No matter how much the business makes, at some point their stock price comes up to the equilibrium with the rest of market. And since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks at one point or another. That's just a system
> since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks
Is that a system or is it individual greed? Every economic system has its own weak points that can be exploited by bad actors. Capitalism works. What doesn’t work is letting people get away with dirty tricks.
We'll never solve major challenges like the ever rising income gap, global warming and other environmental concerns and the inevitable cycle of enshittification without it.
The problem is that especially America views unrestricted capitalism as some kind of religion beyond reproach. They consider it a fact of life. But it is very hollow, it glorifies profit above all and has no eye for externalities.
As they currently control a lot of the world trade we're kinda stuck with that system. Trump voters are so angry because they've been getting the short end of the stick for decades. And he is alienating most of his allies meaning everyone is looking for ways to become less dependent on the petrodollar.
Unfortunately they voted for someone who will make it even worse. Instead of 'sticking it to the man' they're giving it to the man.
It would cause them to pivot and attempt to be better. Give a mouse a button that pleasures it's brain and it will push it until it dies. That's what the senior leadership at these companies are doing. Bribe government officials to keep the pleasure button going, to the detriment of the company and society.
Competition forces companies to stop just pressing the pleasure button and start drinking from the water again.
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.
Well you see, requiring companies to let farmers fix their own tractors is Socialism. And the USSR had "socialist" in the name, so Socialism bad. In the big, beautiful Land of the Free(tm) they don't do Socialism because that's commie shit.
The American Way is to let corporations fuck you over in any way that increases profits. Sure, they have the least efficient healthcare system in the world, ineffectual public education, massive wealth disparity, crumbling national infrastructure, and a different school shooting every week.
not sure what's socialist about it. farming is a weird sector though (and a small one; crucial, of course)
>the least efficient healthcare system in the world
and the most advanced healthcare
>ineffectual public education
actually it's better than most rich countries after controlling for race/ethnicity
that said, healthcare, education, and most of all housing are massively far from free markets, they're the most regulated parts and it's hard to innovate. the more free you make those markets, the better they'll get.
>massive wealth disparity
because, and this is no exaggeration, we are way fucking wealthier than almost anything except oil-rich Norway and tiny Luxembourg. it's a lot easier to have disparity when some grasses grow tall.
>crumbling national infrastructure
depends; California and New York yes, Texas no
>and a different school shooting every week
not that often but this is an american pathology yeah
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.
Every regulation looks good or at least defensible in abstract, especially when some peddler is trying to sell it and the consequences aren't obvious yet.
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.
It depends on who writes the regulations. Today money writes the regs and people pay the price. Take money out of politics. But all three branches are captured. Anything that resembles returning power to the people is derided as socialism. So the result is power over the people.
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 think China has this all sorted, we should just have a free market without tarrifs. Let the market provide us the best, un-enshittified products we can find. I am old enough to remember when that was a conservative position.
The conservative position is always whatever benefits conservatives at this moment. Back when they supported a free market, a freer market benefitted them. When market regulations benefitted them, they supported a more regulated market.
Given how each tractor manufacturer is essentially associated with its own specific country, I'd say this industry is a great example of how mature industries tend to consolidate into monopolies while getting propped up by regulatory capture greased by concerns over natural security. So while the regulatory costs you cite may indeed be onerous, simplistic calls merely for "less regulation" don't bear out.
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?
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.
> 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?
You were able to do that because it was open source. If a car mfr was willing to do that, it would be plenty enough for me. They shouldn't be forced to do any additional work beyond the 5 seconds it takes to type `git remote add origin github.com/honda/civic`. Then the community would have everything it needs to carry things forward.
Failing that, yes, I do think everything should be documented.
GP's point was not that manufacturers must use github - that was an arbitrary "for instance". They saying if the mfg is not going to open source their software, then they should be required to document it.
Certain PID values are bit-packed in non-obvious ways (like the tens digit is in one byte, ones in another, decimal in another) and units of measure are 'known' but might not be obvious. Publishing that information (which already exists! How do you think they write software?) would be a nice step in the right direction
There are a ton of dbc files floating around like this. Almost any car with a turbo has a kit to flash the ecu for more boost, so even the proprietary signals have been reversed.
Between reading basic diagnostics and documenting every signal and field is routine or recurring write operations that will need to happen in the field.
Resetting the oil/maintenance light, recoding key fobs, resetting the battery stats upon replacement, etc.
