Im afraid most people think "this isn't going to affect me" and don't worry about it. I believe most people are wrong.
1) Warranty doesn't cover 40% of repairs. A d800 scratched sensor is an $1800 repair, a 70-200 VR front element is now just under $800.
2) Last year a broken battery door or lost eyepiece cover was a $10 part you bought and put on yourself. This year it's a $130 factory repair and your equipment gone for weeks.
3) If you buy used equipment things just got a lot riskier. If you sell your used equipment prices and demand are starting to drop.
I'd encourage everyone to sign this. I think Nikon has made a bad decision that's going to have adverse effects down the road in exchange for upping profits this year and next.
From a practical standpoint, a user petition isn't going to do anything.
What would make a difference would be a class action suit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the side of the user and think the Nikon decision is a VERY BAD ONE !
Even if 10,000 Nikon users signed the petition, I would bet they would ignore it.
Well you are quite wrong. Filing a class action suite would do nothing but get an instant dismissal. They are unfortunately acting within their documented rights under US law. The petition is a good idea but will not carry much weight with them. They are not customer sensitive as they have proved many times in their history and quite recently with the D800 AF issue. The facts here needs to be moved into the public limelight through internet forums, online articles, and newpapers. In other words the power of the press to alert and angry the buying public. The other movement needs to be by their dealer network and particularly the biggest dealers if they have the guts. Nikon, Canon, etc, will only react to one thing, lost revenue. If people stop buying their equipment then and only then will they listen. Until then we are all screwed quite literally. I fully agree with Roger Ciala's comments and concerns.
I totally agree with Dave and the other comments: a petition doesn't do anything but perhaps get their attention.
I think that's worthwhile from one regard - it might warn them that they may lose revenue in the future from this decision. Once they've started to lose revenue that affects a lot of things including research and development and I don't want to see that happen.
I have no doubt that there will be a revenue hit. There are 200 small and medium sized dealers that also did repairs. All of them are pushing people to Canon and other brands now.
I have two large corporate rental customers that are 100% Nikon. (They rent from us to fill in gaps in their inventory, etc.) Both have rented large trial packages of brand X equipment in the last month. Both are considering changing because the cost of ownership is higher for Nikon equipment now.
I doubt many of us who frequent the forums are going to change brands over this - we're less interested in cost of ownership than in absolute image quality. What happens is new customers in those shops get steered another way, new pro photographers starting out with companies like the one above get started with Canon instead of Nikon. A few years down the road market share change gets noticed but by then it's too late and an uphill battle has to be fought to regain it.
davenfl wrote:
Well you are quite wrong. Filing a class action suite would do nothing but get an instant dismissal. They are unfortunately acting within their documented rights under US law. The petition is a good idea but will not carry much weight with them. They are not customer sensitive as they have proved many times in their history and quite recently with the D800 AF issue. The facts here needs to be moved into the public limelight through internet forums, online articles, and newpapers. In other words the power of the press to alert and angry the buying public. The other movement needs to be by their dealer network and particularly the biggest dealers if they have the guts. Nikon, Canon, etc, will only react to one thing, lost revenue. If people stop buying their equipment then and only then will they listen. Until then we are all screwed quite literally. I fully agree with Roger Ciala's comments and concerns.
Could you provide us with your legal basis (case law) for your comments? Maybe a recent SCOTUS decision on point? Something to backup your opinion that a Federal Court would dismiss?
Signed.
I can't afford any repairs anymore. Luckily there is a wide range of third party lenses. They have better/longer warranties and are working hard to improve turnaround times.
Will I buy used? Not on your life. Will I buy new? If, as RCicala says, 40% of all "warranty" work is not covered, the competition is looking better and better. Sayonara, Nikon.
What in that link do you believe applies to this situation? These are service parts, so aren't likely to apply anyway. I'm no attorney, but I think you're reading what is described there incorrectly.
I think this is (another) horrible decision by Nikon, but I doubt there are any class-action or other legal remedies available.
I would also add that this move by Nikon is forcing even more owners to Nikon Service Centers. What the owners find in terms of "service" when they get there leaves much to be desired.
Not only did the dollar cost of ownership go up, but other indirect costs (time, aggravation, shooting opportunity) also went up.
Section 2 makes illegal a firm's refusal to deal with another firm if the refusing firm refuses for the purpose of trying to monopolize the market. Meanwhile, section 1 prohibits a group from refusing to deal with a particular firm. A group refusal to deal is known as a group boycott. Because of seemingly contradictory Supreme Court decisions over the years, the question of whether group boycotts are subject to the rule of reason or a per se rule has been left murky.
Exclusive dealing agreements require a retailer or distributor to purchase exclusively from the manufacturer. These arrangements make it difficult for new sellers to enter the market and find prospective buyers, thus depressing competition. However, because companies widely-use requirements contracts, which essentially are exclusive dealing agreements, for purposes that promote competition, exclusive dealing arrangements only face rule of reason scrutiny.
If Nikon doesn't start correcting this tsunami of anti-customer behavior immediately, they will fail. While I might love the image quality, I have no desire to continue buying from a company that goes out of their way to treat their customers like unwelcome intruders. If all I am as a Nikon customer is a cow to be milked, I'll take my business elsewhere, to a company that appreciates my business, and wants to create a lasting relationship that is beneficial for both parties.
