Farming Co. Says John Deere Is Monopolizing Repair Market(law360.com)
law360.com
Farming Co. Says John Deere Is Monopolizing Repair Market
https://www.law360.com/articles/1454988/farming-co-says-john-deere-is-monopolizing-repair-market
113 comments
1000%
For example, California wants to electrify lawn equipment: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-lands...
There are a number of competing ecosystems of batteries. They each have a leaf blower that takes a different form factor battery:
https://www.ryobitools.com/products/details/46396029911
https://www.dewalt.com/products/outdoor/blowers/20v-max-lith...
https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Safety-Solutions/Emis...
Batteries are expensive and use a lot of carbon to produce, so the world would be better off if these batteries were fully interchangeable.
For example, California wants to electrify lawn equipment: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-lands...
There are a number of competing ecosystems of batteries. They each have a leaf blower that takes a different form factor battery:
https://www.ryobitools.com/products/details/46396029911
https://www.dewalt.com/products/outdoor/blowers/20v-max-lith...
https://www.milwaukeetool.com/Products/Safety-Solutions/Emis...
Batteries are expensive and use a lot of carbon to produce, so the world would be better off if these batteries were fully interchangeable.
Action like that would freeze innovation at a time when we want to keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible. All three of those systems use different voltages or designs that change power output and weight distribution. On top of that, each brand is incentivized to keep experimenting to improve the battery design for their specific use cases. Dewalt, for example, is making lawn mowers that use two of their 20v batteries in parallel so you can use the same batteries in your mower as you do in your drill. The Ryobi batteries haven't changed since they were first introduced so the old drill that you bought in 2014 is still usable with today's batteries.
18v and 20v"max" tool batteries are two names for the same thing: a 5 series configuration of li-on cells rated for 3.7v nominal/4.2v max charge.
To my knowledge none of these companies are manufacturing cells directly, and the only thing that is different between them is the shape of the connector, and the design/firmware of the battery management system. And the connectors are mostly not all that different, just variations on a theme designed to explicitly prevent cross compatibility.
I don't see a compelling reason these couldn't be standardized, nor why this wouldn't lead to more innovation as manufacturers will have to compete on merit, rather than vendor lock in.
Batteries are getting so good nowadays. Imagine if instead of everything needing its own special battery you just had a few quality packs that were interoperable with all your tools/devices/ebike/etc.
*Edit: grammar
To my knowledge none of these companies are manufacturing cells directly, and the only thing that is different between them is the shape of the connector, and the design/firmware of the battery management system. And the connectors are mostly not all that different, just variations on a theme designed to explicitly prevent cross compatibility.
I don't see a compelling reason these couldn't be standardized, nor why this wouldn't lead to more innovation as manufacturers will have to compete on merit, rather than vendor lock in.
Batteries are getting so good nowadays. Imagine if instead of everything needing its own special battery you just had a few quality packs that were interoperable with all your tools/devices/ebike/etc.
*Edit: grammar
Is there an example where regulation like this actually did stifle innovation?
The problem is that such an approach requires a fair bit of nuance to get it right and not stifle innovation. For example, the last thing anyone wants is the establishment of super slow to change standards that bring everyone to the "lowest common denominator".
I believe that simply requiring certain standards to have a freely available specification + right to repair will get us in a good place.
I believe that simply requiring certain standards to have a freely available specification + right to repair will get us in a good place.
Nilay Patel had a great interview with John Deere's CTO where he pressed him on the right to repair for farmers. Highly recommend the episode, and all decoder episodes, Nilay is a fantastic reporter and doesn't let his quests squeak away with half answers. https://www.theverge.com/22533735/john-deere-cto-hindman-dec...
[deleted]
On agricultural issues: be careful about making assumptions.
I was talking about the labels on fruits (you know, those labels you just peel off so you don't eat them) with someone who knew about this sort of thing . I ignorantly said "that's gotta be a low-margin business."
He said, "Actually, it's a high-margin business."
If you get a monopoly in some market that's very difficult to enter, you've got yourself a steady cash flow. I don't think "repairing tractors out in the middle of nowhere" is a very easy one to get into.
I was talking about the labels on fruits (you know, those labels you just peel off so you don't eat them) with someone who knew about this sort of thing . I ignorantly said "that's gotta be a low-margin business."
He said, "Actually, it's a high-margin business."
If you get a monopoly in some market that's very difficult to enter, you've got yourself a steady cash flow. I don't think "repairing tractors out in the middle of nowhere" is a very easy one to get into.
People tend to overestimate how reasonable it is to become a real competitor. Just because someone's sitting on a fluffy market with fat margins doesn't mean competition will just fly in and regulate pricing structures down for consumers.
Typically, quite the opposite happens and investors and entrepreneurs see the opportunity to compete, but quickly discount it because the risk to compete is too high relative to barriers to entry. As long as your barriers to entry are high enough, a bonus if on of the barriers is capital intensive (time is something many can sacrifice but capital can be conjured out of thin air), you're going to be nearly impossible to dethrone by a competitor coming in.
You can usually spot competitors a mile away approaching the outermost mote your castle has and head them off early, perhaps establish an early friendship, or acquire them at a low cost before they get anywhere near the crown jewels. The trick is to get the foothold and momentum in a market. After that it's difficult for competitors to actually compete unless you're asleep at the wheel.
Typically, quite the opposite happens and investors and entrepreneurs see the opportunity to compete, but quickly discount it because the risk to compete is too high relative to barriers to entry. As long as your barriers to entry are high enough, a bonus if on of the barriers is capital intensive (time is something many can sacrifice but capital can be conjured out of thin air), you're going to be nearly impossible to dethrone by a competitor coming in.
You can usually spot competitors a mile away approaching the outermost mote your castle has and head them off early, perhaps establish an early friendship, or acquire them at a low cost before they get anywhere near the crown jewels. The trick is to get the foothold and momentum in a market. After that it's difficult for competitors to actually compete unless you're asleep at the wheel.
> I don't think "repairing tractors out in the middle of nowhere" is a very easy one to get into.
Not as hard as you think (I've worked on cars, vans and even semi trucks). By the local Autozone (a chain of automotive parts store) there is a man who repairs cars on the street out of a an old, short school bus. He also does house calls. He has a generator, air compressor, welder, jacks, engine hoist, all the tools needed, and even some parts. Same setup would enable tractor repair with the addition of some heavier tools to handle the larger bolts and so on.
John Deere is electronically locking their equipment so no one but them can figure out whats wrong or reset/clear error codes to restore normal operation. It's just shenanigans.
Not as hard as you think (I've worked on cars, vans and even semi trucks). By the local Autozone (a chain of automotive parts store) there is a man who repairs cars on the street out of a an old, short school bus. He also does house calls. He has a generator, air compressor, welder, jacks, engine hoist, all the tools needed, and even some parts. Same setup would enable tractor repair with the addition of some heavier tools to handle the larger bolts and so on.
John Deere is electronically locking their equipment so no one but them can figure out whats wrong or reset/clear error codes to restore normal operation. It's just shenanigans.
Every tractor comes with a display in the cab that tells you what the code means. This display is populated from the same database that goes into John Deere's dealer service tool. I wrote some of that code. (I don't speak for John Deere of course)
The only thing you cannot do without a dealer is replace a ECU. This is part anti-theft, and part to ensure you don't mess with the emissions.
The only thing you cannot do without a dealer is replace a ECU. This is part anti-theft, and part to ensure you don't mess with the emissions.
I understand the tractor repair example to some degree, though "difficult to enter" in the case of Deere is largely because Deere is making it difficult.
But how is the market for fruit labels difficult to enter?
But how is the market for fruit labels difficult to enter?
Well, I can only speculate, not having tried.
It could be that the farmers & handlers already know the main suppliers and they're satisfied with them: low prices, good service, acceptable quality. And they're not looking for even lower prices.
If you have a monopoly and you've ridden the learning curve far enough that you're making a good profit while not pissing off your customers, and the market is pretty static, you're in.
But I could be wrong.
It could be that the farmers & handlers already know the main suppliers and they're satisfied with them: low prices, good service, acceptable quality. And they're not looking for even lower prices.
If you have a monopoly and you've ridden the learning curve far enough that you're making a good profit while not pissing off your customers, and the market is pretty static, you're in.
But I could be wrong.