I want independent mechanics to be able to do that. I also want to be able to do that myself, if I’m so inclined.
Let’s invert the car analogy: if someone writes an app with a backend service or library, should they be required to document the API for people to build their own tools on top of? Where between software and car does this requirement or regulation change and why?
I’m absolutely in favor of being able to repair my own stuff and voiding any warranty or liability in the process. I absolutely support reverse engineering and preventing companies from issuing copyright strikes on uncopyrightable facts about their products. I’m mostly OK with the idea that unqualified people can make potentially life threatening changes to their 2-ton vehicle barreling down the road at 80mph.
Would I like documentation for all these things? Absolutely! Should it be enforced by law? I don’t think so.
> if someone writes an app with a backend service or library, should they be required to document the API for people to build their own tools on top of?
Yes. Network services and client software should be considered two separate products/markets, and tying between them should be seen as anti-competitive behavior worthy of anti-trust enforcement.
That the software industry has been able to develop some brazenly anti-competitive pratices does not constitute an argument that it should be allowed to continue.
Games could clearly be an exception - they're the only place the locked down computing paradigm has a reasonable argument.
The multi-user productivity apps you listed would most certainly be better off as separate clients and services! The entire point is that you shouldn't be forced into using one (often terrible) piece of proprietary client software simply due to the network effects of other people using it. Wouldn't it be nice to use the Slack client in a Teams environment (or vice versa if that's your thing) ? This would produce more competition because companies would have to develop the client software to be compelling itself, rather than relying on the pull of installed deployments with captive victims^wusers.
> 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.
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?
That’s why I said, at what level should this disclosure be required? Obviously a small open source utility shouldn’t have to document everything. What about a $20 electric screwdriver with an unpopulated JTAG header? a $200 door buster TV? A $2,0000 OLED TV? A Kickstarter device that unexpectedly takes off? A small ICE engine? A house?
If you’re starting up a small business, selling at-a-loss widgets to gain market share do you want to be forced to publish a diagnostic manual that not only increases your work, but may also increase your liability?
Seatbelts and airbags are safety, but if you talk to anyone at a body shop, they will tell you there are significant regulation changes in the past decade that have made cars more expensive to fix while not necessarily safer.
I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as everything must be forced to be documented. What is everything, at what size or industry is this documentation required, why this industry and not that one, is it just OBD or _everything_ including all CAN bus communication, etc. Minimally the end result is increased cost for everyone.
If it’s already published, perhaps libraries should start collecting the service manuals.
How about; if it's already documented, make it available to the end user.
The right to repair cases that bother me most is where the company goes out of their way to prevent end-user repair (cryptographic pairing of modules!?), or where service manuals/information exist but are only available to dealers.
> How about; if it's already documented, make it available to the end user.
There's documentation, and then there's documentation. What passes for documentation in the modern era is scattershot over thousands of JIRA tickets and Confluence pages. Most outdated.
Then let the "owners" and repair shops ask questions, mandate accurate replies, and "we don't know" is a valid answer if and only if you actually don't know. If you are found saying "we don't know" when you actually do know, mandatory punishment is one hundred times the purchase price of the machinery unit in question.
>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.
You're talking about things that by definition have to be documented and internally published in order to design and build the powertrain in the first place. You can't design a computer-controlled automatic transmission without documenting the shift points.
The cost is therefore essentially nothing, because the information already exists. Just copy paste it into a PDF and put it on your website.
> at what size or capacity should you be required to document and publish these things?
The reason there is an opaque number in that open source utility is precisely because of a lack of open documentation for that register definition. Independent black box analysis of the messages only got as far as "write this value to do effect X". Whomever developed that utility would have loved to spell that bitfield out, but not at the cost of more days reverse engineering.
But manufacturers aren't reverse engineering register definitions, they're working off of vendor datasheets or protocol definitions they themselves created. All of this documentation has already been produced, as it was used to develop the tractor from its various subsystems. It just needs to be published!
I’ve worked on enough internal and third-party SOA to know that documentation could be in an email, a slack chat, or a hallway conversation. The public docs go through writers and reviews. How many software teams could make their service or library docs public based only on internal documentation and produce anything useful?
Documentation for hardware subassemblies produced by different manufacturers isn't getting conveyed through hallway conversations. Pure software can indeed be quite sloppy, but for vehicles we're talking about large scale cross-stakeholder projects where these things do get formally documented.
