4 ms·

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 arou

by 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
Hopefully it is obvious that without DRM "protecting people from themselves" is still better served; with DRM the only winner is the company who locks out everyone else. Example of how it might work without DRM: Farmer A hesitates to bypass the flaky hydraulic sensor. His $100,000 tractor is offline for about 2 days each season, and he pays $2,000 each time to have a specialist come check the hydraulic system with specialist tools. Farmer B is foolish and just shorts the wires on his sensor. The hydraulic system has a massive failure and he faces a $50,000 repair bill. Of course, with DRM, both farmers are forced to pay John Deere certified techs who are in short supply during harvest season (all the tractors are breaking down) and who therefore feel justified charging $10,000 for the rush service. Also the parts can only be replaced with Genuine John Deer replacement parts. Basically only John Deere comes out the winner here.
- swatow 12y ago
  Well that wasn't obvious to me, but you explained it well. As you say, it's as much about controlling the market for professional repairs as it is preventing DIYers. It reminds me of how much more expensive it was to get my car serviced at a name brand gas station than a local car shop.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  This behavior can be found in all markets out there, regardless of the scope. And then comes beauty of free market - over longer term, taking acount bigger mass of farmers for example, more desired product should win. There are many tractor manufacturers, and if John Deere is deemed cp manufacturer in long term, some other makers will eat its market share, either by providing simpler machinery (ie trend mentioned in article when farmers buy older models), or open one. If farmers as a whole are "not-so-clever" though, and they keep buying new ones (ie voting with their money for fragile new tech), then they deserve the new tech "punishment". Lesson to be learned here - be conservative about new technology and buy only long-proven solutions, regardless how much average HN Joe might not like this non-cool approach. Also, fully agree that they shouldn't be made any more special than other jobs. Maybe ideal would to completely lose warranty (ie like iphone jailbreak), but making it criminal act is way too much.

by swatow 12y ago

sounds 12y ago

Hopefully it is obvious that without DRM "protecting people from themselves" is still better served; with DRM the only winner is the company who locks out everyone else. Example of how it might work without DRM: Farmer A hesitates to bypass the flaky hydraulic sensor. His $100,000 tractor is offline for about 2 days each season, and he pays $2,000 each time to have a specialist come check the hydraulic system with specialist tools. Farmer B is foolish and just shorts the wires on his sensor. The hydraulic system has a massive failure and he faces a $50,000 repair bill. Of course, with DRM, both farmers are forced to pay John Deere certified techs who are in short supply during harvest season (all the tractors are breaking down) and who therefore feel justified charging $10,000 for the rush service. Also the parts can only be replaced with Genuine John Deer replacement parts. Basically only John Deere comes out the winner here.

swatow 12y ago
Well that wasn't obvious to me, but you explained it well. As you say, it's as much about controlling the market for professional repairs as it is preventing DIYers. It reminds me of how much more expensive it was to get my car serviced at a name brand gas station than a local car shop.
saiya-jin 12y ago
This behavior can be found in all markets out there, regardless of the scope. And then comes beauty of free market - over longer term, taking acount bigger mass of farmers for example, more desired product should win. There are many tractor manufacturers, and if John Deere is deemed cp manufacturer in long term, some other makers will eat its market share, either by providing simpler machinery (ie trend mentioned in article when farmers buy older models), or open one. If farmers as a whole are "not-so-clever" though, and they keep buying new ones (ie voting with their money for fragile new tech), then they deserve the new tech "punishment". Lesson to be learned here - be conservative about new technology and buy only long-proven solutions, regardless how much average HN Joe might not like this non-cool approach. Also, fully agree that they shouldn't be made any more special than other jobs. Maybe ideal would to completely lose warranty (ie like iphone jailbreak), but making it criminal act is way too much.