[HN Gopher] Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment
___________________________________________________________________
Deere to allow farmers to repair their own equipment
Author : impish9208
Score : 554 points
Date : 2023-01-09 02:01 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| chadlavi wrote:
| "Allow"
|
| It's not theirs to allow or disallow. The farmers own their
| equipment.
| ThinkingGuy wrote:
| They may own it, but do they 0wn it? :)
| voakbasda wrote:
| Too little too late. They have burned good faith, and this move
| stinks of more manipulation. As others suggested, this probably
| aims to thwart legislative action, and they will make everything
| available at an inaccessibly exorbitant price point and
| inexcusable lead times.
|
| Seriously, Deere has been a market leader in alienating customers
| for years. There is no possibility that this is being done for
| the benefit of their customers. Mark my works, this move will
| ultimately be revealed as self-serving. Meanwhile, it should be
| met with nothing but skepticism by customers.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| There's a knock-on effect too. I work for a technology-adjacent
| company, and the biggest push the company has been making for
| the past 10 years -- right after being woke and going green, of
| course -- is implementing a whole bunch of "cybersecurity"
| measures into our product that feels an awful lot like they're
| cribbing their answers from Deere, to prevent a handful of
| people from reprogramming the device. The whole thing is
| excused with, "But but but the customer may make a modification
| that we didn't endorse, and we could be sued out of existence!"
| Fine, then go the other way. Ask your Congresspeople to pass a
| law that says if you "tamper" with the device, all warranties
| expressed or implied are null and void, and if it breaks, you
| can't sue. I don't understand what's so hard about that. I
| really don't.
| staringback wrote:
| > pass a law that says if you "tamper" with the device, all
| warranties expressed or implied are null and void
|
| This is a terrible idea. There is a very good reason
| "warranty void if removed" stickers are unenforceable in the
| US due to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| "Well... we're waiting!" What's the very good reason?
| Because it's certainly not apparent to me.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| The very good reason is that, as the parent commenter
| wrote, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act makes it illegal
| for manufacturers to deny warranty service because of
| third-party modifications or repairs, unless they can
| demonstrate the third-party modification/repair caused a
| defect in the original product.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| So why should something so explicitly... tampering... as,
| say, REFLASHING an ECM for a diesel engine, NOT exempt
| the manufacturer from third-party stupidity? This is what
| I can't wrap my head around. Where's the limit of legal
| liability? IS there no limit? Are the people milling
| about my company, excusing every added layer of
| bureaucracy due to being liable if a customer chips their
| Dodge Ram, melting the exhaust system onto their garage
| floor, and burning down their house actually CORRECT?!
| THIS is the law that is causing us to augment our entire
| development chain with the ability to sign and encrypt
| our binaries to prevent this malfeasance?
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| If the customer rechips their ECU and melts their exhaust
| into the floor, you can absolutely deny the exhaust
| repair under warranty. You just have to be able to prove
| the modification caused the problem in the first place.
|
| _edit_ - and I tend to view encrypted ROMs, etc., as
| being more about pulling the kind of anti-consumer /anti-
| repair shenanigans discussed in the original article than
| any genuine concern about limiting liability. But maybe
| that's just my bias peeking through.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| Which was my original point, perhaps lost in translation.
| anm89 wrote:
| This is the smart money take. They ran an EV calculation on the
| cost of half heartedly allowing self repair (but in a sneaky
| way in which surely favors them) with a reduced probability of
| legislation vs the probability of legislation being imposed on
| them and figured they can milk more money out of this scenario.
|
| They will surely allow DIY in the most convoluted, inaccessible
| way humanly possible and try to keep this scenario as close as
| possible to the tractors being unrepairable.
| texasbigdata wrote:
| EV, enterprise value?
| anm89 wrote:
| roughly, imagine a decision tree where each end node has a
| set of probabilities and a utility points values per
| outcome probability. You multiply out the probability of
| each outcome with it's point value and pick the decision
| path which maximizes your probability weighted outcome. In
| most cases utility points equals how much money you make or
| lose but it doesn't have to be that.
|
| So if one path has a 10% chance of -100000 points (ie
| something terrible happens) and a 90% chance of get 1000
| points (something very good happens) this path has an
| expected value of (.1 * -100000) + (.9 * 1000) = -9100
|
| whereas some other branch has a 100% chance of an outcome
| of 10 points. You take the branch where you get the
| guaranteed 10 points because even though the best case is
| on the other branch, the average case on that branch is
| worse than on the 10 point branch.
|
| And what I'm saying is they decided that their highest
| average payoff as doing some compromised version of self
| allowed diy whereas they get a really bad payoff in the
| case where the diy legislation is written externally and
| actually forces them to allow reasonable diy
| teknofobi wrote:
| Expected value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
| hengheng wrote:
| Expected Value as in poker lingo, but I first read it as
| electric vehicle myself.
| gpderetta wrote:
| EV is really a general statistic term.
| anm89 wrote:
| Agreed. I'm not interested in Poker at all so that's not
| where I got this from. This is taught in undergrad
| economics classes.
| mcast wrote:
| But who would replace them?
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Possibly Fendt. Fendt and John Deere have about the same
| reputation for mechanical durability and technology
| leadership (in Germany, my dad is a retired farmer). Fendt is
| owned by Agco, also American, so they might get the MBA
| disease at some point as well... but so far, the main thing
| Agco has done with Fendt is investment to improve and expand.
|
| https://www.farm-equipment.com/blogs/6-opinions-
| columns/post...
| randomdata wrote:
| Fendt is considered the cream of the crop around here, at
| least as far as tractors go, but the dealer network is
| sparse. I'd run into several Deere dealerships before
| finally getting to the Fendt dealer.
|
| All brands break. If you don't have easy access to parts,
| it's harder sell. Farmers don't want machines they can't
| easily fix and so Deere wins on that front. The CaseIH
| dealer network is just as strong, so that's the actual
| competition for Deere in these parts.
| warmwaffles wrote:
| Case IH is one that I have seen starting to become more
| popular and farmers selling their JDs and replacing them with
| Case tractors. Case has good service and you can purchase
| most mechanical parts to replace existing broken parts
| without having to go through a service technician if you
| don't want to.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| this probably aims to thwart legislative action
|
| probably? From Section 3 of the MOU: In the
| event any state or federal legislation or regulation relating
| to issues covered by this MOU and/or "Right to Repair" is
| enacted, each of AFBF and Manufacturer reserve the right, upon
| fifteen (15) days written notice, to withdraw from this MOU.
|
| https://www.fb.org/files/AFBF_John_Deere_MOU.pdf
|
| It's a blatant threat that they'll double down on their
| practices if any state or the federal government tries to
| pursue right to repair legislation.
| labster wrote:
| The easy fix here is to make clauses like this unenforceable
| in the right to repair bills. Not that they'll do it, but law
| outranks contracts.
| jelliclesfarm wrote:
| Tractor market will soon be geared towards Farming-As-A-Service.
| John Deere has already bought multiple autonomous tractor
| companies. The biggest ones at 305 and 250 million are Blue River
| and Bear Flag,
|
| Also: JV with GUSS automation orchard spraying tech. And Light
| for some kind of vision AI. There is a 'startup incubator' guy
| sitting in SF and JD is furiously buying everything they can get
| their hands on. In fact, I know at least two moderately funded
| startups whose sole aim is to be acquired by JD.
|
| Meanwhile Case IH/CNH is also invested in Raven(that I like a lot
| actually and can give a good run for JD who hasn't been lagging
| behind in the grain/combine automation equip). AGCO/Massey/Fendt
| is looking at the retrofit sector. Bless their hearts.
