Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:13:09 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
See <https://www.repair.org/>.
Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
See <https://www.repair.org/>.
Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
maintaining/repairing a product that they\'ve purchased (vs. leased)?
Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.
OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
(vs. a board swap)?
And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a
bunch of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how
much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide in
reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?
On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
Not really.
Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own
equipment or they are not.
Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
maintaining/repairing a product that they\'ve purchased (vs. leased)?
Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.
Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.
OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
(vs. a board swap)?
Why shouldn\'t someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
capability to do so?
Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
person from making the repair themselves?
On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
Not really.
Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own equipment
or they are not.
Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
maintaining/repairing a product that they\'ve purchased (vs. leased)?
Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.
Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire. Broken
*mechanism*. Oil change/filter.
OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU? Or, in the
case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level (vs. a board swap)?
Why shouldn\'t someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the capability to
do so?
Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified person
from making the repair themselves?
And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch of
individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how much assistance
should the manufacturer be required to provide in reintegrating that
repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?
That\'s the quintessential warranty void sticker problem.
IMHO individuals should be able to acquire the same parts that manufacturers
make available to authorized repair centers. Similarly, the same information
should be made available.
How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair
possible? Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs?
Trade secret *processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication
of a functional product)?
Don\'t you, the consumer, have the ability to BOYCOTT devices
(and manufacturers) that don\'t allow you the freedom you\'d like?
Shouldn\'t the manufacturer be able to boycott the consumers that want
to violate THEIR freedoms to innovate?
So, all source code, schematics, components that are available to
the manufacturer should be available to the consumer, right?
You are free to retrieve the ECU from the vehicle and tinker away at
will with it. If you have the capability to repair it, you should be
able to do so, right?
If your vehicle catches fire, don\'t be upset if your insurance company
declines your claim
What you\'re espousing is that the manufacturer should have to *enable*
you to make those repairs... that \"capability\" includes more than
just your innate skillset.
Go ahead and do so! But, why should the manufacturer have to
facilitate that?
You can reverse engineer YOUR item and repair or upgrade it.
(you likely can\'t disseminate that information or profit from it,
depending on license terms).
I can deencapsulate chips and sort out what\'s inside to better
understand (or mimic) a particular design. I don\'t \"whine\" that the
manufacturer forced me to use that level of \"capability\" to do so!
What should the manufacturer\'s turn-around time be for \"spare parts\"?
Must he make them available to you \"overnight\"? (surely, you want to
minimize your down time) Should he be responsible for maintaining a
\"will call\" window so you can just drop in and pick up those items
to avoid shipping costs/delays?
I wrote a contract for a client, some years ago. The issue of
\"spares\" came up: \"what are the FRUs that should be available
for purchase?\" (note the issue of COST didn\'t even surface, at
that point). We settled on placing no constraints on what the client
could *ask* for. But, also placed no constraints on the price that
could be charged or the lead time!
If \"spares\" becomes an issue, then we likely need to revisit the
design to see WHY you need them!
And, because EVERYTHING is being processed in that one location,
the backlog is even longer! Now, what leg are you left standing on?
HP adopted the idea of replacing the entire printhead on their inkjets
instead of reinking. So, customers end up paying more for ink --
because they have to buy a new printhead in the process! Some of
their printers put all of the \"value\" in a \"bag\" on the rear of the
printer. No doubt, their \"service\" procedure is: run standard tests;
if fail, remove electronics from bag at rear and discard remainder.
Again, customers end up with a lower quality product (effectively
higher cost).
I\'ve seen companies sell \"chipped\" vials of distilled water (really?
do you think the hospital buying that device doesn\'t have a source
of distilled water available?). They can argue it is for \"quality
control\" (i.e., to ensure the accuracy of the results) but you\'ll note
that there\'s a helluva markup in that water! (and, no way around it)
What do you do when the device you \"purchased\" relies on a
*service*... and the manufacturer decides to no longer provide that
service? Your device is not \"broken\" -- it just doesn\'t work, anymore!
Should the manufacturer be forced to making available the
\"parts/technology\" necessary for re-establishing that service (from
an alternate provider).
I\'ve watched *tens of millions* of pounds of eWaste intended for
landfills over the past two decades just \"discarded\" because some
\"change\" has made those items no longer usable (the 2GHz computer is
too slow for the newer OS -- which is required for the most recent
APPLICATION updates; the smart TV no longer supports the more modern
codecs; a cap/FET in a power supply has gone south; the magnetics
required for the XY drivers are too costly, etc.)
