Hacker News Reader

Comment by korabas | Hacker News Reader

Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)?

To my mind, from the point of view of the "user" (i.e. the farmer), that can be seen as somewhat monopolistic.

I tried to find similarities between this situation and that of Apple not letting users tamper with their hardware, but it could be argued that the latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers, statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts who know their way around hardware, but in the case of a farmer, I'd imagine most would be perfectly capable of messing around with the internals of a tractor, albeit some software-heavy parts would of course prove almost impossible to "repair".

EDIT: Grammar

View on HN

In the early days, farm tractors were pretty simple, and many farmers did a lot of their own work. As machines got bigger, most used local repair shops that could always order from parts depots. But as electronics has invaded tractors (for many good reasons) it has gotten to the point where you really need the diagnostic equipment.

So this is a lot like what auto repair was in the early days of the diagnostic plug-in port. It took legislation to allow my local mechanic to buy a diagnostic machine that allowed him to reset the whiney "time for an oil change" message when he serviced my car. That was all about lock-in. This is all about lock-in for farm machinery, using proprietary ports and protocols and keeping documentation secret.

I could go on at length with anecdotes from family history but I shall spare you.

Right-to-repair needs to happen for all of us. Farmers just happen to have a lot of money on the line here and are leading the charge.

It's actually much worse. All of the electronics also causes the machine to collect quite a bit of data on how/when it is used. WRT to the individual farmer, that data now has value and the manufacturer can extract that value by requiring the customer to pay to have access to it. At scale, that data can be sold off to hedge funds and other wall street shops to help inform data trading algorithm on grain futures and the like, so that too is an incentive to try and prevent joe schmo from having access to it.

Seems like a good opportunity for a white hat to crack the probably shitty security and give this data to farmers for free.

This is an excellent point. There must also be some right and/or control for the owner generating this data, so that they can access it independently, at least in some raw form.

I wonder if this qualifies under GDPR like law. If my cookie is private data, why can't the movement of my truck be?

I still don't get from your description what the point or motive would be. Who is locking in whom, for what purpose?

Deere is controlling the marketplace for "repairs." If a farmer is required to use service centers exclusively provided and controlled by Deere, then they are inhibited from using the free market. The right to repair is essential for farmers to be able to choose the best repair options for their situation (self-made repairs, local non-affiliated repair shop, Deere certified).

Some people take their cars to the dealer for all services. They do this because they value the expertise and depth that the dealers can [sometimes] provide. Other people take their cars to the local quick lube or brake repair shop.

To each his own for car repairs. And so too it should be for any equipment repairs.

>They do this because they value the expertise and depth that the dealers can [sometimes] provide.

You mean the expertise they claim to provide. Dealership mechanics are generally junior mechanics; the really good, highly-experienced mechanics, go work at or start their own independent shops where they get much better pay.

The big reason that you'd want to visit the dealer rather than an independent mechanic is because you really, really, like spending more money than you have to. There's a reason they're called "stealerships".

I mean, I don't personally disagree with you. But I was trying to keep the framing of my opinion a little more neutral.

There are definitely some times when you want to go to the dealer; especially in rural areas, where the local repair shop has a lot of breadth, but not enough depth, to help with hard problems.

The manufacturer of the complicated machine is withholding diagnostic tools, locking out owners and independent repair shops, in order to protect their own dealership/service business.

From the article:

> A Crain’s Chicago Business article reported that dealers make five times the profit margin off repair than they do off the sale of new equipment.

The manufacturer can charge higher prices for repairs if it can exclude third parties from performing repairs.

Manufacturer locking end users in to the manufacturer's chosen parts and maintenance shops. Like how Apple tries to pretend the only place you can repair a Mac is at the Apple Store.

Apple Authorized Service Providers are shown as an option everywhere an Apple Store is.

But are actually allowed to do a very small amount of very basic repairs. For everything else, they have to send it to Apple and they tell you that.

There's a number of reasons, but as I understand the main issue is that John Deere is treating their tractor's firmware like the music industry was treating MP3's. They say farmers may own the tractor itself, and the hardware, but they're only licensing the use of the firmware and don't have the right to modify it. (Which can be necessary when repairing a tractor that has many computerized systems.)