I'd hazard it's probably due to order of magnitude different absolute profit amounts.
E.g. you can double your margins on fruit labels, and still be a rounding error for fruit producers
Consequently, being invisible and fanatically attentive to what your customers want (e.g. ease of use) means the hassle of switching suppliers outweighs the cost savings.
E.g. you can double your margins on fruit labels, and still be a rounding error for fruit producers
Consequently, being invisible and fanatically attentive to what your customers want (e.g. ease of use) means the hassle of switching suppliers outweighs the cost savings.
I was pondering this while walking the dog: family-run businesses, small business, etc.
In some businesses, having been around for a long time, being part of the community, and knowing your customers is worth WAY more than a few points of profit. In fact, those businesses are everywhere. Look and see who buys the ads for the high school sports teams.
Tractor repair ought to be like that. Not the monopoly of John Deere.
(I don't know anything about who owns fruit-labelling, and it might even be some giant conglomerate.)
But let's say someone owns such a loyalty business, everything is great, and then they die or retire. Then what?
It's the source of a million dramas, like Yellowstone or King Lear. Maybe a son or daughter takes over. Then they're incompetent. Or not. Maybe the kids fight over it. The possibilities are endless.
Or maybe the giant conglomerate DOES buy it. Promising "nothing will change" of course.
In some businesses, having been around for a long time, being part of the community, and knowing your customers is worth WAY more than a few points of profit. In fact, those businesses are everywhere. Look and see who buys the ads for the high school sports teams.
Tractor repair ought to be like that. Not the monopoly of John Deere.
(I don't know anything about who owns fruit-labelling, and it might even be some giant conglomerate.)
But let's say someone owns such a loyalty business, everything is great, and then they die or retire. Then what?
It's the source of a million dramas, like Yellowstone or King Lear. Maybe a son or daughter takes over. Then they're incompetent. Or not. Maybe the kids fight over it. The possibilities are endless.
Or maybe the giant conglomerate DOES buy it. Promising "nothing will change" of course.
I think often... it just ceases to exist.
E.g. What happens when the local diner goes out of business? There's no Law of Diners that mandates someone else step up. Sure, a McDonald's or Wendy's might drop in. But that's not really the same thing. (Restaurants are the obvious example, but it could just as easily be a machinist or florist. Flavor analogy to desired niche industry)
As an example: Royall Machine, Lottsburg, VA https://www.google.com/maps/place/2461+Northumberland+Hwy,+L...
Was there for 30+ years. Could make about anything you needed out of metal. Now, just isn't.
And moreover, the customers, having become cultured to dealing with the existing business, now have to radically alter their expectations when interacting with a more corporate entity. McMaster-Carr is great, but it's a darn sight different than bringing in a broken part, and having a duplicate made in about a week.
E.g. What happens when the local diner goes out of business? There's no Law of Diners that mandates someone else step up. Sure, a McDonald's or Wendy's might drop in. But that's not really the same thing. (Restaurants are the obvious example, but it could just as easily be a machinist or florist. Flavor analogy to desired niche industry)
As an example: Royall Machine, Lottsburg, VA https://www.google.com/maps/place/2461+Northumberland+Hwy,+L...
Was there for 30+ years. Could make about anything you needed out of metal. Now, just isn't.
And moreover, the customers, having become cultured to dealing with the existing business, now have to radically alter their expectations when interacting with a more corporate entity. McMaster-Carr is great, but it's a darn sight different than bringing in a broken part, and having a duplicate made in about a week.
Yeah. Depends on the family. Kids these days... Maybe it's different in rural areas.
I think restaurants tend to have a certain layout that's especially good for another restaurant.
But then: near me, there was a Rite Aid that closed shop 3 or so years ago, and a brand new Grand Dynasty dim sum restaurant just opened up. God only knows how much they spent renovating that place, It must have been at least 2 years worth of work.
I think restaurants tend to have a certain layout that's especially good for another restaurant.
But then: near me, there was a Rite Aid that closed shop 3 or so years ago, and a brand new Grand Dynasty dim sum restaurant just opened up. God only knows how much they spent renovating that place, It must have been at least 2 years worth of work.
Wonder how difficult it would be for some opensource startup to come out and make a simple Generic Tractor at low cost, low maintenance? I grew up on a small farm and the tractor we had was very basic. Didn't have any of the latest tech which has pathing and seeding controls.
I'm not a farmer, but this comes up a lot. Most modern farming (the type done for money commercially and not as a hobby)is fiendishly complex. The tractors are massive and are driven by GPS and have all kinds of massive machines connected to them.
If you want a simple and cheap tractor, you can find a Farmall from like 40 years ago and restore it easily for like a grand or two (at least my friends dad was still doing this in 2008).
Typically whenever a once competitive firm becomes a lazy monopolist, at some point others want to break in and get a piece of the profit pie. It could happen someday.
If you want a simple and cheap tractor, you can find a Farmall from like 40 years ago and restore it easily for like a grand or two (at least my friends dad was still doing this in 2008).
Typically whenever a once competitive firm becomes a lazy monopolist, at some point others want to break in and get a piece of the profit pie. It could happen someday.
All the implements which farmers use, planters cultivators, etc have gotten larger over the years as the scale of farms have grown. A 40 year old tractor likely isn’t going to have the horsepower to work with these new implements. Also, the old tractor is likely to lack a cab which could mean no climate control for you.
Both of these would be serious issues for operating a modern, large scale farming operation.
Both of these would be serious issues for operating a modern, large scale farming operation.
Those older tractors can and do have enough power for modern farming. Source: I work in a shop in a farming community which usually has 10+ tractors lined up to get worked on, and the vast majority are 20-40 years old. They are much more repairable then modern tractors, so plenty of farmers actually prefer them to the newer higher tech tractors.
Oh, and most GPS steering systems don't come with the tractor, and some types of systems are retrofitted onto any tractor with a steering wheel.
Oh, and most GPS steering systems don't come with the tractor, and some types of systems are retrofitted onto any tractor with a steering wheel.
That's basically what I was saying above. If you need all that a modern tractor has to offer you don't have much of a choice. If you need to farm on a smaller scale, an older (and much easier to repair) and much cheaper model is always a possibility. Although the used market is insanely expensive now I would guess.
Although I am not doubting you, I find it rather curious that you would describe tractors and/or other farm equipment as "fiendishly complex". I am not sure if there is a term or concept for this issue, but I get a strong sense from this whole concept that what is really happening is the generation of artificial and intentional complexity, if not just the perception of complexity. There is nothing inherently complex about, e.g., a tractor that has some method of automatic steering, locates itself by GPS, and follows a path set by coordinates and vectors.
Another aspect of what we are experiencing here I think is essentially a multi-level/nested con job that uses that artificial and perception of complexity to extract ever higher and compounding levels of what what are essentially rents.
The established industry players are banking on the high barrier to entry (heavy machinery production) and brand recognition (Runs like a Deere) to con the whole sector, and therefore extract wealth from the whole of society trying to feed itself.
Please feel free to challenge my perspective.
Another aspect of what we are experiencing here I think is essentially a multi-level/nested con job that uses that artificial and perception of complexity to extract ever higher and compounding levels of what what are essentially rents.
The established industry players are banking on the high barrier to entry (heavy machinery production) and brand recognition (Runs like a Deere) to con the whole sector, and therefore extract wealth from the whole of society trying to feed itself.
Please feel free to challenge my perspective.
Would you consider a modern car complex? A modern tractor is at least that complicated, more in some ways, maybe less in others.
From a high level, this doesn't seem a whole lot different than the scan tools needed to diagnose new cars. Some of which are vendor-locked on cars, but at minimum, there are OBDII codes and scanners available to consumers. It's the more marque-specific scan tools that aren't as readily available (but even then, I believe indy service shops can buy/license them, but it's very expensive).
From a high level, this doesn't seem a whole lot different than the scan tools needed to diagnose new cars. Some of which are vendor-locked on cars, but at minimum, there are OBDII codes and scanners available to consumers. It's the more marque-specific scan tools that aren't as readily available (but even then, I believe indy service shops can buy/license them, but it's very expensive).
