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

Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

ifixit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#31

Post by rtpg »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #23

What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. Massey, Fendt or similar could really differentiate themself and take market share on the back of this I suspect. Especially w…

> What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this.

My understanding is basically all high-capital machinery makes a _lot_ of money from support contracts and repairs.

I think there is an idea to do something like this anyways, but it legit feels like something that needs to happen out of the goodness of your heart because you _are_ just leaving money on the table.

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#32

Post by dataflow »

inconceivable wrote: post #19
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #7

But will John Deere do what Apple did? Here’s one example: “Apple shipped me a 79-pound iPhone repair kit to fix a 1.1-ounce battery” https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi... “I’m starting to think Apple doesn’t want us to repair them”

so what happens if the kit gets "stolen"? $1200 for all of that stuff sounds like kind of a deal, especially with 2 pelicans.

What would you do with the kit? Replace other parts in other phones and start a business? Aren't you still beholden to Apple for authenticating the part to the phone every time?

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#34

Post by Teever »

rtpg wrote: post #31
Gustomaximus wrote: post #23

What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. Massey, Fendt or similar could really differentiate themself and take market share on the back of this I suspect. Especially w…

> What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. My understanding is basically all high-capital machinery makes a _lot_ of money from support contracts and repairs. I think…

Yeah but didn't they make a lot of money from support contracts before bullshit DRM? So isn't the difference between making a lot of money and a lot more emoney with DRM?

And if that's the case can't a defector break from the DRM paradigm and offer tractors without DRM so they still make a lot of money at a minimum, but likely more due to picking up more customers?

Like to put it in other terms can't they make up for the difference with increased volume, which drives down per unit production costs and takes money from John Deere?

Like why can't someone be the Kirkland brand of tractors?

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#36

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

supernova87a wrote: post #30
Gustomaximus wrote: post #23

What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. Massey, Fendt or similar could really differentiate themself and take market share on the back of this I suspect. Especially w…

Maybe there is something about the agricultural tractor (or similar industry) sector where the amount of research and development, manufacturing, sales, support investment it takes, on top of the sales prices/duration, customer dynamic, product lifecycle, etc involved means that the few players who can do it need to earn some margin through service to stay alive profitably. Of course, maybe they're just money grubbin…

I think it's that unlike other industries, simply giving up and letting DRM control farming is kind of scary.

The people who care if you're allowed to flash the firmware on your bluetooth earbuds are few and far between, but the people who dislike the idea of some remote party being able to use math and law to turn off food production... That's pretty much everybody.

So they're all money grubbing capitalists. But as money grubbing capitalists go, these are among the bigger threats.

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#37

Post by LegitShady »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #23

What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. Massey, Fendt or similar could really differentiate themself and take market share on the back of this I suspect. Especially w…

pretty sure they all work off the dealer system and expensive repairs are part of the money making scheme. Differentiating yourself by volunteering to make less money isn't something your shareholders want.

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#38

Post by icelancer »

dataflow wrote: post #3

Does the governor not need to sign it? Or has it been signed already? Because I wouldn't be celebrating yet until it's signed into law (if even then). NY's right to repair law was destroyed at the governor's desk at the 11th hour. [1] [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/29/23530733/right-to-repair...

Gov. Polis is one of the most effective governors in the US overall (handled COVID-19 threats to disease and economic risk better than every governor, IMO) and someone who understands technology. He co-founded two tech companies and exited both for nine figures each time.

My guess is that Polis likely helped shepard this bill along.

EDIT:

Gov. Polis also signed the first right to repair law for wheelchairs in 2022.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#39

Post by icelancer »

dataflow wrote: post #5
kwiens wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governor Polis still needs to sign it, and you are right to be skeptical after New York. Two reasons to be optimistic: * In CO, the Governor can't mess with the bill like NY, only sign or veto it * Gov Polis is very good on tech issues, and has signalled to us (the coalition) that he will sign it

W.r.t. the first bullet point, I don't think NY was any different - AFAIK the governor didn't "mess" with it (despite the reporting making it look that way); she just didn't sign it until the legislature revised it. The second one is nice to hear though.

"I don't think NY was any different - AFAIK the governor didn't "mess" with it (despite the reporting making it look that way); she just didn't sign it until the legislature revised it."

Isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Re: Colorado passes agricultural Right to Repair

#40

Post by Kalium »

Teever wrote: post #34
rtpg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is why a couple of the higher quality tractor companies have not started pushing hard to brand "we support repair" and having available online manuals and software to support this. This seems a perfect marketing/product platform for an underdog that also believes this. My understanding is basically all high-capital machinery makes a _lot_ of money from support contracts and repairs. I think…

Yeah but didn't they make a lot of money from support contracts before bullshit DRM? So isn't the difference between making a lot of money and a lot more emoney with DRM? And if that's the case can't a defector break from the DRM paradigm and offer tractors without DRM so they still make a lot of money at a minimum, but likely more due to picking up more customers? Like to put it in other terms can't they make up for…

Tractors are durable goods. They are not replaced often. Becoming the Kirkland brand of tractors means taking a major hit to sales for years in the hopes that it comes back to you in decades. It means betting the entire tractor business on this, essentially.

You'll notice there are no Kirkland brand furnaces.

Post reply on HN