They're essentially creating DRM for tractor software that's so restrictive that installing new parts requires access to secret codes in the firmware in order to turn them on, then accusing farmers of breaking the law if they try to alter or figure out these secret codes in order to keep their tractor working without going to a dealer. (According to my basic understanding, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Playing the devil’s advocate: what’s preventing them from claiming the tractor itself as IP as well, and licensing it as such? Eg you’re not allowed to change your own tires. Would such a thing be legally possible, and if not, why does this differ from the firmware?

Deere could absolutely rent tractors to farmers -- it would be a different economic calculus. It is unclear what kind of pricing would entice farmers to rent rather than buy.

Most manufacturers already do this with fluids. You are required to use their oil and oil filters or you 'may' void the drivetrain warranty. We just bought a new tractor last spring and this is part of the new deal when it comes to purchasing a new tractor.

I'm for right-to-repair, but I'll give it a shot in defense of manufacturers. A lot of people assume it's just "evil-corp" greed. All of these reasons are money based, but not necessarily malicious.

Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light. Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to disassemble and repair one safely.

Cost of creating parts distribution channels: Having the parts to repair a machine that you manufactured is cheap. Creating distribution channels to keep track of, maintain inventory, price out, and deliver those parts to customers, is a business in-and-of itself - and is not cheap to maintain. Many companies do this, but it isn't cheap.

Cost of creating and updating documentation for customers: Sure, this might seem tedious, but as a software engineer, I know this has an actual cost. How many companies have you worked at that have had perfect, up-to-date information on the ins-and-outs of the software that's being written, while it's still being written? Every company I've had has glaring blind-spots in documentation. Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of business and Deere needed to find another).

I'm not saying these are good reasons, but would make sense, in a market where everyone wants everything as cheap as possible, or for free. Costs have to get cut somewhere. A manufacturer isn't going to (or able to) give something away for free, and stay in business. Ideally, competitive market forces would be enough to pressure a company into making their products repairable. What we are seeing is likely a byproduct of monopolistic laziness - there's no strong incentive and it's easier to say "just send it to us and we'll fix it".

Just my two cents in defense of companies not being "evil" in nature, but trying to give customers what they want and getting scolded for it.

If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light.

The automotive industry, for which a huge aftermarket exists, has dealt with that argument before, and in general it seems the manufacturers are not responsible for anything but the defects they themselves create (hence recalls.) If anything, trying to lock things down only means the manufacturer wants to take on more responsibility, not less. Tesla is a notable exception to the tradition.

Also, as a hardware product, what happens when you make a minor revision? You send out a whole new book on Tractor v3.8973 (has slightly different brakes than 3.8972 because the brake manufacturer went out of business and Deere needed to find another).

This is a solved problem and has been for over a century; design changes mean you add a new section (or maybe just a paragraph, depending on the extent of the changes) to the manual. Here's an example from 70 years ago:

http://buick.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/1948/1948-1950%...

Hardcopy manuals for large and complex products often come in (sometimes multiple!) 3-ring binders, so that new material can be added easily. These days, it could be as simple as uploading a new PDF to a website.

> liability

When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it.

> distribution channels

It might be annoying to create but they won't lose money on parts, it would likely be a profit center, just not as big a center as doing the repairs themselves.

They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors.

> documentation

They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world.

Nobody is asking manufacturers to make huge sacrifices, just stop holding customers ransom.

> When has any company been held liable for a customer modifying it.

All the time. Regardless, the liability is to their brand. If someone hears that a John Deere tractor blew up and set a field on fire, they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair.

> They already distribute parts to dealers around the world who service the tractors.

Just guessing here, but I imagine they do this in bulk to local service centers, via a regular distribution chain (on a semi-truck to many service centers) to manage cost. Distributing a part to an individual, or service centers they don't own, would require remodeling their distribution chain. My point is, it's doable, but not cheap, and customers will end up paying for this convenience in the price of the product.

> They already have repair documentation that they distribute to dealerships around the world.

That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem?

