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

John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 320 posts

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#261

Post by parineum »

cogman10 wrote: post #197
parineum wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine, for example, needing to pay $1000 to replace an oil filter because you needed to buy the official John Deere oil filter and have the John Deere technician drive out to install it and flash the tractor to start up with the new filter. >That's what John Deere was up to. Is that an actual price and the actual process?

Price no, process yes. John Deere hasn't been insane enough to soft lock their oil filters. But they do soft lock about everything else they can. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/17/43...

That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter).

> "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that.

The time it must take to get a limited pool of technicians to drive out (40 miles) and do that work is probably the real issue. The price seems completely reasonable.

I agree that right-to-repair should be a thing but you're grossly exaggerating the situation.

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#262

Post by moffkalast »

gbacon wrote: post #246
moffkalast wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The emissions restrictions were meant to get the likes of Deere to design and use smaller, more efficient engines, not to keep doing whatever they were with a slightly more restricted fuel hose.

“The purpose of a system is what it does.”

Yeah the outlook of a crook who only sees laws as quid pro quo vehicles for enriching those in the know.

I don't think VW and a few others trying to cheat the system to improve their bottom line makes it some kind of made up law that's supposed to be optics only and nothing in practice. It's just the typical corporate response to having to do something that's for the commons for once instead of tragedizing them.

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#263

Post by cogman10 »

parineum wrote: post #261
cogman10 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price no, process yes. John Deere hasn't been insane enough to soft lock their oil filters. But they do soft lock about everything else they can. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/17/43...

That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter). > "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part." Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that. The time it must take to get a limited poo…

Sorry but you are misreading the cost. The part itself is $120. The fee for the tech to travel there wasn't specified.

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#264

Post by palata »

NalNezumi wrote: post #245
palata wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about Cory Doctorow? I heard about this from him, I don't know Rossmann

I feel like Cory Doctorow is trying to tackle a bit broader issue (enshittification) than just right to repair. Rossmann is more specific and hands-on to RoR

Sure, but Doctorow does mention John Deere a lot as a great example of enshittification :-).

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#265

Post by parineum »

cogman10 wrote: post #263
parineum wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter). > "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part." Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that. The time it must take to get a limited poo…

Sorry but you are misreading the cost. The part itself is $120. The fee for the tech to travel there wasn't specified.

The article doesn't specify that and the quote is an offhand remark from the farmer himself. I read that more as "... and it cost me $120" as if that was the bill he paid at the end.

However, it is unclear but I think my point still stands, a $120 piece of electronics is an order of magnitude less than a $1000 non-electronic, non-mechanical oil filter.

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#266

Post by Krypto26 »

wojciii wrote: post #110
throw2ih020 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN audience prefers text to video; videos rarely do well here compared to other sites.

I ignore video posts. Why would I spend 20 minutes watching something when I can read the same in one or two minutes? I read inhumanely fast.

But do you comprehend it?

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#267

Post by cogman10 »

parineum wrote: post #265
cogman10 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but you are misreading the cost. The part itself is $120. The fee for the tech to travel there wasn't specified.

The article doesn't specify that and the quote is an offhand remark from the farmer himself. I read that more as "... and it cost me $120" as if that was the bill he paid at the end. However, it is unclear but I think my point still stands, a $120 piece of electronics is an order of magnitude less than a $1000 non-electronic, non-mechanical oil filter.

The labor is a major part of the cost and a major reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

JD is charging anywhere from $130 to $210/hr [1] for labor. That is my point. And that $120 part can only be replaced by their technicians which means that while the part itself might be reasonably priced, the labor is forced.

That's what was being said about that part, it's a cheap part which you have to spend a lot of money on the labor to install it. The farmer spent from $380 to $520 to install that part. Not exactly that far off the $1000 mark.

> The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

[1] https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=115102...

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#268

Post by cogman10 »

officeplant wrote: post #210
izacus wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also absolutely no secret that fattest margins and profits for automobile industry is also made with "aftermarket service" - which include upsales and inflated prices for service intervals. There's a reason they all now need digital service books which are locked to their partnerships.

>There's a reason they all now need digital service books which are locked to their partnerships. This is honestly one of my biggest fears about the modern auto repair situation. Previously it was fairly common to eventually find service manuals for sale second hand after enough time had passed. Or someone would scan and dump them online. Then it turned into waiting for PDF's to leak from dealership CD's. Now with ha…

We need to bring back standardization and regulation of cars. Aftermarket parts for cars has mostly collapsed because NHSTA has deregulated almost everything. Auto manufacturers have worked hard to try and stop any 2 vehicles from sharing parts. They are all bespoke, sometimes even to the model year of a car.

That's a big part of what's made it harder to maintain cars and has driven up the prices.

It should be possible, for example, to swap in a new infotainment system on any old car. It should be possible for 2 EVs from different manufacturers to swap batteries.

Re: John Deere owners will get the right to repair equipment under FTC settlement

#269

Post by mothballed »

gbacon wrote: post #251
WarmWash wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc. So we will have right to repair but it's only legal if you document all repairs, keep records of parts ordered, only use verified vendors for those parts....etc etc. Right to repair laws shouldn't be onerous, and people should be able to (illegally) remove emissions controls, and we should recognize that as a bad th…

This is essentially the situation in the general aviation market for certificated aircraft, and it sucks. Costs are triple or more compared to the experimental market. Finding a decent mechanic is a serious chore. Repairs take forever.

Is there any reason not to buy experimental for non-commercial daylight VFR flights for personal use?
Post reply on HN