Colorado becomes first to pass ‘right to repair’ for farmers(wivb.com)
wivb.com
Colorado becomes first to pass ‘right to repair’ for farmers
https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-becomes-1st-to-pass-right-to-repair-for-farmers/
91 comments
This part caught my eye:
Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk.
These are not serious arguments, are they?
Manufacturers and dealerships raised concerns that providing tools and information to farmers would allow equipment owners to illegally crank up the horsepower and bypass emissions controls — putting operator safety and the environment at risk.
These are not serious arguments, are they?
No, none of the lockouts were actually intended to prevent farmers from rolling coal in their tractors. Also, I'm not sure why a farmer would want to roll coal. But since rolling coal is a thing that people occasionally do, it's a useful boogeyman.
Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board.
[0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
Serialized parts don't prevent you from defeating emissions controls anyway - there's plenty of low-tech ways to tamper with sensors to do the same thing. Even the theft prevention[0] benefits are limited, because the chip with the serial codes on it can be desoldered and resoldered onto a new board.
[0] i.e. if someone were to chop-shop your phone or tractor. It happens.
Removing the emissions controls on diesel engines (EGR and DPF specifically) can actually give a significant boost to fuel economy. At the cost of higher emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides. Diesel engines recirculate the exhaust gas for cooler combustion (though less thermodynamically efficient, this reduces nitrogen oxide formation). They also come with particulate filters on the exhaust, which both increase pumping losses and require extra fuel to periodically regenerate the filter (basically burning off the soot particles that were collected, which needs extra heat which takes some fuel).
There are reliability improvements to be had as well, reducing operating costs still further (the emissions equipment can get clogged up, especially if the engine isn't running perfectly).
So yeah, farmers (all commercial diesel users really) have a strong financial incentive to avoid or remove these emissions controls, provided they don't get caught of course.
There are reliability improvements to be had as well, reducing operating costs still further (the emissions equipment can get clogged up, especially if the engine isn't running perfectly).
So yeah, farmers (all commercial diesel users really) have a strong financial incentive to avoid or remove these emissions controls, provided they don't get caught of course.
Thanks for the explanation. I did not know rolling coal was a thing. But it clearly looks like a boogeyman
Roll coal? Would that be a dangerous term to search for, or should I play ignoramus and ask here?
A practice typically done by rednecks with their diesel pickup trucks, tweaking the ECU and fuel profiles run the engine overly rich so the exhaust billows out thick black clouds (thus, "rolling coal"), particularly when they rev the engine.
It's usually done as a form of protest, and in the same way as a horn, not continuously.
Disgusting. I just watched some videos and it seems to be mostly used as a soft attack on bicyclists, environmentalists, pedestrians, people on the left etc. Some “anti-environmentalists” were literally sticking their face right next to the exhaust while it was rolling coal to make a point lol. That’ll show them.
Perfectly SFW example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2G44D7_p50
Looks like the Reaver ships in Firefly.
No. "But they could do something illegal with the thing they need to do their job" is not a good argument.
These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job.
One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
These tools aren't being used to work on skateboards or jet skis, these tools are being used to fix a tractor so the farmer can do their job.
One could think of a ton of illegal things a welder could be used for, but we aren't taking welding tools away from welders are we?
lots of vendors sell tractors across a line which all have the same engine, but whose horsepower is limited by the ECU according to the actual model that is purchased. pay for the low end model in a line, get lower horsepower. pay for the top of the line, get more horsepower, even though they are physically the same engine.
it allows for manufacturers to greatly simplify manufacturing requirements and lower costs, and it allows farmers to buy the tractor they need today and to grow into upgrades as they need them, without the downtime or expense of an engine swap if they need horsepower later.
manufacturers are afraid that the tools they would be required to provide could allow someone to "upgrade" their engine for free, but that's not what right to repair is about, and I would be surprised if a law required that upgrades like this be made possible by end users free of charge.
so it's a legit concern if you are a manufacturer of tractors and you compare what's being done in other areas of consumer electronics. oscilloscopes today are often sold in this same way: all models have the same potential for performance but are limited in software, so hackers bypass or trick the software to unlock the higher speeds when you only paid for the entry-level scope. In reality it is not much of a concern, since the percentage of customers who do this is extremely small.
