5 ms·

There is a lot of misinformation about this. At face value, articles like this imply you're not able or allowed to fix mechanical issues, how dare they! What t

There is a lot of misinformation about this. At face value, articles like this imply you're not able or allowed to fix mechanical issues, how dare they! What they don't mention is that manufacturers protect their electronic gear i.e. the consoles inside the machine that use GPS to run a field, adjust the attachment acccording to various sensors etc. This is very sophisticated stuff, and farmers need and want this functionality. Farmers aren't wanting their old 1950s-era tractors back. They want more control over the software -- and in particular don't want to pay for it. And while as an open source type myself I'm sympathetic to this, I'm suspicious about the outright bullshit in articles like this.

taurath 5y ago
They want to be able to make adjustments, and fix mechanical issues without the whole thing shutting down and then having to take it to the one place in town that is allowed to touch the thing. It’s one thing to say oh only the new stuff is locked down, but every part of the vehicle is, something that wasn’t the case a short while ago. In fact they’re digitizing controls and simple mechanical functionality that doesnt need to be digitized so they can abuse their maintenance monopoly.
haspok 5y ago
> in particular don't want to pay for it This is a complete misunderstanding of the problem, also, a false statement in most cases. People would like to have the option to choose who, when, where and how repairs their stuff. If the only option is the manufacturer - even after the warranty period -, then that's called a monopoly and is guaranteed to result in lower standards and higher prices and reduced availability. It is one thing to have such a problem with a laptop or a mobile, because those are relatively cheap items that are easy to replace. But if you have equipment that your livelihood depends on worth tens of thousands of dollars, then this is completely unacceptable.
- lbriner 5y ago
  It's not called a monopoly. A monopoly is a single provider of a particular service or product allowing the supplier to abuse their position. These farmers do not have to buy John Deere. If they don't like being tied in, they shouldn't have bought the equipment in the first place and chosen a rival then one of two things happen 1) John Deere realise they have been caught with their pants down and change their policy to win customers back 2) Farmers realise there is a new normal where the equipment is simply too complicated to allow them to tinker with it (or at least without losing any manufacturers guarantee).
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    It’s a monopoly on fixing JD gear, a narrower term than an outright farming hardware monopoly but still.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  In addition you may be effectively refused such repairs, or charged so much that it is better to buy a new product. If the only entity who can repair the kit is the one who sells new kit too, this is even worse than a standard monopoly argument. At least a normal monopoly has an incentive to serve you at the end of the day.
DoingIsLearning 5y ago
One concern I also never see discussed is that for any type of electro-mechanical system, allowing the customer to change anything or maintain anything is a actually a big liability issue. Let's be clear, it is pretty obvious that the whole tractor-as-a-service paradigm is extremely profitable. However allowing access to diagnostics/config/firmware for anything that controls heavy machinery can be a huge liability. You are a misconfiguration away from a work accident with injury or death.
- bserge 5y ago
  Is there a legal reason why they can't sign a waiver? You are always a misstep away from injury or death working on any heavy equipment. That has always been the case.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities. When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay. I would want a clear law that prevents the company from being liable.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities So you don't trust the courts to enforce a contract? That's basically what a liability waver is, a bog standard contract that amends a prior (often implied by legal convention or state law) contract between the manufacturer and the product owner. >When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The effectiveness of a liability waiver is heavily dependent on the state it is being litigated in, as well as the precise wording of the contract and opinions of the people in the courts. https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 > FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this. I do not know what this means, but my point is that if one of the parties in the dispute is politically disliked, then they may not get a fair shake. In the context of this discussion, I can see “not having to deal with risks of liability waivers” as a supporting reason for why a company would want to lock down their devices or prevent people from tinkering with them. Then they can simply tell anyone coming after them that their product was clearly not meant to be tampered with and so tampering with it removed them from any liability.
dncornholio 5y ago
> This is very sophisticated stuff So what? A PC is very sophisticated as well but no matter which parts I put together, it works. You can abstract the sophisticated stuff away.. This is just a bad excuse IMHO
- the_biot 5y ago
  Yes, I agree, and this is IMHO a better way out of the conundrum these farmers face: install their own electronics with similar functionality.
squiggleblaz 5y ago
I love the way every article about businesses making decisions that favor business concerns over customer concerns always have this balanced comment that says "What they don't mention is that the business has optimised for their own interests and ranked other concerns as a hindrance". Yes, we know decisions aren't free. But it's not a coincidence that businesses are all simultaneously optimising in their own self interest and ignore the concrens of their customers.
mikey_p 5y ago
I bet the number one feature most of these farmers want is the ability to defeat emissions controls so they don't have to use DEF (diesel exhaust fluid). Don't believe me? Go watch some farmers on Youtube and it won't take long to pick up the hatred for government interference. I don't know if it's selection or survivorship bias or what, but farmers really do not like being told what to do by someone else.