Have you ever watched Clarkson's farm? It's a comedy show about Jeremy Clarkson from top gear trying to actually farm his land himself instead of paying someone to do it. Everything is fiendishly complex. Nothing looks simple at all. His tractor (granted it's a top end Lambo) has more controls than the Enterprise in JJ Abram's Star Trek. I don't think a small startup is taking that on anytime soon.
He has to call out someone to show him how to drive it and has no idea how to get it hitched. All coming from a man who has driven more cars of different types than probably anyone on the planet. Granted, it is a comedy, buy I think if you watch the first episode, you'll get the idea as I did.
He has to call out someone to show him how to drive it and has no idea how to get it hitched. All coming from a man who has driven more cars of different types than probably anyone on the planet. Granted, it is a comedy, buy I think if you watch the first episode, you'll get the idea as I did.
> Although I am not doubting you, I find it rather curious that you would describe tractors and/or other farm equipment as "fiendishly complex". I am not sure if there is a term or concept for this issue,
I've come across the term "confusopoly":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
I've come across the term "confusopoly":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly
I think you hit the nail on the head. Much like modern web design, pointless complexity slows down competitors with distractions.
Look how hard it was for Tesla to build cars. the Capex businesses are notoriously unattractive for VCs.
I suspect that it will take some other innovation to make this worthwhile to fund. Right to repair is not innovation, its just a single feature change, so nobody cares to solve it. It generates complaints, but probably doesn't hurt sales.
At some point, maybe electrification will be that innovation. Or maybe form factor? but, JD is not ignoring product development, they just have expensive spare parts.
A data point I never see is what JD reliability is like. Toyota has expensive spare parts compared to several of their competitors, but they are also very reliable. If JD's DRMs and expensive parts are concomitant with reliable tractors, then maybe this issue is really just interesting to techno libertarians and not actual farmers? I don't have any sense for the size of the JD repair market.
I suspect that it will take some other innovation to make this worthwhile to fund. Right to repair is not innovation, its just a single feature change, so nobody cares to solve it. It generates complaints, but probably doesn't hurt sales.
At some point, maybe electrification will be that innovation. Or maybe form factor? but, JD is not ignoring product development, they just have expensive spare parts.
A data point I never see is what JD reliability is like. Toyota has expensive spare parts compared to several of their competitors, but they are also very reliable. If JD's DRMs and expensive parts are concomitant with reliable tractors, then maybe this issue is really just interesting to techno libertarians and not actual farmers? I don't have any sense for the size of the JD repair market.
I'm not sure about Deere reliability, but I've seen anecdotal evidence in the past about farmers being out of operation because they can't fix their farm equipment themselves.
Now Tesla and other EV startups are skyrocketed. Possibly now is the chance if they could attract WSB?
> Typically whenever a once competitive firm becomes a lazy monopolist, at some point others want to break in and get a piece of the profit pie. It could happen someday.
The problem is, as in many other domains, a combination of opportunity cost and network effect.
Getting in the commercial farming game is going to be expensive as hell and gruelling as you try to get a foothold, and unlike, say, a car, your average farmer has a ton of equipment from the same brand which works together, and the more time passes the harder it becomes to interop (though I guess at least in farming you don't have too many patented hitches or PTOs these days?)
Not to mention in farming you really need to have a network on the ball for parts and repairs, if you fuck up a farmer's season by leaving them stranded for a week they're not going to be happy campers.
The problem is, as in many other domains, a combination of opportunity cost and network effect.
Getting in the commercial farming game is going to be expensive as hell and gruelling as you try to get a foothold, and unlike, say, a car, your average farmer has a ton of equipment from the same brand which works together, and the more time passes the harder it becomes to interop (though I guess at least in farming you don't have too many patented hitches or PTOs these days?)
Not to mention in farming you really need to have a network on the ball for parts and repairs, if you fuck up a farmer's season by leaving them stranded for a week they're not going to be happy campers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thanks for sharing this. I remember checking it out a few years ago when Open Source Ecology first started doing their workshops. They've come a long way. I love how their system is designed to build modules to build machines to build more modules.
There are plenty simple low-cost tractors on the market.
However for large-scale agriculture where your tractor is pulling high-end machinery you need something very powerful and sophisticated. JD leads this market, and is a significant player in the mid-range also.
However for large-scale agriculture where your tractor is pulling high-end machinery you need something very powerful and sophisticated. JD leads this market, and is a significant player in the mid-range also.
Omaha has had a relatively robust tech meetup scene for a while because of stuff like this and interesting open source projects come out of the region+. The tractors have as much SW in them as a car does these days, and it was locked down to repair except by the manufacturer.
Is there a reason that some Asian or even European competitors can't just come in and offer the same kind of features and services without all the lock-in, actively taking market share by being the anti-monopolist?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see the brand loyalty to Deere lasting too much longer, especially if some of the Asian competitors can make offerings without all the shackling.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see the brand loyalty to Deere lasting too much longer, especially if some of the Asian competitors can make offerings without all the shackling.
It's not a monopoly. There are plenty of manufacturers in the market. However JD has significant, if not leading, market share in many markets along with being regarded as a premium brand, and has significant loyalty among a demographic where memories are long and loyalty counts.
They do make really really good machines, and their top-end gear is very highly regarded. All the above has allowed them to get away with some dubious practices. However farmers are also very cost conscious and there is growing dissatisfaction at the blatant lock-in.
They do make really really good machines, and their top-end gear is very highly regarded. All the above has allowed them to get away with some dubious practices. However farmers are also very cost conscious and there is growing dissatisfaction at the blatant lock-in.
Because it's a heavily entrenched industry that's not easily disrupted, where each brand has carved it's on territory by geography and there's this silent gentlemen's agreement of "you stay out of my market, I stay out of yours and we all win" since even if the other competitor would attempt to come in the other market, it would face an uphill and insanely expensive battle just to enter the market, as in order to capture any market share it would need to undercut its competitor on cost while offering superior quality, while spending insane money on the supply chains and world class service and tech network which guarantees the up-time of your machinery, thereby weakening the profit margins not just for themselves but potentially the whole market.
So why would you want to do something as risky and foolish as that when you got a good thing going?
So why would you want to do something as risky and foolish as that when you got a good thing going?
> Because it's a heavily entrenched industry that's not easily disrupted, where each brand has carved it's on territory by geography and there's this silent gentlemen's agreement of "you stay out of my market, I stay out of yours and we all win
Do you know that this is the case or are you speculating? It seems like there's an intense amount of competition, especially with imported farming equipment. (I have no idea if John Deere sells overseas or if it's mostly a domestic brand.)
Some other manufacturers that seem to have big branding in the U.S. are New Holland (just found out they're owned by Fiat.. small world), Mahindra, and Kubota. Are those all part of this cartel that you're alleging exists?
Do you know that this is the case or are you speculating? It seems like there's an intense amount of competition, especially with imported farming equipment. (I have no idea if John Deere sells overseas or if it's mostly a domestic brand.)
Some other manufacturers that seem to have big branding in the U.S. are New Holland (just found out they're owned by Fiat.. small world), Mahindra, and Kubota. Are those all part of this cartel that you're alleging exists?
He's full of it. I do have a background in farming.
Case, and Deere go head to head in almost every market. New Holland and a couple others also play in the same markets depending on what KIND of machine you're looking to run. Tillage tractors are pretty much fendt/challenger, NH, deere, case. When you get into combines/coppers other brands also play. For the consumer and/or smaller tractor market there's all sorts of options.
Why people go deere or case is simple. It's the supply chains. You have N days to get your crop in the ground, and Y days to get your crop harvested. Deere and case have the best(and most expensive) field techs and dealer support. "A machine is only as good as your dealer support" is the phase almost everyone uses when shopping for equipment. Anyone with a significant investment of tractors(non-hobby farmers) can have a case or deere tech replace or fix damn near anything in hours or days, on site.
Case, and Deere go head to head in almost every market. New Holland and a couple others also play in the same markets depending on what KIND of machine you're looking to run. Tillage tractors are pretty much fendt/challenger, NH, deere, case. When you get into combines/coppers other brands also play. For the consumer and/or smaller tractor market there's all sorts of options.
Why people go deere or case is simple. It's the supply chains. You have N days to get your crop in the ground, and Y days to get your crop harvested. Deere and case have the best(and most expensive) field techs and dealer support. "A machine is only as good as your dealer support" is the phase almost everyone uses when shopping for equipment. Anyone with a significant investment of tractors(non-hobby farmers) can have a case or deere tech replace or fix damn near anything in hours or days, on site.
