[blackwasp]

John Deere has put in software locks that disables their tractors from unauthorised repairs. According to a media report, farmers in the USA are now sourcing software to bypass these locks.

Farmers who are usually located far away from authorised dealerships face time delays due to breakdowns. It is also reported that John Deere authorised technicians charge a lot more than independent mechanics doing the same repair. Using software sourced from Eastern European countries like Poland and Ukraine, the user can disable speed limits and allow the tractor to be connected to a laptop via USB.

John Deere has been signing agreements with tractor owners which doesn't allow unauthorised repairs on their equipment. A 2015 ruling by the Librarian of Congress approved software modifications on land vehicles as long as it didn't affect its emission.



Source: Vice

Link to the Team-BHP News

[amtak]

So, one buys a tractor from John Deere by paying them big dollars and cannot get them fixed from where ever they wish to get it fixed from? And people are actually signing these agreements?

[turbospooler]

The Apple of Tractors?
There is a big debate about this. A product you own should ideally give you the right to repair.
However, opponents of this thought always share the one and only defense against this: COUNTERFEIT.
They say that such unauthorized repair gives rise to demand of Counterfeit goods.
Personally, I feel that, the right to repair should also be given to these people who have paid, generally a premium, over other products for the brand name and technology on the condition that Counterfeit goods will not be used.

But then sometimes, about the spare parts which have been manufactured from scratch by the owners for models which have been de-listed from support by the OEM, how should one treat these parts: counterfeit or restoration parts?

[Jeroen]

The same applies to cars, but for instance also marine engines. All have electronic controls, way beyond the engine management system.

Just about all manufacturers have been trying to make it difficult if not impossible for unauthorised use/entry into the software / various computers.

In the west the most quoted reason is safety concern. You start messing with a car’s electronic you could alter it’s braking/steering/suspension etc. etc.

There is also the matter of warranty and to what extent does any tampering with software/hardware/settings void any possible warranties.

In general, very simplistic, in the west companies can’t void a warranty if you have made changes e.g. an engine remap. They can refuse to carry out maintenance/repair work on such an engine. And might charge you for putting the original software back before they commence repair/maintenance.

Under EU rules all car manufacturers have to provide a certain level of openness on communication protocols so third party can have access to at least parameter settings etc. I.e. OBS type of data, generic and brand/type/model specific

A few months ago I was helping a friend to fix some problems on his motor yacht with his Caterpillar engines. One problem was a broken gauge. We ordered a new one, only to find out we could not get it working without having access through the ECU. For which you needed a very expensive reader/analyser.

The gauge cost $245, the reader/analyser would cost about $ 5.000 and we were not even sure they would sell it to us. Most likely they would like to keep this exclusively for their authorised dealer centres.

Luckily, we found somebody with a lap top and we had the gauge up and running within seconds!

So in general I believe any manufacturer should provide, within reasonable cost, the ability to at least read and alter basic parameters (e.g. similar to OBD). When I do I will accept responsibility for the outcome.

Jeroen

[Wildy]

IMHO, it's unethical practice of John Deere Tractors.

For example, my nearest FASS is about 250 kms away and I can't run to them for every single problem I face in my car. Most of the problems I rectify on my own or with the help of my local trusted mechanic.

Think if we have such software in our cars, it would be a real panic.

[GTO]

The bad news continues for John Deere owners.

Lobbying Group sells out farmers

A side-by-side analysis of the promises made in the document the Equipment Dealers association put out in February and the agreement signed last week are identical. The "Statement of Principles" (below) are also identical to a PDF the Equipment Dealers Association put out in February. If anything, it is more restrictive, because it enshrines what the Farm Bureau of California now believes farmers are not supposed to do with their tractors, which includes modifying the embedded software.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by GTO

The bad news continues for John Deere owners.

Lobbying Group sells out farmers

In more ways than one big interests in USA crush the small guy a lot more and more often than happens in Europe or India. Here we call it corruption there they call it lobbying.

