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

A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#31

Post by maxerickson »

Steko wrote: post #28
wheelerwj wrote: post #3

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't…

> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.…

First revoke all corporations, no limited liability if you want to make consumers fight it out in the market.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#33

Post by zardo »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #14
zardo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... the EPA might not weigh in this time. They require 'tamper resistant' emission control systems. Making it easy for customers to change the software could put you in a bad situation. Essentially, the same one VW is in, a $35,000 per vehicle fine.

But that doesn't mean the farmers shoudln't be able to work on the system itself if it is broken, using readouts from the system as a guide to fixing it. This might mean, however, that instead of being able to fix the software itself, they have to buy a new drive, exchanging in the old one in the process. This small bit is a reasonable request because folks can be highly motivated to cheat otherwise.

It's certainly true that the manufacturers have no reason to push back, and every reason to interpret the rule broadly.

It's easier to just lock down everything than to get the lawyers involved in the software architecture.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#34

Post by sqeaky »

chadgeidel wrote: post #30
sqeaky wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not literally impossible, it is just beyond the grasp of petty thieves at the moment. Wait until one guy releases a walkthrough on the the two pins you cross or the steps to remove some chip and add a new (or worst case blast some part of an SOC with a laser), then all the geek friends of those pretty criminals will take a stab at it. Its not like the criminals themselves are doing much with phones and laptops…

I think it's slightly more complicated than you make it out. The FBI presumably has the resources to create the "two pins you cross or steps to remove some chip" and yet it still has to ask Apple for device access on newer iPhones. Either this ability exists, and the FBI is hiding it via creating large numbers of device requests of Apple, or Apple is telling us the truth and the iPhone is not easily hacked.

There is a difference between recovering encrypted data and making the phone usable for a second person. One cares about circumventing crypto and the other just wants to re-use a bunch of atoms.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#35

Post by cmurf »

Steko wrote: post #28
wheelerwj wrote: post #3

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't…

> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.…

There are all sorts of examples of closed and anti-competitive and collusive markets. So no, it is false to say "if enough people care...the market would follow". That doesn't always happen, there have to be many buyers and sellers first off, and we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all.

I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable. It's more weird today to go to a bar and say, "yeah I left my phone at home on purpose" than to say "yeah I'm an atheist" 20 years ago. So it's quite nearly socially unacceptable to not have a mobile phone.

Understand that the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, and its constitution prescribes quite a number of things including the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it. Market failures are why we get legislated alternatives. You can dislike it all you want, but some fairy tale notion of either capitalism or free markets is not a requirement of this government's founding documents.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#36

Post by Steko »

cmurf wrote: post #35
Steko wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices No people should demand the devices they buy be repairable and if enough people care that's where the market would follow. When it comes to rights I think companies should have the right to sell devices that are not user repairable. I also think consumers have the right not to be ripped off on first party repairs but that's a problem with multiple solutions e.…

There are all sorts of examples of closed and anti-competitive and collusive markets. So no, it is false to say "if enough people care...the market would follow". That doesn't always happen, there have to be many buyers and sellers first off, and we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all. I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable…

> we don't have a competitive market in smart phone software or hardware at all

Wait what? The smartphone market has plenty of competition. If being user-repairable was an important feature to consumers there would be lots of phones that delivered it.

> I'd also argue culture has made owning a mobile device a function of being socially acceptable.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against.

> the U.S. is a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy, ... the power of the people to define an economic system and the means to regulate it ... You can dislike it all you want,

Now you're really straw manning me as some sort of libertarian utopian who's against democracy (both false), Here is what I said:

"I think companies should have the right to do X."

That is quite clearly not a statement about legal or constitutional realities, it was a response to grandparents own made up right (to repair). The constitution allows for all sorts of things that are bad ideas. At one time it allowed the owning of humans as chattel slaves. More recently and relevantly it can compel companies like Apple to compromise the security of their devices in various ways. The Nebraska bill touches on this in a smaller but not insignificant way as part of the world class chain of security in current iphones is the touch sensor and third party replacement of the sensor breaks this chain. So yes the government has the right to force Apple to provide parts/specs/whatever. Is that a good idea? I don't think that's clear at all.

