M8 perpetual upgrade program? What happened?

i guess if any potential buyer of a digital camera doesn't know the difference between marketing hype and contractually warranted commitments, then they shouldn't be in the marketplace. there is nothing in any of the documents that accompanied my M8 that lead me to think leica committed to make my M8 a "camera for life." if you bought one and expected such a commitment, then you should have read the warranty language, not the marketing hype.
 
"The Leica M9 is an investment for a lifetime"

Not its lifetime, nor the lifetime of a mayfly.

Some of their 2008 statements fall well outside what would be legally considered puffery.

I take some things literally yes, other things I do not. :)

Anyway this thread has become a lame horse, figuratively speaking!
 
Clearly a number of posters have little sympathy with those agrieved at the cessation of M8 upgrades. I am guessing quite a few did not by M8's.

Personally I really do not think it would have killed leica to run software updates a bit longer fot the M8. I am not talking about for ever and ever, but there are still a few things they might do which would restore a lot of good will. Who knows it might even help M9 sales.

However one issue which concerns me more is the dumping of the R system. Leica claim there will be "a solution" for the R system but there is not a word. The R lenses are brilliant and there is surely a market for a DSLR which takes leica R lenses.

Richard
 
Nikon Bob said:
If Leica want to play in the same arena as the other FF players then it better have a shorter product cycle than that. When introduced it was already behind what others offered in terms of performance in FF sensors. I can see the merit in paying more for a body that will be usable for a long time in the film days but with digital it does not make sense.

Bob
Click to expand...

Dear Bob,

You mean it was behind all the other FF RFs on the market?

Cheers,

R.
 
Oh, I understand now. There's a marketing BS department of Lecia,which as consumers we are all ignorant asses if we believe anything they say and an actual warranty department that really spells out what we can expect Leica to stand behind legally. I sometimes get these two departments mixed up. There are others on his forum who seem to suffer with a kind of Leica Stockholm Syndrome. Mention anything remotely anti-Leica and like jack-in-the boxes they pop up to take offence and defend Leica at all cost. Jappv and Bill can always be counted on to lead this charge. Trying to discredit anyone that might imply that Leica has been anything but honest and there is always the accusations of whinning thrown in for good measure. There may have been nothing in the documents that accompained the M8 but the continual upgrades and the long term investment was the heart of the advertising and sales promo. I don't have an M8 anymore but I just hate it when a company resorts to marketing BS to convince people to buy their product. The M8 prices are way down and they are well on their way to paperwheigh status. So much for long term upgradeable investment.
 
patrickjames said:
I am not a lawyer, but technically that is a public offer by the CEO that they would have to make good on if you bought a camera because of it during the time period after the offer was made and before they rescinded it. If you decided to pursue it, their legal department would get their panties in a bunch and quietly settle it with you as well as get you to sign some sort of NDA. You don't need a lawyer or courts for these things either people, lawyers just want you to think you need them. There is very little reason to sue anybody in this world.

On a general note, the M9 will be around for a long time (my guess is at least 5 years) unless someone else comes out with a little competition. By all accounts it is a great camera. It will last longer than the X2 which is being looked at by many manufacturers right now. I still don't know why others haven't come out with a camera like it before.
Click to expand...

No, you're not. Carlill vs. The Carbolic Smokeball Company, 1892, 1 QB 256 CA for the distinction between 'mere puff' and contractual obligation.

Also, how do you know that they aren't going to continue offering upgrades? You can't prove a negative.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No, you're not. Carlill vs. The Carbolic Smokeball Company, 1892, 1 QB 256 CA for the distinction between 'mere puff' and contractual obligation.

Also, how do you know that they aren't going to continue offering upgrades? You can't prove a negative.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger you're so full of it. When do you suggest that Leica will announce these M8 upgrades? Can't prove a negative, that's really a lame challange.
 
jack palmer said:
Oh, I understand now. There's a marketing BS department of Lecia,which as consumers we are all ignorant asses if we believe anything they say and an actual warranty department that really spells out what we can expect Leica to stand behind legally. I sometimes get these two departments mixed up. There are others on his forum who seem to suffer with a kind of Leica Stockholm Syndrome. Mention anything remotely anti-Leica and like jack-in-the boxes they pop up to take offence and defend Leica at all cost. Jappv and Bill can always be counted on to lead this charge. Trying to discredit anyone that might imply that Leica has been anything but honest and there is always the accusations of whinning thrown in for good measure. There may have been nothing in the documents that accompained the M8 but the continual upgrades and the long term investment was the heart of the advertising and sales promo. I don't have an M8 anymore but I just hate it when a company resorts to marketing BS to convince people to buy their product. The M8 prices are way down and they are well on their way to paperwheigh status. So much for long term upgradeable investment.
Click to expand...

