32 ms·

New High-Tech Farm Equipment Is a Nightmare for Farmers

281 points by wycx 12y ago

merrua 12y ago
What's built not to be repaired, is bad value for money.
- hga 12y ago
  I read it as "repaired by the blessed people and parts". What I don't understand is, if this sensor fails so often, why doesn't the farmer keep one in stock. That he's willing to have the machine idle for 2 days to get it suggests this isn't a really big problem for him.
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    > What I don't understand is, if this sensor fails so often, why doesn't the farmer keep one in stock. Probably because it's impossible as JD as only vendor only sells the part to authorized service shops, with contracts forbidding sale to individual customers (edit: and the sensor is likely patented too, to prevent clones, like Apple did with Magsafe). Or worse, each sensor/component has a UUID and registers with the ECU over the communication bus... and to allow the sensor to be used with the ECU, it has to be authorized with a key provided only to authorized service shops.
    - kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
      I would assume the same consumer protection laws that mandate the sale of automotive parts also covers farm equipment. The issue is that the OBD standards have a mode for restricting access (0x27) until the test equipment has passed a challenge-response phase. The exact method varies but it is often a fairly simple scheme such as multiplying a secret key by a random value and returning part of the product for the ECU to confirm. The keys can be discovered by reverse engineering firmware or capturing enough initialization packets to work out the system. One of my ECUs from a defunct manufacturer has the ever original 0x6789 as its key.
  - amputect 12y ago
    From the article, "Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor." This is just a guess since that passage is vague, but it sounds to me like he isn't able to order the part himself. It might be a proprietary thing that only a (John Deere approved) tech can order. Either that, or maybe he isn't able to overcome some kind of anti-tampering hardware to install it himself.
    - bri3d 12y ago
      A lot of German cars have "coded" sensors and modules, where the sensor's serial number is written into protected storage somewhere and a mismatch will disable functionality. In some cases it makes sense (for example, if special calibration data needs to accompany the sensor) but it's often implemented simply to make replacement require a factory technician. I wouldn't be surprised if Deere have gone the same route.
      - brohee 12y ago
        It also deters stealing a car and dismantling it for parts, which used to be a major issue... Not 100% consumer hostile.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Sounds like the sensor swap might need a firmware reset from the technician and their magic box.
    - serf 12y ago
      wheres gnuTractor when you need it. "But the crops are so ugly, and it took me 3 months to setup" "but it was free!"
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Tractor http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Tractor As part of: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio... (I have no idea whether the stuff they are making is practical or not)
      - toothbrush 12y ago
        Haha, and, "i can't figure out the keybindings!"
  - hga 12y ago
    In reply to the three who've replied up to now, I'm not suggesting the farmer do the repair work himself, and he could finesse putative prohibitions against him getting one by having his local dealership hold it for him.
  - mynewwork 12y ago
    Ha, wow, the first time I've ever been genuinely taken aback by 'victim blaming' and of all possible places it comes from a story about a farmer and his tractor. For starters, even the text of the article shows that he's reliant on the technician to replace the part, and it doesn't break down what of the 2 days is ordering the part vs scheduling the technician's time. It may be that even with the part in hand it's 2 days for an opening in the tech's schedule. Further, while the article makes it sound as if there is one part repeatedly failing, the reality is that there are dozens of different sensors, and maybe only one fails per year. Your proposed solution might require the farmer to have thousands of dollars in spare parts sitting around at all times so he has replacements ready for all of them. Modern ag is already a capital intensive operation without forcing every family farm to double as a parts warehouse.
    - hga 12y ago
      Yeah, well, my parents grew up on farms and starting in 3rd grade our property was sort of one, it came with a hand crank starter. And "my" vehicle until I left for college was a 1967 Jeep, and all this was in a farming region to which I've also retired to. Where I now help my father repair his eminently repairable Grasshopper mowers. So I kinda expect farmers to do some of the basics about this sort of thing. Going to the text I was working off: "It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor." "Order the part" sure doesn't sound like a same day thing. Maybe this only shaves off one day on average. But I can't see how it doesn't shave off some time. I grant you your last point; if this isn't a single lemon(ny) part prone to failure he's getting unacceptable service. And I predict this gambit will not end well for John Deere.
raincom 12y ago
This sounds like the same experience people have with their out-of-warranty german cars. Either take it to the stealership or buy diagnostic system made by non-VW guys. Even if you have the diagnostic system to read codes from ECU, you are left wih testing many sensors: whether the sensor needs to be replaced or cleaned. But one has to know the details of resistance etc to test the said sensor. And these sensors are not cheap. They cost more than a tire!!
- bri3d 12y ago
  I actually find new electronic automotive systems to be easier than the "old way" (tracing wires, probing with a multimeter, etc.): oftentimes the issue will have diagnosed itself, and, if not, the ECU diagnostic tool will have an actual value display and a list of actuators you can hit to see if the sensor responds appropriately. I've never seen a sensor that's more than about $150, but I'm sure they're out there. The frustrating part (which is indeed common to German cars and high-end tractors) is that the diagnostic systems are all loaded with unnecessary and ridiculous manufacturer protectionism. You can't even clear the "Change Oil" light on a new Porsche without a Porsche diagnostic system or the reverse-engineered clone tool (Durametric). And even once you've found a broken sensor or component, it's often pointlessly "coded" (its serial number written into an EEPROM) such that the factory diagnostics tool needs to bless its replacement.
Trisell 12y ago
The other issue I think will be longevity. I grew up on a farm, and every piece of machinery that we used was older then I was by about 10 years, at least. Farmer's expect to purchase a tractor, and then run that piece of equipment for the entire life of the FARMER. It feels like the tractor manufactures today are catering to the mega farms, not the smaller farms that make up a larger portion of our farming infrastructure. And the small farms only buy a new tractor every 10 - 20 years. Not every 3 - 5 years for a tax break.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Used to be the attitude about many things before the consumer oriented marketing set in to keep the factory churn going.