These things *can* be fixed -- with relatively modest skillsets.
But, doing so *economically* (at least with the US wage structure)
is just not practical.
\"Main board\" quits in your TV? Some guy will sell you a \"pull\" (i.e.,
not even NOS!) for $100-200 -- plus a couple hundred dollars for
labor -- and give you a 30-90 day warranty (likely only on the part,
not the labor!). So, your $1000 TV cost you $300-500 to repair.
And, the guy is *so* confident in his repair that he\'ll only give
you 90 days \"peace of mind\".
And, the guy who has no interest in repairing his devices doesn\'t
want to spend a dime (or any TIME) accommodating those who do!
In pharma, \"best practices\" have manufacturers making a lot of the
design/installation of their products available to the purchaser.
Much of this because of validation requirements. But, it also affords
some ability to do minor repairs (replace an Opto-22, rewire the
field, etc.).
OTOH, they\'re not going to let you tinker with the design of the
hardware or the software
(it is relatively easy to design something that far exceeds the
ability of an *informed* user to understand in its entirety
do you want to go to the FDA and explain how your modifications don\'t
make the product less trustworthy?).
In gaming, tampering with the internals of a machine is likely cause
for dismissal -- and \"decertifying\" the machine.
These folks know the lay of the land and have baked that into their
business practices/costs.
Just like \"consumers\" plan on replacing their phones periodically.
Or, TVs. Or, cars. (c\'mon, damn near ANYONE can do an oil change;
why doesn\'t EVERYONE?)
Focusing on Deere is folly. The 2 million farmers in the US represent
a prominent \"special interest\". But, the other 330 million citizens
are similarly burdened and lack that megaphone.
to the *few* who will \"save\" from your efforts? What if the farmer
-- not some UNauthorized agent -- was required to make the repair?
How vocal would he be in requiring this information? (he\'s objecting
to the stranglehold Deere has on \"repair centers\")
Don WHY wrote:
=================
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
See <https://www.repair.org/>.
Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
** Plenty of detailed info available re Deere and their loaded game playing on u-tube and elsewhere.
Is looking at it too painful for a brainless POS like YOU ?
Is making wild guesses your *only* talent and joy ?
What a fucking asshole you are.
...... Phil
on a good day!
On 2/9/2022 2:45 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 12:13:09 -0800 (PST), Dean Hoffman
dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
This article talks about John Deere and other manufacturers offering information to help owners fix their own equipment.
https://prospect.org/power/rollups-big-tech-monopoly-down-on-the-farm/
See <https://www.repair.org/>.
Deere figures prominently in the list of problem children.
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
maintaining/repairing a product that they\'ve purchased (vs. leased)?
Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.
OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component*
level (vs. a board swap)?
And, if the device is designed as an *entity* -- instead of a bunch
of individual FRUs with predefined functionality -- then how
much assistance should the manufacturer be required to provide
in reintegrating that repaired/replaced subassembly/subsystem?
I suspect there will eventually be a secondary market developed
to replace \"proprietary\" modules/assemblies with aftermarket
offerings -- and legislation to facilitate such \"competition\".
So, a stubborn manufacturer may find himself (and his dealers
and technicians) dealt out of the loop.
[I suspect the lifespan of a megadollar bit of kit is considerably
longer than a few growing seasons so being deprived of \"maintenance
income\" for those long periods might pressure the dealers and
technicians to pressure the manufacturer -- *or* violate their
licenses with the manufacturer in order to remain viable]
I am advocating for the existing design to stay as is and for the
existing repair documentation / tools that are already available to
authorized technicians to be available to my neighbor.
The root of my stance is equality between the authorized technicians and
the general public who wish to repair things themselves.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
person from making the repair themselves?
So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.
The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.
On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
gta...@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
person from making the repair themselves?
So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.
The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.
Obvious, but only AFTER you bought THESE tractors.
The Deere folk probably charge for training/licensing their
\'authorized\' folk, and without pay-in-advance and a year\'s financial
commitment to being authorized, they\'re going to claim that
the owners oughtn\'t repair their wonderful machines.
The \'licensing\' of software required for restarting the repaired units is
just a legal dodge to make this a contractual issue instead of an improper
restraint of trade.
Authorized repair agents in your neighborhood means dealers who do warranty
repair and are are therefore tethered to the large manufacturer anyhow.
Owners, who aren\'t on a leash, aren\'t welcome.
On 2/9/22 7:00 PM, Don Y wrote:
How much should the design of the item be driven to make repair possible?