At any rate, for things a manufacturer doesn't consider important enough to document themselves then there can be a clear alternative requirement - release whatever upstream documentation they did use to create it, plus the software source code they developed on top of it. If it's not important enough to have been documented as its own product, then it also isn't a significant part of the value they're actually selling, right?
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.
The change interval is in the Warranty and Maintenance Guide, not in the main owner’s manual. (This is still part of the in-glovebox manuals, not a service-center manual.)
Reading codes is only part of it. For the last quarter century or so (some manufacturers more than others) if you replace certain components (radio, any computer module) you need to update the ECU to recognize the new component. This requires proprietary software and in many cases proprietary hardware as well. These "features" are marketed as an "anti-theft" mechanism. This renders some repairs basically impossible for the end user to perform.
The fact that they've been allowed to build systems like that is appalling.
This is actually pretty widespread on newer models. There are cars for which you need a subscription costing thousands of dollars every year to put your parking brake into "maintenance mode", without which you can't fix your own brakes.
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.
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 $$ lost everyday.
I read a post sometime in the last 6 months about the hot business in Saskatchewan or Manitoba selling older, completely unconnected John Deere tractors because farmers found the subscription based service for connected ones to be expensive and unhelpful. Basically a net loss. This wired post seems to be payola I mean a direct rebuttal to that post as well as the behavioral wave because it's probably impacting bottom lines
The worlds most popular tractor brand (Mahindra) doesn't even crack the top 5 in the US.
If American farmers wan't the most repairable tractor, they should just buy the one that is used in poorer, less-connected regions of the world. Those are built for durability and repairability.
Some farm, typically agriculture. Your average cattle, sheep, or other livestock farmer will not be running a 400+ HP tractor in most cases. 50-110 hp is common for general property use such as clearing, slashing, loading, material moving. In these cases a Mahondra, or any number of others is ideal. You can get John Deere in the same size, but would be mad to do so with the repairability issues and higher cost.
$200 per machine per year. You use to just buy the manual and you had it forever. Farms sit on 1-2% profit margins on average but with a 30% swing in potential yield. They don't like subscription services because their yearly income is unreliable at best and they don't have any margin to waste on bs they might not use.
My Subaru needs an oil change every 6 months... it takes a few minutes. It does NOT remind me and I don't have to reset a computer. Life is simple, life is good.
My more $$$ German car needs a service once a year. It reminds me. The actual oil change is easy, but THEN I have to reset the computer!! Not so easy. That needs special software. I bought a pirated package from China. They need a subscription too. Otherwise, I must take it to an "authorized" garage... more $$$. And all of this before there are actual problems to fix...
When you pay $$ for a big machine, you SHOULD get everything you need to keep it operational, indefinitely. No separate software packages, no subscriptions, etc. Maybe you need to download something on your tablet/laptop and buy a cable... but that should be it. That would be the law if I was the emperor! (No no no, I don't want to be elected president, stupid job. I said Emperor dammit.)
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?
The parts talk to each other and verify each other's serial numbers and refuse to work if they don't match, and none of the documents you referenced exist.
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.
Yeah, that’s a good way to summarize what people are mad about; they basically moved all of the calibration from onboard to offboard diagnostics, and then thwarted most efforts to access the offboard diagnostics.
Automotive is similar and I’m a bit worried for EVs; for ICE autos there’s enough emissions related regulation that some diagnostics and manuals are accessible, but for EVs there’s nothing much stopping a Deere style complete lockdown.
Exactly, go look at Lucid/Tesla and a few others for examples of how the car is a brick without the manufacturers sekret unlock codes and calibration software. If they decide not to help, you are out of luck.
That's why I won't touch new equipment with a ten foot pole. I buy old stuff and then end up having to do major rebuilds. I realize this is somewhat of a luxury, and damn is it nice.
In the last calendar year, this is basically the highlights (routine maintenance excluded):
On my Kubota L3010 I added remote hydraulics so I had to take all the bodywork apart. Discovered some rust, put about 20hr of panel beating, welding, and paint into the floor pan (NLA part, unfortunately). About 20hr after I got it all back together it started leaking hydraulic fluid from the clutch housing. So I get the privilege of doing all that disassembly again to split the tractor and replace the front driveshaft seal (suspected). It's a minor leak, so far, so this might wait a few years.
