Over the years, stories about maintenance rights have continued to emerge, and what is unexpected is the agricultural community. Their John Deer tractor is the backbone of North American agriculture. The use of DRM on its parts limits the use of authorized Deere dealers, making it difficult to repair. We have reported on farmers who use suspicious software tools to do this work on their own. We have seen more than one legal challenge. According to reports, as farmers abandon their loyalty to the newer green and yellow machines, the price of second-hand Deere has been affected. Now there is news of a new front, because a socially responsible investment company has made tractor giants scramble to prevent shareholders from moving forward on the matter.
Deere has not slowed down in countering the threat of maintenance rights legislation and their reluctance to become its typical representatives. Chief Technology Officer Jahmy Hindman has publicly stated that 98% of Deere Machinery’s Repairs can be done by the farmers themselves (PDF, page 5), no Deere agent is required. The question raised by the proponents of shareholder actions is, considering that investors may face a huge risk of causing a rebound in repair rights, why should they take such a risk for the remaining 2% of repairs? We would love to know how Deere arrived at this number, because given the relatively trivial nature of some of the examples we have seen, this sounds far-fetched.
There is no doubt that Deere makes high-quality agricultural machinery that many farmers (including at least one Hackaday scribe) use to grow a pile of crops. The brand loyalty that they have in customers for generations cannot be bought through clever marketing methods. It has been established for a century and a half. As bystanders, through this misleading use of their maintenance operations to deliberately dismantle, we hope that such shareholder actions can achieve the desired effect and bring it to an end. After all, this is not only good for those who wish to repair tractors, it may just save their now damaged brand before it is too late.
Curious about previous reports on this ongoing story? This article from last year will provide background information.
Header image: Nheyob / CC BY-SA 4.0
I won't even consider buying John Deer until they remove 100% of the electronic modules that prevent owners from repairing their equipment.
I would never consider buying something worth 5 cars, look at the brand. I will look into all other aspects-it is repairable, whether repair parts are available, and it will be manufactured by a third company 15 years from now, etc.
Deere helps you solve this problem. In many cases, they are actually the only option (the agricultural equipment industry has very few participants).
wrong. For example, the machines produced by MTZ Belarus and Pronar Narew are very good and inexpensive.
You're right. This nails it. Your other options are sub-par at best.
Yes, but do all of them do this? This is one of the important things.
Even if most are not, you must figure out the cost and availability of other brands and their parts near you-if you have to import the entire machine or parts from Europe/Asia, because JD is a local giant, you may become Time to wait for express airmail parts when suffering downtime...
You must also ask companies from all over the world whether they have manufactured the correct type of machines-the scale of farm equipment expanded to the UK can of course be used for larger fields, but in actual use it is very close to operating costs and time, etc. , So that it can be repaired correctly, and if parts are readily available, it can be cheaper and faster to resume work with a sufficiently large selling point. It is the elements that allow Pi to be embedded in many places-usability is good, each model has a long service life, in most cases, you can directly replace it with a new replacement model-it may be more expensive than other models A little suitable SOC/SBC, but support and long-term availability mean it will work better in the long run.
If they have such a "powerful presence" (ie, monopoly) for equipment with specific needs on a large scale, that they have the right to decide the rules, then they don't have to do so. They didn't get into that situation because they played well. They were able to do this because they either bought out their opponents or squeezed out the competition in other ways.
As a small farmer who has more free time to buy equipment than cash, you can more easily use other brands or old equipment that can be repaired by yourself, but in a highly competitive market (ie: low profits and almost no security— —Just like in the United States) Jingdong has more power to set rules, because any additional cost or time delay means you are no longer competitive.
For example, Apple recently launched a program that can be repaired "by itself", but in order to order parts (you are not allowed to have any inventory), you must first have the internal serial number of the device. In addition, only relatively expensive parts are provided, so that any company Neither can compete with its service location. JD.com can simply do the same. The parts are shipped slowly, and only parts with matching serial numbers are provided, which usually only makes any non-JD-brand garages unusable.
But this is how the "free" market works, if you don't want to pay for it, please don't vote.
I heard that CaseInternational has also joined the DRM trend. (I think I heard about it from insiders).
You still have McCormick, which is just the Italian Landini renamed for North America. Therefore, it is very interesting to obtain parts, and it is almost impossible to obtain any technical information that is not in the service manual as a distributor, because landini and mccormick seem to communicate through Google Translate.