Should we ban the use of solvent welded cases? ASICs? Trade secret
*processes* (which may be essential to the fabrication of a functional product)?
Those are legitimate questions.
Questions which are independent of of owners having access to the same parts
and documentation that repair technicians have access to.
I have the right to walk into my backyard naked as the day I was born. I am
definitely not required to do so when I take the puppy outside at 03:00 to go
to the bathroom.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:04:58 -0700, Grant Taylor
gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
On 2/9/22 4:25 PM, Don Y wrote:
Without more detailed information, it\'s hard to cast judgement.
Not really.
Either manufacturers are hostile towards people repairing their own
equipment or they are not.
Just how *much* should an owner/operator be able to do in
maintaining/repairing a product that they\'ve purchased (vs. leased)?
Anything they want to and have the capability to do so.
Surely, they should be able to repair/replace a flat tire.
Broken *mechanism*. Oil change/filter.
OTOH, should they be able to isolate a fault to a particular ECU?
Or, in the case of an obvious fault, repair at the *component* level
(vs. a board swap)?
Why shouldn\'t someone be able to repair an ECU if they have the
capability to do so?
Or asked another way, what is the justification to prevent a qualified
person from making the repair themselves?
So the manufacturer can charge 10x what the repair parts are worth,
and makes sure that nobody else can supply them.
The obvious defense is to buy tractors from someone else.
If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it
by purchasing all of the \"authorized repair centers\" so they are now
*part* of the manufacturer\'s organization.
Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available
to them (likely, these are \"Property of Manufacturer\" and not the
service center so reclaiming them is legally possible)
does he have to make available all of his staff that might be
*consulted* by the folks actually doing the repairs?
E.g., if a tech makes an ask of the design engineer on a product,
should Billy Bob\'s Tractor Shop have access to that same tech/resource?
Aren\'t they both \"reference materials\"? \"On page 27 of the manual,
it says \'Consult Engineering\'\" What a great way to lower the cost of
that profit center! :
After all, it\'s YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them!
Now, do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer
all of their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?
Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can\'t source
anywhere else!)
[We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire
GAME could be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than
that for the chip!)]
Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says
a manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment.
Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?
[We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor.
Vendor stopped making that license available. What recourse do we
have?
If the manufacturer considered \"locking things down\" to be essential
to its business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation)
and lawyers (post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain
this capability.
Things might be different in the EU but the US favors unbridled
capitalism.
This seems to be the purview of class action lawsuits, especially ifIf you were foolish enough (or desperate enough) to make that decision,
then that\'s *your* problem. \"Want a time-share in Miami?\"
Will there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they
are comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also
have to make available Spanish language versions?? What liability
for the accuracy of those documents?
Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed*
(not sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?)
There are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for
repair or replacement (all the service center could do is forward
your component to the factory)
SWMBO\'s vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up
having to pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never
bought a subscription?
Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years.
Wanna bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service to
report on traffic conditions where we are driving?
Legislation may \"level the playing field\" (between authorized repair
centers and \"others\") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the
end user than it is, presently! The authorized repair center won\'t
care if they have to pay more for parts/services -- they will just be
passing those costs on to the consumer, just like the *unauthorized*
repair centers.
So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn\'t much cheaper than the $1000
part from the \"unauthorized service center\" with the $50 *discounted*
labor! Gee, look at how much better this is over that $600 repair,
previously!
Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale.
Whether that is through repairs, services or \"other\" (e.g., upgrades).
Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough.
Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their
functionality even if Google abandons that market?
Should a manufacturer be required to fix a design flaw in a product
-- even if it\'s \"just software\"? Should I be able to get software
updates for every such appliance for N years after purchase?
And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies
without a whimper.
  \"Want access to my personal data, for free? OK\"
  \"Want to *rent* me music? OK\"
\"Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK\"
The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers
and consumers.
** You omit an important third player.
The \"non authorized\" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.
Phil Allison wrote:
** You omit an important third player.
The \"non authorized\" repair business whom Deere is trying to cancel.
I\'m lumping non-authorized repair businesses in with the owners / do it
yourselers.
I see no need to distinguish the different groups that are outside of
the authorized technicians / manufacturer.
On 2/10/22 12:49 AM, Don Y wrote:
If you write legislation to that effect, a manufacturer sidesteps it by
purchasing all of the \"authorized repair centers\" so they are now *part* of
the manufacturer\'s organization.
I believe I spoke to -- what I\'ll call -- in-housing repairs to the manufacturer.
