Colorado becomes first to pass ‘right to repair’ for farmers

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.

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?

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.

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.

So they pretty much have to lie.

Who's bill is this?

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...

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.

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.

You are truing to justify a straight forward cash grab