7 ms·

Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Dee

Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that the latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers, statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts who know their way around hardware, but in the case of a farmer, I'd imagine most would be perfectly capable of messing around with the internals of a tractor, albeit some software-heavy parts would of course prove almost impossible to "repair". EDIT: Grammar

taurath 7y ago
Money. You’re not buying a tractor, you’re buying a “platform”.
- korabas 7y ago
  Right, that makes sense, at least from the point of view of the manufacturer, in that you're also "buying" support, etc. It's still a bit sad that there's no opt-in into such deal, ad that farmers don't seem to have another alternative.
- Eric_WVGG 7y ago
  Well, he said “rational,” as in, how does Deere rationalize it. As far as I can tell, they’re just parroting the usual DMCA talking points… > John Deere declined to be interviewed but sent a lengthy statement outlining its concerns. The company doesn’t want people altering its copyright-protected code because, said director of public relations Ken Golden, “changes could lead to the unsafe operation of products, disruption of machine capabilities and performance, changes to emissions controls, voiding of warranties and lack of transparency to the changes when the equipment is sold to another user”. But yeah, money. One thing that gets lost in this particular controversy, IMO, is that John Deere is effectively a monopoly in this space. If farmers were able to choose between tractors that were built like Dell laptops vs ones built like iPads… So this is a problem of digital rights, but one could argue that it’s also a problem of deregulation and lack of competition.
  - phillc73 7y ago
    It's been many years since I was actively involved in agriculture, but I don't recall John Deere being a monopoly. There were choices including Ford, Case, Masse Ferguson, Kubota, New Holland and then regionally brands like MTZ and Steyr. That's not to say they're not all participating in the same practices, I just don't know, but is Deere really a monopoly?
    - macintux 7y ago
      Per this page, Deere has over 30% of the market; I don't know that would be considered a monopoly, but assuming the rest of the market is heavily fragmented, it's certainly a dominant position. https://csimarket.com/stocks/compet_glance.php?code=DE https://csimarket.com/stocks/compet_glance.php?code=DE
    - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
      True. My usual very-unscientific method is a search for "john deere vs" which turned up some alternatives but they seemed to be obscure to the point of giving Deere an effective monopoly, but yeah I don't really know.
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      Driving through rural Texas I've even seen a Tata dealership.
    - ameister14 7y ago
      I think Deere has about 25-35% of the market, with New Holland and Kubota in there afterwards
  - SteveGerencser 7y ago
    JD is on where near a monopoly on anything other than green paint. Mahindra, Case IH, Kubota, New Holland, and on and on are all equally available, and in most cases cheaper, alternatives that function just as well. We own both a Case and a Kubota.
    - 7y ago
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
It's not complicated. John Deere wants to milk their customers for more money.
- choward 7y ago
  s/John Deere/Every company ever
deadmetheny 7y ago
It's literally just greed. No more, no less.
deogeo 7y ago
> but it could be argued that the latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers, statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts And I'm not a car enthusiast, yet I can take my car to any mechanic I choose - I don't need the manufacturer's permission.
- korabas 7y ago
  Right, I cannot really argue with that. I wasn't mentioning Apple as an example of a good role model here, just to be clear.
- kgwxd 7y ago
  This is the perfect way to frame it. Just about anyone, no matter their level of interest in the case, would response to that with "well, duh".
- AgloeDreams 7y ago
  This actually is also a market that suffers from this, notably companies like Tesla.
  - tooMuchCensor 7y ago
    Tesla and Apple. Both HN favorites.... Back in my day, FOSS everything or you are an evil programmer. It's strange to see this was only a trend and now some nerds prefer locked down systems.
belorn 7y ago
Having certified repair stations allow you to extract money on certification, be sure that all parts are original and sold in a controlled market.
- randomdata 7y ago
  > all parts are original John Deere bought out the only company that was really producing aftermarket parts a couple of years ago, so that's a non-issue for them. As an aside, I had the JD tech out to work on my combine a while back. I watched him have to decrypt the service manual on his computer before he could use it. I was somewhat amazed at the lengths they go to to protect their information. Almost. Once he unlocked it, he handed his computer to me and let me poke around freely. Hard to put a complete stop to social engineering.
THJr 7y ago
There's a number of reasons, but as I understand the main issue is that John Deere is treating their tractor's firmware like the music industry was treating MP3's. They say farmers may own the tractor itself, and the hardware, but they're only licensing the use of the firmware and don't have the right to modify it. (Which can be necessary when repairing a tractor that has many computerized systems.) They're essentially creating DRM for tractor software that's so restrictive that installing new parts requires access to secret codes in the firmware in order to turn them on, then accusing farmers of breaking the law if they try to alter or figure out these secret codes in order to keep their tractor working without going to a dealer. (According to my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.)
