There are a few points that should be illuminated, for example Canon did offer free inspection and cleaning....all camera companies do normally in the warranty period. It was Canon USA which made it public and quite possibly heads rolled for it when it embarrassed Canon Japan.
Canon never publicly admitted to major design flaws such as some top of the line cameras with defective design AF. Ever try a 1D3 for AF effectiveness? Several software updates were released but the problem was never resolved and no one got made whole again. So what did they do to help the situation....they brought out a replacement at a higher price and promoted is as having a functional AF system. So their solution was to sell users a another $5000 camera to replace their dramatically lowered resale value prior model.
Nikon cleaning and checking cameras as warranty checkouts, that is all that any regulatory agency would ask of them if a complaint was filed.
Who was blaming the petitioner? I was just asking why and so far no one thought it was a reasonable question so I do not expect an answer, nor am I owed one.
A high performance car is one that allows higher levels of responsiveness to user inputs which is a total disaster if less than precision commands are input. They are not for everyone, and shouldn't be. They do not perform simple common tasks well at all since there is little compensation for ambiguous or ill-advised inputs to controls. Greater agility and responsiveness comes from less stability. That is why a driver of a performance car is irresponsible for lending it to someone who has not been prepared with the experience or training needed to stay within limits that are not automatically limited as designed into 99% of cars. In the case of a D600-D4, there are more variables that have been left to the user to decide how it should respond. Most of the questions on forums are about things that were not a problem with the owner's prior mid-line or lower end camera, and seldom is the problem having anything to do with a defect or design flaw but rather its open ended flexibility that results in giving less than satisfactory results because of the user getting exactly what would be expected with the input he gave it. With more options come more responsibility to know what one is doing. Most of the moderators get dozens of direct on-forum questions or complaints about their gear not doing what their old gear did. Almost always we are very patient in working through the problem and isolating the important factors that would allow a logical diagnosis. It is not very often that the final result is it being a defective camera. I just got finished with a long series of step by step testing from afar and traced a problem with a camera that was about to be sent back for exchange...for #3 camera. The problem turned out to be a misunderstanding of a basic system of the camera and a minor correction in use "fixed" the problem. The old camera did not do this because it did not even have that feature. Sometimes it IS a defect that needs to be corrected, however, but which are which is the hard part unless reasonable attention to evidence collection is made. When someone returns 3-6 cameras for the same problem....it is long past time to consider if there is some common element external to the camera that does not require all 6 cameras to have the identical defect. That would defy logic, reason, experience, odds and credibility.