WARNING TO RED: your warranty policy may be illegal

[Teague Kennedy]

I find it a bit silly that the people at Red would want to limit the possibilities for people who were part of the revolution and believed in the project from the get go, and helped spread the exitement on the web and elsewhere. I hope this whole "you cannot do this with your Red" attitude goes away. We are the people that helped in the marketing machine.

But, I, too, still like, no, love, you guys at Red : )

 

[John V]

A company does note leagally need to offer a warranty at all. So be happy ther is one. I hate people who are so negative

 

[Martin Drew]

Martin

Hardly if he/she bought it from the US

In Norway "Equipment one should expect to have a lifespan of at least 5 years" have such a warranty for consumers. Thus recently cell-phones were granted 5 years under Norwegian Consumer law (to mach griefby the importers) by the High Court.

But, for pro's and companies the warranty is only one year - if you don't buy extra time from the manufacturer.

The warranty would follow the equipment and not the buyer, though.

Main point is:
If you buy something from somewhere else, "somewhere else´s" laws apply.

Gunleik

Yup. Of course you are right. I didn't have my thinking cap on this morning. Duh! Consumer law in the UK states that any item sold must be of satisfactory quality and free of defects and it applies for 6 years from the date of purchase. In practise that means that even if the manufacturers warranty period is over you may still have a claim against the supplier if an item doesn't last for a reasonable length of time (and that will depend upon the item), up to a maximum of 6 years. I guess we are just spoilt over here.

M

 

[istvanttt]

That's called the reality of the new business model istvan. If you can sell people firmware updates that keep them at the leading edge, using the framework (ie. the red camera housing and software) as the foundation, you spend far less on R and D. Don't think that this is a happy accident. As far as "personalizing" warranties go, I'm all for following the rule of law.


That's very poor business acumen on your part. Sorry. You haven't read the small print in the warranty terms.



Mission Critical? You mean like global warming is critical? Or do you mean suit and tie talk, which seldom has anything to do with reality.
Keeping our investment valid has a. everything to do with the present 'solution' changing consistently, and b. little to do with a one year warranty, and c. everything to do with building long term infrastructure into the basic design of the camera (which JJ and crew have smartly done, as a little known startup surrounded by giants who have dominated the industry for years. Rather than slay the dragon all at once, chip away at the ankle until eventually it falls over)

Sorry for the term Mission Critical. I took it from the software business and it indicates productes which influences the possibility to realize the own profession. In other words, if the sw is good and almost bugfree, you as user can improve your profession or make more money; if its bad you lose a lot. FCP is considered a mission critical sw; an utility to schedule better your day is not, even if very usefull.

In his meaning I used the term Mission Critical because I think that most of us buy the RED ONE to realize our own mission.

For the rest, I don't know about which "small print" you are talking about, but if RED is ofering to bring a 2-3 years old used camera for 500$ to the latest toplevel, then this indeed protects my investment more then any written Law.
Istvan

 

[Teague Kennedy]

A company does note leagally need to offer a warranty at all. So be happy ther is one. I hate people who are so negative

Meany.

It's not so much the warranty that tickles me, but the "beware, dare not sell your red" attitude.

 

[John V]

I dont have anything against selling the RED it is just a matter of protecting ones interests. RED does not wish to get sued from someone who bought a camera that could have been motified without checking it out first. Hence returning the camera to their offices to check it over. I am sure Jim will or already has a plan in place for this.

 

[Mark B.]

I dont have anything against selling the RED it is just a matter of protecting ones interests. RED does not wish to get sued from someone who bought a camera that could have been motified without checking it out first. Hence returning the camera to their offices to check it over. I am sure Jim will or already has a plan in place for this.

I doubt it's possible for Red to be sued if one person bought a used camera from another person. The transaction has nothing to do with Red, so they don't need to protect themselves. If they want to offer a service where a camera can be verified as being in good working order, that's fine, but it's a separate issue that shouldn't have anything to do with warranty transfers.

This warranty thing is very irksome. It's like Red made a beautiful painting and then hung it on a wall using a PVC frame and duct tape. Why not take that tiny little step and make the warranty as flexible as the camera?

 

[Manfred Lopez]

It's not so much the warranty that tickles me, but the "beware, dare not sell your red" attitude.

This thread has been very entertaining indeed... maybe it's because right now I am in the middle of writting a legal scene in my script.

First of all, I want to repeat that I love the Red mission and that I mean no harm or disrespect. :innocent:

Okay, so now on to the juicy stuff:

It is my humble opinion that many people here are correct in stating that Red has the right to manage their waranty however they like as long as it meets federal and california minimum standards. So they can say warranty doesn't transfer. And that is fine.