|
| It's time to consolidate just like with the Ag
| inputs/seeds/fertilizer where I think a few giants control almost
| all of the market after a flurry of mergers and acquisitions:
| Dow/DuPont, Sygenta/ChemChina, Bayer/Monsanto. BASF stands alone
| but they are not big on seeds. Dow/DuPont merged but then spun
| off Corteva, but it's still incestous. It's the Big4 now. Same
| thing will happen with the tractor and equipment sector with the
| main players being JD, CNH and AGCO.
|
| It is what it is.
|
| ETA: Let's not forget how JD almost bought Monsanto before it
| went before DoJ to stop the sale and Bayer ended up paying 60
| something billion for a lemon right before the Roundup trial. JD
| desperately wanted Climate Fieldview and Monsanto that owned
| Climate did NOT include it in the sale to Bayer. Fun times.
| college_physics wrote:
| Imagine its 1880 and the news of the day is that farmers are
| allowed to shoe their horses on their own, with horseshoes that
| they can procure themselves.
| p0pcult wrote:
| Imagine it is 2080 and the news of the day is that farmers will
| be allowed to buy "BioSerum" that extends the expiration date
| of their genetically engineered HyperHorse by one month.
| dokem wrote:
| Imagine it is 3080 and farmers are now allowed tax free
| access to all of the sunlight that falls on their land.
| college_physics wrote:
| Imagine it is 4080: air molecules "dial home" via quantum
| entanglement every time they enter a farmer's body,
| eliminating once and for all illicit air-breathing that has
| gone undetected / untaxed ever since Homo Sapiens took her
| first breath
| walterbell wrote:
| _> Should state or federal right-to-repair legislation be
| enacted, both Deere and the federation have the right to withdraw
| from the agreement with 15 days' written notice._
|
| Would be useful to compare the terms of this agreement with draft
| right-to-repair legislation which has been rejected by Deere and
| others.
| RajT88 wrote:
| I am sure this is meant to head that off if possible.
|
| Not unlike how the record companies gave in to the "Parental
| Advisory" label.
| rlt wrote:
| > I am sure this is meant to head that off if possible.
|
| Indeed, and they're not making a secret of it, see vvanders'
| comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34307382
| nerdponx wrote:
| All the more reason to scrutinize the actual content of the
| agreement.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Amazing that there are businesses that do so well financially
| they can abuse their customers to the point of hatred, yet remain
| in business.
| randomdata wrote:
| My great uncle hated John Deere (for what reason, I'm not
| sure). His grandson runs the farm now and there is still not a
| John Deere in sight. If more people hated John Deere, they
| would be out of business. You can't survive if nobody buys your
| product.
|
| I own some John Deere equipment on my farm, alongside equipment
| from all of the major brands. I find no measurable difference
| in experience across dealing with those brands, and they are
| all great compared to other products in my life. Repairability
| in everyday life is actually quite horrendous compared to farm
| equipment. My broom broke the other day and I have no idea
| where to even begin looking for parts to fix it. I'm going to
| have to buy a new broom to replace it.
|
| When my farm equipment breaks, the parts department at the
| local dealer will bend over backwards to find what I need.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| It's a pity that people are content to just quietly hate from
| home. If we had the gumption to get off our asses and sabotage
| our enemies I think the world would be a better place.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| What do you mean?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| In the US we're taught to believe that the market will
| handle this kind of thing. But it won't. Relatively few of
| us are in the market for a tractor. We can't all "vote with
| our dollars" and go buy a tractor from a less shady vendor.
|
| But as a human who likes food, my desire to make sure that
| nobody has a "press here to make the people hungry"-button
| is legitimate.
|
| If it turns out that the existing political machinery is
| ineffective at preventing the creation of this button, US
| norms provide no recourse. If the government makes you mad
| enough, you overthrow the government (ideally peacefully).
|
| But what do you do when a private company becomes a
| significant threat? Send them a strongly worded letter?
| Companies don't speak english, they're just sensitive to
| their bottom line. If you want to communicate with them,
| you have to influence their bottom line.
|
| So I mean that I think we'd all be better off if we
| considered periodic slashing (drilling, maybe?) of for-sale
| tractor tires, and other forms of nonviolent sabotage, to
| be legitimate political speech. If certain lines were
| crossed, we ought to encourage each other to get off the
| couch and go practice that speech.
| gorbachev wrote:
| I think the stereotypical Hacker News response would be to
| encourage people to disrupt Deere with a startup farm
| equipment company.
|
| Maybe that could rectify this ridiculousness in about 5 - 15
| years (if successful).
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Starting a company is the heroic way to solve this problem.
| I mean head over to the dealership with an angle grinder
| and just start breaking things.
|
| If the company is truly a threat to your community, and if
| the damage is targeted and restrained enough to be
| considered an act of protest and not chaos for the sake of
| it, then a jury of your peers ought not convict.
| [deleted]
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| That's what happens when you're a monopoly.
| amelius wrote:
| ... and watchdogs are sleeping.
| listenallyall wrote:
| John Deere is a monopoly?
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| I thought they were?
| modo_mario wrote:
| I believe they have something like 30% in the tractor
| market in the US but when it comes to specific types of
| tractors (especially the larger variants) it is much much
| higher.
|
| Additionally the negative effects of a monopoly can also
| show in a duopoly or the like. It doesn't even need cartel
| like collusion.
| grishka wrote:
| That's all social media companies, basically.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Honestly, the only people who hate social media are tech
| journalists who have an article deadline coming up fast,
| politicians during election years, and of course HN users.
| college_physics wrote:
| abuse of broader society (current and future generations) by
| narrow interests is now the norm. it is very seldom that there
| is something in the news that is uplifting and illustrative of
| a system that is actually working to increase broad-based
| welfare as opposed to opportunistically benefiting the
| shrewdest or most ruthless operators.
|
| the way things have been organized economically and politically
| (especially under US late-state capitalism) once a business
| does well financially it can basically capture its
| political/regulatory context and control its own destiny by
| influencing all decisions that affect it. it is no longer a
| Milton Friedman style rule taker, it is a rule maker.
|
| there are many channels that enable this, both on the incentive
| side that create the desires to act in such ways and the
| response side (regulation, laws) that define the corporate
| interface with society (e.g lack of liability for any
| externalities created, oligopoly status ("there is no
| alternative") or revolving door arrangements with regulators
| and politicians (people shamelessly cashing-in on relations and
| knowledge)
|
| nothing intrinsically difficult to solve to get to a better
| place. it does not take a "revolution" to fix democratic,
| market based, economies. it "only" requires having a moral
| compass and the transparency and awareness that helps
| navigating according to its prescriptions. the rest would take
| care of itself. exorbitant profits, environmental destruction,
| astronomical wealth inequality etc. _are not_ required for the
| system to work. they are the result of system that is
| degenerating in the hands of a particular set of people
| neycoda wrote:
| Deere's forgotten the point of their business: to provide farmers
| with what they need to do their jobs.
|
| When you make the company about maximizing profit, you interfere
| with the purpose of your business. You now get in the way of your
| customers getting what they need and want. This has been proven
| by Deere, getting in the way of farmers fixing their equipment.
|
| Deere could have instead opened their business more to repair,
| maximizing trust and reliability with consumers. Truly maximizing
| their gain in the market. Instead of making themselves the most
| desirable business in the market, they tried to trap people into
| inefficient overly-expensive time-wasting processes for the
| short-term gain of some shareholders and some greedy shallow
| executives.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Deere's forgotten the point of their business: to provide
| farmers with what they need to do their jobs.
|
| That's not the point. That's marketing.
|
| > When you make the company about maximizing profit, you
| interfere with the purpose of your business.
|
| Maximizing profit is the general purpose of business in a
| capitalist society. Serving other ends is a means to that end,
| not the purpose.
