Right to Repair...

[Grant Taylor]

On 2/10/22 1:04 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> ** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

Yes I did.

As soon as you pointed out, I freely admitted and clarified in my reply
to your comment.

> Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

I think there are other examples. But they are smaller groups.

** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses*
to not see them....

Sure.

But I did not /choose/ to not see a difference between DIYers and 3rd
party repair personnel.

I still don\'t see a difference between them with regard to this thread.

Both DIYers and 3rd party repair personnel equally benefit from the 1st
party manufacturer making parts / documentation / tools available to
anyone outside of the manufacturer.

If you believe there is a difference between how DIYers and 3rd party
repair personnel benefit, please share it as I don\'t see it.

> What other things are you choosing to ignore ?

I didn\'t /choose/ to ignore anything.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

 

[Phil Allison]

Grant Taylor= Colossal LYING PEDANT wrote:
===============================
Phil Allison wrote:

( replacing the OVER SNIP )

** 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.

** Sure - but did not MENTION that anywhere.

Yes I did.

** Blatant LIE.

> As soon as you pointed out,

** Now you are a time bandit and a lying fuckwit.

Farmers are a rare example of long time DIY repairers.

I think there are other examples. But they are smaller groups.

** Look up the word \" rare \" - fuckwit.

** Well - even important differences will disappear if one *chooses*
to not see them....

Sure.

** Genius...

But I did not /choose/ to not see a difference between DIYers and 3rd
party repair personnel.

** Blatant fucking LIE !!!

> I still don\'t see a difference between them with regard to this thread.

** So you are totally blind as well now.

Both DIYers and 3rd party repair personnel equally benefit from the 1st
party manufacturer making parts / documentation / tools available to
anyone outside of the manufacturer.

** Nonsense.
Read my first post to YOU again and again.

If you believe there is a difference between how DIYers and 3rd party
repair personnel benefit, please share it as I don\'t see it.

** One is a business, the other not.
The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake \" authorized\" people.
DIY types are often a menace.

Just how fucking DUMB are you ?
===========================

What other things are you choosing to ignore ?

I didn\'t /choose/ to ignore anything.

** Look in the mirror - pal.
See a GREAT BIG LIAR .



........ Phil

 

[Grant Taylor]

On 2/10/22 1:55 PM, Don Y wrote:

Yeah, that\'s an admirable goal. But, I don\'t think it\'s gonna happen
in a *real* way!

What is stopping it?

> It would be nice if no child went hungry, but...

I believe there are far more real logistical things preventing anyone
from being hungry than there are preventing people from having access to
parts / documentation / tools.

Why limit the hunger question to just children?

\"Apply ALL of the more recent updates (hardware and software) to
your product before applying this solution. They are available in
our parts store at standard prices.\"

I *rarely* apply updates to (software) products. Because its a huge
nuisance. As a result, if I encounter a recognized problem that is
solved at patch level 13, I have to debate if I want to apply all
of the patches between \"my current\" and \"13\", just to get a fix for
that problem.

Yes.

> And, any *consequences* of those patches are now mine to endure.

Yes.

[I had to replace the power inlet on a friend\'s laptop. The
manufacturer had made a change to the (aluminum) case casting in the
time since his purchase. So, the new inlet wouldn\'t mechanically fit.
I was forced to grind away the excess aluminum to make accommodations
for the inlet. A better strategy may have been to just leave a wire
dangling out the ass end of the laptop!]

I believe you used the wrong part (new design) for your friend\'s old laptop.

If you had access to the proper part (old design) you would have not
needed to choose between modifying the case or leave a wire hanging out.

I also chose to modify the case when I last ran into this problem. But
I chose to buy a part from the local electronics store vs deal with the
manufacturer.

So, he has to partition his organization (physically and virtually)
so there are distinct cost centers and documentable information flows
to which legislation could be applied.

I trust that we both know that most organizations that fall into the
scope of this discussion already have the partitioning that you\'re
talking about.

The tech from \"service\" can\'t chat with the design engineer over
the lunch-room table because DIYers wouldn\'t have that same level
of access. Instead, the tech will have to submit his question through
the \"portal\" where it could be processed along with DIYer questions.

What part about parts / documentation / tools are conflating?

That does not preclude the friends that work in different departments
from talking.

If the technician can\'t do her job based on the documentation and needs
clarification, well, that\'s an indication that the company needs better
documentation.

I trust that we both know that the parts / documentation / tools are
restricted for outsiders and that\'s a much larger problem than friends
talking over lunch.

> What if they don\'t want to be in the consulting business?

Then they don\'t have to be.