the main problem for tractor manufacturers is that new regulations require them to spend money in order to be in compliance with those regulations. money that was not budgeted and which affects earnings reports and changes work priorities within a company. The desire to avoid regulations which require expenditure of any kind is what is drives the motivation of every company that resists right to repair efforts.
it allows for manufacturers to greatly simplify manufacturing requirements and lower costs, and it allows farmers to buy the tractor they need today and to grow into upgrades as they need them, without the downtime or expense of an engine swap if they need horsepower later.
manufacturers are afraid that the tools they would be required to provide could allow someone to "upgrade" their engine for free, but that's not what right to repair is about, and I would be surprised if a law required that upgrades like this be made possible by end users free of charge.
so it's a legit concern if you are a manufacturer of tractors and you compare what's being done in other areas of consumer electronics. oscilloscopes today are often sold in this same way: all models have the same potential for performance but are limited in software, so hackers bypass or trick the software to unlock the higher speeds when you only paid for the entry-level scope. In reality it is not much of a concern, since the percentage of customers who do this is extremely small.
the main problem for tractor manufacturers is that new regulations require them to spend money in order to be in compliance with those regulations. money that was not budgeted and which affects earnings reports and changes work priorities within a company. The desire to avoid regulations which require expenditure of any kind is what is drives the motivation of every company that resists right to repair efforts.
In general market incumbents, especially the larger ones, shouldn't resent new regulation. As long as it affects all their competitors equally, they won't lose market share and can pass on increased costs to customers. In this case, customers receive additional value (right to repair) so they should accept additional costs, if any.
I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
> I think the manufacturers' real concern has not been cost of compliance, but rather loss of service revenues which business model is arguably customer-hostile.
well, usually the services needed by the owner are provided by a dealer, and not the vehicle manufacturer, so I'm not sure that holds water. I don't think the manufacturers lose anything except a small amount of goodwill from a dealer who can no longer charge $100 every few years when a particular dealer tool would be needed to convince a tractor to resume operation. that's not a lot of loss for a dealer.
manufacturers do supply parts, but that wouldn't change if an end user installs the parts instead of a dealer. most farmers fix their own tractors using first-party parts already.
well, usually the services needed by the owner are provided by a dealer, and not the vehicle manufacturer, so I'm not sure that holds water. I don't think the manufacturers lose anything except a small amount of goodwill from a dealer who can no longer charge $100 every few years when a particular dealer tool would be needed to convince a tractor to resume operation. that's not a lot of loss for a dealer.
manufacturers do supply parts, but that wouldn't change if an end user installs the parts instead of a dealer. most farmers fix their own tractors using first-party parts already.
Performance tuning (horsepower) and bypassing emissions shouldn't be possible by the approved technicians anyway. From my experience, those capabilities are reserved for an engineering tool, not a diagnostics/repair tool. So, those don't seem like legit arguments to me.
One safety concern for untrained technicians is the possibility of activating motors, and other circuits during the repair process without ensuring those things are safe to operate in their repair/disassembled state. So, there is a legit safety argument, but that's true for many tools that are sold at the local hardware store.
One safety concern for untrained technicians is the possibility of activating motors, and other circuits during the repair process without ensuring those things are safe to operate in their repair/disassembled state. So, there is a legit safety argument, but that's true for many tools that are sold at the local hardware store.
For at least some cars, benchmarking / tuning software seems to be widely available even for unapproved (it seemed to me) technicians.
Fair enough, although not for most vehicles going forward -- they're encrypting all of the bus traffic and have made other security improvements (in response to the 2015 defcon Jeep hack that demonstrated how weak vehicle bus security is among most automakers).
What they actually want is monopoly protections in a legislative regime that is ostensibly anti-monopoly.
So they pretty much have to lie.
So they pretty much have to lie.
Meanwhile in WA state, the house bill advertised by https://washington.repair.org/ has, in its most recent iterations (after 02-08-2023, in this list https://app.leg.wa.gov/bi/tld/documentsearchresults?biennium...), an exemption that magically appeared:
"Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles."
Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... :
> (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R...
> (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language.
The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)".
Also interested people can probably spend time watching the videos in https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023... to learn more, such as the few minutes at 2:31:25 in https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?event...
"Exempts manufacturers or distributors of certain medical devices, motor vehicles, any power generation or storage equipment, or equipment for fueling or charging motor vehicles."
Wondering what type of farmer equipment count as "motor vehicles" here, and if tractors are counted or not.