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  What sort of machinery did farmers use "back then." (not sure how old you are) I ask, because some of these mega-tractors have a lot of functionality (more complexity seems to just cause more points of failure), but you can still buy a good old general purpose tractor that will last a lot longer. *not a farmer, but really into homesteading and getting a small self sustaining farm going at some point.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    It's all about function and simplicity. Take a Massey Ferguson 1100 (1964 - 1972) or 175 (1964 - 1975). You could tear them down to the frame with two hammers, a good (big) wrench set and enough time. I have, and do. I currently run one of each, today, as work machines. Now, everything is computerized and requires a degree in electrical engineering to figure out. That's not me being a Luddite wishing for better days, it's a fact. I can fix mechanical breakdowns in the field, no matter how complicated. Those machines are simple to maintain, cheap to run, and are unbelievably reliable. The process to diagnose and solve issues is as simple as finding the part that is cracked or fell off. My neighbor has a John Deer 5E something or other utility tractor. Same horsepower as the 1100, and smaller, which is nice. BUT, we can't fix a fried circuit on the throttle control - hell, we're lucky to find it without needing to call out the implement dealer. It's that; simplicity. Those mega-tractors and all of the new bells and whistles are great for corporations and large-outfits who can afford to have a machine down for three weeks while you wait for diagnosis and repair.
fredgrott 12y ago
Its designed to protect the income revenue stream of farm implements dealer at expense of the farmer whether they are single or a corporation.
Jemaclus 12y ago
As a web developer by trade, if I wanted to get involved in a project like this, having zero farming experience, where would I start?
- nebstrebor 12y ago
  Iowa
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Well, by the white-hat route, you would talk to a farmer for a long time, figure out the exact dimensions of the black box, and build a white box to replace it. By the grey-hat route, you analyze the black box and patch out or bypass the security features in it. You allow the owner to jailbreak the hardware, while still largely using the original manufacturer software and firmware. By the black-hat route, you illegally access manufacturer proprietary information and publish it, possibly along with statements indicating the exact extent to which the company profits by arbitrarily limiting the self-repair abilities of its customers. This would make it easier for the grey-hats to write jailbreak exploits and discourage farmers from buying in to the abusive business practices. If you ever want to be paid for it, white-hat is the way to go. You have to look at how farmers currently use the technology and then figure out how to replicate those use cases without the use of closed technologies. Think about how Tomato or OpenWRT help people use their wireless routers in the way they desire. You would essentially be writing new firmware for a piece of hardware, albeit hardware that can cost the owner tens of thousands of dollars if used incorrectly. Without knowing anything about tractors, I would guess that the modern ones include a digital hardware controller that can monitor and control every aspect of a diesel cycle engine. They may include GPS receivers and mapping and routing software. They would also include modules to control the interchangeable tools that may be mounted on the tractor, which would require sensor feedback. By this time, they should be largely self-driving, and maybe even have their own Twitter accounts. I'd save that crap for last.
  - bri3d 12y ago
    The gray hat and black hat approaches are actually fairly profitable in the automotive industry and could probably sell well in the farm industry too. Gray-hat reverse-engineered tools like Durametric for Porsche and VAG-COM for VW sell with moderate degrees of success into the enthusiast and independent service shop market (where $800 for a Durametric with 40% of the capability is a lot more appealing than $14,000 + service plan for a PIWIS). The black-hat approach seemingly can be profitable (like all black-hat pursuits, depending on your moral beliefs) as well: various Chinese manufacturers make enough money selling knockoff Mercedes diagnostic "multiplexers" on eBay to make it worth their while to produce them. There are a ton of value-add products you can sell once you've reverse engineered a control system, too, like custom tuning and add-ons unavailable from the manufacturer.
logfromblammo 12y ago
This is just the sort of issue that inspires open-source hardware movements like the one that produced this: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Lifetrac http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Lifetrac The most recent iteration is no match for the big commercial farm equipment, but it does have the notable advantage that being able to build it yourself necessarily means that you can diagnose its problems and repair it on the same terms.
- markvdb 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9007036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9007036 Not the first time I heard that comment...
  - robertfw 12y ago
    Really sad to hear that the project has gone down the tubes. It was one of the most exciting open source hardware projects I've ever seen. I think something like this is vital, and I hope that someone is able to pick up where OSE left off.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Open source movements, particularly in hardware, are difficult. No reason to abandon all hope. Though deciding between doubling down on OSE or launching a new effort is something to come to grips with.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Which is why I used the weasel words. The OSE project was probably a little too far-reaching and thinly supported to ever be successful at making a holy GECK. But as a build-your-own-Bobcat project, look at how far they got!
ejain 12y ago
I was under the impression that farms increasingly rely on the "Tractor as a Service" business model, i.e. they pay someone who has a fleet of the latest tractors (incl operators) to harvest their fields etc.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's for the massive farms in the Midwest growing corn and wheat.
swamp40 12y ago
Let me play devil's advocate here and suggest a few reasons why bypassing this "minor hydraulic sensor" might not be the smartest move. 1) Someone might get hurt. 2) Some really expensive part of the machine might get damaged. It is within the realm of possibility that the engineers who designed this system knew what they were doing when they decided to shut down an entire machine when a single "minor hydraulic sensor" goes bad.
- joelthelion 12y ago
  It's also entirely plausible that shutting down everything is the default behavior when a problem is detected. It's much simpler from an engineering standpoint, and safer for the manufacturer.
- angersock 12y ago
  Farm boys have been taking their lives into their own hands since time began by fixing their own equipment. Somehow, I doubt that those (completely plausible) reasons are enough to justify curtailing a basic freedom of owning one's own capital.
noonespecial 12y ago
