortelano: no come ni deja comer"

or:

"The Dog of the Gardener": he doesn't eat and doesn't let anybody eat"

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

Ron Hunter wrote, in <Oxl0f.150$Uk7.0@fe05.lga>
on Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:11:57 -0500:

> 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!

It is one of those things that were done better in the past. I bought
an 8mm movie projector in a pawn shop in Poughkeepsie for $15 in 1963
and it was plainly pretty old then; recent googling suggests it is from
the middle to late '40s. The claw had a groove worn in it and the
condenser lens was cracked. I wrote to the address on the
badge plate:

Revere Camera Company
Chicago, ILL

giving the model number, 85, and serial number A 95436, describing what
was wrong and asking if spares were available. A couple of weeks later
I got a reply from another company, (googling reveals that Revere was
sold to 3M in 1960), enclosing the bits I needed and asking for some
small sum like $5 - not an invoice and
you-send-us-the-money-and-we'll-send-you-the-goods. So of course I sent
a cheque by return and the machine has been working perfectly ever
since.

That is service.
--
Nick Spalding
 >> 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?
>
>
> You should be able to admit though that if Kodak does not want to fix
> the LS443 they could make things easier to the consumer by offering
> its service manual for example. This would facility disassembly and
> self-repair for people inclined to do so. After all, it is *the*
> perfect camera for certain shots.
>
> But NOOOO...: "They contain proprietary engineering specifications and
> documentation, and therefore are not available to customers"
>
>
> Now tell me, what is SOOO... proprietary in the specifications of an
> obsolete camera or in the description of what screw goes where and
> what parts dissamble first?
>
> This is a typical case of the spanish proverb portraying gross egoism:
>
> "El Perro del Hortelano: no come ni deja comer"
>
> or:
>
> "The Dog of the Gardener": he doesn't eat and doesn't let anybody eat"
>
> enri
>
>
>
>
Ok, now tell me how many service manuals you have from other digital
camera companies.....
I suspect not many people would want to even try to repair their own
camera, and even fewer would actually have the ability to do so. Still,
it seems someone would make sure manuals like they did (do?) for other
electronic gear.


--
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 21:15:23 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote:

>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.

And, of course, you'll *pay* for the part.
According to their advertising (is this still current?) their cars
never break down, either. They just "fail to proceed."

--
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:
> My LS443 Kodak Digital camera failed all of a sudden, with no human
> intervention nor abuse of any sort after approximately 5000 shots over
> less than three years
>
> The lens mechanism wouldn't retract. This is the infamous "Error #45"
> which I learned a posteriori, was a well-known common problem in this
> camera.
>
> A call to the KODAK service revealed that the camera would not be
> repaired by them, that the unit was no longer in production and that
> there weren't any parts available.
>
> "Management had decided that it was not in Kodak's best interest to
> repair this kind of problem in this particular camera"
<snip>

Some years back, the compressor in my GE refrigerator failed, and I called in GE's
repairman. He examined the refrigerator and offered a replacement compressor with a good
warrentee, at a low price. I took the offer. I also checked with a person I knew at GE
in Schenectady, who told me the background. When that refrigerator was designed, some
engineers decided to save money on the compressor, and the design change led to a short
life of the unit. GE decided to stand behind the product, though it was expensive to do
it. I continue to buy GE appliances.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst 

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:16:13 -0400, Marvin wrote:

> When that refrigerator was designed, some engineers decided to save
> money on the compressor, and the design change led to a short
> life of the unit. GE decided to stand behind the product, though it
> was expensive to do it. I continue to buy GE appliances.

My parents bought a Hotpoint/GE refrigerator several decades ago.
I has an small door in the freezer's door that swing out to give
access to an ice cube bucket. When it stopped working properly I
convinced them that they didn't need to call a GE technician, and
only had to order a replacement bulb. (Ice in a full bucket
interrupts a light beam, preventing the ice machine from generating
more ice cubes). GE said the refrigerator was too old, and GE no
longer made those bulbs. As the bulb type was legible on the bulb's
bayonet base, I ordered a few from an internet company specializing
in bulbs. They arrived the next day, and surprise, surprise. They
were made by GE. Almost any 12v, low current, single filament auto
bulb would have worked. I'll continue to buy GE products where
appropriate, but I know better than to believe that they do a good
job standing behind their products.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak's LS443 Camera *or* Kodak's Greediness at its Worst