| zelon88 wrote:
| So basically, drop "right to repair" legislation so we can
| continue doing what we do, but in more subtle ways.
| ukoki wrote:
| It should be illegal to bundle hardware with closed-source
| copyrighted software.
|
| If you sell hardware you can bundle it with open-source software
| that people are free to modify.
|
| Or you can sell it without software and other vendors can supply
| closed-source software that can't be modified, but you can't have
| exclusive agreements with those vendors or prefer one over
| another.
| unbalancedevh wrote:
| I have to admit, I'd love to be able to modify the software in
| my microwave to disable the incessant reminder beep. But I'm
| not sure I agree in general that it companies shouldn't be able
| to copyright their own software, or put measures in place that
| make it impractical or impossible for me to modify it.
| Presumably I'm aware of that when I buy it, and I have options.
| But I think that's different from being able to repair it.
| randomdata wrote:
| Does this extend into the used market?
|
| I buy a widget without software, install a closed source option
| that is available for the widget, and later want to sell it. Do
| I have to remove the software?
| impish9208 wrote:
| https://archive.ph/YbUOC
| torstenvl wrote:
| archive.(today|ph|is) [edit: appears to be down for some
| people], no clue what's going on
|
| https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/archive.ph.html
|
| The AMP page works if you can't reach it via archive:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/deere-to-allow-farmers-to-r...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Loads for me from multiple endpoints. Are you using
| Cloudflare DNS? If so, the site in question blocks DNS
| queries from CF.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?q=cloudflare+archive.is
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| Websites can't see a PC's DNS configuration, so it can't
| know what DNS resolvers a client is using except through
| some inference?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702
| messe wrote:
| They're only trying to delay the inevitable regulation.
|
| Here's hoping the EU forces them to get their shit together soon.
| Animats wrote:
| > They're only trying to delay the inevitable regulation.
|
| Yes. That's Deere's explicit goal. The American Farm Bureau
| Federation had to agree not to support right-to-repair
| legislation to get that concession from Deere.
|
| Signed on a Sunday. Wonder why. Some legislative deadline
| approaching?
| vvanders wrote:
| Actual MOU from BBC's coverage[1]:
| https://www.fb.org/files/AFBF_John_Deere_MOU.pdf
|
| What's interesting is this appears to be driven by Right to
| Repair legislation that's been making it's way through various
| states. There's an explicit ask that AFBF not support any Right
| to Repair legislation:
|
| "AFBF agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to
| recognize the commitments made in this MOU and refrain from
| introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state "Right to
| Repair" legislation that imposes obligations beyond the
| commitments in this MOU. In the event any state or federal
| legislation or regulation relating to issues covered by this MOU
| and/or "Right to Repair" is enacted, each of AFBF and
| Manufacturer reserve the right, upon fifteen (15) days written
| notice, to withdraw from this MOU."
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64206913
| GrinningFool wrote:
| > that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this MOU
| That seems like a bit of a loophole for FB organizations -
| namely, they can support legislation that imposes obligations
| that are in the MOU, but must not support legislation the
| reaches beyond that.
| moloch-hai wrote:
| Clearly intended as a threat.
| tablespoon wrote:
| So, it's this the typical corporate playbook tactic of offering a
| little concession to sap the momentum behind some positive
| legislation, after they've realized they can't kill it outright
| through regular lobbying?
|
| I bet in 5-10 years they'll be back to doing everything they can
| to make repair impractical.
| fifilura wrote:
| I cant read TFA but i think if John Deere wants to maintain
| control over the way machines are repaired they should simply
| stop selling them as retail and move to a "machine as a service"
| model.
|
| Where they create a network of rental hubs.
|
| I think a lot of farming machinery has moved this way already
| where you dont pay to own a machine that you may only need a
| limited number of days/year.
| ilammy wrote:
| Then they're going to advertise rental prices for off-season,
| when nobody actually needs the machines. During the harvest
| week The Market will demand that rent quadruples. And of course
| you better pay a reservation in year's advance, to avoid being
| told, "I'm sorry sir, we're out of capacity today, all machines
| nearby are busy. We can maybe get you one from across the
| continent for 10 times the price, be ready here in a week."
| fifilura wrote:
| I think this is how it works already with harvesters, where
| the demand is only really during a month of the year.
|
| I don't know the details how it works, but I am assuming
| there is a way they can work it out where everyone is
| reasonably happy. Because it is in the interest of the rental
| service to be predictable.
|
| And there is a huge benefit for the farmer to not have to own
| and store something that is probably the most expensive
| machine they have. And also not have to worry about it
| breaking down at the most critical moment.
|
| But that comes at a steep hourly price i assume.
|
| Market economy is not always a bad thing.
| drannex wrote:
| This is not a right-to-repair package. This is loose permission
| to barely repair anything at all.
|
| > In the agreement, the AFBF says it will encourage "state Farm
| Bureau organizations to recognize" these commitments and "refrain
| from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state
| 'Right to Repair' legislation.[^1]
|
| [^1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/9/23546323/john-deere-
| right-...
| noufalibrahim wrote:
| " _allow_ farmers to repair their _own_ equipment " - What a
| terrible state of affairs if this is an exception rather than the
| norm. :(
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > "allow farmers to repair their own equipment" - What a
| terrible state of affairs if this is an exception rather than
| the norm. :(
|
| Blame your fellow 'I'm just making money' loose ethics type
| programmer, they could just as easily be making drones used to
| destroy entire apartment buildings or the privacy-intruding
| facial recognition with that type reasoning, but instead they
| choose to deny farmers from making the food that you eat
| instead.
| p0pcult wrote:
| When I was in my last round of job hunting as a data
| scientist, a recruiter approached me with an offer to
| interview for a job in "kill chain analytics" for a defense
| contractor's drones.
|
| I noped the hell out of that asap.
| mikrotikker wrote:
| "If I don't do it someone else will"
| heywhatupboys wrote:
| ahhhh, that is disingenuous. While I 100 % agree with right to
| repair, the world allow is not correct in this context.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| On the one hand, I like right to repair.
|
| On the other, Farmers are a terrible group to start with. They've
| actively resisted it in the past and are very unlikely to have or
| be willing to gain the skills needed and they are ultimately
| running businesses and should behave accordingly.
| euroderf wrote:
| Haven't most of the John Deere hacks come from Ukraine ? This is
| a story waiting to be reported anew.
| [deleted]
| Havoc wrote:
| What a novel idea!
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| My dad lives in rural North Dakota. He's not a farmer, but he
| knows all the farmers in the area and does some work at his
| neighbor's farm for something to keep him busy in retirement. I
| sent him the Ars Technica article about this. This is his text
| back to me
|
| "But they kept the copyright to all data and electronic tools.
| You have to buy their equipment and many manuals amounting to
| over 20k for each piece of equipment in most cases. I talked to
| one of the john deere mechanics, he said he only knows of one
| farm that has done so because of the price but did so because he
| also hired a guy that use to work for john deere. I thing the
| Most important thing farmer's get out of it is the access to the
| diagnostic codes and JD manuals that can be used to trouble shoot
| the problem once you have the code. I've seen the software used
| and it is dynamite. It talks the mechanic through most steps of
| the trouble shooting. Since everything is computerized, almost
| need it to understand the electronic issues which of course is
| all stored on the individual computer components. One for
| transmission,engine, power train couplings and all other devices.
| Yet again, it costs approximately 5-7 hundred dollars just for
| the mechanic to show up at the farm, each time.. so if it doesn't
| get fixed or no parts til the next day, that's 2 trips which
| doesn't include any labor... "
| yakorevivan wrote:
| [dead]
| adql wrote:
| They should be dragged thru coals and fined for the original
| practice.
