Slashdot Mirror


American Farmers Are Still Fighting Tractor Software Locks (npr.org)

Manufacturers lock consumers into restrictive "user agreements," and inside "there's things like you won't open the case, you won't repair," complains a U.S. advocacy group called The Repair Association. But now the issue is getting some more attention in the American press. An anonymous reader quotes NPR: Modern tractors, essentially, have two keys to make the engine work. One key starts the engine. But because today's tractors are high-tech machines that can steer themselves by GPS, you also need a software key -- to fix the programs that make a tractor run properly. And farmers don't get that key.

"You're paying for the metal but the electronic parts technically you don't own it. They do," says Kyle Schwarting, who plants and harvests fields in southeast Nebraska... "Maybe a gasket or something you can fix, but everything else is computer controlled and so if it breaks down I'm really in a bad spot," Schwarting says. He has to call the dealer. Only dealerships have the software to make those parts work, and it costs hundreds of dollars just to get a service call. Schwarting worries about being broken down in a field, waiting for a dealer to show up with a software key.

The article points out that equipment dealers are using those expensive repair calls to offset slumping tractor sales. But it also reports that eight U.S. states, including Nebraska, Illinois and New York, are still considering bills requiring manufacturers to sell repair software, adding that after Massachusetts passed a similar lar, "car makers started selling repair software."

46 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it's a great thing that people who typically vote for more corporate freedom finally get to see the price of unrestrained corporatism.

    1. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't worry, the market will work it out. Some upstart company will decide to forego the huge income resulting from repair restrictions and will provide an alternative, and so many buyers will switch to that company to make up for those losses. Shouldn't be more than 90% have to switch for that to work, so it won't be long before all the companies drop the restriction! Right?

    2. Re: Positive by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This would happen, if it were not for manufacturers' intellectual property control over their software. Just like pharma companies, the manufacturers have imposed socialism for themselves by having protectionism written into the law. Capitalism is for the customers.

      We need to define 'right to repair' as an extension of fair use.

    3. Re: Positive by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Disruptive business plans are a real thing. It's basically the business culture of Silicon Valley: find a traditional business, kill it and feast off its corpse. The problem is that it's a lot harder to do with something like tractors than it is with services or retail.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re: Positive by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't worry, the market will work it out. Some upstart company will...

      Nah, the sort of company that does this to farmers will have a large portfolio of dumb patents and an army of lawyers to back it up.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Positive by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump said he was going to drain that swamp, all he's done so far is sign bills that deregulate business to let them screw over customers/the planet in any way they like.

      Corporate profits now come first, priority is given to the companies Trump has shares in.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing to do with socialism, but everything with good old abuse of market power by a private monopoly facilitated by US IP law.

    7. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think you know what socialism is. It's not this.

      What you're looking at is monopolistic competition; it's a routine outcome of an underregulated capitalist system.

      And then, to compound your misunderstanding of socialism, the remedy you're after is regulation.

    8. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is ALL contingent upon the coercive IP laws that are imposed and enforced by government. Free market my ass.

    9. Re: Positive by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Words mean things. Socialism isn't just a word meaning "bad things I don't like". Why not just have done with it and call them "SJWs"?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re: Positive by judoguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you're looking at is monopolistic competition; it's a routine outcome of an underregulated capitalist system.

      Wrong. What you're looking at is called Fascism. Or what Mussolini called Corporatism. The unholy alliance of anti free market big business and the coercive power of the State.

      ObamaCare is an excellent example, if you need another.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    11. Re: Positive by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think what they're getting at is anything that says you can't legally repair something is an artificial market protection.

      In a completely free market, no such clause would be legally enforceable, and any secondary market vendor who wanted to hack the system and repair it for a lower charge than the manufacturer could do so without any legal headaches.

      All the trouble that comes along with the DMCA or things like Monsanto copyrighting seeds and such is most certainly NOT free market capitalism.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re: Positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't seem to be very well informed either. The US has antitrust laws since the late 19th Century whose main purpose is to prevent monopolies. They have been weakened by strong lobby groups, though, like anyone else that would enable stronger competition. It's also not hard to see that unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies and/or collusion at least in some markets, and no economist who knows his or her profession would deny that. It follows even from simple game theoretic models. There is plenty of disagreement about ways to prevent monopolies and the amount of intervention needed, of course, but that's another matter.