Like I said, I am for right-to-repair and I'd like to see manufacturers move towards these types of models, but it's typically basic market forces that cause manufacturers to act the way they do. Unless I see evidence that someone consciously chose the "No, lets screw over our customers for more money" option, I'm not going to assume mal-intent and start screaming "they're holding customers ransom!" from the hilltops.

> All the time.

Then I am sure you can give us some recent examples in the media where the manufacturer is blamed for bad modifications by users.

If I pour a gallon of gasoline on a tractor and set it on fire, and the media reported "man sets farm on fire after torching a tractor", no tractor buyer is going to blame John Deere.

Your argument relies on the false premise that informed consumers (tractor operating farmers) would react negitivly to a brand if something happened involving a modified tractor. When in reality farmers are crying out to be able to repair and mod their tractors.

Compare to the tech industry. How often do PC gamers mod CPUs out of spec and end up shortening thr lifespan, or killing them? All the time. Nobody blames Intel.

> That are used internally... Are your internal docs customer friendly enough to help them repair the most minute problem?

Have you seen car repair manuals? They are very detailed and complete and third party dealers have access to them.

> the liability is to their brand. If .. a John Deere tractor blew up ... they avoid the brand. Even if it was caused by an improper repair.

Perhaps the tractor is hard to repair safely, the manuals aren't good, qualified repairs are expensive/unavailable/take a long time and repair community isn't good enough...

Those seem like 100% legitimate buyers concern and I don't see why the brand should immune.

> Liability: If a customer repairs a machine improperly and it causes more problems, or someone gets hurt, it can paint the manufacturer in a bad light. Many farmers know how to operate a tractor safely, but might not know how to disassemble and repair one safely.

That is not a reason to make repairs illegal. Authoritarianism does not solve problems. If property means anything, then it certainly should include the right to use it "incorrectly", though obviously with liability for any damages you cause others.

The only one of those that has a point may be liability.

In both the other cases, people will happily reverse engineer the documentation and create secondary supply chains. The company has to go out of their way to shut both of those down. Not to mention hardware-DRM measures.

There was a couple I had heard about who bought an electric car. They took their electric car to a shop that promised more millage (or faster charging, I can't remember which). As it turns out this custom modification killed the battery in a few short years, when it was supposed to last much longer. The couple was not happy with their purchase, and they never connected that the work they had done was related to their vehicles shortcomings.

If we are charitable in our interpretation of manufacturers positions, keeping customers from "tinkering" with devices maintains the brand's image and prevents unexpected product failure or safety misshaps.

That just seems like a miscommunication/lack of understanding. People mod car engines all the time to have more power (sometimes several times more than original), and they do so with the understanding that it does affect longevity negatively.

Not that I agree with them, but some of the rationales I heard:

That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that.

That it might force companies to publish business secrets: with machine being full of computers nowadays, they might be forced to reveal a proprietary API. Related: someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it.

That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable, in case someone wants to repair their machinery. They might have no intentions to get into the spare pieces market, but with a specific law (such as "the company will make available all required pieces for sale, or...") they might be forced to.

Also, money. But those are the kind of arguments you were asking for.

> That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up

Is this the case for auto shops now?

> That it might force companies to publish business secrets

There are many, many ways to compile and preserve business secrets in blobs, but there's probably a fundamental issue if you're dependent on that.

> someone finds a flaw in the API, uses it to ruin other people's machines, and then the company gets sued for it

If you publish crappy code in your paid product and someone suffers for it, you should be sued. That's not a consequence, that's the system working.

> That it forces companies to sell pieces that are not profitable

The company has a line of profit - the initial device. This is not forcing them to take on a new business, this is forcing them to support the purchase I already made. If you can't sell spare parts, don't sell tractors. If you can't handle a support call, don't take my money.

... and as true as that could be in theory, doesn't mean that it couldn't essentially bankrupt a business model that has built a lot of these companies. My family is in heavy farm equipment sales, and the reality is that without the margins on parts and repair, a lot of those business just aren't viable. The lock-in is there to really prevent the fundamental underpinning of their business model. Not saying it is correct or ethical, but it is the economic reality of how a lot of those businesses are structured.