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  Playing the devil’s advocate: what’s preventing them from claiming the tractor itself as IP as well, and licensing it as such? Eg you’re not allowed to change your own tires. Would such a thing be legally possible, and if not, why does this differ from the firmware?
  - ISL 7y ago
    Deere could absolutely rent tractors to farmers -- it would be a different economic calculus. It is unclear what kind of pricing would entice farmers to rent rather than buy.
  - SteveGerencser 7y ago
    Most manufacturers already do this with fluids. You are required to use their oil and oil filters or you 'may' void the drivetrain warranty. We just bought a new tractor last spring and this is part of the new deal when it comes to purchasing a new tractor.
probably_wrong 7y ago
Not that I agree with them, but some of the rationales I heard: That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that. That it might force companies to publish business secrets: with machine being full of computers nowadays, they might be forced to reveal a proprietary API. Related: someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it. That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable, in case someone wants to repair their machinery. They might have no intentions to get into the spare pieces market, but with a specific law (such as "the company will make available all required pieces for sale, or...") they might be forced to. Also, money. But those are the kind of arguments you were asking for.
- korabas 7y ago
  These are at least logical arguments. I am also not sure I agree with them, or rather with the way things turn out in practice. But, as they say, "a villain is a hero in the other side".
- abnry 7y ago
  >That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that. Wouldn't this situation be analogous to the automobile industry? Surely this issue has been spoken on in the courts.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  > That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up Is this the case for auto shops now? > That it might force companies to publish business secrets There are many, many ways to compile and preserve business secrets in blobs, but there's probably a fundamental issue if you're dependent on that. > someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it If you publish crappy code in your paid product and someone suffers for it, you should be sued. That's not a consequence, that's the system working. > That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable The company has a line of profit - the initial device. This is not forcing them to take on a new business, this is forcing them to support the purchase I already made. If you can't sell spare parts, don't sell tractors. If you can't handle a support call, don't take my money.
dbcurtis 7y ago
In the early days, farm tractors were pretty simple, and many farmers did a lot of their own work. As machines got bigger, most used local repair shops that could always order from parts depots. But as electronics has invaded tractors (for many good reasons) it has gotten to the point where you really need the diagnostic equipment. So this is a lot like what auto repair was in the early days of the diagnostic plug-in port. It took legislation to allow my local mechanic to buy a diagnostic machine that allowed him to reset the whiney "time for an oil change" message when he serviced my car. That was all about lock-in. This is all about lock-in for farm machinery, using proprietary ports and protocols and keeping documentation secret. I could go on at length with anecdotes from family history but I shall spare you. Right-to-repair needs to happen for all of us. Farmers just happen to have a lot of money on the line here and are leading the charge.
- kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
  I still don't get from your description what the point or motive would be. Who is locking in whom, for what purpose?
  - jrrrr 7y ago
    The manufacturer of the complicated machine is withholding diagnostic tools, locking out owners and independent repair shops, in order to protect their own dealership/service business. From the article: > A Crain’s Chicago Business article reported that dealers make five times the profit margin off repair than they do off the sale of new equipment.
  - taftster 7y ago
    Deere is controlling the marketplace for "repairs." If a farmer is required to use service centers exclusively provided and controlled by Deere, then they are inhibited from using the free market. The right to repair is essential for farmers to be able to choose the best repair options for their situation (self-made repairs, local non-affiliated repair shop, Deere certified). Some people take their cars to the dealer for all services. They do this because they value the expertise and depth that the dealers can [sometimes] provide. Other people take their cars to the local quick lube or brake repair shop. To each his own for car repairs. And so too it should be for any equipment repairs.
mschuster91 7y ago
> Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? Simple: an old tractor or truck - give me a decent shop with tools, lifts and a crane, and I can repair almost everything that is broken. Some light doesn't work, engine doesn't turn on? Hand me a multimeter and I can troubleshoot it. Modern cars, trucks and tractors are essentially computers on wheels. Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? Can be everything from a faulty valve or cabin switch over broken shielding somewhere along the CAN (or other) high speed bus leading to garbled transmissions to a software bug somewhere in the control unit. The farmer can easily fix a broken component - but good luck finding the issue in the latter two failure modes, I doubt it's even possible for a small freelance shop as it requires HF communications or IT knowledge combined with specialized tooling (signal analyzer, some kind of debugging tool for the CU). The problem there is that forcing manufacturers to open up the documentation is that this equals giving everyone and their dog including their competitors access to the "secret sauce" that is software. This is the unfortunate reality and I have no idea how to balance the right to repair for farmers willing to dive deep into complex technology with the interest of JD (or other manufacturers) that China doesn't simply dump the software and clones it outright. Probably in a world without capitalism this might work out in favor of right to repair, but in the current economy... I'd settle for a middle groumd, giving the right for people to obtain and install spare parts on module scale, but not forcing opening up the software. Edit: oh and that doesn't even touch the issue that old cars/trucks/tractors were designed to have ample space to work in, and that components tolerated abuse by idiots screwing around. Forget to properly clean the fuel line of gunk? No issue for an old truck, it might spew some smoke and that's it, but on the modern diesel engines with thousands of bars of pressure on the fuel rail? The tiniest amount of contaminants will brick the entire injector system if you're in bad luck...
- korabas 7y ago
  > Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? And what if Joe Farmer wanted to take his faulty tractor to Bill Repair Man who knows about this but charges a lot less than Deere?
- 7y ago
johngalt 7y ago
The manufacturer wants to pull more value out of the entire lifecycle, rather than just the initial sale. From the manufacturer's perspective, they only sell the tractor once. The revenue from repairs, and second hand sales accrue to others. If a tractor lasts a long time, that is great news for repairs and re-sales, but not necessarily for people selling new models. Additionally manufacturers have to defend their brand. Letting people graft whatever no-name parts into their tractor will often result in an under-performing or dangerous piece of equipment. The idea of locked down hardware/equipment is to align these incentives, by splitting the downstream value of a long lasting tractor between the user and the vendor. Think of it like Apple. Locked down and expensive, but done intentionally to produce consistent outcomes.
kempbellt 7y ago
I'm for right-to-repair, but I'll give it a shot in defense of manufacturers. A lot of people assume it's just "evil-corp" greed. All of these reasons are money based, but not necessarily malicious. Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light. Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to disassemble and repair one safely. Cost of creating parts distribution channels: Having the parts to repair a machine that you manufactured is cheap. Creating distribution channels to keep track of, maintain inventory, price out, and deliver those parts to customers, is a business in-and-of itself - and is not cheap to maintain. Many companies do this, but it isn't cheap. Cost of creating and updating documentation for customers: Sure, this might seem tedious, but as a software engineer, I know this has an actual cost. How many companies have you worked at that have had perfect, up-to-date information on the ins-and-outs of the software that's being written, while it's still being written? Every company I've had has glaring blind-spots in documentation. Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of business and Deere needed to find another). I'm not saying these are good reasons, but would make sense, in a market where everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, or for free. Costs have to get cut somewhere. A manufacturer isn't going to (or able to) give something away for free, and stay in business. Ideally, competitive market forces would be enough to pressure a company into making their products repairable. What we are seeing is likely a byproduct of monopolistic laziness - there's no strong incentive and it's easier to say "just send it to us and we'll fix it". Just my two cents in defense of companies not being "evil" in nature, but trying to give customers what they want and getting scolded for it.
- steve19 7y ago
  > liability When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it. > distribution channels It might be annoying to create but they won't lose money on parts, it would likely be a profit center, just not as big a center as doing the repairs themselves. They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors. > documentation They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world. Nobody is asking manufacturers to make huge sacrifices, just stop holding customers ransom.
OrgNet 7y ago
They can screw the people who know how to repair their stuff and prevent the ones that don't know what they are doing from screwing something up, I guess (none of it make sense)... but of course they make more money this way.
Paul-ish 7y ago
There was a couple I had heard about who bought an electric car. They took their electric car to a shop that promised more millage (or faster charging, I can't remember which). As it turns out this custom modification killed the battery in a few short years, when it was supposed to last much longer. The couple was not happy with their purchase, and they never connected that the work they had done was related to their vehicles shortcomings. If we are charitable in our interpretation of manufacturers positions, keeping customers from "tinkering" with devices maintains the brand's image and prevents unexpected product failure or safety misshaps.
- userbinator 7y ago
  That just seems like a miscommunication/lack of understanding. People mod car engines all the time to have more power (sometimes several times more than original), and they do so with the understanding that it does affect longevity negatively.
tim333 7y ago
>what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere) I recall from a previous discussion Deere's arguments include safety - some of the things are semi self driving, and emissions. I dare say that doesn't stop you tinkering with your old car which can lead to similar problems.

