You are right, but the connection is not so far fetched, either, since the motivation for such dishonesty will be very similar.privatebydesign said:The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.
that's capitalism, perhaps one day we as a humanity will have enough of all the lies and manipulations and greed and find something betterLightmaster said:maybe that´s how canon manages to make a profit..... selling flawed gear to fanboys and making millions for repair.
privatebydesign said:R1-7D said:Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.
Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?
The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.
Keep perspective.
privatebydesign said:But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.
noisejammer said:Can a case be made for publishing? Probably, yes.
Can a case be made for not publishing? Probably, yes.
Information like this has the potential to harm the image of a large company and if there's any doubt regarding the legitimacy of these bulletins, I would urge caution. Can you withstand a libel suit in (say) an English court? (For those who do not know, English law allows a foreign entity to sue another foreign entity in an English court if _anyone_ from Britain was able to read the information. Worse, there is a presumption of guilt and the defendant has to demonstrate the veracity of their claim.)
Having already defamed Canon by implying unethical behavior, I urge that you consult your legal council before you publish. He/She will probably tell you to sit on your thumbs.
unfocused said:privatebydesign said:But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.
I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.
Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.
On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.
I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.