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R... :
> (Other) Motor vehicles are not the focus of the bill, but could be impacted by the bill, especially for things like touch screens in vehicles and electric vehicle chargers. The industry would appreciate an exemption to exclude motor vehicles and related devices from the scope of the bill
https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Htm/Bill%20R...
> (Other) There are concerns regarding the definition of digital electronic equipment. A clarifying amendment to exclude digital electronic equipment in vehicle charging stations would be appreciated. New York's right to repair law had similar language.
The list of entities testifying in the "(Other)" category (versus "(In support)") is thankfully visible in these docs you only need to Ctrl+F for "(Other)".
Also interested people can probably spend time watching the videos in https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1392&Year=2023... to learn more, such as the few minutes at 2:31:25 in https://tvw.org/video/house-appropriations-2023021401/?event...
"We are worried this manufacturing bill might affect vehicle touch screen and electric charging technology. Lets exempt the entire auto industry, the single largest manufacturing sector in the country, that represents 3% of the US GDP."
Who's bill is this?
Who's bill is this?
Thankfully, most automakers do make diagnostic tools/parts/info available to everyone (due to Massachusetts' 2012 right to repair law). The automakers don't really mind because more users licensing that software is more revenue. If anyone cares in that industry, it's the dealers.
Automakers are required to (thanks to the 2012 law you mentioned), so characterizing them, saying they don't mind seems like overselling it.
They're only required to do it in MA though. They do it everywhere because it's more revenue, so I think it's fair to say they don't mind. It's the dealers that mind.
Damn, talk about largely neutering a bill. It shows how much contempt many manufacturers have for their customers.
And the contempt the politicians have for their voters who actually put it into law, which is more egregious imho. I don't necessarily blame an industry for trying to get things in bills that benefit their industry, but I do blame the politicians who actually make it a reality over the interests of their citizens and then a governor who signs it into law.
Yes, the politicians are also bad actors here. But I also absolutely blame industries for trying to get things like this into law.
Apathetic and ignorant voters share the blame, as do our education system and media.
> as do our education system
civics education, critical thinking, math, science, and humanities education all have an impact on how and if people understand and get involved in issues that affect the population and the world, politics, etc...
It's a lot easier to manipulate and misinformed people when the lack a basic education in these fields.
It's a lot easier to manipulate and misinformed people when the lack a basic education in these fields.
I wouldn't say the contempt for customers is conscious. It's more a single-minded focus on revenue maximization, leading to an obscene effort to defend against any percieved threats to that revenue maximization, that results in what looks like contempt... When you only care about one thing, nothing else matters.
> When you only care about one thing, nothing else matters.
Which counts as contempt in my book. Contempt means "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." Caring more about your revenue stream than your customers is regarding your customers as inferior to your revenue stream.
Which counts as contempt in my book. Contempt means "The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn." Caring more about your revenue stream than your customers is regarding your customers as inferior to your revenue stream.
It's two sides of the same coin, no?
Totally, and in my experience it's above a certain level in the company, below that level the employees have pride and care about their customers because they are them and can relate to them, above a certain level they are not users of their own products, cant relate to regular people and then a different dynamic takes over.
It happens when stock compensation is greater than wage compensation. This shifts the incentive from pleasing customers to pleasing shareholders.
Politicians too
This is potentially an advantage for the Colorado bill, which (I think?) specifically targets right-to-repair for farmers/farm equipment. When you only target one industry, that industry can't say "give us an exception, the bill will still be fine."
I'm sure Colorado will be rewarded with cheaper food and more efficient agriculture.
Are you saying that allowing farmers to repair their own equipment is pointless, or that allowing it will cause food prices to go up? Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers.
> Either way, you are saying that you either don't care about farmers or your only concern is whether things cost more for consumers.
He didn't say any of that
He didn't say any of that
Good for farmers. What about others?
We have introduced bills in 28 states so far this year. Some are ag, some are medical, some are consumer electronics focused. Making very good progress.
Why must they be so narrow?
It's easier to pass, I believe.
If you made a sweeping all encompassing "right to repair" bill you would then be targeted by every single group which opposes right to repair, if you target agriculture or medical areas you are likely to only primarily receice heavy opposition from a segment rather than a large swath of industries.
Narrow bills are easier to understand and explain. They do one thing and they do it right rather than trying to solve every problem.
A narrow bill has less of a target. If you have a large bill there might be one small element which some politician couldn't vote for for various reasons, reduce the scale and you reduce the target area.