The 1998 12V 2nd gen Dodge is its own saga--new transmission, clutch, a bunch of paint work. Rebuilt the entire interior. Currently working on cleaning up wiring in the engine bay, killer dowel pin fix, fixing oil leaks from the injector pump gasket and vac/power steering pump, serp belt, crank balancer, etc. Still need to drop the fuel tank and replace the sending unit, as well as re-seal the axles.
My 1995 Land Cruiser just got new plugs, distributor cap/rotor, belts, crank balancer, front main seal, oil pump o-ring, etc. Should be good until next summer.
My 1999 Benz got some new A/C o-rings, all the low pressure fuel lines replaced, some rust repair (welding, panel beating, paint, undercoating, etc) on the front right jackpoint. All new stainless brake lines (https://www.linestogo.com/ 100% will buy from these guys again). This car is kind of sacrificial, eventually its engine (OM606) is going in the Land Cruiser in front of a purpose-built NV4500 transmission. If the rust doesn't get it first (ski bus duty), I'll probably shred the 722.6 by turning up the engine too much.
So it's not a small amount of work. But no reverse engineering is required. I can just read a book and follow the instructions therein and do literally anything that needs to be done on those vehicles.
Fiddling around the way a casual working on their own car would isn't economically viable at scale. Labor use needs to be more efficient than that. Even if you can swap the right parts fast, lots of new stuff requires "permission" to install various hardware. Like some random make might not let you install a steering rack or something.
Charging a subscription to be able to repair equipment you own is obscene. No way in hell would I ever purchase any equipment from a provider that does this.
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.
right but without the part supply under control someone could just do it themselves so they need both, though it's true plenty damage is done software-only
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, and the corresponding button in the software that runs some black box procedure.
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 weren't bundled with a whole bunch of unnecessary/accidental 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 - there isn't actually much here, it just needs to be documented! I know interacting with digital vehicle networks 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. Checking the computers first would become standard procedure if the tooling weren't so infuriating.
(For more context my own tractor is a Kubota with HP under the Tier IV threshold. I earnestly wish it did have a DPF - less shit to breathe in and less black crap coating my loader. But not at the cost of dealing with the current "state of the art" computer controls! I've also heard horror stories about long term Deere parts availability)
> 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.
No matter how much the business makes, at some point their stock price comes up to the equilibrium with the rest of market. And since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks at one point or another. That's just a system
> since for CEO to get bonus he needs stock to go up, the businesses inevitably start applying dirty tricks
Is that a system or is it individual greed? Every economic system has its own weak points that can be exploited by bad actors. Capitalism works. What doesn’t work is letting people get away with dirty tricks.
That system really needs to go.
We'll never solve major challenges like the ever rising income gap, global warming and other environmental concerns and the inevitable cycle of enshittification without it.
The problem is that especially America views unrestricted capitalism as some kind of religion beyond reproach. They consider it a fact of life. But it is very hollow, it glorifies profit above all and has no eye for externalities.
As they currently control a lot of the world trade we're kinda stuck with that system. Trump voters are so angry because they've been getting the short end of the stick for decades. And he is alienating most of his allies meaning everyone is looking for ways to become less dependent on the petrodollar.
Unfortunately they voted for someone who will make it even worse. Instead of 'sticking it to the man' they're giving it to the man.
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.
> There is no single solution to both problems
Competition?
How would that help the company?
It would cause them to pivot and attempt to be better. Give a mouse a button that pleasures it's brain and it will push it until it dies. That's what the senior leadership at these companies are doing. Bribe government officials to keep the pleasure button going, to the detriment of the company and society.
Competition forces companies to stop just pressing the pleasure button and start drinking from the water again.
Didn't help the non-spying TV market.
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?
Well you see, requiring companies to let farmers fix their own tractors is Socialism. And the USSR had "socialist" in the name, so Socialism bad. In the big, beautiful Land of the Free(tm) they don't do Socialism because that's commie shit.
The American Way is to let corporations fuck you over in any way that increases profits. Sure, they have the least efficient healthcare system in the world, ineffectual public education, massive wealth disparity, crumbling national infrastructure, and a different school shooting every week.
But at least they're not socialists.
not sure what's socialist about it. farming is a weird sector though (and a small one; crucial, of course)
>the least efficient healthcare system in the world
and the most advanced healthcare
>ineffectual public education
actually it's better than most rich countries after controlling for race/ethnicity
that said, healthcare, education, and most of all housing are massively far from free markets, they're the most regulated parts and it's hard to innovate. the more free you make those markets, the better they'll get.
