It is a problem that will largely do nothing but expand. The farmers are proving to be the first major front, but there are areas of the automotive market that are problematic as well.
Tesla is one of the ones in the market now where they make it difficult to impossible to repair without dealer specific software tools.
It is going to be an interesting next 10 years or so. Goes to show that we need to pay attention to things going on around us (even on the farm).
It is no different than price fixing. It is going to happen, but if one player does not join the club, he will have an advantage with the market.
What if John Deere goes to the matt on the dealer only service, but some Asian competitor takes the opposite approach? How long the Deere gonna last in that market? Having lived in farm country for a while, I am fully aware of the fierce loyalty that framers develop for their implement brands, but as we all know, love turns to the strongest form of hate if you perceive that you are being scorned. If it does turn, it seldom comes back.
Is this inevitable? Yes, I believe so because with politicians always a few bucks away from doing someone's bidding, it will be legislated for safety or IP reasons that only a factory trained tech at a factory facility can touch a tractor.
Pete
Interesting...
How does that differ from what happened to automobiles from the '80's until now?
Technology came. Proprietary formats tried to retain their exclusivity. Code readers and hacks entered the market, and prices for work-arounds plummeted.
Nobody drives a carbureted car today, but we all drive cars. Some people can repair their own. Some hire small shops. Some pay dealers high prices.
Farmers are awesome, but they do tend to be more stubborn than most of us. Mules can still pull a plow if they would prefer.
I know a lot of farmers. They are fiercely independent, yet some of the largest recipients of welfare-like handouts from the public coffers.
Its a problem, but I think it is self-correcting.
I bought a vehicle that was newer technology than I was comfortable with. My own personal correction? My next vehicle will be a pristine older vehicle.
Ultimately, these are business decisions, and life decisions.
In reply to SVreX :
I think the primary difference here is that anybody can buy an OBD scanner and access some basic diagnostic info for their computer controlled vehicle. Even if they aren't allowed to modify anything about the way the vehicle functions, they can still see fault codes and begin diagnosing the issue without being forced to have it towed to a dealer, only to find that a $40 sensor needed replacement.
Right now, that's not an option with new tractors. At least the video makes it seem that way.
In reply to STM317 :
Right. But that's exactly the way it was in the '80's and early 90's with automobiles.
Entry price point for a scanner was something like $60K
In reply to SVreX :
And then OBDII standards were put in place. Seems like something similar could be done with equipment. They already use standard OBDII fault codes for the powertrains. I don't see an issue with giving the owners access to that diagnostic info.
A genuine question because I haven't really done any reading on the subject: when OBD2 came it was it a published standard and is the John Deere thing proprietary? That would be a big difference in the two since with the DCMA they could make the argument that any attempt to reverse engineer the protocol to connect would be infringement thus putting Deere in the position of being the only ones who can make and sell a scanner at any price.
On the other hand it's not that different from what companies like Mercedes-Benz do: they are compliant with the OBD2 standard but have a bunch of "extensions" to the protocol that are proprietary for which only they can make a tool to read.
This reminds me of a tangent James May got into on "The Reassembler"- the record player episode I think. Old technology was still expensive and had to be built to be fixed, simply because things like vaccuum tubes and mechanical parts regularly broke or required service. Nowadays things are throwaway and cheap, but he remarked that it really displays how far things have come in reliability- if your phone breaks after 4+ years of daily use, banging around in your jean pocket, was it ever truly unreliable? What would you be giving up to make your phone have, say, a battery you can remove and replace at will?
Now I will say- I am absolutely for Right-to-Repair laws and I think anyone who fights for them truely has people's best interest as a whole at heart. But we tend to forget that the real reason phone companies killed off replaceable cell phone batteries wasn't planned obsolescence or corrupted forms of capitalism- it was because nobody was buying them, we wanted more EVERYTHING from our smartphones, and the only way they could respond to the market pressure was by building custom batteries for each. So I think that while this is inevitable, their user base is going to react in a way that will likely change their minds real quick- like what we are seeing with smartphones.
wae said:A genuine question because I haven't really done any reading on the subject: when OBD2 came it was it a published standard and is the John Deere thing proprietary? That would be a big difference in the two since with the DCMA they could make the argument that any attempt to reverse engineer the protocol to connect would be infringement thus putting Deere in the position of being the only ones who can make and sell a scanner at any price.
On the other hand it's not that different from what companies like Mercedes-Benz do: they are compliant with the OBD2 standard but have a bunch of "extensions" to the protocol that are proprietary for which only they can make a tool to read.
Yes, OBDII was a published standard. Actually, technically, it was/is a required standard. It's #1 goal is to detect faults where the system no longer is compliant with a given emissions standard, the #2 goal was to standardize enough of it so that non-OEM garages can still work on them without expensive tools unique to each maker.
But OBD only covers powertrain stuff, mostly related to emissions related components. There are now way more computers on cars that have different things going on. Thankfully- they all use the CAN network, and getting the software should be pretty easy.
Note- this is VERY different than the code that actually runs the car, which is very proprietary, and has protections (both legal and technical) in them to prevent the code from being changed.
We got into this in some detail three years ago: see https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/auto-manufactuerers-want-to-prevent-people-from-modifying-or-working-on-their-own-cars/100948/page1/
At that time, all the discussion I had seen in the press (big article in Autoblog, Cory Doctorow in the Toronto Globe and Mail, etc.) looked at this from the point of view of the car owner. However, I wondered what would happen to the stock prices of (for example) GM or a big dealer group if a "car" became reclassified for accounting purposes from "a physical asset somebody made in a factory" to "a software licence with accompanying hardware."