Those are just a few ideas, not an expert in this but these seemed to make sense. Let me know what you think.
If you made a sweeping all encompassing "right to repair" bill you would then be targeted by every single group which opposes right to repair, if you target agriculture or medical areas you are likely to only primarily receice heavy opposition from a segment rather than a large swath of industries.
Narrow bills are easier to understand and explain. They do one thing and they do it right rather than trying to solve every problem.
A narrow bill has less of a target. If you have a large bill there might be one small element which some politician couldn't vote for for various reasons, reduce the scale and you reduce the target area.
Those are just a few ideas, not an expert in this but these seemed to make sense. Let me know what you think.
That's exactly it. It's about segmenting the opposition.
That's not exactly the best policymaking, of course. There's no fundamental difference between fixing a tractor and a smartphone.
Over time, we're hopeful the policies will converge for all devices. Last year we did electric wheelchairs in Colorado, this year the same legislators expanded it to tractors.
That's not exactly the best policymaking, of course. There's no fundamental difference between fixing a tractor and a smartphone.
Over time, we're hopeful the policies will converge for all devices. Last year we did electric wheelchairs in Colorado, this year the same legislators expanded it to tractors.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I was mildly interested in the article based on the title, because the right to repair is imho necessary in many areas of life. But I am most definitely not interested enough to do the trivial work to bypass the " This content is not available in your country/region." message.
If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.
If you can't figure out how to serve your content to users without extreme tracking (at least I assume that the reason for this message is the consumer protection found in the EU), then your content can't be that important.
Like another commenter mentioned, using archive.today bypasses most paywalls and blocks.
A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here
[0]: https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-bec...
A trick I always use is to just append the url to archive.today[0] to get a page with no ads and bloat. You could also make a bookmarklet to make it a 1-click thing. Sometimes it might not be archived so you will have to click 'archive this url' to make one, but people are usually quick to archive articles that are posted here
[0]: https://archive.today/https://www.wivb.com/news/colorado-bec...
You can read it here: https://archive.ph/elD6M
You can provide them with your email and they will send you a newsletter. That counts as storing user data and would require them to have to deal with the GDPR behemoth. Compliance costs a lot of time and money. Or you could just block EU users, which are not going to be reading a lot of Buffalo local news. Categorizing it as just extreme tracking is disingenuous.
It's not that important for the EU. The summary is John Deere would put chips in their tractors that were aware if you replaced a part. If you replaced that part, the tractor would brick until you took it to the dealership to update the computer.
Only farmers?
Pitting big business interests against rural/agricultural interest. Seems like a potential wedge issue for US conservatives if I've ever seen one.
What are the odds that passing this bill will actually help the mostly Democratic lawmakers who pushed and passed this bill? My guess is the beneficiaries will still largely vote against them due to nebulous culture war issues.
What happened to making the world a better place because it’s beneficial to everyone? Not everything has to be election politics game theory.
There's a dark counterargument to this: that those seeking to raise the tide for everyone need to account for the maneuvers by those who wish to opportunistically deregulate and profit.
There's a fine line between elevating the opportunity and quality-of-life floor v. making everyone the same at the expense of individualism and all opportunity (i.e. in favor of "sameness") But basic quality of life improvements that require public funding are often lobbied against with arguments equating raising the floor with "sameness," which harms pretty much everyone.
Hence a dwindling middle class etc
There's a fine line between elevating the opportunity and quality-of-life floor v. making everyone the same at the expense of individualism and all opportunity (i.e. in favor of "sameness") But basic quality of life improvements that require public funding are often lobbied against with arguments equating raising the floor with "sameness," which harms pretty much everyone.
Hence a dwindling middle class etc
> There's a fine line
I don't think that's the case, not at all. I do think it's easy to think you're doing the first when you're not, and I do think it's easy to make the first look like the second, particularly in scarcity-based circumstances, or by "counting the outcome" differently.
I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the second (call it "forced equalization") can't or doesn't happen - I'm arguing against it being similar enough to opportunity elevation (good word choice btw!) that there's merely a fine line between them.
I don't think that's the case, not at all. I do think it's easy to think you're doing the first when you're not, and I do think it's easy to make the first look like the second, particularly in scarcity-based circumstances, or by "counting the outcome" differently.
I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the second (call it "forced equalization") can't or doesn't happen - I'm arguing against it being similar enough to opportunity elevation (good word choice btw!) that there's merely a fine line between them.