>massive wealth disparity
because, and this is no exaggeration, we are way fucking wealthier than almost anything except oil-rich Norway and tiny Luxembourg. it's a lot easier to have disparity when some grasses grow tall.
>crumbling national infrastructure
depends; California and New York yes, Texas no
>and a different school shooting every week
not that often but this is an american pathology yeah
> and the most advanced healthcare
(ignoring Australia and other countries having longer life expectancies and better cancer recovery rates, sure)
> not that often
It's telling you have to downplay this at all.
> depends; California and New York yes, Texas no
and the more than 40 other states? See the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report Card (spoiler, it's a C)
>>crumbling national infrastructure
> depends; California and New York yes, Texas no
lol. lmao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
> actually it's better than most rich countries after controlling for race/ethnicity
Yikes dude
Never has a man of straw been so completely eviscerated. An absolute massacre. Bravo.
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.
Why isn't this an apples-oranges comparison?
Good regulation: right to repair, manufacturers must supply manuals.
Bad regulation: JD bribed senators to write regulations that make it insurmountably difficult for new players to enter.
Calling regulation bad because corruption is baked into the US Constitution makes it really hard to get anything done.
>Why isn't this an apples-oranges comparison?
Every regulation looks good or at least defensible in abstract, especially when some peddler is trying to sell it and the consequences aren't obvious yet.
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.
It depends on who writes the regulations. Today money writes the regs and people pay the price. Take money out of politics. But all three branches are captured. Anything that resembles returning power to the people is derided as socialism. So the result is power over the people.
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 think China has this all sorted, we should just have a free market without tarrifs. Let the market provide us the best, un-enshittified products we can find. I am old enough to remember when that was a conservative position.
The conservative position is always whatever benefits conservatives at this moment. Back when they supported a free market, a freer market benefitted them. When market regulations benefitted them, they supported a more regulated market.
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.
Given how each tractor manufacturer is essentially associated with its own specific country, I'd say this industry is a great example of how mature industries tend to consolidate into monopolies while getting propped up by regulatory capture greased by concerns over natural security. So while the regulatory costs you cite may indeed be onerous, simplistic calls merely for "less regulation" don't bear out.
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?
$50,100 per employee in regulatory safety and compliance costs.[0]
Up to $8k per engine unit produced in EPA regulatory fees.[1]
Between $100k and $500k per engine model variant for EPA testing and General Compliance.[2]
$100k to $200k for Transient & Steady-State Dynamometer Testing.[2]
$150k per engine variant for Useful Life Deterioration Testing.[2]
[0] https://www.msci.org/federal-rules-costs-small-manufacturers...
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...
[2] https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engin...
That's normal stuff for anyone producing a vehicle, isn't it?
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.
> 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?
You were able to do that because it was open source. If a car mfr was willing to do that, it would be plenty enough for me. They shouldn't be forced to do any additional work beyond the 5 seconds it takes to type `git remote add origin github.com/honda/civic`. Then the community would have everything it needs to carry things forward.
Failing that, yes, I do think everything should be documented.
I can poke at OBD and try to interpret values. CAN bus sniffers exist.
You want to force companies to publish and maintain repositories using your preferred toolset?
GP's point was not that manufacturers must use github - that was an arbitrary "for instance". They saying if the mfg is not going to open source their software, then they should be required to document it.
Certain PID values are bit-packed in non-obvious ways (like the tens digit is in one byte, ones in another, decimal in another) and units of measure are 'known' but might not be obvious. Publishing that information (which already exists! How do you think they write software?) would be a nice step in the right direction
J1939 is really all most consumers need to care about when it comes to their personal car CAN data.
https://github.com/Konik-ai/j1939_dbc/blob/main/dbc/j1939.db...
There are a ton of dbc files floating around like this. Almost any car with a turbo has a kit to flash the ecu for more boost, so even the proprietary signals have been reversed.
> I can poke at OBD and try to interpret values. CAN bus sniffers exist.
Ghidra exists. That doesn't mean all software is open source.
> You want to force companies to publish and maintain repositories using your preferred toolset?
Nope. Anywhere will do, whatever is easiest for them, as long as device owners can access it.
Between reading basic diagnostics and documenting every signal and field is routine or recurring write operations that will need to happen in the field.