| Hacktrick wrote:
| This is good for right to repair right? I see this as a massive W
| for the movement.
| userbinator wrote:
| Seeing "to allow" and "their own" being used in that way in the
| title is a disturbingly dystopian sign of the times. I don't
| think things like this should ever need to be explicitly allowed,
| in much the same way as one does not need permission for many
| other things which are naturally assumed to be so.
|
| For contrast:
|
| "Government to allow people to use their own brains."
| [deleted]
| causi wrote:
| Hell If I had my way I'd add a "right to root" in the
| Constitution itself. You should have control over your
| hardware, period.
| alvah wrote:
| "right to root" does not translate very well here in
| (nominally-English-speaking) Australia!
| smdyc1 wrote:
| Haha! My mind immediately went there as well!
| aussieshibe wrote:
| Sounds like the tagline of r/aussieincels
| JTBooth wrote:
| What's Australian for the most privileged account on a
| computer? Is there a verb for when you get access to it?
| alvah wrote:
| It's the same verb but it raises a smile every single
| time. Yes I am a child in an adult's body.
|
| Slightly OT, they pronounce router "rowter" over here,
| presumably to avoid the same issue.
| aussieshibe wrote:
| Interestingly this seems to be one of those unusual cases
| where the US by and large uses the British pronunciation
| while Australia does its own thing.
|
| On the plus side for Australia, we never have to hear the
| classic form:
|
| > Rooter? I hardly even know 'er!
| causi wrote:
| Depends on the region. I'm from the US and I've never
| heard somebody say "rooter"
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Me either. All over the US, I have only ever heard "row-
| ter". And my British family says "roo-ter".
| alvah wrote:
| Is it Root 66 or Rowt 66 though? Because a rooter is
| related to roots.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I have heard root and rowt when referring to roads in the
| US, but I have always used rout, and I think I have heard
| it more commonly used than root.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| A router pronounced 'rowter' is surely a wood working
| tool.
| mindslight wrote:
| You basically already have a Constitution-esque "right to
| root", as changing the software on hardware you own is not
| illegal. What we're actually dealing with is technical
| measures that can effectively prevent us from doing so. There
| are a few legal hooks that augment the natural landscape
| (DMCA, contract terms, etc), but remove those and the problem
| would remain.
|
| So unfortunately, what we're really looking for is some
| positive government regulations that would make companies
| have to publish some of their documentation and source code.
| That's much harder to create and draft, although for a simple
| first stab I would look at requiring that source code be
| available to make a work eligible for copyright protection.
| causi wrote:
| _changing the software on hardware you own is not illegal_
|
| Not true. The DMCA makes it illegal to "circumvent" DRM
| schemes. It's also illegal to carrier-unlock your phone
| without your carrier's permission.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| Only if the DRM protects a copyrighted work, and even
| then only if the "protection" goes beyond protecting the
| software from being executed/used. (Chamberlain v.
| Skylink)
| causi wrote:
| Root allows the user to bypass DRM such as Widevine.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| The DMCA doesn't really care about what you do after. The
| "DRM" has to _directly_ protect a copyrighted work. By
| your logic, a CFAA violation is also a DMCA violation.
| zaroth wrote:
| But then it's not gaining root which is the problem, it's
| (as always) what you proceed to do with it.
| mindslight wrote:
| I acknowledged the DMCA. The DMCA and other legal
| restrictions are indeed problems. Another one is likely
| emissions requirements, which at the very least
| discourage tractor owners from replacing the computers
| wholesale.
|
| But even if these legal restrictions were to vanish
| tomorrow, we'd still be stuck with a similar landscape -
| most manufacturer control comes from technical
| restrictions combined with a high rate of churn so even
| if someone invests the time to figure something out, it
| quickly becomes yesterday's model. Fundamentally,
| understanding is more difficult than creation.
|
| The calculus could be different on tractors, which are
| meant to last a real long time. Except the topic here too
| is focused on getting companies to positively supply
| things to help, rather than removing laws that hinder
| (FTA: " _The agreement creates a mechanism to address
| farmers' concerns and give them access to resources
| needed to repair their own equipment, such as diagnostic
| and repair codes, manuals and product guides._ ")
|
| So my ultimate point is that you need to move past
| thinking that a Constitutional "right to repair" law
| would address these problems. Such a thing would be as
| ineffectual as the Constitutional "freedom of speech" has
| been in addressing the social media oligopoly.
| rkangel wrote:
| While I philosophically agree, I struggle to reconcile it
| with some other practicalities. I (mostly) design and build
| radio systems, and as the manufacturer it is our job to
| ensure that it is a well behaved radio system - transmits in
| the frequency bands it's meant to, at the power it's meant
| to, without leaking and interfering with other things. For a
| consumer product, where much of the radio implementation is
| in some form of software, how do I ensure that the system
| continues to meet the rules?
|
| You could argue that any changes to the software are then the
| fault of the user, which is a reasonable point of view. But
| what if someone comes up with a mod that makes your wifi
| better by breaking transmit power rules (at the expense of
| others). Lots of people might use it, and then there are
| resulting widespread interference problems. Difficult to
| identify culprits, possibly too many to prosecute etc.
| causi wrote:
| _But what if someone comes up with a mod that makes your
| wifi better by breaking transmit power rules (at the
| expense of others). Lots of people might use it, and then
| there are resulting widespread interference problems._
|
| This already exists in multiple forms. It's incredibly easy
| to import adapters and antennas that give you an order of
| magnitude more power than you're legally allowed to use. I
| used one of those setups in high school to run uTorrent
| over the AP of the McDonald's half a mile away.
|
| Regular folks don't care enough to break the rules.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| It wasn't a big problem in the days before manufacturers
| had the technical capability to prevent tinkering so why
| would you expect it to be a big problem now?
| rkangel wrote:
| Because much more is in software than it used to be.
|
| In the past, most of the key aspects of the radio were
| pretty fixed in the hardware. Whereas now, more and more
| of the radio is in software (and/or FPGA), or at least
| configurable from software. Tinkering in that case
| requires a "per person" level of skill. Whereas tinkering
| with software requires one person to be able to tinker,
| and then lots of people can use the result.
| [deleted]
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| How generous of them
| chii wrote:
| obviously they smell the direction of the wind.
|
| It's obviously better for deere to set the terms of the
| repairs, rather than have it be dictated to them via
| legislation.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| It's ridiculous that we live in a world where the
| manufacturer is in the position to set terms of repairs. Once
| someone buys a piece of equipment it's theirs and they should
| be allowed to repair and modify it however they see fit.
| the-printer wrote:
| It is oppression.
| randomdata wrote:
| Deere rose up to being one of the top equipment brands
| _because_ they put extra effort into ensuring the equipment
| was repairable. There is a lot of equipment in the scrap
| heap from other brands that you can 't get parts for.
| Theoretically you can repair them, but the cost to hire
| someone to recreate/design a one-off part can be
| extraordinarily expensive. Deere likes to boast that they
| have parts in stock for equipment that is 75+ years old.
| Hell, John Deere owns A&I Products, the premier aftermarket
| farm equipment parts supplier (multiple brands, Deere
| included). They have no problem with you repairing your
| equipment.
|
| What happened, however, is that the equipment manufacturers
| in modern times streamlined manufacturing such that they
| created a whole line of equipment that is physically
| identical but differentiated by software unlocks. The
| problem is that if you were able to repair the software,
| you would be able to unlock features. It is access to those
| systems has been closely guarded to prevent piracy, just as
| all kinds of software has done for 50+ years. They do have
| a problem with you using software you didn't pay for.
| ENGNR wrote:
| But if the software is just a feature flag, I can write
| my own one of those and not pirate their software at all
|
| It sounds more like artificially inflating the price for
| hardware
| randomdata wrote:
| If you wrote your own software the whole issue
| disappears.
| Neil44 wrote:
| I'm not a farmer but harvest time can be pretty intense. You
| might only have a narrow window to get certain crops in where the
| crops are ready and the weather has been right and your onward
| destination can accept them physically and contractually. So have
| all the other farms. And that crop represents your yearly income.
| So you have all this demand in this time window and you have
| equipment sitting there cause computer says no. Very frustrating.
| throwaway9870 wrote:
| That is part of the reason why people buy Deere. They have
| superb logistics and the best dealer network in farm equipment.