Have a look at most \"user manuals\" under \"troubleshooting\". Notice how
often they refer to \"factory\" as remedy for certain problems.

I trust that we both know that \"user manuals\" are a crock when it comes
to repairing things. There are almost always other manuals / documents
that that are far better for repairs.

Do you think they mean \"Call us up and we\'ll put an engineer on the
phone to troubleshoot your problem\"?

I\'m well aware that it\'s a ploy for the company to not write better
documentation and / or gimmick to drive service to the manufacturer.

To the *user*, it may! Now, he can\'t buy *just* that defective part.
Instead, he has to buy the smallest/cheapest FRU that *contains*
that part!

That\'s the way that it is today, has been for a long time, and likely
will be for the foreseeable future.

At least from the manufacturer. There are often other sources for many,
but not all, parts.

\"Sure, we\'ll sell you a new engine!\"

But you\'re also claiming that the manufacturer can fill two *distinct*
roles. And, that different rules should apply to each role, even if
under the same roof and by the same staff.

Sure.

$ComputerVendor has engineers that design the computer and technicians
that service the computer. They are two very distinct departments /
individuals / pay structures / etc. They may or may not be under the
same roof, possibly depending on the size of the manufacturer.

See the comment above about the already established partitions.

Yes, and turn-around time -- and price -- will be determined by
the amount of business you do with the firm. \"Sorry, there are
many higher-priority service requests ahead of you in the queue.
Those customers represent greater value to us than your \'one-off\'
transaction\".

Yes.

> Or, do you legislate equality in pricing, turn-around time, etc.?

No.

See my previous comments around \"volume discounts\".

And, NOT expect the manufacturer to reflect this requirement somewhere
in its pricing/service structure?

My entire premise has been that parts / documentation / tools are
available. Their availability is effectively independent of the price
assigned.

It\'s a matter of degree. A $600 sensor repair can turn into a $1000
sensor repair. You\'re \"whole\" after each repair. But, considerably
poorer in the second case. \"We no longer sell the bare sensor as
an FRU...\"

Then the authorized technician, the 3rd party technician, and the DIYer
are all subject to the same change.

[We have a *small* convection/toaster oven that will be needing new
heating elements, soon. Replacement parts are nowhere to be found.
So, buy a new oven (the small size being the tough criteria to meet)
or hope to find an identical one \"in decent shape\" at a thrift store.
In either case, the \"cost\" to me (time + money) is considerably
higher.]

I fail to see any difference between you (the DIYer), a 3rd party
technician, or a 1st party authorized technician. Part unavailability
is equal.

If so, never materialized. The purpose of the ASIC was to discourage
counterfeiters (while adding functionality). As you can\'t stop a
counterfeiter from buying whole *games*, you can offer to sell him
just the chip -- for the price of a game!

Of course, if it is a genuine *repair*, you\'ll have returned the
*defective* ASIC and we can credit you $1980 on the replacement part\'s
price (because we WANT to be friendly to our legitimate customers --
and, because the ASICs won\'t fail! Encounter many \"bad CPUs\" over
the years?)

That sounds like a huge core charge to me. But I understand the
motivation behind it.

Yes, I\'ve encountered a handful of bad CPUs.

So, a $5K license ends up costing us hundreds of kilobucks to redesign
the product to use their *new* offering.

Probably.

> Wanna bet that will similarly be obsolescent?

That\'s a chance you take any time you depend on an external supplier.

(What reason to refuse to offer something that only *costs* you a
sheet of paper -- license -- to sell?)

It cost them more than the sheet of paper. it cost them closer to
$4,999 to refuse to sell it. As in lost profit.

Apple clearly has decided that \"repairs\" aren\'t worth the trouble to
defend that practice. They\'re sitting pretty with retail sales. And,
can charge outrageous amounts for repair parts (iPhone 12 screen is
$250!) because they are the sole source -- and folks would obviously
WANT \"genuine Apple\"!

I don\'t know the MSRP of an iPhone 12 as a unit. But I\'m guessing
around $1k. (I\'ve seen higher and lower over the years. It\'s
convenient.) So a large, exposed part of the overall unit costing
(roughly) a quarter of the price doesn\'t seem that bad. Despite
personally disliking it.

Nothing to say that they can\'t have an alternative in store *if*
that plan fails. It\'s *their* product. Maybe they churn their
offerings so, after a few years, there are no common parts currently in
production for ~10 year old tractors. Or, those that are available
are stocked in a warehouse with a staff of 5 that takes weeks to
locate and deliver items from \"old stock\".

Shady business practices.

