Hacker News Reader

Comment by syntaxing | Hacker News Reader

Admittedly I have never worked in the agriculture industry, but I have been a mechanical engineer for multiple industries before I became a software engineer (a good 5 years I was in a position where I quoted customers). You really cannot imagine that out of the 44B gross revenue and 5B net, that a "non tiny fraction" was not related to right the repair? Collections of receivables + Proceeds from sales of equipment on operating leases is north of half of the 44B gross. How much of that gross would have not existed should there been a third party market to repair and service exist products? I honestly can't give a number but I doubt its "tiny". Look at the car industry, about 20% of the global revenue is aftermarket. You simply cannot naively think that "right to repair" only effects the service contracts. Theres aftermarket parts and 3rd party repair shops that COULD have been a bigger market without John Deere's anticompetive practices.

View on HN

Yup. The two things John Deere did was make it impossible to diagnose problems with software lockouts and they did software locks for common parts. Imagine, for example, needing to pay $1000 to replace an oil filter because you needed to buy the official John Deere oil filter and have the John Deere technician drive out to install it and flash the tractor to start up with the new filter.

That's what John Deere was up to.

Also, I'd point out that tractors are, by and large, actually pretty simple machines. At their core they are an engine and a hydraulics system. Not much more. The most fancy tractors will obviously have a lot of creature comforts in the cab. GPS, auto steering, AC, etc. But the actual things that do the thing are effectively just solid metal parts that plow through the field or cut down the crop.

Tractors, because they are so simple, but also because they all operate at lower speeds than other vehicles, are almost immoral machines. My family literally has a John Deere from the 40s that starts up just fine. We also have a Massie from the the 70s that still operates just fine. And our newest Massie from the 00s is still doing farm work. The only reason we got the Massie in the 70s was because it had more horsepower than the John Deere from the 40s. And the only reason for the 00s tractor was because it had a closed cab with AC and more horsepower.

It would not shock me to learn John Deere was also integrating some planned obsolescence to speed up the turn over of their tractors.

> Imagine, for example, needing to pay $1000 to replace an oil filter because you needed to buy the official John Deere oil filter and have the John Deere technician drive out to install it and flash the tractor to start up with the new filter.

>That's what John Deere was up to.

Is that an actual price and the actual process?

Even in other industries it is common that spare parts and consumables have a very high margin (while the initial purchase has a much smaller margin or in some cases is even subsidised).

The most well known example is probably printer ink/toner. (Razors is another often quoted example.) But this applies to car parts too. I needed a new small plastic clip to my Dacia. I was quoted 100 SEK (about 10 USD) for that. I 3D printed a sturdier version that will last longer for less than 5 SEK in materials (less than 0.5 USD).

From that you can estimate the approximate margins many companies have for spare parts. Of course being able to prevent cheaper third party parts will seem enticing if they want to maximise shareholder value. And this is why we need regulation.

It's also absolutely no secret that fattest margins and profits for automobile industry is also made with "aftermarket service" - which include upsales and inflated prices for service intervals.

There's a reason they all now need digital service books which are locked to their partnerships.

>There's a reason they all now need digital service books which are locked to their partnerships.

This is honestly one of my biggest fears about the modern auto repair situation. Previously it was fairly common to eventually find service manuals for sale second hand after enough time had passed. Or someone would scan and dump them online. Then it turned into waiting for PDF's to leak from dealership CD's.

Now with having them locked down to dealership tablet pc's I worry they will never hit the public.

We need to bring back standardization and regulation of cars. Aftermarket parts for cars has mostly collapsed because NHSTA has deregulated almost everything. Auto manufacturers have worked hard to try and stop any 2 vehicles from sharing parts. They are all bespoke, sometimes even to the model year of a car.

That's a big part of what's made it harder to maintain cars and has driven up the prices.

It should be possible, for example, to swap in a new infotainment system on any old car. It should be possible for 2 EVs from different manufacturers to swap batteries.

Price no, process yes.

John Deere hasn't been insane enough to soft lock their oil filters. But they do soft lock about everything else they can.

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/08/17/43...

That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter).

> "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that.

The time it must take to get a limited pool of technicians to drive out (40 miles) and do that work is probably the real issue. The price seems completely reasonable.

I agree that right-to-repair should be a thing but you're grossly exaggerating the situation.

Sorry but you are misreading the cost. The part itself is $120. The fee for the tech to travel there wasn't specified.

The article doesn't specify that and the quote is an offhand remark from the farmer himself. I read that more as "... and it cost me $120" as if that was the bill he paid at the end.

However, it is unclear but I think my point still stands, a $120 piece of electronics is an order of magnitude less than a $1000 non-electronic, non-mechanical oil filter.

The labor is a major part of the cost and a major reason for the lawsuit in the first place.

JD is charging anywhere from $130 to $210/hr [1] for labor. That is my point. And that $120 part can only be replaced by their technicians which means that while the part itself might be reasonably priced, the labor is forced.

That's what was being said about that part, it's a cheap part which you have to spend a lot of money on the labor to install it. The farmer spent from $380 to $520 to install that part. Not exactly that far off the $1000 mark.

> The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."

[1] https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=115102...

Tractors are immortal (my Dad's 80-year-old Ford 9N can attest to that), John Deere is immoral.

I looked over their financials. You conjectured out of feelings and ignorance. Calling my evidence naive, when you are simply making things up, is ludicrous.

Go do some legwork, get some actual data, not make believe feel good fairy dust.

The fed suit had exact numbers, which they blacked out for public. The fed suit settled for a dollar amount. If they thought they’d get a better amount, they’d go to trial. So likely the proceeds are on order of the settlement, else they’d likely win more by trial. The feds are not idiots.

But some people are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com