Piece on NPR about John Deere

[HawkinsHollow]

Just heard a piece on NPR about John Deere's practice of keeping software and diagnostics 100% dealer driven. Just listen here is the link.

Standoff Between Farmers And Tractor Makers Intensifies Over Repair Issues

Some farmers are in a bruising battle with John Deere and other tractor makers over what they are allowed to repair on the equipment they own.

www.npr.org

 

[jeff9366]

Good info. I learned Deere is not alone in making computer diagnostics inaccessible to tractor purchasers.

Broadcast puts the "hot button" issue of Tier IV emission controls on compact tractor in perspective as a minor issue.

 

[bearthebruce]

In autos, the Right to Repair movement forced the OEs to make software available via the internet. The connection to the auto was standardized on a tool called a J2534 pass through tool - an SAE standard which all OE car manufacturers agreed they would support. Users have to buy access to the OE software at what is deemed a "reasonable cost". Independant repair shops buy the J2534 tool and then subscribes to the OE software they need to use to repair a particular brand.

I can speak to VW/Audi. Last I checked, they charge $750 per year per brand and this gives full access with a few exceptions such as the anti-theft system requires a special certification to have access to it. There may also be single day plans or other short term plans.

Recently, the matter has gone back to the courts and the Congress owing to the OEs locking down certain areas of the software that they deem to be safety related or emissions related while also being proprietary to them. Independents are finding these lock downs are preventing proper repair. For those familiar with the Adaptive Control systems that let the cars provide the automated crusie control and collision avoidance, these are areas the OEs are tending to protection.

Further, data collected by the vehicle is also in contention for many want access to that data so they can market to the car owners. There is a movement from the OE to have the car send data to the OE mothership via telematics. The battle is forming over who owns that data and whether or not a customer can designate a different party to receive it. Right to Repair goes on.

The problem I see for the Ag community is that the community does not have a powerul organization of which I am aware that can represent the farm machinery owners. Big Ag OE Machine manufacturers do have such an organization. How do the Ag owners get the ear of the politicians? How do they have voice in discussion?

The automotive Right to Repair original push came from a Massachusetts group representing many independent shop owners (I forget the name - but I was in contact and communication with them). There was enough clout in that group that the Massachusetts legislature listened to their need. More to the point, the legislature responded by allowing a referendum on the state wide ballet asking car owners where they preferred to have their car serviced. If memory serves, 70% of the voters said they preferred to select their own independent shop rather than being forced to the dealer.

The legislature took that mandate from the voters, passed a law that the OE's in their state had to make the same tools used in the dealership available to the independent shops at a reasonable cost. Seeing that decision, the OEs came together and offered a solution that I mentioned above and to prevent each state making their own law, they made the solution available all across the country. By the time the solution was agreed upon, the national associations for the independent repair shops were all involved (ASA, AutoCare, and others).

The issue I see for the Ag machinery owners is that they need to find that path to get the ear of the legislators. That takes organization and it takes money, for the big Ag machinery producers certainly will spend to stop such changes to the way business is done now. They do consider their sizeable investment in software to be their Intellectual Property - and they are right to do so. They spend millions perhaps billions of dollars to make these machines do what they do. They have a right to hold on to that work. But owners of the machines also have rights - they have a right to get the machine stuck out in the field - fixed at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Their livelihood depends on getting the crops in at the proper time. Finding a way to serve both the OE and the farmer is what needs to happen.

 

[pmsmechanic]

While it's very true that ag manufacturers spend a lot of money to make farm implements do what they do, it's also true that farmers collectively spend more than the manufacturers do to support the manufacturers. Otherwise the manufacturers would be loosing money. And they aren't. To me this smells more about making money rather than protecting intellectual property. The sad fact is that every computerized implement could have a USB port that anyone could plug their laptop into and be able to quickly and easily diagnose most problems. Ask yourself why.

 

[bearthebruce]

While I hear your frustration @pmsmechanic, I believe you over simplify the issues. If I had to guess from your screen name, you are in the business of repairing these machines.

