3 ms·

> I think it's a signal of changing market dynamics. Old John Deere just needed to sell the best tractors. They built a reputation and that was good enough. So

> I think it's a signal of changing market dynamics. Old John Deere just needed to sell the best tractors. They built a reputation and that was good enough. So is the changing market dynamic is that John Deere now sells shitty tractors which means they have to depend on DRM and forcing people to get repairs through them in order to be profitable? I suspect the reason so many companies resort to user-hostile anti-competitive practices is simply greed and a willingness to screw over anyone to make an extra buck at any cost. They want to have ever growing profits and growth which means they have to come up with more and more ways to take our money.

Kon-Peki 3y ago
Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over. Farmers are still buying Deere equipment for a lot of reasons, including the fact that Deere has by far the best service network during planting and harvest seasons. You will have the least likelihood of disastrous downtime with Deere equipment. Forcing you to get service from the service network makes sure that the service network continues to exist. It's a complicated situation. (I support right to repair, btw)
- GauntletWizard 3y ago
  A narcissist never means to make other people's lives hell. They are of course the best at everything they do, and if you can't keep up, that is your problem not theirs.
  - chongli 3y ago
    Calling it narcissism is uncharitable. This comment [1] goes a long way towards explaining the whole story. The comparison with electrical peak demand is apt. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228
    - GauntletWizard 3y ago
      Calling it uncharitable is narcissism. This has been theft and lawfare on a massive scale.
      - chongli 3y ago
        I’m a big supporter of right to repair. But now that I’ve read that perspective I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think if JD loses then we end up in a situation where the service they provided (timely repairs during a crisis in the harvest season) is no longer available at any price. Then what? We probably see higher volatility due to an increase in crop failures, but maybe lower average food prices overall.
        GauntletWizard 3y ago
        30 years ago, John Deere had that Network of service technicians and ready on demand parts. It was probably slightly smaller, then, and many of the farmers (both small independent and large corporate farmers) had more of a stock and more knowledge of how to repair their tools, but not fundamentally different. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by the computer revolution. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by just in time logistics. Both have allowed John Deere to do more with less by understanding where it's stock of inventory is better, rather than having to have a staff of quartermasters running those books. That efficiency is not because of their DRM, but the rising tide of computer logistics. Having exclusive ability to repair their tractors does not make it easier for John Deere to stock that inventory. It makes it more profitable for them to stock that inventory, because they know they can sell it. That profit allows them to tighten their margins elsewhere, and to expand their belt elsewhere, but it does not fundamentally change the actual repair. It does make it easier in some ways that they can exploit supply and demand and economies of scale. There are other ways that John Deere can enforce said Monopoly. They can sign contracts. Maintenance contracts are very common in this space, stating that you will only do business with John deere. That's not an unreasonable thing to do. I am a okay if every farmer wants to sign that contract with John Deere. If John Deere were to make that part of every purchase, at least it would be understood that it were part of every purchase, that you could not buy John Deere tractors without buying their service contracts, and how that interacts with existing antitrust law is a separate problem. One that has been discussed to death and will continue to be.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over. Which doesn't actually mean they aren't screwing people over. Personally, I don't know if they are or not -- I'm not a farmer, and I don't know what all the issues specific to farmers are. But the arguments that JD are making are ones that are bad for everyone outside of the farm equipment business. In that sense, they're helping to screw all of us over.
- wiseleo 3y ago
  As an electronics tech, I can reverse engineer just about any fault code being thrown at me by a computer. Logic analyzers and oscilloscopes don't lie and my equipment has more than 100 channels. There are countless EEs in USA. Some of them would rise to the challenge. I certainly would repair electronic faults in tractors. To me, they would be just another PCB. There's no difference between having a capacitor replaced or EEPROM reflashed by someone wearing a green shirt and not. If the fault is gone, it's gone. Publishing the tools to validate repair would alleviate the pressure on JD's service network.

Kon-Peki 3y ago

Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over. Farmers are still buying Deere equipment for a lot of reasons, including the fact that Deere has by far the best service network during planting and harvest seasons. You will have the least likelihood of disastrous downtime with Deere equipment. Forcing you to get service from the service network makes sure that the service network continues to exist. It's a complicated situation. (I support right to repair, btw)

GauntletWizard 3y ago
A narcissist never means to make other people's lives hell. They are of course the best at everything they do, and if you can't keep up, that is your problem not theirs.
- chongli 3y ago
  Calling it narcissism is uncharitable. This comment [1] goes a long way towards explaining the whole story. The comparison with electrical peak demand is apt. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572228
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    Calling it uncharitable is narcissism. This has been theft and lawfare on a massive scale.
    - chongli 3y ago
      I’m a big supporter of right to repair. But now that I’ve read that perspective I don’t think we can have our cake and eat it too. I think if JD loses then we end up in a situation where the service they provided (timely repairs during a crisis in the harvest season) is no longer available at any price. Then what? We probably see higher volatility due to an increase in crop failures, but maybe lower average food prices overall.
      - GauntletWizard 3y ago
        30 years ago, John Deere had that Network of service technicians and ready on demand parts. It was probably slightly smaller, then, and many of the farmers (both small independent and large corporate farmers) had more of a stock and more knowledge of how to repair their tools, but not fundamentally different. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by the computer revolution. Harvest being crunch time was not brought about by just in time logistics. Both have allowed John Deere to do more with less by understanding where it's stock of inventory is better, rather than having to have a staff of quartermasters running those books. That efficiency is not because of their DRM, but the rising tide of computer logistics. Having exclusive ability to repair their tractors does not make it easier for John Deere to stock that inventory. It makes it more profitable for them to stock that inventory, because they know they can sell it. That profit allows them to tighten their margins elsewhere, and to expand their belt elsewhere, but it does not fundamentally change the actual repair. It does make it easier in some ways that they can exploit supply and demand and economies of scale. There are other ways that John Deere can enforce said Monopoly. They can sign contracts. Maintenance contracts are very common in this space, stating that you will only do business with John deere. That's not an unreasonable thing to do. I am a okay if every farmer wants to sign that contract with John Deere. If John Deere were to make that part of every purchase, at least it would be understood that it were part of every purchase, that you could not buy John Deere tractors without buying their service contracts, and how that interacts with existing antitrust law is a separate problem. One that has been discussed to death and will continue to be.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Pretty much nobody at Deere thinks they're screwing anyone over. Which doesn't actually mean they aren't screwing people over. Personally, I don't know if they are or not -- I'm not a farmer, and I don't know what all the issues specific to farmers are. But the arguments that JD are making are ones that are bad for everyone outside of the farm equipment business. In that sense, they're helping to screw all of us over.
wiseleo 3y ago
As an electronics tech, I can reverse engineer just about any fault code being thrown at me by a computer. Logic analyzers and oscilloscopes don't lie and my equipment has more than 100 channels. There are countless EEs in USA. Some of them would rise to the challenge. I certainly would repair electronic faults in tractors. To me, they would be just another PCB. There's no difference between having a capacitor replaced or EEPROM reflashed by someone wearing a green shirt and not. If the fault is gone, it's gone. Publishing the tools to validate repair would alleviate the pressure on JD's service network.