Agreed, but life is too short for me to fret over the realities.
Instead, I figure out how to get what *I* want at a cost that I\'m
willing to pay. If the cost is too high, then I resign myself to
living without!

That\'s your choice.

Not everyone makes the same choice.

I like a certain type of \"biscuit\" that I know to be sold in
northern massachusetts. It is impractical for me to import them
in sufficient quantity -- 20 pounds cost $20 and $29 for shipping.
That\'s probably two weeks worth. (purchasing in larger quantities --
to lower effective shipping costs) would pose a problem with freshness
and, likely, damage in transit.

So, my options are: - buy as above - find a closer/cheaper source -
make my own

I\'ve decided that make my own is the only long term solution that
makes sense.

That\'s probably where I\'d end up too.

> Of course, the bakery isn\'t going to tell me how to make their product!

Sounds like a learning opportunity via trial and error.

A local source makes a similar product with an entirely \"wrong\" (for
my palate) taste/texture. And, similarly refuses to share their Rx.
Given that I\'m NOT going to purchase their product (because the
taste/texture is \"wrong\"), wouldn\'t you think they would be willing
to share their secret?

It sounds like the only value in the wrong product\'s IP is what to not do.

OTOH, I *never* give out my Rxs. I give out *approximations* that
will allow folks who are interested in the item to INVEST THEIR TIME to
come up with a good version. But, you can *watch* me make an item and
still never be able to reproduce it. (that\'s intentional, on my part!)

I am willing to experiment with developing my own Rx (I\'ve a great
track record, in taht respect), but the minimum batch size is
~5 pounds. That\'s a lot of \"mistakes\" to consume -- or foodstuffs
to discard!

I question the veracity of that statement.

Though perhaps it\'s related to sub-units. You can use 1/3 of an egg,
but storing the other 2/3 is problematic and only lasts for a short
while. Thus the entire egg is effectively consumed.

But these aren\'t monopolistic products. Other folks manufacture
tractors. Other folks manufacture cell phones. etc. The manufacturers
aren\'t doing anything to prevent competition; rather they are just
offering a product that exceeds the value of other products.

That\'s one opinion.

> You\'ve never bought something from a vendor in china?

Purchased, yes. Had something serviced by a company out of China that
doesn\'t have a point of presence in the U.S.A., no.

The things that I\'m buying aren\'t subject to needing service.

I\'m looking to buy some pillows from a Japanese firm. *No one*
sells them in the US. Does that mean I can\'t acquire more of them?

Not at all.

> That\'s naive to the point of laughter.

So laugh away.

*My* opinion is that things shouldn\'t break so \"repair\" isn\'t an issue!
(you are free to start laughing, now)

There\'s things genuinely breaking and then there\'s planned obsolescence.
The latter is a bad thing in my opinion.

So, chinese manufacturer who just tends to hire chinese-americans
to work in *their* repair centers can legally leave all of their
documentation in chinese? And, provide exactly this documentation
to their DIYer customers?

I\'m okay with that.

How long before folks start whining that the documentation isn\'t
in English?

About 10 seconds after they see the documentation.

Do we need further legislation to address THAT issue (because it
is a practical impediment to their repair activities)?

No.

Ditto any software tools that are used -- must the software developer
arrange all of the strings and other \"resources\" in some easily
locatable manner so they can *all* be found and translated by some
third party (hired by the DIYer group)?

No.

\"Gee, I\'ve never seen THIS screen, before! Anyone know what it says?\"
(days later) \"Yes, it says your catalytic converter is overheating
and must be shut down immediately to avoid damage to the vehicle!\"

Usually there are warning lights that behave in a certain way when there
is imminent danger of damage. And there is usually documentation in the
native language that says \"If you see this, do this, and go to the
dealership.\"

When you do more research, have a friend of a friend translate the
documentation /long/ /after/ you have shut the car off.

Ooops!

I offer these as examples of how manufacturers can skirt legislation.

No, they aren\'t examples of how they can skirt legislation.

You\'ve not yet said anything that I think runs afoul of what I\'m advocating.

AT&T didn\'t *make* anything. And, AFAICT, Western Electric\'s sole
customer was AT&T. Yet, \"your phone\" (*owned* by AT&T; they just let
you *use* it!) came from AT&T and that\'s who you contact in case of
a problem.

I\'d have to go back and check things, but I believe that Western
Electric was the manufacturing division of AT&T. Or that\'s how they
started before spinning out on their own and renaming.

W.E. was always under the AT&T umbrella.