There is Mahindra, which is mainly a tractor brand from China or India. Parts are usually ordered after 6-18 months, including filters. Need a fuel filter for 200 hours of service to avoid invalidation of the warranty? Wait 6 months or call a Kia dealer in Europe to obtain special Bosch filters that Bosch does not sell in North America.
Case/New Holland is about a manufacturer with a large enough/fast enough service/parts network to really compete with Deere, which is only in North America.
Sadly, this usually means buying Deere or risking losing crops that year.
I won't, but that's because I don't need a tractor at all.
Everyone needs a tractor, but you don't know what you need.
There are two kinds of people: people who need a tractor and people who don't know they need a tractor. (Current ride: '49 Deere M)
My 0.29 acre estate is stated otherwise. :(I really want a tractor...maybe the old 9N or H...but it is ridiculous for this property.
How many highly specialized household farming tools do you usually buy?
Some things simply cannot be bought from dozens of suppliers. And this is not always the result of problematic business practices—some niche markets require only high investments compared to the scale of only one or two participants (if any).
My repair rights issues are concentrated in specific areas:-Reasonable cost of repairing parts. -Repair speed.
The second is critical, because you usually only have a limited time to complete the work, if you are late, it may cause catastrophic losses.
But even one day's delay will bring high personal costs, because you will lose a day's productivity. I can imagine when John Deere’s entire production line is shut down for a day and the farmers on the same boat cost
If you have visited central Illinois during the harvest, you will see bright spotlights in the fields all night. They run the combine harvester 24×7. The best time to harvest the field depends on the moisture content of the corn kernels and the weather.
Bobcat tractors have many of the same problems. If you replace the fuel injector or fuel injection pump, or anything related to Tier 4, you must pay Bobcat to "register" the replacement part into your CPU.
This is a typical example of crony capitalism. This is why I have a 14-year-old Kabota burning with a mechanical pump. For the hacker community, this is a golden opportunity to provide after-market ECUs and control systems for deer devices. Many aftermarket fuel injection controllers have been designed and manufactured. They are quite successful. I don’t think this is just an opportunity, in contrast to the extreme stupidity of crony capitalism. I hope that deer will suffer and set an example for all companies, preventing end users will pay you financially.
Another example of this horror is his Mercedes-Benz SCN code. Almost every control unit of Mercedes is locked by DRM and must be connected to the Mercedes network to be authorized to be useful for replacement in the car. This is why I will never own another Mercedes.
Jd better change its way, otherwise they won’t sell any new equipment
The ECU firmware is protected on all new cars. The user has no right to access or modify it. The same is true for Deere, the emission level will be protected. They can still allow farmers to replace parts without disturbing the firmware
I want to know how much of this debate involves greed and how much involves product liability law. In fact, agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. If there is a firmware problem, the device can easily become disabled/death. Do not interpret this as any defense against Deere.
The same thing happened in the automotive field. The car is composed of dozens of modules on CANBUS. Can any manufacturer say that they have tested every hardware/software version of every module of a particular vehicle to work with every version of every other version? Then, in addition to this, there are safety and emission laws, which involve severe criminal and civil penalties.
If I had my way, I would let them turn on these systems in exchange for "you screwed it up, you are legally on your own, us, the manufacturer, and wash your hands." But our legal system does not work like this.
"If I have my way, I will let them open these systems in exchange for "you screwed it up, you are legally on your own, us, the manufacturer, and wash your hands." But our legal system is not like this Operational.".
This will be an interesting test, especially if self-driving cars are at the forefront. But I think product liability is not the reason why McDonald's damaged the current state of the ice cream machine.
If you screw up your McDonald’s ice cream machine and infect a large group of people with Listeria, McDonald’s headquarters knows that the only thing people will see in the news is “people are poisoned at McDonald’s” rather than “people get sick once” from franchisees. On the website, they made a coding error that caused the ice cream to be cold enough. "Product liability sometimes includes brand reputation.
It's almost like you think the company is not a company
You will still encounter some problems. What if someone changes something and makes it look the same or crazy near the factory? When it fails, how do you prove that it is a DIY repair and not an OEM part?