This seems the most imformative comment in this discussion.
So if there is competition and Deere is really the best, I don't see the issue. The right incentives are there to make farming better.
So if there is competition and Deere is really the best, I don't see the issue. The right incentives are there to make farming better.
Farm equipment gets passed down from the big operators to the small operators through its depreciating lifetime.
The big operators running new couldn't care less. They keep stuff for a year, two at the most, and off it goes to the next farm. New equipment is least likely to break and when it does it is the manufacturer's problem to fix it. Also, the first generation operators are quite likely to lease the equipment, so it is not even theirs to worry about.
The slightly smaller second generation owners are still likely under warrantee and the machines are new enough that they shouldn't be breaking down in any meaningful capacity. Especially when it comes to the electronics. While they might have a mechanic on staff, it's just as easy to contract that out to the dealer.
It's the third, fourth, fifth generation owners that are more concerned. They start to buy the equipment when it has some age on it, starting to wear out, is more likely to break and isn't under warrantee. They also are more likely to want to fix it themselves.
It's easy to say don't buy Deere, but if that's all the bigger operators bought when they were new, there won't be anything else on the used market. The other manufacturers haven't been able to carve out a market of machines that can serve those smaller farmers with new equipment.
It is all very theoretical at the moment, though. This is not a problem today. There are plenty of options on the used market, with no signs of that changing, and even if you do end up with a Deere fixing it yourself hasn't been a problem to this point. But there is worry from some that things will change in the future.
The big operators running new couldn't care less. They keep stuff for a year, two at the most, and off it goes to the next farm. New equipment is least likely to break and when it does it is the manufacturer's problem to fix it. Also, the first generation operators are quite likely to lease the equipment, so it is not even theirs to worry about.
The slightly smaller second generation owners are still likely under warrantee and the machines are new enough that they shouldn't be breaking down in any meaningful capacity. Especially when it comes to the electronics. While they might have a mechanic on staff, it's just as easy to contract that out to the dealer.
It's the third, fourth, fifth generation owners that are more concerned. They start to buy the equipment when it has some age on it, starting to wear out, is more likely to break and isn't under warrantee. They also are more likely to want to fix it themselves.
It's easy to say don't buy Deere, but if that's all the bigger operators bought when they were new, there won't be anything else on the used market. The other manufacturers haven't been able to carve out a market of machines that can serve those smaller farmers with new equipment.
It is all very theoretical at the moment, though. This is not a problem today. There are plenty of options on the used market, with no signs of that changing, and even if you do end up with a Deere fixing it yourself hasn't been a problem to this point. But there is worry from some that things will change in the future.
> Tillage tractors are pretty much fendt/challenger, NH, deere, case.
Versatile is making inroads again. Starting to see quite a few of them around.
Versatile is making inroads again. Starting to see quite a few of them around.
Case/New Holland/International Harvester were all American companies with roots going back to the mid-19th century, so they're seen as very "American" despite being owned by Fiat.
And I think New Holland spun off from Ford at one point but I may be mistaken.
Yes, Ford was in the mix from 1986 to 1991, though New Holland produced a Ford branded tractor in 1917.
>Do you know that this is the case or are you speculating?
I don't work in farming but I worked for an European HW manufacturer that's top in Europe in that niche and the CEO back then told us we're not aggressively pursuing expansion outside of Europe since US, China, Japan, Korea have their own local champions in this market and it's not profitable to go to war with them on their own turf, so he told us about this silent gentlemen's agreement where everyone keeps to his own market so we can all profit as "the pie is big enough for everyone, if we start fighting over it then we'd all lose". I assume the same business concept applies here.
I don't work in farming but I worked for an European HW manufacturer that's top in Europe in that niche and the CEO back then told us we're not aggressively pursuing expansion outside of Europe since US, China, Japan, Korea have their own local champions in this market and it's not profitable to go to war with them on their own turf, so he told us about this silent gentlemen's agreement where everyone keeps to his own market so we can all profit as "the pie is big enough for everyone, if we start fighting over it then we'd all lose". I assume the same business concept applies here.
I'm not sure which brands are owned by Deere, but there are quite a few available in the US, depending on scale. I specifically think that LS is foreign, but don't remember for sure.
silent gentlemen's agreement
We assume it's silent but we probably shouldn't. It could be a boring old cartel. Someone should check.
We assume it's silent but we probably shouldn't. It could be a boring old cartel. Someone should check.
I imagine it's a smaller version of the American cars vs Japanese cars attitude that really peaked during the 70s and 80s. It's still around to this day where you meet people who are Chevy or Ford die-hards and hate all cars Japanese. Considering that trucks are often farming equipment and Chevy and Ford make trucks it would make sense people would have similar attitude about their dedicated farm equipment coming from John Deere vs Yamaha (a joke example since they make things from pianos to motorcycles.)
Your probably on to something. I remember a lot of people getting excited when John Deere farm equipment was introduced into Farm Simulator 2019.
What's their incentive to do that when they could come in with a different lock-in now that it's been proven to be profitable to do so by JD?
> I can't see the brand loyalty to Deere lasting too much longer
Here's an anecdote: if I go into Fleet Farm or Tractor Supply (farm supply stores), I see John Deere toy tractors, in fact my son has one: they're very well built. I don't think I've ever seen any other brand of toy tractor. That alone says a lot.
> I can't see the brand loyalty to Deere lasting too much longer
Here's an anecdote: if I go into Fleet Farm or Tractor Supply (farm supply stores), I see John Deere toy tractors, in fact my son has one: they're very well built. I don't think I've ever seen any other brand of toy tractor. That alone says a lot.
Because after you spend $N billion catching up to Deere's manufacturing and expertise, they'll suddenly realize that yes, it's essential that farmers be able to control and repair their own equipment, and will use their massive war chest built on unethical practices to undercut you.
And when you're out of business, they'll go back to their old ways.
And when you're out of business, they'll go back to their old ways.
[deleted]
I'm sure we on hacker news are more familiar with the tech side of right to repair, but farming is also a huge problem.
JD walked so that Apple could run
JD walked so that Apple could run
Absolutely; Apple is the well-known offender but the issue extends to medical equipment, white goods, televisions and probably a whole lot more. This really is about preventing monopolies and I've seen basically no tenable argument against strengthening right to repair laws.
> white goods
White fabrics, usually of cotton or linen.Household merchandise, as bed sheets and curtains, formerly made from white fabrics, but now often colored.Large household appliances, as ovens and refrigerators, formerly finished with white enamel, but now often colored.
- American Heritage DictionarySo I'm gearing up to buy a Kubota FEL soon.
Two reasons we passed on JD FEL is 1) financing isn't as good 2) you have to pay JD a yearly maintenance package AND take it in once a year otherwise your warranty is shit. That could be incorrect and just one dealer we spoke to, but it didn't add up with the better stuff we're hearing from the Kubota side.
Two reasons we passed on JD FEL is 1) financing isn't as good 2) you have to pay JD a yearly maintenance package AND take it in once a year otherwise your warranty is shit. That could be incorrect and just one dealer we spoke to, but it didn't add up with the better stuff we're hearing from the Kubota side.
Interestingly, all my neighbours who have tried them are back to running Green machines. A good friend is the mechanic at the Kubota dealership and he speaks quite highly of them, though.
May be a case of Deere getting aggressive. Another friend bought a new Steiger series tractor a few years ago and before it even showed up in his yard, Deere rolled in to make him an offer he couldn't refuse to trade it in.
May be a case of Deere getting aggressive. Another friend bought a new Steiger series tractor a few years ago and before it even showed up in his yard, Deere rolled in to make him an offer he couldn't refuse to trade it in.
I'm curious about the Value prop for an FEL. I bought a bobcat T590 last year because it had a lot of capacity - both PTO power and absolute ability to lift. It isn't good for turf, but I can pick up a 4000lb pallet. FELs all seemed to max out at ~1000 lbs for the same footprint.
is the bucket really just not the use case for a FEL anymore?
is the bucket really just not the use case for a FEL anymore?