As a VW/Audi aftermarket diagnostic tool manufacturer who gets no support from the OE, I know there are complexities involved. We are a company of enthusiasts who want to be able to work on our own cars - to not go to the dealer for all things. We built tools for the enthusiast and the independent aftermarket repair professional, yet we will not allow our tool to do some things owing to legal and ethical standards. Some things have to be done by a dealer.

I agree that money is part of the issue and needs to be part of the discussion/resolution. My point is, providing diagnostic access is not as simple as putting a usb port on the tractor and letting anyone plugin. Some of the machines are highly complex.

I get that giving diagnostic access to the engines in compact tractors would seem pretty trivial. But where do the lines get drawn? How much access is needed? Are fault codes enough? Should the setup parameters to be provided and if they are, what are the limits? If a user wants to tweak beyond factory recommendation, shouldn't they be allowed? If they want to delete safety and/or emissions systems, should that be permitted? Where are the lines drawn?

The present assumption by the OE is that the work done to repair/maintain a tractor is done by a factory trained technician (and let's not go down the rabbit hole that many dealers do not send their techs to be trained). The tools the OE puts in the hands of the factory trained technician, should those same tools be provided to all who want to repair? Have you read these forum posts? What % of those with the laptop and usb port will have success at such repairs? And then who is responsible when the repair goes wrong and the user of the diagnostic tool ends up with an even bigger bill, irate and screaming at the service manager at his dealer? Been there?

Diagnostics are not the end all. Knowledge of the systems is. Knowledge plus the right tools usually equals success.

We deal with users who are trying to repair their car with no training everyday. More of our staff are involved in that aspect of the business than any other. We provided the tool but the user who buys often has no clue what to do with it. Who supports that user? The OE?

Savvy users do know how to fix their cars and are eager to learn more. Even they need help from time to time. Again I ask, who supports that user?

The issues need to be discussed and a plan needs to come from those discussions. This is not a simple matter of the OE not wanting to give up revenue. There is more to it. (I grant that the OE wants to protect their dealers and the money they make on service. I don't know if it is true for tractors, but autos - the dealer makes his money on service and not on selling cars. Selling cars is a break even for most dealerships.)

 

[dusty3030]

In autos, the Right to Repair movement forced the OEs to make software available via the internet. The connection to the auto was standardized on a tool called a J2534 pass through tool - an SAE standard which all OE car manufacturers agreed they would support. Users have to buy access to the OE software at what is deemed a "reasonable cost". Independant repair shops buy the J2534 tool and then subscribes to the OE software they need to use to repair a particular brand.

I can speak to VW/Audi. Last I checked, they charge $750 per year per brand and this gives full access with a few exceptions such as the anti-theft system requires a special certification to have access to it. There may also be single day plans or other short term plans.

Recently, the matter has gone back to the courts and the Congress owing to the OEs locking down certain areas of the software that they deem to be safety related or emissions related while also being proprietary to them. Independents are finding these lock downs are preventing proper repair. For those familiar with the Adaptive Control systems that let the cars provide the automated crusie control and collision avoidance, these are areas the OEs are tending to protection.

Further, data collected by the vehicle is also in contention for many want access to that data so they can market to the car owners. There is a movement from the OE to have the car send data to the OE mothership via telematics. The battle is forming over who owns that data and whether or not a customer can designate a different party to receive it. Right to Repair goes on.

The problem I see for the Ag community is that the community does not have a powerul organization of which I am aware that can represent the farm machinery owners. Big Ag OE Machine manufacturers do have such an organization. How do the Ag owners get the ear of the politicians? How do they have voice in discussion?

The automotive Right to Repair original push came from a Massachusetts group representing many independent shop owners (I forget the name - but I was in contact and communication with them). There was enough clout in that group that the Massachusetts legislature listened to their need. More to the point, the legislature responded by allowing a referendum on the state wide ballet asking car owners where they preferred to have their car serviced. If memory serves, 70% of the voters said they preferred to select their own independent shop rather than being forced to the dealer.