In short, all people, trained or otherwise, employed by the manufacturer or
otherwise, should have the same opportunities to parts / documentation / tools.
Or, changing the parts/jigs/documentation that it makes available to them
(likely, these are \"Property of Manufacturer\" and not the service center so
reclaiming them is legally possible)
The manufacturer has the prerogative to change something frequently so that the
old thing will no longer work.
If service technicians have access to it, lay people should have access to it too.
If you claim the manufacturer is now an \"authorized repair center\",
I do.
does he have to make available all of his staff that might be *consulted* by
the folks actually doing the repairs?
Staff is decidedly not part of my aforementioned list of parts / documentation
/ tools.
E.g., if a tech makes an ask of the design engineer on a product, should
Billy Bob\'s Tractor Shop have access to that same tech/resource?
Tech as in technician, no. Resource as in document, yes.
I could see a business case for staff to provide consulting or training at an
hourly rate.
Is \"staff\" different from \"documents\"?
Absolutely.
Aren\'t they both \"reference materials\"? \"On page 27 of the manual, it says
\'Consult Engineering\'\" What a great way to lower the cost of that profit
center! :
I would call that a bad document.
However said bad document should be made available to authorized technicians as
well as do it yourselfers.
I think there is also an opportunity for a class action lawsuit if the
manufacturer purposely starts updating all documents to be \'Consult
Engineering\' type.
What if the manufacturer starts treating FRUs as disposable items?
That doesn\'t change anything in my opinion.
After all, it\'s YOU who will be paying the replacement price, not them! Now,
do you require the manufacturer to make available to the customer all of
their MANUFACTURING DOCUMENTS, jigs, etc.?
Manufacturing is decidedly different than service / repair.
Since I\'m discussing service / repair, that means that manufacturing is out of
scope to me.
Or, requiring units to be returned for repair/replacement?
If the (in-house) authorized technicians are also required to return the units
for repair / replacement, then so be it.
Again, this is a slippery slope that would likely end up in a class action
lawsuit.
There would probably have to be strict division between the authorized
technicians that take components out of the larger unit, ship them off to the
manufacturer (down the hall), and install the new / repaired component.
Do it yourselfers should also be able to ship components off to the
manufacturer (across town), and install the new / repaired component.
Or, charging outrageous prices for parts (that you can\'t source anywhere else!)
How is that different than we have now?
Also, as long as it\'s the same for authorized technicians and do it
yourselfers, then so be it.
[We charged $2000 for an ASIC used in an arcade piece. The entire GAME could
be purchased for $2000! (so, silly to charge MORE than that for the chip!)]
I would be very careful doing something like that. That seems to be opening
yourself up for a lawsuit.
Or, not offering *any* repair parts! There is nothing that says a
manufacturer must *remain* in a business -- or business segment.
I agree. Despite my dislike for it.
Then what do you do? Hope someone else makes a copycat product?
[We sold a product that relied on a $5K license from another vendor. Vendor
stopped making that license available. What recourse do we have?
Probably not very many. Almost certainly not any good ones.
Can we FORCE him to sell us another license?
Nope.
Or, does *he* have control over his sales policies??]
Yes.
The same availability apply equally to both authorized technicians and do it
yourselfers.
If the manufacturer considered \"locking things down\" to be essential to its
business plan, you can bet their lobbyists (pre-legislation) and lawyers
(post-legislation) will have sorted out how to maintain this capability.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Things might be different in the EU but the US favors unbridled capitalism.
I\'m routinely depressed if not distressed by this fact.
There\'s nothing FORCING the user to buy THAT particular product!
Nope. Yes there is. And it depends.
See my comments about cable internet vs DSL vs dial-up elsewhere in this thread.
If you were foolish enough (or desperate enough) to make that decision, then
that\'s *your* problem. \"Want a time-share in Miami?\"
This seems to be the purview of class action lawsuits, especially if there is
evidence that the manufacturer exploited a (monopolistic) market advantage to
coerce consumers to buy their product.
\"If we reincorporate in MX, are we still subject to these requirements?
I would counter with how are you doing business in country without an
established point of presence?
I would argue that any parts / documentation / tools that you make available to
authorized technicians in country must be made available to do it yourselfers
in country.
I dislike the idea of no in country repair centers. But that\'s an issue that\'s
outside of what I consider to be right to repair.
Are none of the countries that export to the US market immune?
My opinion is that all countries should be treated the same. Sadly, I expect
politicians will have different ideas.
