<story><title>U.S. Farmers Are Being Bled by the Tractor Monopoly</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-23/u-s-farmers-need-a-better-way-to-fix-their-tractors</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bricej13</author><text>Disclaimer: My father worked as an engineer for John Deere for 35 years. I interned at John Deere writing code that runs on the tractor controllers.&lt;p&gt;Discussions on this topic always end up one-sided and simplistic. Hopefully I can shed some light on the more nuanced reasoning behind John Deere&amp;#x27;s position.&lt;p&gt;Having the DRM in place allows Deere to reduce manufacturing expense and increase platform flexibility. There is a very wide array of needs that farmers have based on what they do. Deere allows buyers to customize tractors to their needs for everything from engine horsepower, to wheel count, size, and type, cab quality-of-life, to hydraulic hookups for implements. Some of these changes are just a software change, while others are a software + hardware change.&lt;p&gt;Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update. Techincally, this is pretty cool. Designing and manufacturing engines is expensive. This allows them to manufacture fewer different engines that can cover a wider variety of use cases. It also allows farmers the flexibility to upgrade their engine horsepower at a future date. If I remember correctly each extra 50hp above the base costs ~10k, so the large configurations subsidize the cost of the base configurations.&lt;p&gt;With that understanding, think of how this can apply to Deere&amp;#x27;s obligations to the EPA or to warranties.
Years ago, farmers found a hack where they could put a resister in-line between the diesel temperature sensor and the ECU and increase their horsepower. The hack spread like wildfire. This made the engines run in a configuration that had not been tested by Deere or approved by the EPA. Who would the EPA go after if it had caused emissions issues? Should Deere honor the warranty in this case of those who did the hack? How would Deere know if someone did the hack, borked the engine, then removed the resistor?&lt;p&gt;Liability is the enemy of automation. Deere has added some automation over the years, allowing the tractors to drive straight down the field without intervention, and executing perfect turns at the push of a button. This is functionality that no companies would let end users change. Much like my dad, a tractor is not a cell phone. Installing a custom rom on a cell phone is one thing, updating the autonomous driving of a 10 ton tractor is quite another.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s got to be some middle ground, but I don&amp;#x27;t know what it is.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>zelon88</author><text>&amp;gt; Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update.&lt;p&gt;How do you see this as an asset? Deere designed a part that&amp;#x27;s capable of doing something and your software chokes that back unless they poney up.&lt;p&gt;In manufacturing we have the same thing. You buy a CNC machine that comes equipped with 16mb of memory, but only 2mb is usable. If you want all 16mb (which already exists soldered to your motherboard) you need to pony up thousands of dollars for a 16 digit code that unlocks the added memory.&lt;p&gt;And you&amp;#x27;re trying to tell me that by requiring the manufacturer to share that code is bad for the consumer? Yeah, you don&amp;#x27;t sound like a shill or anything.&lt;p&gt;And no, Deere shouldn&amp;#x27;t fix that under warranty. It&amp;#x27;s the same with cars. You can do that trick to a Honda with a resistor in-line to the MAF sensor and it will run the car lean, giving the illusion of more performance while wearing out the engine and burning the combustion chamber way too hot. Should Honda fix that? No way! Should Honda let the customer do it anyway? Of course they should! Should Honda share the schematics with the customer so they not only realize that it&amp;#x27;s a bad idea, but also know WHY it&amp;#x27;s a bad idea? Yes.&lt;p&gt;Your argument is straw man. If you didn&amp;#x27;t have secrets you wouldn&amp;#x27;t need DRM. DRM doesn&amp;#x27;t protect anyone except the edge-case of idiots who shouldn&amp;#x27;t mess with the tractor even if you gave them the repair manual anyway. It&amp;#x27;s strictly to protect Deere.</text></comment>
<story><title>U.S. Farmers Are Being Bled by the Tractor Monopoly</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-23/u-s-farmers-need-a-better-way-to-fix-their-tractors</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bricej13</author><text>Disclaimer: My father worked as an engineer for John Deere for 35 years. I interned at John Deere writing code that runs on the tractor controllers.&lt;p&gt;Discussions on this topic always end up one-sided and simplistic. Hopefully I can shed some light on the more nuanced reasoning behind John Deere&amp;#x27;s position.&lt;p&gt;Having the DRM in place allows Deere to reduce manufacturing expense and increase platform flexibility. There is a very wide array of needs that farmers have based on what they do. Deere allows buyers to customize tractors to their needs for everything from engine horsepower, to wheel count, size, and type, cab quality-of-life, to hydraulic hookups for implements. Some of these changes are just a software change, while others are a software + hardware change.&lt;p&gt;Engine horsepower, for example, can be increased by a software update. Techincally, this is pretty cool. Designing and manufacturing engines is expensive. This allows them to manufacture fewer different engines that can cover a wider variety of use cases. It also allows farmers the flexibility to upgrade their engine horsepower at a future date. If I remember correctly each extra 50hp above the base costs ~10k, so the large configurations subsidize the cost of the base configurations.&lt;p&gt;With that understanding, think of how this can apply to Deere&amp;#x27;s obligations to the EPA or to warranties.
Years ago, farmers found a hack where they could put a resister in-line between the diesel temperature sensor and the ECU and increase their horsepower. The hack spread like wildfire. This made the engines run in a configuration that had not been tested by Deere or approved by the EPA. Who would the EPA go after if it had caused emissions issues? Should Deere honor the warranty in this case of those who did the hack? How would Deere know if someone did the hack, borked the engine, then removed the resistor?&lt;p&gt;Liability is the enemy of automation. Deere has added some automation over the years, allowing the tractors to drive straight down the field without intervention, and executing perfect turns at the push of a button. This is functionality that no companies would let end users change. Much like my dad, a tractor is not a cell phone. Installing a custom rom on a cell phone is one thing, updating the autonomous driving of a 10 ton tractor is quite another.&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s got to be some middle ground, but I don&amp;#x27;t know what it is.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rfrey</author><text>These are all benefits for John Deere. I don&amp;#x27;t think anybody thinks there is no incentive for JD to do this.&lt;p&gt;Reduced manufacturing expense - Yup, DRM and platform lock-down (machinery is a platform??) increases profits. Tractors sure aren&amp;#x27;t getting cheaper on account of these &amp;quot;improvements&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Platform flexibility&amp;quot; is nothing more than the ability for JD to lock out capabilities of the machinery that the farmer supposedly bought, and sell it as an add-on later. Again, no doubt this is advantageous for JD, just as locking out portions of a game until later payment is advantageous for EA. It is still terrible for the farmer.</text></comment>