5 ms·

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

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.
- kempbellt 7y ago
  > When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it. All the time. Regardless, the liability is to their brand. If someone hears that a John Deere tractor blew up and set a field on fire, they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair. > They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors. Just guessing here, but I imagine they do this in bulk to local service centers, via a regular distribution chain (on a semi-truck to many service centers) to manage cost. Distributing a part to an individual, or service centers they don't own, would require remodeling their distribution chain. My point is, it's doable, but not cheap, and customers will end up paying for this convenience in the price of the product. > They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world. That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem? Like I said, I am for right-to-repair and I'd like to see manufacturers move towards these types of models, but it's typically basic market forces that cause manufacturers to act the way they do. Unless I see evidence that someone consciously chose the "No, lets screw over our customers for more money" option, I'm not going to assume mal-intent and start screaming "they're holding customers ransom!" from the hilltops.
  - labawi 7y ago
    > the liability is to their brand. If .. a John Deere tractor blew up ... they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair. Perhaps the tractor is hard to repair safely, the manuals aren't good, qualified repairs are expensive/unavailable/take a long time and repair community isn't good enough... Those seem like 100% legitimate buyers concern and I don't see why the brand should immune.
  - steve19 7y ago
    > All the time. Then I am sure you can give us some recent examples in the media where the manufacturer is blamed for bad modifications by users. If I pour a gallon of gasoline on a tractor and set it on fire, and the media reported "man sets farm on fire after torching a tractor", no tractor buyer is going to blame John Deere. Your argument relies on the false premise that informed consumers (tractor operating farmers) would react negitivly to a brand if something happened involving a modified tractor. When in reality farmers are crying out to be able to repair and mod their tractors. Compare to the tech industry. How often do PC gamers mod CPUs out of spec and end up shortening thr lifespan, or killing them? All the time. Nobody blames Intel. > That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem? Have you seen car repair manuals? They are very detailed and complete and third party dealers have access to them.
userbinator 7y ago
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. The automotive industry, for which a huge aftermarket exists, has dealt with that argument before, and in general it seems the manufacturers are not responsible for anything but the defects they themselves create (hence recalls.) If anything, trying to lock things down only means the manufacturer wants to take on more responsibility, not less. Tesla is a notable exception to the tradition. 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). This is a solved problem and has been for over a century; design changes mean you add a new section (or maybe just a paragraph, depending on the extent of the changes) to the manual. Here's an example from 70 years ago: http://buick.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1948/1948-1950%20Buick%20Dynaflow%20Manual/04-Design%20Changes/image1.html http://buick.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1948/1948-1950%... Hardcopy manuals for large and complex products often come in (sometimes multiple!) 3-ring binders, so that new material can be added easily. These days, it could be as simple as uploading a new PDF to a website.
pjc50 7y ago
The only one of those that has a point may be liability. In both the other cases, people will happily reverse engineer the documentation and create secondary supply chains. The company has to go out of their way to shut both of those down. Not to mention hardware-DRM measures.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> 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. That is not a reason to make repairs illegal. Authoritarianism does not solve problems. If property means anything, then it certainly should include the right to use it "incorrectly", though obviously with liability for any damages you cause others.

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.

kempbellt 7y ago
> When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it. All the time. Regardless, the liability is to their brand. If someone hears that a John Deere tractor blew up and set a field on fire, they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair. > They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors. Just guessing here, but I imagine they do this in bulk to local service centers, via a regular distribution chain (on a semi-truck to many service centers) to manage cost. Distributing a part to an individual, or service centers they don't own, would require remodeling their distribution chain. My point is, it's doable, but not cheap, and customers will end up paying for this convenience in the price of the product. > They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world. That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem? Like I said, I am for right-to-repair and I'd like to see manufacturers move towards these types of models, but it's typically basic market forces that cause manufacturers to act the way they do. Unless I see evidence that someone consciously chose the "No, lets screw over our customers for more money" option, I'm not going to assume mal-intent and start screaming "they're holding customers ransom!" from the hilltops.
- labawi 7y ago
  > the liability is to their brand. If .. a John Deere tractor blew up ... they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair. Perhaps the tractor is hard to repair safely, the manuals aren't good, qualified repairs are expensive/unavailable/take a long time and repair community isn't good enough... Those seem like 100% legitimate buyers concern and I don't see why the brand should immune.
- steve19 7y ago
  > All the time. Then I am sure you can give us some recent examples in the media where the manufacturer is blamed for bad modifications by users. If I pour a gallon of gasoline on a tractor and set it on fire, and the media reported "man sets farm on fire after torching a tractor", no tractor buyer is going to blame John Deere. Your argument relies on the false premise that informed consumers (tractor operating farmers) would react negitivly to a brand if something happened involving a modified tractor. When in reality farmers are crying out to be able to repair and mod their tractors. Compare to the tech industry. How often do PC gamers mod CPUs out of spec and end up shortening thr lifespan, or killing them? All the time. Nobody blames Intel. > That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem? Have you seen car repair manuals? They are very detailed and complete and third party dealers have access to them.

userbinator 7y ago

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. The automotive industry, for which a huge aftermarket exists, has dealt with that argument before, and in general it seems the manufacturers are not responsible for anything but the defects they themselves create (hence recalls.) If anything, trying to lock things down only means the manufacturer wants to take on more responsibility, not less. Tesla is a notable exception to the tradition. 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). This is a solved problem and has been for over a century; design changes mean you add a new section (or maybe just a paragraph, depending on the extent of the changes) to the manual. Here's an example from 70 years ago: http://buick.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1948/1948-1950%20Buick%20Dynaflow%20Manual/04-Design%20Changes/image1.html http://buick.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1948/1948-1950%... Hardcopy manuals for large and complex products often come in (sometimes multiple!) 3-ring binders, so that new material can be added easily. These days, it could be as simple as uploading a new PDF to a website.

pjc50 7y ago

The only one of those that has a point may be liability. In both the other cases, people will happily reverse engineer the documentation and create secondary supply chains. The company has to go out of their way to shut both of those down. Not to mention hardware-DRM measures.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> 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. That is not a reason to make repairs illegal. Authoritarianism does not solve problems. If property means anything, then it certainly should include the right to use it "incorrectly", though obviously with liability for any damages you cause others.