I think it is the use-case. I'm just working on my property. It's like a big lawn mower and landscaping tool. I am getting the backhoe so that I can do some light trenching work. I can also use it to plow through medium levels of bush in the way. Also good to help with spreading gravel or smoothing out a building pad. It's like - if you have a normal size house with 10k sq ft lot, you own a lawn mower. When you own 10 acres or more, you probably need a tractor of some kind.
edit: Sorry I see you were specifically discussing the FEL that can handle 4k vs 1k. Mostly Gravel is my largest use-case. I won't be able to pallet lift a ton of bricks, that is correct. But for the rest of the tool it's like a swiss army knife in that it has different attachments both on the front, the back (and the bottom).
edit: Sorry I see you were specifically discussing the FEL that can handle 4k vs 1k. Mostly Gravel is my largest use-case. I won't be able to pallet lift a ton of bricks, that is correct. But for the rest of the tool it's like a swiss army knife in that it has different attachments both on the front, the back (and the bottom).
The future of life on earth depends on there being no limitations on repairing, modifying, or extending the things we buy.
John Deere is a symptom of a wider problem in regards to right to repair. Legally speaking there is a lot of progress that needs to be made in the realm of consumer electronics. But for vehicles be they road cars or tractors it can all be fixed with one good federal court case. What John Deere, and Tesla and most automakers are trying to do is basically circumvent the Sherman Act through an abuse of copyright law. SCOTUS has been pretty crappy on tying lately and has raised the bar, the opposite of what should be happening. But it seems right to repair is gaining a lot of broad political support so hopefully that will soon be undone.
Then Congress should step in. This seems like something that would get bipartisan support.
A new law could work but I feel like this should be able to be solved on the judicial side because its already illegal. We just have another case of the law not being enforced.
I hadn't been following the "Right to Repair" movement too closely until I discovered that NordicTrack recently locked their users out of Privileged Mode[0], which makes it virtually impossible to install 3rd party software like Netflix on my treadmill. I just want to watch a video while I exercise!
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/nordictrack-ifit-treadmill-privi...
[0]: https://www.wired.com/story/nordictrack-ifit-treadmill-privi...
Text is accurate, headline is misleading. Deere has had this market cornered for a while and nobody has done anything to stop them.
> nobody has done anything to stop them
Sort of yes and no.
No one has done anything to stop them just like no one has done anything to stop Apple or the other tech companies.
Farmers have done a lot of lobbying and other work around right to repair just to work on their equipment. This includes being apart of efforts with the Library of Congress for the exemption that comes up every so often. They've been there alongside people in tech circles.
Sort of yes and no.
No one has done anything to stop them just like no one has done anything to stop Apple or the other tech companies.
Farmers have done a lot of lobbying and other work around right to repair just to work on their equipment. This includes being apart of efforts with the Library of Congress for the exemption that comes up every so often. They've been there alongside people in tech circles.
I'm sure we'll see a Tesla tractor (Teslactor? Tesla model T? Elon Deere?) being announced at some point, never to actually make it production. Built for farming on Mars. With gullwing doors and autopilot (I'm aware that modern tractors have autopilot too), made out of stainless steel.
Believe it or not Lamborghini for instance does make a tractor that is pretty beefy https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/ I would not be surprised to see Tesla enter that market some time down the road
Iirc Lamborghini started as a tractor company
Yep, he actually started making cars after getting into an argument with Enzo Ferrari.
I just googled to find the reference[0], but apparantly he had a problem with his clutch, went to ferrari and suggested some easy ways that ferrari could make their clutches last longer. Ferrari responds with:
> “Let me make cars. You stick to making tractors.” - Enzo Ferrari
Which obviously didn't go down too well. Then Lamborghini started making cars.
[0] https://www.granturismoevents.com/story-the-epic-story-behin...
I just googled to find the reference[0], but apparantly he had a problem with his clutch, went to ferrari and suggested some easy ways that ferrari could make their clutches last longer. Ferrari responds with:
> “Let me make cars. You stick to making tractors.” - Enzo Ferrari
Which obviously didn't go down too well. Then Lamborghini started making cars.
[0] https://www.granturismoevents.com/story-the-epic-story-behin...
Jeremy Clarkson has a Lamborghini tractor,it's huge compared to most that you see in the UK..
I have to say, I’m still very divided about right to repair.
I think it’s hard to keep a consistent world view where right to repair is a thing, and at the same time anything but open source is outright illegal.
I think it’s hard to keep a consistent world view where right to repair is a thing, and at the same time anything but open source is outright illegal.
You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's? Domestic appliances, cars and tractors did not contain computers. There was no firmware. The whole issue comes from abuse of IT laws to destroy our individual right to personal property.
There is no 'copyright' on mechanical parts, anyone is free to make a copy, and you are free to buy them from anyone.
Even if a part is patented (which is a small percentage), the patent law spesifically allows anyone to build anything for personal use.
If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware. The firmware belongs to the manufacturer, even if all it does is have a time to eject bread. So my toaster is unrepairable if that chip dies. That toaster could never be patented, beucase there is nothing innovative.
There is no 'copyright' on mechanical parts, anyone is free to make a copy, and you are free to buy them from anyone.
Even if a part is patented (which is a small percentage), the patent law spesifically allows anyone to build anything for personal use.
If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware. The firmware belongs to the manufacturer, even if all it does is have a time to eject bread. So my toaster is unrepairable if that chip dies. That toaster could never be patented, beucase there is nothing innovative.
> You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's?
There was no such right in the 80s, any more than there is now.
In both times you could repair what you or repair people obtained the skill to do. There was no inherent, moral right, and no legal right, then or now.
Also in the 80's plenty of domestic appliances, cars, and tractors contained computers.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-comput...
https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-...
There was no such right in the 80s, any more than there is now.
In both times you could repair what you or repair people obtained the skill to do. There was no inherent, moral right, and no legal right, then or now.
Also in the 80's plenty of domestic appliances, cars, and tractors contained computers.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/when-did-cars-get-comput...
https://www.haytalk.com/threads/what-year-did-the-computers-...
Not in a legal sense, but in a practical one, companies had no effective way of locking you out of repairing your own machines, unlike today. No need for a round of pedantry.
>No need for a round of pedantry.
Ah, well if we can divorce ourselves from facts, then yes, we can believe anything.
What legal way am I locked out? There are exemptions in US (and other law) for copyright, patents have not changed, trademarks don't stop me.
There are zero items in my house (and I have all sorts of tech) that I cannot take apart (and routinely do) and fiddle with and hack on and change and repair if I feel so inclined.
Sure, the average person with low tech skills and low tech tools has a harder time, but the things being worked on are simply much more specialized and complex. I bet the average person has been unable to repair a fine watch for a century - that's needed a specialist, since it was high tech a century ago.
Or do you mean repair has gotten more complex as technology has gotten more complex? That has been and always will be the case. Repairing an axe is always going to be easier than repairing an iPhone.
Ah, well if we can divorce ourselves from facts, then yes, we can believe anything.
What legal way am I locked out? There are exemptions in US (and other law) for copyright, patents have not changed, trademarks don't stop me.
There are zero items in my house (and I have all sorts of tech) that I cannot take apart (and routinely do) and fiddle with and hack on and change and repair if I feel so inclined.
Sure, the average person with low tech skills and low tech tools has a harder time, but the things being worked on are simply much more specialized and complex. I bet the average person has been unable to repair a fine watch for a century - that's needed a specialist, since it was high tech a century ago.
Or do you mean repair has gotten more complex as technology has gotten more complex? That has been and always will be the case. Repairing an axe is always going to be easier than repairing an iPhone.
> What legal way am I locked out? There are exemptions in US (and other law) for copyright, patents have not changed
Please point out to me which copyright exemption will enable me to get hold of firmware for a microcontroller in my washing machine if the current one gives up the ghost. I can buy an identical microcontroller, and solder it in place of the current one, but without firmware the device is dead. The same applies to all appliances, from toasters to cars, it has nothing to do with skill. This was not the case a few decades ago.
Additionally, you clearly haven't been paying attention to recent events. John Deer literally shuts down your tractor, and even if you repair it, it won't start untill you pay their mechanic to come over and reset it. It is not a matter of skill - the machine is locked and only their mechanics have authorisation to rest it. The same is happening with phones, computers and domestic apliances.
https://repair.eu/news/part-pairing-a-major-threat-to-indepe...
Getting around some of these restrictions can land you in jail
https://hackaday.com/2015/05/12/ask-hackaday-fixing-your-tra...