      Regulation works fine in other countries, so if it doesn't work in the US, as you agree with, then I guess that's because US senators can be quite literally bought in ways that would be illegal on many other high-level industrialized Western countries.

      Another issue that should be mentioned is that capitalism can only 'work' at all whenever there are free markets. In many domains there can be no free markets, e.g. roads and utilities, including physical cables. A free market requires dozens of competing participants, you will never get a free market with only 3-4 players like Comcast or AT&T, it's impossible. So your FCC example is particularly misleading and ignorant.

    13. Re: Positive by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      And passed by REPUBLICAN senators and represenatives.

      You assholes deserve as much blame.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Positive by deadwill69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's see. First we have more than one can reference on the swamp draining:
      Search google for "Trump drain the swamp" and you'll find a quick 469,000 articles to reference.

      As for the corporate profits, I think a quick review of his stock portfolio might shed some light:
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      A quick search for his financials leads a to a whole lot more. He made a nice penny off the spike in oil last week after a little fireworks show.
      http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06...
      http://www.reuters.com/article...
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      And one of his holdings stands to make a pretty penny on replacing those little rockets:
      http://www.raytheon.com/capabi...

      I can find you more if this isn't enough.

    15. Re: Positive by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is actually a pretty common usage. It came up a lot around the crash of 2008. The banks had, for years, kept profits for their investors, but when they were faced with losses, they wanted those losses socialized - spread around to everyone (or to "society").

      It isn't, strictly speaking, a reference to Marxist "socialism".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    16. Re: Positive by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      PEOPLE, not corporations. Regulate Corporate behavior, not sovereign citizens.

      But remember Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people" and the Citizens United ruling basically asserts the same thing. I don't agree with either of those, but that's the way it is.

      On the other hand, if corporations *are* people then they should have the same responsibilities as people and I should have the same opportunities as corporations -- for example, I'd like to register myself in Delaware, while, living elsewhere, to take advantage of that state's favorable banking and corporate litigation regulations, and/or when a corporation does something illegal, someone should definitely go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, instead of being able to pay a fine, etc...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    17. Re: Positive by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      We need to define 'right to repair' as an extension of fair use.

      No, that's backwards. We need to recognize that when the privileges given to holders of "Imaginary Property" conflict with the rights of owners of actual property, it is the actual property rights that must prevail, not the imaginary property privileges.

      In other words, it shouldn't be that the right to repair is a limited exception of copyright; it should be that copyright is a limited(!) exception to ownership rights.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Positive by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People who lived paycheck to paycheck had NO health insurance. This was the problem obamacare was trying to fix. Something like 20% of the population of the United States has no insurance or terrible insurance. You can try to pretend that this isn't true, you can assert loudly that it is "their choice" not to buy insurance, but -- remember, they are living PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK or on NO PAYCHECK AT ALL. If they chop out $200 to $300 each month (or far, far more) for insurance, you're just saying that they have a choice between eating, or wearing shoes, or living somewhere other than under a highway overpass, and health insurance.

      My wife is a physician and has been taking care of these patients for her whole career. Your "free market" solution for most of her career was this: If an indigent patient (or one who lived paycheck to paycheck, or one who just couldn't/wouldn't afford to pay) walked in to see her, she could see the patient, accept whatever medicare (elderly) or medicaid) (poor) payments they might qualify for -- well under the market value of her billable time -- or just see them pro bono, which she might well do for a patient she'd been seeing who lost their job. Hospitals were in an even worse state. If somebody walked in off the street into a hospital ER, they were LEGALLY OBLIGATED to take care of them, whether or not they could pay. Even a very small hospital/ER visit costs a lot of money, and medicare/medicaid (if it pays or paid anything at all) payed only a small fraction of the actual cost of the visit.