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Harvest season is 15-16 hour days for months, all hands on
| deck. The upside is that the pay is wildly better than any
| other time.
|
| I've known a few farmhands and they claimed to not mind harvest
| season because of the pay.
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| When my brother and I were in college, I worked as a farm
| hand the same summer he was working a computer engineering
| internship. His hours were capped at 39/wk and he still made
| more money per week than I did working 80/wk.
|
| I loved farming, but there is not a ton of money in unskilled
| labor. (Sure, you can do a lot better if you have
| skills/experience or own the farm...)
| pama wrote:
| Why is it illegal infringement if one modifies embedded software
| locally (as opposed to selling it). Is that not the equivalent of
| writing a note within a book? "assure that the intellectual
| property of Manufacturer, including copyrighted software, is
| fully protected from illegal infringement through the
| modification of Embedded Software; ..."
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| You can have right of repair in 1 day the free market way - no
| copyright protection, patents or damages awarded for chip
| firmware or repair manuals.
|
| This is the great fraud of our time - Right to Repair is
| portrayed as government intervention in the free market and
| excersise in socialism
|
| When actually it is the Government that grants John Deer
| artifical monopoly on bits and bites and doesn't just fine, but
| imprisons anyone who doesnt agree.
|
| Copyright, itself a fraudulent name, is a privilidge, awarded
| to advance sciences and arts. Where it does not advance
| anything, it should not apply.
| fluoridation wrote:
| I agree that copyright sucks, but I don't see, in copyright-
| free world, what would prevent a hardware manufacturer from
| making the firmware impossible to modify for example by using
| hardcoded signature verification.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| If the tractor is my property, I don't understand what
| gives John Derr the right to prevent me from modifying it
| how I see fit.
|
| Imagine they did this with a physical object, broke into
| your house and stopped you from opening the engine - that
| would be tresspass and a dozen other crimes. Why is it
| legal just because it's digital?
|
| This is why people are calling it Neo-feudalism or digital
| feudalism, the relationship is lile between me the serf and
| john deer the medieval Lord
|
| Also I am not against copyright, but it was created for
| books 200 years ago, not control software that determines
| if you go bancrupt, or live or die.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _I don 't understand what gives John Derr the right to
| prevent me from modifying it_
|
| OP described exactly what prevents you from modifying
| hardware you own how you see fit:
|
| > _hardware manufacturer from making the firmware
| impossible to modify for example by using hardcoded
| signature verification._
|
| If you don't understand this entirely _technical_
| mechanism, then you should read into it to find out what
| we 're really up against. Basically, the chip running the
| software is set up to only run software that has been
| cryptographically signed by the manufacturer. If you
| modify the software, the chip refuses to run it.
|
| If you painstakingly opened the chip and managed to
| change a few of the right bits, you might be able to
| convince that one chip to run different software. But you
| wouldn't get any information that would help you run
| software on other, unmodified, chips - the private
| signing key stays with the manufacturer, the chips
| themselves only contain the public verification key. Of
| course manufacturers employ techniques to prevent such
| physical attacks, so you wouldn't have an easy time of it
| either.
|
| The straightforward path to overcome would be to
| completely swap out the chip for another without such a
| restriction, and completely rewrite the software, but
| then you're up against the churn of the market - the
| model (and hardware revision) you've specifically
| designed a replacement for will be a tiny fraction of the
| market.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I think we are sort of in agreement, that if John Deer is
| allowed to encrypt firmware such that the user cannot
| access it, then we are stuck.
|
| I was trying to point out that securing the chip against
| the owner of the tractor should not be legal - in the
| same way that taking away a wheel from your tractor would
| not be allowed -it now your property
| mindslight wrote:
| We're definitely in agreement for how the world ought to
| work. My larger point is that this isn't merely a problem
| created by the government through the legal system - for
| which statements of "ought" would have straightforward
| implications of getting rid of the oppressive laws.
| Rather it seems to be a problem due to informational
| complexity, and will take _positive_ government action to
| reign companies in, similar to the privacy issue.
|
| On the technical side, the difficult bit is coming up
| with ways that discern the _owner_ of a computer from a
| mere _possessor_ of a computer. There are many legitimate
| cases for protecting against a mere possessor (evil maid,
| datacenter, theft prevention), to the point that blanket
| outlawing processors with built in code signing isn 't
| going to happen. The only way I've thought of is through
| some sort of time delay where if you put the processor in
| a debug mode and let it sit there for a period of time
| (say a week), you'd then be treated as the owner and
| could reflash signing keys etc.
|
| The simple legislative approach would be to make it so
| that a manufacturer has to create an automated process of
| signing code hashes supplied by legitimate owners, that
| would allow the code to run on the owner's hardware. But
| this would just be constraining the centralized power
| that manufacturers have and hoping the law would be
| strong enough to enforce it (and keep enforcing it),
| rather than reforming the capability to begin with.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The ownership vs possesion is definately tricky, as the
| history of crypto is littered with lost or stolen keys,
| etc.
|
| I'd like to see the keys to the kingdom being unique for
| each machine and being handed over to the owner when the
| purchase is made.
|
| As for positive government action- I think government
| plays 'neutral' action when it sets the rules of the
| game, and current rules of the game are, you could be
| consodered owner of a vehicle even though you don't have
| keys to the software.
|
| Those rules are wrong and need changing - because we have
| never explicitly set the rules for what does it mean to
| own an object with firmware.
|
| I am trying to frame it in such a way, as to make it
| clear that we arent asking manufacturers for concession,
| we are correcting illigitimate market behaviour, sort of
| like selling snake oil.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >On the technical side, the difficult bit is coming up
| with ways that discern the owner of a computer from a
| mere possessor of a computer. There are many legitimate
| cases for protecting against a mere possessor (evil maid,
| datacenter, theft prevention), to the point that blanket
| outlawing processors with built in code signing isn't
| going to happen.
|
| That idea is so easy to abuse (e.g. are you _sure_ you
| become the owner when you buy a computer?) that IMO there
| really should be no distinction between owner and
| possessor. If you have physical access to the device you
| should be able to do whatever you want with it. Physical
| security is easy for people to understand, unlike public-
| key cryptography. I 'd much rather have maids steal my
| encrypted bits due to my carelessness if it means I have
| full control over my hardware.
| wstuartcl wrote:
| Maybe the solution is to add anti-right to repair as a major
| indicative element to the monopoly legislations (ie if indicated
| it reduces the hurdle of the other elements that must be proven
| dramatically). Forcing repair lock in should be indicative of
| monopoly behavior.
|
| Something needs to change where the perceived "cost" of building
| out repair lock in revenue is much higher than it currently is.
| user3939382 wrote:
| I'll believe it when I see it. So far every right to repair
| compliance on their side has been met with bad faith
| circumventions. Like making tools available in theory but not
| actually.
| hedgehog wrote:
| My bet is this is coordinated with a lobbying effort to prevent
| more right to repair legislation.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Yeah. My wishlist: - Repair manuals.
| - Reasonably priced replacement parts. - Give the owner
| a key to sign / certify any parts they want. - Give the
| owner the ability to disable OTA updates. - Give the
| government a key to sign / certify parts. - Give the
| government the ability to review and delay OTA updates.