I will propose an Apple method, but only for traceability. Each "module" or component has a chip in which a serial number is stored. It will send the module ID and SN to the ECU/CPU when it is powered on or occasionally sends a signal. At the OEM, the ECU/CPU will store the "stock" OEM ID and serial number, and then it will always compare the original number with the installed number. If something does not match, a bit will be set to indicate whether the "module" is 3rd party or DIY.
Of course there are ways to deceive it or work around it, but that is for a more detailed discussion. I'm just talking from the starting point, storing, tracking and comparing module serial numbers and IDs. Then, if a lawsuit or an accident occurs, reading the list from the ECU, the company can say: "The customer has modified this. It is no longer within the warranty period, and we are no longer liable because this is not what we did."
What farmers require is not to modify their equipment, but to be able to purchase a new dashboard and have the ability to make the equipment recognize it, without the need for JD technicians to come out and charge high fees to "program". They require the ability to replace new diesel particulates Filter, and can tell the device that they do so without having to pay JD fees. They want to be able to connect the scanning tool to see why their inspection engine light is on, fix it, and then clear the light. They hope to be able to replace the fuel filter and reset the life of the fuel filter. Same as air filter or hydraulic filter. They did not ask for emissions to be deleted, nor did they ask for HP to be increased. All of these things can be done using scanning tools or laptops and adapter cables in most automotive applications. In the automotive sector, a $500 scanning tool, a $300 laptop, and a $500 J2534 cable can do any of these things. To be honest, you can even skip the scan tool on your laptop. When you talk about equipment that costs from $250,000 to $1 million, a laptop and cable worth $5,000 will pay for itself in the first year. The problem is that JD is fully fighting it. Same as Apple.
I agree that the most harmed tractor owners are not those who intend to overwhelm the tractor or otherwise change its emissions. However, emissions laws are the original driving force behind these restrictions. The EPA prohibits any modification of the engine or powertrain components that will or may change the engine's emissions. The list of component examples is long and includes almost every component on the engine. John Deere responded to these laws, and it was difficult to replace many of them without the involvement of a dealer. They also used the law to squeeze more dealer service fees from customers. EPA laws need to be rewritten and streamlined. As usual, legislators are concerned about the few who would choose to break the law, but the remedial measures they took harmed all those who would not otherwise break the law. Therefore, many farmers choose to continue to use the old equipment, even if the new equipment has never met the emission control requirements. Which result is better? I think it is better to have an unpreventable but relatively small number of illegally modified tractors on site, rather than encouraging the continued use of old tractors, which generate more harmful emissions than new modified tractors.
But this requires politicians to think, not reach out for another kickback.
I tend to believe that the emission law is being used by Deere and friends as a convenient excuse, not as a driving force. If they just comply with emission standards, they can do many things. This is all about market control.
Regulations also hurt the trucking industry, because the only thing owners can use on these new trucks are light bulbs. Everything in the device is locked behind the password. The oil change, filter, sensor, and speed control all require a laptop connected to the Internet and a 20k subscription per year to reset and delete the software error code. Just because of all the increased costs associated with the software, the engine rebuild has increased from 6k to 20k or more.
No one is talking about reprogramming airbags.
Most things have nothing to do with safety, and all this programming shit is new compared to fixing mechanical things for hundreds of years. JD's only motive was to keep that sweet, sweet repair Mora in their hands.
And your "If you change a light bulb, the company is not responsible"-this kind of thinking is terrible. The security function is one thing (although I disagree with all the nonsense done in the name of security), JD can't allow it to be touched anyway, but preventing normal maintenance is just greedy. Although I understand corporate greed, I need to protect the people. People also have jobs that depend on getting the job done.
I used to work in a JD factory that re-manufactured electronic products. Judging from what I know about JD’s management, the idea of “opening up anything” makes them very uncomfortable. They believe in doing things in one way everywhere, even if it causes a fire in one place.
It does not need to be open. It only needs to be unprotected by DRM. When the parts are replaced by farmers instead of JD personnel, there is no valid reason to lock the machine.
Your statement is a bit general, so my answer is general... In general, this attitude applies to every ISO certified company. (ISO 9000, ISO 9001, ISO 13485, etc.) This is a lot of companies. The reason for this attitude is that to be certified, you must do things in one way-there is no room. An example is that you must "control the supplier" to get a certificate, which means ensuring that the supplier is trained and providing written training. For the uninitiated, a "supplier" is everyone who provides a product or service-and "maintenance" is a service. There are some gray areas, but JD.com has adopted a "simple" approach, allowing all components to be installed by certified service technicians. Obviously, these gray areas are where they are criticized by the community. If they allow John Doe to repair his John Deer, they will be required to generate a large number of documents, which will be criticized by the ISO certification body.