      Your "free market" pre-obamacare solution was thus to screw the physicians and hospitals and nurses by simultaneously requiring them to provide medical treatment to people who couldn't afford it and exploiting their good nature on top of that for people living on the edge of the poverty who -- at best -- could only afford to pay something much less than the cost of the service and cannot possibly afford even the cheapest health insurance. And before you even start, let me assure you that for a physician in pretty much any practice, overhead is AT LEAST 2/3 of their billing, maybe a little bit more, so a free patient isn't just a matter of a physician contributing a bit of time, it is contributing their own time and PAYING their nurses, receptionists, PAs, for the lab (and any labs they order) and of course there is the building itself and all utilities all paid OUT OF POCKET -- directly eating into their income. This isn't a zero sum break even games, they lose money for underbilling and collectable accounts, and medicare/medicaid doesn't even pay for the overhead on the visits they supposedly pay for. So yeah, in order not to go broke WHILE working 60-65 hour weeks for half of what they would be making in a "free" market, they charge 30% more to everybody else (more like 100% in hospitals, where hospital ERs are the most expensive possible way to deliver routine health care). Guess what! You've socialized medicine, but in the worst possible way, the least fair way. And the saddest thing of all is that people don't even realize that this has happened, and yammer on about free markets and how having competitive insurance plans is somehow optimal and can take care of everybody that needs -- is mandated in law -- to be taken care of.

      Obamacare didn't fix this problem, of course. It did, however, make it a lot better, and more fair, in that by increasing the number of the insured and directly subsidizing insurance for the working poor who previously had to rely on the charity of doctors or hospitals to get medical treatment or routine well-patient care, they passed the costs on to the people of the US collectively instead of forcing the physicians and hospitals individually to do what they insisted that they do, at a loss. And I'm not just talking the unemployed, I'm largely talking about precisely those living paycheck to paycheck, often working several jobs because employers don't want to have to provide benefits and only let them work 30 hours a week (each). I have

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    19. Re: Positive by parkinglot777 · · Score: 2

      Well, corporations sort of *are* people. To "incorporate" is literally to "embody".

      No person, business, town (incorporated) or anything else comprising one or more people can exist, i.e., do business, with anyone else without having a "body". So yes, a corporation has rights. Just like your body. Corporations are born and die every day.

      Sometimes they are powerful "people" and get by with stuff that a smaller, less powerful "person" can't. But a "corporation" isn't a bad thing in itself. It's merely a legal entity that can continue if one or more members leave.

      So, they are "people", in many important ways.

      You attempt to mislead others by extending the meaning of the word "embody" as people; however. the word "embody" is not the same as "body". Also, a corporation/incorporated business consists of investors that aren't really have anything much to do together besides "business". People are humans. We are much more than just business. In other words, corporation is just a part of people activities, not people themselves.

    20. Re: Positive by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      Can you post a list of tractor/combine manufacturing companies that DON'T do this? I think you'll find that there are none. Meanwhile, there are fields to harvest, and if you prefer to work with the older tools, that's fine, but your competitor is using the new "locked-down" tractor. This is one of those times when the only way out is collective action by a group of citizens acting as one to force a change... i.e., representative government regulation.

  2. root the tractors by ls671 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems like somebody needs to step in and develop a root kit for those tractors.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:root the tractors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would certainly help farmers who grow carrots, beets and other root vegetables, but maize farmers would require a cobkit.

    2. Re:root the tractors by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they're require a kernel.

  3. Finally something politicians "get" by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Until now, the whole "software lock in" thing has been something few politicians can grasp. Worse, it's something that few of their constituents give a shit about, so they don't bother to even try to understand it. Usually, everyone who would has something else they care about and few actually depend on it for a living. Outside Silicon Valley, who gave 2 shits about software?

    This could definitely be a game changer. First, farmers are a VERY vocal group and the proverbial epitome of freedom of the land, founder spirit and everything that the average American feels good about. Everyone has a farmer somewhere in his ancestry and everyone can at least somehow understand how that's important. These people make the stuff you eat, after all!