Why? Do you really think Alexa speakers are \"repaired\"? Maybe in some
third-world country but US labor rates wouldn\'t make that profitable.
Discard and write-off.

The practicality of doing the repair is independent of having the parts
/ documentation / tools to do so.

If folks notice a high percentage of similar failures, they will likely
consult a manufacturing/support engineer to look further into it.
That person (resource) will have access to design materials that
aren\'t available to \"technicians\" and can decide if a design change
is warranted.

That\'s what I call a \"manufacturing defect\". Something which I expect
that even authorized technicians don\'t have access to data.

DIYer would have to make that determination on his own -- based on his
\"capabilitites\".

Yes.

So, we subject our techs to an 18 month training program. There are
no \"manuals\", just \"know how\" acquired from that course. We\'ll make
that course available to you end users. It is held in Podunk, Iowa,
starting every December. The cost for tuition (which we bear for
our employees) is $35,000.

I don\'t like the price, but that is in the spirit of what I\'ve been
saying; parts / documentation / tool. Actually, what you\'re offering is
/better/ than what I\'ve been saying.

\"Hey, we\'re spending a lot on training our employees! Why don\'t we
*buy* the company that we\'ve hired to do our training? \'Outsiders\'
can still pay for the course. Employees will just be handled by
transfering the tuition on a balance sheet between subsidiaries\"

Sure. Why not?

If the data is being provided to a server that *they* exclusively
control, then are the privacy concerns any greater than the vehicle
reporting my usage so they can tell me when service is due?

Yes, I believe there are larger privacy concerns that you have not
spoken to. PII and profiling come to mind. Combined with security
breaches and the likes.

You didn\'t tell me I was going to be \"working for you\" in the purchase
agreement. I *may* be willing to work for you -- if properly
compensated. I want to be able to prevent you from STEALING my
services in the event that we don\'t come to an agreement.

That falls nicely into the privacy concerns.

What recourse do I have if something goes wrong? How long will I be
without the use of the vehicle? How much will the \"repair\" cost?

I don\'t know.

Try it and find out.

Or continue to wonder.

> [My curiosity doesn\'t rise to that level of potential consequences]

That seems like a reasonable choice.

But it /is/ a choice that you have made.

Why shouldn\'t I be allowed to do so? And, provided the
tools/information to facilitate that?

As the owner (not leased / rented / etc) I believe you do have the right
to do so.

You should also have the parts / documentation / tools that are
available as a basis for your starting point.

Imagine I discover making a particular change to the design --
something I\'ve learned from the documentation that legislation made
available to me -- will allow me to improve the performance of the
product.

I consider that to be a real possibility, if not actually somewhat likely.

Maybe making it behave exactly as an \"upscale\" offering from the same
manufacturer. I now have the ability to deprive that manufacturer of
those revenues simply by sharing my knowledge with their customers
(maybe via one of their forums? Or, a 3rd party forum that caters
to XYZ customers?)

Yep.

Though I\'d suggest avoiding their forums.

Without any form of license or N.D.A. I don\'t see any grounds they have
for stopping you.

[Sure, this happens now -- but, the bar is higher because folks
\"tinkering\" have less information to act on]

Yes.

What if the product alters its behavior (or even refuses to operate)
in the presence of that change -- intentionally or otherwise.

That is a possibility.

I doubt that you would consider it a success and share it wildly. I
suspect that even fewer people would make the same change.

I have several legitimate pieces of software that \"stall\" on startup...
because they want to phone home to check for updates, \"news\", etc.
Eventually, they will offer me the functionality that I purchased.
But, I have to endure a long (in the PC user sense) delay to do so.
Others want me to log into my \"account\".

Yes.

[The problem, of course, is that my machines aren\'t routed so those
connections never materialize -- and the software is too stupid to
demote them to \"background\" tasks]

Yep. I\'ve dealt with similar.

Some \"friendly\" applications make this clear prior to purchase.
Or, provide hooks to minimize the impact of these behaviors (e.g.,
\"disable updates\"). Others, not so much.

But, do you *know* the limits of what you can do to the product while
retaining its intended functionality? If you unplug the WAN from
your WiFi router (not even part of your Alexa device), should you
still expect it to be able to turn your lights on/off? (after all, the
lighting controller talks to the router just like the Alexa device!).
If your Nest thermostat can\'t talk to the outside world, can it still
\"learn\" your HVAC needs/living habits? (a major selling point for
the product)

I\'m not going to start on another rant.

TL;DR: I suspect we agree about these things.

I own the product but, perhaps, not all of the things on which
it relies.

How much do you think the US legislature is going to impose itself in
\"how businesses do business\"? Businesses are constituents, too!