Resetting the oil/maintenance light, recoding key fobs, resetting the battery stats upon replacement, etc.
I want independent mechanics to be able to do that. I also want to be able to do that myself, if I’m so inclined.
Let’s invert the car analogy: if someone writes an app with a backend service or library, should they be required to document the API for people to build their own tools on top of? Where between software and car does this requirement or regulation change and why?
I’m absolutely in favor of being able to repair my own stuff and voiding any warranty or liability in the process. I absolutely support reverse engineering and preventing companies from issuing copyright strikes on uncopyrightable facts about their products. I’m mostly OK with the idea that unqualified people can make potentially life threatening changes to their 2-ton vehicle barreling down the road at 80mph.
Would I like documentation for all these things? Absolutely! Should it be enforced by law? I don’t think so.
> if someone writes an app with a backend service or library, should they be required to document the API for people to build their own tools on top of?
Yes. Network services and client software should be considered two separate products/markets, and tying between them should be seen as anti-competitive behavior worthy of anti-trust enforcement.
That the software industry has been able to develop some brazenly anti-competitive pratices does not constitute an argument that it should be allowed to continue.
I don’t view iRacing owning the service and client software as anti-competitive. Same with CS2, Fortnite, Vallorant, etc.
I’m fine with Google Workspace owning the client and the service, same with Zoom, Slack, Teams, Box, Dropbox, etc.
I don’t think we’d have better games (pretty much for certain), and I don’t know that we’d have as good online productivity tools either.
Games could clearly be an exception - they're the only place the locked down computing paradigm has a reasonable argument.
The multi-user productivity apps you listed would most certainly be better off as separate clients and services! The entire point is that you shouldn't be forced into using one (often terrible) piece of proprietary client software simply due to the network effects of other people using it. Wouldn't it be nice to use the Slack client in a Teams environment (or vice versa if that's your thing) ? This would produce more competition because companies would have to develop the client software to be compelling itself, rather than relying on the pull of installed deployments with captive victims^wusers.
> 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.
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?
That’s why I said, at what level should this disclosure be required? Obviously a small open source utility shouldn’t have to document everything. What about a $20 electric screwdriver with an unpopulated JTAG header? a $200 door buster TV? A $2,0000 OLED TV? A Kickstarter device that unexpectedly takes off? A small ICE engine? A house?
If you’re starting up a small business, selling at-a-loss widgets to gain market share do you want to be forced to publish a diagnostic manual that not only increases your work, but may also increase your liability?
Seatbelts and airbags are safety, but if you talk to anyone at a body shop, they will tell you there are significant regulation changes in the past decade that have made cars more expensive to fix while not necessarily safer.
I just don’t think it’s as cut and dry as everything must be forced to be documented. What is everything, at what size or industry is this documentation required, why this industry and not that one, is it just OBD or _everything_ including all CAN bus communication, etc. Minimally the end result is increased cost for everyone.
If it’s already published, perhaps libraries should start collecting the service manuals.
How about; if it's already documented, make it available to the end user.
The right to repair cases that bother me most is where the company goes out of their way to prevent end-user repair (cryptographic pairing of modules!?), or where service manuals/information exist but are only available to dealers.
> How about; if it's already documented, make it available to the end user.
There's documentation, and then there's documentation. What passes for documentation in the modern era is scattershot over thousands of JIRA tickets and Confluence pages. Most outdated.
Then let the "owners" and repair shops ask questions, mandate accurate replies, and "we don't know" is a valid answer if and only if you actually don't know. If you are found saying "we don't know" when you actually do know, mandatory punishment is one hundred times the purchase price of the machinery unit in question.
>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.
You're talking about things that by definition have to be documented and internally published in order to design and build the powertrain in the first place. You can't design a computer-controlled automatic transmission without documenting the shift points.
The cost is therefore essentially nothing, because the information already exists. Just copy paste it into a PDF and put it on your website.
> It requires employer time and effort and has a cost associated with it.
Intentionally obfuscating the data¹ also requires time effort and costs.
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49674097
> at what size or capacity should you be required to document and publish these things?
The reason there is an opaque number in that open source utility is precisely because of a lack of open documentation for that register definition. Independent black box analysis of the messages only got as far as "write this value to do effect X". Whomever developed that utility would have loved to spell that bitfield out, but not at the cost of more days reverse engineering.
