Requiring a subscription violates the right to repair. Even for backwater places where the right to repair isn't enshrined in law (like the usa), people still know what the right to repair is, and often refuse to use a paid service what what ought to have been included in the base price.
Oh that's simple. Both Tesla and John Deere are bad guys.
And yes. I am happy to expand that list to literally every other manufacturer you have in mind. They are all bad guys too. If manufacturers were altruistic good guys, they would need no regulation.
Heavy regulations are the reason why we have the John Deere semi monopoly. The regulatory entry cost is in the millions for any new player to enter the market so no one wants to compete and provide better service.
This is just not true - their machines are purposely opaque and loaded with DRM. Regulation in this area could potentially make the entire system more efficient and cheaper for everyone at the cost of JD's predatory practices. In addition to owners there are lots of independents who could work on JD equipment, but they are all literally locked out.
the cost of starting a company that makes a line of tractors combines and sprayers is probably second only to an aircraft manufacturer in difficulty and complexity
I call bullshit until you cite evidence. Farm equipment doesn't even need to comply with road vehicle requirements. What special regulations does a farm equipment manufacturer need to comply with that don't apply to any other industrial manufacturer?
Like others have said: Tesla is the bath guy here. I'm pretty sure most people are focused on the other ways Tesla has been fing around that they just haven't gotten this far down the list.
Also, there's something special about tractors. Their owners (farmers) are both willing and capable of repairing tractors, in general, so John Deere is demonized for taking that ability away. Where as Tesla's owners are comfortable not changing their own oil, so "less" was taken away. (Yes, I know Tesla doesn't have engine oil, don't get hung up on that)
A tractor - and all farm equipment - is ridiculously expensive, the core platform is not much different from previous generations and they are used by a respected segment of our society to grow us food. All of this adds up to make JD's impact large and feel much worse than the relative nitpicks we have with many car manufacturers.
When I bought my current car, it came with an owners manual--for free!!
I can grab any data I want from the OBD port. The hardware was cheap, the software to use it is, again, free.
I'm not excited about this brave new world where you have to pay a subscription fee to plug a cable into a device you own and interact with it, and even less excited there are people here defending the idea.
You may not be aware but there are a lot of proprietary PIDs on your OBD2 bus you can't interpret without specialized software - you can get like oil pressure and temperature, but not say, shift points or anything the manufacturer doesn't think you should see. True right to repair would mean all of the PIDs get documented and there is a marketplace where I can purchase software or documentation without having to be a certified brand X mechanic.
I’m not sticking up for car manufacturers, but at what size or capacity should you be required to document and publish these things? It requires employer time and effort and has a cost associated with it.
As a counter argument: I was just looking at a small open source utility. As I was going through the code I found cases where certain arguments could be set to magic values that cause useful, but undocumented behavior. Should the developers be forced to document these options?
I don’t think a manufacturer should be able to lock you out of reading diagnostics on your own devices, or that anyone should be prevented from reverse engineering what those values mean. But I also don’t think there should be any requirement that they are forced to do additional work. That seems just as immoral.
the issue is not that this information is undocumented, it's that an "authorized service center" gets information that an "owner" does not. Also cars are not "small open source utilities" with undocumented arguments; do you think that an auto manufacturer has hidden, untested diagnostics that only the dealer uses?
>> don’t think there should be any requirement that they are forced to do additional work
At one time seatbelts, airbags, emission controls, etc were all viewed in this category. Now we have regulations enforcing aspects of all of these. Why would diagnostics be different?
> I don’t think a manufacturer should be able to lock you out of reading diagnostics on your own devices, or that anyone should be prevented from reverse engineering what those values mean.
But they do do that. Also what’s the difference between a lot of obfuscation and prevention and how will you enforce that without lawsuits and discovery?
Also, what is those values have the ability to do damage and cause safety issues? Like losing your own software onto a control by wire car? Then you can rent a car and install your own software surreptitiously.
Yes and I'm just pushing back against GP who seems to think gatekeeping that access is a good thing. And it's still way better than John Deere who (according to TFA), when the tractor detects that some wires are disconnected, wants you to pay $195 to find out which ones.