I will become "that person" and ask: What are the main benefits of the cost and trouble to obtain ISO certification? Is it just another expensive piece of paper you hang on the wall?
Those who sell these certificates claim that owning it means that the company is managed in a way that benefits both its customers and shareholders. However, the whole process mainly benefits the person issuing the certificate. But it looks good on the web and brochures, and all other companies have certificates.
In addition to the in-process benefits that you can actually get in some cases, you do this because your customers insist on doing it.
I don't think any farmers have decided to buy JD tractors because they have ISO 9000 certificates. If what [Tenaja] wrote is true, and JD’s attitude towards maintenance rights is the result of ISO 9000, then obtaining the certification will have a negative impact on customers and shareholders. Even if it has nothing to do with ISO 9000, JD's decision to implement DRM is stupid. But JD.com is a large, inert, and inflexible company, so when they started to run into trouble, they did not resume this decision.
Caterpillar has passed ISO certification. Compared with JD ag equipment, it is much easier to repair CAT construction equipment yourself. There are several aftermarket scanning tools that can set the injector flow rate on the CAT, force DPF regeneration, program replacement of emission components, etc., but not on JD. The excuse for ISO certification is as lame as the excuse for JD's emissions. Everything is for profit.
So you tell me that the price of used tractors has skyrocketed and people are angry with deere because of 2% repairs? Yes, I'm talking nonsense, unless we clearly list what those 2% are. Modify emissions? These are not car nuts, they may bend their cats to gain more horsepower. These farmers must rely on their equipment.
"What the advocates demand is impossible, and we are already doing it!" Yes, that's right.
Agree that it must be creative accounting based on how many repairs I have heard of, this should be a basic thing, I have no real interest or need to know... it is 2% because they are calculating the cleaning of the cab windows, Lamps and other mud are used as repairs...Hundreds of "repairs" can be done just by cleaning it to make it fit for use, and replacing tires/wheels-all these wheel nuts are obviously repaired individually, no matter how many there are, you can Take them down, then put them away and start over!
I was thinking that they might add up the total number of parts, including each individual nut and bolt. Only 2% of the indivisible parts are electronic parts, so the other 98% can be replaced.
If these 2% of the parts are by far the most expensive and most easily damaged parts, resulting in the machine unable to run, the end result is still that you need a $$$$ "JD technician" (more likely to be an idiot with some Trivial secret software and a bunch of laptops with pre-printed invoices).
"(More likely to be an idiot with a laptop, some trivial secret software and a bunch of pre-printed invoices)"
Come on buddy! Give the technology more trust! I mean, if the laptop says "replace xyz", they still have to know which end of the wrench to hold.
2% of repair list items are different from 2% of repair cases. These 2% list items may represent 90+% of repair cases
good idea! "Numbers don't lie, but crooks can numbers!"
I hope so. Add a second inference, follow money
I bet most people are interested in modifying emissions, if I own any equipment with DPF, I will find a way to delete it, now I only own old equipment without DPF, I bet I still stand on the right of the law On the one hand, emission control has caused as many headaches as farmers and construction workers and road users. Now morally, legally, and ethically, deleting DPF is wrong, but when your ability to support your family depends on the operation of the machine, troublesome emission control equipment will appear.
Yes, I would like to know if it is possible just because people keep the old tractor running for much longer than the additional emissions caused by the new tractor optimizing for "good" emissions and "good" availability/reliability/complexity , Rather than "minimum" and "horrible".
why? You are the owner of a BMW. Because you only drive a short distance, the DPF is full. Can't you run 100 kilometers a year? Tired of having to add AdBlue?
It is very likely that 98% of "maintenance" involves regular oil/filter changes, etc. Almost every user will do it on a regular basis, and 2% are actual repairs...you can prove anything with statistics.
I just read the linked article (or maybe the linked article)... It seems that the statement is that only 2% need software updates, which is different from needing an expert/locking software to clear the fault.
I would be disappointed that 2% of repairs somehow require a software update to fix it.
