Panasonic 'limited' warranty coverage for KIT lenses bought.

[edutilos-]

Currently, the price of used/second hand lens is similar to grey market pricing. The manufacturer tries their best to subsidize the original cost of the initial sales, but to offer over and beyond the cost and cover for subsequent ownership of the lens will always lead to a losing end for the manufacturer.

Er, the logic is based on the manufacturer having revenue reduced to used/second hand levels.

That's not true, the lens was sold at a first hand price, how does the liability become double in this case?

To the manufacturer, why would the 2 situations below matter?

A) Ah Meng buys lens at $750, claims warranty at 364 days. Repair costs manufacturer $100.
B) Ah Meng buys lens at $750, lens is passed around until it reaches Ah Kow who buys it from Ah Lee at $1. Ah Lee claims warranty at 364 days. Repair costs manufacturer $100.

Your logic works if somehow by some magic the manufacturer lost the $750 that Ah Meng paid and Ah Lee's $1 becomes all that the manufacturer gets. Fact is, on the manufacturer's end, the lens comes back at 364 days from someone, and someone bought lens at $750 from them, and the manufacturer incurs repair cost of $100. No difference in my book.

For your grey set example, that's a different story, because Ah Meng didn't buy his lens at $750 from the country, he bought it from a third party who brought this in from overseas from another region. Naturally, the manufacturer (or more accurately, distributor) didn't quite get any revenue in this case and if he covers this he would have to incur repair cost of $100 for nothing. So the third party will assist to bring it back to the original overseas distributor, who once again, shouldn't care who bought it and where it went, as long as it came from them and they incur the repair costs.

 

[zan82]

Er, the logic is based on the manufacturer having revenue reduced to used/second hand levels. That's not true, the lens was sold at a first hand price, how does the liability become double in this case? To the manufacturer, why would the 2 situations below matter? A) Ah Meng buys lens at $750, claims warranty at 364 days. Repair costs manufacturer $100. B) Ah Meng buys lens at $750, lens is passed around until it reaches Ah Kow who buys it from Ah Lee at $1. Ah Lee claims warranty at 364 days. Repair costs manufacturer $100. Your logic works if somehow by some magic the manufacturer lost the $750 that Ah Meng paid and Ah Lee's $1 becomes all that the manufacturer gets. Fact is, on the manufacturer's end, the lens comes back at 364 days from someone, and someone bought lens at $750 from them, and the manufacturer incurs repair cost of $100. No difference in my book. For your grey set example, that's a different story, because Ah Meng didn't buy his lens at $750 from the country, he bought it from a third party who brought this in from overseas from another region. Naturally, the manufacturer (or more accurately, distributor) didn't quite get any revenue in this case and if he covers this he would have to incur repair cost of $100 for nothing. So the third party will assist to bring it back to the original overseas distributor, who once again, shouldn't care who bought it and where it went, as long as it came from them and they incur the repair costs.

The lens is not sold at first hand price in the first place, you see. Kit lens is sold already at a subsidized price, when bundled with a camera body.

That's why lenses when sold separately are more expensive, right?

 

[edutilos-]

Anyways, for Applecare, while they do state that you can transfer ownership (http://www.apple.com/sg/support/products/faqs.html ) I doubt Apple really cares about who has the product at present (see links below). I suppose the transferring is really to prevent iffy scenarios such as theft, and is more of a formality than anything else. If Panasonic is worried about theft, then it should really allow for transfer of ownership and make it easy, not put up roadblocks for the second-hand owner.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4474875?start=0&tstart=0
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4295688?start=0&tstart=0
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3381295?start=0&tstart=0

Cheers!

 

[edutilos-]

The lens is not sold at first hand price in the first place, you see. Kit lens is sold already at a subsidized price, when bundled with a camera body.

That's why lenses when sold separately are more expensive, right?

Sure, kit lenses are cheaper in bundles than bought separately, but Panasonic isn't applying this policy for *just* kit lens, right?

Besides, the company would have factored all these in. They definitely still make a tidy profit from bundles. And the same logic applies, Ah Meng bought the bundled lens for a certain share of the total package, which the company would have been ok with. Warranty is like insurance - and in this case, the camera manufacturers don't do a risk assessment like insurance companies do (e.g. they don't assess whehter the consumer holding the lens is riskier and might require repairs more often) - so everything should have been priced in to be blind to the risk profile type of the consumer. So I still don't understand why having kit lens bundled or not matters in this scenario, to the company??

 

[zan82]

Sure, kit lenses are cheaper in bundles than bought separately, but Panasonic isn't applying this policy for *just* kit lens, right? I don't understand where you're coming from, to be honest. Besides, the company would have factored all these in. They definitely still make a tidy profit from bundles.

Most things in the bundle are not covered by warranty (battery, charger etc), and as TS pointed out, the main point here is on the bundled lens. As for tidy profits, I honestly and really sincerely wished that is the case, hahaha...

Anyways, the onus is on the buying party to make an informed purchase between the transacting parties.

The selling party makes a misinformed claim to the buying party, but no one pointed this out.

 

[Agrivar]

The lens is not sold at first hand price in the first place, you see. Kit lens is sold already at a subsidized price, when bundled with a camera body.

That's why lenses when sold separately are more expensive, right?

This is again flawed logic. Even if the kit lens is subsidised, the "bundle" will have a certain % of the whole "bundle" allocated for support costs. Say Gx7 with kit lens is SGD 1400. If support is 20%, this is SGd 280 for support. Whether the absolute cost for support is cheaper than say bought separately is not the issue as that is a decision made by product marketing when they priced the product. The SGD 280 for support is deemed enough and as long as its not negative, its still pays for the resources and facilities to support.