I'd love to move towards a world where owners can access everything, flash the firmware in the headlamps, etc. But all I can do as an individual is vote with my wallet and avoid the 2020s computers-on-wheels.
What you want is the service manual. Owner manual should be implicit.
OBD port can work for some cars, for some of the data. But other cars do have specialized gear they require to either access either reset some stuff in some of the car's computers.
Yeah the owners and service manuals are two very very different things. You won't be performing much maintenance with the owners manual besides the absolute basics, like checking your oil.
The cheap OBD2 readers lack the vast majority of data and tools you would want to use for service as well.
There are aftermarket options but most manufacturers want you to subscribe to their service tools - often charged per monthly plus an additional a fee per VIN it touches. These cost in the hundreds to thousands. It can be pretty frustrating as a shadetree mechanic.
Notably, some vehicles like the Toyota Highlander you can’t even figure out when you need to change the spark plugs, let alone what kind of spark plugs you need from the owners manual.
Theoretically, they are to be replaced at 120k miles (!!) but they won’t even tell you that in the owners manual.
It is, yeah. The owners manual for my current vehicle seems to mostly contain walkthroughs about the infotainment and other tech features. The section related to maintenance is tiny in comparison.
You're probably aware of this already but luckily a lot of service manuals can be found online in PDF form.
Somewhat related but I was going through an older relatives belongings not too long ago to help cleanup and found a bunch of old manuals for various household things. The detail included in them was beautiful to see - full wiring diagrams, mechanical diagrams, etc.
Because in agriculture you are absolutely expecting to be able to repair stuff yourself.
I work on a project related to it and was absolutely surprised at how the company gave instructions to the clients to help them fix their machines (stuff I wouldn't be able to do myself).
Having a non-working machine can mean big $$ lost everyday.
I've always been a bit confused about the right to repair debate, especially as it concerns John Deere equipment. I don't own any "new" John Deere products, but I do have a few pieces circa ~2010. Perhaps my experience is out of date.
Here's how it's always worked for me:
1. A code comes up on the computer.
2. A. The problem is self evident. Or;
2. B. I search online and find the problem. Or;
2. C. I search online and find the diagnostics manual, which I use to find the problem. Then I have diagnostics manual pdf forever, and can use this in the future.
3. A. I search online and find the parts diagram. Or;
3. B. I search my dealers website and find the parts diagram.
4. I order the part.
5. I install the part.
Has something changed with newer equipment that prevents farmers from doing this?
Newer Deere equipment has a lot of components that have to be adapted using DSA - turbo actuators, various hydraulic sensors, various suspension leveling sensors, fuel injectors, interior displays, and anything SCR related are the big ones. Basically, any sensor that needs a calibration step or triggers an emissions code, or a few intentionally vehicle locked modules (ECM).
Interesting. I just finished with a thorny hydraulics problem on a 9870 Combine. It turned out to be a faulty sensor. Part of my troubleshooting involved buying a new sensor, and swapping out each sensor in the system one by one with the new unit until I was sure they were all working correctly. No calibration needed. When i do need to calibrate a system i can do it all from the onboard computer.
Why would you pay extra for some website the company could just take away from you on a whim? I have the bound paper repair manuals for my 1998 Dodge truck, my 1995 Toyota, and my 2002 Kubota tractor. Nobody can arbitrarily take those away. Why can't companies these days just print a shop manual and be done with it?
>Why can't companies these days just print a shop manual and be done with it?
They would be losing money without overpriced repairs. That's why they lobby so hard against right to repair.
Even with some kind of right to repair it still seems they're trying to keep you hooked on their resources.
But as you said, service manual + schematics would be great for some people. But companies will fight tooth and nail against it. They lose control over obsoleting older products.
So the author is looking at one third of the problem (from the perspective of an IT worker), in a comfortable stage-managed experience put on by Deere themselves. A sensor with a disconnected cable - a five minute visual inspection would have also diagnosed the problem!