I first coined that term some 20 years ago when I led a gang that retrofitted Leica Heerbrugg's famed photogrammetric instruments. Imagine a machine that cost as much as a good house with mortgage still outstanding, and Leica would unceremonially announce non-support.

Ironically, those instrument [always painted army green] owners defended Leica to the end...until I wrote about the Stockholm Syndrome, bonding with their [financial] captor. I was nicknamed Frank soon after.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No, you're not. Carlill vs. The Carbolic Smokeball Company, 1892, 1 QB 256 CA for the distinction between 'mere puff' and contractual obligation.

Also, how do you know that they aren't going to continue offering upgrades? You can't prove a negative.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think it is very clear that there is no prospect of a legal challenge. However Leica are a company who have a reputation for longevity and this was their first digital RF. Their task was to make something that felt like a film M but was digital. The qualities associated with a film M were implicit in the M8.
The reality is that the M8 as launched had attrocious white ballance and so so colour resolution. Both of these things became acceptable within 9 months of launch. The colour issue could not really be sorted of course until the IR filters arrived. That allowed for corner corrections as well. Next came a quiter shutter discrete mode, and an auto ISO.

In summary the "upgrades" actually were not additions but the correction of omissions in a product launched very shoddily in the first place.

I bought an M8 and certainly trusted Leica to honour the upgrade programme in terms of software. This is not a proposeterous demand for a "timeless classic". Obviously upgrades to the sensor / harware is a rather different issue and I did not seriously expect this.

As for those who imply that people are naive for believing Leica's marketing. That may be true but I believe the company lost a great deal of credibility and in the long term it is going to cost them.


best wishes



Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
I think it is very clear that there is no prospect of a legal challenge. However Leica are a company who have a reputation for longevity and this was their first digital RF. Their task was to make something that felt like a film M but was digital. The qualities associated with a film M were implicit in the M8.
The reality is that the M8 as launched had attrocious white ballance and so so colour resolution. Both of these things became acceptable within 9 months of launch. The colour issue could not really be sorted of course until the IR filters arrived. That allowed for corner corrections as well. Next came a quiter shutter discrete mode, and an auto ISO.

In summary the "upgrades" actually were not additions but the correction of omissions in a product launched very shoddily in the first place.

I bought an M8 and certainly trusted Leica to honour the upgrade programme in terms of software. This is not a proposeterous demand for a "timeless classic". Obviously upgrades to the sensor / harware is a rather different issue and I did not seriously expect this.

As for those who imply that people are naive for believing Leica's marketing. That may be true but I believe the company lost a great deal of credibility and in the long term it is going to cost them.


best wishes



Richard
Click to expand...

Dear Richard,

I'm not arguing with you for an instant on the highlighted portion, though I am among those who believe that Lee was given the bullet for a good reason.

All I was putting forward was the legal position as I see it.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Richard Marks said:
As for those who imply that people are naive for believing Leica's marketing. That may be true but I believe the company lost a great deal of credibility and in the long term it is going to cost them.
Click to expand...

Richard, it will not cost them anything. Leica has moved on to the M9, and so "failure" to support a camera they will not be manufacturing or distributing for sale is actually saving the company the cost of continuing support. Quite the contrary to their hype, yes. Hype is hype. Cost economics are evidently more compelling. This may be regrettable from the point of view of someone who thought that a digital camera could be a life investment, but there is nothing that suggests there will ever be one that will be obsolescence free.

You don't seem to be a gullible sort at all, so I'm surprised that you think there will some form of market justice meted out to Leica. This makes little sense. The market told Leica to make a full-frame digital RF, if anything. They did it. They're selling them. That's what enterprises do.