> I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho.
It's a good question, and in hindsight I can see why it wouldn't be obvious.
Basically: because the two are part of an equality gradient where one end is effectively an opportunity lottery with the worst odds and the other end is "sameness", and where a society draws the line (manifesting as parties with their positions, which of course means there can be more than one line to dice up the gradient a bit) depends on a whole host of factors. Culture, experiences, etc.
Your points above largely support the Gradient argument; it's easy to assume teal is blue, or perhaps green, or to convince some people blue is green (comically, some stoplights come to mind). I'm merely sharing my formula for how the line manifests.
I'm guessing we're on the same page and are debating a nuance. Lol
It's a good question, and in hindsight I can see why it wouldn't be obvious.
Basically: because the two are part of an equality gradient where one end is effectively an opportunity lottery with the worst odds and the other end is "sameness", and where a society draws the line (manifesting as parties with their positions, which of course means there can be more than one line to dice up the gradient a bit) depends on a whole host of factors. Culture, experiences, etc.
Your points above largely support the Gradient argument; it's easy to assume teal is blue, or perhaps green, or to convince some people blue is green (comically, some stoplights come to mind). I'm merely sharing my formula for how the line manifests.
I'm guessing we're on the same page and are debating a nuance. Lol
Obviously making the world a better place is great, but you still gotta win races to have the ability to do so!
Currently Colorado is solidly a blue state and Democratic lawmakers don't actually need help. I am in Titone's district (the sponser) and the right to repair was broadly supported.
What gets missed in this discussion is that John Deere and other large machine manufactures offset the purchase price of these machines with the expected cost of maintenance for the lifetime of the machine. This lets business owners (in this case farmers) obtain financing for machines that might in other situations be difficult to obtain. In other words, these large machine manufactures are taking on part of the cost to "finance" these machines because in the past other financial institutions have been reluctant to do so.
I'd argue that's a sign that John Deere is just out to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else. Plenty of evidence out there to support that. Sure, any company's goal is to maximize profits to some degree, but instead of manipulating the market to extract additional money target a product to what the market can afford. If a market can't afford the product the problem isn't the market, it's the product. Instead Deere has has manipulated the market to extract money the market can't sustain.
overall, the economy is not "fair" by most measures.. older industries do not get new influx of dollars and talent.. people only want to pay so much for a commodity product.
... far from defending John Deere, instead realize that this is an example of a truly "political" problem.. the needs and wants of direct stakeholders are vastly one-sided, compared to the outputs over time for the rest of society.
... far from defending John Deere, instead realize that this is an example of a truly "political" problem.. the needs and wants of direct stakeholders are vastly one-sided, compared to the outputs over time for the rest of society.
If that's the business model manufacturers want to follow, surely it could be done more honestly by requiring a service contract in exchange for financing or a reduced initial price.
Would be cheaper than doing work to make the thing non self repairable as well.
There is nothing in the JD tractors that cannot be accomplished with open source. Nothing.
Most recently I saw it as retrofit in a Workmaster 60. It had not only engine control, but lane tracking, soil sampling, and more. Al kinds of cameras, relays, and stuff. It was a Frankenstein's dream, but it worked.
The cost offset justification is horse lemons. Much of JD's smarts come from off the shelf code and material, including open source.
Most recently I saw it as retrofit in a Workmaster 60. It had not only engine control, but lane tracking, soil sampling, and more. Al kinds of cameras, relays, and stuff. It was a Frankenstein's dream, but it worked.
The cost offset justification is horse lemons. Much of JD's smarts come from off the shelf code and material, including open source.
Even worse - john deere uses open source code, and doesn't honor its licenses.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi...
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/mar/16/john-deere-gpl-vi...
If they want to move product, they're going to have to do that anyway. The auto industry still subsidizes loans through their own lending operations even though we have Magnuson-Moss which allows people to go to non-manufacturer affiliated mechanics.
That makes sense. Perhaps go to the full SaaS model like Rolls-Royce did for jet engines with "Power by the hour" where you lease the engine on a per flight-hour basis with all maintenance included.
They did what now?
>> What gets missed in this discussion is that John Deere and other large machine manufacture[r]s offset the purchase price of these machines with the expected cost of maintenance for the lifetime of the machine. This lets business owners (in this case farmers) obtain financing for machines that might in other situations be difficult to obtain.