I'm quite comfortable with computers. And yet when working on my own vehicles, anything that mentions "use the manufacturer software" is avoided unless it's impossible not to. For example my experience using Honda HDS:
1. Spend hours installing Windows in a VM, HDS software from dodgy forums (to avoid the even dodgier "cloud" offering), running an ethernet cable 75 feet outside to where I was working - when my goal was to have my hands dirty fixing the car.
2. Massively slow scan times. We're talking 20 minutes sitting there initializing its understanding of the bus by probing every device every time the software starts up. The software starts up a lot because every time it hits some unexpected condition it needs to be restarted. Every time you choose a different option to check something about another subsystem, the software needs to be restarted. Every time you need to check if you've made a permanent or temporary change, it needs to be restarted. Every time you actually get your hands dirty and make some change on the car, it needs to be restarted. And so on. Companies view these tools as pure cost centers, making it so embedded developers DGAF about any kind of robustness or polish.
3. No actual description of what can be set, or theories of operation of any hardware device. The best you get is references from procedures in service manuals designed to be blindly followed.
4. Along with that, the chance of touching a lot of things you don't really want to be touching! HDS made me reenter the VIN number every time it started up (which remember, is often), and I think this was actually writing the VIN number somewhere! I entered it wrong once and it appeared that I had actually changed something.
Now obviously Deere is not Honda, but I don't see a reason to expect this would be any better. And of course this is not even touching:
> Prices start at an annual cost of $195 per individual machine
All this overhead adds up when you're working on one or two vehicles in a personal-bespoke capacity. I'm never going to reach for that software again unless I absolutely have to, even though I know in theory it can tell me a lot in one central place. I'd rather simply model a vehicle's computers as black boxes. I'm sure if you're a Honda tech you develop a model of how the software works, what steps of the procedures to batch and when to pause and check things over, etc. But from an individual perspective where I've got one car to fix rather than one every day? It's utter trash.
Adding digital control networks to vehicles increases their inherent complexity. This is unavoidable, similar to adding any new system (eg ABS, 4WD, emissions controls themselves, etc). I think mechanics could respect that, if it wasn't bundled with a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity including top-down surveillance/control. Knowing a thing or two about technology and engineering, what would I actually expect?
1. PDF documentation with thorough bus diagrams. For every node on the bus, documentation from its manufacturer - its theory of operation, the settings it has, the messages it reads from and reports to the bus, additional message/register definitions for what can be read by diagnostic tools. Everything that you'd get if these were dip switches and LEDs rather than CAN messages.
2. Machine-readable descriptions of CAN PDUs published by the manufacturer themselves. All the message/register/etc definitions documented in the above files, in a well-defined format ready for use by third party tooling.
3. Third party libre software with the usual `make && make install` install path (ie easily incorporated into every operating environment) that uses those definitions to display bus messages in symbolic form, as well as craft new messages to tickle device functionality.
I think that about covers it. I know this would still be frustrating for many, but people would eventually get over it and even embrace it - it should be more convenient to have the computers display what they're reading rather than having to work around them. This would become standard procedure if the tooling weren't so infuriating.
> The agricultural machine manufacturer has a subscription service that lets owners repair their own equipment. Why is barely anybody using it?
Because it doesn't address the actual problem.
The problem the company has is not making enough money. It addresses that problem.
The funny thing about that problem is that it is unsolvable.
We're seeing "it's never enough" play out right in front of our eyes.
That’s the companies problem.
The farmers problem is the company is squeezing too much money out of them.
There is no single solution to both problems.
Requiring a subscription violates the right to repair. Even for backwater places where the right to repair isn't enshrined in law (like the usa), people still know what the right to repair is, and often refuse to use a paid service what what ought to have been included in the base price.
A subscription for the right to repair your own machine seems completely insane to me. How is this a thing that is allowed?
A lot of vehicle manufacturers don't even give you access to their repair/diagnostic software even if you want to pay.
Tesla for example lets you pay to access their diagnostic software, so why is John Deere the bad guy here?
Oh that's simple. Both Tesla and John Deere are bad guys.
And yes. I am happy to expand that list to literally every other manufacturer you have in mind. They are all bad guys too. If manufacturers were altruistic good guys, they would need no regulation.