    And more important, people understand fixing agricultural machines. Maybe they don't do it themselves, but basically everyone who didn't exclusively grow up in a downtown area of a metropolis has at some point in time notice that these things break down and that some oil-covered mechanic is working his magic lying underneath one of those beasts to make it wroom again. People understand that this is a necessity, and more important, people expect this to be possible. They grew up with this being possible. This not being possible is something they'd consider impossible, and, worse, someone keeping you from fixing something you own, at least if it's something outside the "fixing costs more than buying a new one" throwaway-appliance garbage, is someone people consider despicable.

    This could wake up our politicians. Mostly because it's no longer large corporate lobbying groups against consumers. It's large corporate lobbying groups against large farmer lobbying groups.

    Grab the popcorn, folks, this is going to get interesting!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: Finally something politicians "get" by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Except one may argue that DRM is necessary to prevent the machine from harming others (bypassed auto-drive causes road accident)

      Bullshit.

      excessively polluting (bypassed exhaust sensors)

      Bullshit.

      killing the mechanic (cracked firmware engages belt while hood is open),

      More bullshit.

      and killing the operator (bypassed safety system does not disengage belt when hood is opened to clean chaff.).

      And even more bullshit!

      Every one of those arguments -- and every possible argument -- is complete and utter bullshit.

      Why?

      Because the owner has always been, still is, and should always be the one liable for any harm caused by his property. This is well-established law, and "but software!" is absolutely not, at all, even slightly, in any conceivable way, ever anything resembling something even close to a valid reason to change it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  4. A nice, simple law would help by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If the consumer can not repair the purchased item, then the vendor must provide free parts and labour for the advertised lifetime of the item, provided within a reasonable response time for the industry and item in question".

    In other words, a mandatory all-encompassing warranty with an SLA.

    You want to lock in your customer base? How about the customer base locks in the manufacturer?

  5. DRM - lost copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is quite simple. If you lock your software with DRM or artificial lock, the unrestricted warranty of whole product including hw+sw fix automatically rise from 1(2) to 10 years. And the manufacturer / vendor is hereby required to be able to fix any issue on such product until the copyright to it is expired.

  6. Re:Buy smart by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down. But maybe that's cheaper - you may get two Chinese tractors for the price of one American.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  7. No need to fight by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The farmers have voted for the candidate that will be all for the farmers and will be doing what is needed for the farmers. Right?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Ukrainians already have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real solution however is for us tech nerds to start performing outreach to the farming community and get them on board to lobby together against hardware enforced software signing. With the brunt of America's farming community behind us (as a result of their own problems caused by Tivo-ized tractors.) we should have no trouble pushing legislation through congress to end Tivoization once and for all.

    Maybe a nationwide boycott by the farming and techie community. Let's see how everybody feels after a week or two of internet and agriculture blackouts.

  9. Re:How long by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try, just TRY to get around John Deere. It's not like you have a lot of options.

    John Deere, ~67% market share followed by Case IH at ~17% and New Holland at ~9%, that's perilously close to a monopoly. You could try to give big old JD some hard competition by importing tractors from places where they don't try to rape you over software updates but if you do 'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

  10. Re:How long by ls671 · · Score: 2

    I live on the ISS you insensitive clod, we simply use Zulu time.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  11. Re:Farmers usually vote Republican by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only real farming left in the US are large industrial farms.

    Quit parroting that left wing lie. It's total bullshit that one 5 second Google query absolutely disproves.

  12. RE:"The article points out that equipment dealers" by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "using those expensive repair calls to offset slumping tractor sales."

    maybe people dont want to buy new tractors with this new "tractor with expensive propitiatory software, so they are keeping their old tractors, and even buying old tractors because they can fix them their selves without some greedy corporate tractor dealer scalping their pocketbooks every time they need work done on their tractor

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  13. Re:How long by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Hey, over 98% of Austria voted for a "reunion" with Germany in 1938, so I guess Austrians are fans of destroyed towns.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:How long by dheltzel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Case, IH, and New Holland are all owned by Fiat/Chrysler, so if your numbers are correct, then the #2 spot is 26%. The bigger problem for those companies is the rather intense loyalty shown by JD owners. But if you are trying to kill off all your customer loyalty, you could hardly do better than approach outlined here.