Where I work now, I'm basically paid to break into this stuff for a living. Its nothing but a mountain of 10-20 year old "protected" protocols. All of which are now unsupported, obsolete, or completely forgotten by long out of business companies. If the farmers think its bad now, just wait a few years. DRM hurts everyone. Its like toxic waste. A huge externalized cost that lets a company eke out a small short term extra profit at the expense of society at large. We need "clean air act" level legislation to fix it. We've actively done the opposite.
- jonathantm 12y ago
  > "DRM... [is] like toxic waste." Yes! The depleted plutonium of technical debt.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    ITYM depleted uranium, used in armor-piercing rounds for its very high density. While "depleted plutonium" is a thing, it's not generally used in any way that I'm aware: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm
- joshmlewis 12y ago
  I'd love to buy you a beer and learn a few things if you're in the Bay Area. My email is hi [at] josh.ml.
- mey 12y ago
  What's the economic model? Supporting systems no one else will with clients that can't migrate to some other system?
  - LeonM 12y ago
    I used to work for a company that made "copies" of PCB's from industrial machines. Most industrial equipment costs hundreds of thousands euros, most of them have a lifespan of >10 years, but the manufacturer usually stops supporting them, or goes out of business before the machines do. Many of these machines suffer from failing electronics, and repairing or even completely re-engineering the electronics is usually cheaper than installing a complete new machine. Problem is, like noonespecial already wrote: 90% of the equipment has 'DRM'. Or it has no documentation or the manufacturer simply refuses to give details about it's inner workings due to "intellectual property". (note: that's the same manufacturer that refuses to repair their customer's failed $500k machine) edit: minor typo
agoetz 12y ago
Modern EPA requirements mean that it is impossible to design a compliant off highway commercial vehicle without relying on advanced electronic process controls. Your grandfather's tractor might be repairable with baling wire, but it also releases a ton more diesel particulates. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/media/pdf/8r_series/it4_45549_2011.pdf http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/media/pdf/8r_se... There's no incentive for companies to publish information on their vehicle bus interfaces, since it would basically give away trade secrets to competitors.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  The ironic thing is that failing to publish schematics and bus interfaces is nothing more than a temporary inconvenience to competitors, especially (but not limited to) the Chinese. They cloned a whole goddamn Apple store, they can clone your tractor. That's what they do. It does, however, encourage planned obsolescence by keeping you from maintaining your own out-of-warranty farm equipment.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  The FBI was compromised for decades for under a quarter million dollars. It seems unbelievable to think that obfuscating the final delivered product is going to prevent serious competitors. It's not like selling $100K+ tractors only requires a website. It's as stupid as Nikon "encrypting" the white balance info in their raw files, requiring their client to get the data out. Did nothing but hurt customers, and make a few extra sales of their shoddy software. It's highly suspect to think such obfuscation is anything but a way to extract more money and exert more control over customers.
- mojoB 12y ago
  Not right now, but from 2018 manufacturers selling in Europe will have to provide information and tools to independent mechanics. http://cema-agri.org/publication/access-vehicle-repair-maintenance-information-rmi http://cema-agri.org/publication/access-vehicle-repair-maint...
jonah 12y ago
Wired (and iFixit) are getting activist about DMCA exceptions. This is great. A couple weeks ago Kyle Weins wrote[1]: "No one has yet been prosecuted for hacking their own car, but they could. And as locks become more prevalent, the EFF and iFixit are willing to bet that, eventually, some carmaker will bring the DMCA hammer down on a hobbyist's head. So we're are taking a stand now." "Want to speak out in support of this DMCA exemption? Tell the Copyright Office that car owners should be able to repair and modify their own automobiles. You've got until February 6 to make your voice heard." HN discussed that article too.[2] [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/let-us-hack-our-cars/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/let-us-hack-our-cars/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8936382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8936382
sandworm 12y ago
A DRM exception for farmers? Why them and not the rest of us? Farmers are the classic American go-to for everything politics. Be it guns, corn in Coke, pollution standards, healthcare, immigration ... everyone is ready to pity the poor farmer. I understand the rational. Farmers make the food we eat. They also embody an American fantasy harkening back to the old west. But this is also who I see red flags whenever I hear farmers brought up in reference to a law. Farmers are the purchasers of equipment used in their business. Why give them a pass to bypass DRM but not the fishermen? Fishermen make food. Maritime law affords them special treatment in a similar manner as land use laws treat farmers. Surely fishermen have an equal tradition of self-sufficiency and are also deserving of an exception. And then come the taxi companies who have long maintained their own fleets. Soldiers? Surely we first need an exemption for the armed forces. I cannot think of any profession without a tradition of maintaining its own equipment. That's probably because DRM is new tech. So it's impossible for anyone to have a tradition of accommodating and obeying DRM. As we all suffer it, we should all be free of it. No exemptions. Let us instead pity the poor metal worker whose CNC machine cannot be moved across the shop floor without triggering its GPS-dependant DRM. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/03060325817/latest-twist-drm-lockdown-geolocation.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/03060325817/lates...
- swatow 12y ago
  I totally agree on your assessment of the weird politics around farmers. But I also thought that the article was a good illustration of the general issues around DRM. Sometimes it takes a compelling example to illustrate a general principle. Until now I wasn't particularly opposed to DRM (at least when it used technical, rather than legal, mechanisms). But this article shows how locking people out of equipment they own has a tendency to be used in an economically inefficient way. In this case, milking people for repair costs that they don't fully consider when judging the purchase price. I guess the counterargument is that DRM protects people from themselves (in this case, making repairs that would be better done by a professional). But the article made a good case for a lot farmers really wanting to be able to repair their own equipment.
  - sounds 12y ago
rjdagost 12y ago
Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I used to work for a company that produces measurement equipment for professional technicians. It's big, complicated, dangerous, and expensive equipment that is comparable in cost to the tractors discussed in this article. The products employ a number of measures to prevent end-users from tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with (especially the firmware). Partly this is to discourage piracy. But mainly this is done because the equipment is quite complicated and there are not many people in the world who understand the technology well enough to make repairs on their own. It's very easy to cause unintentional errors that can cause much more serious damage than the original minor problem. And when the failure of your equipment can cause serious property damage, injury, or death are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware?