Both not enough in some ways, and too much in other ways.

Sure! We no longer support repairs at that fine-grained level. Now,
for manufacturing economies (which benefit the customer at time of
sale), we just offer larger FRUs. These assemblies COST us more
to produce. Hence the reason the repair (replace) costs so much more!

That /may/ stand up to some scrutiny. But I suspect it would fall over
with deep enough scrutiny and discovery.

Which legislator considers himself a qualified expert in manufacturing
technology in THAT particular market to be able to argue that the
choice of supported FRUs was the \"right one\"?

I doubt that any legislator does. That\'s what professionals and
industry experts on the payroll are for.

So, you know your purchase has a limited lifespan -- and you know
what that limit likely is. How does that help you a day after that
limit expires?

It doesn\'t help me any more than complaining after I run out of gas /
battery charge.

Will there be an alternative product that offers you the same
functionality, possibly from a different vendor?

Unknown.

Think: breast implants.

And you KNOW that the manufacturer will reflect those additional
requirements in his updated pricing.

I would expect nothing less.

When I take on a contract, I agree to fix \"bugs\" (deviations from
*specified* behavior) for free, forever. I factor this into my
initial price (fixed cost) and schedule (I want to be sure the
finished product is REALLY \"finished\" and not going to distract me
from my next undertaking, complicating that delivery).

As well you should.

> Manufacturers that don\'t update their pricing risk closing their doors.

Yes.

But how many John Does do you know that are actually arguing for it?
(not people you\'ve read about but your friends, family, neighbors,
etc.) By and large, they just \"click to accept\" and move on with
their life.

My circle of friends has a disproportionate number of people that are
aware of this issue.

I know what you mean.

And you can, currently! You can hit it with a sledge hammer, burn
it in a fire, systematically tear it down into smaller and smaller
pieces, etc. You might not be able to \"reverse engineer\" it (whatever
that means for THAT item) -- but, you KNEW THAT when you purchased
the item. Arguing that you should be able to change the terms of
the sale afterwards is disingenuous.

I\'m not sure where changing the terms of the sale came into play.

\"Oh, we\'ve decided that the price of the item that you\'ve already
bought and paid for is now five times higher. Will you be paying
with cash or check?\"

The price of any /new/ or /additional/ items may be higher. But I\'ve
already paid for the item outright and will continue using it as is per
the previously agreed contract.

Ah, but there is obviously some desire to own *that* product -- despite
all of these misgivings. Else farmers would be driving Kubotas!

I\'d do well to differentiate the different makes myself. But from what
friends in the business tell me, there are distinct advantages of some
brands over other brands. Many of which are related to capabilities
related to automation and / or integration / product line compatibility.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

 

[Grant Taylor]

On 2/10/22 3:10 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

** One is a business, the other not.
The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake \" authorized\" people.
DIY types are often a menace.

That does not describe how the business or the DIYers benefit any
differently from the availability of parts / documentation / tools.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

 

[Phil Allison]

Grant Taylor = Prize CUNTHEAD wrote:
=============================

** One is a business, the other not.
The former know how to do repairs correctly and safely - often better than fake \" authorized\" people.
DIY types are often a menace.

That does not describe how the business or the DIYers benefit any
differently from the availability of parts / documentation / tools.

** You are dumb as dog shit !!!

Get off the NG and STAY OFF !!!

Bullshitting RETARDS not welcome.
=============================



...... Phil

 

[Don Y]

[Most elided as we\'re just repeating the same arguments. As
*consumers* we\'d love to see EVERYTHING \"repairable\" -- and
inexpensively/easily so! As designers/manufacturers, I (for
one) am not really sure I\'d favor that level of support as
it would complicate my design/manufacturing process in ways
that I\'d like NOT to have to think about. You seem to think
legislation will \"fix\" this problem; I\'m far more cynical...
I suspect it will just cause vendors to make subtle changes
to their existing practices to \"come into compliance\" and
STILL leave the customer shafted]

On 2/10/2022 4:01 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:

On 2/10/22 1:55 PM, Don Y wrote:
Yeah, that\'s an admirable goal. But, I don\'t think it\'s gonna happen in a
*real* way!

What is stopping it?

Monied interests on the other side of the issue.

[I had to replace the power inlet on a friend\'s laptop. The manufacturer had
made a change to the (aluminum) case casting in the time since his purchase.
So, the new inlet wouldn\'t mechanically fit. I was forced to grind away the
excess aluminum to make accommodations for the inlet. A better strategy may
have been to just leave a wire dangling out the ass end of the laptop!]