But manufacturers aren't reverse engineering register definitions, they're working off of vendor datasheets or protocol definitions they themselves created. All of this documentation has already been produced, as it was used to develop the tractor from its various subsystems. It just needs to be published!
I’ve worked on enough internal and third-party SOA to know that documentation could be in an email, a slack chat, or a hallway conversation. The public docs go through writers and reviews. How many software teams could make their service or library docs public based only on internal documentation and produce anything useful?
Documentation for hardware subassemblies produced by different manufacturers isn't getting conveyed through hallway conversations. Pure software can indeed be quite sloppy, but for vehicles we're talking about large scale cross-stakeholder projects where these things do get formally documented.
At any rate, for things a manufacturer doesn't consider important enough to document themselves then there can be a clear alternative requirement - release whatever upstream documentation they did use to create it, plus the software source code they developed on top of it. If it's not important enough to have been documented as its own product, then it also isn't a significant part of the value they're actually selling, right?
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!
And those get taken down when JD finds them.
The change interval is in the Warranty and Maintenance Guide, not in the main owner’s manual. (This is still part of the in-glovebox manuals, not a service-center manual.)
One example: https://assets.sia.toyota.com/publications/en/omms-s/T-MMS-1...
Sadly service manuals aren’t commonly sold anymore and you need a subscription to a website to access factory service manuals.
It’s a shame, I use to buy the service manual when I bought the car.
Reading codes is only part of it. For the last quarter century or so (some manufacturers more than others) if you replace certain components (radio, any computer module) you need to update the ECU to recognize the new component. This requires proprietary software and in many cases proprietary hardware as well. These "features" are marketed as an "anti-theft" mechanism. This renders some repairs basically impossible for the end user to perform.
The fact that they've been allowed to build systems like that is appalling.
This is actually pretty widespread on newer models. There are cars for which you need a subscription costing thousands of dollars every year to put your parking brake into "maintenance mode", without which you can't fix your own brakes.
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.
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.
Tesla is the bad guy too.
Whataboutism. Two evils are still evil.
I read a post sometime in the last 6 months about the hot business in Saskatchewan or Manitoba selling older, completely unconnected John Deere tractors because farmers found the subscription based service for connected ones to be expensive and unhelpful. Basically a net loss. This wired post seems to be payola I mean a direct rebuttal to that post as well as the behavioral wave because it's probably impacting bottom lines
The worlds most popular tractor brand (Mahindra) doesn't even crack the top 5 in the US.
If American farmers wan't the most repairable tractor, they should just buy the one that is used in poorer, less-connected regions of the world. Those are built for durability and repairability.
Mahindra's line up tops out at 71 horsepower. Americans use 400-800 horsepower row croppers towing 36 row planters.
Some farm, typically agriculture. Your average cattle, sheep, or other livestock farmer will not be running a 400+ HP tractor in most cases. 50-110 hp is common for general property use such as clearing, slashing, loading, material moving. In these cases a Mahondra, or any number of others is ideal. You can get John Deere in the same size, but would be mad to do so with the repairability issues and higher cost.
> Your average cattle, sheep, or other livestock farmer
is a very different person in different countries. The US has large scale agriculture and use large scale equipment.
$200 per machine per year. You use to just buy the manual and you had it forever. Farms sit on 1-2% profit margins on average but with a 30% swing in potential yield. They don't like subscription services because their yearly income is unreliable at best and they don't have any margin to waste on bs they might not use.
For a large commercial operation, $200/year is nothing, but it's enough to hurt the smaller guys.
$200/year, now.
My Subaru needs an oil change every 6 months... it takes a few minutes. It does NOT remind me and I don't have to reset a computer. Life is simple, life is good.
My more $$$ German car needs a service once a year. It reminds me. The actual oil change is easy, but THEN I have to reset the computer!! Not so easy. That needs special software. I bought a pirated package from China. They need a subscription too. Otherwise, I must take it to an "authorized" garage... more $$$. And all of this before there are actual problems to fix...
When you pay $$ for a big machine, you SHOULD get everything you need to keep it operational, indefinitely. No separate software packages, no subscriptions, etc. Maybe you need to download something on your tablet/laptop and buy a cable... but that should be it. That would be the law if I was the emperor! (No no no, I don't want to be elected president, stupid job. I said Emperor dammit.)
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?
The parts talk to each other and verify each other's serial numbers and refuse to work if they don't match, and none of the documents you referenced exist.
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.
