Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    The feds are coming for John Deere over the right to repair

    (gizmodo.com)
    568 points rntn | 12 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    ffujdefvjg ◴[18 Oct 24 17:02 UTC] No.41881316[source]▶
    Hope Deere gets what's coming to them and this sets a precedent for other companies. Next on the list should be devices remotely disabled when they're discontinued, which would have otherwise continued to work perfectly fine (like the Spotify car device).
    replies(3): >>41882511 #>>41884095 #>>41886538 #
    tmm ◴[18 Oct 24 19:12 UTC] No.41882511[source]▶
    Would also like to see a ban on firmware updates and programming tools locked behind a dealer (or support contract) portal and a ban on time-restricted software licenses for hardware.

    In line with remote-bricking discontinued hardware, these policies only serve to generate eWaste.

    If you sell programmable hardware, or really anything with embedded software, you should be required to make all the tools and software available to end users (doesn’t have to be free, but shouldn’t require a subscription or support contract either) in perpetuity.

    Licenses to enable additional hardware features are fine, but they must be granted for the life of the device (i.e. as long as it can be kept working), not an arbitrary “we think the life of this thing is 5 years”. You should never have to keep paying to use a device you already bought.

    replies(6): >>41883839 #>>41884251 #>>41884279 #>>41884363 #>>41887852 #>>41887972 #
    1. zelon88 ◴[18 Oct 24 21:52 UTC] No.41883839[source]▶
    > You should never have to keep paying to use a device you already bought.

    You think that's bad? I bought a "RAM upgrade" over the phone from HAAS for a CNC machine back in 2016ish. The upgrade was from 1mb to 16mb of RAM.

    The technician on the phone told me to go to the machine and punch in a series of keys followed by a 21 digit code. That was my ~$2,000 RAM upgrade.

    The RAM was always there. It was just locked away as "reserve value" for the manufacturer.

    replies(3): >>41883990 #>>41884277 #>>41886645 #
    2. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[18 Oct 24 22:15 UTC] No.41883990[source]▶
    The most upsetting version of this is when you actually have to remove hardware. “Upgrading” the machine entailed removing a certain screw from under the hood to double the performance.
    3. m463 ◴[18 Oct 24 23:03 UTC] No.41884277[source]▶
    tesla does this stuff.

    For instance, I believe every car is actually running full self drive software in simuation mode. But if you pay $8k it can actually control pedals/steering.

    also OTA performance boosts, etc.

    replies(2): >>41886221 #>>41904828 #
    4. ocdtrekkie ◴[19 Oct 24 07:16 UTC] No.41886221[source]▶
    Indeed, driving a Tesla is collecting training data for the company whether you benefit from it or not. (The idea you can own a Tesla is laughable, you might have the title but Elon can brick it and refuse to activate it.)

    They're also well-known for artificially capping battery capacity unless you buy an unlock. There have been a few stories before about them unlocking the expanded capacity for free during emergencies.

    replies(1): >>41887702 #
    5. 7thpower ◴[19 Oct 24 09:10 UTC] No.41886645[source]▶
    I don’t see the problem with this?
    replies(1): >>41887388 #
    6. theobreuerweil ◴[19 Oct 24 12:19 UTC] No.41887388[source]▶
    When you pay for goods or services, you should expect to receive something. If you pay extra for leather seats, you’re getting leather seats. If you pay for DLC as part of a game, you’re subsidising the cost of the developer adding more stuff to the game. The pricing of digital products and add-ons may not always be fair but you should be getting access to something valuable that you didn’t already have, i.e. something that costs money to develop and/or host.

    In this case, you already bought and paid for the additional RAM. The manufacturer is refusing to let you use it until you pay additional money, even though you theoretically own it already. That’s not providing a service, it’s just extortion.

    If you could somehow prove that the additional RAM was not factored into the original cost of what you bought then this might be fair (albeit wasteful) - but I doubt it…

    replies(2): >>41887792 #>>41887864 #
    7. BeFlatXIII ◴[19 Oct 24 13:38 UTC] No.41887702{3}[source]▶
    Jailbreak time when?
    replies(1): >>41889008 #
    8. ericd ◴[19 Oct 24 13:55 UTC] No.41887792{3}[source]▶
    16 megs of ram was ~free by 2016.
    replies(1): >>41891189 #
    9. datavirtue ◴[19 Oct 24 14:12 UTC] No.41887864{3}[source]▶
    This is the market not working.
    10. yupyupyups ◴[19 Oct 24 17:08 UTC] No.41889008{4}[source]▶
    Jailbreak is a cat and mouse game, which you shouldn't have to play if buying something so expensive.

    The best thing to do is to not buy it in the first place.

    11. theobreuerweil ◴[19 Oct 24 22:13 UTC] No.41891189{4}[source]▶
    You may be right, I’ve no idea. For me it’s the principle more than the specific amount. I can’t understand why a manufacturer is entitled to charge you to use something that you supposedly own. Car manufacturers charging to unlock seat heating is a good example.
    12. Ajedi32 ◴[21 Oct 24 14:51 UTC] No.41904828[source]▶
    Charging for software features is fine. Tesla is spending a lot of money to develop their self driving software and its perfectly reasonable for them to expect to be paid for that.

    Charging to stop blocking the use of hardware features that are already present on a product you own however (like seat heaters or battery capacity), is unacceptable in my opinion.

    Software Freedom would solve all these problems by making it trivial for users to buy a software patch from a third party vendor for cheap that unlocks the seat heaters, thus destroying the incentive for manufactures to do stupid stuff like that in the first place.