But what is really at issue here, and this seems to be what is ticking people off a bit, is that Red seems to be going so far as to inhibit others from updating the camera through firmware updates (or the daughter board implant, etz.). The message: If you buy it used, then you cannot have a password and access to our website. Now this, in my opinion, goes against the federal minimum standard of implied warranty, which every manufacturer has to follow.


To put it real simple:

1. Red One is still not a fully functioning product as promissed.

2. Red allows one to buy this product with the understanding that as new 'discoveries' or developments are made towards getting the camera up to advertised spec, the camera itself will be updated.

3. Red uses the slogan "Rendering Obsolescence Obsolete", but then turn around and says that it only aplies to the original owners once someone actually tries to sell the camera.


What people seem to be afraid of (and rightly so) is buying a Red one used and then being left out of the loop as far as bringing the camera up to spec. So, like I was saying, the issue is not expressed limited warranty, but rather implied warranty of product and its advertised full potential. I am sure these threads would not exist if the camera was fully functioning and you wouldn't need to grip onto a 'limited warranty' to just bring it to full spec.

So therefore, in my humble opinion, I believe Red should clarify if they intend to have all cameras from serial number one through 5000 end up with the same specs no matter who owns them... or if you sell one then they will stop bringing it up to date for free like the rest (just don't iBrick them please ). Maybe everyone should hold off selling them until we know what is going on. Or maybe Red right from the outset should just prohibit anyone from selling until the Red One has time to become a fully functinal death star of 4k mayhem. :gun:

.

 

[sbroock]

So, like I was saying, the issue is not expressed limited warranty, but rather implied warranty of product and its advertised full potential. I am sure these threads would not exist if the camera was fully functioning and you wouldn't need to grip onto a 'limited warranty' to just bring it to full spec.

.

Honestly, this is really counterproductive. Implied warranty has nothing to do with your original question of non-transferability and you are just introducing a red herring that will further confuse people. Your opinion about RED's policy as being against any type of Federal or State law is, frankly, just ill informed.

To quote the physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't even wrong."

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Honestly, this is really counterproductive. Implied warranty has nothing to do with your original question of non-transferability and you are just introducing a red herring that will further confuse people. Your opinion about RED's policy as being against any type of Federal or State law is, frankly, just ill informed.

To quote the physicist Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't even wrong."

Um, I appologize for that. Like I said before, I love the Red mission and the last thing I want to do is confuse people. But the way I read the law and someone explained it to me is what I was trying to pass on. It seems that this topic is on a lot of people's minds. Some even seem to agree with some of my posts.

As a struggling producer I have long ago learned that it pays to pay attention to the law and know your rights and obligations. Red as a company has been nothing but nice and generous so far, and I love them for that. But this 'attitude' (as some have called it) against people selling their Reds is uncaracteristic and I am sure they will clarify their position which will turn out to be quite nice. So I don't think these posts are unproductive. It helps Red learn more about what's on everyone's minds and how the company is comming across to some.

Oh, and that bit about my post being ill informed is just your opinion... but you are stating it as a matter-of-fact. At least in my posts I try to use phrases like 'it is my humble opinion' or 'may' (like in the title of the thread), and then I provide links to the stuff I base my opinions on. Maybe it would help us all accept your statements-as-fact if you just state that you are an attorney with an expertise in this area (I am not... but I read). In the mean time my intention with this thread was to let Red know that there may be a potential problem... then again, it may turn out to be nothing. But it doesn't hurt to look into it.


EDIT:

Oh, and the wording of "WARNING TO RED" that I chose was a direct copy of Brent@RED's wording of "Warning: Purchasing a Previously-Owned RED ONE". This was meant as a comic imitation. I am not really screaming 'warning'. No, really.

 

[Jannard]

OK Guys... all bullshit aside!! If RED is not willing to take care of the people that put everything in "their" basket... then just let us know. "We" will do our best to go elsewhere... The "NON" communication or "lawyer speak" is getting on my last nerve. I have "zero" respect for lawyers...

Evidently loyalty means "jack"...

Imagine we get a camera back from the 2nd owner expecting us to warranty a "modified" camera and the new owner has no idea what he bought. We are struggling to figure out how to deal with this since we have realized that many owners are "experimenting" with their new toys. And we don't want to examine and fix problems created by "previous owners". We'll review our policy (as always) to try to come up with a fair solution. We just want to fix problems we created... and I think we have shown a willingness to bend over backwards to do that.

Andrew... please feel free to "go elsewhere" if you feel we are not taking care of our customers properly. In fact, you can contact me directly for your refund if you are so inclined.

Jim

 

[Rick Darge]

Oh snap!

 

[Charles Adams]

Just for comparison, here is Sony's warranty for their professional products, including the HDW-F900R, a $79,900 USD list price camera without lenses/accessories.

Sony's warranty? One year and NOT applicable for used products or those not purchased direct from Sony themselves.