|
| I don't want some mega corp in a foreign nation holding the
| means of food production hostage via parts serialization and
| DRM.
| midoridensha wrote:
| >I don't want some mega corp in a foreign nation holding the
| means of food production hostage via parts serialization and
| DRM.
|
| Governments should be acting more in their own nations' self-
| interest, and simply forbidding any such things from foreign
| vendors.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Or governments should act more in their citizens interest,
| and simply forbid any such things local or foreign.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Give the government a key to sign / certify parts.
|
| Bad idea. _Very_ bad idea. We 've already seen malware
| campaigns where governments actually stole signing
| credentials such as Stuxnet, where the creators managed to
| get their malware signed by Realtek and JMicron certificates
| [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17101171
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| Fuck lenovo Europe for parts, nothing available for an X1 C6,
| so around 3-4y old. Had to buy on a customer website hoping
| for a genuine part. What was Lenovo answer to buy a
| replacement battery ? Send in your laptop to diagnostic a
| dead battery.
| jacquesm wrote:
| For a couple of years now I see laptops as consumables
| rather than as full members of the family of general
| purpose computers. If they break they are impossible to
| repair without special tools or sending them in so I just
| demolish them, pull out the storage device and shred it.
| The rest can then be safely turned in as electronics waste
| at the local depot.
|
| It's pretty sad because replaceable batteries have been a
| thing in just about everything since I was a kid and the
| idea that laptops are somehow so special that we can't do
| it because they are thin is ridiculous to me. But
| apparently that's what the market wants.
| [deleted]
| patmcc wrote:
| How very magnanimous of them.
| [deleted]
| roamerz wrote:
| When I went shopping for a tractor last year this was a huge
| deciding factor. I bought a Kubota.
| cujaneway wrote:
| What even are the alternatives for farmers, particularly in the
| US where I presume Deere reigns supreme. Kubota, Kverneland? Or
| is it effectively a racket where every agricultural equipment
| manufacturer behaves the same.
| mikrotikker wrote:
| I see more Claas than Deere down under
| Roark66 wrote:
| They'll provide "tools and manuals". If this includes service
| software that is good. Also I wonder what kind of detail is there
| in those service manuals. For the mechanical components I would
| at least expect drawings of each assembly showing every gear,
| every seal, every clip with spec. For electronics I would expect
| at least board view files if not schematics. Do I believe this
| will happen before it is law to publish it? Not really.
|
| When finally those laws get proposed I fully expect manufacturers
| to claim "security and IP theft" exceptions and politicians will
| fold. I still have electronic equipment made in the 80's that had
| not just schematics in its manual, but pcb layout drawings so you
| could remake a pcb if it got destroyed... And somehow we didn't
| have clones of this equipment appear.
| ritabratamaiti wrote:
| While I agree with you that companies should provide sufficient
| information to enable consumers to repair their products, I
| think considering the complexity that goes into manufacturing
| mechanical components and fabricating circuit boards, it would
| be a long shot for many consumers to repair equipment on their
| own.
|
| Hobbyists/industrial outfits would be a different story as they
| would have in-house expertise....
| mikrotikker wrote:
| Like the Haynes and other manuals that show circuit layouts and
| exploded views and service descriptions for every part of a
| vehicle.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| ...and a bare rectangle that says "Engine Control Module."
| luxuryballs wrote:
| Not the onion!
| undersuit wrote:
| I like the article title from the BBC, "US farmers win right to
| repair John Deere equipment", far more than this Wall Street
| framing.
|
| Deere fought this tooth and nail and will probably still not play
| nice. They are being forced to do this and must continue to be
| forced.
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| "Allow"
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| "allow"
| jacquesm wrote:
| Deere's competitors should go all-in on maintainability and
| documentation as a countermove. When it starts to eat into their
| marketshare they'll pay attention, until then they will just drag
| their heels as much as legally possible.
|
| Unfortunately Case IH, New Holland, Claas and Kubota all have a
| similar attitude towards their customers, which makes this an
| industry wide problem, not a John Deere problem. Legislators
| should ignore the veiled threats and force these companies to
| open up 'or else'.
| [deleted]
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| Yeah, it's kind of a joke to say that there's no problem with
| the "free market" in the American version of capitalism when
| all the big players collude on the same anti-consumer position,
| because they all win, and their execs take home more options
| and pay because of it.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| No I think that's simply because that's actually what
| consumers want.
|
| The less a company makes on maintenance and repairs, the more
| it has to make on the initial sale, which means a higher
| upfront cost. People generally don't like paying a lot of
| money upfront, so naturally, companies will make profit in
| other ways.
|
| Easy to see with smartphones. When manufacturers started to
| make batteries non user replaceable, did it make consumers
| flock to manufacturers that still offered user replaceable
| batteries? The answer is no, consumers have chosen, they
| don't care, except for a minority too small for manufacturers
| to need caring. There are alternatives, like the Fairphone,
| but it is not a mainstream device, and it is expensive for
| its specs, so few people buy it.
|
| Not only it is our choice, but we are not even honest about
| it. We are happy to buy hard-to-repair devices, but then, we
| want to game the system by using regulation.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of the right to repair
| movement. But I also understand that it will go against the
| will of consumers by raising the prices. It is a bit like
| safety and the environment. We don't want cars with emission
| control, because they are more expensive and have more points
| of failure, but we are forced to buy them anyways, and it is
| good for all of us in the end. I think the right to repair is
| good for the environment and for the economy in general, so
| it is worth regulating.
| mulmen wrote:
| Deere's position on right to repair is heartbreaking to me. I
| paid for books (and beer) in college as a truck driver and
| mechanic for a custom harvest operation. We ran Deere 6602
| combines from the 1970s, in the early 2000s. Deere's tagline was
| "nothing runs like a Deere" but in my experience it was more like
| "nothing can be made to run like a Deere". We spent a lot of time
| on maintenance but very little on repairs. We trusted those
| machines and they almost always did what we needed. Deere had
| good parts support locally but we did all the labor ourselves.
| For us and the farmers we served it would have been economically
| impossible to hire a Deere tech to do the work. Alienating these
| equipment operators is a disgrace for a once great brand.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Another MBA'ed company.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4
| [deleted]
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Short term profit at the expense of everything else. At some
| point there will be a reckoning on all the damage this cult
| has done to society, but I don't expect it to happen any time
| soon.
| throwaway20222 wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if companies should/could be forced to
| publish a "lifetime cost" of all of their products, much
| like we do energy ratings for appliances. Something that
| would show all of the expenses over the lifetime of the
| products, including estimated maintenance and lifespan
| before replacement so people have a better idea of the true
| cost of the purchase.
|
| I am confident the reporting would likely be captured by
| the manufacturers anyway and there would be a lot of
| arbitrary inputs into the reports, but something to fight
| the short term profit taking you describe.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Total cost of ownership is a pretty standard estimate in
| the auto world, but yes, it really needs to be done by a
| 3rd party, and of course the tractor market is pretty
| niche in comparison.
| ddulaney wrote:
| Hard to imagine this working, even in a perfect world.
| Set aside regulatory capture and corruption and
| politicking and pretend that everybody does a genuine
| best-effort attempt to be honest.
|
| It's extremely hard to know ahead of time which products
| will ultimately be reliable and which will be flaky. Most
| flaky components weren't designed with that in mind --
| there are some exceptions, but maintenance headaches are
| normally a mistake by the manufacturer. And even setting
| that aside, a big part of "cheap to maintain" is how many
| units you ship: part of why it's cheap to maintain a
| Civic or a Corolla is because they made millions of them,
| parts are everywhere, and every shop knows how to deal
| with them. But knowing up front if your product is going
| to be a hit or a flop is just not generally possible,
| even though that has a huge impact on maintenance costs.
