4 ms·

How does John Deere advocate for their position? Is it about protecting trade secrets or keeping the machines in better condition for possible resale? Or did th

by Pigo 7y ago

How does John Deere advocate for their position? Is it about protecting trade secrets or keeping the machines in better condition for possible resale? Or did they just stay quiet because they knew they were in the wrong? Whatever it might be, I'm sure I would disagree with it, but I'd be curious how they try to justify it. Especially when you're talking about farmers, who have an extreme DIY culture.

monocasa 7y ago
I've seen a few arguments. * That modern tractors are complex enough systems that only official techs should be working on them. * That if they allow third party mods, they can't guarantee regulatory compliance with emissions. * That they have proprietary secrets that would need to be divulged of the systems were more open, and they just wouldn't have bothered in the first place. * That their pricing model is dependent on recouping initial capital expense with service contracts. I personally don't buy these arguments, or at least don't buy that they lead to a better world than the alternative, but those are what I've heard.
- magduf 7y ago
  Those arguments don't work in the automotive market. Modern cars are just as complex, yet anyone is allowed to change their own oil or do anything they want really (though they can get frustrated by anything requiring a proprietary scan tool). And car owners are allowed to mode their cars however they want as long as they don't run afoul of emissions laws (yet many of them do anyway, because enforcement is poor).
  - Pigo 7y ago
    That's a good point. If a farmer mods it into being illegal, it's on him isn't it?
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Regulatory compliance is an interesting argument. I can imagine many cases where a device is legal only because the firmware implements certain restrictions that the user might desire to remove but should not. Off the top of my head: 1. the emissions example that you make. The VW dieselgate is essentially about this; the users may want to switch to a 'more dirty' firmware because that gets better performance or mileage; but the vehicle inspection system (in countries where that is a thing) wants to ensure that vehicles with such modifications are not allowed to drive. 2. digital radios that might technically be able to receive and transmit over a wider frequency range, but are legal to use or sell only because they have restricted the 'forbidden' ranges, limited the maximum transmitting power to the level that doesn't require a permit, etc. 3. scooters and other vehicles which are technically more capable, but are sold in a certification/tax regime as "speed less than X", which is enforced in firmware; and modifying it to remove that restriction may be illegal. 4. drones obeying a 'no-fly' zone blacklist and refusing to fly near airports - again, a firmware restriction that some users might plausibly want to remove.
greycol 7y ago
I know a common line for vehicles was basically: 3rd party parts (and service) can't be guaranteed to be to the same quality as 1st party parts (and service) which can cause extra wear and disruptions to other parts of the vehicle even if they're not immediately apparent. Since we can't control what part 3rd parties use (or level of service) we restrict repair to our licensed repairers (via drm, patents, custom tooling, and/or lack of documentation). It's somewhat justified in that it theoretically protects customers and the companies reputation. Personally I don't disagree with this argument but I don't believe it to be sufficient to justify the extra cost and inconvenience to customers over a percentage of poor acting repairers and part suppliers.
- magduf 7y ago
  The problem with that argument is that the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 clearly gives consumers the right to repair their own devices, and prevents manufacturers from denying warranty claims unless they can prove that 3rd-party parts of service caused the specific problem. These arguments have been used before with cars, and they've been shot down.

by Pigo 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

I've seen a few arguments. * That modern tractors are complex enough systems that only official techs should be working on them. * That if they allow third party mods, they can't guarantee regulatory compliance with emissions. * That they have proprietary secrets that would need to be divulged of the systems were more open, and they just wouldn't have bothered in the first place. * That their pricing model is dependent on recouping initial capital expense with service contracts. I personally don't buy these arguments, or at least don't buy that they lead to a better world than the alternative, but those are what I've heard.

magduf 7y ago
Those arguments don't work in the automotive market. Modern cars are just as complex, yet anyone is allowed to change their own oil or do anything they want really (though they can get frustrated by anything requiring a proprietary scan tool). And car owners are allowed to mode their cars however they want as long as they don't run afoul of emissions laws (yet many of them do anyway, because enforcement is poor).
- Pigo 7y ago
  That's a good point. If a farmer mods it into being illegal, it's on him isn't it?
PeterisP 7y ago
Regulatory compliance is an interesting argument. I can imagine many cases where a device is legal only because the firmware implements certain restrictions that the user might desire to remove but should not. Off the top of my head: 1. the emissions example that you make. The VW dieselgate is essentially about this; the users may want to switch to a 'more dirty' firmware because that gets better performance or mileage; but the vehicle inspection system (in countries where that is a thing) wants to ensure that vehicles with such modifications are not allowed to drive. 2. digital radios that might technically be able to receive and transmit over a wider frequency range, but are legal to use or sell only because they have restricted the 'forbidden' ranges, limited the maximum transmitting power to the level that doesn't require a permit, etc. 3. scooters and other vehicles which are technically more capable, but are sold in a certification/tax regime as "speed less than X", which is enforced in firmware; and modifying it to remove that restriction may be illegal. 4. drones obeying a 'no-fly' zone blacklist and refusing to fly near airports - again, a firmware restriction that some users might plausibly want to remove.

greycol 7y ago

I know a common line for vehicles was basically: 3rd party parts (and service) can't be guaranteed to be to the same quality as 1st party parts (and service) which can cause extra wear and disruptions to other parts of the vehicle even if they're not immediately apparent. Since we can't control what part 3rd parties use (or level of service) we restrict repair to our licensed repairers (via drm, patents, custom tooling, and/or lack of documentation). It's somewhat justified in that it theoretically protects customers and the companies reputation. Personally I don't disagree with this argument but I don't believe it to be sufficient to justify the extra cost and inconvenience to customers over a percentage of poor acting repairers and part suppliers.

magduf 7y ago
The problem with that argument is that the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 clearly gives consumers the right to repair their own devices, and prevents manufacturers from denying warranty claims unless they can prove that 3rd-party parts of service caused the specific problem. These arguments have been used before with cars, and they've been shot down.