I believe you used the wrong part (new design) for your friend\'s old laptop.

The part -- the only one available from the manufacturer -- isn\'t a COTS
connector. Rather, it has a bracket built-into its design so it can be
fastened to a boss in the case with a regular *screw*.

So, he has to partition his organization (physically and virtually) so there
are distinct cost centers and documentable information flows to which
legislation could be applied.

I trust that we both know that most organizations that fall into the scope of
this discussion already have the partitioning that you\'re talking about.

Possibly *larger* organizations. But, I\'ve seen many smaller ones (< $100M)
that don\'t have established \"service personnel\". Often, a technician who
is responsible for *building* a device will end up being sent off to
*service* a device. The bean counters may treat his wages/expenses
differently but his role in the organization isn\'t one of \"service\".

Have a look at most \"user manuals\" under \"troubleshooting\". Notice how often
they refer to \"factory\" as remedy for certain problems.

I trust that we both know that \"user manuals\" are a crock when it comes to
repairing things. There are almost always other manuals / documents that that
are far better for repairs.

Please locate a service manual for my permobil color joystick module ($1200).
Or, Nest thermostat/camera (~$250). Or, any of my TVs.

Do we exempt products that cost less than ~$2000 from any such legislation?

Do you think they mean \"Call us up and we\'ll put an engineer on the phone to
troubleshoot your problem\"?

I\'m well aware that it\'s a ploy for the company to not write better
documentation and / or gimmick to drive service to the manufacturer.

Now *you* are being too cynical! Documentation is expensive. People
don\'t produce it unless they *have* to. That\'s at all levels of
the organization, not just \"service\".

So, a $5K license ends up costing us hundreds of kilobucks to redesign the
product to use their *new* offering.

Probably.

Wanna bet that will similarly be obsolescent?

That\'s a chance you take any time you depend on an external supplier.

How is that any different from buying from a vendor? How often is the firmware
in your TV updated?

Apple clearly has decided that \"repairs\" aren\'t worth the trouble to defend
that practice. They\'re sitting pretty with retail sales. And, can charge
outrageous amounts for repair parts (iPhone 12 screen is $250!) because they
are the sole source -- and folks would obviously WANT \"genuine Apple\"!

I don\'t know the MSRP of an iPhone 12 as a unit. But I\'m guessing around $1k.
(I\'ve seen higher and lower over the years. It\'s convenient.) So a large,
exposed part of the overall unit costing (roughly) a quarter of the price
doesn\'t seem that bad. Despite personally disliking it.

So, for a $100K tractor, $25K would be a \"reasonable\" repair cost?
Why fret over a $600 sensor? Surely the loss of a day\'s *use* of
a tractor would be more than that!

Nothing to say that they can\'t have an alternative in store *if* that plan
fails. It\'s *their* product. Maybe they churn their offerings so, after a
few years, there are no common parts currently in production for ~10 year old
tractors. Or, those that are available are stocked in a warehouse with a
staff of 5 that takes weeks to locate and deliver items from \"old stock\".

Shady business practices.

Shady is not illegal. Amazon tries to get me to pay for shipping on
each purchase (not a prime member) -- despite qualifying for free
shipping based on dollar amount.

And, lays out their pages so an unwary consumer will adopt the
\"Prime Trial\" without realizing it.

Nothing illegal about any of this.

Agreed, but life is too short for me to fret over the realities. Instead, I
figure out how to get what *I* want at a cost that I\'m willing to pay. If
the cost is too high, then I resign myself to living without!

That\'s your choice.

Not everyone makes the same choice.

Of course they do! It\'s just the dollar amounts that vary.

I\'m sure many folks would love to drive Lamborghinis. But, have resigned
themselves to \"living without\". OTOH, have no problem forking out for
a Mercedes when a Lexus is probably of comparable quality/prestige.
They\'re willing to pay the premium in that case, instead of \"living without\".

A local source makes a similar product with an entirely \"wrong\" (for my
palate) taste/texture. And, similarly refuses to share their Rx. Given that
I\'m NOT going to purchase their product (because the taste/texture is
\"wrong\"), wouldn\'t you think they would be willing to share their secret?

It sounds like the only value in the wrong product\'s IP is what to not do.

But I don\'t know what those mistakes are (other than size of portion)
without access to their Rx.

OTOH, I *never* give out my Rxs. I give out *approximations* that will allow
folks who are interested in the item to INVEST THEIR TIME to come up with a
good version. But, you can *watch* me make an item and still never be able
to reproduce it. (that\'s intentional, on my part!)