Will there be linguists proofing Chinese documents to verify they are
comprehensible after translation into English? Will they also have to make
available Spanish language versions?? What liability for the accuracy of
those documents?
That\'s immaterial to my stance. The existing parts / documents / tools
available to authorized technicians, whatever quality they are, should be made
available to everybody.
If someone has to translate a document from one language to make use of it,
that\'s on them as the user of said document.
Or, developing new products where part of the product is *licensed* (not
sold) to the user. (who owns the battery in your EV?)
That\'s a different issue.
There are no user serviceable parts within -- return to factory for repair or
replacement (all the service center could do is forward your component to the
factory)
That\'s a farce in my opinion.
If there are authorized technicians, possibly located in the factory, in this
country then the parts / documents / tools that they have access to should be
made available to do it yourselfers.
SWMBO\'s vehicle came with a trial Sirius license. Did we end up having to
pay for some hardware in the vehicle even though we never bought a subscription?
You purchased what the manufacturer sold to you. If you didn\'t use all of the
capabilities of it, that\'s on you.
Likewise, it came with real-time traffic monitoring, for a few years. Wanna
bet that this vehicle is still providing data to that service to report on
traffic conditions where we are driving?
Maybe. There are privacy concerns that cause me to not say probably.
Were we compensated for this, in any way?
That\'s out of the scope of right to repair.
What happens if I short out the antenna so the car can\'t phone home??
I don\'t know.
Try it and find out.
Do I have the *right* to do that?
Right to repair is the union of a right and repairing something. So I think
\"repair\" is extremely germane. There\'s a good chance that \"repair\" will only
extend to as designed and constructed by the manufacturer.
As such, altering the design / operation contrary to the manufacturer\'s intent
probably doesn\'t qualify as \"repair\".
Now we get into do you actually /own/ the vehicle? Or is there some form of
lease like you were alluding to?
If you /own/ the vehicle, then I think you have the right to do just about
anything you want to, including altering it from the original manufacturer\'s
intention. Possibly by disabling the ability to report traffic information.
Even if some other aspect of the vehicle stops working??
If you completely own it, sure. If you don\'t completely own it, then things
get murky really fast.
Legislation may \"level the playing field\" (between authorized repair centers
and \"others\") -- but, at a level that is more costly to the end user than it
is, presently! The authorized repair center won\'t care if they have to pay
more for parts/services -- they will just be passing those costs on to the
consumer, just like the *unauthorized* repair centers.
I question the veracity of that statement and believe that it opens
manufacturers up to class action lawsuits.
So, the $1000 part with $200 of labor isn\'t much cheaper than the $1000 part
from the \"unauthorized service center\" with the $50 *discounted* labor! Gee,
look at how much better this is over that $600 repair, previously!
One of the first things that the manufacturer will have to defend is why
something that used to cost $600 now costs $1000. They had better have a VERY
good explanation. Lest they be guilty of what is effectively price gouging.
Increasingly, manufacturers want to cling to customers AFTER the sale.
Whether that is through repairs, services or \"other\" (e.g., upgrades).
Weening them of this idea is likely going to be tough.
The best way I\'ve found / heard of to retain customers, is to provide them with
value, even if it\'s only a perception.
I know many people that will pay a higher price for parts & service from a
dealership if they feel value from and like they can trust the dealership.
Do you write legislation so all Nest products *retain* their functionality
even if Google abandons that market?
Nope.
You write legislation that 1) clearly explains that the hardware is dependent
on a subscription service and 2 that said subscription service will be
available for (at least) a specified amount of time (be it X number of months /
years or until Y date).
What if Google spins off that business unit and then kills it?
Google has the right to do that as a business as long as it\'s beholden to the
second clause above.
Failure to do that falls back on traditional breach of contract problems and
solutions.
Should a manufacturer be required to fix a design flaw in a product -- even
if it\'s \"just software\"? Should I be able to get software updates for every
such appliance for N years after purchase?
I have heard discussion about legislation for both of these very things.
And, most consumers seem to just go along with these new policies without a
whimper.
\"Want access to my personal data, for free? OK\"
\"Want to *rent* me music? OK\"
\"Want to peek at my credit score before disclosing it to me? OK\"
There is a derogatory term for this, \"sheeple\".
There also various legal actions afoot related to this.
The classic role of The Market is a give-and-take between suppliers and
consumers.
Yes. I give you money and I take the product to do with it what I please.
If the market\'s \"price\" is too high, you go elsewhere.
Baring monopolistic complications, agreed.