You've also invoked market failure in this case with zero evidence that it exists in the smartphone market. I'd bet that repair revenue is a rounding error to Apple and they likely take a loss overall. And if market failure does exist (and it might well for tractors which are 90% of the article's focus) there are also other avenues for correcting that failure.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#37

Post by wheelerwj »

AckSyn wrote: post #9
wheelerwj wrote: post #3

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't…

> I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch I don't think it's a stretch at all. If they've already manufactured the parts, requiring them to sell replacement parts to customers really should be a thing. Holding them back because of shitty IP laws and strangling their ability to get things running is bad form and anti consumer

when i commented j was thinking more along the lines of Apple and electronics that were manufactured to be more disposable and less fixable. It might be cost prohibitive to sell OEM parts for macbooks or might interfere with product design.

When considering cars or large tractors, it's not as valid of a consideration, because they might sell an entire "computer unit" as a part vs the RAM to upgrade it. maybe?

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#38

Post by gozur88 »

wheelerwj wrote: post #3

this topic has been beaten to death to the point that there isn't a lot to comment on anymore. But it's still a critical issue (even in 2017). so, this is me, upvoting for visibility. also, id go so far as to say that while we should have the right to repair/hack our own devices, I think legally requiring the producer supply OEM parts is a bit of a stretch. Should I be able to fix my tractor, absolutely. But I don't…

The problem is businesses will start including ASICs that don't really need to be there because they can effectively make the device unrepairable to anyone on the outside.

Though I'm not sure making unrepairable equipment is a good business strategy: Once you get the reputation of gouging your customers on repairs your top line will start to sag.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#39

Post by gozur88 »

yarri wrote: post #10
mulletbum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should that open the market for third party manufacturers then to provide parts?

Depends on the industry. The auto insurance industry had facilitated this, but was then reprimanded for using generic parts to repair damaged cars. There was some irony in that US parts manufacturers claimed 3rd parties were importing "foreign" parts, but many of the US manufactures also subcontracted overseas. Thorny issue.

The problem with repairs wasn't that they were using generic parts from third parties. The problem was they were using used parts. They created a huge market for stolen cars.

Re: A right to repair: Why Nebraska farmers are taking on John Deere and Apple

#40

Post by wahern » 

  John Deere has gone as far as to claim that farmers don’t
  own the tractors they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
  for, but instead receive a "license to operate the vehicle".
Don't most farmers finance their equipment? If the resale value is low because John Deere's policies make it difficult to use older equipment, then they won't be able to sell tractors with high profit margins because banks won't give them security. They're literally trading higher margins for more volume sales, and begging their competitors to join them to a race to the bottom.

I don't have an MBA, but that seems really short-sighted. Configuring your entire value-add chain, from R&D to sales to marketing, to focus on low-margin volume sales sounds preposterous. I mean, volume will always be meat & potatoes, but the darwinian struggle for high-margin sales is how you nurture growth.

Once the small farmer is gone John Deere will only be able to sell to huge conglomerates. Eventually those conglomerates will dabble with vertical integration and cut John Deere out of the equation all together.

Seems to me if John Deere wants to stay relevant they'd do everything they can to inflate the resale value of their tractors, and that necessarily includes sustaining a high resale value in the used equipment market.

In a world of cheap financing it's easier than ever to keep farmers buying new equipment, and more important than ever to maximize returns based on loose financing. You shouldn't need a lawyer to hold a gun to your customer's head. This obsession with maintaining control of their product after it leaves the factory seems just so epically ridiculous. And that's before we get into any of the minutiae of copyright and the uphill battle they'll face. Anything but the strictest of controls over their software will net them absolutely nothing at the end of the day except alot of pissed-off customers. It certainly won't be an impediment to Chinese knock-offs, who have very capable software engineers. Whoever is telling them that is so misinformed that I'd wonder if they were taking payments on the side from the Chinese.

I guess this is why American manufacturing is slowly dying. I mean, we're still the number one manufacturing country in the world, but despite strategies like these, not because of them.

Post reply on HN