... so the machines would cost more up-front instead of being offset by subsequent repairs?

Why should any company be forced to support a sale they've already made? Unless they are beholden to a warranty promise, a return policy, or it was promised at the time of purchase that support would be available for some amount of time, I don't follow this thought process at all. This actually sounds like a way to run a company/industry into the ground, or make the original products prohibitively expensive - to account for the cost.

>If you can't handle a support call, don't take my money.

Was there a promise of support at the time of purchase? If so, then yeah, that's a problem worth caring about. If not, then why give them money?

>That it makes a company liable in case someone repairs their truck and it blows up, since they can't prove that the two were related. Also to consider: the machine blows up after a repair, but it's not related to that.

Wouldn't this situation be analogous to the automobile industry? Surely this issue has been spoken on in the courts.

These are at least logical arguments.

I am also not sure I agree with them, or rather with the way things turn out in practice. But, as they say, "a villain is a hero in the other side".

It's not complicated. John Deere wants to milk their customers for more money.

s/John Deere/Every company ever

> but it could be argued that the latter makes a bit more sense given that most of their customers, statistically speaking, are not necessarily tech enthusiasts

And I'm not a car enthusiast, yet I can take my car to any mechanic I choose - I don't need the manufacturer's permission.

This is the perfect way to frame it. Just about anyone, no matter their level of interest in the case, would response to that with "well, duh".

Right, I cannot really argue with that. I wasn't mentioning Apple as an example of a good role model here, just to be clear.

This actually is also a market that suffers from this, notably companies like Tesla.

Money. You’re not buying a tractor, you’re buying a “platform”.

Well, he said “rational,” as in, how does Deere rationalize it. As far as I can tell, they’re just parroting the usual DMCA talking points…

> John Deere declined to be interviewed but sent a lengthy statement outlining its concerns. The company doesn’t want people altering its copyright-protected code because, said director of public relations Ken Golden, “changes could lead to the unsafe operation of products, disruption of machine capabilities and performance, changes to emissions controls, voiding of warranties and lack of transparency to the changes when the equipment is sold to another user”.

But yeah, money.

One thing that gets lost in this particular controversy, IMO, is that John Deere is effectively a monopoly in this space. If farmers were able to choose between tractors that were built like Dell laptops vs ones built like iPads…

So this is a problem of digital rights, but one could argue that it’s also a problem of deregulation and lack of competition.

It's been many years since I was actively involved in agriculture, but I don't recall John Deere being a monopoly. There were choices including Ford, Case, Masse Ferguson, Kubota, New Holland and then regionally brands like MTZ and Steyr.

That's not to say they're not all participating in the same practices, I just don't know, but is Deere really a monopoly?

Per this page, Deere has over 30% of the market; I don't know that would be considered a monopoly, but assuming the rest of the market is heavily fragmented, it's certainly a dominant position.

https://csimarket.com/stocks/compet_glance.php?code=DE

I think Deere has about 25-35% of the market, with New Holland and Kubota in there afterwards

True. My usual very-unscientific method is a search for "john deere vs" which turned up some alternatives but they seemed to be obscure to the point of giving Deere an effective monopoly, but yeah I don't really know.

Driving through rural Texas I've even seen a Tata dealership.

JD is on where near a monopoly on anything other than green paint. Mahindra, Case IH, Kubota, New Holland, and on and on are all equally available, and in most cases cheaper, alternatives that function just as well. We own both a Case and a Kubota.

It's probably a lot like Apple: lots of people absolutely insist on buying from them, and then complain when they get abused. But if you suggest they look at alternatives, they either dismiss it out-of-hand as completely impossible, or worse they get offended.

Right, that makes sense, at least from the point of view of the manufacturer, in that you're also "buying" support, etc.

It's still a bit sad that there's no opt-in into such deal, ad that farmers don't seem to have another alternative.

>what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)

I recall from a previous discussion Deere's arguments include safety - some of the things are semi self driving, and emissions. I dare say that doesn't stop you tinkering with your old car which can lead to similar problems.