I think the weasel word there is that farmers can complete 98% of the work. If he can access the correct information, tools and parts. He didn't. If he did do the work, he would void any warranty, so even if he did have access, he was still messed up. (No, if the problem is not caused by the job, it is illegal to invalidate the warranty if the farmer works on his own equipment, but leave it to a large company like Deere to find the blame for what someone else did Way of working, or blame others, even if it’s actually their fault)
I think what they mean is that farmers can complete 98% of the maintenance, that is, all manual labor, and the remaining 2% is completed by JD, that is, part of the maintenance is registered to the main computer through the DRM system. So, technically speaking, he did not lie.
Is it really illegal for them to "invalidate warranty after opening" on their things? Last year I was surprised to learn that the warranty bill in the United States made people like to point out that the right to repair is clearly limited to consumer products that are usually used at home. Therefore, HPE told me that the lifetime warranty of my managed gigabit network switch might lapse after opening it, but this time they let it slide. As far as I know, this is actually a legal threat.
I just read the linked article (or maybe the linked article)... It seems that the statement is that only 2% need software updates, which is different from needing an expert/locking software to clear the fault.
Before I buy a farm, I will not buy a tractor.
I have 3 Deere products, 2 lawn tractors, and a small tractor. I like these products, but this repair thing is a problem for me. I have spent most of the 70 years repairing various electronic products... now retired... I am glad I don't have to fight the "right to repair", it drives me crazy. I am worried about our future. Maybe it's time to sell all my JD stocks.
I have been a mechanic for more than 45 years. Repairing everything I own, the first time I met the company that did this was BPR. The Sea-Doo I purchased has priority software, and I need to go to the dealer to reset the service light after changing the oil. Needless to say, I will never buy other products from them.
Deere worried that farmers would know that they could chip a 250-horsepower tractor into a 400-horsepower tractor. Deere wants $150,000 to upgrade, and the chip is $1,500...
No, a chip is more like 15 dollars, usually it is not even a chip, but just a software change to the tuning.
The old JD 4020 that we bought in the early 70s did not have any computerized components. My brother actually rebuilt everything on it when he was in high school. Just sold it a few years ago and it works like new
By the way, maybe it's not just showing the cute little tractor pictures in this series of articles; we are talking about machines like 2/3 million dollar forage harvesters here.
I am not an expert in agricultural machinery, but I guess that the maintenance problems and income model of sitting mowers are very different from those in the price and complexity range.
you're not wrong. This is a handy photo of some Deeres from Wikimedia Commons, because the photo of my father's older Deere may not be needed here.
However, the working day tractor in the background is definitely in the frame here.
Reply: Smaller JD devices, such as ATV/UTV, riding lawn mowers, etc. Check the Gator forums and websites such as My Tractor, and you will find that the right to repair also applies there. Many have advanced electronic devices to control the engine, switch displays, errors, etc.
I have 3 JDs, an ATV, a UTV and a large loader/hoe. No one needs to go to the dealer to renovate. There is a lot to say.
Are those made by JD.com or renamed Chinese OEMs?
This is beyond the right to repair. This is the confusion we have caused by allowing software developers to license software instead of selling it. Regarding copyright law, it needs to be rewritten from scratch. If you sell me a software, I should have full rights to the software you sold me. I should be able to modify it in any way I think suits me. I should also be able to sell my personal copy to anyone I want without permission. Same as cars, trucks, tractors, televisions, and any other equipment. Once I pay you for the device, I can do whatever I want, including any software running on it. The more computerized the world becomes, the more this will become a problem that needs to be solved now.
I am a member of the Power Repair Club, and I suggest that HaD'ers also become members. This is a deal with Deere. The combination of a million and a half dollars is troublesome. The discharge chute will no longer rotate. You check the machine and you don't find any problems. You cannot physically check the switch in the cab because the membrane switch on the board is a nightmare to remove. You have products in the field, and you have two days to harvest. Your only option is to contact your local distributor. They sent a technology with a laptop that can be plugged into your machine. The technician climbed down to tell you that the No. 24 solenoid valve is not working. Technology replaces valves, and you start business again. The solenoid valve costs US$2400.00. Only available as an OEM part. The diagnosis fee is US$5200.00. $7600.00, you can start harvesting again in 20 minutes. The fact now is that if you install the diagnostic software, you can check the machine yourself and buy the same SV from the Internet for $17.99 and start business again. The same goes for cars. Make them too complicated for ordinary people to fix and charge crazy fees for diag. This is not the initial expenditure of the machine, but the cost at which the company can repair it.