The legislature took that mandate from the voters, passed a law that the OE's in their state had to make the same tools used in the dealership available to the independent shops at a reasonable cost. Seeing that decision, the OEs came together and offered a solution that I mentioned above and to prevent each state making their own law, they made the solution available all across the country. By the time the solution was agreed upon, the national associations for the independent repair shops were all involved (ASA, AutoCare, and others).

The issue I see for the Ag machinery owners is that they need to find that path to get the ear of the legislators. That takes organization and it takes money, for the big Ag machinery producers certainly will spend to stop such changes to the way business is done now. They do consider their sizeable investment in software to be their Intellectual Property - and they are right to do so. They spend millions perhaps billions of dollars to make these machines do what they do. They have a right to hold on to that work. But owners of the machines also have rights - they have a right to get the machine stuck out in the field - fixed at a reasonable cost and in a timely fashion. Their livelihood depends on getting the crops in at the proper time. Finding a way to serve both the OE and the farmer is what needs to happen.

We (auto aftermarket) formed a PAC called C.A.R.E - Coalition for Automotive Repair Equality.

Massachusetts Right to Repair

The Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act guarantees every car owner's right to have their vehicle serviced at the repair facility of their choice.

www.autocare.org

All of our industry associations got on board and there are annual campaigns for contributions to it from all the members both companies and as individuals.

 

[pmsmechanic]

Actually I don't work on tractors on the electronics end. Cars also for that matter. VW's are a different story. My beef is that farmers should not be held hostage by the dealer. They have a lot of money tied up in their crop and they should be allowed to harvest it with the equipment they pay huge $ for. Now if you have a break down the dealer has to diagnose it. In fall around here sugar beets get harvested around the clock in shifts. You can't wait for the dealer to show up a 8 am. It just doesn't work like that. Now I know that most of JD's newer tractors can be remotely accessed over the internet. That's for sure a step in the right direction.

I will say this much. You do bring up good points and I believe there is room for improvement with both the buyer and seller.

Now lets talk about VW. Between my wife and I we own about 5 Jetta's at last count. Plus one Audi A4. I own a VCDS and the dealer knows that. Here's what the dealer told me. They know when I go into the car and have a look at codes. All they said was don't change a thing/clear codes in the ecm etc. or VW might not honor the warranty. To me that is fair.

It is really nice when calling the dealer about issues to be able to discuss the codes. It would be nice if knowledgeable farmers had the same privilege when discussing their tractor with the dealer. That ability could be built right into the software of the tractor. No need for even a laptop.

I'm not going to get into how much useless code there is in software. Especially as it evolves. Except to say that something should be done about that. Like a total rewrite every few years.

And here's another thing that nobody want's to think about too much. I'll start off with an example. My cousin works as an engineer for MacDon in Winnipeg. He told me that once in a while they give a farmer permission to do a warranty repair in order to keep his machine going. Later when he goes out to examine the repair he is often amazed at the farmers repair because that person saw a whole different solution to the problem than what he as the engineer did. In other words he learned something better at little cost to the company.

Now I'm really going to stir things up. I believe that farm equipment company's could learn a huge amount by letting farmers write their own software. For sure there would need to be limits on that but think of what equipment could do if the person writing the software was actually using the equipment it was written for and wasn't so over educated that they think they don't need to learn anything. That's another beef but I'll save that rant for another day.

I realize that some of what I've written here is pie in the sky type stuff and it would give company lawyers the hebbie jeebies along with underwear that needs washing, but think of the possibility's.

 

[bearthebruce]

My beef is that farmers should not be held hostage by the dealer. They have a lot of money tied up in their crop and they should be allowed to harvest it with the equipment they pay huge $ for. Now if you have a break down the dealer has to diagnose it. In fall around here sugar beets get harvested around the clock in shifts. You can't wait for the dealer to show up a 8 am. It just doesn't work like that. Now I know that most of JD's newer tractors can be remotely accessed over the internet. That's for sure a step in the right direction.

You and I are in full agreement on this point. The dealer needs to understand your business and that you cannot wait for months to fix a broken tractor.

