5 ms·

A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

208 points by missizii 10y ago

droopyEyelids 10y ago
Wish there was a way to do ensure the Right to Repair without throwing Apple's "Activation Lock" in the garbage. Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. ) https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/
- daveloyall 10y ago
  I'm not sure how Nebraska's LB67 would defeat Apple's remote-wipe-for-lost-phones feature. Would you elaborate?
  - mustacheemperor 10y ago
    I assume the poster is not referring to remote wipe, but the fact that it is literally impossible to crack into an iPhone associated to an Apple account you can't authenticate. If an iDevice is iCloud locked and you don't have that password, it's a brick.
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      It is not literally impossible, it is just beyond the grasp of petty thieves at the moment. Wait until one guy releases a walkthrough on the the two pins you cross or the steps to remove some chip and add a new (or worst case blast some part of an SOC with a laser), then all the geek friends of those pretty criminals will take a stab at it. Its not like the criminals themselves are doing much with phones and laptops they steal currently. They just sell them for pennies on the dollar to some shop that won't ask questions. The shop wipes the machines, resets keys or does whatever they will do. If the procedure is more involved the shop will pay less for iPhones to offset their costs, which could still deter thievery, but we can't expect it to always be "literally impossible".
      - chadgeidel 10y ago
        I think it's slightly more complicated than you make it out. The FBI presumably has the resources to create the "two pins you cross or steps to remove some chip" and yet it still has to ask Apple for device access on newer iPhones. Either this ability exists, and the FBI is hiding it via creating large numbers of device requests of Apple, or Apple is telling us the truth and the iPhone is not easily hacked.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        There is a difference between recovering encrypted data and making the phone usable for a second person. One cares about circumventing crypto and the other just wants to re-use a bunch of atoms.
- daveloyall 10y ago
  This is a specific instance of a more general question that Nebraska legislators are going to consider on Thursday: what pitfalls exist around the "right to repair" or even the "right to modify"? Suppose a law is passed which forces my digital device manufacturer to allow me to install arbitrary firmware on my device. What could go wrong? Well, it depends on how they implement it. If they remove signature verification during the firmware upgrade process, maybe some malicious person could change my firmware. I don't want that. So, what they should do is give me the signing key. The design of the device doesn't need to change. We don't need to re-legalize "hacking" the digital lock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention) Nope, the manufacturer just needs to include a copy of each device's unique key in the box when they sell the phone. Leave the rest to the consumer.
- krzyk 10y ago
  If Activation Lock prohibits right-to-repair and right-to-modify it should be removed. I personally encounter more frequently state when I want to repair or modify my hardware then when I get is stolen. More over petty thiefs don't distinguish between one phone or the other. If they do, they will more likely steal iPhone, if they are even more clever and know that it is hard to crack an iPhone, then it is such minority that you can ignore them almost altogether (and they are more likely to know how to really crack it - it is not impossible).
- prodmerc 10y ago
  Oh please, Apple devices still get stolen left and right. Being able to modify and fix your own hardware as you want is a boon to humanity.
wheelerwj 10y ago
this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.
- mulletbum 10y ago
  Should that open the market for third party manufacturers then to provide parts?
  - yarri 10y ago
    Depends on the industry. The auto insurance industry had facilitated this, but was then reprimanded for using generic parts to repair damaged cars. There was some irony in that US parts manufacturers claimed 3rd parties were importing "foreign" parts, but many of the US manufactures also subcontracted overseas. Thorny issue.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The problem with repairs wasn't that they were using generic parts from third parties. The problem was they were using used parts. They created a huge market for stolen cars.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    Of course. People do that already. If you can reverse engineer it (or get it close), isn't that okay? I don't think anyone would condone a manufacturer like Foxcon ln selling parts independently, but that stuff is handled contractually anyways.
- zardo 10y ago
  Well... the EPA might not weigh in this time. They require 'tamper resistant' emission control systems. Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.
jackcosgrove 10y ago
This is a big issue for farmers. I have family who are farmers and the secret to their success is that they are mainly mechanics who fix their own equipment. If you have to rely on other people to fix your equipment your margins disappear quickly.
hanselot 10y ago
How many more Volkswagen emission scandals are hiding behind this ruse of patent protection. Certainly on every market we will find a proportional example, and if not then why so adamantly defend it? Surely this is just an opportunity for more companies to say to their customers: "hey guys. We are going to stand against fucking you for profit."
rasz_pl 10y ago
This is getting really ridiculous now. CTIA, organizers of "Wireless Repair Expo", expo for companies providing repair tools and services, are actually lobbying AGAINST right to repair ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gsFe9kM-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gsFe9kM-0
wahern 10y ago
John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don’t own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle". Don't most farmers finance their equipment? If the resale value is low because John Deere's policies make it difficult to use older equipment, then they won't be able to sell tractors with high profit margins because banks won't give them security. They're literally trading higher margins for more volume sales, and begging their competitors to join them to a race to the bottom. I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth. Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together. Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market. In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese. I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.

