41–50 of 439 posts
I'm shocked someone actually voted no. What would their justification for that vote be? Legit curious if they had a proper argument, didn't understand the issue, or if it was some type of corporate influence.
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that…
Simple: an old tractor or truck - give me a decent shop with tools, lifts and a crane, and I can repair almost everything that is broken. Some light doesn't work, engine doesn't turn on? Hand me a multimeter and I can troubleshoot it.
Modern cars, trucks and tractors are essentially computers on wheels. Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? Can be everything from a faulty valve or cabin switch over broken shielding somewhere along the CAN (or other) high speed bus leading to garbled transmissions to a software bug somewhere in the control unit. The farmer can easily fix a broken component - but good luck finding the issue in the latter two failure modes, I doubt it's even possible for a small freelance shop as it requires HF communications or IT knowledge combined with specialized tooling (signal analyzer, some kind of debugging tool for the CU).
The problem there is that forcing manufacturers to open up the documentation is that this equals giving everyone and their dog including their competitors access to the "secret sauce" that is software. This is the unfortunate reality and I have no idea how to balance the right to repair for farmers willing to dive deep into complex technology with the interest of JD (or other manufacturers) that China doesn't simply dump the software and clones it outright.
Probably in a world without capitalism this might work out in favor of right to repair, but in the current economy... I'd settle for a middle groumd, giving the right for people to obtain and install spare parts on module scale, but not forcing opening up the software.
Edit: oh and that doesn't even touch the issue that old cars/trucks/tractors were designed to have ample space to work in, and that components tolerated abuse by idiots screwing around. Forget to properly clean the fuel line of gunk? No issue for an old truck, it might spew some smoke and that's it, but on the modern diesel engines with thousands of bars of pressure on the fuel rail? The tiniest amount of contaminants will brick the entire injector system if you're in bad luck...
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that…
Not that I agree with them, but some of the rationales I heard: That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that. That it might force companies to publish business secrets: with machine being full of computers nowadays, they might be forced to reveal…
Wouldn't this situation be analogous to the automobile industry? Surely this issue has been spoken on in the courts.
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that…
From the manufacturer's perspective, they only sell the tractor once. The revenue from repairs, and second hand sales accrue to others. If a tractor lasts a long time, that is great news for repairs and re-sales, but not necessarily for people selling new models. Additionally manufacturers have to defend their brand. Letting people graft whatever no-name parts into their tractor will often result in an under-performing or dangerous piece of equipment.
The idea of locked down hardware/equipment is to align these incentives, by splitting the downstream value of a long lasting tractor between the user and the vendor. Think of it like Apple. Locked down and expensive, but done intentionally to produce consistent outcomes.
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that…
Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light. Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to disassemble and repair one safely.
Cost of creating parts distribution channels: Having the parts to repair a machine that you manufactured is cheap. Creating distribution channels to keep track of, maintain inventory, price out, and deliver those parts to customers, is a business in-and-of itself - and is not cheap to maintain. Many companies do this, but it isn't cheap.
Cost of creating and updating documentation for customers: Sure, this might seem tedious, but as a software engineer, I know this has an actual cost. How many companies have you worked at that have had perfect, up-to-date information on the ins-and-outs of the software that's being written, while it's still being written? Every company I've had has glaring blind-spots in documentation. Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of business and Deere needed to find another).
I'm not saying these are good reasons, but would make sense, in a market where everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, or for free. Costs have to get cut somewhere. A manufacturer isn't going to (or able to) give something away for free, and stay in business. Ideally, competitive market forces would be enough to pressure a company into making their products repairable. What we are seeing is likely a byproduct of monopolistic laziness - there's no strong incentive and it's easier to say "just send it to us and we'll fix it".
Just my two cents in defense of companies not being "evil" in nature, but trying to give customers what they want and getting scolded for it.
Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic. I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that…
> Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)? Simple: an old tractor or truck - give me a decent shop with tools, lifts and a crane, and I can repair almost everything that is broken. Some light doesn't work, engine doesn't turn on? Hand me a multimeter and I can troubleshoot it. Modern cars, truck…
And what if Joe Farmer wanted to take his faulty tractor to Bill Repair Man who knows about this but charges a lot less than Deere?
Right to repair is increasingly hitting people outside of agrarian/industrial contexts. This month, Google shipped the last update for my Pixel phone. The hardware is functional and in great shape, but I don't think there are any truly viable ways for me to keep it secure. I have a tablet that long-ago met the same fate. This is in the same world where I can 'apt-get update' my seven-year old desktop and work with ap…
The same thing happened recently with the Chromebook I purchased for my significant other. She's a very light computer user, so we thought it was a perfect device. It was great, until one day she received a message saying, essentially, "this device is no longer supported and is now insecure". Meanwhile, I've got an Ubuntu distribution running on a 10 year old computer in my basement (and soon will on this Chromebook).
I certainly won't buy another Chromebook to have it unsupported in 3 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, he said “rational,” as in, how does Deere rationalize it. As far as I can tell, they’re just parroting the usual DMCA talking points… > John Deere declined to be interviewed but sent a lengthy statement outlining its concerns. The company doesn’t want people altering its copyright-protected code because, said director of public relations Ken Golden, “changes could lead to the unsafe operation of products, disru…
It's been many years since I was actively involved in agriculture, but I don't recall John Deere being a monopoly. There were choices including Ford, Case, Masse Ferguson, Kubota, New Holland and then regionally brands like MTZ and Steyr. That's not to say they're not all participating in the same practices, I just don't know, but is Deere really a monopoly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, he said “rational,” as in, how does Deere rationalize it. As far as I can tell, they’re just parroting the usual DMCA talking points… > John Deere declined to be interviewed but sent a lengthy statement outlining its concerns. The company doesn’t want people altering its copyright-protected code because, said director of public relations Ken Golden, “changes could lead to the unsafe operation of products, disru…
It's been many years since I was actively involved in agriculture, but I don't recall John Deere being a monopoly. There were choices including Ford, Case, Masse Ferguson, Kubota, New Holland and then regionally brands like MTZ and Steyr. That's not to say they're not all participating in the same practices, I just don't know, but is Deere really a monopoly?
> Right to Repair: Nebraska Farm Bureau supports the implementation of comprehensive right to repair legislation OR a negotiated written agreement between ag producers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). This legislation or agreement must:
....
> 4. Differentiate between repair (the restoration of hardware to its original intended function) and illegal “modding,” (modification of original hardware to bypass environmental controls).
To be pedantic, there are mods that are neither restoring originally intended functionality nor illegally bypassing environmental controls. I think that the ability to add functionality that the original manufacturer never intended is an important right that the owners of the equipment should have.