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Provide the entirety of the source for free yet lock down the machine from modifications. If the user wants to modify their machine they can contact you for an unlock code at the cost of their warranty.
- ffn 12y ago
  Considering literally anything can be used to harm, kill, or maim (I actually have a friend who was severely injured by a pineapple) if used incorrectly, I say it's better to have open-source knowledge so we learn how to properly use something rather than sit in proprietary ignorance and hope nothing bad happens. Besides, knives, cars, guns, indoor plumbing, house wiring, etc., are all just as if not more dangerous than farming equipment. Just slap a good ol' MIT license agreement somewhere on your product so that it's clear to the user "if you do X, you void the warranty and you're solely responsible for whatever damage you might cause."
- Xorlev 12y ago
  Make it open. Then add warnings and void the warranty. If someone has a legitimate need to modify it they should be able. If it's that dangerous one would hope the care used in operating goes goes tenfold for any modifications. If it is big and complicated, your users probably don't want to modify it for fear of causing damage. If they do, the risk is on them. If someone wants to modify it they will. Wouldn't you rather they have all the information rather than trying to obscure it?
chris_wot 12y ago
It sounds like there is a market for either a. Tractors with very limited electronics, but easily repairable, or b. Hi-tech tractors that are completely open systems. What you have here is an industry ripe for disruption. John Deere makes enormous amounts of money on farm capital expenditure but also operational expenditure. But their service is crap (two days for a sensor to be fitted? Someone tell the weather not to rain or disrupt harvest, John Deere's equipment needs time to be repaired!). In a market economy, one would think that someone would see an opportunity and, you know, compete.
- Perdition 12y ago
  In reality giants like John Deere have such chokeholds on the market that they can either buy out "disrupters" or bankrupt them. Hardware is so costly and slow moving compared to software that the swiftness of startups compared to incumbents isn't enough. Tesla for example is basically a charity project where the automotive industry is being given the technology in order to encourage them to adopt it. If Tesla was being run for purely economical purposes the incumbents would have moved to buy it or crush it.
- bsder 12y ago
  Um, exactly what is your annual market for tractors when the average tractor is 10 years old? Call it 20,000 tractors? Now, how much of that market are you going to pick off? And can you make a business of it? This lack of volume is exactly why A) the companies are locking things down and B) the service calls take too much time. I'd bet that practically ALL the service calls occur right before spring planting and right before fall harvest. Thus, your service people are incredibly busy exactly twice a year and totally idle the rest. (My estimations look about right: http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/machinery/machinery-news/john-deere-holds-market-share-as-tractor-sales-fall/44525.article http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/machinery/machinery-news... "John Deere has retained its tractor market share of about 30 per cent in 2010, putting it top of the table again with 4,427 units sold."
- hibikir 12y ago
  This is also a case that pits different parts of the agricultural industry against each other. DRM might be great for the equipment manufacturer, but only if it doesn't hurt farmers interest in modern equipment. Monsanto sells something they call FieldScripts: Based on weather databases, detailed soil information and topography, a big computer cluster calculates what should be the most profitable seeds that the company sells for each small patch of ground, and what seed density to use. Sometimes an area needs less density, or a seed that works better in wetter conditions, or a bunch of other little factors. Well, to follow a script like that is not something you can do by hand, as it's way too much work. What you need to even use them is a machine that is modern enough that it can hold multiple different kinds of seed, and can be programmed to change what it's planting, and how it's planting it, as it goes. So you can't even do this with most traditional machines. So if farmers do not want to buy those machines because of DRM issues, then Monsanto can either bin their product, as few people would ever use it, or use their lobbying pressure towards open standards in agricultural software and hardware, all while trying to keep seed technology as protected as the mouse's big round ears. It'd be pretty funny, if you ask me.
freshhawk 12y ago
"But under modern copyright laws, that kind of “repairing” is legally questionable." Questionable? If it becomes politically unpopular enough, they will certainly jail people for it. It's explicitly illegal but those laws are not evenly enforced. They seem to acknowledge the DMCA but then fall back to the "questionable" position saying it's "entirely possible" the farmer becomes a criminal. This is video game console modding, they are even using pirated proprietary software. INAL, am I misunderstanding the state of things? Is there some reason, besides the political weakness created by going after farmers, that this is "questionable"?
TeMPOraL 12y ago
This is the classic, unfortunate reality - the disconnect between what is legal and what is right. Yes, the companies are well within their rights to restrict access to the internals of products they sell. But by doing that, they are just being total assholes. In this case we have companies literally providing negative value (relative to older, non-DRMed equipment) and charging more.
Aardwolf 12y ago
Not easy of course, but how about throwing out the computer, keeping the chassis and engine, and controlling it by another, open source, computer. Would that be legal circumvention of the DRM?
georgeecollins 12y ago
The same issue exists, on a larger scale, for cars. Manufacturers have a motivation to lock you into dealer maintenance and DRM on the electronics is a great tool for this. We need to be the ones to educate consumers that its good when thing are hackable.
acd 12y ago
Not being able to fix things yourself is bad for the environment. Things that you use and throw is by design bad. DRM also means not being able to improve on the product created by the corporate entity. As hackers we need to be able to tinker and repair the things we have bought. Components that we by need to be recycled. Your old cell phone and laptop needs to be converted to a new one not thrown on the junk yard as trash or end up at tash dumps in Africa or China.
wahsd 12y ago
The problem is the pervasiveness of our new business models that depend on perpetual dependence and licensing. It is rather ironic that in the country most obnoxious about freedom and personal property, we never really own anything; we are a culture that has been groomed on dependence on the corporate matrix.