    Farmers talk amongst themselves, a lot, so a crop threatening failure to provide needed service, can quickly become a huge negative in the minds of any farmers shopping for new equipment.

    Nothing like "pissing off your best customers to make more profits" as a business model, is it.

  15. Re:Buy smart by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down. But maybe that's cheaper - you may get two Chinese tractors for the price of one American.

    That's not necessarily a bad thing although I'd go for E-European or Ukrainian before Chinese but that requires you to be a bit more hands-on (like farmers used to be) and fix stuff yourself unlike when you use western equipment where you typically call in a service person. If Americans can use AK-47s without being worried about catching communism from them why not Ukrainian trucks or tractors? I came across a bunch of civilianized Ukrainian KrAZ army trucks in a farming village in western Europe and we're not talking some former communist nation, this was deep inside bedrock NATO territory. So I'm walking around these things taking a very close look, largely because I'd seen these beasts in news footage from war zones except painted green instead of red and with rocket artillery or AAA guns in place of the hydraulic open-box bed, when this guy shows up. He asks if he can help me so I just told him the truth, that I was pretty amazed to see these things in that particular corner of the world, which made him quite a lot more friendly and we got talking. He told me that him and several farmers in the area had decided to set up a truck pool and found it was an expensive proposition until somebody discovered that several of these Soviet/Ukrainian cold war army trucks could be had brand spanking new for the price of a much smaller number of MAN,Mercedes,Volvo,... trucks, so they just bought a couple of dozen of these things. There was little that could break down, when it did the parts were cheap, electronics were minimal and they had hired a Ukrainian mechanic to maintain them who knew these things better than his own trouser pockets.

  16. Re:How long by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fuck it, having worked briefly with farmers when I was younger, I'll play devil's advocate here:

    1) Farmers know damned well that companies like John Deere sell their hardware at cost (or even a loss), with the intention of making their money in servicing the vehicles.

    2) Farmers will howl like dogs if John Deere says "Okay, we'll sell you models that you can fix yourself. But they'll cost twice as much to buy."

    And if you hadn't yet deduced it from the previous two points:

    3) Farmers are a notorious bunch of whiny cheapskates who live to complain about EVERYTHING and will go to any length (legal or otherwise) to save a penny. Seriously, asking a farmer about his farm is like asking an old person about their health--expect to hear nothing but complaints, how much they're suffering, how they need this and that, woe is me, etc. And they will do ANYTHING to make even an extra dime, including hiring illegals, buying seed they know damned well is illegal, cutting corners on sanitation requirements, trying to cheat their workers and work them off the clock, lying to the government about their crop yields to get higher insurance or fallow payouts, etc., etc., etc.

    In other words, farmers want their cake and to eat it too. They want all the latest developments in the technology, and they want it to be repairable by third parties--but they also want it to still be as cheap as it is now (at the price that's based on a maintenance subsidy).

    And that's me playing devil's advocate for today and risking the karma hit from those of you who've never had to deal with farmers before.

    John Deere should respond. "Dear farmers: We can sell it to you cheap or we can sell it to you repairable. Pick any one."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. re: devil's advocate about farming by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not going to say I have strong evidence to disagree with your observations about farmers. But I do live in an area that's still largely rural, in Western Maryland. And my interactions with them (including doing some computer service work for a couple of them) tells me they're not very different from anyone else trying to remain successful, running their own small business.

    Last I checked on tractor pricing, John Deere products suitable for farm use weren't exactly inexpensive, as it is. You really believe they're selling all of these tractors at or below their cost to build them? I'd like to see some evidence to back that claim up.....

    I'm sure that this is just an attempt for the industry to find a new avenue to monetize its products -- seeing how far they can push the boundaries before the law pushes back. The auto industry would *love* to impose the same rules on every car and truck it sells -- but that change would impact so many people (including hundreds of thousands of independent garages, auto parts dealers, etc.) - it can't realistically enforce it right now.