Yeah, that’s a good way to summarize what people are mad about; they basically moved all of the calibration from onboard to offboard diagnostics, and then thwarted most efforts to access the offboard diagnostics.
Automotive is similar and I’m a bit worried for EVs; for ICE autos there’s enough emissions related regulation that some diagnostics and manuals are accessible, but for EVs there’s nothing much stopping a Deere style complete lockdown.
Exactly, go look at Lucid/Tesla and a few others for examples of how the car is a brick without the manufacturers sekret unlock codes and calibration software. If they decide not to help, you are out of luck.
Ah but you didn't buy the car, you bought a license to drive the car. You know, like CD or Playstation game.
Until some kind anon hopefully leaks it...
Some newer equipment has no service manual available.
It's a subscription, with a DRM system so you have to use their app to browse the manual, and you can't print/save more than a couple pages per month.
That's why I won't touch new equipment with a ten foot pole. I buy old stuff and then end up having to do major rebuilds. I realize this is somewhat of a luxury, and damn is it nice.
In the last calendar year, this is basically the highlights (routine maintenance excluded):
On my Kubota L3010 I added remote hydraulics so I had to take all the bodywork apart. Discovered some rust, put about 20hr of panel beating, welding, and paint into the floor pan (NLA part, unfortunately). About 20hr after I got it all back together it started leaking hydraulic fluid from the clutch housing. So I get the privilege of doing all that disassembly again to split the tractor and replace the front driveshaft seal (suspected). It's a minor leak, so far, so this might wait a few years.
The 1998 12V 2nd gen Dodge is its own saga--new transmission, clutch, a bunch of paint work. Rebuilt the entire interior. Currently working on cleaning up wiring in the engine bay, killer dowel pin fix, fixing oil leaks from the injector pump gasket and vac/power steering pump, serp belt, crank balancer, etc. Still need to drop the fuel tank and replace the sending unit, as well as re-seal the axles.
My 1995 Land Cruiser just got new plugs, distributor cap/rotor, belts, crank balancer, front main seal, oil pump o-ring, etc. Should be good until next summer.
My 1999 Benz got some new A/C o-rings, all the low pressure fuel lines replaced, some rust repair (welding, panel beating, paint, undercoating, etc) on the front right jackpoint. All new stainless brake lines (https://www.linestogo.com/ 100% will buy from these guys again). This car is kind of sacrificial, eventually its engine (OM606) is going in the Land Cruiser in front of a purpose-built NV4500 transmission. If the rust doesn't get it first (ski bus duty), I'll probably shred the 722.6 by turning up the engine too much.
So it's not a small amount of work. But no reverse engineering is required. I can just read a book and follow the instructions therein and do literally anything that needs to be done on those vehicles.
The parts have to be unlocked with like a DRM system to work.
Fiddling around the way a casual working on their own car would isn't economically viable at scale. Labor use needs to be more efficient than that. Even if you can swap the right parts fast, lots of new stuff requires "permission" to install various hardware. Like some random make might not let you install a steering rack or something.
The term "Self-Repair Service" already sounds so wrong.
Thank you John Deere... I just miss the "sponsored" next to the article title.
A more accurate title would be “Farmers Aren’t Bought”, as in “bought by John Deere”, like this author is.
Charging a subscription to be able to repair equipment you own is obscene. No way in hell would I ever purchase any equipment from a provider that does this.
WJW, what a blatant John Deere PR piece.
Even by modern WIRED's low standards of journalism, Boone Ashworth has managed to be subterranean.
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.
You shouldn't need to subscribe to a monthly or yearly payment to fucken repair shit.
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.
The company wouldn't lose money, but the c-suite might miss bonuses and investors their dividends and inflated stock prices.
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.
right but without the part supply under control someone could just do it themselves so they need both, though it's true plenty damage is done software-only
> 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, and the corresponding button in the software that runs some black box procedure.
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 weren't bundled with a whole bunch of unnecessary/accidental 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 - there isn't actually much here, it just needs to be documented! I know interacting with digital vehicle networks 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. Checking the computers first would become standard procedure if the tooling weren't so infuriating.
(For more context my own tractor is a Kubota with HP under the Tier IV threshold. I earnestly wish it did have a DPF - less shit to breathe in and less black crap coating my loader. But not at the cost of dealing with the current "state of the art" computer controls! I've also heard horror stories about long term Deere parts availability)
this, but for your entire business, brought to you by Anthropic and OpenAI.