That would be fine and dandy if there were a *choice* to discount the price in exchange for the reduced degree of ownership. (And if they were decent folks, once equity had been fully paid off they would unlock everything).
The reality is nothing more than rent-seeking MBA bastards trying to improve their own bottom line.
It's dangerous when companies get into the financing business with their products and dictate the terms in user-hostile ways for which you have zero bargaining power. You wind up with problems like phones you can't transfer to another provider and cars that want to lock you out if you're late on a payment.
As consumers our best way to fight this bullshit is to just say NO, and stop buying products that are encumbered with such shenanigans.
It's one reason I never buy my phone from the same company that sells my service. I hold the unorthodox view they have no business being device resellers, and I wish they just stuck to selling me airtime and focused on being good at that (fast speeds, good coverage, network capacity, customer service, etc). Instead they load products up with bloatware, and over time poisoned the incentives of manufacturers to prioritize their interests over my own user experience. In any event I find better deals and truly unlocked units off eBay, usually from a region of the world where the model supports the ROM I prefer to use.
Unfortunately it's becoming harder in practice to locate alternative supply, and not everyone is in a position to make this principled choice. Some can't afford it, but most of us are ambivalent and just want to get a phone and get on with our lives.
A traditional financing outfit could care less about restricting what features you can use on your product or who you're allowed to pay to fix or upgrade it (as long as the repairs are competent, which is justifiable seeing as they are part-owners, and such conditions are all lifted once you buy them out). While I dislike government dictating relationships between businesses and consumers, I feel like there should be anti-compete laws to keep some degree of separation between corporations "product" and "financing" arms to avoid customer-harming conflicts of interest. Particularly when that corporation is the manufacturer. There's just too much temptation for them to degrade toward the direction I described above, and in practice not enough market diversity for consumers to fight back in other ways.
____
Edit: Quoted portion of your post so folks who can't see the text of deleted comments have some context.
That would be fine and dandy if there were a *choice* to discount the price in exchange for the reduced degree of ownership. (And if they were decent folks, once equity had been fully paid off they would unlock everything).
The reality is nothing more than rent-seeking MBA bastards trying to improve their own bottom line.
It's dangerous when companies get into the financing business with their products and dictate the terms in user-hostile ways for which you have zero bargaining power. You wind up with problems like phones you can't transfer to another provider and cars that want to lock you out if you're late on a payment.
As consumers our best way to fight this bullshit is to just say NO, and stop buying products that are encumbered with such shenanigans.
It's one reason I never buy my phone from the same company that sells my service. I hold the unorthodox view they have no business being device resellers, and I wish they just stuck to selling me airtime and focused on being good at that (fast speeds, good coverage, network capacity, customer service, etc). Instead they load products up with bloatware, and over time poisoned the incentives of manufacturers to prioritize their interests over my own user experience. In any event I find better deals and truly unlocked units off eBay, usually from a region of the world where the model supports the ROM I prefer to use.
Unfortunately it's becoming harder in practice to locate alternative supply, and not everyone is in a position to make this principled choice. Some can't afford it, but most of us are ambivalent and just want to get a phone and get on with our lives.
A traditional financing outfit could care less about restricting what features you can use on your product or who you're allowed to pay to fix or upgrade it (as long as the repairs are competent, which is justifiable seeing as they are part-owners, and such conditions are all lifted once you buy them out). While I dislike government dictating relationships between businesses and consumers, I feel like there should be anti-compete laws to keep some degree of separation between corporations "product" and "financing" arms to avoid customer-harming conflicts of interest. Particularly when that corporation is the manufacturer. There's just too much temptation for them to degrade toward the direction I described above, and in practice not enough market diversity for consumers to fight back in other ways.
____
Edit: Quoted portion of your post so folks who can't see the text of deleted comments have some context.
I believe the point was they are offering the reduced price as-is. What they aren't offering is a higher priced variant where have you have the right to repair.
Right, but they're never going to sell the "you will own everything and we will be pissed" version of the tractor. Because the value to the consumer for being able to repair what they own is less than the control premium that companies are willing to pay in order to lock people into branded repair. Furthermore, providing you the actual repairability often requires re-engineering the product to support it. Like, I don't think most people would pay just to have, say, Apple get rid of the iPhone's Face ID lock and nothing else. They want an actually repairable phone.