    Picking a relative niche market like farm tractor sales is a better strategy. John Deere knows that #1. it has enough market share so farmers can't go to that many alternatives to avoid them, and #2. it sells a product that's not just purchased for pleasure or convenience. The success of an entire season's crop is at stake.

    Besides, it wasn't always this way. Not all that long ago, a John Deere tractor had no such software lock because the technology to implement it didn't even exist yet. Did you suddenly see tractor prices drop sharply when they decided to start subsidizing them with this forced maintenance?

  18. Re:Key information... by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    One farmer interviewed on CBC radio said the seasonal nature of farming ensures there's nowhere even close to an adequate supply of service people available when they're needed, and calls for service are often hundreds of miles apart. So during the time he desperately needs his tractor working, and could fix it easily himself, he's required to wait for hours or even days for a service rep to show up, plug in a USB drive, and fix some software glitch in a matter of seconds.

    The farmer, whose identity was protected, had downloaded "grey market" software to do such repairs himself.

    The manufacturer's representative who was interviewed afterward made a completely unconvincing case. He claimed they would have somebody at a farm almost instantly, and that they weren't interested in prosecuting farmers who downloaded hacked repair software. In other words, the manufacturer's representative was a bare-faced liar.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  19. Software Repair by Elfich47 · · Score: 2

    The issue isn't the software breaking as much as the software has lockouts for any and all replacement parts. Consider if you changed the oil and you had to log into your car to check the RFID tag in the oil filter and if you didn't have the password and an RFID approved oil filter the engine wouldn't start.

    It also means you can't alter any part of the operation of the tractor that is computer controlled. You want a custom library for a specific crop: Pay John Deere. There was a story about a month ago about farmers buying hacked motherboards. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
  20. Re:Expense ratio and hollow compliants? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is it cost the farmer $500 to do the repair on the previous model themselves, in an hour. The new model also costs the farmer $500 to do the repair themselves, in an hour; however, the tractor won't "go" until they pay a technician an additional $1,500 to drive out, wave their badge at the device, and whisper the secret word into its ear.

    Part of the complaint is they can't fix their tractor and get back to work; they have to take a relatively-significant hit to productivity and put their farm at risk waiting for a service call.

  21. Tariffs by sjbe · · Score: 2

    You could try to give big old JD some hard competition by importing tractors from places where they don't try to rape you over software updates but if you do 'The Donald' will slap a 30% import tariff on you so farmers are now literally fucked in every possible way.

    Those same farmers evidently voted for Trump overwhelmingly so if they do get hit with an import tariff they have no right to complain. They knew the guy was a xenophobe and protectionist when they voted for him. They made their bed so they can sleep in it.

    Only downside I can see is that those costs ultimately get passed along to you and me. Allowing JD to engage in this sort of shenanigans ultimately is paid for by us at the grocery store.

  22. Re:Buy smart by jandersen · · Score: 2

    Except that if you buy Chinese you will have to buy a new tractor each time it breaks down.

    Do you have a lot of experience with Chinese farm equipment, or are you just spreading baseless crap about something you know little about?

    Having traveled a lot in China over the last ~20 years, I have at least seen some f the things they use in the fields. A lot of it is clearly rather old, but then it wouldn't be old, if it broke down and had to be scrapped every year, as you say. In fact, it must be both reliable and repairable, like things used to be in the West not all that long ago; back when the saying was that all you needed to repair a Land Rover was a hammer and a bit of string.

    One of the contraption I've seen in China looks a bit like an oversized garden tractor - the ones with two wheels and a pair of handles - but very big. They've got one enormous cylinder and sound like an old fashioned fishing vessel. When I tell farmers here in UK about that one, they all go "I wish I had one of those". Simple, reliable and repairable is gold when your livelyhood depends on getting things done in time, before the weather turns.

  23. Re:How long by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

    Your mistake is assuming a 'farmer' is some guy that has been farming since birth like his father and grand father before him.

    Corporate megafarms are the new customers that JD is catering to. I wouldn't be shocked if they do have a TaaS in place already. They have service contracts that say if a tractor is down for more than N hours JD reimburses them.

    It's the MO of most heavy equipment these days in mines and on big construction projects.