A few days ago, a neighbor told me that the LED strip of one of the LED headlights on his latest Chevrolet Suburban was broken. To replace the headlights (they don't sell separate LED strips) is $1,200! The mechanic told him that it would take 3 hours to remove the existing headlights (labor ~$100/hour)! B^(
standard. Bake the cluster in the oven, split it, repair it, and then glue it back together. It takes a day to complete and costs £400. If you find a physically damaged (but electrically normal) donor on eBay, everyone will win and reward points. That's not against the right to repair, it's just a lack of knowledge of the mechanical part.
What you said makes sense. There is a "radar" inside the rear light assembly of the new Ford truck that can detect the vehicle next to you and light up the rearview mirror to let you know not to change lanes. The brake light assembly is $1700.00. The side mirror with light and camera is $1900.00. I replaced one on my 2005 Jeep, which sold for $30.00. You pay for features.
The question here is mainly about the access to the software TOOLS. It may be said that some sensors are replaced, but the factory service program often requires the use of proprietary software tools to calibrate the sensors. So yes, you may be able to complete 98% of the work (such as physical disassembly and replacement of parts), but it takes the last 2% to actually make the parts work.
They are playing numbers here. If you have completed 98% of each repair but cannot complete the last 2% of the steps, your machine is not working properly.
Do they mean that you can fix 98% of the failures and resume operation, or do they mean that you can complete 98% of the work and leave 2% of the work to the dealer to resume operation? If a dealer asks you to ship a large piece of equipment to the dealer and charge you a large amount of money to calibrate something for 10 minutes, what is your opinion?
Think of a 100-step program for replacing some kind of transmission sensor. The first 98 steps are all about pulling out the gearbox and disassembling it to reach the parts, and now reassembling everything. The last two steps are to transport this huge vehicle to the dealership, and then wait forever and pay billions of dollars to run the software calibration program. This is how 98% of things in the real world work.
I can get basic scanning tools and repairs for almost all vehicles older than 5 years. Everything I did has nothing to do with modifying the program. I use scanning tools for troubleshooting and repair information, including electrical schematics. Deere did not provide any content related to this. Without this information, it is almost impossible to repair the machine, except for obvious minor problems.
I have equipment that most homeowners would consider large tractors and most farmers would consider small tractors. 55hp. I bought Deere because in most cases, I can get the parts within a day and a 15-minute drive. I previously owned another brand and had to wait weeks to get the parts or pay a premium plus shipping to get the parts faster. It is difficult to find rental tractors, so downtime is really bad. For many applications, they are the only games in town. Having said that, these RTR laws really need to be promoted. They still make a lot of money on parts.
I am currently waiting for the local John Deere dealer to have time to come out and install a new controller for me and program it in the tractor. It's been more than a week now, and he thinks they won't be able to leave there until next year. So far, I have made two requests to get a customer service consultant, but this still does not program the new controller.
I like Deere's products, but they can mess up. Mahindra is my brand.
As Swami Ice-T told us, "If your inspection engine light comes on, the game is over."
I have a Fordson tractor, which is newly sold as a "super major", but I added parts from the early Fordson "major", so I call it a large dinner major. It is a tractor with half-tracks and parts It comes with a planetary reduction drive that was once called a "preacher clutch" or technically inclined, but it has not been installed due to the need to disassemble the box. This machine is the first to use the current standard three-point suspension and power take-off setting. Every part of this machine is provided at a reasonable price. It was built in that special period after World War II. The idea at that time was to build it. It was truly tough because it would continue to move forward when it caught fire and exploded. After the war They are still a little convulsive. Although the outside of this tractor is rough, it looks mint and fits well inside. The Finns are great. Buddy has a new JD tractor that threw a code on a pto that has never been used. It costs 30% of the cost of my house and 50 acres, and when we got it, it was too small , Unable to run the square bucket together to make hay. There used to be many old tractors for sale 5 years ago, but they are not now.
"... Deere, together with CTO Jahmy Hindman, has not slowed down in countering the threat of maintenance rights legislation and their reluctance to become typical representatives..."