A similar problem happens with advertising. Theoretically I should be able to pay for first-party ad block from every site and social platform I visit. In practice the value that a larger ad inventory commands is always greater than the small fractions of people who would pay X/mo for an ad-free version of that service, minus however much it costs to maintain the ad-free option. Why serve a niche that cuts into your bottom line?
The few exceptions to the above that I can think of largely prove the rule:
* Framework and Fairphone are able to market repairable phones and laptops. In this case, they aren't actually charging a repairability premium over an existing product, they're just selling into higher-end markets. Repairability is built into both the product and the pricing in ways that aren't separable - you wouldn't be able to sell a cheaper Framework that isn't repairable.
* YouTube sells ad-free access, but this is mainly because online video ad revenue has cratered badly. Advertising is a moat that keeps YouTube out of profitability, not in it.
* Twitter tries to sell ad-free, except it's "less ads", and mostly exists because Elon desperately needs to justify how much money he spent on buying the crack factory he was addicted to.
Whether or not repairability commands a premium or having everything locked down comes with a discount is immaterial. Consumers are not in a position to actually realize said discount or pay said premium. Because it's not a matter of consumer choice. It's a matter of control. We (the MBAs) put shit in the product you were going to buy anyway, and it isn't immediately causing you to run to the hills, so we win.
A similar problem happens with advertising. Theoretically I should be able to pay for first-party ad block from every site and social platform I visit. In practice the value that a larger ad inventory commands is always greater than the small fractions of people who would pay X/mo for an ad-free version of that service, minus however much it costs to maintain the ad-free option. Why serve a niche that cuts into your bottom line?
The few exceptions to the above that I can think of largely prove the rule:
* Framework and Fairphone are able to market repairable phones and laptops. In this case, they aren't actually charging a repairability premium over an existing product, they're just selling into higher-end markets. Repairability is built into both the product and the pricing in ways that aren't separable - you wouldn't be able to sell a cheaper Framework that isn't repairable.
* YouTube sells ad-free access, but this is mainly because online video ad revenue has cratered badly. Advertising is a moat that keeps YouTube out of profitability, not in it.
* Twitter tries to sell ad-free, except it's "less ads", and mostly exists because Elon desperately needs to justify how much money he spent on buying the crack factory he was addicted to.
Whether or not repairability commands a premium or having everything locked down comes with a discount is immaterial. Consumers are not in a position to actually realize said discount or pay said premium. Because it's not a matter of consumer choice. It's a matter of control. We (the MBAs) put shit in the product you were going to buy anyway, and it isn't immediately causing you to run to the hills, so we win.
> Edit: Quoted portion of your post so folks who can't see the text of deleted comments have some context.
I'm confused; I didn't delete anything, were you just assuming I would delete my comment? Also, your comment has this weird vibe; like you are trying to argue with me. However, I wasn't stating an opinion on the issue, merely explaining why propriety hardware and software is used by large machine manufactures.
I'm confused; I didn't delete anything, were you just assuming I would delete my comment? Also, your comment has this weird vibe; like you are trying to argue with me. However, I wasn't stating an opinion on the issue, merely explaining why propriety hardware and software is used by large machine manufactures.
Your comment shows up in light grey (it didn't when I first replied) and I thought that meant it was deleted.
Not intending to argue, or attack *you*. My beef is with the manufacturers who are doing this, and to some extent the culture of consumer apathy that accepts it (perhaps I exhibited a "lecturing" undercurrent that lent that vibe). I don't dispute your point, I just think it's important it isn't accepted as an excuse or justification for what's been going on.
Not intending to argue, or attack *you*. My beef is with the manufacturers who are doing this, and to some extent the culture of consumer apathy that accepts it (perhaps I exhibited a "lecturing" undercurrent that lent that vibe). I don't dispute your point, I just think it's important it isn't accepted as an excuse or justification for what's been going on.
Well if that's so beneficial to farmers I'm sure we will hear them loudly protesting because they want it back. I don't hear anything.
Where is the proof that this results in lower price of machines?
You are truing to justify a straight forward cash grab
You are truing to justify a straight forward cash grab
> Where is the proof that this results in lower price of machines?
It does. Source: Confidential
> You are tr[y]ing to justify a straight forward cash grab
No; I provided context without opinion.
It does. Source: Confidential
> You are tr[y]ing to justify a straight forward cash grab
No; I provided context without opinion.
There are additional videos linked in that video's description for those wanting additional context as to what this bill is all about.