They can screw the people who know how to repair their stuff and prevent the ones that don't know what they are doing from screwing something up, I guess (none of it make sense)... but of course they make more money this way.

The manufacturer wants to pull more value out of the entire lifecycle, rather than just the initial sale.

From the manufacturer's perspective, they only sell the tractor once. The revenue from repairs, and second hand sales accrue to others. If a tractor lasts a long time, that is great news for repairs and re-sales, but not necessarily for people selling new models. Additionally manufacturers have to defend their brand. Letting people graft whatever no-name parts into their tractor will often result in an under-performing or dangerous piece of equipment.

The idea of locked down hardware/equipment is to align these incentives, by splitting the downstream value of a long lasting tractor between the user and the vendor. Think of it like Apple. Locked down and expensive, but done intentionally to produce consistent outcomes.

Having certified repair stations allow you to extract money on certification, be sure that all parts are original and sold in a controlled market.

> all parts are original

John Deere bought out the only company that was really producing aftermarket parts a couple of years ago, so that's a non-issue for them.

As an aside, I had the JD tech out to work on my combine a while back. I watched him have to decrypt the service manual on his computer before he could use it. I was somewhat amazed at the lengths they go to to protect their information.

Almost. Once he unlocked it, he handed his computer to me and let me poke around freely. Hard to put a complete stop to social engineering.

> Honest question: what would be the rationale to prevent farmers from repairing their machinery themselves instead of through the manufacturer (in this case, Deere)?

Simple: an old tractor or truck - give me a decent shop with tools, lifts and a crane, and I can repair almost everything that is broken. Some light doesn't work, engine doesn't turn on? Hand me a multimeter and I can troubleshoot it.

Modern cars, trucks and tractors are essentially computers on wheels. Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? Can be everything from a faulty valve or cabin switch over broken shielding somewhere along the CAN (or other) high speed bus leading to garbled transmissions to a software bug somewhere in the control unit. The farmer can easily fix a broken component - but good luck finding the issue in the latter two failure modes, I doubt it's even possible for a small freelance shop as it requires HF communications or IT knowledge combined with specialized tooling (signal analyzer, some kind of debugging tool for the CU).

The problem there is that forcing manufacturers to open up the documentation is that this equals giving everyone and their dog including their competitors access to the "secret sauce" that is software. This is the unfortunate reality and I have no idea how to balance the right to repair for farmers willing to dive deep into complex technology with the interest of JD (or other manufacturers) that China doesn't simply dump the software and clones it outright.

Probably in a world without capitalism this might work out in favor of right to repair, but in the current economy... I'd settle for a middle groumd, giving the right for people to obtain and install spare parts on module scale, but not forcing opening up the software.

Edit: oh and that doesn't even touch the issue that old cars/trucks/tractors were designed to have ample space to work in, and that components tolerated abuse by idiots screwing around. Forget to properly clean the fuel line of gunk? No issue for an old truck, it might spew some smoke and that's it, but on the modern diesel engines with thousands of bars of pressure on the fuel rail? The tiniest amount of contaminants will brick the entire injector system if you're in bad luck...

> Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work?

And what if Joe Farmer wanted to take his faulty tractor to Bill Repair Man who knows about this but charges a lot less than Deere?

> Good luck for average Joe Farmer troubleshooting why the hydraulic valve doesn't work? Can be everything from a faulty valve or cabin switch over broken shielding somewhere along the CAN (or other) high speed bus leading to garbled transmissions to a software bug somewhere in the control unit. The farmer can easily fix a broken component - but good luck finding the issue in the latter two failure modes, I doubt it's even possible for a small freelance shop as it requires HF communications or IT knowledge combined with specialized tooling (signal analyzer, some kind of debugging tool for the CU).

If the machine was built for reparability, it could have built-in diagnostics that could greatly help troubleshoot those kind of problems.

For instance, couldn't broken shielding leading to garbled transmissions be partially diagnosed if error rates over the cable are tracked and a warning displayed that identifies the part in question?

In a previous job, I worked on an FPGA/ADC combo that'd give you a nice eye diagram for any CAN address on the bus. It was a ~$50 BoM even at super low volume boutique pricing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com