So I asked a guy who teaches accounting in one of the big Executive MBA programs. He said it was an interesting idea and that the portion of the price of the car that reflects the value of the licence should probably be recognized as revenue over the life of the vehicle, not up front... but he thought that, in practical terms, the actual dollar impact would be small.
I'm not so sure about that. If the software is completely indispensable to making the hardware do what you bought it for (such as, for example, driving to work or taking the kids to school), then it doesn't sound to me like something with only a small dollar value.
OBDII is mandated, but only covers more basic drivetrain related issues. I think many are focused on 10-15yo cars in their reasoning, they are becoming exponentially more complex. While people are starting to hack CAN-BUS, it is very complex and could be subject to DMCA regarding the protocols. The flip side to it all is that they are working on vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) and need to safegard some things from Black Hat hackers (allowing false data insertion which could harm someone).
So, when thinking about this, dont think about your 200x car, think about a Tesla with Autopilot. They are already problematic regarding repairs of electronic systems.
People did have some valid concerns with OBD1, but the systems were simple enough to allow parts replacement repair. The new systems will need a go between computer to allow a replacement module to communicate with the network within your car, so the issues are growing exponentially.
I am just saying if things arent watched, there could be trouble. I think things may go in the right direction, but there is every chance it may not.
In reply to Stealthtercel :
Hence the numerous initiatives across the automotive industry to promote subscription services rather than traditional vehicle ownership. Not only is it likely to be more profitable for the manufacturers, but there's no question about who owns the vehicles and who has the rights to repair. They go from selling a product to providing a service with a more steady revenue stream, and where they control much more about the vehicle.
It’s legal to fix right now...
In reply to STM317:
This is the part that goes beyond my knowledge. (I understand a fair number of complicated things, but not accounting.) If GM (for example) goes "from selling a product to providing a service with a more steady revenue stream," what does it tell its banks and Wall Street? "We're not getting $75,000 for an Escalade any more, but we ARE going to book $1000 a month for the life of the vehicle as a steady revenue stream."
Talk about re-stating your quarterly earnings.
Wouldn't Wall Street take note of the difference in depreciation for tax purposes between software and vehicles, not to mention the undetermined likelihood of continuing that "steady revenue stream" after the initial lease period, and take a good, old-fashioned blowtorch to GM's stock price?
And what about the Acme Mega-Dealer Corp., with showrooms in 27 states and a listing on NASDAQ? It has told the SEC that it has certain assets, including tens of thousands of cars that are now going to be classified as services, not things. What happens to it, and its stock price?
Looked at another way, we've always accepted that a new car loses a huge chunk of value the moment the first owner drives it off the lot. That downward change in value hasn't been an issue for the automakers because it was downloaded onto their customers. This new approach to what it means to "own a car" would seem to reverse that state of affairs. We rent the services, but they own the depreciation.
In the automotive world, there isn't really an issue, at least from a repair standpoint. If you are willing to pay the same amount to the manufacturer that their dealer does, you get the information. If you want the info free, pound sand.
I've read a bit about the JD thing, and wonder if it's the same deal.
In reply to Stealthtercel:
I don't think the current model is sustainable long term, which is currently giving Wall St pause regarding traditional automakers. Vehicles are getting more and more expensive all the time, while they're lasting longer and longer. So there's less need to replace them as often, and the cost to replace them is prohibitive for more and more people all the time. That's uncertainty for the future, and uncertainty scares businesses and investors alike. Steady revenue, controlled service life, and fairly predictable depreciation might be more palatable. But trying to predict how Wall St will react seems like a fools game as market caps and share prices reflect real numbers less and less, and are becoming more and more about hype and potential for future profits.
A subscription model can allow them to remain viable to those that only consider a monthly payment cost and they can build the cost of depreciation into the monthly fee (Cadillac charges $1800/month. Porsche charges up to $3000/month.) With shorter terms, I wonder if there will need to be as many vehicles manufactured at all. For example, if you only need a vehicle for 4 month per year, and somebody else only needs it 8 months per year perhaps the vehicle can be shared between the 2? You'd have 2 people paying hefty monthly sums and you'd have to produce 1 less vehicle than if they'd both leased their own vehicle. Similar revenues with lower manufacturing costs means more profit. At least ideally.
All of this is a bit tangential to the topic of right to repair though.
In reply to STM317 :
All of this is a bit tangential to the topic of right to repair though.
It is and it is not.
As an engineer who gets involved in the product innovation loop, I have on the walls of my office a quote from Theodore Levitt that reminds me: "People do not want to buy a quarter inch drill. They want a quarter inch hole"
And that is true up until they point where it is not...people like many of those on this board, desperately want control of the drill and drill bit when drilling their hole. As a product developer, it is up to you to decide how to thread the needle between the two different kinds of clients.
We on this board forget that most people do not want to own a car, they just want to go places. There is a rush to create both the hardware and the business model to make that happen. We, on the other hand, as car and driving enthusiast, are somewhat resistant of the entire thing.
While it can be argued that JD is involved in a money grab, ( is not everyone if they can) I suspect that there is a larger study that proclaims that by having JD take ownership of all of the servicing, the farmer will get his "hole" in the most efficient manner, and that it will be beneficial to both parties. It could come to pass that as a farmer, you give JD a big check to buy into the brand, and that for a set annual fee, they just keep you in tractor services, upgrading as deemed necessary by them. What JD might have missed is that farmers are a bit of the same ilk as car enthusiast.
You'll need to log in to post.