I think we should be able to choose to let JD repair our new equipment or buy technology to repair it ourselves or ask an independent mechanic to repair it. Our latest tractor communicates via GPS, which not only allows us to know its location, but also can be monitored by JD to evaluate its performance. I didn't realize that the tractor could self-diagnose and call our dealer to repair it. When I arrived at the tractor and found a JD mechanic to replace the belt (easy to repair without skill), I was dumbfounded. That function was turned off. This is an expensive lesson for me.
They will also use all this information when you trade in the old. They know almost all the information about that tractor. Has it ever been overheated, has it been operated with a dirty air filter, has the hydraulic system been overheated, has it operated with the door open, how many times has the door been opened and closed, how many hours have been run for each oil change, etc. Wait. The amount of information they get from the new device is absolutely terrifying.
Gooooogle for agricultural machinery.
I have completed the repair work and obtained parts and parts from the LandPro John Deere dealer in Watsontown, Pennsylvania. My relationship with the dealer is very good. Some parts may be expensive, some are not. One thing I noticed is that John Deere has a much longer service life than most other types of tractors.
I work as an electronic technician in a government department. A piece of equipment is a prototype, and there are six settings in our building. Some were sent to other facilities. We have received complete training to maintain them. These images from scanned packages are processed at extremely slow speeds, while competitors use the same scanning equipment at higher speeds. This operating system connects image scanning software with Windows to generate barcodes online. The mobile barcode printer prints custom labels applied to the package. A three-axis robot moves an 80-pound printer in three-dimensional space to put labels on packages on a moving conveyor belt. The software is open, anyone can fine-tune it. Operators operate these machines. With the support of the equipment manufacturer, a knowledgeable technical modification software. DRM is not included in this contract, and the company’s engineers shared everything we need to maintain operations. Equipment manufacturers hope that if these prototypes succeed, they will order more. The cost is about one million pieces. About ten years later, the equipment could not keep up, so the project was terminated.
I compare this example with the right to fix the problem. I can’t understand that JD and others cited DRM against agricultural diyers in hopes of reducing maintenance costs if they can repair the equipment they own. If I remember correctly, there are several automakers that allow the tuner to modify the engine ECM to obtain more power while maintaining compliance with federal emission standards. With the return of muscle cars with clean emissions, it is unusual for tuners to use ECM but still meet emission standards.
If something goes wrong during planting or harvesting, it needs to be repaired as soon as possible, preferably where the machine stopped. Farmers tend to buy equipment from companies that have distributors in the town or city closest to their farm, so that when they need a part, they can run into the town, get it, and get their equipment back up and running on the same day.
In the late 1990s, I lived in Grangeville, Idaho. There is a John Deere distributor there, and the company hopes to close the distributor by depriving its franchise rights. But they can't, because the very old contract has some stipulations that John Deere can't take it away as long as the family member who opened the dealer owns it.
Without the dealer in Grangeville, farmers would have to drive 73 miles to reach Lewiston.
When will John Deere and others who abuse repair restrictions face strong opposition (or accusations?) for endangering food safety?
I totally approve of the right to repair, but there is an honest question...
Some people seem to forget the fact that you agreed to the product when you purchased it. TOS is attached to almost everything now. What prevents you from reading it and discovering that they do it when the product needs repair?
One of the many reasons I will never buy an Apple product is that I do not agree to their terms of service.
you're right. On paper, hidden in the fine print is any purchase agreement. A relative paid a down payment for a hot Mazda RX-7, and had to wait a few months for each inquiry, but it would be delayed. Enough, if the dealer cannot deliver the vehicle within two weeks, there are rules in the purchase contract, and the buyer can choose to refund. A phone call led to laughter and rejection of refunds. The small claims court judge sided with the buyer. The refund is twice the original deposit. Buyers beware. Farmers are like everyone else, but they buy (or lease?) these behemoths at six-figure prices. Like most people, a long-term loyal customer rarely asks about the rules and assumes that everything is fine. It is not until his equipment fails that he finds himself in the dilemma of "you can't perform repairs within or outside the warranty period" farm equipment The manufacturer performs repairs to reduce the time during harvest. It is too late to review the rules.
Every time I build and reinstall hackintosh, I click "OK" on the Apple TOS.
Please be kind and respectful to help make the comment section great. (Comment Policy)
This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how to handle your comment data.
By using our website and services, you explicitly agree to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies. Learn more