This is no different than the practice at Canon, Nikon, or any of the larger digital camera makers. The Canon 1D and 1Ds I used to own haven't seen a software upgrade in several years now. And you can buy a serviceable 1D today for less than 1/10th the price of one 6+ years ago. All good, if you like used markets for gear, as an aside. Knowledge of industry practice does suggest that Leica would behave similarly once it began to participate in the much less mature market of sensor-based imaging. So no surprise, really. My M8 is losing value as I write. And I'm aging too. At least I'm not dead and my M8 still takes good pictures.

Best to you.
 
Last edited:
Leica are clearly reaping the whirlwind. All those M9s sitting on dealers' shelves unsold serves them jolly well right. How dare they think that they could get away with it?

And that non-announcement of no more M8 upgrades - the cads!

Tell you what, all those who think that the company should be given a damn good spanking, you just go ahead. The lawyers will be open tomorrow, I'm sure.

I'll just sit here and watch along with anyone else with an ounce of legal experience and a peck of commonsense.

"...Stockholm syndrome..." - bless! ;)

Regards,

Bill
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Richard,

I'm not arguing with you for an instant on the highlighted portion, though I am among those who believe that Lee was given the bullet for a good reason.

All I was putting forward was the legal position as I see it.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Dear Roger
I am not arguing with you either on this rare occasion!! I simply cited your words.

So the "Timeless Classic is Steven Lee's fault? Certainly conventient.

Happy new year

Richard
 
MCTuomey said:
Richard, it will not cost them anything. Leica has moved on to the M9, and so "failure" to support a camera they will not be manufacturing or distributing for sale is actually saving the company the cost of continuing support. Quite the contrary to their hype, yes. Hype is hype. Cost economics are evidently more compelling. This may be regrettable from the point of view of someone who thought that a digital camera could be a life investment, but there is nothing that suggests there will ever be one that will be obsolescence free.

You don't seem to be a gullible sort at all, so I'm surprised that you think there will some form of market justice meted out to Leica. This makes little sense. The market told Leica to make a full-frame digital RF, if anything. They did it. They're selling them. That's what enterprises do.

This is no different than the practice at Canon, Nikon, or any of the larger digital camera makers. The Canon 1D and 1Ds I used to own haven't seen a software upgrade in several years now. And you can buy a serviceable 1D today for less than 1/10th the price of one 6+ years ago. All good, if you like used markets for gear, as an aside. Knowledge of industry practice does suggest that Leica would behave similarly once it began to participate in the much less mature market of sensor-based imaging. So no surprise, really. My M8 is losing value as I write. And I'm aging too. At least I'm not dead and my M8 still takes good pictures.

Best to you.
Click to expand...

Dear Mike

I do not consider myself gulible either. If anything as a purist M user I perhaps was seduced and love can be blind! I certainly do not expect to believe anything from the other big company's but some how I did trust Leica on this one with them being small and hand made and optically wonderful.

Regarding market forces I do think it will cost Leica something. Certainly £5,000 as I have not placed an order! I am perhaps priviledged enough to have this disposable income but I am still cross and unconvinced about after sales support in the UK for the M9. It is too early to say how M9 sales are going. There are a lot of waiting lists but these are not sales!

Setting this aside. If we do accept the generally held view that digital cameras are transients, then why on earth pay out £5,000 for a body? Id be a lot happier with something that feels more disposable and costs less.

best to you too


Richard
 
When not in possession of all the facts argument is mostly speculative.

I mistrust the opinion of those who condescend in absolutes.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bob,

You mean it was behind all the other FF RFs on the market?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

As you must have guessed I most certainly do not mean other FF DRFs on the market, there being none. A digital camera is as much about the sensor capabilities as it is about form factor. In that regard I personally think the capabilities of the M9 FF sensor are just a little under whelming when compared to what was on the market a couple years before the M9 showed up. OTH if a person can be satisfied with the the M9 performance and have the coin go for it.

Cheers

Bob
 
patrickjames said:
Hey Roger, one thing I have learned in life is regardless of whether I am right or wrong I never argue with a lawyer. There is never any need to and I'll leave it at that. In fact I would prefer never to argue with anyone of course. Life is too short. :)

I hope your holidays were enjoyable.

All the best, and with respect, amicably,


Patrick
Click to expand...

Dear Patrick,

Exactly. That's why I didn't pursue a legal career!

I hope that you, too, has a merry Christmas and wish you a prosperous New Year.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top