taurath 7y ago

Money. You’re not buying a tractor, you’re buying a “platform”.

korabas 7y ago
Right, that makes sense, at least from the point of view of the manufacturer, in that you're also "buying" support, etc. It's still a bit sad that there's no opt-in into such deal, ad that farmers don't seem to have another alternative.
Eric_WVGG 7y ago
Well, he said “rational,” as in, how does Deere rationalize it. As far as I can tell, they’re just parroting the usual DMCA talking points… > John Deere declined to be interviewed but sent a lengthy statement outlining its concerns. The company doesn’t want people altering its copyright-protected code because, said director of public relations Ken Golden, “changes could lead to the unsafe operation of products, disruption of machine capabilities and performance, changes to emissions controls, voiding of warranties and lack of transparency to the changes when the equipment is sold to another user”. But yeah, money. One thing that gets lost in this particular controversy, IMO, is that John Deere is effectively a monopoly in this space. If farmers were able to choose between tractors that were built like Dell laptops vs ones built like iPads… So this is a problem of digital rights, but one could argue that it’s also a problem of deregulation and lack of competition.
- phillc73 7y ago
  It's been many years since I was actively involved in agriculture, but I don't recall John Deere being a monopoly. There were choices including Ford, Case, Masse Ferguson, Kubota, New Holland and then regionally brands like MTZ and Steyr. That's not to say they're not all participating in the same practices, I just don't know, but is Deere really a monopoly?
  - macintux 7y ago
    Per this page, Deere has over 30% of the market; I don't know that would be considered a monopoly, but assuming the rest of the market is heavily fragmented, it's certainly a dominant position. https://csimarket.com/stocks/compet_glance.php?code=DE https://csimarket.com/stocks/compet_glance.php?code=DE
  - Eric_WVGG 7y ago
    True. My usual very-unscientific method is a search for "john deere vs" which turned up some alternatives but they seemed to be obscure to the point of giving Deere an effective monopoly, but yeah I don't really know.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    Driving through rural Texas I've even seen a Tata dealership.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    I think Deere has about 25-35% of the market, with New Holland and Kubota in there afterwards
- SteveGerencser 7y ago
  JD is on where near a monopoly on anything other than green paint. Mahindra, Case IH, Kubota, New Holland, and on and on are all equally available, and in most cases cheaper, alternatives that function just as well. We own both a Case and a Kubota.
  - 7y ago

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

It's not complicated. John Deere wants to milk their customers for more money.

choward 7y ago
s/John Deere/Every company ever

deadmetheny 7y ago

It's literally just greed. No more, no less.

deogeo 7y ago

> but it could be argued that the latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers, statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts And I'm not a car enthusiast, yet I can take my car to any mechanic I choose - I don't need the manufacturer's permission.

korabas 7y ago
Right, I cannot really argue with that. I wasn't mentioning Apple as an example of a good role model here, just to be clear.
kgwxd 7y ago
This is the perfect way to frame it. Just about anyone, no matter their level of interest in the case, would response to that with "well, duh".
AgloeDreams 7y ago
This actually is also a market that suffers from this, notably companies like Tesla.
- tooMuchCensor 7y ago
  Tesla and Apple. Both HN favorites.... Back in my day, FOSS everything or you are an evil programmer. It's strange to see this was only a trend and now some nerds prefer locked down systems.

belorn 7y ago

Having certified repair stations allow you to extract money on certification, be sure that all parts are original and sold in a controlled market.

randomdata 7y ago
> all parts are original John Deere bought out the only company that was really producing aftermarket parts a couple of years ago, so that's a non-issue for them. As an aside, I had the JD tech out to work on my combine a while back. I watched him have to decrypt the service manual on his computer before he could use it. I was somewhat amazed at the lengths they go to to protect their information. Almost. Once he unlocked it, he handed his computer to me and let me poke around freely. Hard to put a complete stop to social engineering.