I am willing to experiment with developing my own Rx (I\'ve a great track
record, in taht respect), but the minimum batch size is ~5 pounds. That\'s a
lot of \"mistakes\" to consume -- or foodstuffs to discard!

I question the veracity of that statement.

Though perhaps it\'s related to sub-units. You can use 1/3 of an egg, but
storing the other 2/3 is problematic and only lasts for a short while. Thus
the entire egg is effectively consumed.

Rxs are typically far more \"sensitive\" to scaling than just that.

Try making *one* brownie. Even if you can scale down the ingredients, you\'re
still stuck with actually *baking* it! Perhaps in a muffin pan? Ah, but then
the sides are sloped, the brownie is round and there is too great a proportion
of (hard/crunchy) \"edges\" to (soft/gooey) \"center\".

I could scale down the Rx for the biscotti that I make for SWMBO every week
or two. So, instead of a \"dash and a pinch\" of salt, I should use a
\"pinch and a smidgen\"?

If I resort to a single egg in a (scaled) Rx, then the ACTUAL size (volume)
of that egg becomes a source of variability in the resulting product.
(As Spehro would say, \"There\'s no such thing as a \'Large Egg\'\")

The \"local vendor\" makes biscuits that are roughly the same volume as
my index finger. In addition to being \"single mouthfuls\", they are
also very hard/crunchy. The version I eat is considerably larger:
3 inches wide, 2 inches thick and ~7 inches long. As a result, the
texture is completely different. It holds a lot more liquid when
dunked in a glass of milk (I don\'t drink coffee). And, is much softer
(melt in your mouth).

[Imagine if Oreo cookies were the size of M&M\'s... how would that
experience change?]

A 10 pound \"box\" (you know the sort of yellow/orange boxes that bakeries
typically use) might hold 15 biscuits. So, 5 pounds would give me ~7.
Maybe three breakfasts to make up my mind as to how I need to tweek
the Rx for the next iteration.

*My* opinion is that things shouldn\'t break so \"repair\" isn\'t an issue! (you
are free to start laughing, now)

There\'s things genuinely breaking and then there\'s planned obsolescence. The
latter is a bad thing in my opinion.

I don\'t think there is an active *planning* of obsolescence in most products.
In fact, I think many product lines have gone to great lengths to \"protect
the customer\'s investment\".

VCRs evolved from Stereo to HiFi to SVHS -- over the course of ~20 years!
Your \"early model\" could still play tapes produced 10 or more years later,
albeit without the features that were targeted to newer models.

Laser video discs -- and then DVDs -- replaced VCRs when it became apparent
that PLAYING was more important to most users than RECORDING. And, the
change in format came with improvements in video quality (beyond SVHS).

The same sort of evolution has occurred with audio. Each new technology
offers advantages over the predecessors (I\'d really hate trying to
spin vinyl in an automobile! And, it\'s so much more convenient to
have my music catalog available on a variety of \"players\" that are
appropriate for different usage requirements.

[The fact that sheeple are willing to RENT music is a problem in the
consumer\'s head, not the vendor\'s!]

I offer these as examples of how manufacturers can skirt legislation.

No, they aren\'t examples of how they can skirt legislation.

You\'ve not yet said anything that I think runs afoul of what I\'m advocating.

You haven\'t put into legal terms what the requirements to be imposed on
vendors will be. If you claim, \"Anything that a tech has access to should
be accessible to EVERYONE\", then I\'ve outlined ways that I can still screw
you without running afoul of that language: \"We treat FRUs as disposable.
When they are returned to the factory, we sell them to a recycler for
SCRAP VALUE -- and gladly sell you a brand new unit at (inflated) price!\"

Now, do you want legislation to set price controls on vendors? Do I get
to lobby for price controls on what (subsidized!) farmers can charge for
food? Maybe appoint a commission to review pricing every 6 months and
tell the farmers what they\'ll be able to charge in the upcoming 6 month
period?

Yay! Hooray for the consumer! We\'ll get a \"planned economy\" after all!
(we\'ve seen how well THOSE work)

Maybe making it behave exactly as an \"upscale\" offering from the same
manufacturer. I now have the ability to deprive that manufacturer of those
revenues simply by sharing my knowledge with their customers (maybe via one
of their forums? Or, a 3rd party forum that caters to XYZ customers?)

Yep.

Though I\'d suggest avoiding their forums.

Without any form of license or N.D.A. I don\'t see any grounds they have for
stopping you.