281 points by wycx 12y ago

merrua 12y ago

What's built not to be repaired, is bad value for money.

hga 12y ago
I read it as "repaired by the blessed people and parts". What I don't understand is, if this sensor fails so often, why doesn't the farmer keep one in stock. That he's willing to have the machine idle for 2 days to get it suggests this isn't a really big problem for him.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > What I don't understand is, if this sensor fails so often, why doesn't the farmer keep one in stock. Probably because it's impossible as JD as only vendor only sells the part to authorized service shops, with contracts forbidding sale to individual customers (edit: and the sensor is likely patented too, to prevent clones, like Apple did with Magsafe). Or worse, each sensor/component has a UUID and registers with the ECU over the communication bus... and to allow the sensor to be used with the ECU, it has to be authorized with a key provided only to authorized service shops.
  - kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
    I would assume the same consumer protection laws that mandate the sale of automotive parts also covers farm equipment. The issue is that the OBD standards have a mode for restricting access (0x27) until the test equipment has passed a challenge-response phase. The exact method varies but it is often a fairly simple scheme such as multiplying a secret key by a random value and returning part of the product for the ECU to confirm. The keys can be discovered by reverse engineering firmware or capturing enough initialization packets to work out the system. One of my ECUs from a defunct manufacturer has the ever original 0x6789 as its key.
- amputect 12y ago
  From the article, "Every time the sensor blew, the onboard computer would shut the tractor down. It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor." This is just a guess since that passage is vague, but it sounds to me like he isn't able to order the part himself. It might be a proprietary thing that only a (John Deere approved) tech can order. Either that, or maybe he isn't able to overcome some kind of anti-tampering hardware to install it himself.
  - bri3d 12y ago
    A lot of German cars have "coded" sensors and modules, where the sensor's serial number is written into protected storage somewhere and a mismatch will disable functionality. In some cases it makes sense (for example, if special calibration data needs to accompany the sensor) but it's often implemented simply to make replacement require a factory technician. I wouldn't be surprised if Deere have gone the same route.
    - brohee 12y ago
      It also deters stealing a car and dismantling it for parts, which used to be a major issue... Not 100% consumer hostile.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Sounds like the sensor swap might need a firmware reset from the technician and their magic box.
  - serf 12y ago
    wheres gnuTractor when you need it. "But the crops are so ugly, and it took me 3 months to setup" "but it was free!"
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Tractor http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Tractor As part of: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Constructio... (I have no idea whether the stuff they are making is practical or not)
    - toothbrush 12y ago
      Haha, and, "i can't figure out the keybindings!"
- hga 12y ago
  In reply to the three who've replied up to now, I'm not suggesting the farmer do the repair work himself, and he could finesse putative prohibitions against him getting one by having his local dealership hold it for him.
- mynewwork 12y ago
  Ha, wow, the first time I've ever been genuinely taken aback by 'victim blaming' and of all possible places it comes from a story about a farmer and his tractor. For starters, even the text of the article shows that he's reliant on the technician to replace the part, and it doesn't break down what of the 2 days is ordering the part vs scheduling the technician's time. It may be that even with the part in hand it's 2 days for an opening in the tech's schedule. Further, while the article makes it sound as if there is one part repeatedly failing, the reality is that there are dozens of different sensors, and maybe only one fails per year. Your proposed solution might require the farmer to have thousands of dollars in spare parts sitting around at all times so he has replacements ready for all of them. Modern ag is already a capital intensive operation without forcing every family farm to double as a parts warehouse.
  - hga 12y ago
    Yeah, well, my parents grew up on farms and starting in 3rd grade our property was sort of one, it came with a hand crank starter. And "my" vehicle until I left for college was a 1967 Jeep, and all this was in a farming region to which I've also retired to. Where I now help my father repair his eminently repairable Grasshopper mowers. So I kinda expect farmers to do some of the basics about this sort of thing. Going to the text I was working off: "It takes a technician at least two days to order the part, get out to the farm, and swap out the sensor." "Order the part" sure doesn't sound like a same day thing. Maybe this only shaves off one day on average. But I can't see how it doesn't shave off some time. I grant you your last point; if this isn't a single lemon(ny) part prone to failure he's getting unacceptable service. And I predict this gambit will not end well for John Deere.

raincom 12y ago

This sounds like the same experience people have with their out-of-warranty german cars. Either take it to the stealership or buy diagnostic system made by non-VW guys. Even if you have the diagnostic system to read codes from ECU, you are left wih testing many sensors: whether the sensor needs to be replaced or cleaned. But one has to know the details of resistance etc to test the said sensor. And these sensors are not cheap. They cost more than a tire!!

bri3d 12y ago
I actually find new electronic automotive systems to be easier than the "old way" (tracing wires, probing with a multimeter, etc.): oftentimes the issue will have diagnosed itself, and, if not, the ECU diagnostic tool will have an actual value display and a list of actuators you can hit to see if the sensor responds appropriately. I've never seen a sensor that's more than about $150, but I'm sure they're out there. The frustrating part (which is indeed common to German cars and high-end tractors) is that the diagnostic systems are all loaded with unnecessary and ridiculous manufacturer protectionism. You can't even clear the "Change Oil" light on a new Porsche without a Porsche diagnostic system or the reverse-engineered clone tool (Durametric). And even once you've found a broken sensor or component, it's often pointlessly "coded" (its serial number written into an EEPROM) such that the factory diagnostics tool needs to bless its replacement.