THJr 7y ago

There's a number of reasons, but as I understand the main issue is that John Deere is treating their tractor's firmware like the music industry was treating MP3's. They say farmers may own the tractor itself, and the hardware, but they're only licensing the use of the firmware and don't have the right to modify it. (Which can be necessary when repairing a tractor that has many computerized systems.) They're essentially creating DRM for tractor software that's so restrictive that installing new parts requires access to secret codes in the firmware in order to turn them on, then accusing farmers of breaking the law if they try to alter or figure out these secret codes in order to keep their tractor working without going to a dealer. (According to my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.)

stingraycharles 7y ago
Playing the devil’s advocate: what’s preventing them from claiming the tractor itself as IP as well, and licensing it as such? Eg you’re not allowed to change your own tires. Would such a thing be legally possible, and if not, why does this differ from the firmware?
- ISL 7y ago
  Deere could absolutely rent tractors to farmers -- it would be a different economic calculus. It is unclear what kind of pricing would entice farmers to rent rather than buy.
- SteveGerencser 7y ago
  Most manufacturers already do this with fluids. You are required to use their oil and oil filters or you 'may' void the drivetrain warranty. We just bought a new tractor last spring and this is part of the new deal when it comes to purchasing a new tractor.

probably_wrong 7y ago

Not that I agree with them, but some of the rationales I heard: That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that. That it might force companies to publish business secrets: with machine being full of computers nowadays, they might be forced to reveal a proprietary API. Related: someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it. That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable, in case someone wants to repair their machinery. They might have no intentions to get into the spare pieces market, but with a specific law (such as "the company will make available all required pieces for sale, or...") they might be forced to. Also, money. But those are the kind of arguments you were asking for.

korabas 7y ago
These are at least logical arguments. I am also not sure I agree with them, or rather with the way things turn out in practice. But, as they say, "a villain is a hero in the other side".
abnry 7y ago
>That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that. Wouldn't this situation be analogous to the automobile industry? Surely this issue has been spoken on in the courts.
vorpalhex 7y ago
> That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up Is this the case for auto shops now? > That it might force companies to publish business secrets There are many, many ways to compile and preserve business secrets in blobs, but there's probably a fundamental issue if you're dependent on that. > someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it If you publish crappy code in your paid product and someone suffers for it, you should be sued. That's not a consequence, that's the system working. > That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable The company has a line of profit - the initial device. This is not forcing them to take on a new business, this is forcing them to support the purchase I already made. If you can't sell spare parts, don't sell tractors. If you can't handle a support call, don't take my money.

dbcurtis 7y ago

In the early days, farm tractors were pretty simple, and many farmers did a lot of their own work. As machines got bigger, most used local repair shops that could always order from parts depots. But as electronics has invaded tractors (for many good reasons) it has gotten to the point where you really need the diagnostic equipment. So this is a lot like what auto repair was in the early days of the diagnostic plug-in port. It took legislation to allow my local mechanic to buy a diagnostic machine that allowed him to reset the whiney "time for an oil change" message when he serviced my car. That was all about lock-in. This is all about lock-in for farm machinery, using proprietary ports and protocols and keeping documentation secret. I could go on at length with anecdotes from family history but I shall spare you. Right-to-repair needs to happen for all of us. Farmers just happen to have a lot of money on the line here and are leading the charge.

kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
I still don't get from your description what the point or motive would be. Who is locking in whom, for what purpose?
- jrrrr 7y ago
  The manufacturer of the complicated machine is withholding diagnostic tools, locking out owners and independent repair shops, in order to protect their own dealership/service business. From the article: > A Crain’s Chicago Business article reported that dealers make five times the profit margin off repair than they do off the sale of new equipment.
- taftster 7y ago
  Deere is controlling the marketplace for "repairs." If a farmer is required to use service centers exclusively provided and controlled by Deere, then they are inhibited from using the free market. The right to repair is essential for farmers to be able to choose the best repair options for their situation (self-made repairs, local non-affiliated repair shop, Deere certified). Some people take their cars to the dealer for all services. They do this because they value the expertise and depth that the dealers can [sometimes] provide. Other people take their cars to the local quick lube or brake repair shop. To each his own for car repairs. And so too it should be for any equipment repairs.