Please point out to me which copyright exemption will enable me to get hold of firmware for a microcontroller in my washing machine if the current one gives up the ghost. I can buy an identical microcontroller, and solder it in place of the current one, but without firmware the device is dead. The same applies to all appliances, from toasters to cars, it has nothing to do with skill. This was not the case a few decades ago.
Additionally, you clearly haven't been paying attention to recent events. John Deer literally shuts down your tractor, and even if you repair it, it won't start untill you pay their mechanic to come over and reset it. It is not a matter of skill - the machine is locked and only their mechanics have authorisation to rest it. The same is happening with phones, computers and domestic apliances.
https://repair.eu/news/part-pairing-a-major-threat-to-indepe...
Getting around some of these restrictions can land you in jail
https://hackaday.com/2015/05/12/ask-hackaday-fixing-your-tra...
>Please point out to me which copyright exemption will enable me to get hold of firmware for a microcontroller in my washing machine if the current one gives up the ghost.
Oh, now you're confusing right to repair with ease of repair. No country has ever forced manufacturers to give you every single item to suit your heart's desire.
Rip the firmware out of the MCU. Decap it and read the bits out, literally with a microscope, as some have done. "Oh, but that's too hard!" Exactly - and there is no legal thing stopping you. You simply don't want to develop the expertise and tools to repair. You want it handed to you in a simple manner, which has never been the case.
As I said above, as things become more complex, so does repair.
>This was not the case a few decades ago.
Yes, a few decades ago people complained about different parts they could not simply buy, since at no point in US history could you simply get any part you ever desired from a manufacturer. There has always been a few things you could buy, a repair man market for some things, and the effort to repair other things difficult enough that almost nobody tried to do it.
Because again, we have more complex items now.
>Additionally, you clearly haven't been paying attention to recent events
Yes, I've read all that stuff. Both sides in many of these cases, including the JD, have decently valid points. If someone causes a large machine to hurt others, you bet JD will get dragged into courts. For that balance, it is reasonable for courts to decide how to balance.
Should individual commercial pilots be allowed to flash the software on their flights because they're interested in hacking their planes?
>Getting around some of these restrictions can land you in jail|
No one, zero, count them, have gone to jail for that. Zero. Why do you spout this type of nonsense? "Think of the children!" right?
>John Deer literally shuts down your tractor
No, they don't. "As things stand, Deere has the technical ability to remotely shut down a farmer’s machine anytime—if, say, the farmer missed a lease payment or tuned a tractor’s software to goose its horsepower, a common hack widely available through gray-market providers. A Deere spokesman says many manufacturers can remotely control vehicles they sell, but Deere has never activated this capability, except in construction equipment in China, where financing terms require it to." [1]
Also, there is literally zero they did that someone could not reverse engineer and fix.
All of this is you want things to be as easy to fix as a kid can do. That will never happen as devices become more complex.
But all of this, even John Deere tractors, can be fixed.
Based on your resorting to making claims that are simply lies, I'm done. Feel free to continue.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-05/farmers-f...
Oh, now you're confusing right to repair with ease of repair. No country has ever forced manufacturers to give you every single item to suit your heart's desire.
Rip the firmware out of the MCU. Decap it and read the bits out, literally with a microscope, as some have done. "Oh, but that's too hard!" Exactly - and there is no legal thing stopping you. You simply don't want to develop the expertise and tools to repair. You want it handed to you in a simple manner, which has never been the case.
As I said above, as things become more complex, so does repair.
>This was not the case a few decades ago.
Yes, a few decades ago people complained about different parts they could not simply buy, since at no point in US history could you simply get any part you ever desired from a manufacturer. There has always been a few things you could buy, a repair man market for some things, and the effort to repair other things difficult enough that almost nobody tried to do it.
Because again, we have more complex items now.
>Additionally, you clearly haven't been paying attention to recent events
Yes, I've read all that stuff. Both sides in many of these cases, including the JD, have decently valid points. If someone causes a large machine to hurt others, you bet JD will get dragged into courts. For that balance, it is reasonable for courts to decide how to balance.
Should individual commercial pilots be allowed to flash the software on their flights because they're interested in hacking their planes?
>Getting around some of these restrictions can land you in jail|
No one, zero, count them, have gone to jail for that. Zero. Why do you spout this type of nonsense? "Think of the children!" right?
>John Deer literally shuts down your tractor
No, they don't. "As things stand, Deere has the technical ability to remotely shut down a farmer’s machine anytime—if, say, the farmer missed a lease payment or tuned a tractor’s software to goose its horsepower, a common hack widely available through gray-market providers. A Deere spokesman says many manufacturers can remotely control vehicles they sell, but Deere has never activated this capability, except in construction equipment in China, where financing terms require it to." [1]
Also, there is literally zero they did that someone could not reverse engineer and fix.
All of this is you want things to be as easy to fix as a kid can do. That will never happen as devices become more complex.
But all of this, even John Deere tractors, can be fixed.
Based on your resorting to making claims that are simply lies, I'm done. Feel free to continue.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-03-05/farmers-f...
"Rip the firmware out of the MCU. Decap it and read the bits out, literally with a microscope, as some have done. "Oh, but that's too hard!" Exactly - and there is no legal thing stopping you."
"Based on your resorting to making claims that are simply lies, I'm done."
You are the one presenting a total lie!
If I read firmware out of my BOSH washing machine and sell it to repair stores so that they can fix more washing machines, I will get shut down withing days. If start making and selling motors identical to the one in this machine, no-one can stop me.
Failing to recognise this distinction indicates you are not interested in an real coversation, but just want to push your ideology.
"Based on your resorting to making claims that are simply lies, I'm done."
You are the one presenting a total lie!
If I read firmware out of my BOSH washing machine and sell it to repair stores so that they can fix more washing machines, I will get shut down withing days. If start making and selling motors identical to the one in this machine, no-one can stop me.
Failing to recognise this distinction indicates you are not interested in an real coversation, but just want to push your ideology.
Right to repair died with the US creation of the DMCA. It still exists on most of the world, but it's being constantly fought and killed all around.
The DMCA explicitly carves out copyright exceptions for interoperability and repair.
Tell me what law protected your right against copyright before the DMCA?
Good luck.
Tell me what law protected your right against copyright before the DMCA?
Good luck.
> against copyright
You mean against DRM? The subject has no relation to copyright, except on how those companies keep abusing copyright laws. Anyway, you don't need protection against DRM if you don't criminalize breaking DRM.
And yeah, it carves out an exception for repair. It's funny how a narrow exception in an overbroad law ends up having no effect on practice.
You mean against DRM? The subject has no relation to copyright, except on how those companies keep abusing copyright laws. Anyway, you don't need protection against DRM if you don't criminalize breaking DRM.
And yeah, it carves out an exception for repair. It's funny how a narrow exception in an overbroad law ends up having no effect on practice.
>You mean against DRM? The subject has no relation to copyright
What do you think the C in DMCA stands for?
>It's funny how a narrow exception in an overbroad law ends up having no effect on practice.
Simply untrue. There are massive collections of things gathered under and repaired under this "no effect" exemption.
Sometime take a look at the dozens of exemptions allowing all sorts of repair, reverse engineering for interoperability, removing of copy protection where needed to continue to use items, etc. [1] Or just Google DMCA 1201 exemptions and read blog posts. You'll be surprised.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/
What do you think the C in DMCA stands for?
>It's funny how a narrow exception in an overbroad law ends up having no effect on practice.
Simply untrue. There are massive collections of things gathered under and repaired under this "no effect" exemption.
Sometime take a look at the dozens of exemptions allowing all sorts of repair, reverse engineering for interoperability, removing of copy protection where needed to continue to use items, etc. [1] Or just Google DMCA 1201 exemptions and read blog posts. You'll be surprised.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/1201/
> You do realise that we had right to repair in the 80's?
No we didn’t. In the 80s a lot of stuff was simply easier to repair, in part because you had less stuff to begin with.
You’re still free to repair whatever you want, but of course nowadays things are so complex that I’d require you an insurmountable amount of work. There hasn’t been any legal change, it’s just that the cost of repairs has gone up.
> If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware.
More to my point. Why firmware vendor X can’t enforce copyright but Google can? We either have right to repair and no copyright (at least for code), or we have copyright for code and no right to repair.