Trisell 12y ago

The other issue I think will be longevity. I grew up on a farm, and every piece of machinery that we used was older then I was by about 10 years, at least. Farmer's expect to purchase a tractor, and then run that piece of equipment for the entire life of the FARMER. It feels like the tractor manufactures today are catering to the mega farms, not the smaller farms that make up a larger portion of our farming infrastructure. And the small farms only buy a new tractor every 10 - 20 years. Not every 3 - 5 years for a tax break.

digi_owl 12y ago
Used to be the attitude about many things before the consumer oriented marketing set in to keep the factory churn going.
will_work4tears 12y ago
What sort of machinery did farmers use "back then." (not sure how old you are) I ask, because some of these mega-tractors have a lot of functionality (more complexity seems to just cause more points of failure), but you can still buy a good old general purpose tractor that will last a lot longer. *not a farmer, but really into homesteading and getting a small self sustaining farm going at some point.
- Loughla 12y ago
  It's all about function and simplicity. Take a Massey Ferguson 1100 (1964 - 1972) or 175 (1964 - 1975). You could tear them down to the frame with two hammers, a good (big) wrench set and enough time. I have, and do. I currently run one of each, today, as work machines. Now, everything is computerized and requires a degree in electrical engineering to figure out. That's not me being a Luddite wishing for better days, it's a fact. I can fix mechanical breakdowns in the field, no matter how complicated. Those machines are simple to maintain, cheap to run, and are unbelievably reliable. The process to diagnose and solve issues is as simple as finding the part that is cracked or fell off. My neighbor has a John Deer 5E something or other utility tractor. Same horsepower as the 1100, and smaller, which is nice. BUT, we can't fix a fried circuit on the throttle control - hell, we're lucky to find it without needing to call out the implement dealer. It's that; simplicity. Those mega-tractors and all of the new bells and whistles are great for corporations and large-outfits who can afford to have a machine down for three weeks while you wait for diagnosis and repair.

fredgrott 12y ago

Its designed to protect the income revenue stream of farm implements dealer at expense of the farmer whether they are single or a corporation.

Jemaclus 12y ago

As a web developer by trade, if I wanted to get involved in a project like this, having zero farming experience, where would I start?

nebstrebor 12y ago
Iowa
logfromblammo 12y ago
Well, by the white-hat route, you would talk to a farmer for a long time, figure out the exact dimensions of the black box, and build a white box to replace it. By the grey-hat route, you analyze the black box and patch out or bypass the security features in it. You allow the owner to jailbreak the hardware, while still largely using the original manufacturer software and firmware. By the black-hat route, you illegally access manufacturer proprietary information and publish it, possibly along with statements indicating the exact extent to which the company profits by arbitrarily limiting the self-repair abilities of its customers. This would make it easier for the grey-hats to write jailbreak exploits and discourage farmers from buying in to the abusive business practices. If you ever want to be paid for it, white-hat is the way to go. You have to look at how farmers currently use the technology and then figure out how to replicate those use cases without the use of closed technologies. Think about how Tomato or OpenWRT help people use their wireless routers in the way they desire. You would essentially be writing new firmware for a piece of hardware, albeit hardware that can cost the owner tens of thousands of dollars if used incorrectly. Without knowing anything about tractors, I would guess that the modern ones include a digital hardware controller that can monitor and control every aspect of a diesel cycle engine. They may include GPS receivers and mapping and routing software. They would also include modules to control the interchangeable tools that may be mounted on the tractor, which would require sensor feedback. By this time, they should be largely self-driving, and maybe even have their own Twitter accounts. I'd save that crap for last.
- bri3d 12y ago
  The gray hat and black hat approaches are actually fairly profitable in the automotive industry and could probably sell well in the farm industry too. Gray-hat reverse-engineered tools like Durametric for Porsche and VAG-COM for VW sell with moderate degrees of success into the enthusiast and independent service shop market (where $800 for a Durametric with 40% of the capability is a lot more appealing than $14,000 + service plan for a PIWIS). The black-hat approach seemingly can be profitable (like all black-hat pursuits, depending on your moral beliefs) as well: various Chinese manufacturers make enough money selling knockoff Mercedes diagnostic "multiplexers" on eBay to make it worth their while to produce them. There are a ton of value-add products you can sell once you've reverse engineered a control system, too, like custom tuning and add-ons unavailable from the manufacturer.

logfromblammo 12y ago

This is just the sort of issue that inspires open-source hardware movements like the one that produced this: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Lifetrac http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Lifetrac The most recent iteration is no match for the big commercial farm equipment, but it does have the notable advantage that being able to build it yourself necessarily means that you can diagnose its problems and repair it on the same terms.

markvdb 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9007036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9007036 Not the first time I heard that comment...
- robertfw 12y ago
  Really sad to hear that the project has gone down the tubes. It was one of the most exciting open source hardware projects I've ever seen. I think something like this is vital, and I hope that someone is able to pick up where OSE left off.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Open source movements, particularly in hardware, are difficult. No reason to abandon all hope. Though deciding between doubling down on OSE or launching a new effort is something to come to grips with.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Which is why I used the weasel words. The OSE project was probably a little too far-reaching and thinly supported to ever be successful at making a holy GECK. But as a build-your-own-Bobcat project, look at how far they got!

ejain 12y ago

I was under the impression that farms increasingly rely on the "Tractor as a Service" business model, i.e. they pay someone who has a fleet of the latest tractors (incl operators) to harvest their fields etc.

Spooky23 12y ago
That's for the massive farms in the Midwest growing corn and wheat.

swamp40 12y ago

Let me play devil's advocate here and suggest a few reasons why bypassing this "minor hydraulic sensor" might not be the smartest move. 1) Someone might get hurt. 2) Some really expensive part of the machine might get damaged. It is within the realm of possibility that the engineers who designed this system knew what they were doing when they decided to shut down an entire machine when a single "minor hydraulic sensor" goes bad.

joelthelion 12y ago
It's also entirely plausible that shutting down everything is the default behavior when a problem is detected. It's much simpler from an engineering standpoint, and safer for the manufacturer.
angersock 12y ago
Farm boys have been taking their lives into their own hands since time began by fixing their own equipment. Somehow, I doubt that those (completely plausible) reasons are enough to justify curtailing a basic freedom of owning one's own capital.