If all manufacturers except one were altruistic good guys, the one malevolent bad guy would undercut the altruists and drive them out of business.
Regulation is the solution to this prisoner’s dilemma.
Heavy regulations are the reason why we have the John Deere semi monopoly. The regulatory entry cost is in the millions for any new player to enter the market so no one wants to compete and provide better service.
This is just not true - their machines are purposely opaque and loaded with DRM. Regulation in this area could potentially make the entire system more efficient and cheaper for everyone at the cost of JD's predatory practices. In addition to owners there are lots of independents who could work on JD equipment, but they are all literally locked out.
the cost of starting a company that makes a line of tractors combines and sprayers is probably second only to an aircraft manufacturer in difficulty and complexity
So are for some regulations but not others. I think that is most people's stance. It's more constructive if we talk about which specific ones.
I call bullshit until you cite evidence. Farm equipment doesn't even need to comply with road vehicle requirements. What special regulations does a farm equipment manufacturer need to comply with that don't apply to any other industrial manufacturer?
Like others have said: Tesla is the bath guy here. I'm pretty sure most people are focused on the other ways Tesla has been fing around that they just haven't gotten this far down the list.
Also, there's something special about tractors. Their owners (farmers) are both willing and capable of repairing tractors, in general, so John Deere is demonized for taking that ability away. Where as Tesla's owners are comfortable not changing their own oil, so "less" was taken away. (Yes, I know Tesla doesn't have engine oil, don't get hung up on that)
A tractor - and all farm equipment - is ridiculously expensive, the core platform is not much different from previous generations and they are used by a respected segment of our society to grow us food. All of this adds up to make JD's impact large and feel much worse than the relative nitpicks we have with many car manufacturers.
When I bought my current car, it came with an owners manual--for free!!
I can grab any data I want from the OBD port. The hardware was cheap, the software to use it is, again, free.
I'm not excited about this brave new world where you have to pay a subscription fee to plug a cable into a device you own and interact with it, and even less excited there are people here defending the idea.
You may not be aware but there are a lot of proprietary PIDs on your OBD2 bus you can't interpret without specialized software - you can get like oil pressure and temperature, but not say, shift points or anything the manufacturer doesn't think you should see. True right to repair would mean all of the PIDs get documented and there is a marketplace where I can purchase software or documentation without having to be a certified brand X mechanic.
I’m not sticking up for car manufacturers, but at what size or capacity should you be required to document and publish these things? It requires employer time and effort and has a cost associated with it.
As a counter argument: I was just looking at a small open source utility. As I was going through the code I found cases where certain arguments could be set to magic values that cause useful, but undocumented behavior. Should the developers be forced to document these options?
I don’t think a manufacturer should be able to lock you out of reading diagnostics on your own devices, or that anyone should be prevented from reverse engineering what those values mean. But I also don’t think there should be any requirement that they are forced to do additional work. That seems just as immoral.
the issue is not that this information is undocumented, it's that an "authorized service center" gets information that an "owner" does not. Also cars are not "small open source utilities" with undocumented arguments; do you think that an auto manufacturer has hidden, untested diagnostics that only the dealer uses?
>> don’t think there should be any requirement that they are forced to do additional work
At one time seatbelts, airbags, emission controls, etc were all viewed in this category. Now we have regulations enforcing aspects of all of these. Why would diagnostics be different?
> I don’t think a manufacturer should be able to lock you out of reading diagnostics on your own devices, or that anyone should be prevented from reverse engineering what those values mean.
But they do do that. Also what’s the difference between a lot of obfuscation and prevention and how will you enforce that without lawsuits and discovery?
Also, what is those values have the ability to do damage and cause safety issues? Like losing your own software onto a control by wire car? Then you can rent a car and install your own software surreptitiously.
Yes and I'm just pushing back against GP who seems to think gatekeeping that access is a good thing. And it's still way better than John Deere who (according to TFA), when the tractor detects that some wires are disconnected, wants you to pay $195 to find out which ones.
