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."

28 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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...
    4. 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...
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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. . . .
  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.
  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. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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?

  13. 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.
  14. 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.