mschuster91 7y ago

> Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? Simple: an old tractor or truck - give me a decent shop with tools, lifts and a crane, and I can repair almost everything that is broken. Some light doesn't work, engine doesn't turn on? Hand me a multimeter and I can troubleshoot it. Modern cars, trucks and tractors are essentially computers on wheels. Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? Can be everything from a faulty valve or cabin switch over broken shielding somewhere along the CAN (or other) high speed bus leading to garbled transmissions to a software bug somewhere in the control unit. The farmer can easily fix a broken component - but good luck finding the issue in the latter two failure modes, I doubt it's even possible for a small freelance shop as it requires HF communications or IT knowledge combined with specialized tooling (signal analyzer, some kind of debugging tool for the CU). The problem there is that forcing manufacturers to open up the documentation is that this equals giving everyone and their dog including their competitors access to the "secret sauce" that is software. This is the unfortunate reality and I have no idea how to balance the right to repair for farmers willing to dive deep into complex technology with the interest of JD (or other manufacturers) that China doesn't simply dump the software and clones it outright. Probably in a world without capitalism this might work out in favor of right to repair, but in the current economy... I'd settle for a middle groumd, giving the right for people to obtain and install spare parts on module scale, but not forcing opening up the software. Edit: oh and that doesn't even touch the issue that old cars/trucks/tractors were designed to have ample space to work in, and that components tolerated abuse by idiots screwing around. Forget to properly clean the fuel line of gunk? No issue for an old truck, it might spew some smoke and that's it, but on the modern diesel engines with thousands of bars of pressure on the fuel rail? The tiniest amount of contaminants will brick the entire injector system if you're in bad luck...

korabas 7y ago
> Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? And what if Joe Farmer wanted to take his faulty tractor to Bill Repair Man who knows about this but charges a lot less than Deere?
7y ago

johngalt 7y ago

The manufacturer wants to pull more value out of the entire lifecycle, rather than just the initial sale. From the manufacturer's perspective, they only sell the tractor once. The revenue from repairs, and second hand sales accrue to others. If a tractor lasts a long time, that is great news for repairs and re-sales, but not necessarily for people selling new models. Additionally manufacturers have to defend their brand. Letting people graft whatever no-name parts into their tractor will often result in an under-performing or dangerous piece of equipment. The idea of locked down hardware/equipment is to align these incentives, by splitting the downstream value of a long lasting tractor between the user and the vendor. Think of it like Apple. Locked down and expensive, but done intentionally to produce consistent outcomes.

kempbellt 7y ago

I'm for right-to-repair, but I'll give it a shot in defense of manufacturers. A lot of people assume it's just "evil-corp" greed. All of these reasons are money based, but not necessarily malicious. Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light. Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to disassemble and repair one safely. Cost of creating parts distribution channels: Having the parts to repair a machine that you manufactured is cheap. Creating distribution channels to keep track of, maintain inventory, price out, and deliver those parts to customers, is a business in-and-of itself - and is not cheap to maintain. Many companies do this, but it isn't cheap. Cost of creating and updating documentation for customers: Sure, this might seem tedious, but as a software engineer, I know this has an actual cost. How many companies have you worked at that have had perfect, up-to-date information on the ins-and-outs of the software that's being written, while it's still being written? Every company I've had has glaring blind-spots in documentation. Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of business and Deere needed to find another). I'm not saying these are good reasons, but would make sense, in a market where everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, or for free. Costs have to get cut somewhere. A manufacturer isn't going to (or able to) give something away for free, and stay in business. Ideally, competitive market forces would be enough to pressure a company into making their products repairable. What we are seeing is likely a byproduct of monopolistic laziness - there's no strong incentive and it's easier to say "just send it to us and we'll fix it". Just my two cents in defense of companies not being "evil" in nature, but trying to give customers what they want and getting scolded for it.

steve19 7y ago
> liability When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it. > distribution channels It might be annoying to create but they won't lose money on parts, it would likely be a profit center, just not as big a center as doing the repairs themselves. They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors. > documentation They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world. Nobody is asking manufacturers to make huge sacrifices, just stop holding customers ransom.

OrgNet 7y ago

They can screw the people who know how to repair their stuff and prevent the ones that don't know what they are doing from screwing something up, I guess (none of it make sense)... but of course they make more money this way.

Paul-ish 7y ago

There was a couple I had heard about who bought an electric car. They took their electric car to a shop that promised more millage (or faster charging, I can't remember which). As it turns out this custom modification killed the battery in a few short years, when it was supposed to last much longer. The couple was not happy with their purchase, and they never connected that the work they had done was related to their vehicles shortcomings. If we are charitable in our interpretation of manufacturers positions, keeping customers from "tinkering" with devices maintains the brand's image and prevents unexpected product failure or safety misshaps.

userbinator 7y ago
That just seems like a miscommunication/lack of understanding. People mod car engines all the time to have more power (sometimes several times more than original), and they do so with the understanding that it does affect longevity negatively.

tim333 7y ago

>what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere) I recall from a previous discussion Deere's arguments include safety - some of the things are semi self driving, and emissions. I dare say that doesn't stop you tinkering with your old car which can lead to similar problems.