|
| Even in a world of angels, I don't know that this idea
| would work in general. Maybe if it was specific to some
| industries where the costs are easier to estimate?
| robin_reala wrote:
| It's already the case that you have to do this for
| certain groups of products in France under the AGEC laws.
| Take for example this dishwasher:
| https://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/p/diskad-lave-vaisselle-
| encastrab... . It has an "indice de repairabilite" of
| 7.4, generated from a bunch of different factors such as
| ease of disassembly, availability of spare parts and
| documentation, and the ability to factory-reset it. The
| data sheet listing those factors for this model is here:
| https://www.ikea.com/fr/fr/files/pdf/4f/fd/4ffd4fd2/indic
| e-d...
| ddulaney wrote:
| I like that a lot. Judging from the criteria (in my
| extremely limited French) it's a measure of effort rather
| than outcome, but honestly effort is all we can really
| ask for.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| I don't know what, if any, regulations are involved but
| here in Norway several of the big electrical retailers
| have started publishing the expected lifetime of products
| together with statement of how long spares will be
| available.
|
| For example the Ankarsrum food mixer (successor to the
| classic Electrolux Assistent) entry at Elkjop.no states
| that the expected lifetime is 30 years and that spares
| will be available for 12 years.
|
| https://www.elkjop.no/product/hjem-rengjoring-og-
| kjokkenutst...
|
| The French idea looks good. IKEA don't provide that
| information here :-(
| rand846633 wrote:
| Do you have any personal experience or opinion if this
| law/metric is helpful for consumers in praxis?
| robin_reala wrote:
| No: it's fairly recent (and in fact only a part of the
| wider set of AGEC requirements that include labelling for
| recyclability, recycled status, consumption of rare
| earths and precious metals, origin of textiles, etc.) And
| then there's the EU-wide Digital Product Passport[1]
| coming in the next few years that'll up the game again.
| We'll see over the coming years what customer perception
| is like.
|
| [1] A report on this at https://www.corporateleadersgroup
| .com/files/cisl_digital_pro...
| clord wrote:
| Even if they only did this with the maintenance schedule
| costs, with breakouts for major possible maintenance
| incidents, in present dollars. That would be extremely
| useful.
|
| Companies like consumer reports should do this sort of
| thing.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The damage is already done.
|
| MBAs had no long-term vision, so in each company they
| infested, they made poor strategic decisions such as moving
| manufacturing overseas, which then forced other companies
| to move their manufacturing overseas.
|
| The countries they chose have zero respect for intellectual
| property. So now what's left are zombie companies milking
| their cash cows dry as international competitors arise and
| take their market share.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Solid argument. No chief executive with an MBA has ever
| contributed positively to the company they run.
| ::eyeroll::
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| well arguments like these are of course all about the
| statistical tendency because outliers are, by definition,
| not that important.
|
| But I notice you didn't actually give an example of an
| outlier MBA that did not behave this way and contributed
| positively to the company they ran?
| listenallyall wrote:
| I assumed in 2023 we're beyond simply applying negative
| stereotypes to people based on perceptions of a group,
| but apparently you aren't
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Is finding the theories that motivate MBA educational
| programs abhorrent a form of racism in your view?
|
| Generally one is not supposed to stereotype groups based
| on characteristics outside their control.
|
| on edit: added in abhorrent.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Erm no, if there is a group of hooligans, than I will
| still assume that they are up for violence and if there
| is a bunch of MBAs taking over companies, I will assume
| that they are there for short term profit.
| qikInNdOutReply wrote:
| Well cant botch it that hard, the pals from ivy that are
| now in government, wont bail you out. So, guess we will
| never know the good from the bad >> eyescroll <<
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| People can hate Elon all they want. The guy is
| extravagant and controversial, and maybe not the best
| role model for your kids.
|
| But he is right in the sense that a company leader needs
| to occasionally leave the meeting room and get in the
| factory floor, get direct exposure to customers and see
| things firsthand.
|
| We would be already in Mars if we had not stopped doing
| that.
| themitigating wrote:
| The goal of any business is to make money, it's why they
| exist. Moving production overseas saves money. I don't
| see why this has anything to do with MBAs
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Making money is an indicator that you are producing
| something that consumers need and want but it should not
| be the ultimate goal.
|
| A company should stay true to its mission and vision.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Some people think:
|
| "My goal is to make money"
|
| Other people think:
|
| "I need to make some money to achieve my goal"
|
| There are plenty of people from the second category that
| run businesses, but probably more from the first though.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| The question is whether you want to make money in the
| short term or in the long term. You can do a lot of
| things that will increase profits for a few years but
| kill the company long term.
| api wrote:
| Stock markets reward the short term. This, not MBAs, is
| the root issue. MBAs are just doing what the shareholders
| are demanding.
| tetraca wrote:
| If I were to make a product, I would hope that I'm making
| money because it's a quality product people like and want
| to buy because it's good, and not because I'm delivering
| the minimum possible value not considered fraud to
| extract maximum value from the customer.
| Ligma123 wrote:
| >MBAs had no long-term vision, so in each company they
| infested, they made poor strategic decisions such as
| moving manufacturing overseas, which then forced other
| companies to move their manufacturing overseas.
|
| The economic basis for that appeared way before the first
| MBA got a job.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| What's the flip side? VC's? You know, the people who won't
| even start a company unless there's a way to try to
| monopolize the position, buy up all supply with seed money,
| and then extract ALL the possible rent from the market
| segment? "Long-term" thinking with precisely the same anti-
| competitive, anti-consumer end result.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > Short term profit at the expense of everything else. At
| some point there will be a reckoning on all the damage this
| cult has done to society, but I don't expect it to happen
| any time soon.
|
| I can't see how, the same people pushing for WTO/NAFTA are
| those who profited immensely from outsourcing in the
| 80s-90s are now the same one who likely stand to benefit
| the most from either supply chain disruptions, and war.
|
| The truth is that JD is just another monopoly ([0] over 50%
| market share of tractors) that represents the underlying
| aspects of crony capitalism writ large. This is just
| another example how the mantra that 'tech should be in
| everything' needs to die, and how pervasive these horrible
| practices can become for the small sector of humans (less
| than 1% of the Human population feeds the other 99%) who
| grow the food everyone eats.
|
| MBAs making supply chains inherently fragile and over who
| valued BS things like JIT are just reflecting what is most
| rewarded in the corpo culture: quick profits are the way to
| get fat bonuses and stock options in order to bail out when
| even the slightest hint of head-winds occur. This is just a
| symptom, not the cause and a reason why US manufacturing
| will likely take some time before it can get off it's
| addiction to the garbage made in China.
|
| 0: https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/cheat-to-win-
| the-j...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > MBAs making supply chains inherently fragile and over
| who valued BS things like JIT are just reflecting what is
| most rewarded in the corpo culture:
|
| Also reflected in what is most rewarded by consumers:
| lower prices.
|
| No business was ever going to thrive selling US
| manufactured goods at a significant price premium
| compared to non US manufactured goods.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Hoss, ask yer mechanic if his wrenches are Snap On or
| Harbor Freight.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >a significant price premium
|
| Obviously paying the premium for Snap-On over harbor
| freight is worth it, for some people. Harbor Freight
| still makes the most sense for a huge portion of the
| market, reducing the market for US made tools.
|
| Whatever the result, it will be visible in what succeeds
| in the market over the long term.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Yes, and Snap On is nonetheless thriving, selling US-
| manufactured goods at a significant price premium
| compared to cheap imports.
| mikrotikker wrote:
| I dunno I'm currently trying to boycott Chinese made
| goods, regardless the cost. I'm in the position to be
| able to do that but so are many others.
|
| It's like they're targeting the lowest common
| denominator.
|
| It's a self fulfilling prophecy right? If the
| manufacturing was internal to the US say, theres more
| jobs hence better economy hence people are able too
| afford those locally prepared goods.
|
| That probably requires a united front against outsourcing
| though. It's almost as if globalism breeds poverty, and
| is just a way for megacorps to milk us of our cash.
| Totally removed from any kind of social responsibility.
|
| They sure love to change their logos to a rainbow and
| call that social responsibility though. Like Nike
| shipping you a keychain of all the micro plastics
| produced during the manufacturing of those shoes you just
| bought as if making you deal with their waste is
| environmental responsibility.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > trying to boycott Chinese made goods, regardless the
| cost. I'm in the position to be able to do that
|
| Really? Did you post your comment by carrier pigeon?