noonespecial 12y ago

Where I work now, I'm basically paid to break into this stuff for a living. Its nothing but a mountain of 10-20 year old "protected" protocols. All of which are now unsupported, obsolete, or completely forgotten by long out of business companies. If the farmers think its bad now, just wait a few years. DRM hurts everyone. Its like toxic waste. A huge externalized cost that lets a company eke out a small short term extra profit at the expense of society at large. We need "clean air act" level legislation to fix it. We've actively done the opposite.

jonathantm 12y ago
> "DRM... [is] like toxic waste." Yes! The depleted plutonium of technical debt.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  ITYM depleted uranium, used in armor-piercing rounds for its very high density. While "depleted plutonium" is a thing, it's not generally used in any way that I'm aware: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae576.cfm
joshmlewis 12y ago
I'd love to buy you a beer and learn a few things if you're in the Bay Area. My email is hi [at] josh.ml.
mey 12y ago
What's the economic model? Supporting systems no one else will with clients that can't migrate to some other system?
- LeonM 12y ago
  I used to work for a company that made "copies" of PCB's from industrial machines. Most industrial equipment costs hundreds of thousands euros, most of them have a lifespan of >10 years, but the manufacturer usually stops supporting them, or goes out of business before the machines do. Many of these machines suffer from failing electronics, and repairing or even completely re-engineering the electronics is usually cheaper than installing a complete new machine. Problem is, like noonespecial already wrote: 90% of the equipment has 'DRM'. Or it has no documentation or the manufacturer simply refuses to give details about it's inner workings due to "intellectual property". (note: that's the same manufacturer that refuses to repair their customer's failed $500k machine) edit: minor typo

agoetz 12y ago

Modern EPA requirements mean that it is impossible to design a compliant off highway commercial vehicle without relying on advanced electronic process controls. Your grandfather's tractor might be repairable with baling wire, but it also releases a ton more diesel particulates. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/media/pdf/8r_series/it4_45549_2011.pdf http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/media/pdf/8r_se... There's no incentive for companies to publish information on their vehicle bus interfaces, since it would basically give away trade secrets to competitors.

CamperBob2 12y ago
The ironic thing is that failing to publish schematics and bus interfaces is nothing more than a temporary inconvenience to competitors, especially (but not limited to) the Chinese. They cloned a whole goddamn Apple store, they can clone your tractor. That's what they do. It does, however, encourage planned obsolescence by keeping you from maintaining your own out-of-warranty farm equipment.
MichaelGG 12y ago
The FBI was compromised for decades for under a quarter million dollars. It seems unbelievable to think that obfuscating the final delivered product is going to prevent serious competitors. It's not like selling $100K+ tractors only requires a website. It's as stupid as Nikon "encrypting" the white balance info in their raw files, requiring their client to get the data out. Did nothing but hurt customers, and make a few extra sales of their shoddy software. It's highly suspect to think such obfuscation is anything but a way to extract more money and exert more control over customers.
mojoB 12y ago
Not right now, but from 2018 manufacturers selling in Europe will have to provide information and tools to independent mechanics. http://cema-agri.org/publication/access-vehicle-repair-maintenance-information-rmi http://cema-agri.org/publication/access-vehicle-repair-maint...

jonah 12y ago

Wired (and iFixit) are getting activist about DMCA exceptions. This is great. A couple weeks ago Kyle Weins wrote[1]: "No one has yet been prosecuted for hacking their own car, but they could. And as locks become more prevalent, the EFF and iFixit are willing to bet that, eventually, some carmaker will bring the DMCA hammer down on a hobbyist's head. So we're are taking a stand now." "Want to speak out in support of this DMCA exemption? Tell the Copyright Office that car owners should be able to repair and modify their own automobiles. You've got until February 6 to make your voice heard." HN discussed that article too.[2] [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/01/let-us-hack-our-cars/ http://www.wired.com/2015/01/let-us-hack-our-cars/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8936382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8936382

sandworm 12y ago

A DRM exception for farmers? Why them and not the rest of us? Farmers are the classic American go-to for everything politics. Be it guns, corn in Coke, pollution standards, healthcare, immigration ... everyone is ready to pity the poor farmer. I understand the rational. Farmers make the food we eat. They also embody an American fantasy harkening back to the old west. But this is also who I see red flags whenever I hear farmers brought up in reference to a law. Farmers are the purchasers of equipment used in their business. Why give them a pass to bypass DRM but not the fishermen? Fishermen make food. Maritime law affords them special treatment in a similar manner as land use laws treat farmers. Surely fishermen have an equal tradition of self-sufficiency and are also deserving of an exception. And then come the taxi companies who have long maintained their own fleets. Soldiers? Surely we first need an exemption for the armed forces. I cannot think of any profession without a tradition of maintaining its own equipment. That's probably because DRM is new tech. So it's impossible for anyone to have a tradition of accommodating and obeying DRM. As we all suffer it, we should all be free of it. No exemptions. Let us instead pity the poor metal worker whose CNC machine cannot be moved across the shop floor without triggering its GPS-dependant DRM. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/03060325817/latest-twist-drm-lockdown-geolocation.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140109/03060325817/lates...

swatow 12y ago
I totally agree on your assessment of the weird politics around farmers. But I also thought that the article was a good illustration of the general issues around DRM. Sometimes it takes a compelling example to illustrate a general principle. Until now I wasn't particularly opposed to DRM (at least when it used technical, rather than legal, mechanisms). But this article shows how locking people out of equipment they own has a tendency to be used in an economically inefficient way. In this case, milking people for repair costs that they don't fully consider when judging the purchase price. I guess the counterargument is that DRM protects people from themselves (in this case, making repairs that would be better done by a professional). But the article made a good case for a lot farmers really wanting to be able to repair their own equipment.
- sounds 12y ago

rjdagost 12y ago

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. I used to work for a company that produces measurement equipment for professional technicians. It's big, complicated, dangerous, and expensive equipment that is comparable in cost to the tractors discussed in this article. The products employ a number of measures to prevent end-users from tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with (especially the firmware). Partly this is to discourage piracy. But mainly this is done because the equipment is quite complicated and there are not many people in the world who understand the technology well enough to make repairs on their own. It's very easy to cause unintentional errors that can cause much more serious damage than the original minor problem. And when the failure of your equipment can cause serious property damage, injury, or death are you going to make it easy for people to modify your product's firmware?

