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

Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

al.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#161

Post by HWR_14 »

thelittleone wrote: post #63

Am I being overly cynical in concluding that a growing % of companies will screw over their customers for their own gain. Doesn't this myopic "screw the customer" mentality damage brand reputation? Sure does for me. The growing discontent amongst a companies customer base is creating a new market opportunity for a competitor. When I feel screwed by a company like this, I find a good alternative, then jump ship and NE…

The part that seems strange is the "growing percentage" part of your cynicism. While a large number of companies do this, it seems like number has always been pretty high.

It may be that companies are becoming more capable of doing so in these grand ways as software eats everything and they can use copyright law to continue to exert ownership over part of what they sold you.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#162

Post by adrianN »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #108
badRNG wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." A truly free market is one dominated by cartels [0] (not to be thought of as something unique to the drug industry.) The market forces that spur innovation like competition, absent a government that intervenes, best resolves competition through either ceaseless merging or subsumption of the competition. The domination of markets by car…

> Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." There is actually a lot of debate about what causes this. The argument on one side is, of course companies unconstrained by laws would collude with each other to fix prices etc. The argument on the other side is, as soon as they start doing this it becomes profitable for someone else to enter the market. Is the cartel charging $40 fo…

Entering a market is not free. Suppose you want to start a chip business because the small handful of existing manufacturers have formed a cartel. To be competitive you need hundreds of billions in starting capital and you must be able to survive price dumping longer than the members of the cartel.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#163

Post by jlcoff »

Diesel555 wrote: post #133
jlcoff wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You in no way responded to the content in my post. "free speech" and "free markets" are completely separate topics which may or may not be mutually exclusive, both of which are studied well academically. I make no claims on free speech. I simply provided a basic academic background to markets in microeconomics. Then you provide random sayings to try to discredit my post which have no logical connection to my content.…

You can argue as must as you want about the legitimacy of my comment. "Regulations" and "free market" are mutually exclusive.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#164

Post by diordiderot »

weq wrote: post #148
jlcoff wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government intervenes, it would undermine the free market. There is no free market in the US. The US economy is cronyism where all the elites play golf together / marry among themselves, trying to only pass the minimum regalation to perpetuate the system / silence the People and where laws is actually to maximize their own interest. I'm 100% sure a federal Right-to-repair bill will actually strengthen the ac…

THIS

No post body was provided.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#165

Post by dotancohen »

8bitsrule wrote: post #71
cletus wrote: post #40

The example is of course egregious ($600 for a software update for a wire that got wet, basically). I fully support being able to repair your own stuff but I have no idea how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive). I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factor…

> how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. For starters, it's not aftermarket! since the tractor belongs to JD, and it is licensed to the customer, and it failed to work because a wire got wet (shitty design), and only JD can determine and repair it ... that should be JD's cost, not the owner's. >harsh truth A harsher one: JD has a monopoly and is using it to strangle its own…

  > that should be JD's cost, not the owner's.
Manufacturer warranty is limited, mostly in time. Even when some components are poorly designed. The Renault / Nissan CVT is a famous example of this: known problematic transmission that typically dies out of warranty. I could give you literally tens of examples off the top of my head in the consumer automotive industry alone.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#166

Post by random314 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155
random314 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match.com investors are very clever and rational. Match.com business model is clear. Milk users for money with market segmentation. Building a good product will not make them any money. It will financially ruin them. The core functionality of these apps is very cheap to build, ideally these apps should be near free. What match.com does is capture the network. When a new cheap and better network appears, they offer th…

So why are VCs not lining up to create a dozen new dating sites and take all of Match Group's buyout money? 1) Make a non-ruined dating product. 2) Get users. Should be easy because the incumbents are intentionally ruined and turnover is high. 3) Profit. (Match Group buyout) Worst case they run out of money and you have a successful dating product which continues to siphon their users because it's the non-ruined one.…

You can't click your fingers to produce a dozen new dating sites every year because of network effects. There can be at most one new successful dating site every year, which the 30B$ match group can buy out for 300M$.

The math you are proposing simply doesn't work.

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#167

Post by A_non_e-moose »

jlcoff wrote: post #163
Diesel555 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You in no way responded to the content in my post. "free speech" and "free markets" are completely separate topics which may or may not be mutually exclusive, both of which are studied well academically. I make no claims on free speech. I simply provided a basic academic background to markets in microeconomics. Then you provide random sayings to try to discredit my post which have no logical connection to my content.…

You can argue as must as you want about the legitimacy of my comment. "Regulations" and "free market" are mutually exclusive.

Consider this: a) literally zero government intervention. b) some government intervention, to keep the market competitive, as described above. c) total government control.

What do you, jlcoff, call a)? If I understood you correctly, it's "free market". What would you call b) and c) then?

There is no doubt that a) is strictly incompatible with any government regulation or intervention. Label those two concepts however you want, but I don't think anyone argumented against that.

A lot of people seem to use "Free Market" for b) instead of a) and that is confusing.

I agree with Diesel555's idea of calling b) a "competitive market" as it avoids a labeling confusion between a) and b).

Re: Alabama farmer sues John Deere for ‘right to repair’

#170

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

shagie wrote: post #128
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars aren't industrial equipment. I'd argue they are industrial safety-critical equipment. > In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe. Nobody goes after Subaru when people run catless. This is a silly strawman.

Legally, cars are not industrial equipment. One of the key distinctions appears to be that a hobbyist can modify a car whereas a hobbyist isn't supposed to be modifying cranes, tractors, trains, or the like. Exactly - the government doesn't go after Subaru when people remove their catalytic converter because the car isn't industrial equipment. The EPA does go after tractor manufacturers and distributors when it is po…

> The illegal vehicles had adjustable carburetors that were not described in their application for certification, were produced by a different manufacturer than the one specified in the application, were manufactured prior to the date of the certificate of conformity, had model names that were not identified on the certificate of conformity, or were significantly more powerful than described. The illegal engines were incorrectly certified as non-road engines rather than as recreational vehicles and some were significantly more powerful than described in the allegedly applicable certificate of conformity. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice also alleged that the emission control information labels on certain vehicles did not comply with federal regulations, and that Tractor Supply Company provided an incomplete and inaccurate response to EPA’s information request.

> According to the charges, the company's engine software controls the timing of fuel injection into the combustion chamber, causing the engine to emit excessive amounts of NOx while the truck is running on the open road. However, the company's engine software is designed in such a way so that these emission levels do not show up on the federal test.

What do any of these have to do with end users modifying their equipment?

Post reply on HN