Then there is Panasonic's warranty for their VariCam AJ-HDC27H, a $45,000 USD camera.

Panasonic's warranty? One year and NON-TRANSFERABLE.

In other words, Red's warranty is in line with that of the industry, and perhaps better, considering their $500/90 day option.

Please keep this in mind. I think expectations are getting out of control...

 

[Martin Ludwig]

this is indeed a very funny discussion. If I would buy a used Red I would call Red and I´m sure they will offer me great help (as Sony and Panasonic did already in the past).
You should trust a company if you are working with them. Use your mouth to speak and you will get help.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Seriously...

When I put down my order, no camera was present, much less a warranty.

From the number I see besides the avatars, many of you guys ordered way before me. - Even less of a camera and even less of a guarantee was then present.

We have always been promised our money back if we're not happy with... well... just about anything.

Some can have griefs over their cams being delayed:
Get your cash back

Some can feel bad about the guarantee:
Get your cash back

Some may still feel Red is a scam, after all -
Get your cash back

You aunt fell ill
Get your cash back

Really. Noone at Red is forcing any of us to hang around for this joyride (even though one could argue that the addictiveness of the joy and the ride would be of a sort that some might better have a chat with their doc for a pill or two. Can't afford it?
Get your cash back)

I have sometimes felt a bit coldhearted around here, because I have expected things to take (more) time, and I don't put my future at large for a temporal release date or a 6 vs 12 months guarantee.

To me this is pretty simple:
The camcomes when it comes
It can what it can at that moment
It has the guarantee that Red chooses to give it. Additional insurances can be bought.
And if I don't like it...
I could opt for the cashback -

Gunleik
(Who's gettin' his second shot of 4k footy today -

 

[Manfred Lopez]

Really. Noone at Red is forcing any of us to hang around for this joyride

Yeah, but it is fun. I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I couldn't hang out in these boards and speculate 'till the N'th degree while we all patiently wait for a Red to become available. (I mean for those of us who don't have one already).

And besides, Jim already came here and said he would look into the matter. It seems that everyone's bitching paid off. :innocent:

 

[dvpixl]

In other words, Red's warranty is in line with that of the industry, and perhaps better, considering their $500/90 day option.

what's this option about?

 

[Teague Kennedy]

Imagine we get a camera back from the 2nd owner expecting us to warranty a "modified" camera and the new owner has no idea what he bought. We are struggling to figure out how to deal with this since we have realized that many owners are "experimenting" with their new toys. And we don't want to examine and fix problems created by "previous owners". We'll review our policy (as always) to try to come up with a fair solution. We just want to fix problems we created... and I think we have shown a willingness to bend over backwards to do that.
Jim

I think this should put to rest the attitude of "sell your camera and you are damned." Thanks for chiming in, Jim. I think noone here wants to be unfair to Red. Their policies have been more than fair, IMHO. It's just the re-sale taboo that has been a little weird to me and it has possibly come more from the posters on the board than the Red team. Hey, it's your camera. You put down a deposit early. You waited. You shared in the excitement. Use it. Wear it as a necklace. Put in it a gold case under vaccuum. Sell it to someone if you're done with your big production, or you need the money, or you dang well please.

But, no, I sure the heck don't want my deposit back. : )

 

[planet e]

Jim, thank you for your patience and willingness to work out the details on these matters with the rest of the asylum...another tempest brewing in the teapot....

Folks need to chill out and look at more closely at what is authentic about RED's track record for serving its customers and less at their own fears. Okay, so there is not much track record, but the will and resolve behind RED to be the best camera company in the world is unmatched anywhere....

DanK put up what appears to be the first legitimate public RED sale, and RED responded to this "emerging" secondary market in a way that is in-line with the industry and appears to be trying to deal fairly with customers while keeping a necessary boundary about modded cameras. DanK will walk away several thousand dollars richer--and one outstanding camera poorer--without lifting a finger. He can buy a nice O'Connor tripod with the winnings. Good investment, good job backing a great horse.

If RED was the den of thieves being portrayed, DanK could not have pulled that off, because no one would have bid...this is a great company with one of the greatest CEOs/presidents/savants in the world at its helm.

This emperor wears some very nice clothes in 4K. Let the man do his job.

 

[jaadgy akanni]

Incidently...

Incidently...

DanK put up what appears to be the first legitimate public RED sale, and RED responded to this "emerging" secondary market in a way that is in-line with the industry and appears to be trying to deal fairly with customers while keeping a necessary boundary about modded cameras. DanK will walk away several thousand dollars richer--and one outstanding camera poorer--without lifting a finger. He can buy a nice O'Connor tripod with the winnings. Good investment, good job backing a great horse.

I stumbled upon something interesting on Dvinfo.net the other day... peep this:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=105141