In the scenario of 2nd party claiming the support after x days. Its rubbish to argue that he is not entitled. The total period is still 365 days as has been pointed out. Whether A uses 364 and B uses 1 or A uses 150 and B uses 215, doesnt matter. The SGD 280 pays for 365 days of support. THe product is deemed to be able to last 365 days without anything being faulty. THis is all calculated by the factory when they manufacture and the minor 0.05% of failure is what the SGD 280 pays for. Bro dont BS me. I used to run CS for a major European Consumer Electronics company.

 

[edutilos-]

Anyways, the onus is on the buying party to make an informed purchase between the transacting parties.

The selling party makes a misinformed claim to the buying party, but no one pointed this out.

True, in this case the selling party may not even have known that there was such an issue, because it isn't an issue that is logical in nature, I feel.

My point here is really that Panasonic should either relax its rules in this aspect of warranty ownership or make it easy for people to transfer. Cheers!

 

[zan82]

This is again flawed logic. Even if the kit lens is subsidised, the "bundle" will have a certain % of the whole "bundle" allocated for support costs. Say Gx7 with kit lens is SGD 1400. If support is 20%, this is SGd 280 for support. Whether the absolute cost for support is cheaper than say bought separately is not the issue as that is a decision made by product marketing when they priced the product. The SGD 280 for support is deemed enough and as long as its not negative, its still pays for the resources and facilities to support. In the scenario of 2nd party claiming the support after x days. Its rubbish to argue that he is not entitled. The total period is still 365 days as has been pointed out. Whether A uses 364 and B uses 1 or A uses 150 and B uses 214, doesnt matter. The SGD 280 pays for 365 days of support. THe product is deemed to be able to last 365 days without anything being faulty. THis is all calculated by the factory when they manufacture an the minor 0.05% of failure is what the SGD 280 pays for. Bro dont BS me. I used to run CS for a major European Consumer Electronics company.

Sigh. Ha. Like you say, you used to run it, and those were the days.

Anyways this is getting OOS by delving deep into cost analysis, becoming a kopitiam topic and bashing of T&C. TS also mentioned it is alright to close the topic, let's stop here?

 

[Agrivar]

True, in this case the selling party may not even have known that there was such an issue, because it isn't an issue that is logical in nature, I feel.

My point here is really that Panasonic should either relax its rules in this aspect of warranty ownership or make it easy for people to transfer. Cheers!

+1000 agreed. This rule is not logical. But more importantly.. it just again highlights Panasonic's "rigidity" when it comes to customer service. My 2 cents based on all my many interactions with PSC.
But as Zan82 says.. this is the Ts & Cs when it comes to Panny warranty. So kudos to the TS who got the black and white confirmation of what Panasonic deems to be "warrantable".

Make sure those who buy and sell in BnS are aware of these rules.. and if all else fails, Escalate, Escalate and Escalate. After all, we are the consumers. TS to close topic?

 

[seafood]

Interesting discussion! But some points are moot.

Can not compare Apple products; these have software implications as well with their present business model of software sales and upgrade via iTunes.

Should not compare Panny to Oly's T&C. Or any other company for the matter. They all have slightly different business model. Their products are priced differently to reflect this as well. All products have a percentage of failures and returns (I have the experience of a DEAD Oly out of the box). Maybe Oly's term are more generous because it is factored into the price (just saying - Oly prices tends to be a little higher compare to Panny). After there is already a BIG difference in terms of world wide warranty. This is usually reflected in the dealership. If a third party distributes the company products in separate regions, why should they deal with the issues of a similar product sold elsewhere with profits attributed to another company?

If Panny SG is honoring the warranty according to their TnC, then I do think it is fair and if they give good and timely service, GOOD for them. I have never need to send in their products to date. I had several experiences with OSC; one whereby my lens sat with them for nearly THREE months. But to be fair to OSC, the guys there have always been friendly and helpful.

And fruit for thought; Sigma may have the best T&C.....but if they don't have a local presence, how to avail yourself of their wonderful T&C?

As always, caveat emptor!

 

[keithwee]

+1000 agreed. This rule is not logical. But more importantly.. it just again highlights Panasonic's "rigidity" when it comes to customer service. My 2 cents based on all my many interactions with PSC. But as Zan82 says.. this is the Ts & Cs when it comes to Panny warranty. So kudos to the TS who got the black and white confirmation of what Panasonic deems to be "warrantable". Make sure those who buy and sell in BnS are aware of these rules.. and if all else fails, Escalate, Escalate and Escalate. After all, we are the consumers. TS to close topic?

Agree.

Thanks for the sharing everyone , getting a bit Out of topic here

Just a quick summary is that when buying dekitted lens , pls be informed that u will need the original warranty card and receipt presented for warranty service even if it's a brand new local set.

Photocopied receipts are only allowed if the original receipt is obtained from a Pana authorized agent.

Lastly, once an item changes hands (2nd hand) , the warranty is void. Advice is don't write that name on the card until u r sure abt keeping it.

Closing thread. Thanks.

 

[keithwee]

I recently sent my Oly camera for servicing and the rep confirmed with me that I have the original warranty card and requested that I bring the card down when I collect my camera. I had brought my original receipt along but he said he needed the warranty card to confirm the serial no.

Just checked with them, give u peace of mind.

Photocopies of warranty card and receipt all ok with Oly service centre. Confirm.