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| I think the "wherever possible" is implied. Where does
| this kind of cheap-shot snark end? Shall we next post the
| We Should Improve Society Somewhat comic?
|
| ...besides, maybe they're posting from one of those
| Raspberry Pi Model Bs that were fabbed in the UK.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| >It's almost as if globalism breeds poverty, and is just
| a way for megacorps to milk us of our cash.
|
| Or it is arbitraging labor prices across different
| markets and lifting up others. Or it is also arbitraging
| environmental regulations and taking advantage of more
| corrupt/inept societies. Or it is also arbitraging better
| efficiencies in a more appropriately regulated economy,
| rather than an under or over regulated economy.
| dggma wrote:
| The right to repair is one of those things that shouldn't be
| controversial but somehow is.
| danuker wrote:
| It's not controversial. Everyone knows the bill NY passed was
| a joke, from the voters to the legislature to the lobbyists.
| ncphil wrote:
| I think Louis Rossmann said they'd worked on that bill for
| over 7 years, desperately trying to keep it from being
| compromised into oblivion. Then, on the eve of passage, the
| legislature amended away everything that mattered in it by
| adding an exception big enough to drive a... John Deere
| tractor through, and the governor (who was part of the
| process) quickly signed it into law.
| https://youtu.be/k9kXnm9uW5k . Keywords from the video:
| "Nicholas Cage Lord of War Supply Chain", "malicious
| compliance".
| danuker wrote:
| Indeed. The game is rigged. The US became an oligarchy.
| Lobbyists get their way at the expense of everyone.
|
| I don't see much recourse, other than substantial and
| continued boycotts for all companies pushing this
| garbage.
|
| I am not buying mobile phones anymore, since my last one
| broke due to overheating, and in spite of the warranty
| terms not forbidding custom ROMs they did not honor it.
| selimnairb wrote:
| When I worked on a vegetable farm in Vermont one summer, it was
| instantly apparent that the farmer spent a lot of time (at
| least 25%?) maintaining and fixing tractors. It's a shame that
| rampant financialization and rent seeking has yet again made
| farmers' lives more difficult.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| Here's my analysis of what's going to happen if this goes
| through.
|
| First, quote from the MOU [1]:
|
| > AFBF agrees to encourage state Farm Bureau organizations to
| recognize the commitments made in this MOU and refrain from
| introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state "Right
| to Repair" legislation that imposes obligations beyond the
| commitments in this MOU. In the event any state or federal
| legislation or regulation relating to issues covered by this
| MOU and/or "Right to Repair" is enacted, each of AFBF and
| Manufacturer reserve the right, upon fifteen (15) days written
| notice, to withdraw from this MOU.
|
| It might play out like this:
|
| 1. Deere starts a half hearted parts process. They will provide
| some parts, there will be year long delays in roll out, it will
| be annoying to use, documentation will be made incomplete on
| purpose by leaving out random pages or drawings and there will
| be no way to get them to fix it.
|
| 2. Farmers are now locked into using this service for their
| existing deere equipment because anything else will bankrupt
| them. Those machines will remain in service for a good 10-20
| years which is an important time frame, because
|
| 3. Deere will spin off a subsidiary or buy a competitor which
| will sell what used to be Deere branded technology, "under
| license". This "new company" will keep all the anti-repair
| technology in place. New products will primarily come from this
| company going forward, and the products will be priced so that
| actual Deere-branded products are not competitive any more,
| especially second-hand ones.
|
| 4. It is now 2028. The MOU cannot be broken because farmers
| still need parts for their "old" Deere products. Deere anti
| right to repair lives on in the artificial competitor, which
| now retains 90% market ownership. Farmers cannot argue for
| right to repair any more. They've been sold out. Everything has
| gone back to normal for at least the next 25 years, as far as
| Deere is concerned.
|
| [1] https://www.fb.org/files/AFBF_John_Deere_MOU.pdf
| BuckyBeaver wrote:
| Wow, this just heaps more disgrace on Deere. Despicable.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| It's almost certainly what is going to happen. They're just
| buying time (a LOT OF time) in order to regroup and come
| back in force and once again take away our right to repair
| or own our things, this time in a new, more permanent
| method, which is now also protected legislatively.
| mherdeg wrote:
| I think what you're saying is there's a market for
|
| (1) go and do farm work for a few years, doing anything
| anybody needs for a few medium sized operations and talking
| to everybody
|
| (2) pick one product and advertise that you're building a
| competitor, emphasize that it's maintainable in the field and
| made from commodity parts
|
| (3) struggle to actually launch or sell it because
| manufacturing physical stuff is incredibly hard. Take lots of
| outside investment
|
| (4) ship 100 units and credibly claim to be able to ship many
| more
|
| (5) Deere will buy you for $1bn and shut it down, which was
| your plan the whole time
| 3np wrote:
| You're conveniently missing the crucial part of 5k
| subscribers to your newsletter. For 1b you may even need
| 10k.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Alternatively Deere will lobby to get the EPA or some other
| bureaucracy to add an Oxford comma somewhere there wasn't
| one before necessitating expensive major revision to
| everything you make and you will be bankrupt long before
| the courts rule that no they didn't really have the
| authority to make that rule change.
| themitigating wrote:
| These are the same farmer's who are generally against
| government regulations and love capitalism.
| Lutger wrote:
| I only hope a very aggressive competitor emerges that
| disrupts Deere out of existence. Sometimes I wonder why
| groups such as farmers dont band together to form a
| collective which can protect them against such predatory
| companies.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| JD makes it incredibly easy to finance equipment, which I
| doubt a competitor could do.
|
| It's not like there's a lack of competition anyway.
| rowanajmarshall wrote:
| They have - agricultural co-ops are popular and common for
| exactly those reasons. They haven't moved into ag equipment
| yet though (at least in a big way), I'm guessing since
| modern equipment is complicated and advanced enough that it
| makes sense to have a separate organisation that designs
| and builders them.
| mindslight wrote:
| Because you can trademark colors, and ultimately the color
| is the most important aspect of a tractor.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Deere already has plenty of competitors. CNH taken as a
| whole is approximately the same size if you look at the
| global market. Farmers are not prisoners of Deere. They can
| just buy another brand.
| lifebypizza wrote:
| [dead]
| Eriks wrote:
| hell has frozen over
| dns_snek wrote:
| > Should state or federal right-to-repair legislation be enacted,
| both Deere and the federation have the right to withdraw from the
| agreement with 15 days' written notice.
|
| Is this supposed to be a threat? Should legislation be enacted,
| they would be forced to comply with it. At that point any
| "voluntary" agreement seems pointless.
|
| Are they trying to coerce individual states into not passing
| right to repair under the assumption that should one state pass a
| right to repair law, they would retaliate by discontinuing access
| to spare parts and related materials in other states?
|
| Am I missing something?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-09 23:02 UTC)