208 points by missizii 10y ago

Wish there was a way to do ensure the Right to Repair without throwing Apple's "Activation Lock" in the garbage. Activation Lock greatly reduced the amount of thievery associated with Apple devices, and I think it's been a tremendous boon to -humanity- (how? by reducing the whole ecosystem of shit that grows around theft. Without Apple products, it's a less viable 'career' for the disadvantaged, and the scum who feed off them. It's like if half the grass in a field was inedible, it'd support a smaller population of buffalo or something. ) https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/02/11/iphone-thefts/

daveloyall 10y ago
I'm not sure how Nebraska's LB67 would defeat Apple's remote-wipe-for-lost-phones feature. Would you elaborate?
- mustacheemperor 10y ago
  I assume the poster is not referring to remote wipe, but the fact that it is literally impossible to crack into an iPhone associated to an Apple account you can't authenticate. If an iDevice is iCloud locked and you don't have that password, it's a brick.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    It is not literally impossible, it is just beyond the grasp of petty thieves at the moment. Wait until one guy releases a walkthrough on the the two pins you cross or the steps to remove some chip and add a new (or worst case blast some part of an SOC with a laser), then all the geek friends of those pretty criminals will take a stab at it. Its not like the criminals themselves are doing much with phones and laptops they steal currently. They just sell them for pennies on the dollar to some shop that won't ask questions. The shop wipes the machines, resets keys or does whatever they will do. If the procedure is more involved the shop will pay less for iPhones to offset their costs, which could still deter thievery, but we can't expect it to always be "literally impossible".
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      I think it's slightly more complicated than you make it out. The FBI presumably has the resources to create the "two pins you cross or steps to remove some chip" and yet it still has to ask Apple for device access on newer iPhones. Either this ability exists, and the FBI is hiding it via creating large numbers of device requests of Apple, or Apple is telling us the truth and the iPhone is not easily hacked.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        There is a difference between recovering encrypted data and making the phone usable for a second person. One cares about circumventing crypto and the other just wants to re-use a bunch of atoms.
daveloyall 10y ago
This is a specific instance of a more general question that Nebraska legislators are going to consider on Thursday: what pitfalls exist around the "right to repair" or even the "right to modify"? Suppose a law is passed which forces my digital device manufacturer to allow me to install arbitrary firmware on my device. What could go wrong? Well, it depends on how they implement it. If they remove signature verification during the firmware upgrade process, maybe some malicious person could change my firmware. I don't want that. So, what they should do is give me the signing key. The design of the device doesn't need to change. We don't need to re-legalize "hacking" the digital lock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention) Nope, the manufacturer just needs to include a copy of each device's unique key in the box when they sell the phone. Leave the rest to the consumer.
krzyk 10y ago
If Activation Lock prohibits right-to-repair and right-to-modify it should be removed. I personally encounter more frequently state when I want to repair or modify my hardware then when I get is stolen. More over petty thiefs don't distinguish between one phone or the other. If they do, they will more likely steal iPhone, if they are even more clever and know that it is hard to crack an iPhone, then it is such minority that you can ignore them almost altogether (and they are more likely to know how to really crack it - it is not impossible).
prodmerc 10y ago
Oh please, Apple devices still get stolen left and right. Being able to modify and fix your own hardware as you want is a boon to humanity.

wheelerwj 10y ago

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't know why a business would be incentivized to sell anything but the entire device.

mulletbum 10y ago
Should that open the market for third party manufacturers then to provide parts?
- yarri 10y ago
  Depends on the industry. The auto insurance industry had facilitated this, but was then reprimanded for using generic parts to repair damaged cars. There was some irony in that US parts manufacturers claimed 3rd parties were importing "foreign" parts, but many of the US manufactures also subcontracted overseas. Thorny issue.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The problem with repairs wasn't that they were using generic parts from third parties. The problem was they were using used parts. They created a huge market for stolen cars.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  Of course. People do that already. If you can reverse engineer it (or get it close), isn't that okay? I don't think anyone would condone a manufacturer like Foxcon ln selling parts independently, but that stuff is handled contractually anyways.
zardo 10y ago
Well... the EPA might not weigh in this time. They require 'tamper resistant' emission control systems. Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.

jackcosgrove 10y ago

This is a big issue for farmers. I have family who are farmers and the secret to their success is that they are mainly mechanics who fix their own equipment. If you have to rely on other people to fix your equipment your margins disappear quickly.

hanselot 10y ago

How many more Volkswagen emission scandals are hiding behind this ruse of patent protection. Certainly on every market we will find a proportional example, and if not then why so adamantly defend it? Surely this is just an opportunity for more companies to say to their customers: "hey guys. We are going to stand against fucking you for profit."

rasz_pl 10y ago

This is getting really ridiculous now. CTIA, organizers of "Wireless Repair Expo", expo for companies providing repair tools and services, are actually lobbying AGAINST right to repair ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gsFe9kM-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gsFe9kM-0

wahern 10y ago

John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don’t own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle". Don't most farmers finance their equipment? If the resale value is low because John Deere's policies make it difficult to use older equipment, then they won't be able to sell tractors with high profit margins because banks won't give them security. They're literally trading higher margins for more volume sales, and begging their competitors to join them to a race to the bottom. I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth. Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together. Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market. In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese. I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.