7 ms·

idk... John Deere is notorious for DRMing their tractors so that even out of warranty modifications or repairs are impossible. It should be up to the user to be

idk... John Deere is notorious for DRMing their tractors so that even out of warranty modifications or repairs are impossible. It should be up to the user to be able to do the modifications they like and it's simply then up to the manufacturer whether to honor the warranty if the device/tractor has been significantly tampered with.

bluGill 6y ago
I'm not going to comment much except to point out that it is fraud if you do such a thing and then sell/trade it in - the mechanical damage is done and the buyer should know - but has no way to know. I'll also point out that you probably were mad at VW for making the types of modifications that you claim anyone should be able to make.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  Under US law the burden is on the manufacturer to show that a modification impacted the functioning of the device/machine. It's kind of funny, because parts DRM could be seen as the manufacturer breaking the device when a replacement could have succeeded.
- UncleEntity 6y ago
  Pretty sure nobody is going to go after me for fraud for putting non-VW heads on the `73 bus I used to drive around in...
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    If you try to sell it as an "unmodified engine" without mentioning that in writing, they absolutely could. They might not, but if it breaks in some manner that could remotely be connected to them, they could. If the tractor is rated for 50 whatever and you chip it to run at 60 whatever and sell it without saying that you'd ever done so, then if the buyer finds damage caused by overheating or who knows what from running at 60 whatever on a 50-rated-and-softlocked engine, then you absolutely could be held liable for failing to indicate the non-factory modifications you made to the engine, even if you later 'removed' them. (Usual disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, I will not compile citations for your review, please seek legal counsel before taking action based on my comments.)
- renewiltord 6y ago
  John Deere DRM has such a bad reputation there's a lot of goodwill to be won back before people will listen to some of the good reasons for it. Honestly, I'm a fan of price discrimination through DRM. It leads to better economic efficiency. But John Deere DRM must really be something else. I'm not even in the field and I have a negative reaction to the brand. Like they're going to nickel and dime me and then give me the run-around on fixes.
  - brippalcharrid 6y ago
    Industries are being computerised, so it's not too surprising that business practices are bleeding over. I don't really see too much of a difference between buying a tractor from John Deere and buying a fancy SAN from Oracle. In either case you're paying a premium for the name and the associated service contract for a time-sensitive mission-critical locked-down (and to some extent black-box) function which is presumably crucial to your business's ability to generate revenue. JD have competitors, and I'd imagine that if this episode hasn't tanked their business it's due to risk-aversion from buyers (à la IBM), vendor lock-in, or customers being set in their ways. It's also a bit like the Creative sector when Adobe moved to a subscription model; people balked and held out for a time, but ultimately they voted with their wallets and bought [subscriptions to] the magic product that could be provided by only one company on Earth, and without which they couldn't possibly continue to make art-work [commercially, in a productive manner, and in keeping with their prior experience]. I'm just cynical about how often people will knowingly make themselves reliant on a single company without reading through the small print or thinking through the implications of what is essentially entering into a long-term strategic partnership with a vastly unequal partner without a having a hedging strategy. If you can't imagine not using their products after the next refresh, you've put yourself in a very poor negotiating position.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      There's a vast difference in costs, expected lifetime, depreciation, maintenance requirements, capital efficiency, time-sensitivity, and criticality to a business between a fancy SAN and a tractor. Right-to-repair is all about people being able to repair their own products, or at the very least use certified 3rd-party mechanics, instead of being forced to go to the manufacturer for every possible problem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
floatingatoll 6y ago
This is tangential and doesn't reason with or negate the main point you're replying to in any way. Yes, John Deere does these things, but the reasoning provided by parent for why softlocks are sometimes used in the context of performance restriction and warranty support is absolutely plausible and worthy of consideration all the same. We owe it to ourselves to take care not to confuse this conversation with that cause, and to consider these views rather than distracting and derailing from them.

bluGill 6y ago

I'm not going to comment much except to point out that it is fraud if you do such a thing and then sell/trade it in - the mechanical damage is done and the buyer should know - but has no way to know. I'll also point out that you probably were mad at VW for making the types of modifications that you claim anyone should be able to make.

R0b0t1 6y ago
Under US law the burden is on the manufacturer to show that a modification impacted the functioning of the device/machine. It's kind of funny, because parts DRM could be seen as the manufacturer breaking the device when a replacement could have succeeded.
UncleEntity 6y ago
Pretty sure nobody is going to go after me for fraud for putting non-VW heads on the `73 bus I used to drive around in...
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  If you try to sell it as an "unmodified engine" without mentioning that in writing, they absolutely could. They might not, but if it breaks in some manner that could remotely be connected to them, they could. If the tractor is rated for 50 whatever and you chip it to run at 60 whatever and sell it without saying that you'd ever done so, then if the buyer finds damage caused by overheating or who knows what from running at 60 whatever on a 50-rated-and-softlocked engine, then you absolutely could be held liable for failing to indicate the non-factory modifications you made to the engine, even if you later 'removed' them. (Usual disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, I will not compile citations for your review, please seek legal counsel before taking action based on my comments.)
renewiltord 6y ago
John Deere DRM has such a bad reputation there's a lot of goodwill to be won back before people will listen to some of the good reasons for it. Honestly, I'm a fan of price discrimination through DRM. It leads to better economic efficiency. But John Deere DRM must really be something else. I'm not even in the field and I have a negative reaction to the brand. Like they're going to nickel and dime me and then give me the run-around on fixes.
- brippalcharrid 6y ago
  Industries are being computerised, so it's not too surprising that business practices are bleeding over. I don't really see too much of a difference between buying a tractor from John Deere and buying a fancy SAN from Oracle. In either case you're paying a premium for the name and the associated service contract for a time-sensitive mission-critical locked-down (and to some extent black-box) function which is presumably crucial to your business's ability to generate revenue. JD have competitors, and I'd imagine that if this episode hasn't tanked their business it's due to risk-aversion from buyers (à la IBM), vendor lock-in, or customers being set in their ways. It's also a bit like the Creative sector when Adobe moved to a subscription model; people balked and held out for a time, but ultimately they voted with their wallets and bought [subscriptions to] the magic product that could be provided by only one company on Earth, and without which they couldn't possibly continue to make art-work [commercially, in a productive manner, and in keeping with their prior experience]. I'm just cynical about how often people will knowingly make themselves reliant on a single company without reading through the small print or thinking through the implications of what is essentially entering into a long-term strategic partnership with a vastly unequal partner without a having a hedging strategy. If you can't imagine not using their products after the next refresh, you've put yourself in a very poor negotiating position.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    There's a vast difference in costs, expected lifetime, depreciation, maintenance requirements, capital efficiency, time-sensitivity, and criticality to a business between a fancy SAN and a tractor. Right-to-repair is all about people being able to repair their own products, or at the very least use certified 3rd-party mechanics, instead of being forced to go to the manufacturer for every possible problem.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

floatingatoll 6y ago

This is tangential and doesn't reason with or negate the main point you're replying to in any way. Yes, John Deere does these things, but the reasoning provided by parent for why softlocks are sometimes used in the context of performance restriction and warranty support is absolutely plausible and worthy of consideration all the same. We owe it to ourselves to take care not to confuse this conversation with that cause, and to consider these views rather than distracting and derailing from them.