3 ms·

I think all of those differences (time-scales, capital intensity/efficiency, credit access) are accounted for by the translation between the type of company tha

I think all of those differences (time-scales, capital intensity/efficiency, credit access) are accounted for by the translation between the type of company that would buy a combine harvester Vs the kind of company that would buy a SAN. I totally get the desire from consumers for a right to repair, but ultimately I feel that this shouldn't override the freedom of economic actors to make voluntary agreements in the marketplace. And in the case of agricultural equipment I can see why some vendors would want to move to a Trusted Computing model whereby every component authenticated with every other component via HSMs, addressing the problems such as theft (which is widespread in some parts of the world) by making stolen devices/parts practically useless, which would obviously conflict with a Right to Repair (as well as any purposefully user-hostile ambitions that they had).

manigandham 6y ago
Free markets still need some guardrails, and the limited competition combined with the importance of agriculture makes this a complex situation. Besides, if you have ever used a warranty recently then it’s a good bet that it was legislated to act that way. Right to repair is similar in focus to help consumers.
- brippalcharrid 6y ago
  I disagree with the idea that free markets need guardrails for the reasons that I mentioned before: I believe that consensual agreements between people shouldn't normally be regulated by the state, and that when you take a free market and then add "guardrails" to it, it's no longer a "free" market. All that minimum warranty legislation does is to remove the freedom that people previously had to buy products with shorter warranties, or without one. It means that they can't even buy the same product together with an optional warranty from the manufacturer, thereby ending up with a situation that's functionally identical. Warranties for practically every type of durable product existed before these changes were introduced, and people have always tended to weigh up the projected lifetime (which they can infer from factors such as the availability of manufacturer or third-party warranties or insurance), manufacturer reputation and projected total costs of ownership whenever they have bought something sufficiently expensive. Agriculture is of course an important industry, but I don't think there's any wider threat to agriculture in this particular case, and if these practices were to create one in the future, the market would respond by punishing a company like JD (and no doubt the state would as well in light of the strategic implications). It just seems like a slow and painful realisation for parts of the industry that things have changed. Hopefully we'll now see plenty of disruption and innovation (and modding ;)).

manigandham 6y ago

Free markets still need some guardrails, and the limited competition combined with the importance of agriculture makes this a complex situation. Besides, if you have ever used a warranty recently then it’s a good bet that it was legislated to act that way. Right to repair is similar in focus to help consumers.

brippalcharrid 6y ago
I disagree with the idea that free markets need guardrails for the reasons that I mentioned before: I believe that consensual agreements between people shouldn't normally be regulated by the state, and that when you take a free market and then add "guardrails" to it, it's no longer a "free" market. All that minimum warranty legislation does is to remove the freedom that people previously had to buy products with shorter warranties, or without one. It means that they can't even buy the same product together with an optional warranty from the manufacturer, thereby ending up with a situation that's functionally identical. Warranties for practically every type of durable product existed before these changes were introduced, and people have always tended to weigh up the projected lifetime (which they can infer from factors such as the availability of manufacturer or third-party warranties or insurance), manufacturer reputation and projected total costs of ownership whenever they have bought something sufficiently expensive. Agriculture is of course an important industry, but I don't think there's any wider threat to agriculture in this particular case, and if these practices were to create one in the future, the market would respond by punishing a company like JD (and no doubt the state would as well in light of the strategic implications). It just seems like a slow and painful realisation for parts of the industry that things have changed. Hopefully we'll now see plenty of disruption and innovation (and modding ;)).