Now lets talk about VW. Between my wife and I we own about 5 Jetta's at last count. Plus one Audi A4. I own a VCDS and the dealer knows that. Here's what the dealer told me. They know when I go into the car and have a look at codes. All they said was don't change a thing/clear codes in the ecm etc. or VW might not honor the warranty. To me that is fair.

It is really nice when calling the dealer about issues to be able to discuss the codes. It would be nice if knowledgeable farmers had the same privilege when discussing their tractor with the dealer. That ability could be built right into the software of the tractor. No need for even a laptop.

Thank you for being our customer. While I don't want to derail this conversation, I do want dispel some dealer BS. Nothing VCDS does can void a warranty. They cannot tell that you have been in the control module unless you make a coding or adaptation change. Even when you do, there is no record of who made the change if you do not change the Workshop ID.

You can use VCDS the same way they use VCDS to build cars. Your dealer gave you a line.

As a registered user of VCDS, you can participate in our forum or email our support team for free. Phone support is fee based.

Enough on that.

I'm not going to get into how much useless code there is in software. Especially as it evolves. Except to say that something should be done about that. Like a total rewrite every few years.

Again, we agree but with nuance. The cost to do a total rewrite of software is huge. It is often on the software engineers agenda but owing to other needs, the engineers are not permitted to go back and fix it. Our engineers would like to do a re-write of our software but the cost to do so would require us to more than double our staff as we would have to continue developing the existing product while re-writing and making a new version. It is a real problem.. and not an easy one to manage.

And here's another thing that nobody want's to think about too much. I'll start off with an example. My cousin works as an engineer for MacDon in Winnipeg. He told me that once in a while they give a farmer permission to do a warranty repair in order to keep his machine going. Later when he goes out to examine the repair he is often amazed at the farmers repair because that person saw a whole different solution to the problem than what he as the engineer did. In other words he learned something better at little cost to the company.

Fully agree.. and it is why we provide our staff with VAG cars. Not only do they drive cars they love, but they are expected to use the tool they design on their cars. We also make a huge effort to talk to the very people who work on these cars - enthusiast as well as repair professionals. A manufacturer who ignores those who do/will own, operate and maintain their machines are fools. In my career, when designing a machine or a fix, I wanted first to listen to the operators - to see them do their work - to ask them why they do as they do. Then I wanted to speak to the maintenance staff. Finally, I wanted to hear what the managers were trying to achieve. Often there was push back from managers and engineers when I wanted to listen to the users and maintainers first. I get the point.

Now I'm really going to stir things up. I believe that farm equipment company's could learn a huge amount by letting farmers write their own software. For sure there would need to be limits on that but think of what equipment could do if the person writing the software was actually using the equipment it was written for and wasn't so over educated that they think they don't need to learn anything. That's another beef but I'll save that rant for another day.

I realize that some of what I've written here is pie in the sky type stuff and it would give company lawyers the hebbie jeebies along with underwear that needs washing, but think of the possibility's.

No hebbie jeebies here. The boots on the ground always have good information for the designers of machines. If I were designing AG machines, I'd be talking to farmers and users. I'd be talking to independent repair shop technicians and shop owners. As I said, boots on the ground have a lot of information that ought to be part of any conversation about the design of a machine. To think one can know the needs without seeing and living the problems, is the sign of a foolish project team.

That said, I think it a stretch to think the farmer/user would have enough tech ability to write the code for the machines. These are very complex systems. To have the ability to program, one has to fully understand the system.

I maintain that the users have to have input to the design cycle and that does not happen on the dealer showroom floor. That happens out in the field where the boots get dirty. I bet you agree.

 

[Fixastuff]

While I hear your frustration @pmsmechanic
As a VW/Audi aftermarket diagnostic tool manufacturer who gets no support from the OE, I know there are complexities involved. We are a company of enthusiasts who want to be able to work on our own cars - to not go to the dealer for all things.

Ross-tech?

 

[Fixastuff]

When talking how much farmers make, it blew my mind when I found out how much my local farmers get in government subsidies. The info is available online, they get really mad if you bring it up, lol.