I'd love to move towards a world where owners can access everything, flash the firmware in the headlamps, etc. But all I can do as an individual is vote with my wallet and avoid the 2020s computers-on-wheels.
What you want is the service manual. Owner manual should be implicit. OBD port can work for some cars, for some of the data. But other cars do have specialized gear they require to either access either reset some stuff in some of the car's computers.
Yeah the owners and service manuals are two very very different things. You won't be performing much maintenance with the owners manual besides the absolute basics, like checking your oil.
The cheap OBD2 readers lack the vast majority of data and tools you would want to use for service as well.
There are aftermarket options but most manufacturers want you to subscribe to their service tools - often charged per monthly plus an additional a fee per VIN it touches. These cost in the hundreds to thousands. It can be pretty frustrating as a shadetree mechanic.
Notably, some vehicles like the Toyota Highlander you can’t even figure out when you need to change the spark plugs, let alone what kind of spark plugs you need from the owners manual.
Theoretically, they are to be replaced at 120k miles (!!) but they won’t even tell you that in the owners manual.
Insane.
It is, yeah. The owners manual for my current vehicle seems to mostly contain walkthroughs about the infotainment and other tech features. The section related to maintenance is tiny in comparison.
You're probably aware of this already but luckily a lot of service manuals can be found online in PDF form.
Somewhat related but I was going through an older relatives belongings not too long ago to help cleanup and found a bunch of old manuals for various household things. The detail included in them was beautiful to see - full wiring diagrams, mechanical diagrams, etc.
>> You're probably aware of this already but luckily a lot of service manuals can be found online in PDF form.
Not official ones for John Deere tractors unless they were leaked from authorized service agents!
Because in agriculture you are absolutely expecting to be able to repair stuff yourself.
I work on a project related to it and was absolutely surprised at how the company gave instructions to the clients to help them fix their machines (stuff I wouldn't be able to do myself).
Having a non-working machine can mean big $$ lost everyday.
Real life isn't as simple as the one in fairy tales, there's usually more than one villain.
Whataboutism. Two evils are still evil.
The term "Self-Repair Service" already sounds so wrong.
A more accurate title would be “Farmers Aren’t Bought”, as in “bought by John Deere”, like this author is.
I've always been a bit confused about the right to repair debate, especially as it concerns John Deere equipment. I don't own any "new" John Deere products, but I do have a few pieces circa ~2010. Perhaps my experience is out of date.
Here's how it's always worked for me:
1. A code comes up on the computer.
2. A. The problem is self evident. Or;
2. B. I search online and find the problem. Or;
2. C. I search online and find the diagnostics manual, which I use to find the problem. Then I have diagnostics manual pdf forever, and can use this in the future.
3. A. I search online and find the parts diagram. Or;
3. B. I search my dealers website and find the parts diagram.
4. I order the part.
5. I install the part.
Has something changed with newer equipment that prevents farmers from doing this?
Newer Deere equipment has a lot of components that have to be adapted using DSA - turbo actuators, various hydraulic sensors, various suspension leveling sensors, fuel injectors, interior displays, and anything SCR related are the big ones. Basically, any sensor that needs a calibration step or triggers an emissions code, or a few intentionally vehicle locked modules (ECM).
Interesting. I just finished with a thorny hydraulics problem on a 9870 Combine. It turned out to be a faulty sensor. Part of my troubleshooting involved buying a new sensor, and swapping out each sensor in the system one by one with the new unit until I was sure they were all working correctly. No calibration needed. When i do need to calibrate a system i can do it all from the onboard computer.
What a systemic downgrade in capabilities.
The parts have to be unlocked with like a DRM system to work.
Thank you John Deere... I just miss the "sponsored" next to the article title.
Why would you pay extra for some website the company could just take away from you on a whim? I have the bound paper repair manuals for my 1998 Dodge truck, my 1995 Toyota, and my 2002 Kubota tractor. Nobody can arbitrarily take those away. Why can't companies these days just print a shop manual and be done with it?
>Why can't companies these days just print a shop manual and be done with it?
They would be losing money without overpriced repairs. That's why they lobby so hard against right to repair.