No we didn’t. In the 80s a lot of stuff was simply easier to repair, in part because you had less stuff to begin with.
You’re still free to repair whatever you want, but of course nowadays things are so complex that I’d require you an insurmountable amount of work. There hasn’t been any legal change, it’s just that the cost of repairs has gone up.
> If I have to repair my toaster, and it contains a microcontroller, then I can buy that microcontroller but not the firmware.
More to my point. Why firmware vendor X can’t enforce copyright but Google can? We either have right to repair and no copyright (at least for code), or we have copyright for code and no right to repair.
"We either have right to repair and no copyright (at least for code), or we have copyright for code and no right to repair."
Or you know, we could have an exemption on binary firmware for repair, like we have have for fair use. We could mandate manufacturers to provide it like we mandate them to provide user manuals.
Or you know, we could have an exemption on binary firmware for repair, like we have have for fair use. We could mandate manufacturers to provide it like we mandate them to provide user manuals.
Why does a right to repair require open-source to be the only legal option?
It seems that I could have a highly proprietary device and still be able to repair it. It would just require availability of 1) documentation 2) diagnostics, 3) parts at market prices, 4) parts not locked by DRM code.
E.g., the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device.
Same for a car or tractor. Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part.
Am I missing something here?
It seems that I could have a highly proprietary device and still be able to repair it. It would just require availability of 1) documentation 2) diagnostics, 3) parts at market prices, 4) parts not locked by DRM code.
E.g., the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device.
Same for a car or tractor. Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part.
Am I missing something here?
> the iPhone could still have all their proprietary code, as long as I can read about the components and their relationships, diagnose a problem, replace a component and/or flash new data/code onto the device.
As a group heavily populated by programmers and coders, I think it’s fairly hypocritical to say that everyone should make their IP like schematics freely available while we keep software under copyright.
> Am I missing something here?
- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software?
- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine?
At least in the case of the battery they can argue that inappropriate handling of faulty batteries is dangerous.
> Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part.
That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
As a group heavily populated by programmers and coders, I think it’s fairly hypocritical to say that everyone should make their IP like schematics freely available while we keep software under copyright.
> Am I missing something here?
- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software?
- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine?
At least in the case of the battery they can argue that inappropriate handling of faulty batteries is dangerous.
> Meaningful repair doesn't require that we be able to dismantle and re-solder sub-board-level components, only identify the particular component, obtain it at a reasonable availability and cost, and replace it, or be able to substitute an upgraded part.
That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
>>- How is a defect like an aged battery different than a non-updated software?
>>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine?
I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code.
So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies.
This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape.
The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends.
If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription.
>>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head.
When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it.
What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.
>>- Why is it inmoral for a company to limit your ability to swap a battery but totally okay to not give you the code so that you can patch their software to work on your machine?
I agree it is NOT okay to prevent access to the code, although that does NOT mean that I'd require release of source code.
So, while I don't have your source code secrets, I should not be prevented by crypto or law from analyzing, editing, or replacing the object code. I should be prevented from selling at scale trivially modified copies.
This is not unlike trade secret protection of parts. I have a carbon fiber composites shop, and I make some rather uniquely interesting high-performance parts with interesting chemistries and nanotechnology. If you want to take one and examine it with an electron microscope and try to figure out what I did, fine, but good luck to ya; hope you're having fun. There's also nothing preventing someone from selling a competing part of the same shape.
The problem with no RTR is that the companies become extractive without adding commensurate value - it allows them to charge on both ends.
If a company wants to maintain complete control over the equipment, then fine, lease it only. GM actually did this with their first electric cars in the 90s. But these companies want to sell it full price up front and then also extract a guaranteed high-cost lease-like ongoing revenue stream for the life of the machine. Many software companies have switched from a sell-the-package model to SAAS subscriptions, but this is like you have to buy the package AND the subscription.
>>That “only” is doing a lot of work there. That “only” is the work of a lot of people who deserve to get good salaries too. Why should their work become a commodity while programmers keep their “machines” protected with the laws for art?
I've got no problem with good salaries, I do have a problem with monopolistic extraction because you have the customer tied over a barrel and a gun to their head.
When there is a legitimate market of repairs, it at least provides options for the customer, and is likely to keep the Factory Authorized channel somewhat reasonable. Just doing all warranty repairs through the factory channel and voiding the warranty for independent repairs can keep all those factory channel people in fine salaries. Meanwhile everything from high-end tuners to el-cheapo-fix-it shops can thrive and customers can have options, all without threatening the core business, and even enhancing it.
What you are making me think about is that there should be MORE of this capability in software also. Allowing trivial copying and reselling is obviously obscene and unsustainable (see open-source developers getting shat-upon by the $$multimillion companies they support for free). However, perhaps requiring rights to an API and plug-in capability or the ability to create derivative works should be available. Certainly we should have rights to reuse and modify abandoned software, especially if it requires a server to run.
Source is paywalled, this might be better: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-pro...
There's other tractor manufacturers, farmers don't have to use JD.
There's other tractor manufacturers, farmers don't have to use JD.
> farmers don't have to use JD.
I have a bunch of different colours in my shed. The only appreciable difference I've noticed is that when I needed the service manual to fix something, the CaseIH dealer slapped a book down in front of me. The tech at the Deere dealer had to enter a password on a computer to decrypt it for me. Neither seemed terribly concerned about providing the information, though.
I have a bunch of different colours in my shed. The only appreciable difference I've noticed is that when I needed the service manual to fix something, the CaseIH dealer slapped a book down in front of me. The tech at the Deere dealer had to enter a password on a computer to decrypt it for me. Neither seemed terribly concerned about providing the information, though.
The tech analogy is basically similar to those who have their tech stack as Microsoft .NET vs Go. You can switch but it isn't as easy as just buying all new equipment.
Another point is JD is far more than just tractors so if you run a farm you will have many large pieces of equipment which you paid millions for so not so easy to just go and buy new stuff.
Another point is JD is far more than just tractors so if you run a farm you will have many large pieces of equipment which you paid millions for so not so easy to just go and buy new stuff.
This view might not be very popular, so I want to preface it with: I am very supportive of the right of repair, especially when it's being used to force expensive proprietary repairs, probably from a long way away (I'm sure shipping a tractor isn't quite like shipping an iphone), or when it's used to enforce a sort of planned obsolescence when the manufacturer just decides to stop maintaining in order to force you to upgrade.
I'm curious, however, how much (in practical terms) John Deere would have to give or open up in terms of trade secrets in order to enable repairs (especially of super advanced stuff like fully autonomous farming), and to what extent they would need to open things up that offshore competitors might easily clone without having invested the millions (or billions?) that John Deere has already invested.
Put another way, right now, today, we have a farming equipment manufacturer based in the U.S. that is actually injecting some serious tech into a rather staid industry. John Deere seems to be turning into a highly innovative tech mfg company, in, ironically, one of the most expensive places to run a heavy equipment manufacturer.
I view them as a huge asset, developing what appears to be interesting ideas in what was a pretty tech-adverse industry, and fully automated farming is probably also a key component for food security across the globe, U.S. national security, international stability, and probably needs to be a part of any climate change conversation.
So, how much are we asking them to give up of their know-how where it might be cloned or worked-around by other companies?
In the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, "You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you wanna sell it."
What if FOTMA or Yucheng Dadi Machinery Co (https://sdycdadi.en.made-in-china.com/product/EvdncAtVZXkZ/C...) or something like that decide to clone the most advanced John Deere tractors with their new access?
If you are buying a quarter-million-dollar John Deere combine, you have probably already evaluated the rest of the industry and decided that the draconian DRM or whatever they're using is worth that very substantial investment. It's not like you might have just been browsing in the store for a $1 bottle of shampoo -- I'm sure you can't be a farmer without knowing, in detail, about this unable-to-repair problem with John Deere specifically, and might have even formed some strong opinions about it!
And if you decide that it's not worth it, then you would choose something else.. the market would punish John Deere for their overstep. (I'm not a farmer and have zero contact with this industry, but it seems that the Indian company Mahindra has pretty competitive pricing from a quick browse of tractor dealerships.) You could also sue John Deere if they were delivering a vehicle that wasn't performing according to their specifications, and ultimately their reputation would suffer. (It took thirty years for American auto mfgs to rebuild their reputation after the garbage they made way back in the 70's.)