Increasingly, products carry license clauses. So, violating them (e.g., by
reverse engineering) can\'t put the genie back in the bottle... but, it
can put the guy who let it out into jail (\"We have incurred damages amounting
to $X as a result of Defendant\'s violation of our license agreement -- and
seek damages equal to that amount from Defendant.\")

What if the product alters its behavior (or even refuses to operate) in the
presence of that change -- intentionally or otherwise.

That is a possibility.

I doubt that you would consider it a success and share it wildly. I suspect
that even fewer people would make the same change.

I rely on these sorts of things to safeguard my designs from illegal copying.
A user bitten by this practice can choose to keep silent about it. But, that
just means other users will eventually be bitten by it, as well.

OTOH, if he shares his experience, it keeps those users from wasting their
efforts \"bricking\" their devices (or, purchasing counterfeits).

I own the product but, perhaps, not all of the things on which it relies.

How much do you think the US legislature is going to impose itself in \"how
businesses do business\"? Businesses are constituents, too!

Both not enough in some ways, and too much in other ways.

If pushed, they will \"tinker\" with the law. Vendors will respond with
changes in their policies -- which may be in favor of customers or against.
And, having acted, the pols will consider the matter \"addressed\". I.e.,
if you don\'t like the solution, tough.

Sure! We no longer support repairs at that fine-grained level. Now, for
manufacturing economies (which benefit the customer at time of sale), we just
offer larger FRUs. These assemblies COST us more to produce. Hence the
reason the repair (replace) costs so much more!

That /may/ stand up to some scrutiny. But I suspect it would fall over with
deep enough scrutiny and discovery.

Again, are you going to legislate what FRUs a vendor must make available?

\"Gee, I wasn\'t planning on having to separate X from Y. If I *must* be
able to do so -- to lower the repair cost to JUST that of X *or* Y -- then
I\'ll have to add some sort of connector/linkage to the fabrication.
So, X\' + Y\' now costs more than (X + Y) used to. Sorry, but the law REQUIRED
me to make those assemblies less expensive...\"

Which legislator considers himself a qualified expert in manufacturing
technology in THAT particular market to be able to argue that the choice of
supported FRUs was the \"right one\"?

I doubt that any legislator does. That\'s what professionals and industry
experts on the payroll are for.

They are called lobbyists. They are not unbiased.

But how many John Does do you know that are actually arguing for it? (not
people you\'ve read about but your friends, family, neighbors, etc.) By and
large, they just \"click to accept\" and move on with their life.

My circle of friends has a disproportionate number of people that are aware of
this issue.

I know what you mean.

There are simply too many sheeple in the mix. I vigorously preach to my
friends and neighbors about recycling, repair, reuse, (repurpose), etc.
But, it\'s far easier for them to simply \"discard and repurchase\".

I\'ve tried appealing to them on the impact to their offspring/grandkids...
<shrug> People are lazy and look for expedients.

In the past, I would personally try to take up some of this slack -- diverting
their discards, repairing and then redistributing to someone else in need.
But, this is like mowing the lawn -- when there\'s a guy two steps in front of
you laying down fertilizer! I.e., not something I\'d want to make a career
of doing (f*ck \'em... let their grandkids gripe about the excesses of their
grandparents!)

And you can, currently! You can hit it with a sledge hammer, burn it in a
fire, systematically tear it down into smaller and smaller pieces, etc. You
might not be able to \"reverse engineer\" it (whatever that means for THAT
item) -- but, you KNEW THAT when you purchased the item. Arguing that you
should be able to change the terms of the sale afterwards is disingenuous.

I\'m not sure where changing the terms of the sale came into play.

\"Oh, we\'ve decided that the price of the item that you\'ve already bought and
paid for is now five times higher. Will you be paying with cash or check?\"

The price of any /new/ or /additional/ items may be higher. But I\'ve already
paid for the item outright and will continue using it as is per the previously
agreed contract.

But, you want to be able to change the terms of access to repair materials
AFTER you made the purchase! How about you can get those materials for your
NEXT purchase, but not for the purchase you already made? Oh, and, by the way,
we\'re changing the design of the product so anything you learn from those
new materials won\'t be applicable to your old product (which we sold to you
on the assumption that we had an established repair policy in place).

Ah, but there is obviously some desire to own *that* product -- despite all
of these misgivings. Else farmers would be driving Kubotas!

I\'d do well to differentiate the different makes myself. But from what friends
in the business tell me, there are distinct advantages of some brands over
other brands. Many of which are related to capabilities related to automation
and / or integration / product line compatibility.

A vendor offering a superior product sets his terms in his favor -- to the
extent that the market will bear. Folks offering inferior products have
to sweeten the pie to entice customers to accept their \"lesser\" product.