Even with some kind of right to repair it still seems they're trying to keep you hooked on their resources.
But as you said, service manual + schematics would be great for some people. But companies will fight tooth and nail against it. They lose control over obsoleting older products.
How did you come to the conclusion that they would lose money without repairs? I can't find any specific breakdown of their revenues for that segment.
they want to lock you in to oem parts because otherwise people might use their tractor for 30 years before buying a new one
same reason car dealerships want you to only go to them for maintenance
Not just eom parts, also OEM service.
Which is a huge problem when you live in bum fuck nowhere like many farmers.
This article seems a little condescending. They are neither a mechanic nor a farmer, as they say, and from there it just sort of goes off the rails.
this, but for your entire business, brought to you by Anthropic and OpenAI.
> I’m not a mechanic or a farmer
So the author is looking at one third of the problem (from the perspective of an IT worker), in a comfortable stage-managed experience put on by Deere themselves. A sensor with a disconnected cable - a five minute visual inspection would have also diagnosed the problem!
I'm quite comfortable with computers. And yet when working on my own vehicles, anything that mentions "use the manufacturer software" is avoided unless it's impossible not to. For example my experience using Honda HDS:
1. Spend hours installing Windows in a VM, HDS software from dodgy forums (to avoid the even dodgier "cloud" offering), running an ethernet cable 75 feet outside to where I was working - when my goal was to have my hands dirty fixing the car.
2. Massively slow scan times. We're talking 20 minutes sitting there initializing its understanding of the bus by probing every device every time the software starts up. The software starts up a lot because every time it hits some unexpected condition it needs to be restarted. Every time you choose a different option to check something about another subsystem, the software needs to be restarted. Every time you need to check if you've made a permanent or temporary change, it needs to be restarted. Every time you actually get your hands dirty and make some change on the car, it needs to be restarted. And so on. Companies view these tools as pure cost centers, making it so embedded developers DGAF about any kind of robustness or polish.
3. No actual description of what can be set, or theories of operation of any hardware device. The best you get is references from procedures in service manuals designed to be blindly followed.
4. Along with that, the chance of touching a lot of things you don't really want to be touching! HDS made me reenter the VIN number every time it started up (which remember, is often), and I think this was actually writing the VIN number somewhere! I entered it wrong once and it appeared that I had actually changed something.
Now obviously Deere is not Honda, but I don't see a reason to expect this would be any better. And of course this is not even touching:
> Prices start at an annual cost of $195 per individual machine
All this overhead adds up when you're working on one or two vehicles in a personal-bespoke capacity. I'm never going to reach for that software again unless I absolutely have to, even though I know in theory it can tell me a lot in one central place. I'd rather simply model a vehicle's computers as black boxes. I'm sure if you're a Honda tech you develop a model of how the software works, what steps of the procedures to batch and when to pause and check things over, etc. But from an individual perspective where I've got one car to fix rather than one every day? It's utter trash.
Adding digital control networks to vehicles increases their inherent complexity. This is unavoidable, similar to adding any new system (eg ABS, 4WD, emissions controls themselves, etc). I think mechanics could respect that, if it wasn't bundled with a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity including top-down surveillance/control. Knowing a thing or two about technology and engineering, what would I actually expect?
1. PDF documentation with thorough bus diagrams. For every node on the bus, documentation from its manufacturer - its theory of operation, the settings it has, the messages it reads from and reports to the bus, additional message/register definitions for what can be read by diagnostic tools. Everything that you'd get if these were dip switches and LEDs rather than CAN messages.
2. Machine-readable descriptions of CAN PDUs published by the manufacturer themselves. All the message/register/etc definitions documented in the above files, in a well-defined format ready for use by third party tooling.
3. Third party libre software with the usual `make && make install` install path (ie easily incorporated into every operating environment) that uses those definitions to display bus messages in symbolic form, as well as craft new messages to tickle device functionality.
I think that about covers it. I know this would still be frustrating for many, but people would eventually get over it and even embrace it - it should be more convenient to have the computers display what they're reading rather than having to work around them. This would become standard procedure if the tooling weren't so infuriating.