Igglyboo 12y ago
Provide the entirety of the source for free yet lock down the machine from modifications. If the user wants to modify their machine they can contact you for an unlock code at the cost of their warranty.
ffn 12y ago
Considering literally anything can be used to harm, kill, or maim (I actually have a friend who was severely injured by a pineapple) if used incorrectly, I say it's better to have open-source knowledge so we learn how to properly use something rather than sit in proprietary ignorance and hope nothing bad happens. Besides, knives, cars, guns, indoor plumbing, house wiring, etc., are all just as if not more dangerous than farming equipment. Just slap a good ol' MIT license agreement somewhere on your product so that it's clear to the user "if you do X, you void the warranty and you're solely responsible for whatever damage you might cause."
Xorlev 12y ago
Make it open. Then add warnings and void the warranty. If someone has a legitimate need to modify it they should be able. If it's that dangerous one would hope the care used in operating goes goes tenfold for any modifications. If it is big and complicated, your users probably don't want to modify it for fear of causing damage. If they do, the risk is on them. If someone wants to modify it they will. Wouldn't you rather they have all the information rather than trying to obscure it?

chris_wot 12y ago

It sounds like there is a market for either a. Tractors with very limited electronics, but easily repairable, or b. Hi-tech tractors that are completely open systems. What you have here is an industry ripe for disruption. John Deere makes enormous amounts of money on farm capital expenditure but also operational expenditure. But their service is crap (two days for a sensor to be fitted? Someone tell the weather not to rain or disrupt harvest, John Deere's equipment needs time to be repaired!). In a market economy, one would think that someone would see an opportunity and, you know, compete.

Perdition 12y ago
In reality giants like John Deere have such chokeholds on the market that they can either buy out "disrupters" or bankrupt them. Hardware is so costly and slow moving compared to software that the swiftness of startups compared to incumbents isn't enough. Tesla for example is basically a charity project where the automotive industry is being given the technology in order to encourage them to adopt it. If Tesla was being run for purely economical purposes the incumbents would have moved to buy it or crush it.
bsder 12y ago
Um, exactly what is your annual market for tractors when the average tractor is 10 years old? Call it 20,000 tractors? Now, how much of that market are you going to pick off? And can you make a business of it? This lack of volume is exactly why A) the companies are locking things down and B) the service calls take too much time. I'd bet that practically ALL the service calls occur right before spring planting and right before fall harvest. Thus, your service people are incredibly busy exactly twice a year and totally idle the rest. (My estimations look about right: http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/machinery/machinery-news/john-deere-holds-market-share-as-tractor-sales-fall/44525.article http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/machinery/machinery-news... "John Deere has retained its tractor market share of about 30 per cent in 2010, putting it top of the table again with 4,427 units sold."
hibikir 12y ago
This is also a case that pits different parts of the agricultural industry against each other. DRM might be great for the equipment manufacturer, but only if it doesn't hurt farmers interest in modern equipment. Monsanto sells something they call FieldScripts: Based on weather databases, detailed soil information and topography, a big computer cluster calculates what should be the most profitable seeds that the company sells for each small patch of ground, and what seed density to use. Sometimes an area needs less density, or a seed that works better in wetter conditions, or a bunch of other little factors. Well, to follow a script like that is not something you can do by hand, as it's way too much work. What you need to even use them is a machine that is modern enough that it can hold multiple different kinds of seed, and can be programmed to change what it's planting, and how it's planting it, as it goes. So you can't even do this with most traditional machines. So if farmers do not want to buy those machines because of DRM issues, then Monsanto can either bin their product, as few people would ever use it, or use their lobbying pressure towards open standards in agricultural software and hardware, all while trying to keep seed technology as protected as the mouse's big round ears. It'd be pretty funny, if you ask me.

freshhawk 12y ago

"But under modern copyright laws, that kind of “repairing” is legally questionable." Questionable? If it becomes politically unpopular enough, they will certainly jail people for it. It's explicitly illegal but those laws are not evenly enforced. They seem to acknowledge the DMCA but then fall back to the "questionable" position saying it's "entirely possible" the farmer becomes a criminal. This is video game console modding, they are even using pirated proprietary software. INAL, am I misunderstanding the state of things? Is there some reason, besides the political weakness created by going after farmers, that this is "questionable"?

TeMPOraL 12y ago

This is the classic, unfortunate reality - the disconnect between what is legal and what is right. Yes, the companies are well within their rights to restrict access to the internals of products they sell. But by doing that, they are just being total assholes. In this case we have companies literally providing negative value (relative to older, non-DRMed equipment) and charging more.

Aardwolf 12y ago

Not easy of course, but how about throwing out the computer, keeping the chassis and engine, and controlling it by another, open source, computer. Would that be legal circumvention of the DRM?

georgeecollins 12y ago

The same issue exists, on a larger scale, for cars. Manufacturers have a motivation to lock you into dealer maintenance and DRM on the electronics is a great tool for this. We need to be the ones to educate consumers that its good when thing are hackable.

acd 12y ago

Not being able to fix things yourself is bad for the environment. Things that you use and throw is by design bad. DRM also means not being able to improve on the product created by the corporate entity. As hackers we need to be able to tinker and repair the things we have bought. Components that we by need to be recycled. Your old cell phone and laptop needs to be converted to a new one not thrown on the junk yard as trash or end up at tash dumps in Africa or China.

wahsd 12y ago

The problem is the pervasiveness of our new business models that depend on perpetual dependence and licensing. It is rather ironic that in the country most obnoxious about freedom and personal property, we never really own anything; we are a culture that has been groomed on dependence on the corporate matrix.