The other thing where the market would help to fix this, without needing a legislative fix, is if a competitor steps up with an easy to repair tractor, like https://frame.work/ did for laptops. If this is a real problem, then some smart entrepreneur eventually will, even if they end up having their first tractors built in China. John Deere relies on the trust of farmers just as much as the other way around.
Just some food for thought. This seems to be a nuanced and very emotional issue for some people, but it does seem like there are at least two sides to this story.
I'm curious, however, how much (in practical terms) John Deere would have to give or open up in terms of trade secrets in order to enable repairs (especially of super advanced stuff like fully autonomous farming), and to what extent they would need to open things up that offshore competitors might easily clone without having invested the millions (or billions?) that John Deere has already invested.
Put another way, right now, today, we have a farming equipment manufacturer based in the U.S. that is actually injecting some serious tech into a rather staid industry. John Deere seems to be turning into a highly innovative tech mfg company, in, ironically, one of the most expensive places to run a heavy equipment manufacturer.
I view them as a huge asset, developing what appears to be interesting ideas in what was a pretty tech-adverse industry, and fully automated farming is probably also a key component for food security across the globe, U.S. national security, international stability, and probably needs to be a part of any climate change conversation.
So, how much are we asking them to give up of their know-how where it might be cloned or worked-around by other companies?
In the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, "You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you wanna sell it."
What if FOTMA or Yucheng Dadi Machinery Co (https://sdycdadi.en.made-in-china.com/product/EvdncAtVZXkZ/C...) or something like that decide to clone the most advanced John Deere tractors with their new access?
If you are buying a quarter-million-dollar John Deere combine, you have probably already evaluated the rest of the industry and decided that the draconian DRM or whatever they're using is worth that very substantial investment. It's not like you might have just been browsing in the store for a $1 bottle of shampoo -- I'm sure you can't be a farmer without knowing, in detail, about this unable-to-repair problem with John Deere specifically, and might have even formed some strong opinions about it!
And if you decide that it's not worth it, then you would choose something else.. the market would punish John Deere for their overstep. (I'm not a farmer and have zero contact with this industry, but it seems that the Indian company Mahindra has pretty competitive pricing from a quick browse of tractor dealerships.) You could also sue John Deere if they were delivering a vehicle that wasn't performing according to their specifications, and ultimately their reputation would suffer. (It took thirty years for American auto mfgs to rebuild their reputation after the garbage they made way back in the 70's.)
The other thing where the market would help to fix this, without needing a legislative fix, is if a competitor steps up with an easy to repair tractor, like https://frame.work/ did for laptops. If this is a real problem, then some smart entrepreneur eventually will, even if they end up having their first tractors built in China. John Deere relies on the trust of farmers just as much as the other way around.
Just some food for thought. This seems to be a nuanced and very emotional issue for some people, but it does seem like there are at least two sides to this story.
All they need to do is...
- Allow people to buy genuine replacement parts at the same or similar pricing to what the OEM pays
- Publish information on what parts go where on the device and how to install them
- Don't make the device lock itself if it detects the user has replaced a device
None of this in and of itself implicates John Deere's ability to ship a competitive product or prevent cloning. My understanding is that other manufacturers would already have the ability and know-how to take their competitors' products apart and figure out how they work. Not being able to buy replacement parts or not having circuit board schematics doesn't really help stop that, because they can just buy the whole package and do their own reverse-engineering work from there. If you have competitors that can't do that, then they probably couldn't build a clone even if these companies were extremely repair-friendly.
- Allow people to buy genuine replacement parts at the same or similar pricing to what the OEM pays
- Publish information on what parts go where on the device and how to install them
- Don't make the device lock itself if it detects the user has replaced a device
None of this in and of itself implicates John Deere's ability to ship a competitive product or prevent cloning. My understanding is that other manufacturers would already have the ability and know-how to take their competitors' products apart and figure out how they work. Not being able to buy replacement parts or not having circuit board schematics doesn't really help stop that, because they can just buy the whole package and do their own reverse-engineering work from there. If you have competitors that can't do that, then they probably couldn't build a clone even if these companies were extremely repair-friendly.
This smells like the printer cartridge problem that HP and others have, where, if you replace the cartridge with non-HP, the printer will lock up and cease to function...
> This smells like the printer cartridge problem that HP and others have, where, if you replace the cartridge with non-HP, the printer will lock up and cease to function...
That's pretty much exactly what is going on.
That's pretty much exactly what is going on.
Honestly, they can keep a lot closed but still create modular designs and repairers win without giving away the farm.
If you don't want to pay John Deere for their fancy autonomous farming, that's fine. But you should be able to swap in a different control unit and not have to worry about your tractor simply refusing to run like a Keurig machine that refuses to run non-rfid tagged genuine k-cups.
Voids your warranty, sure, but I think you should be able to make that decision for yourself.
If you don't want to pay John Deere for their fancy autonomous farming, that's fine. But you should be able to swap in a different control unit and not have to worry about your tractor simply refusing to run like a Keurig machine that refuses to run non-rfid tagged genuine k-cups.
Voids your warranty, sure, but I think you should be able to make that decision for yourself.
[deleted]
There is a double edge problem here.
Farming like almost every other industry is has been under massive consolidation pressure for the last several decades, small and medium farms being bought out by large corporations.
These large corporations have no problem with these changes at JD because they do not want to repair their tractors anyway, they outsource that to the dealers now.
These changes however do drive up the costs for independent farmers which the Corporate farms love because then they can either drive them out of business or buy them cheap...
Farming like almost every other industry is has been under massive consolidation pressure for the last several decades, small and medium farms being bought out by large corporations.
These large corporations have no problem with these changes at JD because they do not want to repair their tractors anyway, they outsource that to the dealers now.
These changes however do drive up the costs for independent farmers which the Corporate farms love because then they can either drive them out of business or buy them cheap...
[deleted]
I think is easy to contradict your hypothesis,
All the code and tools are not secret, local shops have them so you don't need some extremely clever spy to get their hands on them.
I seen a similar argument about Apple repair manuals , there is even more stupid since Apple sends in China the full blueprints to build the iPhones so there is no fucking way that making the repair tools and manuals public gives China,Russia or N Koreea something they can't already get.
DRM would only make sense if you rent the product so the owner would not want to let a random dude to change stuff, but if you are the owner then you should be able to read the error codes and have a competent person replace a part.
TL:DR the repair tools and manuals do not contain trade secrets, the argument is flawed.
I seen a similar argument about Apple repair manuals , there is even more stupid since Apple sends in China the full blueprints to build the iPhones so there is no fucking way that making the repair tools and manuals public gives China,Russia or N Koreea something they can't already get.
DRM would only make sense if you rent the product so the owner would not want to let a random dude to change stuff, but if you are the owner then you should be able to read the error codes and have a competent person replace a part.
TL:DR the repair tools and manuals do not contain trade secrets, the argument is flawed.
Couldn't a capable foreign rival just come to America, approach a local farmer and ask them for access to the tractor for long enough to derive whatever alleged trade secrets there are? Or even just buy one, either here or overseas and disassemble?
[deleted]
>> John Deere would have to give or open up in terms of trade secrets in order to enable repairs
None... "Security" and "Trade Secrets" are largely red herrings to muddy the conversation and provide convenient cover for their true objective, anti-repair, or protectionism for their dealer network.
They can implement repairablity, api's and a whole host of other things to individual purchasers and independent repair with out sacrificing security or compromising trade secrets
None... "Security" and "Trade Secrets" are largely red herrings to muddy the conversation and provide convenient cover for their true objective, anti-repair, or protectionism for their dealer network.
They can implement repairablity, api's and a whole host of other things to individual purchasers and independent repair with out sacrificing security or compromising trade secrets
What that may mean is that legislation would require, e.g., that anyone doing any business with the government or using any government/public services (e.g., GPS) must utilize technologies that are common and compatible with each other both physically (parts) and data (communications, controls, etc.).
We are facing a situation that was last encountered or at least recognized in the late 80s and 90s, where silos and cartels were starting to emerge that led to massive waste and pillage of at least the public coffers. That led to a wave of standardization efforts in the late 90s and early 00s. That wave seems to have started dying out and really needs to be revitalized.