Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

uspirg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 439 posts

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#91

Post by throwaway_tech »

wiremine wrote: post #58

Disclaimer: I'm a VP for an IoT software company. I also grew up in farming communities. I'm all for the right to repair, but I'm concerned we're creating a bit of false hope for famers. As more and more software gets injected into the equipment, "fixing" things requires touching both the physical devices and the software. Obviously, the right to repair for non-software related problems is easy to understand. I'm won…

>Obviously, the right to repair for non-software related problems is easy to understand.

Is it though? Rebuilding a carburetor or overhauling a plane engine (things farmers have historically done for their own farm equipment), can you really say it is "easier" than understanding software needs an update? If nothing else hiring a 3rd party becomes an option.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#92

Post by squish78 »

bdamm wrote: post #89
squish78 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less reliance on the tech sector for hardware solutions, and more research in logistics and supply chain. Let farmers farm. They are proving that it can be done with more profitability acre-for-acre with hand tools than tractors https://www.neversinkfarm.com/

That is patently absurd. There is a reason why nearly every corn and wheat farm has a combine.

Explain how what I said is patently absurd. Are we looking at the same USDA data?

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#93

Post by robertoandred »

nerdponx wrote: post #83
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't get from your description what the point or motive would be. Who is locking in whom, for what purpose?

Manufacturer locking end users in to the manufacturer's chosen parts and maintenance shops. Like how Apple tries to pretend the only place you can repair a Mac is at the Apple Store.

Apple Authorized Service Providers are shown as an option everywhere an Apple Store is.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#94

Post by labawi »

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #73
vorpalhex wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up Is this the case for auto shops now? > That it might force companies to publish business secrets There are many, many ways to compile and preserve business secrets in blobs, but there's probably a fundamental issue if you're dependent on that. > someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the co…

... and as true as that could be in theory, doesn't mean that it couldn't essentially bankrupt a business model that has built a lot of these companies. My family is in heavy farm equipment sales, and the reality is that without the margins on parts and repair, a lot of those business just aren't viable. The lock-in is there to really prevent the fundamental underpinning of their business model. Not saying it is corr…

... so the machines would cost more up-front instead of being offset by subsequent repairs?

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#95

Post by ISL »

geofft wrote: post #57
ISL wrote: post #14

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…

> It is my understanding that the primary blocker to serious open-source kernel development on phones is closed-source drivers for the phone hardware. For what it's worth, Google (or at least parts of Google) agrees that the closed-source drivers are a problem for extended security lifecycle, and they're working with the Linux community to a) extend the kernel LTS cycle to 6 years b) make something that looks awfully…

In this case, my phone is a Google product. Google can make available the drivers if it so desires.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#96

Post by ameister14 »

phillc73 wrote: post #39
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #27

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?

I think Deere has about 25-35% of the market, with New Holland and Kubota in there afterwards

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#97

Post by kwiens »

yobananaboy wrote: post #9

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.

The individual that voted no runs an equipment dealership.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#98

Post by ISL »

stingraycharles wrote: post #78
THJr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a number of reasons, but as I understand the main issue is that John Deere is treating their tractor's firmware like the music industry was treating MP3's. They say farmers may own the tractor itself, and the hardware, but they're only licensing the use of the firmware and don't have the right to modify it. (Which can be necessary when repairing a tractor that has many computerized systems.) They're essential…

Playing the devil’s advocate: what’s preventing them from claiming the tractor itself as IP as well, and licensing it as such? Eg you’re not allowed to change your own tires. Would such a thing be legally possible, and if not, why does this differ from the firmware?

Deere could absolutely rent tractors to farmers -- it would be a different economic calculus. It is unclear what kind of pricing would entice farmers to rent rather than buy.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#99

Post by bdamm »

squish78 wrote: post #92
bdamm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is patently absurd. There is a reason why nearly every corn and wheat farm has a combine.

Explain how what I said is patently absurd. Are we looking at the same USDA data?

Specific farms may be able to take advantage of their position or specialization and use hand-tools to gain more value per-acre, but that kind of specialization cannot scale up to commercial scale where a farmer with a set of machines can profitably farm dozens of acres or more. They aren't putting as much care into each acre, but in the end it doesn't matter. And, if everyone was doing what the specialized teams are doing, then probably the market that feeds the specialization would collapse because now there's no restriction on supply and prices for the product would go down. This is just basic economics.

Re: Nebraska farmers vote overwhelmingly for Right to Repair

#100

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Thinking of who wouldn't vote for right to repair I can only come up with:

1. leaders of companies that would be adversely affected by right to repair 2. perhaps employees of same companies but that seems iffy as I doubt the adverse effects would be so great as to threaten employment. 3. People who actually think that although it would be to their benefit to have a right to repair there is an encroachment on a company's rights to make their products as they seem fit by enforcing it.

Have I missed anyone? Because I think at that rate the population would vote overwhelmingly for it if offered the choice.

Post reply on HN