[Motard_Blr]

Maybe this sort of legally sanctioned restrictive trade practice will benefit the likes of Mahindra tractors who sell low to medium range tractors.

It seems that many American farms are no longer family-owned, but rather by mega companies. They own thousands of acres of land and practice farming on an industrial scale. For these companies the John Deere service model probably is a good business deal - outsourcing of non-core activities, etc. But for the remaining small family owned farms, this is like legally tying their hands behind their backs. These are the farmers who might be interested in buying a low-tech Mahindra tractor.

[Rahul Bhalgat]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

John Deere has put in software locks that disables their tractors from unauthorised repairs. According to a media report, farmers in the USA are now sourcing software to bypass these locks.

There are laws against the Monopolistic and Restrictive trade practices. How can a manufacturer enforce such compulsions?

[ajmat]

Originally Posted by Rahul Bhalgat

There are laws against the Monopolistic and Restrictive trade practices. How can a manufacturer enforce such compulsions?

Effect of lobbying + high cost of fees for counter lobbying / legal .

That way, the EU allows for a pretty fair fight. When it came to Intel Vs AMD, Intel was brought to its knees by the EU competition commission!

[GTO]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

In more ways than one big interests in USA crush the small guy a lot more and more often than happens in Europe or India.

Well said, V.Narayan! A bit off-topic, but just wanted to give out an example of the California blackouts & electricity crisis.

Drought, delays in approval of new power plants,[5]:109 and market manipulation decreased supply.[citation needed] This caused an 800% increase in wholesale prices from April 2000 to December 2000.[6]:1 In addition, rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers.

[vishy76]

John Deere isn't the only American company doing this. There's one which has been doing it for around a decade now, Tesla .

Yup. Although Tesla doesn't explicitly install a software in the car to disable diagnostic scans, it will simply refuse to service your car or award warranty (even if you pay for both) incase it is found that the car has been serviced at an unauthorised service centre.

Have a look at this excerpt:

San Diego 6 News reported the plight of Peter Rutman, who spent $50,000 on a damaged Tesla Model S, and then invested another $8,000 into repair it. But when Rutman contacted Tesla about reactivating the car’s complicated software, he says the company wanted him to sign liability waiver that allows the automaker to ultimately determine the car’s roadworthiness. Rutman says the document didn’t say anything about fixing or repairing the car to accept a charge, and that it would allow Tesla to confiscate the vehicle if they felt it wasn’t safe. Rutman refused to sign, and as such says he’s been blacklisted by Tesla stores nationwide, meaning he can’t get parts of technical assistance.

Although routine services for Teslas majorly includes only wheel balancing, warranty replacements can run into 4 digit figures $$$ easily owing to the complexity of the cars.

Tesla claims that they follow such practices to ensure the roadworthiness of their vehicles and also negate the risks associated with the car catching fire or any other such incidences. (Something which is arguable). Maybe John Deere has similar intentions apart from fleecing customers ofcourse?

[Rahul Bhalgat]

Originally Posted by vishy76

John Deere isn't the only American company doing this. There's one which has been doing it for around a decade now, Tesla .

If the manufacturer wants to have such monopoly on service and maintenance, they shall offer subscription or lease based ownership instead of selling the product outright. When they own the product, they have right to decide to service it themselves.

[hema4saran]

If I were part of M&M group, I would market my tractors aggressively in US at this time and specifically mention some special service options for the customers. This is one way to bring the foot hold into the industry when you are entering a new market.

Hyundai and Kia made inroads into US by this way only by providing class leading warranty on their vehicles backed by quality products.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by GTO

Well said, V.Narayan! A bit off-topic, but just wanted to give out an example of the California blackouts & electricity crisis.

A bit off topic but conceptually similar. In some parts of USA including California if you install renewable energy electricity generation devices in your home, farmstead, factory etc you need to pay a penalty to the conventional power companies who were hitherto supplying you power or continue to do so. Such encouragement.