taurath 5y ago

They want to be able to make adjustments, and fix mechanical issues without the whole thing shutting down and then having to take it to the one place in town that is allowed to touch the thing. It’s one thing to say oh only the new stuff is locked down, but every part of the vehicle is, something that wasn’t the case a short while ago. In fact they’re digitizing controls and simple mechanical functionality that doesnt need to be digitized so they can abuse their maintenance monopoly.

haspok 5y ago

> in particular don't want to pay for it This is a complete misunderstanding of the problem, also, a false statement in most cases. People would like to have the option to choose who, when, where and how repairs their stuff. If the only option is the manufacturer - even after the warranty period -, then that's called a monopoly and is guaranteed to result in lower standards and higher prices and reduced availability. It is one thing to have such a problem with a laptop or a mobile, because those are relatively cheap items that are easy to replace. But if you have equipment that your livelihood depends on worth tens of thousands of dollars, then this is completely unacceptable.

lbriner 5y ago
It's not called a monopoly. A monopoly is a single provider of a particular service or product allowing the supplier to abuse their position. These farmers do not have to buy John Deere. If they don't like being tied in, they shouldn't have bought the equipment in the first place and chosen a rival then one of two things happen 1) John Deere realise they have been caught with their pants down and change their policy to win customers back 2) Farmers realise there is a new normal where the equipment is simply too complicated to allow them to tinker with it (or at least without losing any manufacturers guarantee).
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  It’s a monopoly on fixing JD gear, a narrower term than an outright farming hardware monopoly but still.
rich_sasha 5y ago
In addition you may be effectively refused such repairs, or charged so much that it is better to buy a new product. If the only entity who can repair the kit is the one who sells new kit too, this is even worse than a standard monopoly argument. At least a normal monopoly has an incentive to serve you at the end of the day.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago

One concern I also never see discussed is that for any type of electro-mechanical system, allowing the customer to change anything or maintain anything is a actually a big liability issue. Let's be clear, it is pretty obvious that the whole tractor-as-a-service paradigm is extremely profitable. However allowing access to diagnostics/config/firmware for anything that controls heavy machinery can be a huge liability. You are a misconfiguration away from a work accident with injury or death.

bserge 5y ago
Is there a legal reason why they can't sign a waiver? You are always a misstep away from injury or death working on any heavy equipment. That has always been the case.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities. When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay. I would want a clear law that prevents the company from being liable.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >I would not trust the legal power of a waiver between two non governmental entities So you don't trust the courts to enforce a contract? That's basically what a liability waver is, a bog standard contract that amends a prior (often implied by legal convention or state law) contract between the manufacturer and the product owner. >When the public opinion wants someone to pay, the government will go after whoever can pay FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The effectiveness of a liability waiver is heavily dependent on the state it is being litigated in, as well as the precise wording of the contract and opinions of the people in the courts. https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 https://recmanagement.com/feature_print.php?fid=200611GC03 > FYI making one or both entities "governmental" doesn't do anything to change this. I do not know what this means, but my point is that if one of the parties in the dispute is politically disliked, then they may not get a fair shake. In the context of this discussion, I can see “not having to deal with risks of liability waivers” as a supporting reason for why a company would want to lock down their devices or prevent people from tinkering with them. Then they can simply tell anyone coming after them that their product was clearly not meant to be tampered with and so tampering with it removed them from any liability.

dncornholio 5y ago

> This is very sophisticated stuff So what? A PC is very sophisticated as well but no matter which parts I put together, it works. You can abstract the sophisticated stuff away.. This is just a bad excuse IMHO

the_biot 5y ago
Yes, I agree, and this is IMHO a better way out of the conundrum these farmers face: install their own electronics with similar functionality.

squiggleblaz 5y ago

I love the way every article about businesses making decisions that favor business concerns over customer concerns always have this balanced comment that says "What they don't mention is that the business has optimised for their own interests and ranked other concerns as a hindrance". Yes, we know decisions aren't free. But it's not a coincidence that businesses are all simultaneously optimising in their own self interest and ignore the concrens of their customers.

mikey_p 5y ago

I bet the number one feature most of these farmers want is the ability to defeat emissions controls so they don't have to use DEF (diesel exhaust fluid). Don't believe me? Go watch some farmers on Youtube and it won't take long to pick up the hatred for government interference. I don't know if it's selection or survivorship bias or what, but farmers really do not like being told what to do by someone else.